| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Britian: Christian group may seek ban on Qur'an |
| 2005-10-13 |
| Via Western Resistance A Protestant evangelical pressure group has warned that it will try to use the government's racial and religious hatred law to prosecute bookshops selling the Qur'an for inciting religious hatred. Christian Voice, a fringe fundamentalist group which first came to public prominence this year when it campaigned against the BBC's broadcasting of Jerry Springer The Opera, was among the evangelical organisations taking part in a 1,000-strong demonstration against the bill outside parliament yesterday as the House of Lords held a second reading debate on the measure. Its director, Stephen Green, said the organisation would consider taking out prosecutions against shops selling the Islamic holy book. He told the Guardian: "If the Qur'an is not hate speech, I don't know what is. We will report staff who sell it. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that unbelievers must be killed." The sectarian organisation's tactics have regularly appalled other Christian groups. Its website proclaims its right to protect its own freedom of speech in attacking other religious groups: MPs "have no right to try to stifle our freedom to preach the gospel. It is not just Islam which is the problem. If a preacher is explaining the horrors of Hinduism ... a charge of stirring up religious hatred would be almost inevitable. Preaching against sin in general, or adultery or homosexuality in particular, may also land a preacher in court." The bill has seen a wide range of Christian groups making common cause with secularists. Yesterday the Catholic church, while welcoming the measure in principle, expressed doubts about the drafting of the legislation, as have Church of England bishops. A Church of England spokesman said: "We regard the test of stirring up hatred to be a strong one which would be unlikely to penalise preachers or comedians going about their normal business. However, we wish to be reassured that the formulation of the offence will distinguish clearly between words and actions which incite hatred and expressions of opinion which are merely controversial or offensive." During yesterday's Lords debate the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey said that it "threatens civil liberties". "I am troubled by the bill before us and feel that rather than strengthening the social fabric of our society it would weaken it. It has the potential to drive a wedge between the Muslim community and the rest of us," he said. He was joined in opposing the measure by the Bishop of Winchester and the former Lord Chancellor Lord Mackay, who questioned its failure to define religious belief. But the lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, told the upper house that "the bill will not have the impact on freedom of speech which opponents say it will. Incitement to religious hatred represents a gap in the criminal law and it is right that it be filled." Most of the Christian running against the bill has been made by evangelical groups. |
| Posted by:ed |
| #27 Been pretty busy today, so haven't come by until now to read all the responses. Thanks. You are indeed right, Peggy: I'd say that Christianity lost its way with the "donation of Constantine", which (supposedly) gave the western half of the Roman Empire to the Church. The mechanics of how the Church subsequently went off the rails is rather lengthly, but the adage that "power corrupts" applies to the Church as well. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2005-10-13 23:09 |
| #26 Peggy, The closest transliteration from the Hebrew acronym would be tanakh, where the kh sounds like you are trying to clear your throat, the attempt at which has been known to cause some people pain ;-). The accent is on the second syllabobble. The acronym is short for Torah (the 5 Books of Moses or Pentateuch) + Nevi'im (Prophets) + K'tuvim (Writings = Psalms, Song of Solomon, etc). Separately, the books collected as the Apocropha between the old and new testaments of the Catholic bible are some of the many scrolls of the Jewish oevre that the rabbis who consolidated the Jewish bible deemed unfit for inclusion (for reasons of theme, subject matter, historic legitimacy or simply timing - Daniel was the last book written before the cutoff), just as the Gnostic Gospels among others were not included in the Christian bible. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-10-13 19:45 |
| #25 They're all just old books that are not the word of god so lets just move on and keep the individually useful bits (like not murder) |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2005-10-13 15:45 |
| #24 Whuck Huperese1095, Noted. I misunderstood you. I apologize for going off on you. I kinda have a hair trigger. Its something I need to work on just a bit. Thanks for the quotation and the correct number of the psalm. I should also clarify one of my remarks regarding it. I said it was an infamous line but it is actually only infamous to those weenies who chose to see the Bible as no better than any other book. They use this verse often to make their point without even trying to get beneath the surface. This is entirely deliberate. I understood the verse in its proper context from the start as I'm sure many Christians have. Its not hard to understand that these are the words of a good man who has seen something truly awful and god bless him, he still cries out to the Lord for justice and prays out of complete honesty what he is feeling and thinking about the people who did the crime. That is the very picture of a strong and powerful relationship between God and believer. Although, most of us can't imagine what its like to witness the brutal sack of a city, who couldnt relate to the man's feelings having witnessed terrible evil with his own eyes? The more I know, the more I love the Bible. These days what I admire most is its honesty. It doesnt try to clean up its heroes. The person who wrote Psalm 137 isnt afraid to reveal his darkest thoughts to God in song. Human and divine meet in its pages as we do in life. Among it many other fine attributes, it is also literally a realistic and entirely honest picture of our life in this world with our God. What is it like to be human in all eras? Just look in its pages. the Bible knows and God knows. Unlike a lot of liberal Christians, I grow more impressed with the Old Testamant/Tankh (sp?) every time that I read its words. The more that I read of it the more I want to read. |
| Posted by: peggy 2005-10-13 15:21 |
| #23 The mohammedans are stuck on the seventh century, stuck on Osama, and stuck on stupid. |
| Posted by: Ebbirt Glock1085 2005-10-13 14:33 |
| #22 Bardo, Not exactly sure what you mean by those quotes. If you are equating islamic unlimited expansion and forcing pagans to be muslims or die with the Old Testament commands to clear only, see that, only the land of Israel from those who not only worshipped idols but also sacrificed children, then you are sadly sadly mistaken. Equating Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews, Greco-Romans, the descendants of the Persian Empire, the Hindus of India and even the pagan tribes of the Arabian penninsula at the time of mohammed and the tribes that Israel was commanded to fight only for a brief period of time within a limited area is just plain ignorant of the facts. All the peoples that the muslims attacked first were guilty of no more than the following: They worshipped idols (but child sacrifice was long dead in those areas) they disrespected mohammed and the muslims by refusing to give up their liberty and submit to their rule. The Meccans were mean to mohammed and made fun of him. The Chrisitans were doing nothing but minding their own business and attending to their own internal troubles when the muslims on mohammeds command came tearing out of the desert wastes hell bent on conquering the Christian Byzantine empire for islam. Ditto all the others. The Jews were never commanded to go on an unending jihad against all non Jews until all the world was ruled by Jews. The Christians were not commanded to go to wage unending war until all the world was ruled by Christians. Jesus never raised a sword and neither did his disciples to bring one person to Christianity regardless of how people later on might have done in their name. There are none, absolutely no instances or cammands where the Christian is commanded to threaten pagans with a choice of conversion of death. Jesus never beseiged a city with such a threat. He never robbed other people or had them put to death for disagreeing with him. By the time mohammed came along and justified what he did as a righteous jihad, the world was a much different and more advanced place. mohammed had options. islam was a step back to the bad old days and it wreaked havoc and death and destruction on a part of the world that had been under the influence of civilization for thousands of years. Lets see if you can comprehend what this means. The Jewish faith is 2000 years older than Christianity. That make a difference of 2600 years between the world where the Jews came up and the world where the muslims came up. Not the least of the influences in that time was Christianity which spread without violence for 400 years in spite of persecution. This was not only a more advanced way to spread ones ideas but it was wildly successful. The Christian faith was in charge of the 1000 year old empire that persecuted itin 400 years with out one battle being waged between the Romans and the Christians. There were no Christian armies until that time. Many Christians in fact remained conflicted about service in the army even after this time. That is what a naturally peaceful religion that later loses it way looks like. Jesus didnt, like mohammmed did, put up with teasing for a little while then run away and then go on a campaign to make those that teased him submit to his rule. mohammed started the violence from the very first years of islam when he lost patience with his failure to become the big man in mecca that everyone obeyed. It continues to this day unabated after his example and enshrined in islams so called holy book. There is no equivalence. |
| Posted by: peggy 2005-10-13 14:09 |
| #21 Peggy, I think you have in mind Psalm 137 The great lament over the loss of Jerusalem written by the waters of Babylon: 8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- 9 he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. These are the graphically violent words of the psalmist, not God. Deuteronomy is the home of the War laws. My point was only to refute JFM's assertion that "The conquest of Canaan is not a call to violence but a narration of violence." |
| Posted by: Whuck Huperese1095 2005-10-13 14:01 |
| #20 Maybe the Koran says all that, Bardo, but in practice they're not nearly as irritating as the Ringists... |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-10-13 13:42 |
| #19 The Flying Spaghetti Monster commands you to cease worshipping the false gods! Have you been touched by his Noodly Appendage? |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2005-10-13 13:39 |
| #17 The Elder Gods are Amused. We thrive on chaos. Signed: Azathoth, Chaugnar Faugn, Cthulhu, Dagon, Deep Ones, Elder Things, Ghouls, Great Race, Hastur, Mi-Go, Night-gaunts, Nyarlathotep, Shoggoths, Shub-Niggurath, Tsathoggua, Yog-Sothoth | |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-10-13 13:23 |
| #16 Ptah and Peggy, thank you: I learned something today. I learned several somethings today. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-10-13 13:10 |
| #15 16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. May I add that the Israelites did not completely obey in extirminating these aforementioned obstacles, but lived peaceably among them and even intermarried, causing God to warn them that they would be "briars and thorns" to them in the future. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2005-10-13 13:03 |
| #14 Whuck Huperese1095, See my comments in response to your post. The explaination of the intention behind the command you cite is within the verse itself. God the lover of children and of justice was furious at these people because they most likely practiced child sacrifice and if I were him I would also stop at nothing to ensure that my people did not pick up the practice. We justify war for all sorts of good reasons always related to justice, or the protection of freedom or the liberation of peoples or to stop the spread of evil. Tell me what could be more f-ing evil than child sacrifice???? I could be wrong since I am not the best at quoting the Bible from memory. But I think it has God himself saying somewhere that he hates child sacrifice. I believe it is rare for him to say something like that and is always reserved for the worst most hate deserving things. And before you say it, given the context of the times, I doubt that the Jews could have just talked the child sacrificers out of their dirty little practice using an argument that it was wrong to kill a child. Before Israel there were was no moral context. It didnt exist. It would have been absolutely meaningless to their enemies to say that children/anyone had an inherant God given right to life. It couldnt be argued from a practical standpoint either since only few children were sacrificed each year under normal circumstances. One couldnt have argued that it hurt the future to kill a couple of kids a year. Even one child's death is an enormous wrong that would have to be stopped ASAP. Once God had chosen and developed his people to readiness, he launched them on a conquest to establish themselves in the land of promise so they would be a people of substance and influence and the first order of business was to clear that land of the worst of the worst. Its worthy to note that other peoples were spared by God especially of they helped the Jews or showed moral promise by doing some good deed like showing hospitality etc. I think the biblical record is pretty clear that God only showed his full fury to the worst people especially if they were attempting to corrupt his people. Would you blame a father for ferociously protecting his children from harm and corruption? |
| Posted by: peggy 2005-10-13 12:05 |
| #13 I want to see the Mullahs and Muslims defend the Koran chapter after chapter, verse after verse and explain how it is not violent. I think the entire affair could be very educational to the masses even if exceptions are made in the end. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-10-13 11:49 |
| #12 Ptah, Love your comments. You are right on the money. In the Bible, there are commands from God to kill such and such peoples during the conquest of Canaan but you are exactly right that such commands were strictly limited to the establishment of a very strictly defined area. The Jews were without a doubt among the least expansionist-minded people ever. They have been and to this day are content with a tiny place to live within the borders of Israel as described in the Bible. They want nothing more. The Bible encourages nothing more. I would add to that that the Bible never ever commands that anyone be killed for refusing to believe in the Jewish God. All the killing commands stem from establishing Israel in their homeland or against people who attacked them or were plotting take that tiny bit of land from them. In contrast, the koran dictates that pagans/unbelievers/ polytheists be given the choice of conversion to islam or death. This is forced conversion by the way and it does exist in the koran contrary to the oft cited "let there be no compulsion in religion" which is meant only for the peoples of the book not for types like the Hindus, the American Indians, Buddhists etc. Most telling is the background of the peoples that the commands to conquer and or kill were directed towards. Worshipping idols was not the worst of their crimes. Often idol worshipping was closely connected to child sacrifice which the God of the Bible abhorred and abolished by subsituting the ram for Isaac. It may be PC to see the Canaanites as innocents slaughtered by invaders but what essentially happened was that the cults of the death-eating Gods were eradicated from that land. At least that was the intention. It could be argued that it was wise to command that none of these be allowed to survive to further propagate their beliefs particularly if they were especially aggressive or entrenched in their beliefs. It could well be argued that the end of child sacrifice the world over began in Israel. I'll say one last thing about the Psalsms. They use strong language and prayers against enemies all in the context of justice against evil doers who have already done overt harm to the poor, or the believer or the just man etc. They have also long been interpreted allegorically as the believer praying to God in the strongest terms to help defeat ones inner demons and sins. I dont believe they have ever been interpreted as some kind of command to believers. They are brutally honest human expressions for justice from the Great Judge. Who hasnt felt like wishing our enemies dead from time to time especially when the harm done is egregious. One infamous verse of the Psalms is I think the best illustration. I can't remember the number or the verse number but in it is the prayer that the enemies children will have their brains dashed out against the pavements. Something like that. It is thought that this psalm dates from a time after one of the falls of Jerusalem or maybe another Jewish city. Its not hard to imagine that the Psalmist may have seen his own children or someones elses children die in this way with his own eyes. Who could blame the man for hoping with all the horror and bitterness in his heart that someday his enemies would be paid back in like manner. I think the background of the OT is too conveniently forgotten by those who equate it with the koran. the koran is unlimited in either time or geography. Its commmands to wage war and kill are eternal until the whole world has submitted to islam. Not only is the OT's commands time and geography restricted but the NT has always overridden it whenever the two conflict. There is NO command to force conversion, or to kill in the NT. The NT is the part of the Bible which is unlimited and eternal for Christians. I hate to get ugly but I have to be honest. The koran is a blood soaked rag compared to the New Testament. No amount of "good" verses in it can counteract that fact. No one can derive permission to be violent or conquer by war from the NT and noone can justify a single act of their own violence from the example of Jesus. Muslims have exmaple after example from mohammed to resort to violence when one does not get ones way or if one is disrespected. mohammed also justified his actions as the righteous "crusade" to establish islam as the supreme religion lone before any Christian ever conceived of going to war to defend their holy places. I hate to say that the koran must be banned, but without a doubt the truth about it should be made clear. Maybe it should be treated like handguns are here in the US? ;-) It is like a loaded gun or a bomb in a lot of ways. |
| Posted by: peggy 2005-10-13 11:33 |
| #11 JFM, You do not consider this to be a call to violence? 16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. |
| Posted by: Whuck Huperese1095 2005-10-13 11:12 |
| #10 Ptah The conquest of Canaan is not a call to violence but a narration of violence. |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-10-13 10:50 |
| #9 Hi Ptah, long time no see. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2005-10-13 08:12 |
| #8 Isn't the Quran expressly allowed to be produced and sold under these laws? (in other only muslims are allowed to incite hatred ande murder...). All in the name of PC-ism and 'tolerance' because it is [un]holy scripture of course... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-10-13 07:56 |
| #7 Stupid stunt, counter-productive. BS. The idiocy of religious villification laws has to be driven home. If this is what it takes, then this is what it takes. I mean, fer crissake, you had two Australian preachers convicted under one of these laws because they quoted the Koran. If Commonwealth countries can cite each other's case law, then Christian Voice has a slam-dunk case. If the opposition says it wasn't what was quoted, but who was doing the quoting, then you've exposed them for the totalitarian wannabes they are. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-13 07:35 |
| #6 God gave Israel clear boundaries within which it could not spread Torah! Torah Torah! Dammit Moshe! I said promised land, not promised continent. God speaking to General Dyan 2nd Sabbath in June 1967. |
| Posted by: Tool O Toole 2005-10-13 07:13 |
| #5 Always a pleasure to read the words of a man who knows whereof he writes. Thanks, Ptah! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-10-13 06:21 |
| #4 Pretty smart of them if you ask me. It's not true that the Bible is free of calls to violence: the conquest of Caanan by the ancient Hebrews coming out of Egypt is a case in point. A few of the Psalms can make a pious Liberal uncomfortable. Even then, God gave Israel clear boundaries within which it could not spread, and even forbade invasion of certain countries whose ancestors were related to those of the Israelites, making them relatives of a sort. Even then, as long as no one, Israelite or foreigner, worshipped idols, all were entitled to equal rights and treated the same. There are multiple commands forbidding discrimination against strangers, and there is no concept of the Zakat. Indeed, Israel is commanded to treat the alien and sojourner equally with native Israelis "because you were aliens in the land of Egypt." This Old testament concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is patently absent in the Koran as a positive command. The Mafia version of the Golden Rule is more the rule: "Do unto others before they do unto you". The new testament case against violence is so strong, one is tempted to believe that Pacifism is biblical. However, a careful reading of the NT indicates that what little "legislation" there is is directed at the Church, not the government. There are no commands against taking usury, for example, although the command to deal fairly and honestly with all is required of believers. There are no standing instructions to command solders to leave the military: the only command actually given to the military in the New Testament comes from John the Baptist, who told them to not take advantage of their power to defraud others, and to stop bitching about their salary. The call is not that there be no military, but that the military be more professional. Other than that, you can't build a nation from the NT. There ARE Christans who think that the instructions of the Old Testament still apply to Christians today, and which include the instructions, and command, to run the government: I think they're nuts and make the rest of us look bad. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2005-10-13 05:48 |
| #3 Lol. So you're saying that PCism is so entrenched that they'll waste their time. Fine. That someone challenges the deepening slide into dhimmitude and stupidity is, to me, refreshing. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-13 03:09 |
| #2 Stupid stunt, counter-productive. If they"re trying to point out the absurdities of a bad law, I wish them luck. If they actually think someone is going to hear their message, they're deluded. |
| Posted by: John in Tokyo 2005-10-13 01:46 |
| #1 The idiocy of PCism turned back upon itself. Interesting. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-13 00:18 |