The Politics Thread

[William the White]

Last weekend. Hundreds of thousands all over the world in Solidarity with Gaza.

Pictures from International Solidarity Movement newsletter.

If you don't wish to see photographs of crowds of many thousands in Africa, Asia, Europe expressing their support for Gaza, please ignore.

Lifted my heart though.

http://palsolidarity.org/2014/08/photos ... the-world/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not quite sure "support for Gaza" means, William. Many of us deplore Israel's recent military action and even more have tremendous sympathy for the Palestinian civilians. I support any efforts to alleviate the situation from aid to the civilians to diplomatic pressure on Israel to keep negotiating. But it will be a frosty day in hell before I support Hamas.

Me too.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Last weekend. Hundreds of thousands all over the world in Solidarity with Gaza.

Pictures from International Solidarity Movement newsletter.

If you don't wish to see photographs of crowds of many thousands in Africa, Asia, Europe expressing their support for Gaza, please ignore.

Lifted my heart though.

http://palsolidarity.org/2014/08/photos ... the-world/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not quite sure "support for Gaza" means, William. Many of us deplore Israel's recent military action and even more have tremendous sympathy for the Palestinian civilians. I support any efforts to alleviate the situation from aid to the civilians to diplomatic pressure on Israel to keep negotiating. But it will be a frosty day in hell before I support Hamas.

Me too.

[Prufrock]

F*ck me, don't look under the bed.

I'd watch out for that Sadiq Khan, too.

Ha! Do you remember that old saying about reds under the bed? It seems that you do. There was some 270 million people in the old Soviet Union, a large proportion of whom were less than committed to the socialist principles of that state. The Soviets were the main threat to the West (China had no power to speak of).

Muslim states account for more than 2 billion of the current world population and are outbreeding Western populations by a factor of at least 2. All evidence from current conflicts, asymetrical or not, points to a level of threat to our liberal societies much greater than during the 'cold war' era.

I assume by Sadiq Khan you mean that ineffective socialist politician. Waste of time.

So, not so much muslims under the bed as in, on top, under and surrounding it.

I don't remember it, I'm not a crusty, but I've heard of it .

By Sadiq Khan I mean that muslim, democratically elected politician, for whom politics is not religion, and who, for example, voted for gay marriage (along with four others for whom, presumably, religion is not politics).

Islam is by its nature no more or less proselytizing than Christianity. The difference being that in the west we've had 200 years post-Enlightenment is secular democracy where we've generally established that the place for religion is in the private sphere, not the public.

It's not that long ago that your religion here was enough to get you burnt at the stake so the idea that trouble separating religion and politics is a problem unique to Islam, or Muslims, is pish.

Here's an idea: instead of pursuing a foreign policy of short-term gain propping up oppressive regimes who give us no current grief and let us get at their oil, only to eventually collapse in chaos to rebels led by jihadis who genuinely seem like the lesser of two evils; or an isolationist policy where we let the crackpot few terrorise the normal peaceful majority, instead we support the f*cking good guys so that secular-democracy beats theocracy and the world's nutters have no desperate oppressed they can manipulate. That'd be good.

[bedwetter2]

F*ck me, don't look under the bed.

I'd watch out for that Sadiq Khan, too.

Ha! Do you remember that old saying about reds under the bed? It seems that you do. There was some 270 million people in the old Soviet Union, a large proportion of whom were less than committed to the socialist principles of that state. The Soviets were the main threat to the West (China had no power to speak of).

Muslim states account for more than 2 billion of the current world population and are outbreeding Western populations by a factor of at least 2. All evidence from current conflicts, asymetrical or not, points to a level of threat to our liberal societies much greater than during the 'cold war' era.

I assume by Sadiq Khan you mean that ineffective socialist politician. Waste of time.

So, not so much muslims under the bed as in, on top, under and surrounding it.

I don't remember it, I'm not a crusty, but I've heard of it .

By Sadiq Khan I mean that muslim, democratically elected politician, for whom politics is not religion, and who, for example, voted for gay marriage (along with four others for whom, presumably, religion is not politics).

Islam is by its nature no more or less proselytizing than Christianity. The difference being that in the west we've had 200 years post-Enlightenment is secular democracy where we've generally established that the place for religion is in the private sphere, not the public.

It's not that long ago that your religion here was enough to get you burnt at the stake so the idea that trouble separating religion and politics is a problem unique to Islam, or Muslims, is pish.

Here's an idea: instead of pursuing a foreign policy of short-term gain propping up oppressive regimes who give us no current grief and let us get at their oil, only to eventually collapse in chaos to rebels led by jihadis who genuinely seem like the lesser of two evils; or an isolationist policy where we let the crackpot few terrorise the normal peaceful majority, instead we support the f*cking good guys so that secular-democracy beats theocracy and the world's nutters have no desperate oppressed they can manipulate. That'd be good.

So much to consider, then reject as an inconsequential argument. I would agree that the only proselytizing the muslims do involves a sword and your neck.

I knew the Sadiq Khan that you mentioned was the socialist politician. One swallow doesn't make a summer, you know, and if there was four of 'em that doesn't constitute a flock. They do tend to vote for their party leadership (all MPs) if only because of the whipping system. Labour doesn't have good democratic credentials when it comes to their muslim council representatives or MPs - vote-rigging allegations spring to mind.

Religion does not interest me per se, although I do see the historical influences which have in turn affected whole nations.

As to your last point, I can but agree with you if only you could define who the good guys are. I'm sure al Sisi in Eygpt would not be to your taste and I can't see many in other muslim ruled countries. I don't advocate isolationism, rather suggest that quarantine may be a good idea until the offenders join the civilised world. If ever.

[William the White]

In response to the stigmatising (by only a few) of 'Muslims' - as though all were the same - as though this faith uniquely produces bloodthirsty automatons - I only had to reach out to my bookshelves to offer some names to provide a rebuke...

Ahdaf Soueif is an Egyptian woman writer, whose two page article in the Guardian after Sisi's coup, about the arrests and deaths being inflicted on his opponents, was the single most moving thing I have read about those tragic weeks. The book of hers I have is The Map of Love - about a love affair between an English woman and an Egyptian man.

Tayeb Salih, from Sudan, wrote Season of Migration to the North - an African response to Conrad's Heart of Darkness that is magnificent.

Mourid Bhargouti, a Palestinian denied access to his homeland for forty years, a former member of the PLO's leadership, is the author of Midnight, a collection of poems about love, and exile, and war and occupation, that my wife bought me for my birthday some years ago. It is overwhelming.

Nuruddin Farah in his book Sweet and Sour Milk paints a picture of living under tyranny in his native somalia that is terrifying.

And from Francophone Senegal comes what, IMHO, is Africa's greatest novel - Sembene Ousmane's God's Bits of Wood about a strike by black railway workers for equal wages with their French counterparts, in 1949, which calls into question the entire epidermal scheme of colonialism (and takes many a swipe at compliant Muslim clergy on the way)...

Tyranny can wear an Islamic face, a Christian face or a secular face. It can be inflicted by Jihadists and Crusaders, Stalinists and Nazis.. people can die unjustly in the Plazas of Spain, the plains of Iraq, the torture chambers of Chile, shot from cannon in India or hanged on trees, castrated, in Kenya. Often thousands will applaud and rejoice.

Nearly always there are brave people who will oppose it.

Above - a very short list (it could contain millions) of some from the 'Islamic' world who have with their pens, their politics, their very being, and at great risk to themselves, made themselves heard in opposition, and whose books happened to be on my shelves.

[TANGODANCER]

where we've generally established that the place for religion is in the private sphere, not the public.

Whoa Pru, don't let your own atheist beliefs appear as established anything. Religious freedom of choice is fine, but if it isn't in the public sphere, why are there so many mosques around? There are twenty three currently in Bolton alone, not counting prayer houses (of which there are two within cricket-ball throwing distance of me). Tucking religion tidily out of sight and having it appear almost masonic in nature is a totally wrong thing to do. Let it be right out there in public and everyone free to follow their beliefs and worships whatever they be, in peace. That's real democracy. What's been established in the civilised world is the right for religion to exist, not make it an underground secret society. We went through all that two thousand years ago.

[thebish]

where we've generally established that the place for religion is in the private sphere, not the public.

Whoa Pru, don't let your own atheist beliefs appear as established anything. Religious freedom of choice is fine, but if it isn't in the public sphere, why are there so many mosques around? There are twenty three currently in Bolton alone, not counting prayer houses (of which there are two within cricket-ball throwing distance of me). Tucking religion tidily out of sight and having it appear almost masonic in nature is a totally wrong thing to do. Let it be right out there in public and everyone free to follow their beliefs and worships whatever they be, in peace. That's real democracy. What's been established in the civilised world is the right for religion to exist, not make it an underground secret society. We went through all that two thousand years ago.

I suspect you are misunderstanding what Pru (and most other people) mean when they say "private sphere" and "public sphere"...

[TANGODANCER]

where we've generally established that the place for religion is in the private sphere, not the public.

Whoa Pru, don't let your own atheist beliefs appear as established anything. Religious freedom of choice is fine, but if it isn't in the public sphere, why are there so many mosques around? There are twenty three currently in Bolton alone, not counting prayer houses (of which there are two within cricket-ball throwing distance of me). Tucking religion tidily out of sight and having it appear almost masonic in nature is a totally wrong thing to do. Let it be right out there in public and everyone free to follow their beliefs and worships whatever they be, in peace. That's real democracy. What's been established in the civilised world is the right for religion to exist, not make it an underground secret society. We went through all that two thousand years ago.

I suspect you are misunderstanding what Pru (and most other people) mean when they say "private sphere" and "public sphere"...

I'm quite capable of understanding and differentiating between private and public spheres whatever you suspect, but both are relevant where religion is concerned as a topic. It is fine to be private within the confines of home and family, but that isn't the case here and won't ever be. I addressed a straight issue with an answer and my view on it. Let Pru speak for himself thank you. Religion isn't established in the private sphere alone and I'm surprised you back that view.

[William the White]

where we've generally established that the place for religion is in the private sphere, not the public.

Whoa Pru, don't let your own atheist beliefs appear as established anything. Religious freedom of choice is fine, but if it isn't in the public sphere, why are there so many mosques around? There are twenty three currently in Bolton alone, not counting prayer houses (of which there are two within cricket-ball throwing distance of me). Tucking religion tidily out of sight and having it appear almost masonic in nature is a totally wrong thing to do. Let it be right out there in public and everyone free to follow their beliefs and worships whatever they be, in peace. That's real democracy. What's been established in the civilised world is the right for religion to exist, not make it an underground secret society. We went through all that two thousand years ago.

aye, and spent much of the next two thousand killing and torturing people who dared not to believe what your lot especially decreed they should. It is the growth of secular society that is responsible for allowing belief of conscience, and variety of faith to exist without repression.

So, when did this civilised world of yours start? And where does it endure?

[TANGODANCER]

where we've generally established that the place for religion is in the private sphere, not the public.

Whoa Pru, don't let your own atheist beliefs appear as established anything. Religious freedom of choice is fine, but if it isn't in the public sphere, why are there so many mosques around? There are twenty three currently in Bolton alone, not counting prayer houses (of which there are two within cricket-ball throwing distance of me). Tucking religion tidily out of sight and having it appear almost masonic in nature is a totally wrong thing to do. Let it be right out there in public and everyone free to follow their beliefs and worships whatever they be, in peace. That's real democracy. What's been established in the civilised world is the right for religion to exist, not make it an underground secret society. We went through all that two thousand years ago.

aye, and spent much of the next two thousand killing and torturing people who dared not to believe what your lot especially decreed they should. It is the growth of secular society that is responsible for allowing belief of conscience, and variety of faith to exist without repression.

So, when did this civilised world of yours start? And where does it endure?

That's a one-sided and agressive attitude to take WtW. I'll opt out here so as not to reply in kind.

[William the White]

where we've generally established that the place for religion is in the private sphere, not the public.

Whoa Pru, don't let your own atheist beliefs appear as established anything. Religious freedom of choice is fine, but if it isn't in the public sphere, why are there so many mosques around? There are twenty three currently in Bolton alone, not counting prayer houses (of which there are two within cricket-ball throwing distance of me). Tucking religion tidily out of sight and having it appear almost masonic in nature is a totally wrong thing to do. Let it be right out there in public and everyone free to follow their beliefs and worships whatever they be, in peace. That's real democracy. What's been established in the civilised world is the right for religion to exist, not make it an underground secret society. We went through all that two thousand years ago.

aye, and spent much of the next two thousand killing and torturing people who dared not to believe what your lot especially decreed they should. It is the growth of secular society that is responsible for allowing belief of conscience, and variety of faith to exist without repression.

So, when did this civilised world of yours start? And where does it endure?

That's a one-sided and agressive attitude to take WtW. I'll opt out here so as not to reply in kind.

I apologise immediately, and genuinely, for the first sentence. and ask you if would like to respond to the rest of the post, as highlighted. And hope you will.

[Prufrock]

where we've generally established that the place for religion is in the private sphere, not the public.

Whoa Pru, don't let your own atheist beliefs appear as established anything. Religious freedom of choice is fine, but if it isn't in the public sphere, why are there so many mosques around? There are twenty three currently in Bolton alone, not counting prayer houses (of which there are two within cricket-ball throwing distance of me). Tucking religion tidily out of sight and having it appear almost masonic in nature is a totally wrong thing to do. Let it be right out there in public and everyone free to follow their beliefs and worships whatever they be, in peace. That's real democracy. What's been established in the civilised world is the right for religion to exist, not make it an underground secret society. We went through all that two thousand years ago.

TD, I don't think I meant much different to what you did here:

Ah right, meself I just think religion is really the business of the individual and should stay that way or it becomes a pain in the ass!
IS would be on the end of B52's carpet bombing if it was up to me, shame it ain't.

Whole-hearted agreement.

I don't mean we've established religion's place is to be hidden away in secret chapels behind the fireplace or under the kitchen; rather that religion is a matter for the individual that shouldn't play a role in the 'public sphere' of the running of the country. The odd constitutional quirk aside, religion doesn't play a direct role in the government of the country, the writing of laws, the administration of justice etc...

This is a good thing.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Islam is by its nature no more or less proselytizing than Christianity. The difference being that in the west we've had 200 years post-Enlightenment is secular democracy where we've generally established that the place for religion is in the private sphere, not the public.

So much to consider, then reject as an inconsequential argument. I would agree that the only proselytizing the muslims do involves a sword and your neck.

I'm not sure who you are agreeing with but I don't think Pru said that precisely. To the best of my knowledge Muslims do not force conversions in the way, say, Torquemada attempted it. They might encourage conversion or pass laws that favour Muslims over non-Muslims. But sword and neck is a little over the top. Of course Islam takes an extremely dim view of apostasy but that is a different question.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I don't mean we've established religion's place is to be hidden away in secret chapels behind the fireplace or under the kitchen; rather that religion is a matter for the individual that shouldn't play a role in the 'public sphere' of the running of the country. The odd constitutional quirk aside, religion doesn't play a direct role in the government of the country, the writing of laws, the administration of justice etc...

This is a good thing.

I guess you skipped canon law at uni, Pru. This aside, the Church of England still has some sort of governance role it seems to me - apart from running coronations, etc. The Lords Spiritual have surely played a significant role in legislation regarding abortion and euthanasia. They also prevent the head of state from being Roman Catholic

[Prufrock]

F*ck me, don't look under the bed.

I'd watch out for that Sadiq Khan, too.

Ha! Do you remember that old saying about reds under the bed? It seems that you do. There was some 270 million people in the old Soviet Union, a large proportion of whom were less than committed to the socialist principles of that state. The Soviets were the main threat to the West (China had no power to speak of).

Muslim states account for more than 2 billion of the current world population and are outbreeding Western populations by a factor of at least 2. All evidence from current conflicts, asymetrical or not, points to a level of threat to our liberal societies much greater than during the 'cold war' era.

I assume by Sadiq Khan you mean that ineffective socialist politician. Waste of time.

So, not so much muslims under the bed as in, on top, under and surrounding it.

I don't remember it, I'm not a crusty, but I've heard of it .

By Sadiq Khan I mean that muslim, democratically elected politician, for whom politics is not religion, and who, for example, voted for gay marriage (along with four others for whom, presumably, religion is not politics).

Islam is by its nature no more or less proselytizing than Christianity. The difference being that in the west we've had 200 years post-Enlightenment is secular democracy where we've generally established that the place for religion is in the private sphere, not the public.

It's not that long ago that your religion here was enough to get you burnt at the stake so the idea that trouble separating religion and politics is a problem unique to Islam, or Muslims, is pish.

Here's an idea: instead of pursuing a foreign policy of short-term gain propping up oppressive regimes who give us no current grief and let us get at their oil, only to eventually collapse in chaos to rebels led by jihadis who genuinely seem like the lesser of two evils; or an isolationist policy where we let the crackpot few terrorise the normal peaceful majority, instead we support the f*cking good guys so that secular-democracy beats theocracy and the world's nutters have no desperate oppressed they can manipulate. That'd be good.

So much to consider, then reject as an inconsequential argument. I would agree that the only proselytizing the muslims do involves a sword and your neck.

I knew the Sadiq Khan that you mentioned was the socialist politician. One swallow doesn't make a summer, you know, and if there was four of 'em that doesn't constitute a flock. They do tend to vote for their party leadership (all MPs) if only because of the whipping system. Labour doesn't have good democratic credentials when it comes to their muslim council representatives or MPs - vote-rigging allegations spring to mind.

Religion does not interest me per se, although I do see the historical influences which have in turn affected whole nations.

As to your last point, I can but agree with you if only you could define who the good guys are. I'm sure al Sisi in Eygpt would not be to your taste and I can't see many in other muslim ruled countries. I don't advocate isolationism, rather suggest that quarantine may be a good idea until the offenders join the civilised world. If ever.

Even if I had said that, you wouldn't agree, because your initial post was that 'they' can't separate religion and politics and would attempt to convert by force or subterfuge everyone even the infidel TD.

Yes, that Muslim socialist politician (if you want) who has separated his politics from his religion, almost as if he were a human being. As for five of them not making a flock, well overall five voted for it and only one against it, a somewhat higher proportion than the rest of their whipped colleagues who voted about 2.25 to 1 for it.

The good guys are the secular democrats. That's who we should be supporting, wherever we can.

And the civilised world? The Muslim world was the civilised world for a long time. Quirks of history are all that separate us, no inherent superiority. They're people, who for the main part just want safety for the families, food on the table and if possible a nice bit of consumerism.

[Prufrock]

I don't mean we've established religion's place is to be hidden away in secret chapels behind the fireplace or under the kitchen; rather that religion is a matter for the individual that shouldn't play a role in the 'public sphere' of the running of the country. The odd constitutional quirk aside, religion doesn't play a direct role in the government of the country, the writing of laws, the administration of justice etc...

This is a good thing.

I guess you skipped canon law at uni, Pru. This aside, the Church of England still has some sort of governance role it seems to me - apart from running coronations, etc. The Lords Spiritual have surely played a significant role in legislation regarding abortion and euthanasia. They also prevent the head of state from being Roman Catholic

If it were up to me I'd f*ck off the Lords Spiritual, but I don't think we're far from being able to call them a constitutional quirk. That's probably a slight overstatement, but we're along way down the happy road away from Theocracy, anyway.

[thebish]

I'm quite capable of understanding and differentiating between private and public spheres

clearly not. counting the number of mosques in Bolton and proclaiming that they are somehow not in the private sphere??

[bedwetter2]

Islam is by its nature no more or less proselytizing than Christianity. The difference being that in the west we've had 200 years post-Enlightenment is secular democracy where we've generally established that the place for religion is in the private sphere, not the public.

So much to consider, then reject as an inconsequential argument. I would agree that the only proselytizing the muslims do involves a sword and your neck.

I'm not sure who you are agreeing with but I don't think Pru said that precisely. To the best of my knowledge Muslims do not force conversions in the way, say, Torquemada attempted it. They might encourage conversion or pass laws that favour Muslims over non-Muslims. But sword and neck is a little over the top. Of course Islam takes an extremely dim view of apostasy but that is a different question.

Just having a little bit of fun with Prufrock, you know. He doesn't mind, after all he is in legal profession and you know how much they like a laugh.
It was also a reference to the IS habit of converting yazidis and christians in Iraq and Syria by putting the wind up them.

[TANGODANCER]

I apologise immediately, and genuinely, for the first sentence. and ask you if would like to respond to the rest of the post, as highlighted. And hope you will.

Fair enough. In answer, where does anything start universally? How long does anything last? You yourself know well enough of the peaceful religious co-existence that existed hundreds of years ago in Spain. It didn't last because of people changing,, not God. Man may claim to worship God or not, but that can never be a set level of equality because mankind isn't a set level entity. How many people in you home vicinity do you really want anything beyond a passing aquaintance with? In some cases even families are disfunctional within themselves. This is why nobody can speak for anyone else as a community, because people are so utterly unalike. There are as many bad Christians, Muslims and Jews (and all other religions) as good, just like any other section of society. This is why quoting isolated examples of any side or past event is a pointless exercise. There are countless different views on just about everything (proven easily by just reading the forums). A perfectly level-headed bloke will call another equally level-headed bloke an idiot just because he supports a different football team. That makes no sense when it gets beyond banter, but it gets far beyond that to some. This is why stating religion should be in the private sphere is, in my opinion, wrong and I don't believe it is so or that we've made it that way..

Private sphere, beyond control by government in the confines of home walls etc, can in the case of religion, be all too easily be seen as secretive unless it is totally open and in view, a thing that happened many times in history in many places and is still happening in some. Twenty six chuches and twenty three mosques in Bolton and district alone show a measure of support for a multicultural environ that has brought religion right into the public sector, not penned it into the private. The only people that can spoil it all are all below cloud level, not above it.

God save the Queen....

[Prufrock]

No-one is on about that. That's not what people mean by the private sphere.