Religion and Racism

Reading recent articles and watching various media posts regarding religion, particularly, although not exclusively, about Islam, there is clearly an unwelcome tendency to characterise certain critical comments about faith, as racist.

I firmly believe that religious beliefs  are both qualitatively and quantitatively different from race, and that the two should never be confused. It can never be racist to criticise someone's beliefs, since specific beliefs are not an unalterable defining human characteristic, whereas race, clearly is.

People can not choose their race, they can however choose their religion. Even Judaism, which superficially, might seem to be assigned exclusively to a particular race, is of course, no different from any any other belief system. There are many famous Jewish atheists for example, and one can convert to Judaism no matter what one's racial origins. Also, one can stop believing in the teachings of any faith; although in Islam it would be unwise to announce this publicly, since the  penalty for apostasy, is death. A powerful disincentive to stating that one is no longer a believer.

Despite this, there are brave ex-Muslims, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who've been courageous enough to publicly announce their rejection of Islam, and who now suffer the consequences of requiring constant police protection.  

This tendency, to characterise criticism of Islam as racist, is having some very unfortunate consequences. not least, upon freedom of speech. No one, should ever be granted the right in law, not to be offended. Indeed, being critical of beliefs, especially when those beliefs are held without demonstrable evidence, is not merely a human right, but I believe, a human duty.

If, as a society, we wish to preserve our hard won freedoms, then we need to confront those who would conflate criticism of religion with racism and strenuously resist their efforts to make criticising faith a criminal offence.

Note to readers: Please click on the comments tab below if you'd like to express your view.

  

In Defense of our Civil Liberties

Dave monitoring the Nation's emails

The tragic, yet unsurprising murder of a British soldier on the streets of London by two Islamic terrorists, has predictably inspired a call from certain politicians for the immediate revival of the discredited and oppressive Communications Data Bill. 

Well there's a surprise! Thwarted by the Liberal Democrats in their attempt to impose their totalitarian instincts upon the law abiding population of our democracy, these political control freaks once again clamour for the introduction of laws, which at best will insidiously invade everyone's privacy, and at worst give the government completely unwarranted powers to snoop and pry into every aspect of the population's internet and telephonic activity.

If I'd seen one jot of evidence, that giving the government and other agencies the right to view all our on-line activity would prevent acts of terror by Islamic extremists, then there might just be some justification for monitoring everybody's emails, telephone calls and social media posts. But, as informed and intelligent observers of national security issues have already observed: 'If you're searching for a needle in a haystack, it does not help to make the haystack bigger.' It also needs to be reiterated that: 'We cannot ensure the security, freedom and liberty of the people by extinguishing  the very principles which guarantee their existence.'

If we respond to threats of terrorism by passing into law legislation which allows the authorities to monitor everyone's private communications, then the terrorists have effectively won. At least, to the extent that they've undermined our hard fought freedoms and eroded our precious civil liberties.

It is rarely justified and never libertarian to erode the freedom and privacy of the population. To use the tragic death of Drummer Lee Rigby as an excuse to record everyone's private communications is a smoke-screen to allow the authorities to move one step closed to becoming the worst kind of surveillance state.

'It is not the government's job to monitor the people. It's the people's job to monitor the government.' 

I'm sure there is a potential price to pay for maintaining the liberty and freedom of our citizens. It may be, that some people will continue to die at the hands of Islamic terrorists, but the way to combat this threat is not to make every citizen a suspect. It is to robustly tackle the root causes of the problem, which is a course of action the government is clearly reluctant to take.

While we have politicians like Boris Johnson, the misguided Mayor of London, stating publicly that the brutal murder of a serving British soldier on the streets of our capital had nothing to do with the religion of Islam, then some of those entrusted with our safety are clearly refusing to acknowledge the truth and failing to recognise the real causes of the threats we all face from Islamic terrorism.

The clear wellsprings of the actions of Islamic terrorists are unquestionably religious, and specifically, some of the key teachings of the religion of Islam. To pretend otherwise, is a monumental failure of intelligence, honesty, reason, and most damningly, of courage.

If we in the West, are to have any chance of combating, let alone defeating the life denying medieval desert philosophy of Mohammedanism, then we must at least begin to acknowledge, that many Muslims truly believe in the teachings of The Koran, and wish to see Sharia Law and Islamic philosophy established across the entire world. Many Islamic fundamentalists have repeatedly asserted their hatred of democracy and their contempt for 'western values.' In many cases, citing their religion as the major justification for the murder of those who disagree with them.

To pretend that Islamic terrorism is simply a response to our intervention in the affairs of Muslim societies is disingenuous, dishonest and extremely dangerous.

If we, in the democratic nations of the world, are not prepared to defend our principles, in case we may offend our clearly stated enemies, then we shall have no cause to be surprised when totalitarian barbarism and tyranny rule every aspect of our lives. 

If we're not willing to fight vigorously for what we believe in, then we will most certainly and deservedly, lose. 



Note to readers: This post is a follow-up to an earlier article I wrote called 'The Surveillance Society,' which can be found under 'Older Posts.'  Your comments are welcome. 

A Visit to the Doctor

Yesterday afternoon I had an appointment to see the doctor. I say ‘the doctor,’ because it is almost impossible to book an appointment with the same practitioner for each visit.

This was an appointment insisted upon by my local medical practice, to discuss the results of an enforced blood-test to determine whether, on balance, my regular blood-pressure medication was doing me more harm than good.

Upon arrival I had to stand in a long queue to book-in with the practice receptionist, who was so deeply engrossed in a telephone conversation she was completely oblivious to the growing number of elderly patients waiting at her window to register their attendance.

I asked the rather short and portly woman in front of me, how long she’d been waiting, but she said she couldn’t be certain, because due to a chronic urinary-tract infection she’d been forced to leave the queue several times to visit the toilet, and had therefore, relinquished her place on at least three occasions to others with more robust bladders.

Despite this being too much information, I was gallant enough to promise that, if she felt compelled to visit the toilet again I’d save her place in the queue. She seemed genuinely grateful at this uncharacteristic act of consideration of her problem.

By the time the receptionist had concluded her telephone conversation and attended to all those in front of me, I was fifteen minutes late for my allotted appointment. When I pointed this out to her, and suggested that it may be a good idea to employ an additional person to answer, or make telephone calls, she responded with the information that it didn’t matter, because Dr Duffy was running thirty minutes late, and there were still four patients ahead of me.

Resigned to a further interminable wait, I climbed the two flights of stairs to the waiting area, there to be greeted by the sight of a room full of sick people, who seemed in varying states of irreversible decline.

I took the only free, intensely uncomfortable chair next to a care-worn mother, whose violent hacking cough and shivering frame, did not auger well for my future prospects of avoiding influenza this winter.  Upon her lap a revolting, snotty nosed three-year-old boy, who was obviously suffering from ‘Terminal Tantrum Syndrome’ squirmed and complained unceasingly, despite several loud warnings from his mother of an imminent smack, which of course, never materialised.

Rising to select a magazine to browse through from the few remaining dog-eared out-of-date publications scattered on a small badly stained coffee-table I was disappointed to see that, the only four left were:  Men’s Health: February 2004: How to Cope with Your Hysterectomy: indeterminate date, as cover was ripped: Summer Brides June 1998 and Women’s Weekly Nov 2005. More in despair than hope, I selected ‘Summer Brides’ and settled down to enjoy the photos of skinny models in ridiculous frocks and advertisements for exotic underwear to make the wedding night a little more enticing than simply sleeping with one’s wife.

Slowly, as various doctors emerged from their consulting rooms to summon their next patient the number of the infirm and clearly dying began to diminish. ‘Patient’ is certainly what most of them had had to be.  At least the dwindling numbers gave me the opportunity to move away from the germ-infested mother and her whining infant.

When, fifty-seven minutes after my appointed time, Dr Duffy finally emerged to call my name, I was, needless to say, wound up like the proverbial watch-spring.

Upon entering her consulting room she apologised for the long wait, but offered no explanation as to its cause. I told her that it didn’t matter, as I’d been so intrigued and impressed by a photograph of a wedding gown in Summer Brides June 1998, that I was seriously considering getting a divorce, booking myself in to a private transgender clinic and undergoing a sex change operation, so I could remarry as an attractive women in stunningly beautiful white dress,

She smiled, that kind of sickly, insincere, pitying smile, which one often receives from those who believe themselves to be superior.

Anyway, you may be pleased to know that Dr Duffy informed me that my blood-test results were all normal, but that, inexplicably my blood-pressure was higher than she would have liked. I said nothing.

James Rainsford:  January 2013


Note to readers: If you enjoyed this post please click on the tab below and leave me a comment. Thanks, James.

Multiculturalism, the Failed Ideology

 

So, yet again the toxic combination of political-correctness, multiculturalism and cultural-relativism, have coalesced in the minds of mediocre thinkers to produce predictably unwelcome outcomes.

Following the failure of social-services, the police and the liberal media to protect vulnerable young girls from the predations of Asian men in Rochdale; we perhaps should not be surprised that the same poisonous prejudices have resulted in another failure in Rotherham.

Having used the discredited concept of multiculturalism as a reason to remove three young children from their foster care placement, Joyce Thacker, the strategic director of children’s services at Rotherham Council, has prompted understandable concerns about her suitability for office.

It strikes me, that in both the above cases, it has been the very people responsible for children’s protection and welfare, who’ve turned out to be a significant threat to their well-being.

In the Rochdale case, by a complete failure to fulfil their statutory duties and in the Rotherham fiasco by an over-zealous desire to execute their perceived responsibilities in a dictatorial manner, driven by political-correctness and a lamentable lack of intelligence and compassion.

It is a sad fact, that all too frequently, the main threat to children’s happiness and security emanates from the prejudices of the very people charged with their protection.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to change, unless and until those in authority fully recognise the failure of multiculturalism as a political ideology and robustly embrace the moral and cultural values of The Enlightenment.

Don’t however, hold your breath. 

Note to readers: If you'd like to know more concerning the story which has prompted this post then I suggest you 'google' Rotherham Fostering Controversy.
Please click on the tab below if you wish to comment. 

Freedom of Speech Part 2

Due to comments received on my recent post regarding the freedom of speech, it’s clear that some issues I raised in that article require expansion and clarification.

Over the last few decades several forces have been at work in certain liberal western democracies, which have unfortunately, weakened our willingness and ability to confront a number of unsupportable and clearly harmful beliefs and dogmas.

I believe that key among these forces are:

1  The expansion of human rights legislation

2  The doctrine of multiculturalism

3  The rise and promulgation of political correctness

4  The growth and spread of moral and cultural relativism as an acceptable philosophical position.

In many ways these four forces are inextricably linked and believing in the opinions they promulgate has led to a diminution of both free speech and freedom of conscience. Many of the ideas in the above areas have unquestionably been adopted from the best of intentions and the noblest of motives. However, I believe they have also worked to undermine resistance to toxic and irrational opinions. 

In our desire to be seen to be fair and even-handed, we have fallen into the trap of attempting to treat all moral and cultural differences as equally valid and of equal value.

This has inevitably led to some pretty unedifying attempts to justify clearly unacceptable practises as not necessarily ‘worse,’ but simply ‘different.’ 

We need to have the courage and conviction to acknowledge the superiority of some moral positions and cultural practises over others and stop asserting that all beliefs, opinions and actions possess equal moral value.

For example, I would wish to argue that it is not simply different not to kill people for apostasy and adultery, it’s better. 

It’s better not to mutilate the genitals of young children. It’s better not to subjugate women and deny them equal rights. It’s better not to believe things without good evidence. It’s better not to brainwash children into believing in invisible sky monsters. It’s better not to allow courts based upon belief in an unknowable god to decide upon questions of justice. It’s better not to condemn people to death because they write a book, make a film, publish a cartoon or any other way insult one’s beliefs. 

Everyone has an absolute right to believe whatever they wish. What they do not have, not now, and I hope not ever, is the right to have their beliefs respected. You as an individual have rights. Your beliefs do not. I’m afraid that this clear and absolute distinction has tragically escaped the minds of many liberal and left-leaning thinkers.

Unless we in the West begin to vigorously assert the inviolability of our hard won freedoms, we shall find them eroded and diminished by default.

It would be an immense tragedy for the whole of western civilisation if were we to lose our rights and freedoms to a world view born in the minds of bronze-age, illiterate dessert tribesmen, who thought the earth was flat and for whom the wheelbarrow was the pinnacle of technological achievement.

However, it would be absolutely unforgivable, if we gave them away without a fight.




Note to readers: Please click on the tab below if you wish to leave a comment.

Freedom of Speech 

Freedom of speech is a concept which has been much in the news of late. Mostly I’m afraid to say, as a result of the reaction in the Islamic world to a film made in America, which Muslims claim insults their prophet Muhammad.

For me, freedom of speech is an inalienable human right. That said, it is clear that there are some human rights which should be exercised with caution. Not least, because they can result in harmful consequences. 

The real question therefore, is should the possibility of harmful consequences cause people to be silent on certain topics, or issues? My own view is a resounding ‘no.’

To be free to criticise, or offend others, is exactly what the concept of free speech entails. It is nonsense to pretend that free speech can be circumscribed, either by laws, or appeals to good taste. After all, everyone is actually free to say exactly what they wish. Of course, exercising such a freedom may have unwanted outcomes.

Interestingly, The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines free speech as: “the right to express opinions of any kind without incurring a penalty.” Clearly, under such a definition, free speech does not, and probably never has existed. Not simply because, as a so called civilised society, we have laws to protect us from discrimination in certain areas, but also, because in the current climate, expressing certain opinions could, and has resulted, in people being killed.

I believe that mostly, the law has been used wisely to circumscribe those areas where freedom of speech needs to be curtailed. These are generally those aspects of an individual’s life over which they have no personal control and for which they cannot be considered responsible.  These quite rightly include: their race, skin-colour, height, age, sex, disability, etc.

However, in certain sections of our society, there is growing demand that we should also pass laws to protect people’s individual opinions, beliefs and other sensibilities. This I’m afraid, is where we need to draw the line. 

In my view, no-one on earth has the right not to be offended. Being offended and dealing with it appropriately, is a mark of an enlightened and mature person. Far from protecting individuals from personal attacks upon their beliefs, it’s my view, it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that we live in a society where such attacks are not only permitted, but encouraged, particularly when the beliefs in question are held without good evidence. 

Due to the very real threat of death from offending the sensibilities of certain fundamentalist Muslims, we have gradually allowed ourselves to become timid and self-censoring. In some cases, even going so far as blame freedom of speech itself as being responsible for causing the death and destruction we face every time someone lampoons their intolerant faith.

We need to toughen up, and demonstrate in unequivocal language that our values will not change due to threats and intimidation. We are in danger of becoming like a frightened and inadequate parent, who fearful of losing the love and affection of an unruly child, indulges its every whim and gives in to its every tantrum.

That way will lead to certain disaster. Rewarding bad behaviour, like appeasing intolerance is neither noble, or in the log run, likely to be effective. 

Note to readers: Your views are welcome. Please click on the tab below if you wish to leave a comment.