Europe's Response To Hardline Islam Is Like A Man Burning Down His House In Order To Get Rid Of An Unwanted Visitor

From Winds of Jihad:

Europe’s response to hardline Islam is like a man burning down his house to get rid of an unwanted visitor


by sheikyermami on July 31, 2010



By Ed West/Telegraph UK (thanks to Mullah)



Multicultural Befuddlement & Diversity Watch



I remember an episode of Jerry Springer about a man who, sick of the unwanted sexual attentions of another man, took the rather drastic step of cutting off his own penis. And I often think of that example when reading about the British state’s latest response to the problems of multiculturalism and Islamic integration. The “solution”, you see, always involves diluting or curtailing our own culture, religions and freedoms.



Perhaps self-castration is too crude an analogy, although considering the fertility rates of atheist countries, an apt one; a better one might be that Europe’s response to hardline Islam is rather like a man setting fire to his own house to get rid of an unwanted visitor.



I thought this once again while reading Christina Patterson in the Independent, who argued against religious schools on these grounds:



A properly civilised society would accept that while lovely little C of E schools were once an excellent place for children to learn about the religion that shaped their culture, art and laws, you can’t have them without having the madrassa run by the mad mullah next door, and therefore, sadly, you can’t have either, but have, instead, a system of compulsory state secular education, in which children learn to get on with people from all religious backgrounds and none, and are taught about all religions, but also that the culture of the country they’re living in was, for 2,000 years, largely based on one.



And so another bit of English freedom dies.



This is perhaps the first time I’ve read this argument openly and honestly suggested by someone from the Left-liberal, who says, in effect: yes, church schools are a good thing, but diversity means we must have state-enforced uniformity, and greater state control. Sorry about no one mentioning that when mass immigration was first discussed years ago.



Links:



Who is David Cameron to say what the ‘real Islam’ is?

If Richard Dawkins can set up a school free of religious dogma, can I set one up free of Marxist indoctrination?

The Tories’ new crime strategy: preemptive surrender

Was this the plan all along, or is just sheer coincidence that the same people who get to enjoy the culinary delights of multiculturalism (but safely too wealthy to suffer the downsides) now get to run the huge state apparatus required to police diversity?





In the recently published A New Inquisition: religious persecution in Britain today, Jon Davies points out how, in response to a growing number of Islamic “charities” more interested in arms than alms, the 2006 Charities Act took away from Christian churches the presumption they were acting ‘charitably’, or for the public benefit.



They had always been regulated by Parliament, only very lightly, because everyone knew what they did and everyone knew such activities were beneficial to society, especially the poor. But because they couldn’t discriminate between religions, churches must now all satisfy the Charity Commission. As he wrote:



This means that all 13,000 Parochial Church Councils, many of the Finance Committees of the 43 Dioceses, the Archbishops’ Council, the Church Commissioners and the countless host of charitable organisations in whole or in part related to the Church must now satisfy Ms Susie Leather’s Charity Commission that they are of public benefit.



To carry this very substantial task forward, the Charity Commission established a Faith and Social Cohesion Unit, which saw as its first task an analysis of the organisational competence and financial probity of mosques and related Muslim charities.



I wonder how much the head of the Faith and Social Cohesion Unit is earning?



Now if you think churches and their various activities are not acting “for the public benefit”, you might think this a good thing, but you’d certainly be in a minority. If, like the most of the population – atheists, agnostics, those who are indifferent, people who only go to church on Christmas Eve while drunk, church-attending believers – you saw the beliefs and conscience and social networks of the Christian churches as the cement that’s holding our society together, you might start to wonder if burning down the whole edifice is quite the right response.



Share and Enjoy: