“Islam is a peaceful religion.”

- Hazel Blears MP

So I have a question. Which part of:

“Disbelievers will be burned with fire.”

- Qur’an 2:39, 2:90

…does she not understand? Or perhaps this quotation is not clear enough. Maybe it’s open to “misinterpretation”. Let’s try another:

“Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don’t kill them.)”

- Qur’an 2:191-2

Just like suicide bombers, there’s always another quotation to replace this one if it doesn’t do the job for you. The Qur’an is full of such sentiments.

So what on earth is going on here? It is easy to snipe from the sidelines, but the government certainly has a difficult job on its hands. We have a rapidly growing population of Muslims in the UK (the government here pays people to have children, whoever they are, and Islam instructs prolific childbirth - a perfect vicious circle) and they are following a superstition which is in many ways primitive and encourages violence. As the population grows, the government wants its votes. It also probably secretly wants this population to stop being so damned religious, but most of all it wants to avoid “offending” it.

So what can they do?  Once answer is to try to “rewrite the truth” and hope no-one will notice. Simply assert that black is actually white, and hope that your mere assertion of it will cause people to believe it. This is what Hazel Blears is trying, but even the Muslims (in fact especially the Muslims) know it’s not true. I dislike this approach because it is for a short term selfish goal (the party staying in government) and it is disingenuous. And nobody likes to wake up to lies on the radio.

The other option would be for the government to to try to encourage an understanding of humanism and encourage everyone to place less emphasis on the Qur’an. That is to say, for the government to stop pandering to Islam. They’d better hurry up with this, because no-one likes their attitude currently, not rational people in the UK (who are rapidly leaving the country) and not even the Muslims themselves.

On a wider note, it seems obvious that Gordon Brown’s time in office is effectively over. In my view, if the Labour Party had any sense, they would promote Foreign Secretary David Miliband (one friend away from me on Facebook ) as a replacement as soon as possible: he seems to me a bright star of the party and their only hope.

But I think really the Tories should now be given a chance. Otherwise, the way Labour are going, we’ll end up with the nightmare of the BNP instead.

Today we had the Bishop of Rochester declaring again that “a moral and spiritual vacuum” has occurred in Britain since the sixties, and that lays the door wide open for radical Islam to take its place. But “radical Islam” is a tautology: Islam is radical. To prove this to yourself all you need to do is actually read the Koran. Anyway, the bishop has accordingly received death threats from Muslims, as do most people who dare to criticise “the religion of peace” as it expands steadily across Europe.

I’m not so sure about a “spiritual” vacuum, sadly, with the continued prevalence of astral projection, meditation, tree-hugging and all the other weird and baseless things people believe in, but a moral vacuum is obvious, and of great concern. The trouble is though that this, of course, should no more be replaced with “Biblical values” as the Bishop claims, than with those from the Koran. Were that to happen, we would all be thrown back into the moral Dark Ages. For 885 examples of the kind of values found in the Bible, see here. That should surely be enough for anybody.

The next article was about the mother of Victoria Climbie, the girl who was abused and killed by her foster parents in the UK and this abuse was not acted upon because of incompetence and political correctness within London Social Services. Her mother was shocked about this and rightly so.

What we are not allowed to say, however, is that Victoria travelled from the Ivory Coast under a false passport and that Mrs Climbie was irresponsible for ever allowing her child to go with these foster parents, one of whom she hardly knew, the other who she had not even met. We’re not allowed to say that, partly because this kind of “informal fosterage” (to which we inexplicably open our doors) is a custom in West Africa, and to criticise it would be to go against the grain of cultural relativism - the odious partner in crime of political correctness, both of which are currently eating away at our society. We’re not allowed to say it, but I’m saying it anyway, and I will continue to say whatever is true.

The bishop is right that we need to get a grip on morality in this country, but wrong (as are so many) about where the answer is to be found. The moral vacuum in the United Kingdom must be replaced by enforcement of the law, the elimination of political correctness and promotion of secular Humanism, and it had better begin to happen soon.

“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.”

Arnold Toynbee

Fitna is a film released on the Internet by Dutch MP Geert Wilders which has caused great controversy across the world, with many people condemning it before it was even released (so, of course, before they could possibly pass any valid comment on it). The fundamentally religious don’t even need to see or read things any more before condemning them: so thin skinned are they that just the mere whisper that things might be offensive (perhaps because they state uncomfortable truths) is enough for fatwas to start flying.

Usually western nations capitulate to this pressure, and the Dutch government accordingly disassociated itself from Mr Wilders’ film very quickly. Many others have too. Even the cartoonist who originally drew controversial cartoons of the alleged prophet Mohammed seems to have treated this as an opportunity to “clear his name” and nullify any outstanding fatwas, by drawing a cartoon of Mr Wilders instead.

I saw the film on the first day it was released, just before website LiveLeak removed it from its servers due to death threats against its staff from Muslims (who thereby ironically endorsed the film’s message). But the funny thing is that Mr Wilders (who is of course in hiding and under armed guard 24/7) actually says very little in the film. Most of the words shown are quoted directly from the Koran, and it is those words - and the images of those following them - that offend. The trouble is, Muslims are obliged to follow this text fundamentally. Like Christians when it comes to the bible’s more difficult passages advocating stoning, they’re not at liberty to pick and mix – if it’s the word of God it’s the word of God - and this is the problem to which Mr Wilders wishes to alert us.

Fitna is a disturbing and offensive film, certainly, offensive to anybody who values modern humanist morality, but it shows mostly news footage and verses from the Koran already known, so should hardly be banned. Whether Mr Wilders has an ulterior right-wing motive is another matter, but this film as it stands is merely an exercise in free speech, one that has been crushed by a creeping totalitarianism to which we in the West continue to capitulate.

The Retreat of Reason is very well written, in a calm, rational and eloquent tone, and is certainly insightful, but it isn’t, so far, an especially profound book - it isn’t Principia Mathematica. It is simply stating facts - but they are facts that usually dare not speak their name - and that is the point.

The book addresses what is essentially a modern manifestation of fascism (one which is all the more reprehensible for the way it poses as the opposite). One which subverts free speech, truth and even free thought and threatens the very fabric and future of our society. It addresses the insidious march of political correctness. Interestingly, criticism of political correctness is, itself, outlawed by political correctness (the mechanism is self-protecting). This book ignores all that and proceeds to analyse and expose the problem in all its guises with uncompromising truth, concern and accuracy.

I will not quote from the book, because virtually everything I have so far read is worth quoting, but I will strongly recommend it to anybody who cares about the state of their society, and I look forward to reading this one too afterwards.

“Faith schools remove the rights of children to choose their own religious, philosophical and ethical beliefs. They also sanction ethnic segregation and create tension and divisiveness within society. Schools should be places where children are given a free education, not centres for indoctrination. Creationism and other religious myths should not be taught as fact regardless of the funding status of a school. Abolishing faith schools will provide children with more freedom of choice and help to promote a fully multi-cultural, peaceful society.”

The response from the government is appalling and does not negate any of the well made points above, but it is little more than one would expect from a government which wants to retain the votes of as many people as possible in order to remain in power and (on this issue at least) does not care about principle or truth. Their text goes like this - I will break it up and comment throughout as to why it is wrong (it’s not hard to see):

“The Government remains committed to a diverse range of schools for parents to choose from, including schools with a religious character or “faith schools” as they are commonly known.”

They’re saying they haven’t listened to any of the points above.

“Religious Education (RE) in all schools, including faith schools, is aimed at developing pupils’ knowledge, understanding and awareness of the major religions represented in the country.”

They’re missing that faith schools do not teach equally about all faiths (all of which are rubbish anyway) but rather mindwash children with bias towards a particular faith.

“It encourages respect for those holding different beliefs…”

It doesn’t encourage respect for those holding different beliefs (on the contrary - see above) and more to the point respect should not be automatically given to those who hold different beliefs. This is a disgrace, especially in a school. Respect should be shown only for beliefs which are properly supported by evidence, and if someone believes something they cannot substantiate then they do not deserve your respect - this applies as much in the field of religion as in any other.

“…and helps promote pupils’ moral, cultural and mental development.”

If pupils use the Bible as their moral guide this can only serve to retard their moral development, as anyone who has actually read the book knows.

“In partnership with national faith and belief organisations we have introduced a national framework for RE.”

In other words, “we’re too frightened to face them”.

“In February 2006, the faith communities affirmed their support for the framework in a joint statement making it clear that all children should be given the opportunity to receive inclusive religious education…”

Of course - obviously - they support their own cause. That’s begging the question and doesn’t make it right.

“…and that they are committed to making sure the framework is used in the development of religious education in all their schools and colleges.”

All begging the question. There should be no framework, that is the point of this petition.

“The Churches have a long history of providing education in this country…”

This almost made me laugh out loud! The churches actually have a long history of inhibiting education and executing those who make discoveries which threaten to expose the writings in the bible as the baseless myths they are. The Enlightenment movement had to fight against the churches! Have government ministers not even read basic history these days?

“…and have confirmed their commitment to community cohesion. Faith schools have an excellent record in providing high-quality education…”

Then work harder on the other schools. Whatever good aspects there might be to these schools, the fact they are centred upon faith is not one of them and it is certainly not a necessary condition for excellence.

“…and serving disadvantaged communities and are some of the most ethnically and socially diverse in the country.”

So what? They are missing the point again.

“Many parents who are not members of a particular faith value the structured environment provided by schools with a religious character.”

I’d like to see the evidence for all these sweeping claims. Many of these parents probably have no choice but to send their children to faith schools, much to their annoyance, and anyway a “structured environment” can of course be had without the confines of faith.

All in all, this is a totally unsatisfactory response from the government, which completely fails to address any of the very strong points made by Nicola Holt, who brought the petition. Whoever wrote it should be ashamed of themselves: they have helped to deny a free and fair education to thousands of children. Even worse, and wider, than this: they have colluded in obstructing the progress of civilisation.

People are often all too eager to embellish and miscontrue things others have said when they think they hear something they don’t like (I know it’s happened to me), so let’s first be clear on what the Archbishop did not say. He did not say that he “wants sharia law in the UK” per se, as you might be forgiven for thinking looking at tabloid headlines today. He said that Muslims should be able to choose sometimes between British law and sharia law and that this was in any case eventually going to become “unavoidable”. Anything else he said was too vague to be of any use as he merely floated questions rather than provided answers, as religious people often do (which is ironic considering their complete certainty over unverifiable events).

While the whole of sharia law should never be adopted, of course, because of its barbaric punishments, its many arbitrary rulings and its superstitious foundations, there may be a few useful ideas in it which could be incorporated into our secular law - but only inasmuch as the points might happen to be good, not because they are religious. This might turn out to be a very short list, granted, but we need not dismiss the possibility out of hand. (Religious people do not have this luxury of “pick & mix”, by the way, because if it’s the word of god, well it’s the word of god, and He surely cannot have made any mistakes.)

What should not be encouraged however is any idea of two different laws for different groups within the same country, especially if this is to appease and accommodate irrational religious belief. This is what Dr Williams appears to be advocating and it both is avoidable and should be resisted strongly: such a move would be dangerous in that it would sanction the insidious concept of moral relativism, implicitly endorse religious belief, further segregate people and introduce double standards and confusion (some would say more confusion) into the British legal system.

Stopping for a cheap but remarkably good chicken and chips on my amble around Balham today, I had a very interesting chat with the man working in the shop (which is called “Flava’s”). He is a friendly man who wears a headscarf and seems unbothered by the undesirable clientele who sometimes frequent the place. A little way into our chat I found out why. He’s from Afghanistan and four years ago he fled the country after his uncle, father and brother were all killed having been forced to fight by the Taliban, that savage group who only in 2000 held 95% of Afghanistan and who would like to impose their barbaric hard-line Islam on everybody else (including you) too. He does not know where his mother is.

Before dying, the uncle paid around £4,000 for this man to escape to Europe and then finally to the UK, avoiding air transport. The man hated the Taliban, as did the rest of this family, and did not wish to fight and die for them or be killed by them. Arriving in the UK, illegally, he sought asylum and it was granted to him.

I asked him if he liked it here. Hi face lit up - he loves it. There he is, doing a job many Britons would consider beneath them, but he is very grateful for it (and I was grateful for him doing it). I asked him what he thought of the United States and UK’s presence in his country. Again his face lit up. He saw us as, quite frankly, liberators. He was extremely grateful for us being there and overthrowing the murderous, theocratic, Taliban regime.

The man should not have come here illegally, but he deserves our sympathy at the very least, and ignorant, lazy people in this country should be reminded how relatively good they have it, and how gratefully our interventions are sometimes received abroad.

There is a lot of talk of there being too many asylum seekers in the UK now, but actually with an aging population due to medical advances, and a falling childbirth rate as people postpone having children in favour of indulging themselves and seek perfect relationships or none at all, we need the workforce here. Personally I don’t really care where people are from, what I care about is how they conduct themselves. If they are importing their primitive and barbaric religious practices and insisting on unreasonable rights, they should be shown the door immediately. If they are law abiding, respectful and working hard, they’re a credit to the nation, and the only people who need worry here are natives who are falling short themselves.