Morrisey's at it again :clap:

[Monty92]

My point whenever you attempted to draw that distinction was that you seemed to neglect the fact that a strict, medieval interpretation of Islam is the MOST CREDIBLE interpretation of the religion.

Again, I draw the comparison with Nazism. Mein Kampf has many passages that could easily be interpreted as benign, legitimate polemic on the best way for societies and nation states to be organised. And there are many people around the world who share the same views but who would not hesitate in denouncing the more nefarious parts of the book. We may have political disagreements with such people but we would not claim to hate them.

And yet I don’t think I can imagine you standing up for Nazism as a broad ideology in the same way you do for Islam. And for me that's a double standard, Clive.

There has indeed been a major breakdown of communication. Throughout our conversations about thisyoudescribedanyattempt on my part to distinguish between interpretations of Islam as a 'straw man' or a red herring. My point from the start was that Ibelievedthat the problem was with a strict, medieval interpretation of Islam which was (a) relatively recent in its popularity and (b) a clear response to the Muslim diaspora through the western world. THis was a significant aspect of my argument that attempting to blame the entire religion was wrong and ignored other hugely significant factors. You never, at any point, allowed this argument.

Now you are distinguishing between the benign and the non-benign and accepting that ISlam can, in many,many instances, be harmless

If you do indeed accept this, then we can leave it there. Well, lets face it, it is going to keep coming up again in different forms but we can certainly leave this specific part of the conversation.

I dont think anybody finds the radical fundamental form of Islam acceptable or appropriate, particularly in Britain.

Based on the above, I hereby formally withdraw my accusation of bigotry and I thank you for your time.

[Peter]

My point whenever you attempted to draw that distinction was that you seemed to neglect the fact that a strict, medieval interpretation of Islam is the MOST CREDIBLE interpretation of the religion.

Again, I draw the comparison with Nazism. Mein Kampf has many passages that could easily be interpreted as benign, legitimate polemic on the best way for societies and nation states to be organised. And there are many people around the world who share the same views but who would not hesitate in denouncing the more nefarious parts of the book. We may have political disagreements with such people but we would not claim to hate them.

And yet I don’t think I can imagine you standing up for Nazism as a broad ideology in the same way you do for Islam. And for me that's a double standard, Clive.

The MOST CREDIBLE argument is a theological debate. One could argue that the original form of any religion is the most credible. Why do you give a **** about theological credibility? You think the whole thing is *******s, so do I.

Neither of us are really talking about religion here, we are talking about behaviours. THe strict interpretation is the most dangerous and is the one we all want to avoid. The ultimate test of a religious faith is its ability to stay socially and morally relevant within the broadest confines of its main tenets. Credibility doesnt mend the roof.

The challenge for Islam in the rest of the world is how deeply it is woven into the fabric of economics, politics and law in the states it dominates, most obviously Pakistan. That doesn't have to be a challenge here.

[Burney]

Honestly, he's more entertaining now than he ever was in his pomp.

http://www.nme.com/news/music/morris...operly-2295226

He's a sound chap.

Hates: The Guardian; The Independent; socialists; Islam; unchecked immigration; left-wing tories; Sadiq Khan; Halal.
Loves: Ickle baby animals, England and himself.

If it weren't for his rather silly views on meat-eating, he would be in receipt of my wholehearted support.

[Monty92]

The MOST CREDIBLE argument is a theological debate. One could argue that the original form of any religion is the most credible. Why do you give a **** about theological credibility? You think the whole thing is *******s, so do I.

Neither of us are really talking about religion here, we are talking about behaviours. THe strict interpretation is the most dangerous and is the one we all want to avoid. The ultimate test of a religious faith is its ability to stay socially and morally relevant within the broadest confines of its main tenets. Credibility doesnt mend the roof.

The challenge for Islam in the rest of the world is how deeply it is woven into the fabric of economics, politics and law in the states it dominates, most obviously Pakistan. That doesn't have to be a challenge here.

No comment on the comparison between Nazism and Islam? Can you explain the substantive difference between the two ideologies and why you defend one but not the other?

[Sir C]

No comment on the comparison between Nazism and Islam? Can you explain the substantive difference between the two ideologies and why you defend one but not the other?

Well, one is a medieval, brutal, authoritarian belief system determined to wipe out all the jews, and the other is...

Oh.

[Peter]

No comment on the comparison between Nazism and Islam? Can you explain the substantive difference between the two ideologies and why you defend one but not the other?

You dont really want me to answer that, do you?

[Sir C]

He's a sound chap.

Hates: The Guardian; The Independent; socialists; Islam; unchecked immigration; left-wing tories; Sadiq Khan; Halal.
Loves: Ickle baby animals, England and himself.

If it weren't for his rather silly views on meat-eating, he would be in receipt of my wholehearted support.

How does he feel about Her Majesty these days? I seem to recall he wasn't so keen on her.

[Monty92]

You dont really want me to answer that, do you?

Yep.......

[Burney]

The MOST CREDIBLE argument is a theological debate. One could argue that the original form of any religion is the most credible. Why do you give a **** about theological credibility? You think the whole thing is *******s, so do I.

Neither of us are really talking about religion here, we are talking about behaviours. THe strict interpretation is the most dangerous and is the one we all want to avoid. The ultimate test of a religious faith is its ability to stay socially and morally relevant within the broadest confines of its main tenets. Credibility doesnt mend the roof.

The challenge for Islam in the rest of the world is how deeply it is woven into the fabric of economics, politics and law in the states it dominates, most obviously Pakistan. That doesn't have to be a challenge here.

Well we don't seem to be doing a very good job of that, since we are encouraging faith schools that propagate precisely that strain of Islam, are allowing that form of Islam to build Mosques and 'cultural centres' in which individuals are indoctrinated with that form of Islam to hate this country, the west and perpetrate acts of terror against their fellow countrymen.

Meanwhile, we are also refusing to crack down on the manifestations of exactly that barbaric form of Islam in the name of 'diversity': celebrating the hijab as a feminist symbol; turning a blind eye to muslim hatred of Jews and homosexuals and their systematic oppression of women; refusing to treat Muslim preaching as the hate speech that it is; ignoring rape gangs (or, where they are finally prosecuted, refusing to mention the fact that almost all the perpetrators are muslim); not prosecuting for FGM etc, etc.

And, of course, we are busy importing more people who hold these views. And if you criticise this stance or point these things out, you are labelled a racist, an Islamophobe or threatened with prosecution for hate speech.

This is a profoundly damaging and unhappy situation. It has been brought about by weakness and hyper-sensitivity about racism to the detriment of the operation of a safe, law-abiding and functioning society. It has become clear to millions that you and your ilk are prepared to sacrifice pretty much everything and everybody to your specious notions of 'diversity' and anti-racism and are reaching a point where they are prepared to stand up and tell the truth rather than cower for fear of being called 'racist'.

[Peter]

Yep.......

I'm sorry, I simply wouldnt know where to begin.

Somebody else has asked me to lay out the principal differences between radical dissent in British foreign policy in the 19th century and a pork pie. To be fair, they did ask first.....