The Church of England, goes more insane.

Point taken.
We were supposed to have had a reformation to STOP the church interfering in the body politic btw.

Really only later ideology; women in 7th century Ireland had rights they only regained comparatively recently, women in Mediaeval England had rights in law to act on their husband's behalf when he was absent, and also to own property; and there was at least one Holy Roman Empress in Constantinople.

 

Well, it is a convention of British English, if a group assume a title without just cause, one has a right to preface their adopted titled with e.g. so called liberals or place their title within quotation marks, "liberal" or use a preface e.g. pseudo-liberal. I do not want to make particular reference to the Democratic Party in the United States, as I am not overly familiar with the detail of individual factions within that Party, part of the reason being that America is such a large country. In respect of Britain, I can confidently say that whilst the Labour Party in Britain presents itself as upholders of liberal principles, the preeminent ethos of Labour is Fascism and therefor I class them as pseudo-liberals. I contend your assertion that, most Americans are actually aware that there is both a negative and a positive interpretation of liberalism, my belief is that most Americans only know of Liberalism in the negative interpretation. Furthermore, I challenge your apparent assertion that the negative interpretation of the word liberal should exist, for the reason amongst other things you appear to be contradicting yourself, you use the word hijacked, it is usually interpreted to mean an illegal use or an inappropriate use. If e.g. fascists are calling themselves Liberals that just means they are telling lies, it does not change what being a liberal is, one little bit. My suspicion about why the word liberal is being used in an inappropriate manner in the USA, is that there is mutuality of interest between critics and criticized, so that pseudo liberals in say the Democratic Party prefer to be criticized for being Liberals for the reason, they can deflect the criticism by saying that those making such criticism are outside the pale of legitimate American political thinking, since liberalism is a core value of the United States as a political entity and hence they have bounced the criticism on to their critics without ever having to defend their actions and policies with regard to the issue are they actually liberal or not, which they would have to, if their critics started accusing them of being pseudo-liberals. Whilst for the critics, if they are from the faction of the Republican Party that is aligned if Saudi Arabia, if they started using the phraseology pseudo-Liberal and attacking the Democrats for not adhering to liberal principles, well they might run in to the "what about you" argument and be asked to explain how one America's relationship with Saudi Arabia conforms to liberal principles, in that for example the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is allowed to run a campaign within the US to foment armed insurrection against the US Government, whilst the US Government treats Saudi Arabia as if it was a loyal Ally. How does the overthrow of democratic Governance with respect for civil rights by armed insurrection for the purpose of establishing an Arab racial supremacist Wahhabist America with such things as the death sentence for insulting the Prophet Mohammed PBUH, conform to liberal values and norms and if it does not conform to liberal values and norms and liberal values and norms are judged to be a necessity and a legal requirement in respect of the provisions of the Constitution of the USA, what legitimacy do members of the Republican Party have in supporting such a project to overthrow the US Government?

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=fm8IuR2VF3M

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

 

Well, an issue to be taken in to consideration is that there are reckoned to be around a 1000 million Muslims in the World and if one attacks Islam as a religion, one is essentially picking a fight with them all. Okay, if it was a done deal that the very extreme Sunni interpretation of Islam that equates to Wahhabism, is proven to be the true and correct interpretation of Islam, there might be no way but to go to War against Islam as religion but since there is no such proof i.e. it is merely a possibility that an extremist Sunni interpretation of Islam is the correct interpretation of Islam, there is no requirement to go to War against Islam as such. However there is no ducking out of the requirement to go to War against both the adherents of Wahhabism and the adherents of the extremist interpretation of Sunni Islam which equates to Wahhabism.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

 

No, it isn't.

No, because it isn't a fascist party.

Oh come off it. You are quite simply talking rubbish!

Do you read the daily-mail? Are you worried that in 20 years time we'll 'all be speaking muslim!'?

He hasn't supported it, simply stated that some of it may find a place in our legal system.

No, this is clearly nonsense. I refer you to the dictionary:

political correctness

noun
avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against

Sorry, I'm with DA on this, there are two meanings for the term 'liberal.' There is the original meaning we would understand over here, fairly conservative and tied in to ideas of the free market and democracy, and the term generally used by Americans to mean 'someone I don't like.'

Entertaining again, my first comment wasn't aimed at you but at tex. More educated? We shall see. Please, vague comments about tracing things to communist 're-education' are interesting. As I recall, in the Soviet union people were sent to camps for criticising the government, this seems like a massive step from not putting up Christmas cards because it might offend Muslims.

Tex said it was. Hence my initial 'what are you on' comment.

Well, it is you versus the dictionary on this, I took the dictionary definition (wordnet) and posted it above. It is worth pointing out that most of what people refer to here as 'political correctness' is far from state control, it is a phenomenon that appears at the middle management level and is rarely passed down by the government. The very issue this thread is about, a statement by the Church of England, isn't an application of state power but a decision by an organisation not to allow openly racist clergy in its ranks. Makes sense to me.

It isn't my fault if I always find your posts entertaining. You again ignore the fact that capitalism also has a strong desire to enforce conformity as does any democratic system.

I guess that explains why everyone goes out and buys the same clothes from the same companies, drives the same cars to the same jobs and generally fit into the same niches as everyone else. Sure you are required to deal with your own welfare but you are also required to keep judging yourself in the same way thus buying in to the culture wholesale. 'Correct behavior' is just as essential a part to capitalism as communism etc. Incidentally, Communism and Socialism are arguably economic concepts as well.

Sorry, I seem to have missed these 'self criticism sessions' in my studies, or indeed in the 'communist' regimes you folks go on about.

It's ok, I can live with you posting the same nonsense, 'I don't like it, it's the invention of those commie-liberals' tripe.

Incidentally, I am not pre-judging American political sophistication, I have a lot of respect for the opinions and levels of knowledge of many American political thinkers and indeed people on this board. I do however reserve the right to judge the political sophistication of anyone who immediately labels anything they dislike as 'liberal' just because they don't like it and therefore dismissing it.

Right, firstly it doesn't uniformly deny rights or lack tolerance, I know plenty of Muslims over here who live just like the rest of us, they get on with their lives. Sure it says in the book that they don't tolerate others etc but frankly so does Christianity. I take it if I can identify Christian extremeists I am therefore free to denounce Christianity. I think if you look at grass roots levels Islam often does condemn extremists, many of the Islamic community leaders in Britain have openly condemned world terrorism and Islamic extremism. It just doesn't make the headlines in the right wing press.

 

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is a fascist Party.

I think a similar sentiment, would have been expressed by the German end of the family on a holiday visit abroad ( i.e. outside Germany ) with connections to Brown Shirts, shortly before my father told them to "f#ck off back to Germany and you can take your Hitler too", [ NB No personal criticism intended, and I am most particularly not suggesting you are a Nazi or Fascist sympathizer, it is just the fact that they could not see in what direction things were going, so in that respect your position and that of my relatives would seem somewhat similar ],.

Well actually I very rarely read The Daily Mail but I used to read The Daily Telegraph a lot, when Charles Moore was editor and Conrad Black was the owner of the paper. Really, since I read The Daily Mail so infrequently you have me at disadvantage, in that since I am aware of the center-left view of the typical Daily Mail reader which is hardly complimentary or admiring, I do know if it is an accurate one or not. As for the general point of people speaking Muslim, well what ever happens in the United Kingdom, people are not going to be speaking Muslim, in that there is no language existent in the World called Muslim. True the noble Koran is written in Arabic and it reputed to be untranslatable in to another language according to certain commentators but that is as far as it goes, there is no Muslim language. What I presume you are getting at, is trying to criticize me in a snob oxbridge pseudo-liberal elite fashion that assumes that people who are not intellectually sophisticated must of necessity be stupid or make bad judgments, for sure such people can be stupid and/or make bad judgments but it also sophisticated elites can be stupid and/or make bad judgments. Like I do not think Herr Hitler found any shortage of persons to support him from the ranks of German Academia.

Ah would you get off off the stage, the practical effect for Anglican Christians in Africa trying to halt the march of Sharia is that he has made things more difficult for them.

Hello are we adults or is this a discussion for 15 year teenagers from a sink council estate in a comphrensive school hosted by a Marxist leaning teacher. If you can formulate an intelligent argument that's fine, don't just quote me guff from a dictionary. Political Correctness has been a dud from the get go, and therefor never had any legitimacy all those things are aspects of politeness and core British values and existed long before the term political correctness appeared on the scene, with the whole political correctness exercise being a campaign of trickery and deception to precisely undermine such legitimate civil behavior as politeness and core British values.

Well the term, I think you have shot yourself in the foot with that one, in that for sure it in part in American usage it means 'someone I don't like.' which would be fine, if people who are liberals were simply people who were not liked by other people, as e.g. Nazis could say they do not like Stalinist Communists in calling them Liberals and it would make perfect sense, and Stalinist Communists could call Nazis Liberals and it would make perfect sense. However liberalism exists as political philosophy and a set of values and one can not just apply the word liberal, where it is patently inappropriate.

It is a standard fascist and Nazi technique to start with relatively small aspects and then go on to bigger things.

If you are talking about England, this looks like both being politically correct and state control, to me.

Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, it would be a bit difficult to find these Islamic Community leaders, since to be a leader one has to have some sort of legitimate support and much of these so called community leaders in Britain are mere self appointed Saudi financed mouthpieces for Wahhabism in Mecca. Furthermore, terrorism to a Wahhabi and terrorism to a Western liberal might be something quite different e.g. Spain was once a Muslim ruled territory so e.g. Spanish police shooting dead Wahhabist insurgents in a gunfight who were seeking to blow up a oil refinery in Spain would be a heroes who was killed by the illegal combatants of a terror state and thus the terrorists would be the Spanish police.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

 

This could rapidly get childish. It isn't a fascist party, let's go to the dictionary again:

'–noun ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. '

It does not support dictatorship, does not have complete power, does not forcibly suppress opposition or criticism, the economy is not regimented nor is it aggressively nationalistic or racist. So no, it is not Fascist.

Well your second half is correct, I am quite happy to suggest that someone who is 'not intellectually sophisticated' is likely to 'make bad judgements' and this is borne out by the level of ignorance shown in your postings. Answer a question for me, are you pro BNP or not?

The state of affairs in Africa and the UK are however very different. If you are going to make ignorant comments I can't help that, but the Archbishop at no point said we would have full sharia law in the UK, he said that adopting 'some elements is unavoidable,' particularly those concerning marriage.

Sorry, I quote you 'guff from the dictionary' because you clearly don't know what PC actually is. You can see the definition for yourself, I am entirely justified in my assertion of what political correctness is, now if you feel that it is in many ways the same as 'politeness' and is in fact a core British value (though one might suggest that by this you refer to the values of a very specific section of British society during a remarkably brief time period) that is up to you. Frankly the whole problem of PC is tied up with idiotic ideas of 'politeness' and 'core values,' trace most of them back and you will find it tends to lead to a middle class twit who is so worried about offending one group that he actually offends another.

Hmm, you really can't deal with any flippancy can you. If you read much thought on the American right you will rapidly notice that anyone who is even vaguely left leaning (or 'people they don't like' as I put it) are described as liberals.

Right, only it is hardly ever the government getting involved in these matters but middle management in companies and departments. I should also suggest that the Nazi 'move to bigger things' was fairly immediate, it hardly started with Christmas cards in offices and certainly wasn't about not offending people of particular races.

And probably quite a good idea as well. Please tell me what is wrong with it? It was after all the law under which Hamza was arrested.

They aren't all that difficult to find, business leaders, many clerics, people running youth projects and schools, all can be seen as community leaders. Then again if you don't want to see any side to Islam other than terrorists you wont.

Hmm, sorry Adrian but I feel I have to call you out on this as you aren't making any sense. On the one hand you are accusing the current democratic government of the UK of turning it into some sort of Nazi state. You seem to suggest that political correctness, primarily in this case that which seems to be pro-Islam, is part of an attempt to crack down on civil liberties. You then attack the laws on incitement to racial and religious hatred, which have been used primarily to arrest Islamic fundamentalists before criticising the Muslim community heavily.

So tell me this, are you seriously trying to tell me that on the one hand you have Gordon Brown and New Labour trying to turn the UK into a fascist dictatorship, presumably by telling middle managers in one Birmingham office to ask people to take down Christmas cards and instructing a low level police commander to say his officers couldn't put up a christmas tree. This party seems to be at war in your world with an Islamic fundamentalist force in the UK, supported wholesale by the entire Muslim community who, with the support of the Church of England, are trying to turn Britain into Iran.

Or is it that you are just paranoid? Yes, I think thats it...

 

That doesn't constitute a logical argument of any shape or sort, it is merely an expression of feelings.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

 

Blimey they are burying Catholics in Protestant cemetaries in Liverpool now....Its ok though...they're dead.

Loss of ollies.

 

Adrian, reading your response to Stefan above, the last 2 lines in particular, what then is your view on the Gibralter 3?

 

It is a subtle hint from a senior administrator/moderator. Actually, no, it isn't that subtle

 

Actually there wasn't really a unified Christian doctrine until after the reforms of Pope Gregory VII in the 11th century;that's when the church leaders gradually decided exactly what the doctrine should be and how it should be followed, and when the trouble started.
Before that the Eastern and Western churches regularly fell out with other over stupid things like iconoclasm, the date of Easter etc etc.

 

Duplicate entry post deleted Adrian Wainer

 

Well, that definition, does have some useful aspects to it but why then, if say the Oxford University brought out a book and called it "What is Fascism", would it need to be about three hundred pages long, if everything which is needed to describe fascism could be written in fifty or so Words. What a dictionary can say about a subject has be limited by the fact of the size constraints placed on the length of entries.

Yes it does, it is supporting turning Britain in to Sharia State.

Neither did, Benito Mussolini.

Yes it does, it persecutes people via the British courts, if they dare criticize Islamofascism.

Irrelevant, both today's People Republic of China and the Third Reich have and had significant aspects of turbo-capitalism.

Yes it is, but it is supporting Arab racial supremacy so it gets under the radar in the way it would not, if the Labour Party was waffling on about the White race Ango-Saxons like the BNP is reputed to do.

Yes it is.

Well a person who is 'not intellectually sophisticated' is no more prone to make bad judgments than a person who is intellectually sophisticated and vice versa, there are all sort of reasons why people make good or bad judgments that is just one of them. Well, you declare that I have shown a level of ignorance in my postings and yet you do not appear to have presented any evidence to support your position.

I am neither pro nor anti BNP.

Well sorry nobody kidnapped him, put a gun to his head and demanded he make a statement in support of Sharia law being introduced to the UK. Well my understanding is the Anglicans in Africa are part of the World wide Anglican community and Rowan Williams is head of it, so if he makes comments that effect them, it is ir-relevant whether things might be similar or different in Africa. And in actual fact the situation in Britain is exactly the same as it is in Africa e.g. Nigeria, the only difference is that Islam in Britain does not currently feel itself strong enough to impose Sharia law on British society, as soon as it does it will.

No, the whole problem with PC, is that it is scheme to undermine society and create state funded bureaucratic fiefdoms by give special and undeserved privileges to those, who have no legitimate right to such special and undeserved privileges. Basically, it is clever wheeze to repackage things like bigotry and racism and make them seem socially acceptable.

What on earth are you talking about, I have been attacked by people on the right in America and accused of being a "liberal", because I said I do not believe in the Devil, like I did not even state that Devil does not exist, I merely stated that I personally do not believe the Devil exists and other people are welcome to believe he exists and they might be right, because he might exist.

Well, History most certainly does repeat itself but not in exactly the same way, if it did, all one would have to do to prevent the reemergence of Nazism in Europe, would be to keep an eye out for failed Austrian painters hanging around Berlin and giving out about Jews. Labour is a fascist Party but they are not directly comparable to the Nazi Party in Germany during the 1930s, nor Mussolini's fascist party of the same era, for the reason that e.g. in the case of Mussolini's fascist party, fascism was an openly stated objective. New Labour is a vote whore party that is adopting Fascist characteristics because it is chasing the votes of voters who subscribe to fascist ideology. So your your argument is correct in respect that for Mussolini's fascist party fascism was a goal in of itself, for Labour becoming fascist is merely a way to retain political power, so that is a fundamental difference.

Well the law as passed, was not the law which Labour sought to introduce on to the statute books, the law which Labour sought to introduce, could have been used to shut down entirely legitimate criticism of Islam.

What like the King Fahd Academy

YouTube - UK Islamic School

What do you mean clamping down on Islamic extremism by libeling people in the media, who try to report instances of Islamic extremism to the public.

YouTube - Police And CPS Apologise Over Mosque Show

Who said anything about the entire Muslim community in the UK, I never even mentioned Iran, Iran is mainly Shi'ite not Sunni. Both the extremist end of Sunni Islam and Wahhabist Islam treat Shi'ites as oppositional renegades within Islam that should be Jihaded against

Well, if so, maybe I am in good company, I would guess a lot of sophisticated people thought this guy was paranoid, when he was talking about Osama bin Laden and suicide bombers.

YouTube - Sufi Muslim Shaykh Hisham Kabbani-Flint MI-Fights Wahhabism

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

 

By arresting radical islamic clerics? Clearly!

He did for a fair while.

No it doesn't, like whom?

Nonsense! Firstly your use of the term 'arab' is clearly incorrect because the vast majority of Muslims in the world are not arabic.

Ignorant of the meaning of 'Fascism,' ignorant of the meaning of 'politically correct,' ignorant of government policy and the nature of our political system. Seems fairly evident to me.

Yet you are rabidly anti-Muslim and anti-government, you seem fairly pro IMHO.

What? Sorry, the situation in Africa is vastly different both socially, economically, politically, religiously and in almost every other way possible. You have once again ignored how fair the statement was, that it was inevitable that some elements would be adopted. Please, tell me what is wrong with our legal system evolving to take into account the changes in society? What would be wrong with, for example, recognising the Islamic marriage ceremony in the same way the Church of England ceremony is recognised as a legal procedure?

So, who is perpitrating this conspiracy? Would you care to suggest why the predominantly white, middle class political system is so intent on turning Britain into the Islamic state you suggest is on the way.

Jeez, you really are paranoid aren't you. If Labour was intent on turning us into a Fascist state why on earth did Blair step down? Why are we still holding elections?

Please, show me this law and how it was to shut down criticism of Islam.

Posting single extreme examples doesn't make every case extreme.

Sorry, they apologised for their criticism, not sure what the problem is there. The program was aired, the police criticised it then apologised.

Right, Iran was simply an extreme example of an Islamic state, it seems to be what you seem scared of Britain turning into. You fail therefore to answer my question. Are you seriously trying to tell us that New Labour are trying to turn Britain into an Islamic Sharia state?

Just to clarify in case you miss what I am asking, please, let us get straight to your agenda, are you arguing that Labour want a Fascist Islamic state in the UK?

 

The Church of England is a joke and that is a fact.

End statement & no follow up.

 

You'll never get to heaven like that sunshine.

 

I'd give you some of these salutey thingys richard but it wont let me....perhaps its a sign...repent brother....

 

I gave him one for ya