If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
"Christianophobia" in Britain. Apparently...
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,735 Bot
Religion and politics. Not the best of bedfellows by any definition. I've not read the papers today, so I don't know whether The Sun and the Daily Mail have reported this yet, but I know they'd love this story. Says the Beeb's news site: "Attempts to move Christian traditions to the 'margins' of British life have 'gone far enough', an MP has said. Mark Pritchard said 'Christianophobia" of the 'politically correct brigade' also ran the risk of Christianity being hijacked by extremist parties. The Tory MP said he did not want to criticise people of other faiths, but wanted to 'recognise and protect the Christian tradition of this nation'. He has called a Westminster debate on Christianophobia for Wednesday." Click here for more >>
It's nice to see our MPs trying to invent words. First, we had "Islamophobia", used as a catch-all term to denounce anyone who tries to criticise Islam as racist. Laughable enough in itself. Now, it seems we have "Christianophobia", which somehow sounds even more nauseating. I also dispute how much influence the "PC brigade", as he calls them, have amidst all he describes. Mind you, if the words are bad, it doesn't stop the MP from having some valid points.
I'm relatively sympathetic to what he's saying. Okay, let's get one thing clear. Britain and religion do have a very long history, like in most other countries. Although it's in decline at the moment, it does remain - for some - a very important part of their lives. I've no problem with people holding religious convictions, as long as they don't try to shove it down anyone else's throats. Hence why Jehovah's Witnesses do my head in. I never thought I'd say this, but wasn't Tony Blair right when he said on The Blair Years recently "if you talk about religion under our system, [of government] people think, frankly, you're a nutter"?
To use some parliamentary language "there's no doubt that I'm With Stupid will now be foaming at the mouth with his hatred of all things religion - if ever Richard Dawkins had a love-child, it would be him - so I'll give way..."
It's nice to see our MPs trying to invent words. First, we had "Islamophobia", used as a catch-all term to denounce anyone who tries to criticise Islam as racist. Laughable enough in itself. Now, it seems we have "Christianophobia", which somehow sounds even more nauseating. I also dispute how much influence the "PC brigade", as he calls them, have amidst all he describes. Mind you, if the words are bad, it doesn't stop the MP from having some valid points.
I'm relatively sympathetic to what he's saying. Okay, let's get one thing clear. Britain and religion do have a very long history, like in most other countries. Although it's in decline at the moment, it does remain - for some - a very important part of their lives. I've no problem with people holding religious convictions, as long as they don't try to shove it down anyone else's throats. Hence why Jehovah's Witnesses do my head in. I never thought I'd say this, but wasn't Tony Blair right when he said on The Blair Years recently "if you talk about religion under our system, [of government] people think, frankly, you're a nutter"?
To use some parliamentary language "there's no doubt that I'm With Stupid will now be foaming at the mouth with his hatred of all things religion - if ever Richard Dawkins had a love-child, it would be him - so I'll give way..."
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Frankly I would expect a better constructed argument from an MP than one that uses the expression "politically correct brigade". He should quit his job as MP and write for the Daily Mail, perhaps...
Watch you head!
I don't mind them trying it once but when one does it repeatedly and doesn't acknowledge that I'm not the slightest bit interested, then it hacks me (and most people!) off. Recently, the subject of 'manga' was brought up by a colleague. Knowing that my boss has never approved of it, I took the opportunity to ask Colin "what have you had against manga during the year's I've known you?" He said that it's all porn and paedophillia. Talk about narrow-mindedness!
On top of that, Colin pulled a funny one a couple of weeks back: We had one of our suppliers visiting, also a competitor. His name is Phil, was only meant to be popping into our department for a few minutes today to drop off a new hard drive. That few minutes ended up being a two-hour chat between Phil and Colin. A lot of that time was an attempt to get Phil converted to the Christian faith.
He was saying things to Phil such as "I've seen God, I have seen the spirit." Phil asked how did it manifest itself?" Colin's response was that he/it/whatever looked like "500 people". I'm sorry m'dear, but if you want to see things that are not really there, then how about having my condition - Synaesthesia. At least it is a proven medical condition :-) Colin added later "Benjy (me/Monserrat) isn't a believer" (mockingly), then Phil responded "Well why should he believe it?" Colin then went on talking about the Devil (he believes in the Devil as well).. I don't know if that is part of Christian belief though? Colin never gives up, and in my mind. Not only that, but if Colin is trying to convert a competitor and he fails, the competitor could cut their business from us totally and gain themselves more share of the market. Let alone Colin wasting two hours of manager's time. Still, he continues to condemm me for not being a believer. He tried many a time on me, but he still can't grasp the fact that I'm ..simply ..not ..interested! Tis a shame really because I can't turn to the MD because he is of the same alignment of Colin.
Rant over.
p.s. Added one more thing: Colin condemms me for not being Christian. That, again, isn't right. I can be what I want thank you very much.
Britain does have Chistian traditions and hypocritically, non Christians celebrate Christmas (including myself, though not by choice) which I guess has been hijacked by capitalism.
This depends though doesn't it. I see Islamophobia as just another form of religious hatred. Attacking any religious group or ethnic group in my eyes is disgusting.
The problem is that certain politicians want to get certain votes and some are especially concerned with Muslim votes and ethnic, quite possibly because they are racked with their own white guilt, or maybe just to get votes... I don't know. Islamophobia to me would not be criticising a Mosque for condoning violence against gay people, it would be attacking Islam and calling them all suicide bombers (for example).
Unfortunately, some people are happy to play the race card and Islamophobia card which not only (in my view) trivialises the internal prejudices in society, but creates a greater prejudice and also retards movements for the liberation of women and sexual minorities.
And that is why I hate George Galloway.
lol
Wow, insults. How original. You know, for someone who goes crying to the mods every time someone ridicules his opinion, you really are a little hypocrite. Come back and criticise when you've actually read one of professor Dawkin's books.
I think there's an issue with the term "Christianophobia" in that Christianity and Christian are so similar, and it could refer to both. With "Islamophobia" it's obvious that Islam is the target, not muslims (though I think the intention is to deliberate blur the lines between the two, as Namaste has just demonstrated, possibly unwittingly). But to me, this just sounds like another extension of the BA cross-wearing saga. Everyone else is getting special treatment, what about us Christians? Like I said in that thread, it's basically the petulant male teenager who fights for his right to wear a skirt, for no other reason than the girls have won the right to wear trousers. Or the man who feels the need to mention all of the ways men are discriminated against whenever the issue of women's rights come up.
Oh and I hate George Galloway too, but only because I tried to watch a video of him debating the Iraq war, and my ears were bleeding after about 10 minutes. It was a debate at a university ffs, not a Nuremberg Rally.
OT: If that's the one where he debate Christopher Hitchens, i watched that too a couple on months back. I've got a lot of time for both parties: Galloway for his rhetoric and Hitchens, well, for being right IMO most of the time. I found it hard to watch too though.
Actually Islamophobia encompasses discrimination against both Islam and Muslims. Don't let the names fool you. I don't understand how you can seperate them at all, or do you not see it as being on a par with antisemitism?
But I do share the same view about the concept of Christianophobia. You always get the 'oh so cool' teenagers slagging off Christianity and whatnot... But it is nothing compared to the prejudice some people hold against Muslims.
Muhammad sphereheaded over 20 offensive wars during his reign as a 'prophet' in order to spread Islam.
Have a read of these quotes from the man himself...
**please actually read them carefully**
Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0033:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
Sahih Muslim
Book 019, Number 4294:
"When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."
NB... ^ "The Messenger Of Allah"... or... "Allahs Apostle"... or... "the Prophet".... all refer to Muhammad.
******
For those of you who don't know:
What I quoted above are known as "hadith". These are narrations which document the life of Muhammad and his companions, and they are the only reliable source which document his life.
The hadith collection of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (which I quoted from above) are the most authentic and reliable collection of hadith.
You can read some more hadiths over here... http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
Or you can go to your local Islamic bookstore.
******
Yes, but the name is clearly designed to make out that if you're criticising one, you're criticising the other. A very clever use of language, but it's also a very dishonest way of deflecting criticism. It's also used to deflect criticism of a historical character, Muhammed, which is also clearly a dishonest use of the word. And no, it's not on a par with anti-semitism. I've never heard anyone be accused of anti-semitism for criticising the beliefs or teachings of judaism. If it was called Judiaphobia, I suspect it would've been used in this way in the past. But as it is, I've only ever heard of anti-semetism being used to criticise those who attack the Jewish people (and occasionally to holocaust deniers, which I also think is an incorrect use of the term). I've never heard it used to attack people who criticised Moses, for example.
ETA: ^ To the above post. Do we have to? We've already got two threads on Islam going, and the quotes are available for anyone who's interested in learning more. I don't think you're gonna change anyone's mind by posting even more.
I don't know Muhammad personally, but I doubt I would approve of such actions if he even existed (did he?).
What's your point?
Anyway I'm glad you don't approve of such actions. I don't either.
And I do think that holocaust denial is anti-semetic because what other function would it hold but to cause tension and hatred?
The vast majority of 'Muslims' are only Muslim by name. They were merely born into the religion. How much they practise it is a different matter.
I know very well that Islam is evil...... but I can assure you that I don't hold any prejudice against people who idenfity themselves as Muslims. I was one myself!
I tend to judge everyone by their own actions and deeds. 90% of my friends are 'Muslims'... and of course, all of my family are.
Why don't you try it? I dare you.......
....
I agree that the majority of the time, a holocaust denial would be motivated by anti-semitism. However, it could be a result of ignorance or lack of education. Equally, I suspect that if someone was to claim that the holocaust is given too much time on the school syllabus, they might also be accused of anti-semitism. But I suppose that's no different from those who oppose slavery being taught being accused of racism. Anyway, the point is that I've never heard of someone being called an anti-semite for criticising the beliefs of Judaism, criticising Moses, or criticising the texts on which the beliefs are based. I have heard the term Islamaphobia used to refer to those who criticism Islamic beliefs, criticise Muhammed, and criticise Koran.
The term Islamophobia is divisive, inflammatory and it is frequently used to inhibit very valid criticism of Islam.
Islam is an ideology. Rejection of an ideology cannot be classified as phobia. To call the opponents of an ideology phobic is a fallacy. All ideologies have their critics and opponents but we do not hear Christians calling the critics of Christianity Christianophobe, communists calling their critics communitophobe or Hindus calling theirs hinduphobe. The term "Islamophobia" is both technically and logically incorrect and misleading.
According to Dictionary.com Phobia is "a persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous." Therefore the neologism "Islamophobia" implies that Islam is not dangerous and the fear of it is irrational.
This claim has not been established and it is not universally agreed upon. There are many who argue that Islam is indeed a dangerous ideology and they have their logical arguments to prove their claim. Irrespective of whether the critics of Islam are right or wrong about whether Islam is dangerous or not, calling them "phobic" implies that their criticism has been already refuted and the irrationality of their fear of Islamic threat has been established. Therefore their disagreement with Islam is not logical but a mental disorder.
All ideologies have their opponents. It is sheer arrogance to call criticism of any ideology, phobia. This implies that the truth of that ideology is already established and anyone opposing it is adopting an irrational position and is in need of psychological help.
The neologism Islamophobia makes absolutely no sense. It is derogatory and is used in a pejorative way to discredit the critics of Islam from the outset.
Phobia is a disorder. Here is a short list of a few phobias:
Achluophobia or Lygophobia (fear of darkness), Acrophobia, (fear of heights), Androphobia (fear of men), Aviatophobia (fear of flying), Chiraptophobia (fear of being touched), Claustrophobia (fear of confined spaces), Coitophobia (fear of coitus), Decidophobia (fear of making decisions), Agrophobia or Demophobia (fear of crowds), Eleutherophobia (fear of freedom), Gynophobia (fear of women), Hadephobia (fear of hell -this is the phobia affecting all the Muslims), Hylophobia (fear of forests), Insectophobia, (fear of insects), Isolophobia (fear of solitude, being alone), Necrophobia, (fear of death or dead things), Neophobia (fear of anything new), Phasmophobia, (fear of ghosts), Philophobia, (fear of falling in love or being in love), Xenophobia, (fear of strangers or foreigners), etc.
How can criticism of Islam fall into this category? These are all irrational fears that require therapy. Are Muslims suggesting that the critics of Islam should receive therapy? We can't classify disagreement with Islam as phobia. Islam is an ideology. Phobia is irrational fear of things, people or situations but not beliefs. You can't be phobic of a belief system. Beliefs per se are not frightening. It's people who follow nefarious beliefs that become dangerous and frightening. As one can see, the very term "Islamophobia" is stupid because Islam is a belief system and it is not possible to be phobic of a belief.
If children anywhere were taught to fear Muslims, the way Muslim children are taught to fear Jews, then the neologism Muslimphobia would have made sense. But that is not the case. Islam is a belief system. It is a human right to disagree with any belief. Calling that disagreement "phobia" is a logical fallacy. Islam is the only ideology, whose followers try to discredit its critics by calling their criticism "phobia".
Islamophobia makes no sense at all. It is as meaningless as "Fascistophobia". Of course people have the right to disagree and criticize any ideology, whether good or bad. The goodness of an ideology is in the eyes of the beholder. Inhibiting criticism of an ideology is infringing upon the basic human rights, which is freedom of speech.
Or are they not true Muslims to not attack me like that?
Bit of a sweeping statement isn't it? I believe in God and sometimes attend church. I wouldn't dream of trying to convert anyone.
And what about Muslims? Or Hindus, or Hare Krishnas e.t.c.
But then you can criticise a religion and still not hate it. But surely if you hate say, Christianity, or hold a perception of Christianity as being wrong then you are saying that people's beliefs are wrong or 'bad'. I guess it depends on how you define something to be bad... By belief or by action.
But tbh, if somebody said that a religion is bad, then people who self-define that religion as part of their identity, as do for example many ethnic groups will also be defined as 'bad'. As religion is a part of somebody's identity, not only are you differentiating them from people who do not come from that group, you are also labelling a part of their personality as negative.
If you openly attack (and by the way, I do not mean that criticising part of a religion, or what is done in the name of a religion is an attack and think we should be aware of both individual and group rights) a religion, most people probably will also view it as an attack on a whole group and it will cause tension.
However, unfortunatly people interpret whatever they like as an attack to play the victim card, or to justify hurting people for personal gain.
I don't know tbh... Antisemitism began because the Jews rejected Jesus, which most likely came from their teachings.
I think what you've written comes a lot from the political climate.
I also know people who discussed many issues with Muslims and they were happy to chat, share ideas, and not call them 'Islamophobe'. So long as you tread on egg-shells of course.
And again, is there any evidence that Muhammad actually existed or is the Koran just as lacking in evidence as the Bible?
Anyway I actually agree with Aladdins comments:
There are other recent and active threads in which to discuss Islam.
I think this thread should focus mainly on Christianity.
'Phobia' is used to denote an irrational fear of something, and if you're a staunch critic of religion it's all too easy to have people label you as a whatever-phobe. I think a lot of religious doctrine is immoral and abhorrent. I also think a lot of religious ideas are - potentially, for the sake of argument in the other thread - dangerous. I'm not phobic of religion; i can provide many an example, have frequently discussed and have researched at length how religion and religious ideas have been, and continue to be, dangerous. I'm at best, wary of religion, and i think it's for good reason.
Muhammed certainly existed, as did a historical Jesus.