I am so against this law it is not even funny. This is absolute madness.

Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse at December 15, 2004 12:00 PM

It's a classic case of pot calling the kettle black! The hatemongers want to be protected...

I hope they don't get away with it!

Posted by: Terminator at December 15, 2004 12:07 PM

I guess Britain has to have its own "Night of the long swords", before they wake up to reality.

Posted by: Andrew at December 15, 2004 12:08 PM

Just posted this at the 'Nick Griffin' story. Obviously also relevant for this thread. Or should that be threat?

I don’t think there is any merit in standing ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with the BNP on this – even a stopped clock is right twice a day! Voicing public support in this instance will just cause the anti-Jihadist movement to be considered racist and thus beyond the pale as far as UK public discourse is concerned.

In the UK our full attention should be focussed on the proposed bill to outlaw "Incitement to Religious Hatred. It is quite clear that this is being drawn up with criticism of Islam in mind. The Muslims are already rubbing their hands in glee. Two examples:
• Iqbal Sacranie (Chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain) welcomed the proposed legislation (Moral Maze, Radio 4 – 14 July 2004). He included criticism of the ‘Prophet’ Mohammed as an example of what he felt should fall under the remit of the law!
• On this mornings’ Today Programme (BBC Radio 4 – you could probably still catch it on the Internet) an officer of the Muslim Council (ironically his first name is Osama, can’t recall his surname) said that he felt that the law will grant him protection against people shouting ‘Bin Laden’ at him in the street. (Whereas Osama would presumably be OK in this instance!)

So no matter what kind of soothing assurances we will get from the government we can already see where the Muslim community will try to head with this legislation! Also it doesn’t really matter whether a successful prosecution is ever brought. Threats (or even hints) of seeking prosecution from the Muslims community will already lead to self censorship and thus the decline of free speech.

We have to organise to prevent this bill from being adopted with everything we’ve got.

Here’s a few things you can do:

1) Realise that you are part of a broad coalition (including Mr. Bean!) in opposing this. Take a look at this for example: http://www.barnabasfund.org/News/Archive/United%20Kingdom/UK-20041206.htm
It seems that it is only Muslims and Labour politicians chasing Muslim votes who want this.

2) Read http://www.barnabasfund.org/News/ITRHC/ITRHC.pdf for background to the bill. The material available from the Barnabas Fund it just one example of opposition against the bill. If you don’t like their Christian perspective on the bill, you could just as well go to the National Secular Society’s website.

3) Write to your MP asking for his/her opinion on the bill. State briefly that you are opposed and that it is an issue that will most probably determine your vote in the next general election. You can reach him/her at:
(Name Here) MP
House of Commons
LONDON
SW1A 0AA

If we drop the ball on this one it will make our struggle against Jihadism so much more difficult. Stand up for free speech while you can!

Posted by: PJS1 at December 15, 2004 12:23 PM

All things considered, I would expect to see the arrest shortly of the UK immam who sent out two self detonating jihadis (well only one of them suceeded) that went to israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3475929.stm

Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse at December 15, 2004 12:40 PM

ROPMA, get a clue. This law is only to protect Muslims from "hurt feelings." It's not for protecting kaffirs from beling blown up by vicious hate-spewing imams! A UK reader of DW tried to get the British police "to shut down al-Margarine's incitement to hate kaffirs seminar and got the old run-around."

Muslims will continue to get a free pass from the British authorities in inciting hatred against all of us -- kind of like the same "freedom" they have in their own countries, whereas kaffirs must keep quiet about Islam or go to jail or worse. Hate-spewing is a Muslim-only privilege under the aegis of our great "leaders."

Ooops! Does that make Britain the same as an Islamic country? I guess it does, doesn't it.

Posted by: Suzan at December 15, 2004 12:52 PM

Suzan;

Nonsense, I am sure the constables are just waiting on the judge signing the arrest warrant. Just a slight delay while the judge looks for his pen.

[/sarcasm]

Merry Christmas by the way !!

Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse at December 15, 2004 1:05 PM

I would suggest that this bill should be limited to the principle expressed in Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which the UK is a state party):

Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

The language of this article is very deliberate in that it does not prohibit or restrict peaceful freedom of expression. Criticism does not equal hate, the language of this bill should reflect this reality.

Posted by: Mike at December 15, 2004 1:09 PM

To all my Dear British Friends on the Other side of the Channel:

...I'm beginning to think that Westminster Abbey will look just SPLENDID with a minaret!!!

...and where will they install the mimbar in Saint Paul's???

...and by the way, "Happy Christmas"...this may be the last legal one that you enjoy...remember...Christmas is offensive to Muslims, is it not???

Posted by: Pelayo at December 15, 2004 1:28 PM

Merry Christmas as well to you ROPMA, and to every one else too!

Posted by: Suzan at December 15, 2004 2:27 PM

Now that Blunkett is gone, Tony Blair has one slim opportunity to salvage Britain's future as a free state while saving face by withdrawing the religious hate law. He can allow the public to infer that the bill was a product of that "authoritarian" David Blunkett and say that the legislation was "well-intentioned but ultimately, ill-conceived" and "after further consultation", he has decided to rescind the proposed legislation.

Of course, hell could also freeze over.

Posted by: HenryS at December 15, 2004 2:45 PM

Blunkett has quit so maybe this will have an affect.

Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse at December 15, 2004 3:50 PM

I had a feeling that the authorities had picked the BNP leadership for prosecution on the 'incitement to religuous hatred' charge, as it would be much easier to get a conviction, given the record of racism of the BNP. Having then set a precedent, it would be easier to silence others, who would otherwise have been much harder to prosecute and convict. Besides, I and many others would not see a BNP leader as a martyr to the cause of liberalism and freedom; yet another reason, in the eyes of government, to go after the BNP as a way to establish precedent on the law on 'incitement to religuous hatred'

This whole business of 'incitement to religuous hatred', no matter how high the bar is set to prosecution, will still deter authors from writing on such issues, by self censorship. This is the worst kind of censorship, as it is internal censorship of the mind. Thought police and 1984 come to mind. Will it require every author, writer or public speaker to submit his essay to the CPS or a lawyer for clearance?

Given Churchill's very public contempt for islam, I suppose he would have been arrested and prosecuted. Bloody Amnazing.

It is a tragedy that the nation that is the cradle of liberal democracy, separation of Church and State, and the modern nation state, has come to such a pass, where internal self censorship becomes the norm.

Posted by: DP111 at December 15, 2004 4:12 PM

Muslims have never integrated in any country that they have managed to get into. Their goal has been and still is, the implementation of sharia everywhere they go and the subjugation of everyone else.

What is happening in Europe will inevitably happen in the US as well. I see no reason why the US will be an exception.

Muslim immigration has to be stopped as a matter of urgency, or else a civil war of unimaginable gore awaits.

Posted by: DP111 at December 15, 2004 4:35 PM

DP111, and others

What puzzles me is on what basis they have arrested him. Though no fan of the man, see my comments about 'standing shoulder to shoulder with the BNP', I think that he might be justified in just feeling a tad aggrieved :-) There is no law barring incitement to religious hatred on the statute books at the moment (and we should do our utmost to make sure things stay that way). Unless he therefore directly called for specific individuals to be killed there is no way in which a charge for general remarks about Islam can stick - it would be impossible to get him convicted for merely calling Islam a 'wicked religion' (again at the moment).

I suspect the following will happen...
1) He will be discharged with no charges being brought.
2) The director of the CPS, the Home Secretary, a few Chief Constables etc. will do a media blitz lamenting the fact that had the law been stronger they would have been able to nail this 'terrible racist', 'hatemonger' etc.
3) The (new!) Home Secretary will remind people that such a law is actually winding its way through parliament and that this case is a perfect example of why people should support it.

It will all be perfectly designed to play on people's emotions and their deep seated aversion to anything that could be labelled racist. Voila, criticism of Islam gagged by the back door!

How to counter this? Talk to people around you about the new. Remember the slogan of 1989 - Millions of small people, doing millions of small things can change the face of the world. Which is just another way of repeating the old slogan: "Think globally, act locally".
* Remind people of the principle that 'a hard case does not make a good law'. Although probably not totally appropriate in this context we can point the fact the actions of a 'tiny minority' (About time we used this phrase to our advantage) is being used to muzzle an entire society.
* Focus on what Muslims say about the new law. Regardless of what assurances we get from government, what Muslims are saying now will form the basis of the prosecutions that they will be trying to bring. Point out that some have even included voicing criticism against Mohammed as 'incitement'.
* Be specific in pointing out things that people might not be able to say in the future. Even though people may not agree with any of the statements they would probably resent the threat of censorship.
* Ask people to consider why it is only Muslims and some Labour politicians who are in favour of the proposed legislation. Point to the state of free speech in the Muslim world. Let them draw their own conclusions about Islam and an open society.
* See my suggestion above about becoming more informed and contacting your MP.

Posted by: PJS at December 15, 2004 6:31 PM

This is the textbook defintion of dhimmitude. Muslims are free to roam Britain spewing hatred and bigotry against every other religion, and yet the government institutes legislation to 'protect' Muslims.

Posted by: Kaffir Boy at December 15, 2004 7:07 PM

Satan is quite cunning. We were warned of this long, long, long ago. Jesus said that false prophets would arise and deceive "many"... Who'dathunk that it would be billions!!???!!

What a shame to think that there are billions of people living under the bondage of islam unwillingly. If you're born muslim, in a muslim country or in another Country, you cannot leave the cult under penalty of death. Perhaps these are the folks that Jesus speaks of when He speaks of the persecution to come? I wonder.

I'd bet a dollar or a donut that there are millions upon millions of islamics in islamic lands and western lands, that secretly worship someone other than 'mo' in their closets at night. These are the ones I pray for. They could be raped, killed, ostracized, expelled, and given all sorts of sundry punishments for going against the will of the imam, the ummah and the all important ever dominant islamic male, his mo, and all the masculinity that is associated with such beasts. These are the martyrs.

And I pray for our Western countries... that we will not allow ourselves to bow under pressure from those politically correct highly paid persecutioners/politicians and abandon our morals, values, traditions, and heritage while we try so hard to bond with our enemy which is the cult of islam.

The cult of islam will eventually be abolished, and there is no other solution. For the declaratory abolishment of this cult will result in the Freedom of Billions. It is our duty to see this through to the end... for the sake of Billions.

Posted by: Just_Linda at December 15, 2004 7:37 PM

Kaffir Boy,

Should be tries to institute :-) This is still far from a 'done deal'. That is why I am urging urgent action!

We should work towards the following outcomes:

The proposed law is dropped completely (first prize). Sustained pressure could make that a distinct possibility. Especially if your MP knows that you will make your decision on whom to vote for in the next election on the basis of the proposed law

The proposed law is 'unbundled' (second prize, but would probably lead to first eventually!). At the moment the bill is part of wider proposed legislation (The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill). This is part of a sneaky trick from government. They will offer MP's a 'take it or leave it' choice i.e. accept or reject the whole lot, but no cherry picking. This means that some MP's will hold their noses and vote for the whole package in order to get some very necessary reforms and popular initiatives through parliament. We should demand that, if the government wants to go ahead an propose this bill, it should at the very least be debated (and stand or fall) on it's own merits.

The proposed law is amended (third prize). If the government insist on pushing this through, and with their majority they can (that is if they three-line-whip all their MP’s, Translation: Require them to vote with the party line on pain of severe sanction), it should not be in its current form. I suspect this part of the game (if it comes to this) will be played between the Commons and the Lords. Good idea to start thinking who among our 'noble friends' might be willing to stand up to this madness.

Posted by: PJS1 at December 15, 2004 7:44 PM

I Forgot 'Fourth Prize' :-) - Wreck the application of the law.

I really hope it does not come to this, but should the law be passed it's application could be wrecked by a campaign of 'civil obedience'! If the government wants us to report crime lets do so! Under the proposed legislation prosecutions can only go ahead once approved by the attorney general. We should proceed to flood his office with reports of incitment to religious hatred - by Muslims. It should not be difficult to find hundreds of cases. Just attend your local mosque. Each of these can then be filed as a seperate complaint. Hopefully clogging the system and rendering the application of the law unworkable. The beauty of this is that after each Friday we'll have new complaints!

Posted by: PJS1 at December 15, 2004 8:06 PM

Sacranie would like us to believe that "Jews and Sikhs are mono-ethnic communities" and so they are protected by the laws against incitement to racial hatred. That is nonsense. Jews and Sikhs both proselytize; Jews in particular include blonde blue-eyed Jews, Falashas from Ethiopia, Kurdish Jews, Arabic-speaking Jews, Indian and Chinese Jews. NOr is Judaism rendered exempt from criticism, nor is Hinduism, nor Christianity, nor Sikhhism, nor any other religion.

Islam is a belief-system. One is entitled to investigate the nature of that belief-system. One is entitled to find out what Believers are taught to believe, and how they are taught, in particular, to regard non-Believers, or Infidels. One is entitled to see if, in the 1350 year history of Muslim conquest, almost but not entirely by military conquest, if there are vast differences (to please the "Islam is not monolithic" Kofi Annan-John Esposito-Edward Said school of apologetics), or whether, in fact, it turns out that the treatment meted out to non-Muslims after they had been subjugated was, in fact, remarkably similar in time and space. The only way to answer that question is to consult the many dozens, if not hundreds, of scholarly articles and books, especially those written before the field of "Middle Eastern studies" came under the control of a carefully-managed and vindictive group of timeservers and propagandists, most of them Arabs and Muslims, some of them non-Muslims who had in one way or another (marriage is a very good way) to embrace the Muslim agenda, still others found it better to embrace, in order to get their Muslim wife a job, to engage in not a marriage but rather a "divorce of convenience" in order to get around the scandal of the appearance, but not to change the reality, of a nepotistic hire at a major university (no names mentioned here, but do look closely into the field of Near Eastern antiquities and see what you can turn up).

But the scandal of Middle Eastern studies, so ably handled at Campus-Watch, is simply part of a much greater, widespread, dangerous problem -- and it extends even into the National War College, where the naive belief that Muslims can ever present an analysis that will thoroughly indict the central tenets of Islam, and not try to find excuses and paint a false picture of a religion that was only recently, so a new analysis and potted summary of Muslim history suggests, diverted from its famous "tolerance" and "peace." This is nonsense, but more about this recent report, and the problem of not being able to fully admit that no Believer can possibly come to grips with the nature of Islam, so that only non-Muslims, or ex-Muslims, can be expected to offer a fully coherent and truthful analysis -- a melancholy conclusion that the policymakers in the Pentagon, and the Joint Chiefs, are simply going to have to finally understand, and act upon -- because American lives are at stake, and no amoutn of sentimental claptrap, or feelings of warmth toward this or that individual Muslim, must be allowed to cloud one's judgment about the most important, life-and-death-of-civilization, matters.

Getting back to Sacranie's sly suggestions about proposed legislation clearly designed to exempt Islam from critical scrutiny, the issue is correctly and fully addressed, as Mike above lucidly notes:

"I would suggest that this bill should be limited to the principle expressed in Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which the UK is a state party):

Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."

That is all that is needed -- and it already exists. What is needed, however, is to work on getting the Muslim countries to observe that same rule, and to observe it in all of their media, including that which beams abroad.

Anyone who preaches hatred of another religion, or ethnic group, or nationality, can now be punished in England, yet very few imams have been arrested and charged, and a great many of them, and of Muslim speakers, surely have been inciting "national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

What must not be punished is the cool, rational, articulate analysis of any belief-system, with the adducing of evidence (in the case of Islam, this would include quotation, keeping in mind the parts of the Qur'an that have been "abrogated," from Qur'an, hadith, and sira, and also the major commentators and jurisconsults, and even such figures as the historiographer Ibn Khaldun, or the traveller Ibn Batuta, or the polymaths Al-Biruni and Al-Khwarizmi, all of whom may provide evidence of Muslim behavior, based on Muslim canonical texts). And the other thing which must not be off-limits, and indeed now cries out for far more attention, is the history of Muslim conquest of non-Muslim peoples, and the subsequent treatment of those non-Muslim peoples, over 1350 years, and a wide geographic area, and involving many different kinds of subjugated Infidels, to see if there are any similarities in the treatment, similarities which might give one pause about the likelihood of Muslim "integration" or successful "europeanization" and just might lead to some changes in European and other attitudes toward Muslim migration and toward the further attempts to establish a permanent, and large, and increasing Muslim presence in the Lands of the Infidels, the Bilad al-Kufr. It may be that history offers a bewildering variousness in this regard -- or it may be that it offers a remarable coherence and consistency in how Believers have treated Infidels once they have acquired power over them. We cannot know, and therefore cannot make policy, if we are to be prevented from studying the matter.

In fact, these are the very subjects -- the tenets of Islam (not the Five Pillars of individual worship), especially as they relate to the treatment of Infidels, and the history of Muslim conquest and of the imposition of Jihad -- that must be at the very center of the Infidel world's virtually undivided attention from now on.

And that, of course, is exactly what Sacranie, and all the Sacranies of this world, want furiously and desperately to stop. They must not succeed.

Posted by: Hugh at December 15, 2004 9:42 PM

Hugh, you didn't mean that:

Sikhs and Jews proselytise? I beg your pardon! Try to 'become' a Jew or a Sikh, you may not find it all that easy...

You don't have to try to become a Muzzie: Go to the next mosque and you are 'done' in 5 minutes!

(You might not have such an easy way to out of it...)

Posted by: Terminator at December 16, 2004 3:17 AM

Of course to the Islamists, the Nighmare exists in the History.
So careful in their destuctions even to leave no graves as witnesses to their actions, History is much more difficult to erase, and when the cat gets out of the bag, one must be prepared to lie and deceive.
in the meantime , the enemy is charmed with the poetry of the likes of Tariq Ramadan, the gentle prtty intellectual and the host of western "friends of islam" in our universities.
And of course who will read those books that depict the truth about life under islamic domination?
A small minority who will be overcome when the time comes?
They will stand and shriek " But we told you so and you would not listen" and all for nothing.
And not to worry, for even if there is an attempt to circulate them widely, their own academics will discredit them , with accusations of islamophobia , a cardinal sin for the Infidel.

Posted by: george at December 16, 2004 3:28 AM

Sacranie is devious or foolish.The Law that protects Jews, Sikhs and the protagonists in Northern Ireland is designed to avoid people being abused because of an accident of birth which they cannot help, rather than their pernicious beliefs which they can.That's why it doesn't apply to Christians, who make no complaints about their exclusion, and express no desire to be included in the proposed amendement ,despite the Muslims cunning insistance that they are equally deserving of protection.The Irish, by the way, find it impossible to discard the religion of their parents no matter how hard they try.You're a Protestant agnostic or a Catholic atheist whether you like it or not.Sacranie thinks that you should avoid "hostility and hatred" whatever your religion. But what if that religion encompasses mass murder of innocents, the torture of children, the slaying in barbarous fashion of pleading captives,allegiance to a higher Sovereign,a misosogyny that extends to mutilation and militant homophobia? Surely it would be reasonable to feel a certain hostility towards those who subscibed to such views or, on occasion, if one were particularily outraged, hatred?

Posted by: doc.D at December 16, 2004 4:38 AM

Hugh wrote:
Anyone who preaches hatred of another religion, or ethnic group, or nationality, can now be punished in England, yet very few imams have been arrested and charged, and a great many of them, and of Muslim speakers, surely have been inciting "national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. What must not be punished is the cool, rational, articulate analysis of any belief-system, with the adducing of evidence (in the case of Islam, this would include quotation...

I have to disagree that anyone who preaches hatred of another religion should be prosecuted. What constitutes hatred of a religion? Your own writings on islam, factual and honest, indicate your contempt of islam. Some will construe it as hatred and consequent incitement. In addition who is going to judge what constitutes incitement? Christians, Hindus and Jews, for instance, will tolerate ridicule and contempt of their religion, and even if they do not like it, are unlikely to riot. Muslims OTH, will riot on the tiniest excuse. Will a riot by muslims be sufficient evidence that an article is guilty of incitement to religious hatred? I believe such will be the case, as this letter from Fiona Mactaggart, Minister for Race Equality, suggests.

Evidence of hate propaganda put out by extremists of all kinds is plentiful. The Association of Chief Police Officers, for example, gave evidence to the Lords select committee on religious offences last year, citing the significant role this kind of hate propaganda played in the build-up to the riots in Bradford

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/16/dt1601.xml#head4

Quite.

How interesting that the Minister is using the riots as an excuse for getting this law on the books. Yet at the time, police, ministers, the BBC and the press associated the riots with 'Asians'. In fact, were extremely chary of mentioning islam and muslims.

------------------------
PJS:

Good comments and suggestions. I had intended to do some of the things you suggested anyhow.

I urgently request all on JW/DW, to write your local MP. If you reside in the US, Canada, Australia, or NZ, do write to the PM, expressing your concern that such a momentous assault on freedom should come to pass in a country that is afterall the cradle of Western democracy. And for what gain, for heavens sake? To appease the followers of an ideology that we are at war with?

There is enough material in this thread alone, to make a good letter.

Posted by: DP111 at December 16, 2004 6:02 AM

I just might write to the PM.

Posted by: Kepha1 at December 16, 2004 6:20 AM

The true face of the sinister Mr Sacranie, speaking in regard to the sentence of murder upon Salman Rushdie:

((Iqbal Sacranie declared, "the publisher, author and the international community need to look at the root problem in this crisis and that means the continuing publication of Rushdie's book." Reuters added that according to the Action Committee, "Moslem outrage at Rushdie's novel was not confined to Iran and therefore religious orders calling for Rushdie's death would continue to stand even if Iran rescinded its own fatwa."))

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/rushdie2.htm

Posted by: Kaffir Boy at December 16, 2004 6:21 AM

Kepha,

Please do it today. Here's the address:

The Rt Hon Tony Blair MP
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA
United Kingdom

Posted by: PJS1 at December 16, 2004 6:35 AM

Sacranie wrote :Take liberty with God if you wish, but be careful with Mohammed.

In other words any criticism of mohammed is an incitement to religious hatred and will cause a riot. He is trying to bring in through the back door, the same blasphemy laws that are in islamic nations. And our politicians, fearful of public unrest from a restive and volatile minority, will do anything to avoid that.

If this law is passed, the UK will have won the race to be the first Western nation to enact the fundamental law of sharia. The rest of the sharia will follow as a consequence.

What a tragedy. I never thought that the UK will win the race.

Please write to your MP or the PM, if you live outside the UK.

Posted by: DP111 at December 16, 2004 6:56 AM

Thank you Kepha. Molto gracie.

To Americans:
Tony Blair is very conscious of his popularity in the US. He will take to heart any letters that arise from abroad, particularly the USA.

Posted by: DP111 at December 16, 2004 7:03 AM

I should have rephrased it. Jews come in many varieties, and while Judaism up to and including Roman times was a proselytizing religion, now it accepts converts, but they must be serious.

As for Sikhs, there are cases of the children of mixed (Sikh-Hindu) marriages, who are permitted to choose either religion, and I have known both kinds of choices being made, or even another alternative. I do not know the procedure for someone with one Sikh parent, who may not have been raised as a Sikh, then becoming a full-fledged Sikh. I have never read the Granth, and learned about the five K's from a Sikh acquaintance.

So perhaps I should have said: it is possible for someone of any race or ethnicity to convert to Judaism, and there are certainly cases known of Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese who have converted to Judaism, often but not alwyas, as the result of marriage. And not all Sikhs are necessarily born of two Sikh parents, or even raised as Sikhs before deciding to embrace, or re-embrace that religion.

My point was that Sacranie is pretending that these are "races" when in fact they are more akin to religions, because otherwise he has some explaining to do: apparently neither Sikhs nor Jews (nor Hindus or Buddhists) have any problem with the current laws. It is only the Muslims who are demanding certain protections against the criticism of "religion." And in order to do this, he has to pretend that Jews and Sikhs are covered as "ethnic" groups rather than religions. We see what he is doing; it is up tot the British government to figure it out as well.

I hope that the rephrasing above is more accurate. I should NOT have written so baldly, without further, that "Jews and Sikhs proselytize."

Posted by: Hugh at December 16, 2004 11:40 PM