That's us in +-ten years unless we get moving.

Posted by: ChristianRepublic at October 11, 2007 10:31 AM

Perhaps a picture of the Koranically correct Jesus
(sword in one hand and severed heads in the other)
would not have caused any problems. Any peaceful looking pictures are bound to offend Islamaniacs, bringing down the wrath of their PC infidel lapdogs.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 11, 2007 10:36 AM

Good grief, and these are the same Muslims who are suppose to "revere" Jesus as a great prophet. Either this is just another sign of the ugly face of Islam starting to show itself or is it just a group of Muslims getting restless in the last days of Ramadam?

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at October 11, 2007 10:39 AM

It certainly echoes the incident at Heathrow last year when Nadia Eweida was suspended for four months because she was wearing a cross.

As I have said before:
I think Christians, ipso facto, should be the last word in what is considered to be an "offensive" image of Christ...

Cheers,

Doctor Bulldog

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at October 11, 2007 10:40 AM

"Gareth Langmead was escorted from Manchester Airport and suspended from his job after a Muslim colleague complained about the image."
-- from the article above

"Escorted" from Manchester Airport, where his Muslim colleagues remain, thankfully for all of us, on the job, just where we would have them be.

"Suspended" from his job, because a "Muslim colleague" complained that he tacked or taped to the wall a picture of Jesus he happened to run across in a desk, and perhaps thought better on the wall -- don't Muslims keep telling us they "revere" Jesus -- than in the wastebasket?

"Escorted" out?
"Suspended" from his job?

What exactly are the charges? And what's more, who, in England, is in charge? Is it to be the English, or is it, by any chance, to be from here on out those who have in the last few decades been allowed to settle, through the ignorance and negligence of the ruling elite, in both politics and in the press, deep behind what Muslims themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines, the lines that demarcate the Infidel nation-state, by the hundreds of thousands, and then, with over-breeding on the Infidel-paid dole, with subsidized housing, and free medical care, and free education, and every conceivable sort of benefit made available by the Infidel nation-state, benefits paid for almost entirley by Infidel, not Muslim, including the unemployment benefits that so many Muslims take advantage of all over Europe, at rates that far exceed those of any non-Muslim immigrants, no matter what the linguistic or cultural or other barriers to entry into the employment market those non-Muslim immigrants -- Hindus, Chinese, Vietnamese, Nepalese, Tibetans, sub-Saharan Africans, Indians from the Andes -- must overcome. Why do you think that is?

Posted by: Hugh at October 11, 2007 10:58 AM

There must have been something more to the case, such as a fatwa issued by the Grand Mufti of London, Ken Livingstone (PBUH). To display caricatures of the holy prophet Isa (PBUH) is of course an insult against Islam, and must be forbidden within the domain of the Grand Mufti (PBUH).

Posted by: Osmund Bindalen at October 11, 2007 10:58 AM

So this man can't visually express his faith with a picture without a mohammedan getting offended? How about all us infidels who get offended at mohammedans visually expressing their "faith" by wearing niquabs, hijabs, dishdashas, kufis, scraggly beards, etc.

Posted by: j_not_a at October 11, 2007 11:02 AM

Oh brother. There must be more to this story, because I find it hard to believe that he was suspended over hanging a picture of Christ. What, did he know that he was breaking some sacred 'staffroom rule' but he did it anyway -- knowing what the consequence would be?

Guess Muslims have the upperhand in the UK which is not OK with US.

Islam and all it's parasites are not welcome here!

Posted by: champ at October 11, 2007 11:16 AM

Where's the Defender of the Faith?

Or doesn't this count since it is a Catholic who put the picture up? It is still a representation of Jesus. Why aren't the religious leaders jumping on this?

Muslims don't like their prophets to be depicted. So what? Christians do. Where is their say? Can they help it if muslims hijacked their Jesus Christ and claim him as their own?

Islam is offensive. Who can we complain to?

Posted by: Borg at October 11, 2007 11:35 AM

"Gareth Langmead was escorted from Manchester Airport and suspended from his job after a Muslim colleague complained about the image."

The complete failure of democracy. People ARE NOT represented by any elected politicians, while politicians are legitimized by "free" elections which offer no alternatives. Ruthless media and soul-selling "intelectuals" have managed to turn political debate into a farce. There are forbidden themes and any talk without PC seal of approval is simply censored out. Actions of elected officials have little or nothing to do with any pre-election discussions. Our lives are more affected by protests and complaints of "sensitive" terrorists, then by our elections. Escorted out and suspended is our future.

Posted by: Excommie at October 11, 2007 11:46 AM

I can almost hear the complaint by this Muslim leveled against his co-worker over a picture of Jesus. He probably got SO upset that he went to his supervisor loaded for bear making bullying, irrational, almost indiscernible complaints and ramblings; to the point where his supervisor felt he had to cave in to his terrible-2-temper-tantrum by suspending this poor man, just to SHUT HIM UP!

Posted by: champ at October 11, 2007 11:50 AM

Hugh:

Why do you think that is?

It's a puzzle, all right. The quick answer is that the Neo-Marxist-Islamic alliance is increasing its grip on the nation.

We may have seen Gordon Brown chicken out of an election recently because he thought he might lose to the Tories, but the Tories themselves are all but indistinguishable from New Labour.

Both parties, and the even more nauseating Lib Dems, occupy the centre ground. A voter who rejects the new unholy alliance has no one else to turn to, unless they want to risk social opprobrium (and the attentions of the Thought Police) by daring to support one of the smaller parties who would put the country back on the right track - such as the BNP.

Plus, I guess if we appease Muslims then we are marginally less likely to get blown up.

Posted by: watling at October 11, 2007 12:01 PM

...make no mistake...Muslims fear a Christian Jesus....the sight of him makes them quiver...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 11, 2007 12:38 PM

"The supervisor found the picture of the Sacred Heart of Jesus - the subject of devotion by many Catholics - in a desk draw while cleaning out an office, and hung it on the wall"

...the previous owner was probably fired....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 11, 2007 12:44 PM

The "Defender of the Faith" is busy wearing Islamic attire and proclaiming himself a "Defender of all faiths"...

How long, oh Lord, how long?

Posted by: atheling at October 11, 2007 12:46 PM

This is troubling.

Why couldn't the two employees have discussed it and worked it out themselves? Oh, I forgot...

Posted by: Josephine at October 11, 2007 12:57 PM

Meanwhile, in London:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=487017&in_page_id=1770

Anger over plan to dig up 350,000 bodies in historic London cemetery for Muslim burial site

A row has erupted over a plan to dig up a third of a million bodies from an historic east London cemetery to make way for a new Muslim burial site.

Tower Hamlets council in London is considering reopening the Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park in Mile End to answer a long-running campaign for a Muslim graveyard in the area...

...The authority then examined the possibility of a multi-faith site, clearing existing graves to create a new cemetery with an area set aside for Muslim burials.

But now outraged East Enders have declared "there is no way we'll allow them to dig up our ancestors".

They have bombarded their local paper, the East London Advertiser, with protests against the plan to exhume 350,000 graves dating back to 1841, including those of the children of Dr Barnardo.

Religious leaders and politicians have also reacted angrily...

...But defending the plan, Labour's environment spokesman in Tower Hamlets, Abdal Ullah, said: "To preserve the respect and dignity for everyone, I think most of the graves would have to be cleared out and we'd start afresh..."

Posted by: Josephine at October 11, 2007 1:05 PM

WTF is a "staffroom"?

If it's a common room or break room, I can see the utility in avoiding religious iconry (of all sorts). If it's the staff member's own office or cubicle, what's the harm?

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at October 11, 2007 1:42 PM

It's a good thing they didn't post a portrait (or cartoon) of the Prophet (PBUH). That would have brought an international fatwa upon the airport.

Posted by: CTYankee at October 11, 2007 2:07 PM

Over at Debbie Schlussel's blog she posts another article of similar ilk . . .

Off-Duty UK Priests Urged to Remove Collars: Coming To America Soon? It's Already Here

One of the symptoms of growing Islamic presence and, therefore, extremism and violence, in Great Britain is the increasing attacks on those who openly display their religious affiliations. We saw it in France, where a Jewish woman was forced by Muslims to swallow her Jewish Star necklace and others wearing yarmulkes are violently attacked. Now we're seeing it in Great Britain in attacks on Christians.

Reader Aunty Dhimmi sends this from The Church Report:
http://www.thecronline.com/news_article.php?nid=3132&ndate=10/10/2007

This Versus This
Clergy in Britain are being advised to take off their clerical collars when off duty to lower the risk of attack. National Churchwatch said clergymen are attacked more often than other professionals, the group's Nick Tolson said.
Five clergymen were murdered In the past 10 years and a 2001 academic study found that 12 percent of clergy suffered some form of violence. In a survey of 90 London clergy Tolson carried out last year, nearly half said they were attacked in the previous year. One vicar from Willesden, northwest London, said his vicarage was machine-gunned, BBC News online reported Monday.

"The argument against it is it's their witness in the community - their way of saying, 'hello, I'm the vicar'. That's fine when you're being the vicar. ... When they are on their own, and when they are off duty ... there is no need for them to wear their dog collars. All that does is to attract people who see the dog collars, and if they are motivated towards violence, it puts them [clergy] in a very difficult situation."

Um, they're not dogs. They don't wear "dog" collars. These are proud displays of religion. And now, they've become marks like the Yellow Stars.

While we constantly hear the Islamist myth that Islamic women with headscarves are the ones who are treated poorly, the real story is that if you openly display you are a Christian or a Jew in a Muslim area of the west (like Birmingham, England or Dearbornistan, USA), then you really experience the full arena of discrimination and violence.

For those who believe this is just a European phenomenon, dream on. In summer 2002, Muslims from the wealthy Issa family of Ann Arbor attacked Jewish University of Michigan student Danny Aghion (whose family escaped Egypt to get away from similar treatment there) because he was wearing a yarmulke. He was on foot, while they chased him in their car and threw glass bottles at him. In 2003, Muslims suckerpunched University of Michigan student Ricky Dorfman because he was wearing a pro-Israel T-shirt at a bowling alley. In the same year, a student at an Ann Arbor bar was beaten by Muslims because he was wearing a ring bearing the Star of David. He had broken ribs and had to get facial reconstructive surgery.

Because of these and other things, I routinely hide my Hebrew jewelry or remove it when I go out in public. You never know what will happen to you when the Muslim illegal alien clerk (whom Brian "Abu Moskowitz" won't arrest) will do to you when you are next in line at the gas station (and I try to patronize Christian Arab-owned gas stations).

So, to those who think about what's happening in Britain: Coming to America?, I say, Nope. It's ALREADY here.

Wake up.

Posted by Debbie

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at October 11, 2007 3:22 PM

This is an unprecedented and dangerous attack on the faith that is the foundation of the UK! What was done was a dangerous and persecuting act. It should be condemned by ALL the people of the UK! Specifically by anyone who loves their Western values.

Posted by: ofcourse at October 11, 2007 3:46 PM

This is outright religious discrimination with the complicity of the UK government. Outrageous!

I wouldn't mind discrimination against Islam, though, because it is a fascist ideology.

Posted by: ofcourse at October 11, 2007 4:13 PM

More from the article:

"There are no guidelines on what should or should not be pinned on a wall."

Mr Langmead found the picture in a desk drawer as his department moved offices to new buildings at Manchester Airport.

As a Catholic he felt unable to throw the picture in the bin and instead decided to hang it on the wall of the staffroom.

But it is understood a Muslim worker thought the picture on the wall was a deliberately provocative move and complained.

Mr Langmead was sent home from Manchester Airport while bosses launched an investigation into the complaint.

He was later reinstated without punishment after it was found the act had not been an act of deliberate provocation to other religious faiths.

[Yeah! Placing a traditional Catholic picture of Jesus on a wall is a "provocative act."]

Posted by: ofcourse at October 11, 2007 4:32 PM

"Gareth Langmead was escorted from Manchester Airport and suspended from his job after a Muslim colleague complained about the image."

Good grief. Escorted out and suspended like he'd committed a criminal act. As a non-Catholic, I've never understood the attraction in those pictures and I'd agree that a staffroom is probably not an appropriate place for their display, but when did poor judgment become a capital offense?

This movie opens in the US tomorrow. When I saw the trailer, all I could think of were the parallels between then and now. Alas, while Elizabeth I had Ralegh, Elizabeth II has Charlie.
http://www.elizabeththegoldenage.net/site.html?main=3&sub=1

Posted by: CJ at October 11, 2007 6:16 PM

Elizabeth is the most flagrant anti-Christian crap by leftist Hollywood. All I saw in the movie is Hollywood projecting their usual view of women, and their understanding of Islamists of today. Heck, they even have the main traitor saying "people will remember me as a martyr." Do they even know what a Christian martyr is?

Posted by: ofcourse at October 11, 2007 8:20 PM

Elizabeth (1998) - 27 mistakes

Directed by Shekhar Kapur

http://www.moviemistakes.com/film407

(I'm sure there are much more)

Posted by: ofcourse at October 11, 2007 10:04 PM

ofcourse:

You said it. That was a terrible film.

Posted by: atheling at October 12, 2007 12:16 AM

Spineless dhimmi brits.
Perpetually-offended mohammedan whiners.

That's news ? Really ??

Posted by: Syndic Nuruodo at October 12, 2007 4:39 AM