"Christianity is being discriminated against by the Government in favour of Islam "

Yeah right. Afghanistan and Iraq war?
Anti-Muslim comments by Labour MPs Jack Straw, Peter Hain, Denis Macshane Anne Cryer and Phil Woolas?

Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople at June 7, 2008 10:21 AM

It's over in England, get used to the idea. If they won't stand up for their own home and country, then they have capitulated to Islam.

It's going to get a lot worse in England. We'll be seeing more and more English immigrants to the US turned away in favor of Muslim immigrants.

And if Obama winns the Presidency....

Posted by: a10billr at June 7, 2008 10:58 AM

Anti-Muslim comments by Labour MPs Jack Straw, Peter Hain, Denis Macshane Anne Cryer and Phil Woolas?

Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople at June 7, 2008 10:21 AM

Really? More power to 'em!

Posted by: darcy at June 7, 2008 11:03 AM

It's called "Freedom of Speech," Joe Mohammedan.

Ever heard of it?

Mohammed's a false prophet. Islam's a religion of War. "Allah" is a pre-Islamic pagan moon deity. The Qur'an is a Mass-Murder Manual.

See? Freedom of Speech. Gotta love it! Esp. when fighting Evil. Nazis suck, too.

Posted by: darcy at June 7, 2008 11:05 AM

Welcome to the insane asylum.

Posted by: breezy55 at June 7, 2008 12:19 PM

Endorsed by the Archdhimmi of Canterbury?

Ol' Rowan 'my sharia amour Williams?

Whatever is the world coming to.

Posted by: Dane at June 7, 2008 12:50 PM

I hear you Dane. The fact that a craven dhimmi like Rowan has endorsed such a blistering critique shows just how bad things have gotten in Britain.

Posted by: Cornelius at June 7, 2008 1:08 PM

I hear you Dane. The fact that a craven dhimmi like Rowan has endorsed such a blistering critique shows just how bad things have gotten in Britain.

Posted by: Cornelius at June 7, 2008 1:08 PM

Ditto. Britain needs to start deporting immediately. To use an English saying, "Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish."

Posted by: darcy at June 7, 2008 5:24 PM

I hear you Dane. The fact that a craven dhimmi like Rowan has endorsed such a blistering critique shows just how bad things have gotten in Britain.

Posted by: Cornelius at June 7, 2008 1:08 PM

Ditto. Britain needs to start deporting immediately. To use an English saying, "Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish."

Posted by: darcy at June 7, 2008 5:24 PM

Deporting them, I guess that's on everybodys mind , but how do you start something like that. Nobody knows how to start this process, people are looking for guidance in this.
Anybody, have an answer to this.
The government might not even know where to start.
Start with the students, like U.C Irvine an start checking all other universities, and down a list for the next problem areas.
Everbody will be screaming bloody murder race discrimination.
Have we not come to a point, that we don't care anymore. Playing the game of political correct have gotten us nowhere. It only helped the moslims.
But who is allowed to start such a huge process.
God help us all, when all hell will break aloose. It will not be a pretty picture.
I never thought I would be a racist, but I think I have become one.

Posted by: Maria at June 7, 2008 9:21 PM

I left Anglicanism in favour of Roman Catholicism. Anglicanism has demonstrated that it is unwilling to proclaim clearly that the Gospel is the truth.

Posted by: James Martel at June 7, 2008 9:47 PM

Maria, Islam is not a race. Objecting to a fascist ideology is not 'racist', it's essential for any democratic citizen who values Western (Enlightenment) values

Posted by: jewcat at June 7, 2008 9:55 PM

Sorry for the reality check Darcy, but mass deportations from Western countries are hardly likely here in the 21st century. The best we can hope for are restrictions on further immigration...and even this is improbable given Europe's aging population and the necessity of importing young workers to keep the economies running.

The only viable solution - targeted immigration of from countries with a cultural predilection for assimilation - will be seen as discriminatory and therefore never adopted.

The writing's on the wall. Europe's a goner.

Posted by: Cornelius at June 7, 2008 11:48 PM

England is not finished - no matter what our current idiots who rule us do. We have been betrayed by parliament and even the Queen who has broken her coronation oath each time she has signed an EU treaty ( she has yet to sign the current Lisbon Treaty ). There are enough true patriots who WILL NOT stand for a muslim takeover. Watch this space.

Posted by: hereward at June 8, 2008 5:29 AM

"It's called "Freedom of Speech," Joe Mohammedan.

Ever heard of it?"

darcy

Yes it allows Maria to call for the "deportation" of Muslims while my comments exposing Spencer are
kept on a blog by the owner to be reveiwed before publishing!!!

I presume you support freedom of speech when it comes to Imams in Europe and the US saying controversial things or the Iranian holocaust cartoons? I thought not.

Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople at June 8, 2008 5:34 AM

Robert Spencer's strong defence of Freedom of Speech- see last paragraph

"Federal judge overturns convictions of jihad-supporting Islamic charity leaders

Kathleen M. Sullivan, former Harvard Law prof, says the judge made a "courageous and correct decision," for "never before has there been a tax criminal prosecution for a charity failing to tell you that it's sending out newsletters that somebody might not like."

"Newsletters that somebody might not like." Note that Kathleen M. Sullivan, former Harvard Law prof, is referring to what the article characterizes as "newsletters promoting jihad and supporting Islamic militants overseas." If Massachusetts Care International really published such newsletters, maybe a "tax criminal prosecution" really isn't the way to go. But there ought to be some other means of prosecution. "

Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople at June 8, 2008 5:37 AM

are enough true patriots who WILL NOT stand for a muslim takeover. Watch this space.
Posted by: hereward

That's encouraging...Thank you hereward...A loss for Islam anywhere is a loss for Islam everywhere.

Posted by: duh_swami at June 8, 2008 9:22 AM

What has the government of Great Britain done recently for Hinduism or Buddhism? Has it made special efforts to stop the destruction of Hindu temples in Kuala Lumpur, or Buddhist statuary in Afghanistan? Has it had special ceremonies to make young Hindus feel good, feel proud, or does it not bother because, you see, there is not the slightest chance that Hindus will ever be a threat to the legal and political institutions of Great Britanin? And the same goes for the Buddhists.

So those who pose a permanent threat are to receive special solicitousness, in an attempt to pretend that the problem is not one of permanent belief, or at least the kind of belief that can be resurrected at a moment's notice of mental disarray, based on immutable texts, but rather reflects only the kind of hostility that comes from unhappiness, and that unhappiness is banally identified as having its origins in "poverty" and the usual suspects that constitute "deprivation." But it is not "deprivation." Well-off Muslims, even rich Muslims, can be as intent on removing "all obstacles" to the spread and dominance of Islam, and being better off, being better educated, are far more able, far better placed, to conduct the Stealth Jihad" that is most worrisome -- the Jihad whose instruments are the Money Weapon, Da'wa, and dmeographic conquest, and which necessarily is aimed at changing social understandings, and legal and political inistiutions, in Great Britain as all over the Western, and indeed the Infidel, world.

Posted by: Hugh at June 8, 2008 10:45 AM

Hugh

"What has the government of Great Britain done recently for Hinduism or Buddhism?"

Well they just opened a Hindu state school, built the largest Hindu temple outside India in Neasden, visit their temples and cosy up to extremist Hindu organisations like the VHP which murder Muslims and Christians in india

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1194

The Buddhist population in the UK is tiny

"Has it made special efforts to stop the destruction of Hindu temples in Kuala Lumpur, or Buddhist statuary in Afghanistan?"

What does that have to do with Britain?

" Has it had special ceremonies to make young Hindus feel good, feel proud, or does it not bother because, you see, there is not the slightest chance that Hindus will ever be a threat to the legal and political institutions of Great Britanin? "

Thats because the UK hasnt invaded any Hindu nations - if they did its pretty certain Hindus would also commit terroist acts.

Look at Sri Lanka Hugh -its the Hindu Tamil Tigers who are doing suicide bombings because they oppose the government- the Muslims in Sri Lanka arent threatening the state and indeed are often victims of Hindu terrorists for not backing them.

Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople at June 8, 2008 11:00 AM

"So those who pose a permanent threat are to receive special solicitousness,"

How do Muslims pose a permanent threat? Muslims have been in the UK in large numbers for 40 years before the London bombings- when it was Catholic terrorists wreaking havoc. Why did 4 (4 not 2 milllion) terrorists only commit an act of terrorism after the UK invaded Iraq not before?

"Well-off Muslims, even rich Muslims, can be as intent on removing "all obstacles" to the spread and dominance of Islam, and being better off, being better educated, are far more able, far better placed, to conduct the Stealth Jihad"

stealth Jihad- idiotic. In fact most wealthy Muslims (and they remain a minority) arent religious.

"that is most worrisome --"

only to far right fantasists

" the Jihad whose instruments are the Money Weapon,"

what money weapon ? kindly explain

" Da'wa,"

prosletyzing isnt banned in the UK and in any case has been very marginal maybe 30,000 in a county of over 60,000,000.

"and dmeographic conquest,"

ah yes- you believe every Muslim has children becase they want to take over the country- not because they had sex or actually want kids -its part of a Islamic conspiracy contained in "Protocols and the Elders of Mecca" with the entire Muslim community regulating their copulation habits to this directive. Its also bull (which was once used against Catholic immigrants)because wealthier families tend to have fewer children.

Hugh having read this its clear you are mentally ill. You believe every Muslim follows Islam, preaches Islam and wants to take over the UK by jihad.

Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople at June 8, 2008 11:17 AM

"Hugh having read this its clear you are mentally ill. You believe every Muslim follows Islam, preaches Islam and wants to take over the UK by jihad."
istanbulnotconstantinople

Speaking of mental illness, the above poster is either blissfully unaware of, or else reslishes the implications of the name he has adopted. For it is just one more signifier of the fact that Islam with its long history of cultural genocide constitutes the most successful imperialism in world history. The British conquered vast areas but were content to leave the local cultures intact; they only cared about extracting profits. There were no boatloads of enslaved Hindu women destined for the harems of the British aristocracy. Contrast that with Islam througout its entire bloody history.

Posted by: RBLA at June 8, 2008 12:08 PM

Jewcat, criticizing fascism is racist--it's anti-Italian. LOL.

Seriously, though, I'm impressed that Rowan Wishywashy has endorsed a report standing up for Christianity. Now, will he kindly do something about the poofters and child molesters lurking in so many vicarages?

Posted by: Kepha at June 8, 2008 1:04 PM

"Hugh having read this its clear you are mentally ill. You believe every Muslim follows Islam, preaches Islam and wants to take over the UK by jihad."
-- from a curious comment by a Muslim apologist -- "istanbulnotconstantinople" -- above.

I'll leave it to others to decide if I am mentally ill -- were I to be considered such, I would note that I have had, as a once-perfectly sane Infidel, have had to spend a lot of time, far too much time, on the Belief-System of Islam, and all of its permutations and combinations of craziness.

The apologist above makes the charge that I am "mentally ill" because, you see, I "believe every Muslim follows Islam" and "preaches Islam." Really? Would that be a crazy thing to think? Or, put otherwise, would it be silly to assume, or to make policies based on the reasonable assumption, that those who continue to call themselves Muslims should be held to "follow Islam"? And to "preach Islam"?

And furthermore, this "istanbulnotconstantinople" apologist further charges me with what in his view is clearly a sign of my being "mentally will" for he claims that I assume that all Muslims wish "to take over the UK by jihad." But in writing that, he misstates, for he knows that the word "jihad" as used by me means simply the "struggle" to "remove all obstacles to the spread, and dominance, of Islam." And that can be achieved by combat, or qitaal, and that, traditionally, was the way that Islam spread -- through armed conquest. And since Muslims have shown, or a great many have shown, that they do not regard as acts of terrorism many things which we non-Muslims do, but see them as new ways of conducting combat, in "unequal situations" (yes, how unfair of the Infidels to have been able to produce and manufacture all those tanks and planes that not a single Muslim state has yet been able to produce, despite the oil-rich Muslim states having received more than ten trillion dollars since 1973 alone)" -- those acts of terrorism, whether carried out or foiled, do distract Infidels from concentrating on the larger question of the other instruments of Jihad, that are more dangerous, and more effective, and have to be opposed. Da'wa should not be freely conducted, not in prisons, not outside of prisons. Saudi and other rich Arabs should not be allowed to spend tens of billions of dollars on mosques and madrasas, on buying up existing, or founding new, academic centers or departments or individual professors engaged in "teaching about Islam" or about the MIddle East. Armies of Western hirelings -- including those ex-diplomats and former intelligence agents who have behaved so traitorously, should be exposed, held up for attack and ridicule, in the press, and in Parliamentary or Congressional committee hearings, so that they, and others who might be tempted in the future to become paid agents of Islam and of the rich Arabs, will have to think twice about doing so.

Do I think that every single Muslim "follows Islam"? No, but we Infidels are entitled to assume, and to act on the assumption, that anyone who continues, knowing what the texts and tenets of Islam are and remain, and knowiing that we Infidels now know, or are coming to know, to identify as a Muslim can be held to "follow Islam.
And if they "follow Islam" then, because the Total Belief-System of Islam makes so many demands, and requires that its followers clearly distinguish, or divide the world between, Believers and Infidels, and are to work, however they can, to push back the boundaries of Dar al-Islam, it would be naive to assume that Muslims, that those who "follow Islam" or can be held to "follow Islam," would not wish to "preach Islam" and, furthermore, would not wish to engage in the "struggle" to remove all barriers to the spread, and dominance, of Islam -- which is to say, to participate in Jihad.

If one's writing, or arguing, or acting on the argument, that those who identify themselves as "Muslims" should be assumed to believe in Islam makes one "mentally ill," then among those "mentally ill" are at least a billion Muslims.

Is "istanbulnotconstantinople" among them? Or would he care to tell us in what way someone who calls himself a Muslim, but neither "follows Islam" nor "preaches Islam" is, nonetheless, a Muslim? And how does that "Muslim" who does not "follow Islam" differ from those who are really unwilling -to-admit-he's-an-apostate Muslims,, one of those Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims, the ones who are not Muslims at all, in the sense of believing in Islam, but for other reasons, out of filial piety, or some dreamy belief that they have to have an "identity" and that "identity" must surely be connected to Islam, which is not the same thing as being a Believer.

Posted by: Hugh at June 8, 2008 1:26 PM

-- "istanbulnotconstantinople" wrote above:

"extremist Hindu organisations like the VHP which murder Muslims and Christians in india"

The handful of cases of Hindu violence are of course much publicized, but they dwarf the cases of violence against Hindus. Kashmir, Partition, Bangladesh Liberation War, in each of these conflicts Muslims killed many many times more Hindus than Hindus killed others.

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/Religious.html

"Look at Sri Lanka Hugh -its the Hindu Tamil Tigers who are doing suicide bombings because they oppose the government- the Muslims in Sri Lanka arent threatening the state and indeed are often victims of Hindu terrorists for not backing them."

Like the Basks in Spain, or the Corsica nationalists from France, the Tamil Tigers are fighting against perceived injustices, and not because the bible or Rigveda tells them to fight.

There is also Jihad in Sri Lanka. Maybe less than in India, but there are also less Muslims in Sri Lanka.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010817.php

Posted by: dee at June 8, 2008 2:33 PM

They seem to be doing their damnest to pander to a bunch of Muslim throwbacks in England! Who cares about some crummy Moslem's sensibility? If they are offended they should be packed in a hold of a cargo ship and shipped back to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia free of charge.

Posted by: Dumbo at June 8, 2008 3:11 PM

Istanbulnotconstantinople?

Constantinople has been illegally occupied for 555 years.
And the Greeks turned into refugees in their own country.

Talk about rewarding aggression.

Posted by: Odyessus at June 8, 2008 5:02 PM

Sorry for the reality check Darcy, but mass deportations from Western countries are hardly likely here in the 21st century. The best we can hope for are restrictions on further immigration...and even this is improbable given Europe's aging population and the necessity of importing young workers to keep the economies running.

Also improbable given that the politicians all know what happened to Enoch Powell when he suggested that maybe letting in indefinite numbers of unassimilable immigrants might not be good for Britain.

Posted by: Seamus at June 9, 2008 3:45 PM

"Thats because the UK hasnt invaded any Hindu nations - if they did its pretty certain Hindus would also commit terroist acts."

idiot muslim:

India was part of the British Empire. How do you think that happened? Read up on it.

Of course, the muslims slaughtered millions of Hindus first. Read up on that also.

Posted by: CGW at June 10, 2008 5:47 AM