Sixty Joyless De-Britished Uncrowned Commonpoor Years (1949-2009)

Elizabeth II Vice-Regal Saint: Remembering Paul Comtois (1895–1966), Lt.-Governor of Québec
Britannic Inheritance: Britain's proud legacy. What legacy will America leave?
English Debate: Daniel Hannan revels in making mince meat of Gordon Brown
Crazy Canucks: British MP banned from Canada on national security grounds
Happy St. Patrick's: Will Ireland ever return to the Commonwealth?
Voyage Through the Commonwealth: World cruise around the faded bits of pink.
No Queen for the Green: The Green Party of Canada votes to dispense with monarchy.
"Sir Edward Kennedy": The Queen has awarded the senator an honorary Knighthood.
President Obama: Hates Britain, but is keen to meet the Queen?
The Princess Royal: Princess Anne "outstanding" in Australia.
H.M.S. Victory: In 1744, 1000 sailors went down with a cargo of gold.
Queen's Commonwealth: Britain is letting the Commonwealth die.
Justice Kirby: His support for monarchy almost lost him appointment to High Court
Royal Military Academy: Sandhurst abolishes the Apostles' Creed.
Air Marshal Alec Maisner, R.I.P. Half Polish, half German and 100% British.
Cherie Blair: Not a vain, self regarding, shallow thinking viper after all.
Harry Potter: Celebrated rich kid thinks the Royals should not be celebrated
The Royal Jelly: A new king has been coronated, and his subjects are in a merry mood
Victoria Cross: Australian TROOPER MARK DONALDSON awarded the VC
Godless Buses: Royal Navy veteran, Ron Heather, refuses to drive his bus
Labour's Class War: To expunge those with the slightest pretensions to gentility
100 Top English Novels of All Time: The Essential Fictional Library
BIG BEN: Celebrating 150 Years of the Clock Tower

Friday, 1 February 2008

In praise of the Prince

For anyone who cherishes the principles that led Britain to reject Hitler's offer to safeguard the Empire and in the end voluntarily sacrifice it to finally go to war, the idea of China's communists using this year's Olympics as a huge propaganda victory must cause dismay. Nineteen years after students were mowed down by the People's Liquidation Army in the centre of the city awarded the honour of hosting the Games, the country still remains a fascist, totalitarian regime that aims missiles at democratic Taiwan to blackmail them, brutally occupies Tibet, ignores any idea of a rule of law to steal land from peasants whilst making their air unbreathable and water undrinkable, throws the elderly out of their houses to have them demolished for skyscrapers and Olympic stadia, subsidises Sudanese genocide and Mugabe's dictatorship and prevents my students from simply logging into Wikipedia or the BBC news.
Such is the regime that Churchill's latest successor visited last week where he seemed more interested in getting the Chinese to import pig trotters from Old Blighty than bothering to make the merest reference to human rights. In fact he jumped at the chance to accept the invitation to the Games' opening ceremony. There he will join other world leaders.

But he won't be joined by the Prince of Wales.

In a letter to the Free Tibet Campaign, Charles' deputy private secretary Clive Alderton wrote

As you know, His Royal Highness has long taken a close interest in Tibet and indeed has been pleased to meet His Holiness the Dalai Lama on several occasions.
You asked if the Prince of Wales would be attending the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics in 2008. His Royal Highness will not be attending the ceremony.
The Prince has long been known to be a champion for Tibet and an admirer of the Dalai Lama, forced into exile since 1959. At Clarence House six years ago he received two nuns who had been tortured in the Drapchi prison in Lhasa, so one can understand his support.
Many here will remember Charles' reported antipathy to the regime leaders, whom he referred to in his leaked diaries written during the Hong Kong handover as "appalling old waxworks". And yet this is a man who at the same time actively works through his Prince's Trust-type charities with the Chinese on urban regeneration projects. I myself have seen how they improve the lives of the particularly vulnerable, such as the old forced to live in traditional hutongs heated by coal, with poor insulation and erratic water supply, forced to walk a block to the communal toilets which are little more than holes in the ground without even a partition between stalls in many.
A man who refuses to accommodate injustice while still showing a willingness to engage. Qualities few of our politicians have shown an interest in displaying for some time.

43 comments:

Neil Welton said...

This is why I admire The Prince of Wales. I've always admired people with principles. People who have values and live by them.

It probably explains why I loathe all these modern day professional politicians so much. Just the other day a Cabinet member proudly told a national newspaper that he believed in "ideological neutral" politics. In other words "I do not believe in anything other than power".

Sadly, the only convictions you are likely to get from a modern day career politician are the criminal variety.

Mind you, shouldn't complain.

All this talk of sleaze is excellent for our cause.

David Byers said...

The Prince is a good man who gets a bad press, God only knows why. My only fear with the good prince is that he seems too accommodating to Muslims. Islam is the greatest threat to our free western way of life. More people must humbly try to make the Prince more aware of this fact.

Neil Welton said...

I completely disagree (as per usual). The greatest threat comes from people whose minds are too closed and who are thick.

Nothing to fear from Muslims.

Some of my best friends are Muslims. Indeed, when I was at school I had a Muslim friend and when I was at university I had a Muslim friend. I think we could learn a lot from Muslims - especially in the way they apply their belief in God to the way they live their lives. Humble, dutiful and kind. We need more of this.

I think the word you are looking for is terrorists and those terrorists who twist Islam for their own agenda.

More people must humbly try to be more aware of this.

Lord Best said...

I agree completely with Mr Welton, Muslims are not the threat, it is our own ideaologically driven far left who are the threat. It is the enemy within that betrays the fortress.
I support the Princes stance on China, and Tibet, though personally I do not give a fig for Taiwan. Well, not enough to risk a devestating war over it.

Splendor Sine Occasu said...

Sounds an awful lot like Jean Chretien...alway going on those "Team Canada" business trips to China to butt-snorkel that regime, and allow their economic imperialism to creep into our once great Dominion. I'm glad to see PM Harper put that regime into their proper place!

Stauffenberg said...

Great to see The Prince of Wales stand up for principle. I am afraid he cannot be as explicit when King, but in the meantime he makes a fine contrast to politcians whose majority prefer to ingratiate with whomsoever because this or that dictator might buy or invest over here. Pathetic. Just not showing up in Peking sends a clearer message than any fuddy-duddy "human rights dialogue".

David Byers said...

Neil, read the Koran and make up your own mind. Also read the many websites by ex-Muslims, all now with death threats. If you know good people who happen to be Muslims, they would be good people in spite of their religion not because of it. How many people do you know from the C-of-E who strap explosive to themselves and kill innocent people?

Pull your head out of the sand now!

READ WHAT THEIR HOLY BOOKS SAY!

A religion formed by a paedophile and murderer is no basis for civilisation. It is you who are thick if you do not read the facts.

I might pass your email address onto one of these ex-muslims and you can take it up with them if you think you know so much about it.

The Prince is a fool if he thing getting close to these cave man is a good thing.

David Byers said...

For all of you that say you can't get a free education:

For your education on the truth about the Islamic "religion"

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm
An extremely good site by ex-muslims

http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/
Here is one from the UK with ex-muslims who inform the west about the faith of Islam

http://www.geocities.com/islamic_monitor/index.html
This site warns the west of Islamic expansionism and the threat that it represents for freedom of speech and Western values.

These are just three to get you started. It might be too late for the UK, so many muslims there, but not to late for Australia where there is great dis-like of the islamic "religion"

Anyway there are many, many websits like the above out there but enjoy your reading.

Lord Best said...

Ok, the paedophile thing first. do you know how old Juliet from Romeo and Juliet was? Thirteen. It was perfectly normal in the Dark and Middle Ages for girls to be married off, and the marriages consummated, as young as twelve years old. So please dont try and force that peadophile BS on people. Eleanor of Aquitaine was married at age 15 for example, which would make her husband a peadophile by todays standards. King John of England married a girl who was thirteen, Isabella of Angouleme. I could go on and on.

Secondly, yes the Qu'ran is full of exhortations to spread the faith and whatnot. So is the Bible. There are worse things in the Bible in fact, such as God recommending that communities of non believers be destroyed, all the men killed and all the woman, regardless of age, raped.
Thirdly, the majority of Muslims take as little notice of these things in the Qu'ran as most Christians do of these things in the Bible.
I have read both Holy Books, and to be honest I find many things in the Bibile more morally reprehrensible than things in the Qu'ran. But I do not go judging the entire Christian faith or our glorious Judeo-Christian heritage based on those things. I could write a list of all the morally reprehensible things done in the name of Christianity in the past fifteen hundred years if you want.

Islam has many problems, and the fundamentalsit interpretations of Islam are most certainly evil. But it is foolish, ignorant, immoral and completely counterproductive to accuse ALL Muslims of complicity in their crimes.

My Byers, I respect you, and your support on the Monarchy in Australia, but your views on Muslims are absurd. Go to Shepparton, Victoria, home of a large Islamic community dating back four decades, with a mosque of the same age, and see how much cultural tension you find there. There is an absence of PC nonsense, and the Muslims have integrated splendidly as a result.

Lord Best said...

And yes, I am aware that Mohammads' bride Aisha was nine when their marriage was consummated, but this was not unusual at the time and the girls parent had no objections, so claiming moral outgrage about it just silly. Fourteen hundred years ago in a different culture for Gods sake.

David Byers said...

Lord Best, visit the websites I posted and take your views up with them NOT ME!

Lord Best said...

I've seen them before, I take what they have to say with a grain of salt as I do any opinion on Christianity written by confessed atheists, ex-Christians and similar who may have an axe to grind.
As I've said before, I've never said Islam does not have problems, it does. But we need to see them in perspective and not cast some universal veil of evil accross the entire religion.
It is worth noting that the people most hurt by fundamentalist Islam are the Muslims under their rule, in theocracies accross the globe.

Younghusband said...

Lord Best- While convalescing with a hell of an illness last month I discovered the joy of watching 'To Catch a Predator.' After hours of enjoyment, I came to be rather unnerved by the fact that, besides perverting the idea that one should have the right to remain silent whereas here they are induced to blab on national (well, international now) media, the age limit is confusing as it differs between states, let alone countries as you mention. But I don't want to get into such an issue here.
I'm not sure how this post morphed into a condemnation of Muslims, although I should state that I was never happy with the Prince declaring himself as "Defender of Faiths", and not only as a committed atheist. How can one defend all faiths when each claims to be the only legitimate one? I prefer strong stands as seen here with China than wishy-washy ones where One tries to be something for everyone. All the more reason to remove the Monarchy from an outdated religion.
lastly, I agree completely with Splendor Sine Occasu. Harper is finally a leader of Canada I can support.

Neil Welton said...

Lord Best sums up my views perfectly - so no need for me to repeat them all again.

David, I have read and studied The Koran along with all the other Holy Books associated with every mainstream religion in the world. I have made up my mind but have drawn different conclusions to yours. I am glad I have.

"If you know good people who happen to be Muslims, they would be good people in spite of their religion not because of it." You could say that about any religion and even about non-believers. Your point is irrelevant.

"How many people do you know from the C-of-E who strap explosive to themselves and kill innocent people?" None. In the same way I do not know any Muslims who strap explosive to themselves and kill innocent people. In the 1980s a young friend of mine was blown to pieces by an IRA bomb. It does not mean I hate Irish people.

So, Young Husband would like to "remove the Monarchy from an outdated religion". The existence of a Queen or a Prince represents and points to the creative work of God. Indeed, a Christian would argue that God cannot be outdated because He recently spent His time creating you! I just feel it is very important that the Constitution (via one Church) highlights and celebrates our Royal Family - so through them we can appreciate the great mystery (and miracle) which is human birth, life and existence. There but by The Grace of God go I. So it is for a Queen, a Prince and for a Royal Family.

David Byers said...

I cannot believe you have read the Koran Neil, and not have been shocked by it. How naive you are in the extreme, terrorist attacks in New York and London, honour killings of young girls, decapitations of innocent people, the destruction of the centuries old Budda statue. Yet no matter how many die, no matter how many young girls are mutilated and killed, not matter how many murders are committed by the Islamic lunatics , it’s all OK because a young guy in the UK who comes from a very privileged back ground tells us there is nothing to worry about. Can we ignore these ex-Muslims below who write for just ONE website, to warn silly people like you about the evils of Islam?:

Abul Kasem
Abdul Quddus
Adrian Morgan
A. H. Jaffor Ullah
Alamgir Hussain
Ali Sina
Alie Siraj
Amber Powlik
The Apostate
Azam Kamguian
Azar Majedi
Amil Imani
Anwar Shaikh
Ayaan Hirsi Ali Page
Ayesha Ahmed
Christopher Hitchens
CS KAralson
Denis Schulz
Fjordman
History of Jihad Page
Homa Arjomand
Ibn Warraq
Imran Hossain
Isaac Schrödinger
Jahed Ahmed
Jamal Hasan
John
Kareem Amer
Kamal Nawas
Khaled Walid
Mahfuzur Rahman
MA Khan
Maryam Namazie
Mohammad Abdullah
Mohammad Asghar
Mohammad Zaidan
Mumin Salih
No Sharia
Paolo Bassi
Peace Forever
P Fruchter
Pete Fisher
Pim's Ghost
R. Y. Alam
Salman Rushdie Page
Saudi Apostate
Shabana Muhammad
Shabnam Ali
Sher Khan
Shoaib Choudhury page
Showan Khurshid
S. Prasadh
Sujan Mointawla
Suhail Ahmad
Sujit Das
Syed Kamran Mirza
Tashbih Sayyed
Taslima Nasrin
Thomas Jefferson Page
Warner Mackenzie
Wolfgang Bruno

Viscount Feldon said...

Has Harper actually changed any policy with respect to the PRC, or has he just upped rhetoric about human rights while changing nothing substantive?

Lord Best said...

Many bad things happen in Islamic countries, many evil things. But blaming Islam for all of them is like blaming Christianity for crime, rape, murder etc in Australia or anything other ostensibly Christian society.
Incidentally, genital mutilation, which is often blamed on Islam, is actually proscribed by the Qu'ran and is actually a pre-Islamic, predominately African tradition.
Once again fundamentalsit Islamic theocratic governments are being held to represent the entire religious community. Does Gordon Brown represent the entire English community's views? I'm astounded that people cannot see the absurdity in blaming ALL social evils in Islamic countries on the religion. Even terrorism is rooted in politics more than religion.
It is worth noting that Al Qaeda is fighting both the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran, both theocracies. Yet we say all these countries are united against us because we are not Islamic!
It also smacks of blind hypocrisy. We talk about mutilation, honour killings, executions and so on, yet we seem to ignore our own failings entirely in the process. Innocent people are executed in the USA, rape and violence against women are commonplace in Australia (something like two hundred thousand cases reported, estimated to be a fraction of the real number). ALL these things are abhorrent, but blaming them purely on the religion is ridiculous.
We talk about the thousands of Westerners killed in terrorist attacks, what about the thousands of Iraqi Muslims also killed by terrorists? Or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed due to the war,and millions left homeless?
What about Turkey, a secular Islamic country, which when it attempts to crackdown on religious extremists, Christian and Islamic alike, we call upon them to allow more religious freedom! Or when their military, which is fanatically secular, threatens to intervene against the Islamist government, we condemn them.
If we drag out every stupidity, every social and cultural evil, we should make damn sure our own actions are as pure as can be instead of relying on ignorance and bigotry to take the place of rational thought.
To be honest I think the world would be far more stable, if not better, if we just left people alone to sort out their own problems instead of trying to run their countries and their cultures. We do not appreciate Muslim preachers telling us we are decadent and evil and whatnot, yet we are quite prepared to do it too them, and act all indigntant when they tell us where to put our advice. If all these unhappy ex-Muslims want something to be done about the excesses of some of the theocratic regimes, perhaps they should work on some grass roots change instead of trying to get us to waste our time imposing it on them from above.

So no one accuses me of being a liberal pacifist or what have you, I believe war is sometimes necessary. I supported, and continue to support, the occupation of Afghanistan. I did not support the War in Iraq, as it was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

David Byers said...

Lord Best, if you think you know so much about all this then go to one of these website "faithfreedom" and debate it with them. They will debate anyone who wants to do so, see how you go. Please do not waste my time will your silly idea of if there are anything wrong in the west then we can let them off the hook. Please let us all know when you get onto the Faithfreedom website for your debate.

Lord Best said...

Mr Byers, if you do not wish to engage in a rational debate on the subject I suggest you refrain from commenting on the subject in future.
I believe Jesus once said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Words to live by, perhaps less time worrying about what is in the Qu'ran and more time spent on the issues facing Western culture is in order.

David Byers said...

Islam is a threat to western culture! As I said before DO NOT take this up with me, rather go to the ex-Muslims and tell them your views, but please do let me know when you do your online debate with them so I can read it.

Lord Best said...

Fundamentalist Islam is a threat to Western culture, not Islam as a whole. As I've said before, the issue is OUR contemporary cultures weakness, not the strength or hostility of Islam.
If you do not want me to take it up with you here, then stop spouting your misguided nonsense then I can stop correcting your misconceptions and ignorance.

David Byers said...

Lord Best, "misconceptions and ignorance" is not coming from me. I am only quoting what ex-Muslims are telling us about Islam. To say "Fundamentalist Islam" is the problem is like saying Blitzkrieg was the problem with the Nazis not the Nazis themselves.

Maybe you should give up the title "Lord Best" and call yourself "arse in the air" because your head is obviously in the sand.

Lord Best said...

And perhaps we should call you a mindless bigot who hides behind others arguments?
I have read many things about Islam, none of which lead me to believe it is a threat to the West. Iran may be a threat due to its conflicting strategic interests. Terrorism is a threat because it seeks to hurt us to effect political change. Marginalised Islamic ghettos in Western cities are a threat because htey undermine the fabric of society and promite extremism which in turn feeds terrorism. Islam is no more the enemy of the West than Christianity is the enemy of Reason, as many atheists and scientists claim.
My head is not in sand, it is THINKING about the issues, not just reciting nonsense from people who have an axe to grind or seek to cash in on the anti-Islamic sentiment in the West. Perhaps you should pull your head out of your posterior and put it to the use that god intended for it.

David Byers said...

Lord Best (aka Arse in the Air), I take heed the warnings of ex-Muslims who know, in a way you or I cannot, about the evils of Islam. For whatever reason you chose not to. To put down these brave people, who risk their lives to tell about the evil killing-cult, as just "have an axe to grind" is gutless in the extreme.

As I said put your views to them and remind us when you do so we can all see how you go.

Karen said...

David is right in saying Islam is a threat, not just to the west but all civilised society. David cannot be called a bigot as he is not targeting Muslims as people but the evil ideology that has entrapped them.

Having lived in Muslim countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia Islam is a threat that if allowed to grow, however innocuously at first is like a malignant cancer strangling all progress and creativity. Why have countries like Iraq, Iran and Egypt become violent, morally bankrupt and a threat to all when this region was once the cradle of an ancient civilisation?

Lord Best said...

It is important not to confuse political and social evils with religious evil, or to assume that because religious is used to legitimise certain evils commited by those in power that the religon itself is evil.
Fundamentalist Islam is certainly evil, it is certainly a threat to Western civilization and civilization in general. As is Christian fundamentalism.
It is also important to note that the countries in which Islamic fundamentalism thrive are countries in which the majority of the population live in poverty and are abused by tyrannical governments. Poverty and ignorance is easily exploited.
Iran has become an oppressive theocracy because the West overthrew a democratically elected leader and replaced him with an immensely unpopular Shah, who was later overthrown by the lunatics who run the country now. Many Iranian Muslims are vehemently opposed to their theocratic regime, yet they are still Muslims. Not because they have been esnared by some evil ideology, but because they see that Islam is being used to legitmise those in power, it is the government not the religion that is evil.
Mesopotamia has become violent primarily due to its partition after WW1, the removal of the monarchy, decades of war and oppression, and lately, a disastrous foreign occupation. By the way, under Saddam Hussein Iraq was a secular country with rights for women that rivaled some Western countries. Saddam persecuted and killed Islamic fundamentalist leaders, as he viewed them as threat to his power. Iraq has degenerated into theocratic lunacy because we overthrew an evil tyranny and replaced it with anarchy and chaos.

The other problem I have with the whole "Islam is the enemy" nonsense is that it ignores the fact that Islam is as varied and disperate as Christianity/Christendom. Turkish Muslims are certainly not a threat to us, they are predominately secular. Saudi Arabia is the breeding ground for radical throught anf fundamentalist doctrine, yet Al Qaeda, and the great bogeyman Bin Laden, are fighting against the regime there as much as they are the West. Many of the Islamic fundamentalist groups in Pakistan are only interested in attacking India, not the West. The same goes for Islamic fundamentalists groups in Malaysia, they are tring to seize control of the country, not destroy Western civilization. I could go on and on.

Perhaps if we just left the Islamic world alone and let them go back to fighting amongst themselves, and concentrated on rebuilding the shattered remnants of traditional Western culture, the world would be a far better place.

Jeff S. said...

While I am quite aware of the acceptance of “pluralism” and “multiculturalism” in both Europe and the U.S., I am rather surprised to find it here by those that uphold the Monarchy.

As Douglas Wilson has pointed out “..theocracy is rule by the god, not rule by the priests of that god. Every law system is a theocracy, inescapably, because every law system has an ultimate point of justification. The theocracy can be justified by appeal to Allah, the Father of Jesus Christ, Mammon (government by central bankers) or to Demos, the people. But all societies are theocracies somehow because man is inescapably religious. He requires that point of ultimate justification, the point past which there is no appeal. If you don't have a Supreme Being, you will wind up with a Supreme Court. It seems to me that every government is essentially theocratic in the sense that it bows the knee to one god or another. Here in the U.S., we bow the knee to Demos.”

I believe Mr. Wilson is correct. There is not such thing as a neutral pluralistic government. Every law is based upon some standard. The only question is upon what standard one is going to govern. You can be sure that all devout Muslims (as opposed to merely cultural or ethnic Muslims) believe the same, and I am not just talking about the ones of the Al-Qaeda variety. Even in so called “secular” Turkey, living openly as a Christian is extremely dangerous as the recent murders of Christians there has shown. One need not look any further than the Netherlands to see what is coming to the rest of “Eurabia”. Do you honestly believe that Islam is not a threat to Western Civilization?

Are the writers of this blog in favor of monarchy apart from overt and faithfully orthodox Christian underpinnings? Does the Queen or future King have no responsibility, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England and sworn protector of the Church of Scotland, to consciously and deliberately stand against idolatrous and false religion within their realm?

David Byers said...

Lord Best (aka Arse in the Air), Why on earth can I not come to the conclusion that a religion is evil? Are we robbed the ability to reason and make up our own minds? The majority of Muslims don’t know that much about their faith but if they get into it then we know the potential.

Neil Welton said...

Next David will be telling us that everyone is socially equal under the Crown. :-)

Jeff S. said...

"The same goes for Islamic fundamentalists groups in Malaysia, they are tring to seize control of the country, not destroy Western civilization. I could go on and on."

OK, let us ignore foreign countries and simply focus on England. What percentage of the country is currently Muslim? What are their birth rates and immigration rates? What percentage of their children remain faithful to Islam?

Compare their demographic trajectory to the average secularized "Christian" who is Christian in name only, who is marrying later in life, aborting their babies or at best having just 1 or 2 children, and whose children leave the faith at an alarming rate.

Remember Henry Van Til's adage.....

"Culture is religion externalized."

Neil Welton said...

Interesting point Jeff.

On another entry here, entitled 'We Are All Equal Under The Crown', David Byers has admitted that Muslims "have worth and a role" in British society.

Do you agree?

Lord Best said...

Jeff, you are quite right, these are legitimate concerns, and serious threats to England.
BUT, the issue is OUR weakness, the weakness of traditional culture, rather than a great conspiracy by Islam. Left wing PC crazed intellectuals have systematically tried to destroy traditional Western culture, and have done a damn good job. Contemporary culture is an obscenity, and many Muslims do not want to integrate into a society where the men are thugs and the women prostitutes.
In other words, we have nothing to integrate these people in to and have no strong cultural base to stand against foreign cultural influences.
I do not think that Muslims or Islam are inherent threats to the West. I believe fundamentalist Islam is, and Islamic ghettos in Western cities certainly are. In this respect I think Islamic migration to England and Europe should cease as it is simply not working. Not because Islam is a threat, but because our culture is too weak to absorb theirs. And this is the fault of the left wing with their obsessions about Western culture being inherently evil and deserving to be destroyed, and that all other cultures and superior by virtue of not being Western. These people are the enemy! Not mainstream Islam.

I like to use the example of Shepparton, Victoria, Australia as a good example of proper integration. There is a very large Islamic community, with a mosque, dating back many decades. The mosque was there in the 60's I know that much. There is no ethnic tension, no religious tension, no gangs, and the Western population frequently leap to the defense of the Muslims against outsiders trying to cause problems. How is that these Muslims have integrated into a rural town, supposefly full of redneck country folk if you beleive the left wing intellectuals (anyone not from the city is ignorant and should be ignored, they say)? Because their is no politically correct multi-cultural rubbish preventing their integration.
We need to spend less time working ourselves into a frenzy over phantoms in the night and more time restoring Western culture.

Jeff S. said...

Neil,

I believe that all individual men and women have intrinsic worth as image bearers of God, and are all equal under the law.

However, I believe that Islam as a religion is inherently, and fundamentally opposed to Christ and Christendom and all that it stands for.

There is no forgiveness and mercy in Islam. Allah is only a god of wrath. There is no grace, and there is no mercy -just judgment and retribution. Mercy is viewed as weakness.

Simply look at the predominant fruit of Islam in nearly every country in which it has flourished. It has been around now for 1300 years. What do you see?

Continental Europe has turned its face against Christ and has drunk deeply from the wells of secularism -which is just as much an enemy of Christendom as Islam. Continental Europe is clearly now post-Christian. England, Canada, and the U.S. are not far behind respectively. Historically, nations have waxed or waned depending on their corporate faithfulness to Christ.

I would speculate that it is probable that Islam is itself a judgment on unfaithful Christendom. Just as Assyria and Babylon, both wicked enemies of Israel, were used by God to judge idolatrous Israel, it is possible that Islam is a tool to bring Christians and non-Christians alike to repentance.

Do individual Muslims have a role in English society? Yes, they can contribute to the extent that they adapt themselves to the Christian principles that are part and parcel of Christendom. However, if they remain faithful to Islam, their only choice is to change their surrounding culture to accommodate their own worldview. While their numbers currently delegate them to minority status, they will tend towards enclaves.

Of course, my prayer is that the Muslims that have been immigrating into Europe en masse will be exposed to the Gospel and convert or at least become secularized into an impotent ethnic Islam. However, I am not hopeful of the former as there are so few faithful Christians left on the continent. More than likely it will be Anglicans from Africa, or Evangelicals from South Korea who will be sent to Europe to re-evangelize it 50 years from now.

Jeff S. said...

Lord Best,

I agree with the main thrust of your argument. Islam was no threat to the majority of Christendom as long as it was faithful to Christ. It is only because of they spat on their inheritance in Christ, and replaced Christ with their secularist multicultural pluralism that Europe is threatened by Islam. This secularism not only destroyed the foundations of Christian culture, but created a vacuum and sucked Islam in with open arms saying, "Since there is no such thing as timeless Truth, all points of view and cultures are equally valid. Come on in!" But lets not forget that this is why Europe is now attractive to Muslims. They see the opportunity to build uniquely Islamic culture in Europe, something that was inconceivable 100 years ago. My point is that they have no interest in living in a nation that does not give them opportunity to build their vision of Islamic culture, whether those obstacles are by law or by the predominance of an antithetical worldview.

Restoring all that was good, true and beautiful in Western culture will only come about by the Gospel changing the hearts of men and women who will then bring the Lordship of Christ to all aspects of culture. Christ's reign was once dominant in Music, Philosophy, Art, Literature and Government throughout all of Europe. Through spiritual Reformation, He will do so again.

Lord Best said...

I think we are in agreement. Muslims need to be integrated into Western-Christian society. Most do. The problem is we have allowed Islamic ghettos to form where there is no pressure to integrate, so they dont. It does not help that contemporary Western culture is an abomination. Fundamentalist Islam is a threat because, amongst other reasons, it says Muslims should not integrate, but if our culture was strong enough it would not matter. So long as a Muslim integrates and accepts Western-Christian culture, there is no problem with still being a Muslim.
I personally am not a Christian, or of any religious denomination. I am not an atheist. I am an ardent champion of Western civilization and its values, and these values have been shaped by Christianity for seventeen hundred years. I am secular, but I am not godless, in the same vein as Sir Winston Churchill.

As to what Islamic governments to do Muslims in their own countries, that is their business, not ours. In the same way we do not accept some Mufti in Saudi Arabia telling us how to live, we should not expect the reverse to apply. Of course our way of doing things is better, democracy, rule of law, human rights are all Western developments. But our recent obsession with spreading them to other countries and cultures is the main driving force behind Islamic hatred of the West. That and continuing to support brutal tyrannies, where harsh rule and impoverished populations provide a perfect breeding ground for extremist ideology. Live and let live, etc.

David Byers said...

Lord Best (aka Arse in the Air), when you say "As to what Islamic governments to do Muslims in their own countries, that is their business, not ours." is so naive I don't know where to start. What other nations develop and do effects us all, such as Germany's arms build up in the 1930's, Churchill knew the risk others ignored. I find your pseudo- intellectualism tiresome but you seem desperate to have the last word so go ahead. But I bet more every day people agree with my view.

Lord Best said...

You seem to be quite mad, Mr Byers.

I have said in this very topic that if a country is a strategic threat they must be dealt with as such. And we must observe them carefully to ascertain this. But how a sovereign country treats its own population, however reprehensible, is their business, and trying to impose our way of life and culture on them is just as evil as people who want to create an Islamic state in Britain, or wherever. Not to mention counterproductive. If a country is developing nuclear weapons, it must be dealt with as a strategic threat, because that is a strategic threat.

Maybe I shall call you Mahmoud bin Byers, as the last time I encountered such mindless vitriol was in a Wahhabi preacher. I'd rather avoid it though, as I grew out of calling people names when I was nine years old.

Pablo the Scot said...

I was going to post a comment about Prince Charles and my pleasure at his refusal to give the Chinese the diplomatic cover of his presence at Beijing. However, this has turned into a rant about Islam, good and bad, so I will desist!

Neil Welton said...

No, Pablo, no. Please do not desist. I'd be interested to hear what you have to say.

As for our little Islam debate - very "interesting".

However, I must say for the record that I do agree with Lord Best - he has saved me a lot of heated typing.

The following has certainly helped me to understand David - especially the parts on "monoculturalism", "non-white immigration" and the "white Australia policy".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6972076.stm

Jeff S. said...

Neil,

I apologise for aiding in taking this post far from its original intent, which was to praise the Prince of Wales for his principles with regard to human rights.

However, I think that there is room for a civil discussion and clarification on the topic of multiculturalism, and perhaps it deserves a separate post.

Could you please provide a definition of multiculturalism as you are using the term?

In what ways does multiculturalism, as you think of it, help or hinder the building or rebuilding of Britain as you envision it?

David Byers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Byers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Byers said...

Neil, when did the people of Australia ever get a chance to vote on whether we should have "multiculturalism"? As Mr Bruce Ruxton used to say "if you come to this country, which is the greatest country on earth with the greatest heritage on earth, you either accept our way of life or get the bloody hell out!", on multiculturalism he would say; "we are making a nation of tribes". My favourite memory of him was when Desmond Tutu stormed into his office and Bruce stood up and said "get out of my office you bloody witch doctor". He is still about and a strong supporter of ACM. A really great Australian!