Gay Patriot Header Image

Canceling a gay pride event to avoid offending religious conservatives!?! UPDATED

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:36 pm - March 14, 2011.
Filed under: Coalition of the Oppressed,Gay PC Silliness

Someone should alert Gary Bauer and others who seek an end to gay pride parades.  Gay activists in the UK want to cancel a march because it might offend members of a particular religious group.  So, maybe ol’ Gary should just follow their lead claim offense; gay groups on this side of the pond will surely capitulate.

Fearing that a gay pride parade in London’s East End “will cause tensions between gay people and Muslims“, some activists want to cancel a march scheduled in response to “to anti-gay stickers plastered around the East End“:

An open letter signed by Out East chair Thierry Schaffauser and Terry Stewart of the Hackney Community Engagement Board claims that the Pride march may “divide our communities” or be used “to oppress other marginalised groups”.

Out East organises Hackney Pride and the letter has also been signed by Denis Fernando of Unite Against Fascism and the Greater London Association of Trade Union Councils.

It says: “We believe that the most appropriate response to the stickers is to liaise with Muslim communities and others to create bridges and communicate with each other.

“We want both homophobia and Islamophobia addressed as a collective problem and not feed one against the other, we do not recognise these as distinct categories.

“We will refuse any attempt to divide our communities or take the risk that an LGBTQ event is used to oppress other marginalised groups, in particular LGBTQ Muslims who will be the most affected by this rising antagonism.”

That’s rich.  These folks have the view that all victims are alike; if you’re an approved victim of Western straight white male hegemony, then we need address animosity (or perceived animosity”) as a “collective problem.”  Wow, just wow.  These guys are more concerned with offending Muslims than they are with speaking out against anti-gay bigotry.

If Muslim groups have a problem with a gay pride march, wouldn’t that indicate that they harbor, um, well, politically incorrect sentiments about gay people?  It seems that some gay activists are so desperate to be part of this coalition of the oppressed that the ignore how many Islamist regimes oppress gays — while other Islamist organizations, even in Western countries, favor our marginalization if not persecution.

Meanwhile back on our own shores,

A group of gay lefty organizations who CLAIM they exist to work on behalf of gay people actually put out a press release on Friday attacking Rep. Peter King’s hearings on Islamic radicalization. Nevermind that radical Islam teaches that the penalty for being gay is DEATH. Honestly, the Onion couldn’t have written this release.

Signing on to this attack on the King hearings, a de facto defense of radical Islam, included the National Center for Lesbian Rights [NCLR], Equality California (who might as well just become the Communist Party of CA) and Lambda Legal.

Does seem these folks prefer participation in the Coalition of the Oppressed to speaking out for gay people who are truly oppressed.

Recall how Kate Kendell, Executive Director of NCLR, chose to commemorate 9/11 in 2009, by ignoring the radical Islamic ideology of the men who murdered thousands of Americans that day and focusing her ire instead on conservatives.

UPDATE:  Thanks to some of our commenters for updating with information that one of the organizers had been involved with fascist English Defence League.  So, skinheads involved with a gay pride march.  I thought those folks hated gays.  Politics do indeed make strange bedfellows.



  1. It’s OK for queer pride to offend Christians… but not OK for queer pride to offend Muslims? I reeeeeaaallly don’t get it. UNLESS, the most cynical interpretation is the truth:

    – Christians, who today have zero intent to kill, imprison or bash gays, make a safe and easy target
    – Muslims, many of whom would like to kill, imprision or bash gays, make a dangerous target
    – And the queer activists in question, despite their talk of queer pride and self-congratulations about their activist courage, are basically… well… pussies.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 14, 2011 @ 6:45 pm - March 14, 2011

  2. I hate the word “queer”, by the way.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — March 14, 2011 @ 6:50 pm - March 14, 2011

  3. Me too, Bruce. Just trying to use their word, though maybe I should have gone with LGBTQ.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 14, 2011 @ 6:55 pm - March 14, 2011

  4. Why are gay Lefist organizations defending Muslims? This is like Jesse Jackson defending public sector Unions…Oh wait, Jesse Jackson did that too in Wisconsin to get his every-shrinking face on television (I am serious about his shrinking face BTW).

    The UK gays need to march because they will offend someone. Heck, Jesse Jackson might show up with his Rainbow Push Coalititon to find out it’s the wrong kind of rainbow the gays are looking for…

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — March 14, 2011 @ 7:11 pm - March 14, 2011

  5. At this point in history, as a straight man, i will march in a pride parade if only to piss off the religion of intolerance

    Comment by WPDunn — March 14, 2011 @ 7:21 pm - March 14, 2011


    Comment by Roger Sherman — March 14, 2011 @ 8:27 pm - March 14, 2011

  7. Naked, pusillanimous, sniveling cowardice. Poltroons.

    Western civilization going out with a whimper.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — March 14, 2011 @ 8:33 pm - March 14, 2011

  8. Naked, pusillanimous, sniveling cowardice. Poltroons.

    Western civilization going out with a whimper.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — March 14, 2011 @ 8:33 pm - March 14, 2011

  9. Sorry, again, for double post.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — March 14, 2011 @ 8:33 pm - March 14, 2011

  10. We believe that the most appropriate response to the stickers is to liaise with Muslim communities and others to create bridges […]

    Which the Muhammedans will then proceed to collapse on Thierry Schaffauser, Terry Stewart, et al. It’ll be a nice change from building walls for that purpose – well, nice for the Muhammedans.

    Comment by aelfheld — March 14, 2011 @ 8:37 pm - March 14, 2011

  11. Utter, hypocritical foolishness. The fact that they couldn’t care less about offending Christians but are bending over backward to appease Muslims speaks volumes about their cowardice and short-sightedness. This will not be seen as an olive branch; it will be taken as victory. And then they’ll take another step and draw a new line in the sand. I pray the day doesn’t come when they find that their quest for true victimhood has been fulfilled.

    And “Unite Against Fascism”? What a joke.

    Comment by Devin Parker — March 14, 2011 @ 9:12 pm - March 14, 2011

  12. Muggeridge’s Law is in effect.

    Comment by DaveO — March 14, 2011 @ 10:23 pm - March 14, 2011

  13. On the flip side, how many GLBT activists have had negative experiences with Muslims? Anti-Christianity is de rigueur, but not so anti-Islam.

    Comment by DaveO — March 14, 2011 @ 10:28 pm - March 14, 2011

  14. This kind of monumental, politically motivated hypocrisy from leftist gays and their straight allies just strengthens my resolve as a traditionalist. Leftists’ moral right to condemn PEACEFUL, Judeo-Christian traditionalists like myself is destroyed when they embrace and defend violently anti-gay Muslims. Such an embrace shows that the Left’s commitment to gay rights is purely strategic, a means to the end of achieving power. It has NOTHING to do with any genuine concern for gay people. The more people understand that the harder it will be for them to buy the Left’s “Christian social conservatives are bigots” narrative, and that can only be good for social conservatives like me.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — March 14, 2011 @ 11:30 pm - March 14, 2011

  15. Leftist political rule: foreign brown people always always always trump the local poofters. No surprise. At all.

    Comment by EssEm — March 14, 2011 @ 11:31 pm - March 14, 2011

  16. And some days I think that if a group is oppressed and marginalised,
    there might be a good reason for it.

    Comment by EssEm — March 14, 2011 @ 11:32 pm - March 14, 2011

  17. I agree with WPDunn, though I myself am gay and have never been to a gay pride parade never seeing the need to go to one before.

    Comment by John — March 15, 2011 @ 12:28 am - March 15, 2011

  18. “radical islam teaches that the penalty for being gay is DEATH”
    Islam’s teachings include that, not “radical” islam.
    And they don’t just teach it:
    Gays are EXECUTED every single day in muslim countries; every single day, every single muslim country.
    Imho, ‘executing’ is just a little more involved than simply ‘teaching’.
    I could be wrong as shown by (insert this week’s left-liberal definition of moral relativity here).

    Comment by rodney — March 15, 2011 @ 12:28 am - March 15, 2011

  19. They don’t mind. They’ll just take their anger out on passive Christians.

    Comment by Blaster_84 — March 15, 2011 @ 12:55 am - March 15, 2011

  20. Whilst I do agree with your central point (that East End Gay Pride should be allowed to go ahead as “offending religious people” is not a good enough excuse to stop it), I feel I must add a touch of context.

    The reason these groups are opposing the march is because it is very highly likely it is being organised by the English Defense League a far right nationalist group who think, rather intelligently for once, supporting gay rights is one way to really annoy their least favourite group; Muslims.

    As the march has explicitly banned political placards etc. I don’t see this as any reason to ban the Pride march but this is why you have far left LGBTQ people and a LGBT member of Unite Against Fascism (who seem to spend their weekends perpetually in street battles with EDL supporters) getting very excitable about the whole thing.

    Comment by Jae — March 15, 2011 @ 2:30 am - March 15, 2011

  21. Jae, I saw that hinted at in the article I linked, but would a far right group really join hands with a gay group? A most interesting alliance if it were the case–and definitely worth our attention.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 15, 2011 @ 4:09 am - March 15, 2011

  22. It’s worth reading the entire article on Pink News. It mentions that other gay groups, including London Pride have applauded the march. So there’s still hope.

    Comment by Draybee — March 15, 2011 @ 4:15 am - March 15, 2011

  23. it is very highly likely it is being organised by the English Defense League a far right nationalist group

    If that is so: then they should come out (so to speak) and say so.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 15, 2011 @ 4:32 am - March 15, 2011

  24. (“they” == the gays)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 15, 2011 @ 4:33 am - March 15, 2011

  25. Up until recently, I’d believed that Gay Pride parades had outlived their usefulness and had their day. Now that the bending-over-backwards to creeping Islamofascism has begun to embed itself in “tolerant” Western political culture, I think it’s time to change my mind.

    Comment by perturbed — March 15, 2011 @ 7:48 am - March 15, 2011

  26. um it should be pointed out that many in London do not want to cancel the event, specifically the London atheist gays, many of whom I’m friends with in life and on twitter.

    Further more there is a real question about who hung up the stickers in the first place and it has been long rumored that they were hung by a group of british ultra nationalist who want to provoke a public fight between the gay and muslim community.
    So as with most things that are reported from other lands it’s always best to take it with a grain of salt and not draw to many comparisons.

    Comment by Tim — March 15, 2011 @ 10:08 am - March 15, 2011

  27. Tim,

    My question is, even *if* the stickers were put up by a third party trying to incite the sides ‘Manson style’ it still points to an interesting double standard.

    If these (presumed) ‘ultra nationalists’ were to come out and say that they didn’t want the march, they’d get told to bugger off. But because the stickers initially implicated (and may still have been put there) Muslims, suddenly people get cold feet in the name of ‘Tolerance’.

    If the stickers had referenced G_d insteal of Allah, you can bet the report would be ‘evil Christians try to terrorise kindly gays.’

    So again, it’s only the Muslims who generate cold feet. Why is that?

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 15, 2011 @ 10:20 am - March 15, 2011

  28. Why am I not surprised by this? This is the same mentality that brought us the “Queers For Palestine” group. Gary Bauer couldn’t replicate this. He has the wrong skin color. If anyone has a skin tone the color of a paper bag (or darker), go ahead and be as homophobic as you wanna be; you’ll get a pass from the left. If you’re light-skinned though: uh-uh, no hint of homophobia from you.

    Comment by Jim Michaud — March 15, 2011 @ 10:41 am - March 15, 2011

  29. Since the “leftwing” of the Gay movement won’t confront Muslims on their persecution of gays/lesbians, it’s certainly something the rest of us should do. Canceling a parade to order to not offend Muslims is totally insane. All one has to do is a Google search on the phrase “gay executions in the Middle East” to see what we’re up against. Every gay/lesbian needs to accept one hard fact: Muslims hate us, and being ‘nice’ to them is not going to change their attitude.

    Comment by Mart Martin — March 15, 2011 @ 11:33 am - March 15, 2011

  30. I can’t stand Gay Pride Parades so I’m heartened by the fact that its cancelled. Nonetheless, the reasoning behind is so full of bull that I hope that this annual event is forever postponed.

    Comment by anon23532 — March 15, 2011 @ 12:19 pm - March 15, 2011

  31. Tim @ #26

    um it should be pointed out that many in London do not want to cancel the event, specifically the London atheist gays, many of whom I’m friends with in life and on twitter.


    Tim and his twitter-mates will gird up their loins and join the massive army of London atheist gays and smite Sharia and the Islamist enemies into a fine powder and they will stay smote for an eon and a day.

    You go, Tim!!! G-r-r-r-r-r-r woof! Sic em, boy.

    Typical liberal fake orgasm.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 15, 2011 @ 1:54 pm - March 15, 2011

  32. @The_Livewire there is the question of a multi-tiered trap. what’s more useful good relations with your neighbors, making a statement, or allowing for the possibility of a staged photo-op with people possibly posing as muslims causing fights or worse? Having been to that section of London, I never felt at risk or that there were any issues, granted I didn’t live there. Still like I said the atheists still want the pride march and I bet it happens, there’s been a stronger out reach to gay muslims, of which there are a lot in London, and I think in the end they will have a small parade or something.

    tbh the only time I started to feel out of place was wandering around Piccadilly on the weekend when i realized I was way to conspicuous a tourist. Glasgow though, as much as i loved the city I didn’t feel comfortable there almost the whole time.

    Comment by Tim — March 15, 2011 @ 2:51 pm - March 15, 2011

  33. Guess it depends on the side of town. I never had any misgivings about the GLA City Centere. Sure there were the “lady’s of the evening” on Bothwell St., but they were harmless. They though my husband was adorable.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 15, 2011 @ 3:21 pm - March 15, 2011

  34. And the lesson from this is that the gay community, for all its whining about “violence”, is all about kissing up to those who are most violent to it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2011 @ 8:26 pm - March 15, 2011

  35. It’s not so much an hypocrisy as a habit. The GLBT community attached itself to the leftists early on. The leftists also supported the PLO. It was chic, trendy, the in-thing. Whether by commission or ommission, the GLBT community has supported Islamic terrorism for decades.

    Support for jihadists is a habit. For them, after the decades of support, to turn around and attack jihadists – that would be hypocrisy.

    Comment by DaveO — March 15, 2011 @ 11:08 pm - March 15, 2011

  36. Writing from London, England, I’d say that this fascist-inspired event is hopefully NOT going to happen in its current divisive form. More and more LGBTI groups are thankfully now calling for it to be cancelled, and a genuine East End Pride event to be planned instead, where Muslim LGBTI people and groups will be present in sizable numbers alongside everyone united. The worry isn’t about “offending religious people” it’s about a Nazi-style buch front organisation trying to wreck all the good work to build community links.

    Comment by Terry McGrath — March 16, 2011 @ 8:24 am - March 16, 2011

  37. Tim,

    Akbarisms aside (“It’s a trap!”) I still think cancelling it is a mistake.

    If it would offend the neighbors, then you offend the neighbors whether you march or just exist in this case. (assuming these kind of marches are normally PG rated.)

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 16, 2011 @ 8:25 am - March 16, 2011

  38. Breaking news! I’m glad to report that the so-called East End Gay Pride march has just been cancelled by the shady organisers! They have been exposed as infiltrated by Nazi scum. In their statement they list – and blame – all the genuine London East End community LGBTI groups such as OutEast and Rainbow Hamlets, along with Imaan and several other LGBTI Muslim groups. Now we can start to organise a REAL Pride event for later in the year which will build bridges and strengthen the gay presence in the East End.

    Comment by Terry McGrath — March 16, 2011 @ 8:42 am - March 16, 2011

  39. @DaveO perhaps you are just bad at history but lumping gays and commies together was a practice of the right, “lefto pinko commies”, historically the ties are just not that strong except in the academic world. Even than it was mostly jews that left russia and were strong believers in the communist revolution until the take over of Stalin and the purges. Continuing the meme in this day and age is silly considering that 30 percent of the voting gay population votes republican and we are actually commenting on a conservative website.

    @ND30 it’s funny cause you’re the person who most commonly argues that a good gay is a closeted gay who doesn’t speak up.

    @The_Livewire there are other things you can do besides a parade, sponsoring a community block party, speaking with local leaders, organizing an outreach program, setting up a neighborhood watch. But I think they shouldn’t be intimidated into silence.

    Comment by Tim — March 16, 2011 @ 9:36 am - March 16, 2011

  40. and the more complicated truth comes out

    Comment by Tim — March 16, 2011 @ 9:44 am - March 16, 2011

  41. Interesting. This paragraph caught my eye.

    “But Mr Berry allegedly said that he continued to hold firm beliefs against Sharia law and the “Islamification of Britain” and was involved in other anti-Muslim groups.”

    So are the two clauses connected? If you oppose Sharia law and the “Islamification of Britain” are you anti-Muslim?

    I mean I oppose Sharia, but it’s because I’m ‘anti-being-killed-by-nuts-because-I’m-a-quarter-Jew’ not because I’m ‘anti-Muslim.’

    The phrase just strikes me as an all or nothing, like saying “The Livewire allegedly said that he continued to hold firm beliefs against same-sex marriage, and was involved in other anti-gay groups.”

    The first clause would be accurate, the second would be slander. Being against SSM doesn’t make one, by itself, anti-gay.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 16, 2011 @ 11:08 am - March 16, 2011

  42. I’d caution against trying to read to much into it, in their view any association with skin heads is pretty much the kiss of death, considering their past time with the nazis and a strong recent history of suppressing extreme nationalism, mixed with the conflicted English history of colonization it’s very hard for most English to be publicly Pro-England. It’s something that comes up in conversations all the time.
    Than again if you had a collection of nations that had been tied together with extreme brutality for a 1000 years you might not want to bring it up at dinner parties either.

    Comment by Tim — March 16, 2011 @ 11:21 am - March 16, 2011

  43. @ND30 it’s funny cause you’re the person who most commonly argues that a good gay is a closeted gay who doesn’t speak up.

    Actually, Tim, that would be because your definition of gayness, which includes sexually harassing your coworkers, defending sex with underage children, supporting teachers who cover up sex with underage children, and screaming “homophobe” or “self-loathing” when any of these things are criticized, should be closeted.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2011 @ 12:12 pm - March 16, 2011

  44. So the mohammedans and liberals drove you off the street. Now can we go back to beating y’all up and staging police raids on your bars and clubs?


    Comment by Mannie — March 16, 2011 @ 1:25 pm - March 16, 2011

  45. @ND30 it’s so refreshing to hear your deeply twisted views on what I believe. Thanks!

    Comment by Tim — March 16, 2011 @ 2:45 pm - March 16, 2011

  46. Livewire: why afraid to say you are anti-Muslim? Islam is certainly anti-gay.

    Comment by EssEm — March 16, 2011 @ 5:15 pm - March 16, 2011

  47. “it’s very hard for most English to be publicly Pro-England. ” Well then just turn out the lights and say goodbye. Multiculturalism is an ideology of Western suicide.

    Comment by EssEm — March 16, 2011 @ 7:16 pm - March 16, 2011

  48. Now we can start to organise a REAL Pride event for later in the year which will build bridges and strengthen the gay presence in the East End.

    I’ll believe it when I see it. But, I wish you success and good fortune.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2011 @ 7:52 pm - March 16, 2011

  49. @Essem I would tend to agree but they now are part of a larger political entity and to be fair extreme nationalism lead them to the brink of extinction twice in one century. Plus it cost them the empires it built, so it doesn’t seem like the supreme example we should be aiming for. Also the many victories were often at the expense of their now neighbors and allies. British schools tend to use the same hazy history brush that the Japanese use, Irish schools teach a much more extensive history having been the receivers of the English way.

    Comment by Tim — March 16, 2011 @ 8:57 pm - March 16, 2011

  50. First of all, EDL is not a bunch of skinheads. There are people who are socialists, conservatives, liberals, and anarchists in EDL, and also many who do not vote at all because the parties in the UK are almost identical, and don’t represent their views.

    The specialist unit of the British Police who study extremists groups within the country did an investigation into EDL in 2010. Their conclusion: EDL is not a far-right organisation. That is why there are gay people, jews, conservative, non-voters, and socialists in EDL.

    It is very significant that the mainstream media in Britain decided NOT to even mention the above investigation. Because the idea of violent skinheads on the rampage makes for a more sensationlist headlines, than an alliance between football hooligans, homosexuals, ex-military, jews, sikhs, etc. It seems that “man bites dog” is not, in fact, considered news.

    EDL is a patriotic organisation. I don’t think Americans have even the tiniest inkling about the attitude of the British chattering classes to patriotism (they equate it with nazism).

    EDL is about creating a new British identity that assimilates those with foreign cultures. Just flying our flag, and saying we have to protect our nation is considered “right wing”, even when the politics of the organisation are not driven by economic policies or racial hatred. There is no other narrative of unity other than patriotism that will unite our fractured societies – the discourse of human rights has failed, because all muslim nations put sharia law above universal human rights and equality under the law.

    And for all that – EDL had NOTHING to do with this east end gay pride march. Despite multiple reports of non-white people plastering the city with anti-gay posters, and the police arresting and releasing “an asian” without charge, the chattering classes have been determined to blame EDL for this campaign of islamic homophobia.

    The problems with islam in Europe are now so huge, that many of the chattering classes are simply in denial, and will lie to themselves rather than face up to what is happening.

    Comment by Joe Coolstuck — March 17, 2011 @ 5:49 am - March 17, 2011

  51. EssEmm,

    I’ve met some very nice Muslim women in my time. One who fled Kuwait ahead of Saddam, and another one who worked at a local convience store. While I am very pro assimilation, I’m not ‘anti-muslim’

    Heck, I’ve the deepest respect for Irshad_Manji and the risks she takes.

    I’m ‘anti-religious-fanatic-who-wants-to-blow-me-up-for-72-virgins’ though.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 17, 2011 @ 7:47 am - March 17, 2011

  52. I read some of the comments on this page with a sad heart. I’m a straight guy of 39 with a very charming younger gay brother who I love dearly.
    My story starts when he was attacked over a year ago, he was trying to help another gay guy that was being attacked by Muslims outside a pub in East London that was hosting a gay evening. During the attack he had his arm broken, there was 8 Muslim men kicking the life out of the guy on the floor and he jumped in to help. They turned their attention onto my brother and he clearly heard one of the Muslims say whilst he was on the floor after being hit round the back of head with something “When Muslims rule this country, we will be hanging you queer boys up, Allah Akbar”.
    Until this point I personally had only ever read or seen a few disturbances by Muslims reported via the msm, such as disrespecting the return of British Troops from duty. This is mainly because I live in a area untouched by immigration. I view myself as a centre of the road sort of guy, everyone should be treated the same.
    I started and continue to undertake research, I have also been to various meetings and have been studying Islam, Islamic countries, shariah law, different types of Islamic belief sets and how these beliefs effect the relationship with everyone including other different types of Muslims.
    The left in the U.K has deserted gay people in favour of Islam, this is 100% without a doubt the situation and is purely done for votes, and are more concerned with throwing idiotic labels at people. It now seems that anyone who doesn’t agree with embracing the homophobic Islamists is a frigging Nazi or fascist.
    Before I finish, I will say that I am a proud member of the English Defence League as is also my MBA educated brother. We are not racists, fascists or Nazi’s, just patriots who actually love our Country.
    I will stand proud with my brother in defending his right to be a gay man, anywhere at any time. If this makes me a fascist then the world has become a very strange place to live in. My experiences of the people in the English Defence League has been 100% positive, I have not met any racists. fascists etc, in fact when an ex BNP politician turned up at one of our meetings he was invited to leave which he did. I would say that some are a bit rough round the edges, but they are the salt of the earth types, honest, decent and they are people that are not afraid to stand up and be counted, most are called the white working class, just the type of people the Champagne Socialists have discarded, sound familiar?

    Comment by Andrew London — March 17, 2011 @ 9:41 am - March 17, 2011

  53. Thanks for your comments, Andrew London. All that has to be done to rule a group Beyond The Pale is to call it “far right”. That is liberal code for Nazi and it’s a fraudulent but all too effective tactic.

    Comment by EssEm — March 17, 2011 @ 12:32 pm - March 17, 2011

  54. Livewire: I have met some nice individual Muslims, too. But it is Muslims as a group which are the issue. I am anti-Muslim in that I consider the religion of Islam my enemy. Not just jihadis, but mainstream Islam, which, if you study it, is an expansionist theocracy. It recognizes no distinction between Mosque and State. It is unique among world religions in that it is only its true self when it is politically dominant. That is not a quirk or an accident of history (as with the Christian Church) but stems directly from Muhammad. Nice Muslims do not solve the problem of Islam itself. Wherever Muslim numbers grow, problems result.

    I know a local therapist who is an avowed Communist. He is a nice guy. But his political belief, if given free rein, is evil. I remain anti-Communist, no matter how many nice Communists I meet.

    And Irshad Manji, an admirable woman, is utterly outside the Islamic mainstream. A lesbian within the most homophobic religion on earth. At best, like a Quaker among Calvinists

    We disagree, but thanks for responding to my posts.

    Comment by EssEm — March 17, 2011 @ 12:43 pm - March 17, 2011

  55. No problem.

    I agree Islam, as it currently is interpreted, has issues. I steal from Highlander and state that Islam, unlike Chrstianity hasn’t “outgrown it’s angry adolesence”.

    For we ‘infidaels’ outside the religion, offering sanctuary and support to ‘radicals’ like Ms. Manji* are the best way to get Islam focused inward, like Chrstianity** is best applied.

    *Irshad Manji is also evidence of my ‘all the good ones are taken or playing for the other team’ theory.

    **Part of Christianity is to witness, so we don’t keep quiet. But we do accept that you must make your own choices. Conversion at the point of the sword is so 13th century.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 17, 2011 @ 1:15 pm - March 17, 2011

  56. Islam, as it currently is interpreted, has issues.

    It’s not the interpretation, it’s what’s in the book – and the example set by the founder. Islam really is different from Christianity. [Activate troll canard shields, here.] I’m closer to EssEm on this one.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 17, 2011 @ 2:50 pm - March 17, 2011

  57. Conversion at the point of the sword is so 13th century.

    To be precise: so 7th century. So Mohammedan. It took Christianity a few centuries to get into to it – because its founder gave His life up, among other reasons, rather than to become a fighting kind of guy. Mohammed/Islam was a bloody religion, from day one.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 17, 2011 @ 2:53 pm - March 17, 2011

  58. 700 years, 1300 years, either way it’s out of date.

    And while it would be harder to do in the modern world, I think the Koran could benefit from a ‘King James version’ where the more violent parts were disavowed.

    It’s my understanding that might be more difficult as I think chronologically the Koran gets more violent in the younger passages.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 17, 2011 @ 3:57 pm - March 17, 2011

  59. The violent parts of the Bible are focused on, and implicitly limited to, the Israelites taking over Canaan. There is no general admonition to convert the world at swordpoint. The “spread the message” parts of the Christian Bible do not suggest/imply swords.

    In the Koran, yes, there are repeated, general admonitions to convert the world at swordpoint if necessary. And yes, the parts written later are supposed to be more insistent about that than the “peaceful” verses written initially.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 17, 2011 @ 4:24 pm - March 17, 2011

  60. Another crucial difference between the Christian Bible and the Muslim Quran: they are not really comparable. Mainstream Islam holds the Quran in a place much more like the place of Christ in Christianity. And oddly, Muhammad is more like the Virgin Mary: She gave birth to the Incarnate Word of God in a man, he gives birth to the Uncreated Word of God, this book. The Bible is a library-like written witness to Christ unfolded over a long time, but it is Muhammad who is a living and speaking witness to the Quran, which comes solely and perfectly through him but is literally Allah’s voice, not his. Islam holds that he never performed any miracles; the Quran is the miracle.

    Even with the high reverence given to the Bible in Christian history, it does not match the Muslim attitude toward their holy book. Very hard to “critique” the Quran for Muslims. It’s much like Christians criticizing Jesus himself.

    And furthermore –pardon Professor EssEm– the Quran is organically embedded in a vast “secondary” literature describing the life of Muhammad as a perfect and sinless man, and the hadith and Shariah legal judgements. These are as integral to Islam as the Talmud is to orthodox Judaism. There was a “Quran alone” movement in Islam like the “Bible alone” movement of Protestantism, but it was quickly quashed.

    I’ll shut up now.

    Comment by EssEm — March 18, 2011 @ 3:04 pm - March 18, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.