Persecution Index 8: United States

It appears that the pig is being persecuted in the United States. Please don't laugh. A regular reader of this blog has sent me the following from Front Page Magazine: 'The practice of political correctness may soon be tallying another casualty: the pig. Increasingly, as America and the rest of the Western world continue accommodating Muslim religious demands, pork food products are being singled out for removal from dining tables and pig-related trinkets banished from the desks of office workers.'

Read the rest here.

Meanwhile, some blogs have picked up the AP report that leaders of Ireland’s main Christian churches were barred from praying at Jerusalem’s Western Wall yesterday because they refused to remove the crosses they were wearing. 'Roman Catholic Cardinal Sean Brady, Church of Ireland Archbishop Alan Harper and Presbyterian and Methodist Moderators John Finlay and Roy Cooper arrived at the wall, Judaism’s holiest prayer site, without giving prior notice to Israeli authorities, Brady told the Irish broadcast network RTE.'

I look forward to hearing how they got on when they tried entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque without taking their shoes off.

 

Comments

[James O'Fee]

When the headline mentioned 'persecution' I thought this would refer to the persecution of Christians.

Why is it that the persecution of Christians in many countries abroad (and even in the UK as pointed out recently by Jonathan Aitken) gets so little attention and coverage in our mainstream media?

(rg writes: good question, that's one reason I started this index. have you looked at the previous seven?)

[Colin]

The world has indeed gone mad, in doing so, it has lost all sense of humour.

[peterNW1]

Ruth Gledhill writes ...

"I look forward to hearing how they got on when they tried entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque without taking their shoes off."

Bad analogy.

A few years ago I toured Galicia and the Minho with a Jewish friend. The first time we entered a cathedral together an irate Portuguese man came over and told my friend to remove his hat. My friend removed it, no problem.

This is the equivalent of being asked to remove shoes on entering a mosque.

Had my friend been wearing a phylactery strapped to his forehead, or some Star of David jewelry, and had he been asked to remove these, my friend would have rightly felt affronted.

This is the equivalent of asking Christians to remove crosses and crucifixes. The Irish clerics therefore have every right to feel affronted.

[Bartholomew]

From that FrontPage article Gledhill recommends:

In October of 2005, the United Kingdom, clearly further along on the road to dhimmitude due to its proportionally large and more radical Muslim population, banned piggybanks as promotional gifts from its banks.

Firstly, the UK has not "banned piggybanks". Secondly, the whole story was derived from a bogus report in the Daily Express concerning the Halifax. Does spreading lies about Muslims to increase fear and hatred count as "persecution"? And what does it say about the competence of a journalist who uses such a duff article as a source for a supposedly serious "index" of persecution?

(And if you want a more serious case of persecution from Israel, try David Ortiz, the Messianic pastor whose son was recently nearly killed by a letter-bomb. Perhaps Palestinian militants were responsible, but anti-missionary Israeli fanatics are also strong suspects.)

[David McHaley]

I don't know why you're so upset. Read your old testament. Pork is and has never been suitable to eat. That comes from God, not Allah!

[George Parr]

Part of accommodating others is to display high levels of tolerance, in a rational world hopefully restricted to things that actually matter. Otherwise rancour and violence is liable to result over the minutiae. There could not be a better example of hubristic nonsense than carrying on in an alarming manner over signs and symbols deemed by some to be sacred whilst others not.

All manner of artificial notions, imperatives and proscriptions exist including comb-carrying, hat-wearing, hat-removing, bead twiddling, beard growing, head shaving, silence observing, wailing, howling etc. etc. Religious groups are possibly alone in this phenomenon and, given that the usual unstable religious climate prevails, must want something to argue about. Eat beef not pork? Er, no. Eat fish, maybe on Fridays.

[Andrew CJ]

A good thing, then, that Winnie the Pooh is a bear!

But just imagine the ridiculousness of the traditional British 'piggy' bank succumbing to the newcomers' own traditions and religion?!

Ought not those who choose to settle here from exotic lands, where pork may be prohibited or frowned upon, extend a modicum of courtesy and respect towards our indigenous cultural habits? Or perhaps it is some fifth-columnist elements within our own ranks who must now be persuaded to do just that!

Oh, who can anyone save us from all this utter and absolute craziness!

[joe]

Ruth - I've not been following this series, but I recently received this from the Anglican Church in Egypt and the Horn of Africa:

"This is to let you know the sad news that David Mohamed Ali, a Somali
Christian evangelist and a long-standing member of St Matthew's, was shot
dead last week by two Islamist terrorists in Badoia, Somalia, because of his
Christian faith. He had been sent to Badoia by Ethiopian and Somali border
police, for reasons that are not clear.

David was an intelligent and gifted evangelist who thought deeply about his
faith. For a while he ran a website for Christian Somalis. I had recently
given him a reference to do a Degree in Theology at ETC (Evangelical
Theological College), Addis Ababa. He was single man, aged about 35, who was
based in Addis Ababa but travelled widely sharing his faith.

We thank God for his life and courageous witness, and pray for his mother,
sister and other members of his family. We also pray for the Somali
Christian community, that they may be comforted and strengthened at this
time when Christians are under great pressure in Somalia.

David's death comes just two weeks after four Christian teachers (2 British
Somalis and 2 Kenyans) were killed in Beledwayne, Somalia."

Which puts the silly 'persecution' of wearing religious jewellery into perspective. At a time when Lambeth is showing Anglicanism at its worst, it is worth bearing in mind that others who wear that particular religious label are dying for their faith.

(rg writes: Joe excellent comment which I've just put up as comment of the day. You are right, and I was in two minds about posting this one as a 'persecution' from fear of trivialising what is meant to be a serious look at what is happening around the world. However, I have noted that some of the best comments in the series have been posted on this post. So that makes me think I was right to post it. Even though it appeared trivial to some, I was trying to make a serious point with it. But I won't do this very often. Please do send me anything more in like vein that you hear of. ruth.gledhill@thetimes.co.uk)

[andrew holden]

"At a time when Lambeth is showing Anglicanism at its worst..."

Is that a slur against the Archbishop or the forthcoming Conference?

Either way I don't recognise it. If you meant the former I disagree - many of us hold +Rowan in the highest esteem and admire his spitituality, theology and leadership at this time of a crisis he didn't make. If you mean the Conference well it remains to be seen whether it can survive the attempts of GAFCON bishops to turn it into an irrelevance.

And when it comes to serious issues of persecution how about the hounding, insulting, abusive, and often violent, treatment handed out to gay and lesbian Christians by some of their brothers and sisters in Christ?

[Kate]

Bartholomew | 5 May 2008: "Does spreading lies about Muslims to increase fear and hatred count as "persecution"?"

Dear me Bartholomew! More tetchy begrudging; a lot of flare-up but little 'light'. Could it be you have targeted Ruth Gledhill - one of the FEW British journalists with both courage and Christian ethics - because she has chosen to INFORM readers of the reality of Islamic 'persecution' of others on a world-wide basis?

That you have chosen to focus on the ONE point in this article which suits your agenda, suggests that to be the case.

Your agenda? To confront, contort or deny any published material which does not agree with your personal affiliation to Islam.

As with all of similar persuasion, you cannot 'resist' the tired 'comparison' or deflection - Israel!! What relevance has Israel to your objection re. Piggy banks? What relevance has Israel to an article on Muslim machinations to eliminate 'pork' from menus in the USA?

Truly, the efforts made by certain dhimmi to 'uncover' somewhere, somehow, an Israeli 'terrorist' beggars belief. How you must pray, fervently and daily; the emergence of just ONE would, of course, conveniently erase 9/11, London, Madrid, Bombay, Bali, Pakistan and all the conflicts in which Muslim murders Muslim.

Lebanon? Gosh Oh: Hezbullah attacks Sunni Muslims! Think fast Bartholomew, it will take some spinning to pin this one on Israel or British foreign policy.

[George Parr]

For your information Bartholomew, many of us living and working in the UK are sick to death of ill-informed apologists skilfully utilising the disproportionate tolerance extended to the unbalanced and hegemonic notions found within the corrupted facets of Islam.

I am not religious. I have no allegiance to Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, or any other worldview. I do however have the absolute right to live in peace. In a context of reduced sanity, where the avowed intention of these people is to promote themselves to such an extent we in Europe are forced to confront unrecognisable cultures of hatred and control, to be achieved through the unashamed use of violence, SOME form of rational comment is urgently required.

You seem to have no proportionate ideas as to what constitutes terrorism, or where Israel stands in the Middle East.

Suffice it to say that basically moral and stable societies will not put up with self-serving maniacs who consider it worthy or desirable to impose their views on them. Dialogue by journalists like Ruth and other commentators, intended to draw attention to and discuss what amounts to a scandalous proposal - an attack on original values, customs and human rights - is one way of approaching the problem.

The alternative to using dialgue to make firm policies which significantly extend beyond simple compromise will be an unimaginable backlash, causing untold mayhem in our society, with reasonable, peaceful Muslims suffering the very greatest of harm.

[Mike Homfray]

Ah, so this is a crusade about purely Islamic persecution against Christians. Just so we know.

[George Parr]

Mike, not from me its not. I am very concerned about the ways in which red hot 'religion' in all its forms, impacts adversely upon peaceful members of society of all colours, 'religious' or not, who are otherwise legitimately going about their business. This extends from Anglicans plugging their ideology and seeking to subvert legislation to suit their own sexual prejudices and notions opf gender, to concerns surrounding my right to use the London Underground without being blown to smithereens.

The extent to which foreign policy, both in Europe and North America, impacts adversely on Middle Eastern cultures can also be clearly demonstrated.

[Kate]

Mike, are you deliberately obtuse or is the condition genetic? "Crusade"! Revelatory. One discerns a pathological aversion to the task of basic research.

UN High commission on Human Rights:
"Each State, party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

No Muslim state in the world adheres to this contract. In direct conflict, Muslim States discriminate on grounds of race, colour, sex, religion and political opinion, just for starters.

People like you they torture, crucify or hang. Whilst you are free to indulge a death-wish, I have a gay son, a black son-in-law, three daughters and two grand daughters. If it is deemed a 'crusade' to disseminate logical information on a murderous ideology in which women and children are the property of their male relatives, so be it.

Do have a look at today's 'Observer': the article on women in Yemen. Do tell us what you think of the interview with the Iraqi who lately (assisted by his sons) kicked his daughter to death for speaking to a British soldier:

'I know God is blessing me for what I did' he said, his voice swelling with pride. 'My sons were men enough to help me finish the life of one who had brought shame to ours'.

'That girl humiliated me in front of my family and friends. Speaking with a foreign soldier she lost what is the most precious thing in a woman. ...Our girls should respect their religion, their family and their bodies".

Indeed, otherwise their fathers will beat and kick them to death. He was released by the police who "congratulated me on what I had done"!

This is the pathology and facticity Muslims bring with them to Europe. This is the culture they perpetuate in closed, segregated communities.

What sort of flaccid, uninformed intellect seeks to deny factual evidence confirmed by organisations such as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

[Mike Homfray]

Kate: your anti-Muslim hysteria bores me. Its impossible to have any sort of rational discussion with you on the topic, because you are a crusader on the matter with a burning hatred of that religion. I'm not keen on it either, but then I feel much the same about your religion. As I have said before, your approach will not enable or assist Britain's diverse population, which will continue to include Muslims whether you approve of it or not. If I were Muslim, I don't think I would be very impressed with your approach which makes no allowance for differences between Muslims amongst many other matters. Start talking about the homophobia or other prejudices of other ideologies and I may start to take you seriously - but you simply sound like Melanie Phillips' younger sister and so should be taken no more seriously.

Amnesty do indeed raise abuses of human rights by may types of regime and belief system (or more accurately, their followers). However, so far, all the 'persecutions' highlighted here have been stories about Muslims and Islam. Hardly reflective of human rights abuse as a whole, and it suggests that what we have here is a crusade rather than a genuine attempt to uncover human rights abuses, which certainly are present in many other situations than Islam. I don't think that Amnesty would want to have any connection with your brand of targeting of Muslims to promote your own views

And as I have said before and your penultimate paragraph suggests - you really would like those 'Muslims' out of Europe, wouldn't you? At least be honest about your true aims. I hardly think you could be satisfied with the French outlook either, where all religion is regarded as suited for the private sphere - including Christianity. But Muslims live quite happily in France.

Personally, I think George's view is far more credible, and that all conservative religion is likely to have negative effects.

[Kate]

No, no again Mike. I do not "bore" you - if I did you would not meticulously respond with the utmost discourtesy to my posts. I infuriate you. Too bad.

As for removing Muslims: I have never said this. I HAVE said their entry should be regulated and that certain aspects of their culture should not be tolerated. That is a perfectly rational position.

The word "hysteria" is too prevalent in your lexicon - a knee-jerk response to any female you disagree with. Clearly there is a problem with articulate women BUT your personal difficulty does not prove anything. It is merely your opinion. Perhaps you prefer the sticky marshmallow type?

Homophobia? My record speaks for itself. I have fought the homophobes on this forum with unremitting energy and will continue to do so.

My "religion". Another error. I am not one of those Anglicans with whom you have had problematic personal experience. For a start, I am NOT English. You are clearly ignorant of the glorious eccentricity which has characterised the Irish Church for centuries.

Whatever, one-sided bitter resentment - whether against women or what you consider 'black-eyed beans', is not a basis for rational debate. A bit like the uninformed bigots who presume all gay men are queens and/or sodomites !

[Mike Homfray]

Yawm...no, you have nothing new to say, and I tend to be rather un-moved by hearing stuff which just gets recycled, like a CD on replay mode.

I do not think that one should regulate 'entry' purely on religion: indeed, how would you do this? Given that you do not see any difference between different Muslims, how would you know which were 'Bad Muslims' or 'Not So Bad Muslims'? However, I do agree that religion should not be protected in law - after all, we do not protect any other freely chosen opinions.

I would also agree that some aspects of some Muslim practices should not be allowed such as forced marriages. But you are assuming that there will be no intergenerational change and that the Muslim stance is homogenous, which it is not.

I think your style of posting tends to be shrill and lacks calmness and rationality - it tends to be somewhat tabloid in style, using alarmist language and focusing on things which are designed to gain an emotive and negative response. People who are articulate should not have to scrabble in that sort of gutter, irrespective of their gender. I cannot see how your approach is going to assist change within the Muslim community or how it will win friends amongst moderate Muslims. Is that what you want to do? Or are you simply looking towards the removal or 'control' of Muslims?

I fully agree that you oppose homophobia.

And I have not had any problematic personal experience with Anglicans, I simply decided that I no longer believed in what the church says.

Your last post actually made no substantive points at all - but then, you seem to find anyone who disagrees with your view difficult to cope with. perhaps you could try to respond to some of the actual issues rather than concentrating on me next time?

[Kate]

Whoops! "but then, you seem to find anyone who disagrees with your view difficult to cope with. perhaps you could try to respond to some of the actual issues rather than concentrating on me next time?" (Mike Homfray)

Precisely my sentiments. Almost verbatim! These are the points I have made directly to you on other threads. Let us, without prejudice, 'call it a day' Mike. I have little interest in further exchange of repetitive views.

[Mike Homfray]

Fair enough, Kate. We would probably have more agreement on other issues in any case - lets just agree to differ on this one