This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

England, a Muslim Nation?

Religious trends and our religious future--From a Church of England publication

If recent reports of trends in religious observance prove to be correct, then in some 30 years the mosque will be able to claim that, religiously speaking, the UK is an Islamic nation, and therefore needs a share in any religious establishment to reflect this. The progress of conservative Islam in the UK has been amazing, and it has come at a time of prolonged decline in church attendance that seems likely to continue.

This progress has been enthusiastically assisted by this government in particular with its hard-line multi-cultural dogma and willingness to concede to virtually every demand made by Muslims. Also, see Londonistan

31 comments:

shyster said...

And this is an issue that should concern us why?
The fact that Islam's sky phantom is encroaching on the turf of England's state sky pilot is another demonstration of the need for a strong legally mandated separation between church and state.
I watched in horror as the fundgelicals foisted the current administration on us and that was in a country that allows the people (and the supreme court) to select the president.
I have enough to worry about with Baptists and Holy Rollers. I can't really be bothered with English Muslims.

Hope said...

This is what happens when a government uses tax payer money to fund religious groups. :/

BRockBlue said...

Let us cede no ground to the theocrats,shyster, whether they be Christian or Muslim. Let's build up that Wall of Separation between all believers and all religions everywhere in the world!

Liberal POV said...

Muslims didn't bomb the olympic Games in Atlanta.

Sarkazein said...

We should start learning how to recite the Koran in Spanish.

Sarkazein said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Corey said...

This is the real threat of Islam to the west, not terrorists and not war. The US, or any Western nation in fact, could survive a terrorist attack of any magnitude - even a nuclear attack against a major city.

The real way that Islam can truly conquer the West and destroy western nations is through assimilation, through demographic conquest with large scale and unchecked immigration - which is happening in Europe now.

Europe has close to zero population growth if not negative, largely because of its modern, liberal, materialistic values. Islamic countries, on the other hand, have huge population growths and each woman has many children. Combine this with large scale immigration into Europe and the pathetic attitudes of most European leaders towards immigrants - Europe's days are numbered, at least secular democratic Europe where its legal not to be Muslim.

Political correctness, to a large degree, prevents people from even talking about this. In many European countries its even illegal to be critical of Islam or immigration. Despite the fact that Muslims in Europe often terrorize the native population - raping non-Muslims girls for not wearing proper clothing, killing or threatening to kill those who exercise freedom of speech, demanding that the government bend over backwards to appease their bigotry. The world has gone mad.

Sarkazein said...

If the host country doesn't house and feed them to their liking, the youth sets your cars on fire, France.

Liberal POV said...

sarkazein

Do you realy believe it"s that simple? Is it the Muslim that is born bad or the people of the middle east that's born bad or could there be more to the story?

What's you story sarkazein when did you become a lazy thinker?

shyster said...

Corey, I am the least politically correct person I know, so let’s talk.
The fundgelical churches in America have created a fear of independent thought and have pushed and supported a stupid, expensive and dangerous war.
THEIR family values have thwarted reasonable, rational sex education in most public schools. We all know that hormonal teens agree that abstinence is the best policy and for those who don’t know, they deserve pregnancy, STDs, and AIDS as a reasonable punishment. And after that 15-year old gets knocked up, they will fight to ensure that the teen mom can’t get a legal abortion so she is forced to raise a child she is ill prepared to raise because few of the good Christians will take it on. They would rather fund welfare and social programs and complain about the taxes and irresponsible moms.
The Catholic church nationwide needs a crowbar to pry priests off of altar boys and is spending a fortune to compensate the altar boys they missed.
I don’t even want to go into evil-lution and Earth science. Everyone knows the Earth is 6,000 years old and we all started with one incestuous family.
These are just a few issues. Can the growth of Islam in the USA possibly be any worse?
Equating all Muslims to extremists is like equating all Christians to the god-fearing Klan. Preaching fear of Islam is irresponcible and, dare I say it, anti-Christian.
If we support the freedom of each American to believe (or not to believe) in religious folk myths and resist, legally and socially, attempts to impose their myth system on their neighbors we will have nothing to worry about.

LiberalPOV said...

Shyster

You get a big AMEN!

shyster said...

LibPov, while I appreciate the thought. I am a practicing Pastafarian and worship FSM (may you be touched and caressed by his noodly appendage).
If it is not too much trouble, may I have a Ramen?

Corey said...

I'm not a Christian Shyster, so I don't particularly feel any need to address the majority of your post. It is true that some groups of Christians cause trouble in Western countries, but all of the things you mention are pretty petty in the big scheme of things. I'm not a Christian, but I don't feel particularly oppressed or threatened living in the heavily Christian US or in even more Christian North Carolina.

About 80% of Americans are Christian, give or take a bit, and yet we have religious freedom and freedom of speech and people can even make extremely Blasphemous comments in public and wont suffer anything worse than a few insults.

Try blaspheming against Allah or Mohammed in a country with an 80% Muslim population and see what happens to you. Hell, try blaspheming against Allah or Mohammed in America or Europe - it would be far safer to paint a picture of the Virgin Mary made of feces in the West than to paint a picture of Mohammed at all - IN THE WEST! You'd be hard pressed to find a majority Christian nation in this day an age where Muslims are persecuted, it be equally hard to find a Muslim country in this day and age where Christians weren't persecuted.

Can you honestly claim that if Britain had a majority Muslim population that they wouldn't cruelly oppress non-believers? Especially considering the extreme sense of entitlement they have there now being only a few percent of the population? And why should secular Western nations allow Muslims in when those Muslims have no loyalty to their new nation, no shared values, a desire to have Sharia law and recreate the same oppressive regimes they escaped from - with the benefit of Western money.

Sarkazein said...

Corey

Your comment @ 3:50 pm :

Well said !

Liberal POV said...

Corey

When Jewish and Catholic started coming here in large numbers early in the 1900s was there similar arguments made? I believe the KKK was an extension of some Christian Communities not only to inforce race issues but Christian morality or values as well? Shyster do you know anything about this? Is their a similarity to the extremist Muslims and the history of the Klan?

shyster said...

Corey, while interesting, your argument is largely irrelevant. If we surrender our freedoms to ANY religion it will be because we have decided our rights and freedoms are no longer worth fighting for. If that happens, we deserve to lose them.
My point was that the fundgelicals work long and hard to force their values on the rest of us. In small communities across America when people stand up and object to (for example) prayer in the public school they are harassed and ridiculed. Those who may agree are afraid to rise to the defense of separation of church and state and civil liberties. How often has the ACLU been used as a four-letter word on this blog?
All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. As long as we support and defend the constitution and support and defend each other we will survive and prosper.
As for Mohammed, I consider him no more a messenger of god than the "ministers" on Sunday morning TV.
That is my opinion, I'm entitled to it and I've said it.
That said, I will defend your right to believe in Allah and to believe that Mohammed is the messenger of Allah. I have read the Bible, pieces of the Koran and hunks of the Book of Mormon. I find none of them any more believable than any of the others.
LibPov, when my great-grandfather moved South the family "became" Episcopalian. My grandfather told me that being Catholic was considered akin to being a Jew and not far from being black. As a practical matter, there were no Catholic churches anywhere near where he lived. Episcopalian (Catholic-lite) became the answer.

Sarkazein said...

Pov

FYI....the KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party.

shyster said...

Sark, you are (as usual) wrong on too many levels to mention. The comment shows a basic lack of knowledge and understanding about Southern history and politics.
But since you brought it up, I'll play. Check with your Klan friends today and give them a choice: Obama, Hilary, or McCain.
New slogan: Yesterday's Klan — Today's GOP

Sarkazein said...

Shys

How many sources do you want re the KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party ?

Blogger said...

Corey, I don’t know where you suddenly came from. You are surprisingly aware. I sincerely thank you for your contribution to this blog and to this post. Hearing from someone so thoughtful gives me hope. Wikepedia says that the source for the following statement is uncertain, however most of us believe Pastor Martin Noemoller said it regarding the Nazis. "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

LiberalPOV said...

sarkazein

I hate to follow shyster on comments.
I believe that the south before the Civil Rights Movement was about 90% Democrats so it's likely the Klan were Democrats. The Civil Rights bill was passed by a southern Democrat President Johnson from you state of Texas. We had a rise in new south Democrats ( Terry Sanford, Jim Hunt, Jimmy Carter)people that make me proud to be a Democrat Most of the real racist Democrats switch to the Republican Party under Nixon and Reagan ( Helems, Thurman and many others). The Republicans have used race to control most of the southern politics since that time.
Was the Klan used used not only for race but religon as well and wasn't there a fear of Catholics and Jews in the south that lasted until after world war II?

Corey's comment

"And why should secular Western nations allow Muslims in when those Muslims have no loyalty to their new nation, no shared values"

I believe this argument was used during the wave of Catholic and Jewish immagrants.

Sarkazein said...

Republicans outlawed the Ku Klux Klan


For decades after the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party. Klansmen murdered hundreds of Republican activists and office-holders, including U.S. Representative James Hinds (R-Arkansas).

On this day in 1871, the Republican-controlled 42nd Congress passed and the Republican President, Ulysses Grant, signed into law the Ku Klux Klan Act. The law banned the KKK and other Democrat terrorist organizations. President Grant then deployed federal troops to crush a Klan uprising in South Carolina.

Eleven years later, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned most provisions of the Act. Though legalized, this original version of the Ku Klux Klan faded. Why? Because as Democrats regained control over southern state governments, they could oppress African-Americans openly, without need of white sheets.

Michael Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the country, showing office-holders, candidates and activists how they would benefit tremendously from appreciating our Party's heritage of civil rights achievement.

shyster said...

Sark, the parties switched sides and philosophy.
The Dem party following the Civil War grew up out of a racist, anti-reconstruction society. The GOP was the economic and social saviour of the black race.
I think it is fairly clear that the parties switched hats. Continuing to claim the racial high ground based on that issue is like beating up a Brit tourist for the Stamp Act (nice segue back to the original post).

Sarkazein said...

Shys

When exactly did they switch hats ? Was it at the
Klanbake AKA the 1924 Democrat Convention ?

Or was it in 2000 when elderly Republicans dressed in plaid shirts and pleated Bermuda shorts kept black people from voting in Palm Beach County thru intimidation. Putting such fear in them they could not even punch thru a stack of 4 ballots or focus on how to poke a hole.

Corey said...

Thanks Blogger :)

We've met in person, though briefly, at the local GOP meetings. I'm a recent ASU master's graduate, I've known about the blog for a while but have been so busy in the past few months that I haven;t had much of a chance to read or post. I'm hoping to be a bit more active here in the future, and perhaps even start my own blog.

Also, thanks to you too Sarkazein for the complement.

Corey said...

Liberal pov -

Isn't it a bit silly to say that if the KKK did something that we have to object to it. I'm sure most 20th century KKK members drove cars, most ate meat, etc. Nazi Germany had an army, should we not have an army for the US because the Nazis had one? Its really just a variant of Godwin's law abuse. The KKK may object to certain forms of immigration as do I, that doesn't mean I'm a member of the KKK or that my position on the issue is similar to their's nor does it mean that the issue of Muslim immigration is similar to immigration into the US in the 1800's.

Catholics and Jews who came to America in the past did not hold America in contempt, didn't despise non-believers, didn't seek to enforce their own religion over their new nation. The majority of rapes in that period weren't committed by Jews punishing gentle women for their immorality. The Irish Catholics didn't call for the death of people who drew pictures of the Pope.

Also, the attitudes of America back then were radically different - there wasn't so much political correctness. When people caused trouble back then you could call attention to it and even punish them, America had a sense of itself, a sense of patriotism and desire to defend itself. These days, particularly in Europe, they can't criticize anybody nor lift a finger to protect their nation for fear of being called racist or intolerant or being compared to the KKK (or in Europe, more likely Nazis). Western civilization is a like living creature with no immune system if it wont stop Muslims from flooding into their countries that only wish to take over.

Plus, Europe has a negative population growth and in the Middle East each women has many, many children. If Europe has open borders then it will be inevitable that there is a massive demographic shift towards Islam. If they already cause massive problems in Europe now, imagine when they are 30% of the population? Imagine when they are 50% of the population and start outlawing other religions?

Throwing around the KKK is just a scare tactic, its now real argument at all. Its an attempt to evoke all of the negative imagery associated with the KKK (lynching, etc.) and associate it with me and my immigration position. It likens immigration of Catholics and Jews 100 years ago to modern Muslim immigrations while completely ignoring the nature of those religions, the attitudes of the immigrants, the geopolitical dynamics of the situation, the demographic effects, the political attitudes of the host countries - you ignore ever bit of context.

Sarkazein said...

Corey

Again....Well Said !

shyster said...

Sark, if you're going to "borrow" ideas and text from other sites it is common courtesy to cite the source. I'm sure that Grand Old Partisan would appreciate the nod.
I do not disagree that the Southern Democrat Party worked overtime to defeat integration and to terrorize any in favor. My point is that the old-line Southern Democrats and Dixiecrats now make up the GOP in the South. The final transfer and defection came after LBJ and was finalized with Reagan. The members of both parties have switched hats. The post-civil war GOP is now the Southern Democrat Party. To pull the Klan relationship out of history and attempt to revive it is at best dishonest.

Sarkazein said...

Shys

#1, I didn't pull the Klan thing out.
#2, as a libertarian with conservative tendencies I can discern between hangings, murder, arson and a difference of political opinion on the effects of welfare, racial quotas, and thought policing.

Liberal POV said...

Corey

Two points
One we fear what we don't understand in the late 1800s and earlier 1900s I think their was much fear about the Jewish and Catholic immagration wave and the argument opposing that wave of immagration was similar to what you posted. This is a question not a statement as others here may have more information than I?

Point Two

Terrorism by the Christian KKK can be compared to Terrorism by extreme Muslims. Point being most Christians are not members of the extreme KKK nor are most Muslims members of extremist groups. Fear being the tool of both groups.

Both are in the form of a question for decussion not to call you a racist.

Sarkazein said...

A belated nod of appreciation to The Grand Old Partisan for quoting Michael Zak. (mentioned in the last paragraph of my 5/30-11:01pm comment.