In yet another example of why the west might not beat the onslaught of radical Islamofascism, Minette Marrin of the Timesonline thinks she has found a solution to the clash of cultures. Marrin details the extremism evinced by too many Muslims in England and then posits a solution: ban all religion. Talk about an absurd idea. It's as foolish as throwing out the baby with the bath water. It also discounts thousands of years of worthy and enlightened western culture influenced, guided and based on Christian philosophy.
In To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups, Marrin's wooly headed prescription also serves as a fine example of the most shallow of PC, postmodern "thinking." Famed French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré once said that, "to doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." It is a lesson in discernment and critical thinking that escapes most on the left, and specifically this prosaic, anti-intellectual Timesonline columnist.
The first half of Marrin's piece details recent poll results revealing the extremist leaning of Muslim students in England and it is alarming information, indeed. These poll results show, for instance, that four out of ten Muslim students in Britain support Sharia law in the UK. One third said that killing in the name of religion was justified. It shows that a quarter think women are not equals to men. The poll also shows that, among other results, 57% believe Muslim soldiers in the British army should be allowed to opt out of the war on terror. This alarming YouGov poll will be released on Monday, July 28. To sum up, Marrin says of the poll:
The authors make it clear that the majority of Muslim students support secularism and democratic values and are broadly tolerant of others. However, the CSC points out that the incidence of conservative and separatist Muslim beliefs has been growing and is more prevalent in young Muslims than in their parents’ generation. British Muslims used to be much more moderate.
It is an alarming poll. Of course, who can doubt such results? The Brits have for decades been collectively turning their back on western society with politically correct teaching that holds that their own culture is no more than just another culture and, therefore, not deserving of special consideration. Like most left leaning provocateurs, British liberals have become fond of morally equating their own culture with the worst lot of humanity. On the other hand, these young Muslims are taught from birth that their religion is superior. Not only that, but Islam is a political system as well as a mere religion. So why shouldn't British Muslims seek to replace the British culture with one they are taught is superior? If the English aren't going to insist their culture is optimal, why should anyone else?
In all this England is reaping what it has sown. Also in this they aren't much different than the French, the Germans, Spain, Canada, and to a lesser extent, even the U.S.A.
It is enlightening information and serves as a good warning, but Marrin isn't done. She wonders aloud what we should do. "Insecure young people can be swayed by extremists," she assures us, "The question is how to stand up to the extremists."
Marrin begins with a good idea saying, "First, I think, we should abandon all discussions of what Islam truly is." That is a pretty good prescription, but it isn't a subject of much discussion in the west, really. Westerners aren't interested in what is or is not the "real" Islam. That is a question that has vexed the Muslim world from time immemorial and will surely never be resolved. What the west is interested in, though, is what Islam is not, and that is a "religion of peace." Still, no matter what it is, it is a major problem and solving that problem is all the west is interested in. Muslims living in peace is not something the west is interested in meddling with. Muslims on the rampage is.
And now we get to Marrin's solution of banning all religion, her nihilistic suggestion.
What follows inescapably from this is that religious people and their views should not be officially recognised in groups. Religion should not be allowed a public space or public representation. This is hard for those of us who used to love the muddled Anglican compromise; it means the disestablishment of our national church – if it doesn’t self-destruct first.
She goes further.
The challenge of other, fiercer and more divisive convictions has forced the issue; multiculturalism has been subversive. There must be no more religious schools – personally I would leave those that exist alone. There must be no public recognition of religious associations as representatives of anything or anybody: not on campuses, not in student unions, not in government consultations or in parliament.
Marrin even wishes to ban religious schools? And how does this make her much different in stringent authoritarianism than the radical Islamists she here condemns?
Now Marrin's absurd, overreaction would make sense if there were even half as many honor killings in Britain perpetrated by Christians, Buddhists -- or even Druids for that matter -- as there are Muslims. It would make sense if Christian nations were exporting terror cells secretly into nations throughout the world. It would make sense if major Christian leaders were issuing their own fatwa-like proclamations calling their flocks to violence, oppression, and self-immolation.
It would be a perfectly sensible idea to ban all religions if all religions were exactly as dangerous as Islam. But they aren't. In fact, it isn't even close. Islam is by many magnitudes of measurement a far more dangerous ideology than any other religion on the planet.
Yet, in a reductionists silly fantasy, Marrin offhandedly decides to veer off track and rush to ban all religions instead of making even a tiny attempt to actually deal with the real problem. This is the same sort of empty headed thinking that would punish the bully and his schoolyard victim for fighting on the playground. Hers is the same sort of idiocy that reduces all human actions to moral relativity. Marrin's ultimate destination for her vacuous reasoning would equate the works of a Gandhi or a King, Jr., to that of a Stalin or Hitler. After all, all of them espoused their philosophies loudly and insistently and brought many followers to their side.
Certainly, a banning of Islam is not perhaps a solution out of the question. After all, Islam is the problem, here. But a foolhardy banning of all religion just because one is currently a problem is no solution at all. But it is a "solution" that falls into Poincaré’s admonition. It has the dubious benefit of eliminating any reflection. Sadly, it is the way of the unthinking left that we've become so tiresomely familiar.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Timesonline is
July 29, 2008 - 08:53 ET by Delsasimply being FAIR AND BALANCED
Islam bad.....All Religion bad!
It would make sence to me if I was a timesonline reader.
Look at all the Christians and people of other religions who are blowing themselves and others up all over the world.
yep. Fair and Balanced
Das Kapital
July 29, 2008 - 09:12 ET by allanfIsn't that idea straight out of Marx?
you guys should be happy
July 29, 2008 - 09:59 ET by TruthMongertimesonline is just following the lead of matt sheffield and NB
TM... I see you're at it
July 29, 2008 - 10:14 ET by Tim the EnchanterTM... I see you're at it again. What do you want to be when you grow up?
sorry - but matt banned the
July 29, 2008 - 12:16 ET by TruthMongersorry - but matt banned the name calling as well:)
please repost according to the new rules so that I may respond according to matt's rino/agnostic views
huh?
July 29, 2008 - 08:56 ET by candanceBritish Muslims used to be much more moderate.
Can't this woman use simple logic? Muslims are pouring into England like water these days, and with a stronger community presence you get less desire to fit in with the natives. It's a very simple equation to figure out and yet this woman seems mystified.
Religious groups in England have it much worse than what we have it here and it will only keep going.
religious groups in england
July 29, 2008 - 10:02 ET by TruthMongerreligious groups in england have it much worse? hows that...?
Imagine there's no
July 29, 2008 - 09:01 ET by motherbeltImagine there's no countries....
It isn't hard to do....
Nothing to kill or die for....
And no religion too..... "Imagine" - John Lennon
And that is the UN's theme song.
Wake up people!
Obama's theme song
Right on, MB. This is a great piece.
July 29, 2008 - 09:36 ET by ThalpyRight on, MB. This is a great piece. Did Lennon speak about having nothing to live for as well? Mindless nonsense.
No religion
July 29, 2008 - 11:25 ET by merlin61Yes, lets ban religion, then with a clear conscience
we can tell people who are dying of cancer, no, we
can't afford to give you chemotherapy, but we can
give you doctors and medicine to commit suicide.
Lets just get rid of all morality, old people, sick
people, and then, what a wonderful world it will be.
Sickos!!!!
Shows why a Constitution is so important
July 29, 2008 - 09:07 ET by c5thenIn England, their Constitution can be repealed, replaced or modified by the legislature and the Sovereign without any say from the people. Their rights flow from the Government.
In the US, we have it set up the otherway round...The sovereign is "The People" who get their rights from GOD, their creator, and happen to delegate some authority to the States, who in turn delegate some authority to the Federal Government. Our Constitution can not be repealed or suspended or modified without a series of votes by "The People".
Without religion there is no basis for morality other than what 'seems ok at the time'. For instance, without religion as the basis for the prohibition on murder, killing is just another way to forward your goals and help you and your family survive better. If there is no GOD who has the ultimate authority, then everyone is free to do as they please. Darwinism is the only logical outcome of the banning of all religion. Survival of the fittest. Kill or be killed.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
No Constitution
July 29, 2008 - 09:27 ET by Dr_LibertyBritain doesn't have a constitution per se, just a collection of common law.
<insert witty signature here>
No constitution in England
July 29, 2008 - 11:27 ET by merlin61c5then ---- you got it right----Amen.
This sort of logic...
July 29, 2008 - 09:09 ET by heldmyw(and I use the term VERY loosely) would ban all foods because some might cause obesity.
Perhaps this Manure Mignonette should toddle back to writing obits or something.
'Shooting fish in a barrel' doesn't describe what can be done with this argument. 'Nuking tadpoles in a water glass' comes closer.
Not All Religions Are The Same
July 29, 2008 - 09:20 ET by GothampcThis is as silly as when Rosie O'Donnell made the parallel that fundamentalist Christians were as dangerous as fundamentalist Muslims.
All religions are not the same. You can't compare Christianity and Islam. Christianity (when practiced properly) teaches to love those that hate you, to pray for those that hate you and forgive. Islam teaches submit or die.
Additionally, the "no religion" idea is actually a religion. Its god is self. "I" can decide what is morally right and wrong, "I" can make it on my own without divine help, "I" can decide how people will be treated in "my" world.
all fundies are dangerous - including me:)
July 29, 2008 - 10:05 ET by TruthMongerall religions differ, but all people are equally sinful in the eyes of God, and all equally in need of salvation...
Yes, I can see that. By
July 29, 2008 - 09:24 ET by bradbenj5952Yes, I can see that. By banning all religions, Islamists will just suddenly abandon their beliefs and "poof" will live peacefully and harmoniously with all their neighbors. They'll just throw off more than 3500 years of resentment, jealousy and hate against Isaac (those who know their Bible will get the reference). And what saith the prophecy concerning Ishmael (father of all Arabs and hence Islam):
"And the angel of the LORD said unto her (Hagar), Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." Genesis 16:11 & 12
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
people can't abandon their
July 29, 2008 - 10:07 ET by TruthMongerpeople can't abandon their religions
that's why the NB religous ban is doomed to failure
People can't abandon their religion?
July 29, 2008 - 11:30 ET by merlin61Huh?
handy tip - free of charge
July 29, 2008 - 12:18 ET by TruthMongerit's called scrolling and reading
a couple of posts up
"...Islamists will just suddenly abandon their beliefs..."
Sorry, I forgot to indicate
July 29, 2008 - 12:35 ET by bradbenj5952Sorry, I forgot to indicate sarcasm in the first couple sentences. I just assumed people would get it.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
Church of England
July 29, 2008 - 09:30 ET by Dr_LibertyThe Church of England has pretty much taken care of "banning" religion de facto as nobody wants to attend this pathetic excuse for a church nowadays. Just check out the wacky sayings coming from the Archbishop of Cantebury and various other Anglican officials.
In Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith saw this coming and tried to warn the Church of England (you will need the unabridged version of Wealth). The warning has not been heeded.
<insert witty signature here>
What about the Sierra Club
July 29, 2008 - 09:31 ET by zachlindAll religions? What about the Sierra Club?
This is what the MSM doesn't
July 29, 2008 - 09:33 ET by LilyPearlThis is what the MSM doesn't get. True Christianity is not a religion---it is a relationship---with Jesus.
Its not guys in pointy hats?
July 29, 2008 - 09:48 ET by Dr_Libertybeing trained at elite div schools?
Hmm... who knew?
<insert witty signature here>
religion is the practice of
July 29, 2008 - 10:08 ET by TruthMongerreligion is the practice of faith - it's plenty Christian all right
Why can't it be both? I feel True Christianity is both
July 29, 2008 - 10:11 ET by Daniel BakerI get benefit from personal relationship and from the organization of my religion.
John McCain 2008 Protect Traditional Marriage
Traditional Marriage is not "Divisive" Obama.
Governent must stop giving money to the worst churches
July 29, 2008 - 09:39 ET by Daniel BakerObama wants to let every racist abortion loving church have money with his faith based initiative
John McCain 2008 Protect Traditional Marriage
Traditional Marriage is not "Divisive" Obama.
And governments are *so* wise
July 29, 2008 - 09:43 ET by sarcasmoIn picking up on goodness in churches & elsewhere and efficiently spending money accordingly...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I get sick of Democrat earmarks to community organizer pastors
July 29, 2008 - 10:04 ET by Daniel BakerAlso earmarks to agenda based groups opposed to a traditional religous belief
John McCain 2008 Protect Traditional Marriage
Traditional Marriage is not "Divisive" Obama.
I wouldn't trust ANY church taking welfare
July 29, 2008 - 10:13 ET by sarcasmoEven if politicians left & right struggle to think up names besides "welfare" to call what is obviously welfare. True conservatives would want this wasteful spending to go to 0 regardless of the relative merits of various churches -- a subject we're guaranteed to disagree on anyway.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
DB: Great call-out on the
July 29, 2008 - 11:37 ET by KillgraveDB:
Great call-out on the Obambi. That is exactly what I thought when I heard him blathering on the subject.
Hate America? Hate white people? Have a cross on your door? Here, take this federal money...
Might not be so bad...
July 29, 2008 - 11:05 ET by dmntd1Depends on who gets to choose religions..... If it were me, the following list would be included, as well as the standards:
Of course, this is keeping in mind that Christians routinely go underground to worship whenever their religion is banned (Russia, iran, etc).
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his imminent relationship with a superior law and with an objective will that transcends the particular individual - Mussolini
amen brother:)
July 29, 2008 - 12:20 ET by TruthMongeramen brother:)
Christian hatred
July 29, 2008 - 12:24 ET by Kenny BunkportFor those of us paying attention, this confirms the fundamental tenet of the new order - Christianity is bad.
The media doesn't give a fig about Islam. The only reason they defend it so vigorously is so that they can use it as a hammer to beat on Christianity.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
What should we ban?
July 29, 2008 - 15:07 ET by kbworkmanTo stop stupidity let's ban the old stream media.
Let's Just Ban the Timesonline
July 29, 2008 - 18:54 ET by Kirk TurnerInstead of banning all religion, let's just ban the Timesonline. First, it is easier, and second, it is already well underway.
I really feel sorry for the
July 30, 2008 - 03:04 ET by mostlymoderateI really feel sorry for the native people of England and all of Europe for that matter. It seems like year after year the Muslim and Islamic population is spreading through this region like a forest fire. That would be ok if these people wanted to become "English", "French" "German" etc. but they don't. They want the BENEFITS of these European nations but they want to keep living like the 3rd World nations they come from. It parallels the problem we have here with illegal immigrants. The Muslim and Islamic faiths are horrible for woman's rights. They also have proven to be quite violent.