NOTES FROM A JUVENILE RELIGION
I would really like to have respect for Muslims again seeing as how I have none whatsoever for them now:
British prison officers who wore a St. George’s Cross tie-pin have been ticked off by the jails watchdog over concerns about the symbol’s racist connotations.
The pins showing the English flag -- which has often raised hackles due to its connection with the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries -- could be "misconstrued," Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers said in a section on race in a report on a jail in the northern English city of Wakefield.
The banner of St. George, the red cross of a martyr on a white background, was adopted for the uniform of English soldiers during the military expeditions by European powers to recapture the Holy Land from Muslims, and later became the national flag of England.Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said Tuesday the red cross was an insensitive reminder of the Crusades.
"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.
"Muslim or Arab prisoners could take umbrage if staff wore a red cross badge. It’s also got associations with the far-right. Prison officers should be seen to be neutral."
Doyle added that it was now time for England to find a new flag and a patron saint who is "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with."
Novelty pig calendars and toys have been banned from a council office — in case they offend Muslim staff.
Workers in the benefits department at Dudley Council, West Midlands, were told to remove or cover up all pig-related items, including toys, porcelain figures, calendars and even a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet.
Bosses acted after a Muslim complained about pig-shaped stress relievers delivered to the council in the run-up to the Islamic festival of Ramadan.
Muslims are barred from eating pork in the Koran and consider pigs unclean.
Councillor Mahbubur Rahman, a practising Muslim, backed the ban. He said: “It’s a tolerance of people’s beliefs.”
Police here in central England seized a collection of porcelain pigs from a house’s window sill after Muslims complained that they were offensive.
"I just couldn’t believe it, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry," Mrs Nancy Bennett, the owner of the 17 miniature pigs, told the Sun tabloid newspaper.
The porcelain figures were held at the local police station, while Mrs Bennett was threatened with prosecution if she replaces the collection. Her house is located in the same street as the city’s main mosque, meaning that Muslim worshippers often passed by her front window where the pig figurines were on display.
"Muslims find pigs highly offensive," explained police officer David Griffiths. "That is why the complaints were made".
Given the sometimes violent intolerance of other faiths in Muslim countries and given the number of people murdered by Muslims around the world, these complaints and others like them are infuriating. But as arrogantly idiotic as these complaints are, what is just as disturbing is that authorities in Britain have taken them seriously and haven't told the Muslims to look away if they're so "offended" and stop bothering them with trivialities.
Oh and Doyle? You do know that adherents of the Islamic religion are a minority in Britain, don't you? And while we are well aware that devotees of that sect think the world revolves around them, the unpleasant fact is that no country anywhere lets a minority get a country's symbols changed so that minority won't be "offended."
But I want to be constructive here so as far as your proposal for a new British patron saint is concerned, how about this? Until the early 1800's, when Napoleon forced them to relinquish it, the British monarch had a claim to the throne of France. Why doesn't the Queen of England formally reestablish the claim? Then Britain could have this man as its patron saint.

Submitted by The Real Patrick
at 10/4/2005 3:58:16 PM| "The pins showing the English flag -- which has often raised hackles due to its connection with the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries -- could be "misconstrued," Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers said" "Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said Tuesday the red cross was an insensitive reminder of the Crusades." Oh, for crying out loud, I think I'm going to toss my cookies! |

Submitted by Philip
at 10/4/2005 4:11:26 PM| Chris, not bad, to make the connection with St. Louis (San Luis Rey out here on the left coast). Perhaps it is time for the Brits to undergo another crusade, this time to copy the Requonquista of the Spaniards who took their country back from Islamic conquest.
It's really sad though, how far the Brits have fallen into PC spinelessness, when such as the poor lady mentioned, has her collection of pig figurines arrested by the police. Not for nothing though, could not one make a case that the Crusades were in fact, a reacton to an initial Muslim conquest of the Judeo-Chrisian Holy Land? Was not the Requonquista of Spain, merely the taking back by Christians, that which was stolen from them by Muslims? I know, that is the Chicken/Egg argument. However, if these islamo-fascists are going to hearken back to the angers of 700 years ago, to try and control the present day ideas, thoughts, actions, likes and desires of their fellow citizens of their new country men, then they need to have a reaction presented to them. It really is time for the tail to stop wagging the dog, but, that will only happen if the Brits and the rest of the Euros, remember their backbones and cojones and stop allowing a wave of arrogant immigrants to control how the local natives behave in their own country. |

Submitted by Ken
at 10/4/2005 5:30:50 PM| I'm about ready to say the Muslims deserve to have Britain. They may be juvenile, but at least they have some gumption. |

Submitted by Tom
at 10/4/2005 8:35:36 PM| Oh for Heavens sakes!!! If it bugs the &*^%$ camel jockies so bad why did they move to England? |

Submitted by Bill (not IB)
at 10/4/2005 9:06:56 PM| This, my friends, is Our Future. The Political Correctness police are already hard at work up in Canada, and winning the battle mightily. With some of the recent lawuits here in the US (the Ten Commandments decision, and the Pledge of Allegiance) it appears that the pendulum is swinging towards support for "Thou Shalt Not Offend Anyone" (except the people that are doing the offending, provided they are Christians, conservatives, caucasians, males, or other oppressive and bigoted groups that don't deserve to exist, let alone have any rights.) Unless we raise our voices - and LOUDLY - we'll end up like the lady whose pig collection was sacrificed to the multicultural altar of Islam. |

Submitted by Terrence, in Vancouver, BC
at 10/4/2005 11:26:46 PM| As usual, Mark Steyn, has some witty, but sad, things to say about this farce. Making a pig's ear of defending democracy By Mark Steyn |

Submitted by Athena
at 10/5/2005 6:02:25 AM| This is serious stuff as absurd and laughable as it seems. England is simply paralyzed and cannot fight back. Blair is truly complicit in all this. His wife, "civil rights attorney," volunteered to represent a young woman who wanted to wear "head-to-toe" Muslim covering to school. Mrs. Blair won the case. The young girl was the younger sister of a man who is quite highly placed in Hizb-Ut-Tahir (spelling?) This is an organization that is banned in France for its terrorist connections. If this wasn't bad enough, the Queen of England has knighted a Muslims who had stated that "death was too easy for Salman Rushdie." Lastly, I am not making this up, a Britian was told that he had to remove the flag of England, the red cross on a white background, from a flagpole in front of his house because someone has complained that it was offensive. The flag of England referred to is not the Union Jack, it is the original flag of England , the cross of St. George, I believe. It was later combied with the flags of Scotland and Wales to make up the Union Jack. These things are an assertion of Muslim power and a demonstration of the utter helplessness of the non-Muslims public. I think that the situation in Britain is akin to that in Nazi Germany in 1937 or 1938. I know I sound paranoid but the American press is generally failing to report what is happening in Europe. Just today Turkey manager to advance its goal of joining the EU. Full membership would mean that Turks could travel and live anywhere in Europe. Europe is nearly defenseless culturally, since its own cultural elites have abandoned it. Let us pray, earnestly that Pope Benedict can help resist the Islamization of Europe. The utter stupidity of the ABC contributes to this. The ABC is dithering about homo sex issues when the entire Christian culture is at stake. |

Submitted by Peter C.
at 10/5/2005 6:57:09 AMThe real kicker is that many churches in the Middle East are named for St. George as he is honored by both Christians and Muslims. St. George is not only the patron saint of England, but also of Syria. Naming a church for St. George decreases the likelihood of it getting burned down or vandalized by the Muslims. |

Submitted by Sven Svenson
at 10/5/2005 7:42:06 AM| Athena - A minor correction. The Union Jack (sic) is a combination of the flags of England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Whales was already a part of England when the British Union Flag was established and it's 'lion' is therefore not represented on today's flag. It would be wise for the United Kingdom to change its flag - the most appropriate would be that of the national flag of Georgia. Do a google search. :) |

Submitted by LaVallette
at 10/5/2005 8:12:11 AM| "Doyle added that it was now time for England to find a new flag ..." i.e Green Background, in centre black sword on the horizontal surmounted by a crescent of the moon. We are telling you this to save you time. Anything else will be both insensitive and offensive to us. (sarcasm off) |

Submitted by southanglican
at 10/5/2005 8:43:38 AM| I suppose it would be out of the question to display a popular-at-one-time poster captioned "Makin' Bacon". |

Submitted by Ed the Roman
at 10/5/2005 9:50:32 AM| Wales has a dragon. And a minor quirk: in Cornwall you can still find Cornishmen who will talk about going 'across the river to England.' |

Submitted by Mark
at 10/5/2005 10:23:28 AM| I am perplexed as to why you say this causes you to lose respect for Muslims. I still have respect for Muslims; its the government of England that I'm developing contempt for. What is wrong with a minority group saying, "hey, this offends us"? Nothing, IMO. |

Submitted by Sven Sven
at 10/5/2005 11:12:57 AM| E the R - Dragon, shmagon...it's a pointy nosed lion. LOL! |

Submitted by Thomas C. Wyld
at 10/5/2005 11:50:53 AM| England shall keep her flag and her patron Saint! |

Submitted by Peter
at 10/5/2005 11:57:32 AM| As a dragon-lover and defender of endangered species, all that dragon-slaying that I find particularly offensive.... What's next, a boycott of the NFL unless they switch to footballs with synthetic leather and eschew all mention of "pigskin" during game broadcasts? |

Submitted by Patrick
at 10/5/2005 12:07:35 PM| "Muslim or Arab prisoners could take umbrage if staff wore a red cross badge. It’s also got (sic) associations with the far-right. Golly, I'm pretty far right. I don't remember that being mentioned at any of the meetings, or in any memos, blast faxes, emails, channeling with Karl Rove, etc. Strangely "offend as many hyper-sensitive Muslims as possible today" just never quite makes it on to my "to-do" list. These weeping-willow types are nuts. They can't surrender fast enough. I'm starting to admire the French more than the English. The former are not ashamed of their culture and are willing to stand up for it, despite frequent forays into godlessness and anti-American chauvinism. |

Submitted by SouthCoast
at 10/5/2005 12:47:37 PM| "Muslim or Arab prisoners could take umbrage if staff wore a red cross badge. " As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is (rightfully) in jail *deserves* to be offended! |

Submitted by Paul
at 10/5/2005 2:19:56 PM| Memo to Frank the Griz: The cross of St. George is pretty prominent in the ECUSA's emblems. Must put this on the agenda at GC06 as part of Operation Global Slide into Dhimmitude. |

Submitted by EMC
at 10/5/2005 3:06:54 PM| "What is wrong with a minority group saying, "hey, this offends us"? Nothing, IMO." FYI, muslims are not like any other minority group. Ruthlessly intolerant when in the majority (any churches allowed in Saudi Arabia?), they back up their "minority" complaints with threats of violence. And, when they're offended, which is excruciatingly often, people can actually die (Theo van Gogh ring a bell). The time has come for the West to drop the pretense that islam is compatible with freedom. |

Submitted by Aleksei
at 10/5/2005 3:42:40 PM| I'm sure you haven't forgotten that St. Louis the King is the patron saint of St. Louis, Missouri, too; and, I'd like to think, of the St. Louis Metropolitan area, including Webster Groves. If recollection serves, there are fine mosaics of King Louis in the narthex of the Roman cathedral there,including one of him Taking the Cross. There's also a statue of him in Forest Park, similarly posed. It's rather surprising that local Muslims haven't tried to have the statue removed, possibly with the aid of the ACLU. |

Submitted by Athena
at 10/6/2005 1:25:29 AM| Thanks for the correction Sven. I was in a rush. American constitutional law does not allow for what is called "the heckler's veto." This means that if I want to get up on a soap box in the park and spout off, the police cannot deny me my soapbox on the grounds that there exist hecklers who might become disruptive, even physically disruptive. The police, to the contrary, must appear and protect my right to free speech by arresting anyone who breaches the peace while I am on my soapbox. Therefore, this means, that currently in America, the mere fact that someone is OFFENDED by what I have to say, is not legally significant. I am offended by everything Islamic becuase Mohammed said, as reported by Bukhari, the most respected collected of Hadith, that "women are deficient in intelligence." Alot of nerve coming from someone who, like Mohammed, was illiterate. |

Submitted by Sven Svenson
at 10/6/2005 7:02:35 AM| Athena - Good point. Supposedly, it took Mohammed 23 years to receive his "revelation." I've often wondered why he didn't learn to read or write during that time. Didn't he really care? Could it be that he made it up as he was going along? (Just wondering, mind you.) Or, since the ilah allah is all powerful, why didn't allah miraculously cause Mohammed to become literate? |

Submitted by GB
at 10/6/2005 7:47:56 AM| Speaking of crazy books masquerading as Scripture puts me in mind of the Book of Mormon--another example of the very same thing. Written on golden tablets which have since disappeared, and could only be read by using special magic glasses which have also now disappeared. Honestly, this must have been some early day science fiction writer rather than a latter day saint! |

Submitted by curious
at 10/6/2005 8:21:18 AM| I guess this explains why I never see muslims shopping in my local Piggly Wiggly grocery store. |

Submitted by Robin Munn
at 10/6/2005 11:15:11 AM| Cox and Forkum are brilliant as usual on this subject. |

Submitted by DNZ
at 10/6/2005 12:43:49 PM| When I go to the grocery store later today, I think I shall notify the management that the display for sale of condoms and other contraceptive and abortifacient products profoundly offends my religious and moral sensibilities, and that they had best remove those products from the shelves and get all other stores in the national chain to do likewise, or I shan't answer for the consequences. |

Submitted by Athena
at 10/6/2005 4:39:56 PM| Sven, At least Jesus could read and write. (Smile). Side note, one reviewer of the movie, The Passion, stated that he thought it was "unrealistic" that Jesus could speak both Aramaic to his Jewish fellowers and Latin to Pilate. (Smile) When you are the Lord you can speak any language you like, this fact was, perhaps, unappreciated by the reviewer. |

Submitted by Paul
at 10/6/2005 4:47:36 PM| One of these days the liberals are going to wake up to the profound illiberality of Islam. It's going to be quite the day of reckoning. |

Submitted by Athena
at 10/6/2005 6:09:57 PM| Paul, the power hungry liberals have no illusion about Islam, they know what they are doing. They have always used the naive, idealist liberals followers to do their bidding until they have power. Liberals supported Lenin and Stalin fully, didn't they? Even today, they have only reluctantly admitted that the truth about those regimes. The power hungry liberals will jettison gays and women when push comes to shove, like Stalin jettisoned Trotsky. Look at George Galloway. He is supposed to be a Leftist, do you think he has any real illusions about the status of women an gays in Islam? I doubt it, he is doing this because the alliance results in power for him. |

Submitted by Hannah
at 10/7/2005 7:09:19 AM| Don't think this situation is too far from happening in the US. My county ISD is considering ditching 1 Jewish holiday and 1 Christian holiday in the next school year so that Muslims can have Ramadan off (reason stated is "to be fair"). Muslims are a smaller proportion of the population here than Hindus and probably Buddhists, but we aren't getting holidays for those religions. |

Submitted by Paul
at 10/7/2005 8:24:32 AM| Athena, You are probably correct about the power-hungry leadership, but I'm sure plenty in the rank and file have no idea what they're dealing with. Alas, there seems to be an inexhaustible supply of useful idiots. |

Submitted by Athena
at 10/7/2005 11:57:14 AM| Paul, Yes, I agree with you. The leadership I refer to is probably less than 2% to 5% of the total. I have daily conversations with people who tell me that despite over 3,000 terror attacks over the last 4 years [documented at www.thereligionofpeace.com] that Islam is a religion of peace, that most Muslims do not support or sympathize with violence, etc., etc., etc., You are absolutely right. |

Submitted by David
at 10/10/2005 10:13:47 AM| I think we should do a study of all the Islamic countries, and find the one that is the most open, the most tolerant, the most respectful of religious minorities, the most liberal. We should get an accurate description of their rules and policies toward minority religions (esp. Christianity). Then we in the West should simply adopt equivalent rules vis-a-vis Islam: I.e., if that most tolerant of the Islamic countries allows Christians to worship and proselytize, then we should allow Muslims to worship and proselytize to the same extent. If that most liberal of Islamic countries issues licenses to Christians to let them run places of worship, then we should issue licenses to Muslims to the same extent. If that most free of Islamic countries allows public criticism of Islam and its prophet, then we should allow Muslims here to publicly criticize Christianity and Jesus. If that most benevolent of Islamic countries requires public officials to respect the Christian Bible and the Cross, then we should likewise require that our officials respect the Koran and the Crescent. If that most sensitive of Islamic countries prohibits Islamic symbols in public that might hurt the feelings of fragile Christians, then we should prohibit Christian symbols (and other things, like pictures of pigs) to the same extent. But if, instead, the most liberal Islamic state effectively burdens the practice of Christianity, or saddles it with licensing obligations, or restricts the Church's public activities, or puts sanctions on those who convert to Christianity, or threatens Christians with legal problems if Muslims accuse them of proselytizing or defaming the Prophet, or expects Christians to understand that they are a minority and should just get used to it--if that's what we find, then we should simply revert to our status quo ante of about the year 2000. We should then invite any Muslims who do not feel grateful for the unaccountable freedom and welcome that they enjoy in this stupendously magnanimous country either (a) to suck it up and be quiet and look away from any pig pictures that hurt their feelings, or (b) to invest their energy in addressing the gross injustices against Christians that are perpetrated officially and without apology in Islamic states and cultures, or (c) to go to the Islamic state of their choice and bask in the Muslim bliss that they will presumably find there. What happens to make some Muslims who emigrate to the West develop all of a sudden these finely-tuned standards of human rights? |










