The BBC reports that the leader of the British Nazi Party, Nick "well-directed boots and fists" Griffin, and one of his lieutenants, Mark Collett, have been cleared of inciting racial hatred at their retrial in Leeds. The charges stem from words Griffin was secretly filmed using in a speech given in nearby Keighley in 2004, which was broadcast in a BBC documentary, The Secret Agent. Since the law is not stringent enough to get such brazen incitement to communal hostility as those Griffin used, the Chancellor Gordon Brown understandably wants to tighten it up. Griffin himself celebrated his acquittal with a tirade against the BBC, calling them "cockroaches" and "a politically correct, politically biased organisation which has wasted licence-fee payers' money to bring two people in a legal, democratic, peaceful party to court over speaking nothing more than the truth".
It's worth reminding ourselves of what the offending words were:
Unaware that one of his new recruits at the Reservoir Tavern was undercover BBC reporter Jason Gwynne, the court heard that Mr Griffin told his audience: "These attacks are going to continue, because that is what the Qur'an says. The bastards that are in that gang, they are in prison so the public think it's all over.
"Their 'good book' tells them that that's acceptable. If you doubt it, go and buy a copy and you will find verse after verse saying you can take any woman you want as long as they're not Muslim. These 18, 19 and 25-year-old Asian Muslims are seducing and raping white girls in this town right now."
This wicked, vicious faith has expanded from a handful of cranky lunatics about 1,300 years ago and it's now sweeping country after country before it, all over the world. And if you read that book (the Qur'an), you'll find that that's what they want. If you doubt it, go and buy a copy and you will find verse after verse and you can take any woman you want as long as it's not Muslim women.
It is, of course, common when racists want to demonise a group of people that they characterise them as given to sexual licentiousness and rape; both Jews and blacks have been stereotyped in this way in the past. In Keighley there were gangs who were grooming young girls for pornography and prostitution, but both Asians and whites were involved. According to Searchlight, the BNP have a history of making race issues out of straightforward criminal matters which have nothing to do with race, such as suggesting that rapes or murders were the work of blacks or Asians rather than their actual white culprits.
According to the Public Order Act 1986, a person can be found guilty of incitement to racial hatred if he uses "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour", or displays material containing such words, if he intends to incite racial hatred or if this is the likely result. In the case of religious hatred, the words covered are only those which are threatening, but Griffin clearly mentioned Asians, which is of course a racial denominator. The words used were both abusive and insulting, but if the law needs changing, it is to take into account the uttering of falsehoods about a racial or religious group, as it is a time-honoured tactic of racists and other demagogues.
Islam is not a race, it is a belief system, and, as such, is freely chosen. Any belief system, incuding my own, should be open for criticism.
Griffin, of course, is using criticism of Islam as a cover for racism, but he hasn't broken any law. He is obnoxious and his party is abhorrent, but his acquittal was correct.
What was the reason they threw Abu Hamza in prison?
DrM: Originally because of a US extradition warrant regarding alleged terrorist activities he was supposedly involved in; he was supposed to have been involved in setting up a terrorist training camp in Oregon. Then they found material to charge him on race hate grounds here with, based on things he'd said about Jews and other non-Muslims in his speeches.
Where did Griffin attack people on racial grounds? You yourself are evidence that an attack on islam and muslims is not inevitably a racial attack. In the last general election I think there actually was a white muslim BNP candidate- which raises interesting questions about their sincerity or his understanding. In the BNP's case, it is undoubtedly a coded racial attack, but the problem is proving it conclusively to a jury.
There is also the question of language used- Griffin carefully does not say anything that could be justified as inciting violence. Foolish people might become violent, perhaps, but that would not be as a direct result of anything Griffin actually said. Hamza, like Mizanur Rahman, was unequivocal in his statements.
There's also the fact that Griffin was tried under the Public Order act for words spoken in private. If anyone was inciting public unrest it was the BBC by circulating them. I don't know whether this affected the jury but- again- the difference with Hamza and Rahman is that both spoke publicly.
Ofcourse Islam isnt a race, pRickler you idiot. BUT creatures like Griffin and you treat Muslims as a "race."
Thersite, in his stupidity misses the obvious, but hey thats what he does best. The "white Muslim" bnp member wasnt a Muslim but a Turkish idiot with no religious leanings.
BUT creatures like Griffin and you treat Muslims as a "race."
Nonsense. I treat Islam as a belief system. Griffin likewise, but he uses religion as a cover for racism.
When you manage to post without being abusive, I might start taking your ideas seriously. Not any time soon.
Steve Bilton doesn't sound very Turkish to me, Dr Mabuse. I doubt that the BNP are any more enthusiastic about Turks than they are about people from further east.
Thersites: he may well have been thinking of Laurence Rustem, who is of Turkish Cypriot origin but is not Muslim, although his father is.
Steve Bilton is not exactly a household name in the Muslim community here, so perhaps someone might fill us in on who he is and what motivated him to join the BNP. Perhaps he is someone who is resentful of a negative experience with closed-minded immigrant Pakistanis, or perhaps he is one of those "Aryan Muslim" types like [Suhaib Jobst](http://umarlee.blogspot.com/2006/06/dialouge-with-aryan-muslim.html) that Umar Lee wrote about a few months ago.
"he may well have been thinking"... for the first time in his life. It's more likely that- as usual- Dr Mabuse assumed that what he knew was all that there was to be known.
There are other even browner belief systems- hinduism, sikhism, buddhism, say- which do not inspire the same criticism from western society however. If you put up a map of the muslim-ruled [not inhabited] world a hundred, two hundred or three hundred years ago you might find other reasons for the particular dislike of islam.
As you are unable to draw logical inferences, I will explain simply.
Until comparatively recent historical times large areas of Europe were ruled by the ottoman empire and muslim pirates inspired- or so they said- by their religious beliefs raided ships and took slaves from large areas of Europe. As a result Europeans have historical reasons for not liking islam and distrusting muslims. Add muslim claims to superiority and the fact that muslims want other people to behave in ways that suit their supposed moral beliefs and you have quite enough reasons to explain hostility to islam without including racial prejudices. I've no doubt that there are racial elements to some peoples' dislike of islam, but plenty of people dislike islam and muslims for entirely rational reasons.
the fact that muslims want other people to behave in ways that suit their supposed moral beliefs ...
That's what you think and what the media is feeding you with.
You should follow your own Religious moral beliefs. The Koran says: 'Oh ye Jews and Christians, you have nothing to stand upon until you follow your own religion'.
Islam is saying is that you should follow your own Religious moral beliefs and there will be less tripe in the world. Every Religion is underlied by similar moral codes which are Universal.
Secular values (if there is any such thing) are not similar in the same way. They differ from time to time, place to place, race to race, country to country and so on...perhaps based on economic conditions, trendy desires, and whatever comes to hand.
How pathethic!
"Pathethic", perhaps, but pleasanter to live in, more effective as a society and economically and saner.
The BNP's hate of Islam only started in 2001. Prior to 2001, the BNP hardly ever said a thing about Islam or mentioned it in their publications. It just wasn't a relevant issue. In 1998 they stated that they were a secular non-sectarian party who would accept white people of any religion who agreed with their objectives and even stated they had Muslim members. 9/11 changed everything and the BNP has become viciously anti-Islamic to reflect the change of popular opinion towards Islam worldwide after this event.
I said "Pathetic" because I get really irritated when I hear people say - as you say - that muslims want other people to behave in ways that suit their moral beliefs.
The opposite tends to be the case, that non-muslims (I mean secular people) want everyone else to believe in secular "values". This must be resisted by every person who values religion, multiculturalism, diversity, and global peace.
Islam wants people to have a moral code of conduct when interacting with other people especially in a global community. This is not an exclusive moral code that we are talking about, Islam is not seeking to impose moral exclusives on other people (No compulsion in Religion), rather these moral codes are the Universal ones (e.g modesty, honesty, respectfulness, equity, chastity, tolerance, etc) which are found in most Religions and/or unparallel Societies (as opposed to isolated ones).
So for instance, where there is a universal celebration of mutual respect, it would be naturally democratically undesirable to ridicule other people and their belief.
Where it is absent, it would be perfectly acceptable to ridicule or disrespect other people and their beliefs. Hence you would get the likes of the danish cartoons that wrecks relationships between communities.
Without these moral codes, what exactly would be considered as common protocol between peoples, nations, cultures, races, religions, etc?
Would it be a matter of having to wear the same clothes? Eat the same food? Conduct our marriages in the same way? Men must marry the same number of wives/wife?
Study the same education curriculum,... watch the same television channels, ...basically make all our expressions the same, and whose shall be the reference? UK & America perhaps. Tthe whole world would then be "united" under one sudo-neo-culture.
Of course if that be the case, as you say it is would be pleasant to live in such, more effective as a societ and economically saner..... because people would already have become corpses anyway.
They would have given up their freedom to experience the diversity and beauty of the human specie based on time-tested moral principles in exchange for slavery to some convoluted-monoculture.
But it won't last, you see, you only need the "right" issues to crop up amongst them to get the insanity that would reduce everything to ground zero. Many many nations and civilisations have come and gone in this way.
"...you think they are united, but their hearts are dispersed that is because they are a people who are devoid of wisdom" 59:14
One more point so that you don't get mixed up as you seem a bit culturally challenged: The call to observe (the best of your own) *cultural* moral codes does not necessarily mean an invite to subscribe to an exclusive way of life or a particular religion (it is usually the case that it ends up in religion for the good reason that morality is typically deduced/reaffirmed from religion, but also it can be derived from culture - cautiously - and it can be a culture).
Rather, it is for every human to look for the best and highest ethics that they've got and make them matter in their dealings both within themselves and amongst other people (this is the world currency!)- as opposed to toying around with indulgences like a stray monkey.
Anonymous - you are confusing secularism with atheism. Secularism just means neutrality - the state does not privilege one religion over others.
As regards polygamy, since you are happy for men to have muliple wives, are you also happy for wives to have multiple husbands?
Secularism just means neutrality -
So what are these neutral values that corresponds to it. Tell us something tangible not vague - that peoples of different races, cultures, religion, etc can celebrate. What are these values based on?
In countries with avowedly muslim governments nomuslims have been and are required to behave in ways that muslims think proper. They are ordered or entitled- depending on your view- to do that by the quran.
Given that muslims are supposed to want to bring the beneifts of islam to the world, I think that either there is soething odd about your version of islam or something odd about your definitions of "religion, multiculturalism, diversity, and global peace". Indeed, what, precisely is the connection between these disparate attributes? The general muslim view is that islam is famously tolerant, therefore if islam does not tolerate something it is obviously intolerable, with no more discussion required.
" This is not an exclusive moral code that we are talking about, Islam is not seeking to impose moral exclusives on other people ... are the Universal ones (e.g modesty, honesty, respectfulness, equity, chastity, tolerance, etc) which are found in most Religions and/or unparallel Societies (as opposed to isolated ones)." In short they are an exclusive moral code, comprising an odd bunch of unconnected attributes defined and imposed by islam to which others are expected to adhere and by which others are to be judged.
" it would be naturally democratically undesirable to ridicule other people and their belief. "...but it is perfectly acceptable to tell them that their beliefs are false and/or distorted and that they must accept inferior status to muslims. In fact, islam does "ridicule or disrespect" other beliefs. It is prepared to give limited toleration to a few if they accept inferior status and requires followers of all others to either become muslim or to go away. In short, the purpose of islam is to impose slavery to a "convoluted-monoculture" claiming that these are "time-tested moral principles".
Unlike muslims i am not arrogant enough or vain enough to claim to know what exactly "time-tested moral principles" are. I think that people should be allowed to do as they please if it does no direct harm to anyone else and to put forward their ideas as they please as forcefully as they please. Those ideas which will best suit people and most fit the human race are the ones that will survive.
As regards polygamy, since you are happy for men to have muliple wives, are you also happy for wives to have multiple husbands?
"It is for every human to look for the best and highest ethics that they've got and make them matter in their dealings both within themselves and amongst other people ".
In the same way you have to look for the best Exemplar(s) of these ethics from your history and culture ...see how they've exemplified universally celebrated virtues such as chastity, family relationships, etc to you.... then try to avoid anything that vitiates their clarification.
"...and to Everyone of you we have rendered a covenant and a clear path" 5:48
wa li kullin ja'alna minkum shir'atan wa minhajan.
Unlike muslims i am not arrogant enough or vain enough to claim to know what exactly "time-tested moral principles"
Then, you are somehow blind to culture, traditions, religion and history of human societies.
You from mars?
I think that people should be allowed to do as they please ...
Even where each person, in addition to being an individual, - is a member of a family, member of a community, member of a society, member of a nation, member of the human race... Sorry you may not do as you please! ....except where your pleasures coincide with fulfilling your other responsibilities.
...if it does no direct harm to anyone else and to put forward their ideas as they please as forcefully as they please..
Now you are even able to measure harm to others whilst doing as you please. And you say, Unlike muslims, you are not arrogant enough or vain enough to claim to know what exactly "time-tested moral principles, but you are arrogant enough to know that you could do as you please without harming others. Do you have an internal harmometer or something?
My friend, it doesn't work like that.
I am telling you, there are universally celebrated protocols, stick to them and don't try to do any funky stuffs....and you and everyone will get on fine in this world and perhaps in the next.
I know, I am making assertions without giving the proofs. But do these require proofs?
"Then, you are somehow blind to culture, traditions, religion and history of human societies. You from mars?"
Well now, precisely which "time-tested moral principles" have been common to every "culture, traditions, religion and history of human societies"?
"Sorry you may not do as you please! ....except where your pleasures coincide with fulfilling your other responsibilities."
Ah There we have the difference. You may do exactly as you please as long as you do no direct harm to anyone else. "Responsibilities" imposed on you by others- which usually mean that they want you to do what they please- are none of your business.
"And you say, Unlike muslims, you are not arrogant enough or vain enough to claim to know what exactly "time-tested moral principles, but you are arrogant enough to know that you could do as you please without harming others. Do you have an internal harmometer or something?" Yes. Reread what i wrote. Rewrite what you wrote and we may get somewhere.
"I am telling you, there are universally celebrated protocols, stick to them and don't try to do any funky stuffs....and you and everyone will get on fine in this world and perhaps in the next."
Ah. Just do what you want and no-one will get hurt...I've heard that somewhere before.
"I know, I am making assertions without giving the proofs. But do these require proofs? "
You actually mean: "There is no evidence for what I say. That shows there is no need for evidence for it." I not only require proofs. I also want to know just what these "universally celebrated" and completely unspecified "protocols" are.
All I am saying to you is that Morality and Good Ethics are the foundation of human societies. They bring about a natural democracy. Everyone would agree that honesty, modesty, etc is a good thing, and desirable. How many times do I have to repeat this?
If they disagree, how is the world going to work where everybody is lieing. If the Airline tells you the flight is at 10.00 and you get there and you were told it was at 1.00, and another person came and lied to you that it is tomorrow, and you then lied to someone else that the flight is next week, and so on, and so forth. How is the world going to work? It is not. It is going to come to a halt, and gradually disintegrate. Same thing for all the other ethical principles that I had higlighted
"I have only been sent to Perfect the Best Ethics..."
That is the saying of Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless and give him peace).
Not to force you to become muslim. You can't even follow the best ethics of your own immediate environment, why look for an "exotic" Prophet and Religion to follow?
Go and find out for yourself what these ethics are. Go and ask your grandmother or your church leaders... OOps ..haha Peadophile church leaders. Oh no, sorry I don't know even where to direct you to find out.
Anyhow, you seem a bit challenged in understanding my points. It is however important to reply to you otherwise you may thing that you have a point. But you don't have a point, sorry to be arrogant. Perhaps except when you condemn the muslim terrorists.
All your points are lifted straight from TV and from myths.
Just one more thing....
Responsibilities" imposed on you by others- which usually mean that they want you to do what they please- are none of your business.
It is not like that.
As an adult, you chose to live in a human society and to interact with others, so you need to be a bit sensitive to the protocols and try to interact like a human. And I already told you, that the common foundation of human societies is morality and good ethics. If you would like to upset this foundation because you feel restricted and you feel you are more Right in your ideas, then you may go into the jungle or, you may even die...but people of your type hardly long for death.
Perhaps the question you want to ask is this:
Why should I be responsible to live by these moral codes and ethics when I didn't chose to be part of the family, society, world, etc?
I am sure you know the answer already, don't you?
What, precisely, do you think are Morality and Good Ethics? How do they differ from mere morality and ethics?
"Everyone would agree that honesty, modesty, etc is a good thing, and desirable. How many times do I have to repeat this?"
You do not "have to repeat this". You have to show what you mean by honesty, modesty and etc. I think you will then find that a great many people- including me- do not agree with you, either as to your definition or as to their desirability, so you'll then have to demonstrate that.
"I have only been sent to Perfect the Best Ethics..."
Again, a lot of us disagree with Mohammed's claim and think that what he thought the "Best Ethics" weren't actually very good at all but a reflection of personal and local prejudices, customs and superstition with an admixture of egotism and delusions of grandeur.
"Go and find out for yourself what these ethics are. Go and ask your grandmother or your church leaders... OOps ..haha Peadophile church leaders. Oh no, sorry I don't know even where to direct you to find out."
Well, I'm not a christian, as anyone but a fool and a bigot would have noticed by now. Interesting, though, that after your remarks about "the Best Ethics" you go in for a cheap gibe about "Peadophile church leaders". No more than you'd expect from the follower of a mass-murderer who had sex with a nine-year old child, though. OOps ..haha
I am not challenged in understanding your points. You have not made any points, merely unsubstantiated assertions.
" And I already told you, that the common foundation of human societies is morality and good ethics." and I would agree with you there. However, you haven't said, except in the vaguest terms, what you think are "morality and good ethics" or "Morality and Good Ethics". I would say that the first basis for both is not assuming that your beliefs are universally valid and that you have the right to impose what you convince yourself are "Morality and Good Ethics" on anyone else. If what you and other willing adults do together or alone does no direct harm to anyone else you are perfectly entitled to do it and that is the basis of both morality and good ethics.
I would still like to show that your points are not very cogent.
However, you haven't said, except in the vaguest terms, what you think are "morality and good ethics" or "Morality and Good Ethics".
I already told you that you should go and look for the best exemplars of it (i.e. morality and good ethics) in your own religion, culture, traditions... Forget about the Prophet of Arabia, charity begins at home.
No more than you'd expect from the follower of a mass-murderer who had sex with a nine-year old child, though. OOps ..haha
I also warned you about monoculture complexity. Which is really the problem you are having, but you haven't suspected it yet. There is a difference between marrying a 9 year old, as it occurs today in many cultures around the world. Mary (peace be upon her) was said to be given in marriage to Joseph (the Carpenter) at the age of 12/13, Joseph was 90 - according to Gospel of James. There is a difference between that i.e. marriage, and peadophilia. You really let me down here, but I'm not surprised.
the common foundation of human societies is morality and good ethics. However, you haven't said, except in the vaguest terms, what you think are "morality and good ethics"
Refer to my point above.
I would say that the first basis for both is not assuming that your beliefs are universally valid and that you have the right to impose what you convince yourself are "Morality and Good Ethics" on anyone else. If what you and other willing adults do together or alone does no direct harm to anyone else you are perfectly entitled to do it and that is the basis of both morality and good ethics.
By your own arguments, you shouldn't assume that it poses no direct harm to anyone else. Rather you should look to the best exemplifaction of morality and good ethics that you have and that should give you a good idea of what goes and what doesn't.... That's the best you can do.
But you trying to use your harmometer to measure whether it causes harm or not may not be that accurate..... That is a bit esoteric, isn't it...
I have the evidence, but I am not going to show it to anyone. Osama bin laden is guilty.... it is that kind of mentality that we are addressing here.
Sorry Yusuf for taking over your blog! It seems we've gone off the original topic??... just thought I would give Thersites a good run for his jabs against Islam....otherwise he might think he has a point and no one has an answer for him. I'll try not to do this again!
If what you and other willing adults do together or alone does no direct harm to anyone else you are perfectly entitled to do it and that is the basis of both morality and good ethics.
... another fluffly cliche that has come to resemble sensible statement to unsuspecting minds. How is this? I want to give you the chance to explain? But bear in mind that you are not talking to TV chat show audience...
It is a good sound bite but really lacks the depth that make human societies flourish. . we typically ignore such statements doesn't mean they are cogent... and I have been trying to respond to all of yours and other similar cloudy statements.
If anything at all, most of the so-called "mutual" agreements between people tend to be exploitive. Hence the point that we ought to look for a good normative example of what constitutes morality and good ethics and trivially implicates fair dealing. If I offer to pay you $1 per day, in exchange for working to death to make my designer shirt, trousers and shoes. It is all between willing and able adults inscribed on gold plated contract papers, each holding his diamond plated pen signed in China, Bangaladesh, India, Africa, etc. The first person to get hurt is either of the consenting party and then it reverberates through other interconnected relationships.
But I guess you probably have sensual relationships in mind, the same applies..... I don't want to speculate as to who gets exploited in the different combination of possible relationships out there. Without morality and good ethical foundation exemplified by a non-exploiting exemplar... how can you tell no one is getting hurt. If you agree - as you do - that morality and good ethics are the foundation of human society, you ought to take it to its conclusion. That is, it ought to be the basis of your do's and do'nt ...moreso including your relationship with other people.
But if you believe it is a matter of using your 6th sense to determine no one is getting hurt.... so where is now the moral and ethical foundation?
Consistency is lacking here. If you decide that there are no moral and ethical foundation, then we would understand where you are coming from....
Jesus (as) said "By their fruits, ye shall know them, do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles... every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire". Matthew 7:16
Look, I don't mean to upset you, but just to expose some of the flawed arguments that people come here to post against Islam and Muslims. Because we are silent doesn't mean we have nothing to say about them... And don't think Muslims are trying to impose their religion on you. They can barely impose it on themselves.
Come on now, nameless one, you're not too hot on cogencty- or logic- youself. "I already told you that you should go and look for the best exemplars of it (i.e. morality and good ethics) in your own religion, culture, traditions... " Who are these chaps? Why do you think they are the best examplars of "morality and good ethics"? I rather think you and I would disagree about both topics.
[deleted]
"By your own arguments, you shouldn't assume that it poses no direct harm to anyone else. Rather you should look to the best exemplifaction of morality and good ethics that you have."
I have looked at the "best exemplifaction of morality and good ethics" that I have actually and i have decided that it is not imposing your moral codes, which are entirely tentative, on anyone else and letting people do what they want if it does no direct harm to anyone else.
"I have the evidence, but I am not going to show it to anyone. Osama bin laden is guilty.... it is that kind of mentality that we are addressing here. "
What, precisely, is OBL guilty of, in you view? actually, you and he have rather more in common than he and I- like you, he thinks he ought to impose morality and good ethics on everyone else. I merely think that as we can't know just what they are we can't do anything of the sort.
"If what you and other willing adults do together or alone does no direct harm to anyone else you are perfectly entitled to do it and that is the basis of both morality and good ethics."
... another fluffly cliche that has come to resemble sensible statement to unsuspecting minds. How is this?"
- "Fluffy cliche"?- you seem to think and type in soundbites yourself. How does a fluffy cliche differ from a rigid cliche? " How is this?" How is what?
In fact, that is the basis of libertarian morality, as expressed by J.S.Mill. it has certainly caused mmany fewer deaths than the cliche that "There is no god but god and Mohammed is his prophet."
"If anything at all, most of the so-called "mutual" agreements between people tend to be exploitive.
Hence the point that we ought to look for a good normative example of what constitutes morality and good ethics and trivially implicates fair dealing. If I offer to pay you $1 per day, in exchange for working to death to make my designer shirt, trousers and shoes. It is all between willing and able adults inscribed on gold plated contract papers, each holding his diamond plated pen signed in China, Bangaladesh, India, Africa, etc. The first person to get hurt is either of the consenting party and then it reverberates through " And, of course, the mutual agreemwnt to form a trade union and negotiate better terms with the contracting parties is also an agreement between consenting individuals. In fact, the exploitative agreement you cite does do direct harm to others by causing a general drop in wages. How about this agreement: "Believe what I say, follow my orders, pray as I tell you to pray. Kill apostates and those who insult me. Follow my definition of morality and good ethics. Spread by religion worldwide. Stop thinking and merely obey and you'll go to heaven.
Perhaps."
-a very good example of a mutual agreement that harms others as well as the more gullible believers, don't you think?
"Without morality and good ethical foundation exemplified by a non-exploiting exemplar... "
Ah, making slaves and having sex with them and nine-year-old girls is a "non-exploiting exemplar" in "sensual relationships" you think. I can see why you had to be so vague about what, precisely, constitute "morality and good ethics".
In fact, you have it the wrong way round. I think - as I have to keep telling you- that if no-one is directly hurt then what adults willingly do together is no concern of anyone else and that the basis of morality and good ethics is letting people do what they want rather than thinking you have the right to decide and make them do what they ought to want.
"Because we are silent doesn't mean we have nothing to say about them... And don't think Muslims are trying to impose their religion on you. They can barely impose it on themselves."
Where do you live? Muslims are far from silent. They spend their time either complaining that they are being persecuted or that they aren't allowed to persecute. The fact that they have problems living up [or down] to the rules of their religion is one of the reasons muslims are so enthusiastic about getting others to conform to them actually. Many muslims think that it is because of all the unethical unbelievers who go round doing all those wicked things contrary to "morality and good ethics" that they are distracted from living in a properly islamic way.
" Who are these chaps? Why do you think they are the best examplars of "morality and good ethics"?
hmm... Perhaps Beckham (btw I have nothing against dear old Beckham?
I am sure you would agree that there is nothing else worth discussing? We seem to have covered all the relevant points.
It is now rant time, you are now Alone.
Just as I was beginning to enjoy myself! I notice that the best bits of my last post were deleted. However, if you ever come up exemplars of morality and good ethics other than maniacs and footballers don't hestiate not to tell me.
Well, a lot of people look up to these guys ("maniacs and footballers" including Nick Griffin) on how to behave: how to spit, how to talk to other people, what to wear, how to make money, how to socialise, who to marry, etc...afterall they are "stars". You may not agree, but it is a starting point that they have a role model.
Anyhow, I shouldn't be the one to tell you who to emulate (as you would like to tell the rest of the world).
Just as you search out best restaurant to fill your stomach, with the same drive you could seek out the best moral references in your immediate society (surely you should be able to find some sort of reference, you can't be that blind!), that should be sufficient... perhaps until you encounter other people - you may have to reconsider your references... or you may not - it depends!
We have been "created into people and nations so that you may come to know from one another".
Hope that helps.
I didn't know Nick Griffin was a footballer. Actually- though I don't have much time for him myself- Beckham provides a better example than many supposed exemplars of morality and good ethics. He doesn't suppose that his own personal tastes are god's and he hasn't sent out his followers to bring the benefit of his supposed wisdom to the rest of the world, whether they want it or not.
"We have been "created into people and nations so that you may come to know from one another"."
The problem there is just what people "know from one another"