Tuesday, December 18, 2007

‘Mega-mosque’ opposition turns up the heat

The plans for the Tablighi Jamaatmega-mosque’ on the Olympic site are due to be submitted in the New Year, so the opposition is making a concerted effort to present a cogent case to have it thrown out. A few weeks ago they launched a website called (rather clumsily) ‘Megamosque No Thanks’, and Cranmer can’t help feeling they should have employed a media company who knows rather more about presentation. It’s got nice brown and black faces on its banner juxtaposed with a double-decker bus, but one can’t help feeling it’s bending over backwards to disassociate itself from accusations and slanders it has yet to receive.

Members of ‘Newham Concern’ insist that they are ‘committed to stopping the mega-mosque by legitimate and democratic means’, and to that end they state:

This website will be both respectful and reasoned, reflecting our commitment to diversity and to the democratic society we live in. We deplore both the grandstanding politics of mega-mosque supporter Mayor Ken Livingstone at one extreme, and the hate-mongering of the political far-right at the other.

They are going to have to do far better than this if their campaign is to succeed. Accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘Islamophobia’ will come pouring from the sky, and there appears to be very little to pre-empt the onslaught. And ‘respect’ is a little like loyalty: it is a bilateral contract demanding a symmetrical engagement. If it is lacking on one side, the other is not bound to be confined by its inherent niceties. Of course, one can and must be polite, but one no more has to respect than one has to submit: indeed, the former is increasingly being interpreted as the latter with alarming frequency. And as for ‘reason’, well, as His Holiness has discovered, any attempt to reason with the irrational is fraught with dangers that may imperil the peace and safety of the Realm.


Blogger Dark_Heretic said...

So in our fair and democratic society we no longer have the right to say, think or act as we would like?

How ironical

18 December 2007 at 11:58  
Blogger Stephen Gash said...

It would be helpful if those opposing the Newham mega-mosque would join with others trying to stop the islamisation of Europe.

Even though invited none of the Christian Peoples Alliance showed up to the London "Stop Kuffarphobia" demo in London on 26th October, nor the Stop the Marseilles mosque demo on 8th December.

The only way we will defeat sharia by stealth is forgetting our differences on other matters and united to stop islamisation.

SIOE is attempting to do this and receiving the usual abuse for doing so.

18 December 2007 at 12:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In the UK Muslims have the right to worship, as do Christians, Hindus and those of other faiths"

Am I the only one that thinks it rather odd that they only name Christianity, Islam and Hinduism?

18 December 2007 at 12:59  
Anonymous father forgive them said...

Off Topic but,
Did you see this in the Mail?
I saw this reported in our local paper and wonder why no-one picked up on the fact that the victim is a Christian. This is in some ways irrelevant to the crime, but has anyone canvassed what the muslim response would be? She is doing what Jesus would do i.e forgiving those who sin against her. Is the lady to be regarded as bonkers, or weak? Compare if you will, the furore over the naming of a teddy bear. Both stories made my local paper on the same evening.
Is this the start of the inexorable slide into dhimmitude?

18 December 2007 at 15:07  
Anonymous king kong said...

Faith ultimately demands unquestioning allegiance, but a progressive faith should encourage freedom to examine, to criticise and even to move on. Let's have some views on this from Richard Dawkins.

18 December 2007 at 17:23  
Anonymous giles said...

As a resident of the East End of London, I fear that nothing short of political intervention at the highest level will stop this mosque from being built. And that of course would be politically unacceptable, given the votes concerned.

As His Grace suggests, it is extremely difficult to voice effective opposition in that does not provoke responses of "racism" and "Islamophobia". In today's political climate there is no "acceptable" response to the question "what is it about this mosque that you are afraid of?" Islam, with its infuriating mix of triumphalism and victim mentality, will attack any response to that question as being an unwarranted racist insult to Islam.

In many ways, the most convincing argument against this mosque is that it's aim of segregation for muslim athletes is quite contrary to the inclusive ideal of the Olympics. But that argument, if it succeeds, will just enable the mosque to be built somewhere else.

Many people I talk to, inside and outside London, laugh at the idea of the Islamification of this country, but it is undeniably happening. The building of this mosque will be a disaster for this country, the effects of which I fear will never be reversed peacefully.

18 December 2007 at 17:29  
Anonymous king kong said...

Roger Scruton is right when he alludes that Islamists knows the soft under-belly of Western democracy and how it can be exploited with impunity until it either succumbs and dies, or fights back but no longer with democratic means.

18 December 2007 at 17:40  
Anonymous Alex Fear said...

I must say that is a very ethnically diverse banner they have...

18 December 2007 at 23:50  
Anonymous Nathan Hale said...

In Tehran, or Cairo, or Damascus, but not London.

Not Saint Paul's London.

19 December 2007 at 03:45  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Muslims are here and being pandered to because of the machinations of another group, much more powerful and much richer, with a deep dislike of Christianity and constant urge to undermine and weaken it. Note how the author of this typically dull and verbose piece does not want Christianity to be dominant in the UK:

Anglican amendment

If Britain really wants to integrate all its religious minorities, it must first separate church and state

Eliane Glaser
Wednesday December 19, 2007
The Guardian

On my way to buy a sandwich at lunchtime, a 10-minute round trip at most, I pass seven Christmas trees, a poster advertising carol services, bountiful lamp-post decorations and an estate agent with computer screens forlornly garlanded with tinsel. My attentiveness to these details is heightened by the fact that I am Jewish and, although not religious, celebrate Hanukah rather than Christmas with my family. Hanukah this year was on December 4 (it shifts with the lunar calendar), and perhaps due to its earliness it was even more invisible than normal. When I lurched back into work that afternoon with huge shopping bags and wrapping paper, my colleagues complimented me on my forward planning... Neither of these approaches will create the secular, neutral space needed to accommodate religious difference. The first will produce a false inclusivity: a banal interfaith soup in which particularities are lost, leaving Christianity's dominance unchallenged. The second will intensify the background hum of cultural Christianity. We will be caught between the benignly ecumenical vicar organising coffee mornings with his Semitic brethren, and the traditional Anglican bishop defending Songs of Praise.


19 December 2007 at 16:35  
Anonymous king kong said...

nedsherry, you are uncannily perspicacious! Even Muslim friends tell me there are far too many mosques built for their worshippers, and they have very rich, resolutely determined and influential backers located well away from the frontline.

The Islamist 'food-chain' is incredibly frightening; the ordinary Muslims-on-the-street are not the source of the threat.

19 December 2007 at 18:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There ought to be a open competition for alternative proposal for the site.

For planting planting trees,Green areas, community allotemnts, a nature reserve

27 February 2011 at 17:38  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older