Archive

Tag Archives: Judeo Christian values

It’s safe to say that in the last 10 years the world has rapidly become a much, much smaller place. People will accept that. Technology, travel and migration have brought most of this about. But what the last 10 years have also done is set everything prior to the technological revolution of the 2000’s in stone. There is little, to no evidence left of any existing Western thinking preceding 1999. Interestingly, people are less willing to accept that. Many respecters of Europe’s traditional ‘Judeo-Christian’ values insist they have not expired but are a perpetuum. This is even in the midst of a multi-religious society which loudly declares the values of ‘variety’ to be the dominant thinking of this age. In an age where the atheist, the agnostic and the skeptic are unwilling spectators to various explosive declarations of faith and religion, where is the ‘normal’ ground in Europe anymore?

Acknowledging the past is one thing. Declaring that your past as present is quite another. In this case, you’ve got to hand it to the French. As they bounded forward into the 21st century as a fully secular society, many Christians have protested that France’s zero-tolerance on all religion is an outrageous betrayal of it’s Christian roots. This is not necessarily so. The French have done what few Western countries can boast: create a society where the law makes favour and exception to no other belief system, in the interests of enforcing blanket equality and a standard of normalcy for all. In turn what this has done is to largely drive all religious belief systems underground; Buddhist, Islamic, Hindu, Christian and all. Sociologists have observed in many societies that once a thought system is driven out of public view and underground, rather than disperse, the participating community take on a covert existence. As a result, the religion that is found in France is increasingly less inactive and non-participant. This is one possible commonality which covert French Muslims, Christians and Jews share over their other European counterparts.

By strange paradox, this has kept France’s reverence for the Christian thinking of the previous age, intact and personal. In a nation which does not enforce religious thought (as did the Edwardians and Victorians), people are more inclined to choose their beliefs based on personal conviction. A belief system becomes more tangible when it costs something; those who practice a religion or faith in France now, do so as more of a sacrifice and at their own risk.  As a result the French Christian church of today, are possibly far more passionate about their faith than those of the pre-secular age. Considering that Biblical teaching discourages against apathy and indifference, France have actually done their religious history a favour by offering it a second wind, a second chance to be everything it could never be. One could even argue that this kind of church would identify far closer with the ‘true’ church of Jesus’ day. Rather than declare their historical Judeo-Christian values a perpetuum, by driving the church underground the French have kept it alive. Equally so, all other faiths and religions have benefitted from this rule also. In a surprising counter-balance, it would seem that France have covered all the angles in a way that Britain and America have struggled to.

For the rest who choose not to participate in any such religion or faith, the peace is theirs to know that French law prohibits displays of extremism in the best interests of neutrality. And therein lies the formula; to have the freedom to believe anything one wishes to, anything within the law; for the law is the final word for every man, woman and child. If it’s democracy people are looking for, isn’t this an even pathway to some kind of normalcy in Europe?

Advertisements
Political Islam has been at the heart of British politics for the last decade, in a slightly dissimilar way than it has been in America. The key problem lies in the fact that since the 1950’s, British immigration policy has not, and proudly, does not have any pre-requisites towards cultural assimilation. With multiculturalism in mind, it has never stipulated that immigrants wishing to implant themselves in the country need follow British culture, typical British Judeo-Christian values or embrace Western liberalism (liberalism in the cultural sense–dress codes, marriages, entertainment, etc– not the political wing). All it asks is that immigrants abide by the British law of the land. The trouble is that this law is archaic, outdated and completely inequipped for the issues of the 21st Century. The law-making system in Britain is even more archaic, largely unrepresentative of public opinion (more representative of public mood) and full of terribly old loopholes. So when an enormous majority of the world’s Eastern population, who have lived and procreated in Britain anonymously for the last 50 years, decide that as Conservative Muslims, their identification with Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran override their British allegiances, we have a problem.

Two things were at the heart of the British elections this year: immigration and the recession. One simple, but rather racist-sounding solution that many think but few say is “Well why don’t you just send them home if they’re trying to start a British Islamic Revolution? If they don’t like The West and only want to Islamify it, then surely….go back home to the East?” Well, the reason it isn’t that simple is because the one thing that British-born Islamic extremists like Mohamed Sidique Khan (7/7 bomber) and Mr & Mrs Ali next door have in common is this: rights. Resident immigrants who’ve become nationals and generations of British-born Easterners, all have as much right to remain in the country as Mr & Mrs Barnsworth across the road do. So “kicking them out” is not a terribly realistic answer to that.

If Britain refuses to become a completely secular state like neighbouring France (tolerating NO displays of religion), then the only way to stem the Islamification of Britain is the difficult way:

a) Put a cap on immigration. PM Cameron proposed this earlier this year. Set a limit on how many people can come through the border every year….and ACTUALLY reinforce it.

b) Reform immigration laws. Create multiple tests which must be passed at a certain percentile, measuring one’s “connection” and somewhat “acceptance” of the root characteristics of Britain as a country: tests on culture, religion, values, liberalism. Holland currently has an immigration video depicting typical Dutch life, which all new immigrants must watch in order to help them decide if this is the life they want; because this is the life they will get, no ifs, ands or buts i.e  “If you like what you see, come in and assimilate with it, if not, there are other places you can go and live.”

c) Reform the “citizenship by marriage” pathway. Denmark currently has a reform which states that for the inconvenience of marrying a foreigner, a Danish-born Dane and his foreign-born wife must have 28 years of “connection” to Denmark between them.

d) WRITE a British constitution. Like it’s American counterpart, the British Constitution should only depict Britishness at the root formation of the entire British Isles. Set the thing in stone as a preventative measure against country-wide Sharia law.

The trouble with policing Britain’s nation-wide Islamic protests is the lack of authority our police have had for decades. In comparison to America and even some of our European neighbours, the police have very limited powers in Britain. Patrolling without firearms; an absence of military conduct on duty and a comparatively casual attitude toward standard operating procedure, have remarkably weakened the impact of the police’s presence in Britain. The age-old image of British police fraternizing with the public whilst on duty is still carried out today; you see it in Trafalgar Square, Hyde Park’s Speaker’s Corner, Parliament Square and at the Notting Hill Carnival, every single year.

Bringing me back to the need for reforming our archaic British law–this rather ”bohemian” policing is no foundation for keeping order in an ideologically violent 21st century Britain. Even at a foundational level, our sentences are far too soft; an offence punishable by imprisonment in the US, is often ‘punished’ with 100-300 hours community service in Britain, or some other ‘slap on the wrist’. If Britain’s criminals are being handled poorly to start with, there’s very little chance of an extremist being arrested for threatening to convert the Queen to Islam.

The police are only permitted to enforce whatever attitude the State adopts; of late, a softly-softly, politically-correct approach. It’s not duty in Britain, as it is in Iran, for the police to arrest people for ‘voicing’ their beliefs in public, because since the 1900’s, Britain has and still considers itself immune to radicalization. Up until now, talk of ‘revolution by ideology’ in the form of political protest was never really a ‘realistic’ threat for the British police, particularly because the State never considered it so. It was in Germany, which is why the Nazi one-armed salute is still an arrestable offence in Germany today. But if the British government are still dilly-dallying in deciding which Western ideological weapon would be the most effective against Political Islam, the only thing the British police can use to defend the country in the meantime, are their bare hands. And you can imagine how effective that’s been over the last 10 years. No, the police are just as worried as the rest of Britain because, they too, have been nannied out of being allowed to use their own initiative.

I don’t dislike Muslims. I have many Muslim friends, a few Muslim relatives and I love them all equally. Nor am I against multiculturalism; I was born in it. But the “age” of multicultural Britain has come to an end when one culture wants to establish itself over all the others Britain has given free rein to. If we can go down this road it will naturally upset MILLIONS of people. But the reason such action has become necessary is because this is how Britain got itself into this mess in the first place, by pandering to everyone and anyone for years. It is time the country stopped throwing it’s roots and origins into the sea. Britain, with no proper grip on immigration in the first place, became a ripe place for an aggressive ideology such as Political Islam, to grow. If Political Islam is making an aggressive beeline for our crumbling law system, then the best thing that Britain can do is shape up and make an aggressive beeline for Political Islam.