5 ms·

I struggle to see why it is they're simply hate speech and not a valid political movement. A quick look at their "No More Mosques!" campaign should suffice to

by drugme 8y ago

I struggle to see why it is they're simply hate speech and not a valid political movement. A quick look at their "No More Mosques!" campaign should suffice to provide the insight you seek.

ramblerman 8y ago
Explain to me why that is not something people can vote on? What if I don't want Saudi funded mosques in particular, is there any nuance allowed. There is no racism or exclusion based on a person's ethnicity here. Should we lock up Richard Dawkins for being anti catholic?
- Spivak 8y ago
  Of course there's nuance allowed. We're talking about human speech, it's basically all nuance. If you say that Saudi funding churches, businesses, housing, etc. is not good for Britain for a reason other than you have something against Saudis as a people then you're fine. If you say you're against all churches because you're an anti-theist then you're fine. There is absolutely exclusion based on ethnicity. It's extremely important to recognize that there is a difference between someone who is religiously Muslim and ethnically Muslim -- same with Judaism -- and same with Christianity too as well but we don't call it that because we're the default in the West. Saying there is no such thing ignores the dominating cultural impact of religious institutions.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - bluecalm 8y ago
    What's wrong about being against one religion in particular. I think it's very reasonable to be against Islam because of its stance on gay rights, women rights, penalty for apostasy and their holy book which if interpretet literally (which is how vast majority of Muslims believe it should be interpreted) is full of hate and calls for violence. Not wanting any more of that or institutions promoting that is reasonable political view.
    - drugme 8y ago
      What's wrong about being against one religion in particular. You can be "against" a particular religion all you want. But you have absolutely no right to prohibit anyone from practicing that religion simply because you don't like it. Including the "practice" of getting together with friends in a room or a building, and posting a sign outside the door saying this is what you do.
      - bluecalm 8y ago
        Churches have special status given by the government. This means I should absolutely have a say how many, what kind and where they are built. It's not about home meetings to read the Bible after dinner. It's about special status institutions which influencen the areas they are built in.
        drugme 8y ago
        Churches have special status given by the government. Then maybe the problem is the messed up laws providing that "special status" then. But that doesn't mean you can (even under those laws) category ban a certain group from building any churches, anywhere. Which is exactly what Britain First is advocating.
      - manfredo 8y ago
        Plenty of countries regulate public religious practice. Take France, for instance, which even regulates public display of religious symbols . Does it follow that it is hate speech to say, "the government should handle religion more like France."?
        drugme 8y ago
        Does it follow that it is hate speech to say, "the government should handle religion more like France."? You'll note that France does not, by any stretch, attempt to ban mosques outright. So obviously there's not much of a comparison here.
  - type0 8y ago
    > It's extremely important to recognize that there is a difference between someone who is religiously Muslim and ethnically Muslim You mean arab right? Not all arabs are muslims so please stop this bs spreading. Yes christian arabs and jews from middle east have a lot in common (culturally) with their neighbors who are predominantly muslim. Saying that one could be ethnically muslim means you are expressing support for religious (as well as ehtnic) cleansing that has been going on in the middle east for decades. I did say ethnic because there has been some other ethnicities (non-arabs) that suffered tremendously as well.
- drugme 8y ago
  Explain to me why that is not something people can vote on? Because there's this thing known as "freedom of religion" which is recognized both in UK and European law (to which the UK is still bound) as fundamental and inviolable. Meaning: no you can not "vote" on the question of whether a certain group is allowed to practice their religion (yes, in your neighborhood) -- and advertise this fact. The size of the building, or the width of the signage can be regulated perhaps... but the very fact of that house of worship being built -- sorry, no. What if I don't want Saudi funded mosques in particular, is there any nuance allowed? The "No More Mosques!" campaign clearly is not limited to foreign-funded mosques (or those funded by nasty regimes); it is explicitly aimed against building mosques in general. That's why there's basically no way to look at it as fundamentally anti-Muslim. Should we lock up Richard Dawkins for being anti-Catholic? No, and no one is saying anyone should be "locked up" for carrying those banners, or running those ads.

by drugme 8y ago

I struggle to see why it is they're simply hate speech and not a valid political movement. A quick look at their "No More Mosques!" campaign should suffice to provide the insight you seek.

ramblerman 8y ago

Explain to me why that is not something people can vote on? What if I don't want Saudi funded mosques in particular, is there any nuance allowed. There is no racism or exclusion based on a person's ethnicity here. Should we lock up Richard Dawkins for being anti catholic?

Spivak 8y ago
Of course there's nuance allowed. We're talking about human speech, it's basically all nuance. If you say that Saudi funding churches, businesses, housing, etc. is not good for Britain for a reason other than you have something against Saudis as a people then you're fine. If you say you're against all churches because you're an anti-theist then you're fine. There is absolutely exclusion based on ethnicity. It's extremely important to recognize that there is a difference between someone who is religiously Muslim and ethnically Muslim -- same with Judaism -- and same with Christianity too as well but we don't call it that because we're the default in the West. Saying there is no such thing ignores the dominating cultural impact of religious institutions.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bluecalm 8y ago
  What's wrong about being against one religion in particular. I think it's very reasonable to be against Islam because of its stance on gay rights, women rights, penalty for apostasy and their holy book which if interpretet literally (which is how vast majority of Muslims believe it should be interpreted) is full of hate and calls for violence. Not wanting any more of that or institutions promoting that is reasonable political view.
  - drugme 8y ago
    What's wrong about being against one religion in particular. You can be "against" a particular religion all you want. But you have absolutely no right to prohibit anyone from practicing that religion simply because you don't like it. Including the "practice" of getting together with friends in a room or a building, and posting a sign outside the door saying this is what you do.
    - bluecalm 8y ago
      Churches have special status given by the government. This means I should absolutely have a say how many, what kind and where they are built. It's not about home meetings to read the Bible after dinner. It's about special status institutions which influencen the areas they are built in.
      - drugme 8y ago
        Churches have special status given by the government. Then maybe the problem is the messed up laws providing that "special status" then. But that doesn't mean you can (even under those laws) category ban a certain group from building any churches, anywhere. Which is exactly what Britain First is advocating.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      Plenty of countries regulate public religious practice. Take France, for instance, which even regulates public display of religious symbols . Does it follow that it is hate speech to say, "the government should handle religion more like France."?
      - drugme 8y ago
        Does it follow that it is hate speech to say, "the government should handle religion more like France."? You'll note that France does not, by any stretch, attempt to ban mosques outright. So obviously there's not much of a comparison here.
- type0 8y ago
  > It's extremely important to recognize that there is a difference between someone who is religiously Muslim and ethnically Muslim You mean arab right? Not all arabs are muslims so please stop this bs spreading. Yes christian arabs and jews from middle east have a lot in common (culturally) with their neighbors who are predominantly muslim. Saying that one could be ethnically muslim means you are expressing support for religious (as well as ehtnic) cleansing that has been going on in the middle east for decades. I did say ethnic because there has been some other ethnicities (non-arabs) that suffered tremendously as well.
drugme 8y ago
Explain to me why that is not something people can vote on? Because there's this thing known as "freedom of religion" which is recognized both in UK and European law (to which the UK is still bound) as fundamental and inviolable. Meaning: no you can not "vote" on the question of whether a certain group is allowed to practice their religion (yes, in your neighborhood) -- and advertise this fact. The size of the building, or the width of the signage can be regulated perhaps... but the very fact of that house of worship being built -- sorry, no. What if I don't want Saudi funded mosques in particular, is there any nuance allowed? The "No More Mosques!" campaign clearly is not limited to foreign-funded mosques (or those funded by nasty regimes); it is explicitly aimed against building mosques in general. That's why there's basically no way to look at it as fundamentally anti-Muslim. Should we lock up Richard Dawkins for being anti-Catholic? No, and no one is saying anyone should be "locked up" for carrying those banners, or running those ads.