Religious bigot or oppressed minority?

[InsaneApache]

HOMOSEXUALITY is immoral and spreads disease, and civil partnerships are damaging to society, according to Britain’s most senior Muslim leader.

Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that same-sex relationships risked damaging the foundations of society, and scientific evidence showed that homosexuality carried high health risks.

here

So who's oppressing who? If you agree with Sacranie, then you're probably a homophobe bigot. If on the other hand you support Tatchell et al then you risk being arrested for (yet another) incitement to religious hatred.

Be interesting to watch the 'left' swing about wildly trying to square this circle.

[Leet Eriksson]

Well on this issue, most muslims will tell you homosexuality is wrong.

I say live and let live.

[Red Peasant]

This is the same man who said suicide bombing was wrong after the London bombs, except if it was directed against Israel. They gave him a knighthood. I wouldn't lend credence to anything he says and wish he would keep his medieval views to himself, yet the media give him a platform to spout his rubbish.

[JAG]

He is a religious fundamentalist just like any other, not in the blowing themselves up to prove a point fundamentalist, but a fundamentalist none the less.

I don't agree with him, but then again I don't normally agree with many religious chaps, he is speaking utter bigotry and hatred.

IA - the left doesn't have any problems standign against this type of hatred, probably less problems than the right.

[Ja'chyra]

Or maybe he's just expressing his views in a freedom of speech kind of way

But according to some it's ok for people to say that homosexuality is ok but not ok for others to say it's not. Who are you to judge them when you criticise others for judging?

Pot and kettle

[Ronin]

Or maybe he's just expressing his views in a freedom of speech kind of way

But according to some it's ok for people to say that homosexuality is ok but not ok for others to say it's not. Who are you to judge them when you criticise others for judging?

Pot and kettle

I have no problem with people saying anything that they want.....

but people like this guy don´t just talk, try to limit the rights of others by ways of influencing legislation or by encoraging violent acts....

say anything you like....but when you start trying to push it on other people you´re crossing a line.

[Husar]

Well on this issue, most muslims will tell you homosexuality is wrong.

I say live and let live.

1. Don´t forget Christians.

2. Agreed.

[Watchman]

So who's oppressing who? If you agree with Sacranie, then you're probably a homophobe bigot. If on the other hand you support Tatchell et al then you risk being arrested for (yet another) incitement to religious hatred.

Be interesting to watch the 'left' swing about wildly trying to square this circle.

Well, I'm definitely about as Left as you can get without getting Stalinist or some other dodgy -ist (and the serious ultra-leftists, eg. the aforementioned, have IMHO actually dropped off the slider entirely into the same mental limbo as the swastika-waving ultra-rightists - just from the opposite door, and of course neither would ever admit it), and I'll say this - Sacranie's being a reactionary, spiteful, scripture-thumping jerk who really should get on with the times. Alas, the assorted clergies of different religions seem to have a curious tendency to act as one of the refuges of the reactionary and narrow-minded (or, as one columnist described our national church's stance on the recent debate over gay family-related issues, "an open-air museum of harmful and oppressive ideas"). Personally I suspect it has something to do with the idea of having Ultimate Truths written down in the Scriptures, but anyway.

If Tatchell et all have a beef with that, splendid - there can never be enough people telling the reactionaries to stop meddling in other peoples' private lives. And anyone who has issues about criticizing a disagreeable bigot who happends to be a member of a minority is obviously missing the point - I for one firmly believe in the equal right, ability and predisposition of people regardless of age, ethnicity, gender or favourite sports team to be hateful little idiots altogether too certain their own sorry selves are an ideal everyone else should conform to. Even if said people are quite sensible most of the time.

Whatever the (apparently considerable) faults in Tatchell and the rest may be neither interests me or is very relevant. Even blind hens find seeds every now and then when it comes down to that, and if they happen to be whiny buggers at least they'd be whining about something worthwhile this time.

As a side note, I understand Blair tends to be considered to be about as Right (at least as far as about anything related to economy goes) as the nominally Left head of a nominally Left political party now can be. We had at least one here in Finland too only recently. Waittasec, he was the Prime Minister too...

[Duke of Gloucester]

It seems to me Sacranie is expressing two opinions. He believes that homosexuality is immoral, but he does not, in this interview call for it to be illegal. Surely he is entitled to that view amd to express it. He also believes that civil partnerships are damaging to society. This is a political rather than moral view, and in a democracy he is entitled to express this view. He is not oppressing anyone, just expressing opinions.

[Watchman]

He'd have to be a pretty stupid sort of short-sighted reactionary to cry after making it illegal, you know. Doesn't make his opinion any less stuck-up and discriminatory, nevermind rather unbecoming of a man in his position, and in any case when you voice your opinion others, obviously, have every right to express their opinions about it. And draw conclusions about you...

[Duke Malcolm]

So who's oppressing who? If you agree with Sacranie, then you're probably a homophobe bigot. If on the other hand you support Tatchell et al then you risk being arrested for (yet another) incitement to religious hatred.

I don't particularly like any of the protection which is granted to any minority groups. The laws of the past half century (I think) should go as far as prohibiting employment discrimination : other discrimination was already prohibited -- violence, verbal abuse, miscellaneous discrimination (which was, I believe, outlawed in the 19th century).

I think people should be allowed to have their own sexual preferences, and others to have their own opinions about those sexual preferences. Yes, live and let live...

[Kralizec]

As a moderate leftie, I'll try to "square the circle". Whatever that means...

We have free speech, and free speech includes saying you don't like homosexuality or dissaprove of islamic fundamentalism. Wich can be done without problems until the point where the free speech of one group and the protection of another group collide, and where both have to be weighed against eachother.
If you're not only dissaproving homosexuality, but also inciting violence against gay people, you're unmistakenably out of line. But there's no thin line between merely expressing your (hateful) opinion and inciting violence. And you can ask yourself wether an imam, or in this case head of a muslim council, can be held against a sterner standard then others because of their leading position.

What to do about this specific case? I'm not sure. But I do think it should be an option to deport religious figures to their country of origin if they "cross the line".

[InsaneApache]

What to do about this specific case? I'm not sure. But I do think it should be an option to deport religious figures to their country of origin if they "cross the line".

Righto then....off back to Malawi from hence he came. One less idiot appointee of Bliars to worry about. *wonders if there's any chance of picking up a 'spare' knighthood*

Mr Sacranie was born in Malawi in 1951 and his family were among the many East African Asians who followed the British presence out of the continent at the end of the empire.

'Sir'Iqbal

[Redleg]

Something that strikes me as odd about this comment.

Peter Tatchell, the founder of the gay rights group OutRage!, said: “It’s tragic for one minority to attack another minority.”

Mr Tatchell should define what a minority is? Is religion a minority and therefor a protected class? Is sexual behavior a minority and therefore a protected class? Can anyone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexuality is a genetic condition someone is born with (which would provide a sound arguement for a minority classification of homosexuals), if such an arguement can be proven then it require that any law that might discriminate against sexual behavior be reviewed to insure that it does not violate an individuals rights. However at this point its really nothing but rethoric on multiple parties part.

Free Speech is a burdern when someone states that they don't believe in your opinion, and why they don't believe your in sacred cows. The counters in the article are weak in my opinion. They do not address Sir Iqbal Sacranie comments.

Speaking about civil partnerships, the first of which took place in Britain last month, Sir Iqbal said: “It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society: stability, family relationships. And it is something we would certainly not in any form encourage the community to be involved in.”

Asked on the BBC Radio 4 PM programme if homosexuality was harmful to society, he replied: “Certainly it is a practice that in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society, it is. It is not acceptable.

“Each of our faiths tells us that it is harmful and, I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practised there is a greater concern in that area.”

What we see is not arguements showing how he is wrong - but arguements such as the one from Mr Tatchell and this, from the same article.

Alan Duncan, the most prominent openly gay Conservative MP, said: “This is an absurd medieval view. One should separate the religious from the secular. Such general condemnation is no longer acceptable in a civilised modern world.”

So the view is absurd in one man's opinion - but can he prove the premise as being wrong?

But to answer the question of the thread

The answer is neither. Sir Iqbal Sacranie is speaking within the tenents of his faith.

[English assassin]

IA - the left doesn't have any problems standign against this type of hatred, probably less problems than the right

yeah, right, that's why Peter Tatchell was elected to be Labour MP for Bermondsey, oh, wait, he wasn't, ooh, and look, it was those nice Liberals who got in on the anti gay vote just like they got in on the anti black vote in Cheltenham in 1992.

Redleg, Tatchell's comments should be seem in the light of a man who has made his entire career out of passive aggressive tactics on behalf of "minorities". He basically lives a dream in which everyone who isn't white, male and over 30 lines up to kick those who are.

Obviously its a nasty surprise to him to find out that there a bigots in the muslim community, well hello Pete, welcome to the 21st century.

(Although he can be annoying, some of the things Tatchell does can be quite amusing, like trying to arrest Mugabe for being anti gay only to get beaten up by his bodyguards. I have to say though if I was gay I would not be too happy at all the coverage he gets, since he is definitely out of the oooh, help me help me, I'm being oppressed Penelope Pitstop school of activism. )

[Redleg]

Redleg, Tatchell's comments should be seem in the light of a man who has made his entire career out of passive aggressive tactics on behalf of "minorities". He basically lives a dream in which everyone who isn't white, male and over 30 lines up to kick those who are.

Oh I figured it was just a political statement. I would like to see his definition of what a minority is though.
[/QUOTE]

[Devastatin Dave]

I wonder if this man has never commited any sin in his life? God loves us all, whether it be someone living as a homosexual or a person the proclaims and lives a realatively "moral" life. During the Holidays I went to church a lot and had many conversations with my Pasture and a good friend of mine that is Muslim. We are all sinners, whether it be a murderer or someone who might tell a little lie. Instead of attacking homosexuals for what they do, why not show them love and compassion like God intended? That's what I've rededicated myself to this Holiday because Jesus would hold the homosexual just as close to his bussom as he would hold me. God bless you all.

[English assassin]

Someone's hacked Dev Dave's account again...

Anyway, DD, that's very Christian, did your muslim friend tell you if muslims are as big on forgiveness as christians though?

(Wow, I've just asked dave a serious question on muslim ethics, how weird does this feel)

[Goofball]

We are all sinners, whether it be a murderer or someone who might tell a little lie. Instead of attacking homosexuals for what they do, why not show them love and compassion like God intended? That's what I've rededicated myself to this Holiday because Jesus would hold the homosexual just as close to his bussom as he would hold me. God bless you all.

Holy crap.

I go and make an anti-Christian post and here comes a Christian talking some sense.

Dave I agree entirely with everything you said there, and if all Christians actually practiced the views you just talked about, guys like me would have nothing to attack them about because there would be no hypocricy there anymore.

Well done Dave.

(Unless you are just taking the piss out of all of us with this "Kinder, Gentler Dave" routine, in which case I would invite you to take a flying **** at a rolling donut...)

[Byzantine Prince]

Instead of attacking homosexuals for what they do, why not show them love and compassion like God intended? That's what I've rededicated myself to this Holiday because Jesus would hold the homosexual just as close to his bussom as he would hold me. God bless you all.

Oh really?
Try readin some Leviticus and some St.Paul, and then tell me again how the stance of the church doctrine really is. There are liberal priests that will probably tell you otherwise, but the facts are in the "Good Book". Need I remind you that in order to be a good christian you are supposed to kill homosexuals?


BTW, mods there is evidence for this in Leviticus, so don't take it as a flame.

Here's some gems:
Leviticus 20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death

Psalm 137:9
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones

There is tons more where that came from

[Goofball]

here

So who's oppressing who? If you agree with Sacranie, then you're probably a homophobe bigot. If on the other hand you support Tatchell et al then you risk being arrested for (yet another) incitement to religious hatred.

My answer to your original question: Religious bigot. Very simple.

Be interesting to watch the 'left' swing about wildly trying to square this circle.

I'm more interested in seeing the right try to square the circle on this one. Good God! This might just make them realize that muslim bigotry against homosexuals is no different from their own Christian bigotry toward homosexuals. But this would mean they might actually have to agree with a Muslim, who we all know are responsible for (among other things) most of the rapes in the world, all of the terrorism in the world, etc...

Egads! What's a good, God-fearing Christian to do!?!?

[bmolsson]

Regardless religion, he is a religious bigot.....

[Watchman]

I don't think you need a religion to be a bigot, actually. But The Faith tends to make a neat blunt instrument to those who combine the two.

[Redleg]

As the public figure and speaker for his religion in the country of England - he must provide statements that are in line with his religion.

His downfall in this issue was that he attempted to use a secular arguement along with his religous one.

But nevertheless - if the people of England voted in the law for Civil Union the will of the people shows that they are willing to accept it, which is what democracy is all about.

However we can not stomp on his right to speech to voice his dissatifcation and the group he represents consensus because we find it not pleasant for us to hear dis-stafication with the current governmental policy.

Careful on labeling others a bigot least you fall into the trap your calling them.

[Watchman]

The "intolerance of intolerance" line of argument was always way too loopy for my tastes.

[Ja'chyra]

But nevertheless - if the people of England voted in the law for Civil Union the will of the people shows that they are willing to accept it, which is what democracy is all about.

However we can not stomp on his right to speech to voice his dissatifcation and the group he represents consensus because we find it not pleasant for us to hear dis-stafication with the current governmental policy.

Careful on labeling others a bigot least you fall into the trap your calling them.

Ah but that's the thing isn't it? You never actually get to vote on this kind of thing, it's all just rolled into a parties policies and you have to choose the one with the least amount of un-appealing policies.

I do agree with your last point though, I did try to say it earlier, everyone is entitled to their opinions and as it stands all he did was give his opinions WHEN ASKED, he's not persecuting anyone.

So, if you call someone a bigot for stating their views does that make you a bigot? Or just intolerant of others?

[Roark]

here

So who's oppressing who? If you agree with Sacranie, then you're probably a homophobe bigot. If on the other hand you support Tatchell et al then you risk being arrested for (yet another) incitement to religious hatred.

I agree with some of what Sacranie said. I feel that homosexual culture is not broadly conducive to creating stable family units. Hell, that might change with time though. Homosexuals haven't had legitimate status within our society for very long. Maybe they're still finding their feet...

I don't agree that gay culture is necessarily more diease-ridden than hetero society, though...

Be interesting to watch the 'left' swing about wildly trying to square this circle.

Hmm, I thought it was right-wingers who had problems with things like basic shapes... Square holes and round pegs and whatnot... ;-)

[InsaneApache]

I agree with some of what Sacranie said. I feel that homosexual culture is not broadly conducive to creating stable family units.

This is a new one on me. What exactley is homosexual culture?

[Duke Malcolm]

Pink shirts, camp actions, openly flamboyant, promoting of homosexuality, and sodomy.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

camp actions are?

Damn, I need to get rid of my tent and not build a fire to cook sausages/marshmallows etc. over. I won't even be able to use the ashes to cook bananas and chocolate in foil.

Is nothing sacred?