Respecting Religion

I was deeply disturbed by a recent event that took place at my old university. According to The Independent, students attending a debate about sharia law organised by the Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society at Queen Mary University in London were told they would be "hunted down and killed" by a man who burst into their lecture theatre and filmed them on his phone.  The man had reportedly been motivated by a call to action placed on extremist website, Islamic Awakening.


After I was informed of this, I made the following postings on Twitter:


How long are we going to let religious nutcases who have no evidence for their beliefs, threaten, harm & kill us in our own free-thinking land?  You might be able to bully & beat religion into your own children, but don't fucking dare threaten me with your unsubstantiated bullshit.  The idea that religion, by sheer virtue of being a religion, demands respect is utter nonsense. It requires no more respect than the respect it has for other groups in society. Which is not a lot much of the time.


I was then pleasantly surprised to be joined in a debate by one of my former students who challenged some of my views, particularly the manner in which I had expressed them:


I dunno, that seems to me to be a bit of a generalisation.  I'm anti-religion myself, but to state that religious groups not be respected undermines society's views on tolerance all together, right?  We should respect all groups of people regardless of if what they're saying makes complete sense or it's all utter bullshit.


Its not the bullshit I have no respect for, it is the lack of respect some religions have for others and yet expect respect.  


Sure but that applies to extremists.  It appears (to me anyway) like you're criticising all religious people.


It definitely applies to extremists but, I would argue, also applies to some who might class themselves as moderates too.  


We should absolutely tolerate difference, but for things we have choice over, we must be prepared to justify and be judged for.  Tolerance for the intolerant is surely intolerable even for the most tolerant if the safety and security of all is paramount.   I promote tolerance of difference for things which we have no control over. My tolerance does not extent to hate-mongers.


Which isn't the case because the majority of religious people i know are peaceful, respectful and -to an extent- open-minded.


Many religious people are indeed. But many are not and they use religion to justify their actions.  Those who are peaceful and respectful are so in spite of their religion, not usually because of it.  They are pickers and choosers and ignore the most wicked and brutal parts of their religion.  Which is good for society, of course.  But their moderation comes from a moderate society, not from a religion.   I am not thankful to their religion for their moderation, I am thankful to an enlightened society that has impacted on their interpretation of their religion to justify to themselves and make it seem more respectful and relevant to others.


Exactly, and I commend liberal thinkers who take into account sociological changes when interpreting and practicing their religion and respect them more for it.   The beauty of free people do not have to follow religious texts to the word and can change aspects of it.  I don't think religions should be viewed as institutions set in stone that cannot be changed, so I think it's wrong to criticise religion itself, rather criticise those who are too narrow-minded to accept different views.


I do not disagree with you at all, (think I share a lot in common with you to be honest) but, playing devil's advocate, let me present the following arguments to you:


- If a holy text is, as some believe, the actual word of God, why would it need changing?


- Is not the changing of interpretation to suit modern society simply a PR campaign by some in those religions to make it appear more palatable and spread the delusion of God to people who might otherwise question it?


- Should the fundamentalists not at least have more respect for the fact they are not 'pick and mix' followers?


- If a God-created religion needs changing, isn't it evidence that it was not created by a God at all?  If she has, surely she would have had the foresight to have predicted these societal changes.


Hmm... I guess, because personally I view all religions as different interpretations of one 'higher entity',   I pretty much disregard the validity of 'holy' texts.  So when I look at them I'm more inclined to be focusing on positive aspects they promote, and disregard the more negative as mere views of the time that they were written, which is why I, on the whole, respect religion but condemn religious fundamentalism.


But if you disregard the texts you disregard the whole basis of Judaism, Christianity & Islam and simply say that their belief is a belief in a higher entity and that is all. Which clearly gels with your own interpretation, but isn't that you basically saying that each of those religions is based on utter bullshit except for the fact they believe in a higher entity?  Therefore expressing, as I was, a lack of respect for much of the basis of each of the main religions in this land.


I think any religion is just a human attempt to conceptualise and understand a higher entity, or 'God', so I wouldn't call the basis of religion 'utter bullshit', just an attempt to rationalise the world as we know it and I think it's a false dichotomy (A level English ;) ) to say you either respect or disrespect religion as a whole.


But your belief is not in a religion but in a higher entity. So if a text, which is the basis of these religions, is simply a human effort to rationalise the world as we know it at the time that we know it, isn't that therefore a nice way of saying it is 'utter bullshit'?  That it is man-made twoddle and the only leg they, rather shakily, stand on is a belief in an unproven higher entity?


I know of some interpretations of some religions for which I have more respect for.  But I do not respect them automatically because of their religious status.  Religions too often have an untouchable status in our society which elevates them to a level which some seem to think excludes from criticism and ridicule.  'Religions' are, after all, no different from 'cults'.  The differences are only in numbers of followers and length of life-span that has granted them greater acceptance in society.


 I'm not saying I disrespect religion per se.  I'm saying they should not just expect respect because they are a religion.  Of course, I do not class all religious people under the same light or, indeed, all denominations of a given religion.  


Clearly, I would not class you as someone who is religious.  Believing in a higher entity does not make you religious.


So what would your view be on the Danish newspaper that depicted the prophet Mohammed?


Denmark is not a Muslim country.


Denmark is a democracy.


Why should rules that people who choose to be Muslims follow be imposed on those of us who choose not to be Muslims?  If visitors to Saudi Arabia must accept the principles of a violent and brutal Sharia legal system, then those who choose to reside and visit Denmark must accept that it is a free-thinking and democratic system with its own laws, none of which are dictated to them by any religion whatsoever.   


Its funny how so many newspapers in Islamic states will make anti-semitic comments or characterise Jewish people, but the moment a newspaper in a non-islamic state pokes fun at their religion the reaction of some muslims is of threats of death and violence.
As a citizen of the UK who chooses to continue to reside here, the only laws I follow are the laws of the land.  I am not Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, etc.  Anyone from any of those religions tries to impose their rules on me they can (with no respect whatsoever) fuck right off.


I can't really comment on islamic newspapers because i've never seen one LOL, but, in regards to the Danish one, surely that was an issue of disrespect for a religion, despite the fact Denmark is a secular state, the press should still have respect for a rule which is so highly regarded in the q'ran, although perhaps religions and religious people (even  though the number of people who think like this is small) should be open to criticism.  But i think it would lead to a lack of  intolerance to other religions.  Wait i've lost my train of thought :S


Ah, but this is exactly the crux of my argument: Why should any religion command respect just because those who believe it might be offended? This is ridiculous.


This is a religion that often has no respect for anyone who dissents from it in lands where Islam is the official religion.  That will stone, hang, beat, lash anyone who does anything they deem as 'wrong'.  


The West is too often too scared to criticise precisely because of the extremists (not only in Islam) who are nothing more than bullies, brutes and psychopaths who believe they have a god on their side.  


Should we have to cower to them because of this?   


 Should we have to tip-toe and be victims of their bullying tactics or should, like the brave editors of the Danish newspaper, actually say, 'look, you live by your rules I live by mine! Don't like them, fuck off to a land where you agree with the rules.'


Too many people use the West as a money-making entity but have zero respect for our brand of tolerance and throw it right back  in our faces.  You want to live in a land where people are not free to criticise others, or express themselves sexually or according to their own religious beliefs or even possess none, as free/equal women, then please, go to Saudi Arabia or Iran or numerous other Islamic states.  You have options.  This land is for people who CHOOSE to live somewhere not dictated to by religious dogma.


Practice what the hell you want in this land, but don't impose it on others.    


Any religion worth its weight in gold (or any other matter) should have no problem with being questioned. Its only because it fears people knowing too much or being able to question too much that it imposes such rigid and intolerant practices.  Any religion that imposes such practices is not a real religion.  If 'believers' only believe because they are bullied into it through coercive means and abusive practices, then its not a belief, is it?  Its an imposition.
Religion, where it fails, bullies and abuses, must be exposed.


We should never be too scared to stand up to the hypocrises of religion. 


Very, very, very true.


Noooooo! Don't give in that easily!!!!


Can we continue this after my economics homework is done? :'(

An Eye For An Eye... when it suits.

On Tuesday night, a report, by Fran Abrams on BBC Radio4's 'File on 4', revealed that, of 200 local councils that were asked, 191 of them disclosed that there had been over 400 allegations of physical abuse at madrassas throughout Great Britain.  Despite the huge number of allegations, only 10 cases had been to court and only two resulted in convictions.  On top of this, the BBC also discovered 30 allegations of sexual abuse over the past three years.

As those of you know who have been following me and my and my foster son's campaign, 'Azadi', to, as one of its aims, bring an end to violence in madrassas in this country (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/13956), these allegations of abuse come as no surprise to us.  However what comes as a surprise and shock to me is the ongoing reluctance by many of those in the Muslim community to do anything about it.  Its actions are echoing the decades of abuse in the Catholic church, where, for many years there, as with the madrassas now, the attitude was to sweep it under the carpet and ignore it.


There are many in the Muslim community who even perceive it as quite normal and acceptable behaviour, some parents even encourage it.  When I spoke to some former students of mine who had attended madrassa, some who still do, and asked about physical abuse, the response was "yes, it happens, so what?".


There are those who argue that the Imams and teachers at these madrassas are only carrying on practices which are commonplace in such educational institutions in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh, indeed where many of them are born and have spent their training.  However, yet again, this is an example of a religious group's actions which, although may be tolerated by some or even many within its own community, is at loggerheads with the values of the system within which it now chooses to reside.


As a result of the inaction (and wide-scale acceptance) by much of the Muslim community to allegations of abuse, victims rarely report the crime.  Indeed, as Fran Abrams discovered, there are even cases where victims who have reported abuse and subsequently been ostracised by the community, despsite instances where the defendant was found guilty.  In other cases, victims who initially make allegations are pressured into dropping them, for fear of community reprisals and bringing dishonour onto the family and their community.


Whatever the official numbers of physical and sexual abuses in our country's madrassas, Nazir Afzal, the chief crown prosecutor for the North West of England, said he believed the BBC's figures represented "a significant underestimate".


What is happening in many British madrassas is a national disgrace and, furthermore, a disgrace to a religious community that is often the first to point its finger when, the so-called, 'morals' of others do not fit in with its own.  For a religion that believes in the principle of "an eye-for-an-eye", it appears only to come into practice so long as, whatever is revealed, does not bring its own religion into disrepute.


Recently, I was publicly criticised, in the Ilford Recorder, by a parent of a former student of mine, a Dr Anwar Hussein, who stated that he is:


"very angry that my child, with hundreds of other minors at Beal High, was subject to a teacher who was engaged in working in the adult sex industry, which, as a follower of Islam, I find highly immoral, repugnant and completely unacceptable and incompatible with my religious beliefs." 




Without wishing to remind Dr Hussein that this is neither a Muslim country, nor is my former employer, Beal High School, a Muslim school, it might also do him some good to hold a mirror to his own community and ask why so many of those who share his 'religious beliefs' find it acceptable to tolerate activities that go against our shared British values.  He chooses to live here.  I choose not to follow Islam, or any religion for that matter, thank you very much.  


Personally, I believe that whatever my child's teachers do outside of the classroom is entirely a matter of their choice, but the moment that teacher beats my child with a stick or touches my child in a sexual manner at any time (not to mention within the school time!!!), then I will be pulling that child from that school and bringing forward allegations without a second thought AND not giving a stuff whatever those in the rest of my community think or care about it!  


Of course, Dr Hussein is an exception to this rule.  He would be one of the few within his community who would be brave enough to speak up and take a stand against the actions of some his fellow religious compatriots, of course he would, I have no doubt.


Meanwhile, yesterday my son came home and revealed to me that one of his good friends, a fellow Pakistani, is due to be 'married off' in February next year.  The girl is 17 years old and, despite her parents wishes, does not want to be married.  Indeed, she has other plans for herself.  The parents are moving to Saudi Arabia and are insistent, prior to their move, that their oldest daughter is to be married.


It riles me to the core that so many parents, particularly, although not exclusively, within the Asian community, feel that it is their right, as a parent, to dictate the romantic and sexual lives of their children, not to mention the education and career.  These are parents who, in many cases, have chosen (for whatever reason, often economic) to live in this society, to breed in this society, to bring up children in this society, knowing full-well what the values of this society are, and yet to impose, on their British-born children, values that go totally against the values that we in Britain instill in the minds of our young British citizens.


For many years, I have been a strong supporter of multi-cultural communities.  I still am.  I have done and will always fight racism and discrimination wherever its ugly head appears.  Well over half of my friends and associates are either born elsewhere or of foreign parentage.  And, believe me, there are many cases where I would rather a foreigner as a neighbour than an ignorant, insular, inbred Brit, as so many of us are.


I also share great empathy with the many ethnic communities who originate from lands that were formerly of the British Empire.  I recognise how this country took advantage of your lands and peoples for its own selfish benefit; how you were made to believe that the Queen is your Queen, London your capital city and that you also are as British as a British-born man.  And yet, the reality, when you arrived on these shores, has been very different.  I recognise those wrongs and the mistreatment that you have been subject to for many years on these islands.


However, lets make it very clear: religion is not race.  Religion is a matter of belief and choice.  This choice, at times, you must have to justify and should be discriminated for.


Britain should absolutely open its arms to those who wish to live here and become proud, responsible citizens of this land.  But it should also make itself very clear to new arrivals, that, while they are welcome to live freely on these isles and to choose to do, to themselves, and believe, within themselves, within the privacy of their own home, whatsoever they choose (as long as it is within the laws of the land) that there are certain values of being a resident and citizen of Britain that they should respect:  those of liberalism, equality and democracy and an absolute respect for the rights of the individual (rights which extend to children too, believe it or not).  


If, for whatever reason, your own values do not gel easily with those values that we hold dear in this country, well you have a choice:  to either adhere to those values or to choose to reside in another society that shares your values.


At school, I regularly had a form member and member of my Religious Education class, who happened to be Muslim, tell me how he believed that homosexuality was a sin and how all homosexuals should be executed.  This child's parents were born in Pakistan, lived in Holland for many years and then decided, with full knowledge of the value system in our country, to move here.  My response to this student was always the same, "while I respect that is your opinion, you must recognise that this is not an opinion that is widely shared in this country. If you believe it so strongly, that it is so important to you to live in a society that shares that value, then you should choose, when you are old enough, to move yourself to a country where homosexuality is illegal and a capital offence.  It is neither of those things here and nor do we wish it to be."


The only thing that inflicting your own values and beliefs on your child will do, is to bring resentment and misery into their lives and possibly a schism in your parent-child relationship that could last a lifetime.  Is that what you really want?  


I have seen too many families ripped apart and children disowned because they tried to flex their individual rights muscles or did something that brought dishonour onto their family or their community.


Nothing is more important to me than my child.  I don't have a biological child.  I have a child I am looking after because his own parents thought it was more important to have the words of the Qu'ran literally beaten into him thousands of miles away in a madrassa in Pakistan.  


And where is that family now?  They too have fled to Pakistan for fear of what their son may say and how this may damage their own reputation and family 'honour'.


Is this the love of a parent?
Is this a community who really cares?
Is this the sign of a community who really thinks the legal activities of teaching staff outside of school are more horrific than the beating and molestation of their children within one?


An Eye-for-an-Eye?
If only.  We would see a lot of Imams and parents beaten black-and-blue by their students/children.  
If only they would be so brave. 

Letter to the Ilford Recorder from disgruntled Muslim parent.

Here is a copy of a letter send to and published in the Ilford Recorder:


Ilford Recorder, Thursday September 15, 2011
Beal High School
'Unnacceptable' porn star teacher

As a Muslim parent, with a child at Beal High School, like countless parents I was dismayed, disgusted and disappointed to learn the school had appointed a male teacher, Benedict Garrett, as PHSE head of department, who it has now transpired also worked as a stripper, naked butler and a porn star, aka Johnny Anglais.

I'm very angry that my child, with hundreds of other minors at Beal High, was subject to a teacher who was engaged in working in the adult sex industry, which, as a follower of Islam, I find highly immoral, repugnant and completely unacceptable and incompatible with my religious beliefs. I know the same is true for those following other faiths.

Parents have rightly called for an independent inquiry. That this should happen in a school of all places is appalling.

Dr Anwar Hussein
New Road
Ilford




Dear Dr Anwar Hussein,


Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was unaware that Beal High School was affiliated with Islam, or with any religion for that matter.


The fact that you are Muslim has absolutely no bearing on the recruitment process or the choice of teaching staff that the school selects.  If that was the case, I would assume that you would be deeply discontent to know that there are at least ten members of staff who are 'practicing' homosexuals.  But thank goodness your values do not dictate who can or cannot become a teacher!


Equally, if parents decided, based on their own values, who could and could not be a teacher, then I would object to anyone who is a strict Muslim, Jew or Christian from teaching my children based on the fact that their principles of homophobia, second class treatment of women, views of non-believers, belief in 'an eye-for-an-eye', promotion of un-safe sex practices and numerous other values that do not gel with a liberal, open-minded and tolerant society, go totally against the values I wish to instill in my child.


Parents do not dictate who can and cannot teach.  And nor should they be allowed to be.  Teachers should be employed on their ability to teach.  Whatever legal activities they indulge in outside of the classroom (be that related to their religious or sexual practices) has absolutely nothing to do with it.  If you have ANY proof I brought my outside practices into the classroom, then please, bring it forward.  Equally, the moment you, DOCTOR Hussein, bring your religion into the job and impose it on those you are professing to help, I sincerely hope someone comes down on you like a ton of bricks too.  Until then, I hope you are employed for being a brilliant doctor and not for being a believer in a fictitious entity that you allow to rule your life.


Kind regards,


Benedict Garrett / Johnny Anglais
Manchester

Last night's THE JOHNNY ANGLAIS SHOW

Tonight's topics:
- How did you learn about the birds and the bees?
- Are all Muslims dangerous to western society?
- Should rapists have their testicles removed?
- Should arranged marriages be made illegal?
- Have you been checking your balls/boobies?

PLUS a live ON-AIR testicle check!

Plus a round-up of all the latest sexuality news stories at the top-of-the-hour in 'The Sex News', presented by Randy McSeaman.

Johnny is joined in the studio by his faithful, but cynical, Aussie sidekick, Chad Chattington.

Sponsored by www.desirepourhomme.co.uk