Harry’s Place

Mark my words. As soon as the camera’s switched off the cigarette’s lit and it’s all “get me a fuckin’ whiskey over here already”. Total prima donna.

I can’t wait for the Harriet approved astrologist to tell me the real course of events based on the stellar alignment.

Anywho I will say the same that I said in the other thread, according to the biased translation the “bunny” was clearly talking about martyrdom in the “IDF killing her” sense, and not in the “suicide bomber” sense. So whatever look of fear you might have interpreted was clearly not of Hamas but of Israel.

Whatever satirist has invented this impossible moron, Flanker, just stop, please stop. He isn’t funny anymore.

Flanker continues to probe new depths of human stupidity. Everytime you think he has hit bottom and cannot go further, Flanker proves that for him, there is no bottom, intellectually speaking.

Question, which charecter in “Nineteen Eighty-four” does Flanker best represent?

Nice outfit. I like the flares. A bit dolled up don’t you think?

I suspect Flanker is Seamus Milne is disguise. They both exhibit the same level of lunacy.

The one that pisses of the wannabes with the truth. I don’t remember if he enjoyed it though.

@Minoan LOL

Question, which charecter in “Nineteen Eighty-four” does Flanker best represent?

Not sure I can think of one. On the one hand, unlike Winston’s neighbor Parsons, he seems to grasp at some level that the whole Chavismo thing is a racket; despite his constant stream of insults, I don’t sense any deep conviction. On the other hand, he doesn’t seem intelligent enough to merit comparison to Syme or O’Brien. (Zin seems more of an O’Brien type figure.)

Well as long as we are psycho-anal-babbling, we might as well do so on topic.

This site’s favorite tactic is to attack the argument in translation, that way they can make their opponent say anything they want them to say. That is why I laugh when your fellow neocons praise you for your so called integrity, when all you do is pass off the buck to someone else to interpret what you want to hear.

I’m not sure what Flanker is talking about, the subtitles accurately transcribe the dialogue (if oversimplifying it).

The injunction against stealing and its prerequisite punishment (Qur’an 5:38-9) were accurately reflected in the programme along with a canonical hadith on the subject by Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah. All Muslims as a condition of their belief must endorse the Qur’an as Allah’s word and Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah as Allah’s infallable messenger, so the producers are merely making programmes in line with their beliefs and those of a billion other Muslims.

To waste time and space connecting such banalities in the Islamic world with so-called ‘extremists’ and their familiars in the UK is mind-boggling. What would be far better would be to ask all Muslims, including so-called ‘moderates’ such as the Quilliam Foundation, and their backers such as Shaykh ‘I’m a pseudoislamist get me out of here’ bin Bayyah, who wish to remain in the UK, whether they endorse such primitive punishments. To remain Muslims they must all answer in the affirmative, which brings us to the obvious quandary…

“Anywho I will say the same that I said in the other thread, according to the biased translation the “bunny” was clearly talking about martyrdom in the “IDF killing her” sense, and not in the “suicide bomber” sense. So whatever look of fear you might have interpreted was clearly not of Hamas but of Israel.”

How could you even know that? Where does it say in the clip “Oh by the way just so that there is no ambiguity, Saraa, I mean martyrdom in the sense of “IDF killing you” and not in the “suicide bombing” sense”.

Saraa - “Thanks you Assud, because I don’t want the views to be under the impression that my fear is of Hamas and suicide bombings. Well glad that’s clear up and now let’s go to a commercial break…”

watch for yourself
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1693.htm

Here’s the transcript
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1693.htm

(Can’t even believe I’m wasting my time even putting this point forward)

I actually felt the programme, astonishingly vile as it is to this westerner, tried to discourage hand-chopping. (please hear me out!)

Ok, I might be reaching here, and I’m disgusted it’s even a topic on a kids programme, but I really felt that they were trying to get the kid at the end to say ‘no, don’t chop his hand’. And they showed him stealing, and gave the Quranic verses, and she still said if he promises never to do it again, don’t do it. Plus, the rabbit said, ’should we chop [can’t remember the girls name] hand off, if she was stealing?’, and the kid said no.

I know I’m pushing it here. It’s an appalling thing to see. But honestly, I genuinely got the impression that whoever’s making that programme is trying as far as they can to challenge the belief you should chop the hand off. I don’t think it’s just the young girl who’s uncomfortable.

What is uncomfortable is knowing there are alleged left-wingers who would defend/support the people who fund this crap and spread that belief.

Anyway, that was my impression. I’m not trying to defend Hamas TV, though I accept I may be reading too much into it, in order to give me hope.

I’d love to know how the scene ended though, and I think that’s actually very important. Did they chop his hand, or show leniency?

A little Imam told me there was an interesting programme on ‘Shar’iah in the UK’ shown on al-Jazeera on Tuesday with my Zaydi-hating enemy Mullah Rizwan Khan at the helm as usual:

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/rizkhan/2008/07/200871513656146566.html

Alas, there was no mention of the janbiyyah-wearing prohibition under domestic common law…

Thanks for the transcript, and assuming the MEMRI translation is highly accurate

“Assud: Allah willing, when I am martyred, a tiger will take my place… Allah willing, I will be the one to fix things, and there won’t be any tiger. The “Pioneers of Tomorrow” and I will make this dream come true.

[…]

Who will host this show if you are martyred? Will 100,000 Saraas take your place?”

Notice they are talking in the future tense, so the simple past tense is not applicable, it only makes grammatical sense if it is passive, not active.

SO, if it wanted to claim active role he would have said “When you martyr yourself?”

Therefore the only logical conclusion is that if her expression was that of fear/disgust/disapproval it would be regarding what she pictured the IDF would do to her.

Granted we are talking about a MEMRI translation to begin with, So valuable context was probably ignored.

“I’d love to know how the scene ended though, and I think that’s actually very important. Did they chop his hand, or show leniency?”

It is valuable context, so it is not surprising it was not translated.

Ahh of course I must be blind

“Allah willing, I will be the one to fix things, and there won’t be any tiger”

IT is not talking about suicide bombing, geez case closed.

Their ‘leniency’ would depend on the Rabbit’s age (unlikely to be a factor here) and whether his theft was deemed significant or not. He took three ‘notes’ but it is not revealed whether these are Dirhams, Shekels (unlikely), Dinars or Pounds…if he stole more than the proscribed amount of 30 Dinars and didn’t repent (which he did) then he would be liable for amputation…if he’s very unlucky, withdraws his previous act of contrition and happens to be presided over in a Maliki jurisdiction (unikely in Ghaza) he might find both his right hand and left foot are to be amputated…

If he turned out to be a woman in disguise or a polytheist (unlikely) he would not escape punishment either…

Anywho I will say the same that I said in the other thread, according to the biased translation the “bunny” was clearly talking about martyrdom in the “IDF killing her” sense, and not in the “suicide bomber” sense.

Ooh, I may have found some common ground with Flanker here. If, that is, he agrees that killing a load of people along with yourself is a disgusting and foul bastardisation of the concept and meaning of martydom, which according to my dictionary still means suffering for your beliefs as opposed to killing innocent civilians because you’re the scum of the earth.

Hats off, Flanko.

To remain Muslims they must all answer in the affirmative, which brings us to the obvious quandary…

So, everyone must fit in with your definition of who is a Muslim, never mind that they don’t live in a Muslim country and the law of the land doesn’t provide for any such judgements. Or that sharia provides for financial restitution. Who brought you here, Inayat or Seamus?

“If, that is, he agrees that killing a load of people along with yourself is a disgusting and foul bastardisation of the concept and meaning of martydom, which according to my dictionary still means suffering for your beliefs as opposed to killing innocent civilians because you’re the scum of the earth.”

To martyr yourself is proactive.
To be martyred is reactive.

Well hang on, can we be clear here please Flanko. I’d say that Thich Quang Duc - you know, the guy who set himself on fire in 1963 in a protest against the persecution of Buddhists in South Vietnam - is someone who martyred himself. I don’t know if you noticed though, but he didn’t murder anyone.

It seems - correct me if I’m wrong - that you think the 7/7 bombers were “proactive” martyrs. I hope I’m wrong, and you don’t think that.

Well hang on, can we be clear here please Flanko. I’d say that Thich Quang Duc - you know, the guy who set himself on fire in 1963 in a protest against the persecution of Buddhists in South Vietnam - is someone who martyred himself. I don’t know if you noticed though, but he didn’t murder anyone.

It seems - correct me if I’m wrong - that you think the 7/7 bombers were “proactive” martyrs. I hope I’m wrong, and you don’t think that.

“To martyr yourself is proactive.
To be martyred is reactive.”

You cannot martyr yourself. It bastardizes the entire concept about dying unjustly for one’s convictions.

You don’t go and seek to kill people for your convictions and claim to be a martyr.

(ssshh! but don’t tell anyone, least of all Flanker, that the Arabic verb for martyr is always passive even if the act of doing so is “active” - i.e. doing it via strapping a bomb to yourself and getting on a bus, or “passive” getting shot at - the verb is always passive. Don’t tell him because it’s better if he finds this out for himself.)

No the usual stuff you get on CBBC that’s for sure. Actually very shocking and terrible (and that’s just the production values!). I can’t believe that this stuff actually exists. I feel sorry for the kids, and the people that make it are clearly nuts.

“Well hang on, can we be clear here please Flanko. I’d say that Thich Quang Duc - you know, the guy who set himself on fire in 1963 in a protest against the persecution of Buddhists in South Vietnam - is someone who martyred himself. I don’t know if you noticed though, but he didn’t murder anyone.”

It was proactive

“It seems - correct me if I’m wrong - that you think the 7/7 bombers were “proactive” martyrs. I hope I’m wrong, and you don’t think that.”

It was proactive

“You cannot martyr yourself. It bastardizes the entire concept about dying unjustly for one’s convictions. ”

You really do not understand the point of the discussion, it is not necessarily what the definition of martyr is, but what the rabbit meant.

“(ssshh! but don’t tell anyone, least of all Flanker, that the Arabic verb for martyr is always passive even if the act of doing so is “active” - i.e. doing it via strapping a bomb to yourself and getting on a bus, or “passive” getting shot at - the verb is always passive. Don’t tell him because it’s better if he finds this out for himself.)”

The verb martyr in English is passive as well. It was not until recently that it could be conjugated differently. (even if grammatically wrong)

The question remains: why is Satan played by Skeletor?

Ah, right. Flanker sees no difference between someone who sacrifices his own life and someone who commits mass murder on the London Underground. Both are deemed “proactive” martyrs”. I see.

“(even if grammatically wrong)”

Even if it is grammatically wrong.

I think this might be a minor point in the discussion, but still, people (Hamas bunny rabbits, for example) kill for less.

“Ah, right. Flanker sees no difference between someone who sacrifices his own life and someone who commits mass murder on the London Underground. Both are deemed “proactive” martyrs”. I see.”

The differences are irrelevant re: the topic at hand, the similarities are relevant though.

Flanker,

So, what does it mean if I write, in English, “Saraa is going to be martyred by blowing herself up…”?

Of course Wanker has never heard the sentence constructed as follows.

“The London Tube bombers martyred themselves, by being on the train when it blew up.” Obviously, some hand other than themselves caused the explosion and their death.

“martyring” is a synonym for being a vicious murdering cunt and anyone who argues otherwise is also a cunt. That’s you Flanker fuck off.

Flanker: What did you mean when you said 9-11 was Bush’s “Reichstag”? I’m really interested now that you demonstrated you support for suicide bombing, or suicide flying-airliners-into-office buldings, for that matter.

You really do not understand the point of the discussion, it is not necessarily what the definition of martyr is, but what the rabbit meant.

I never imagined I’d read this sentence on HP.

“Saraa is going to be martyred by blowing herself up…”?

This is Present Perfect Future tense with a present continuous tense context (this is always active). which is wholly different from

“Who will host this show if you are martyred?”

Is a combination of simple future tense combined with a simple past tense conditional.

Flanker, of course, is obscuring the obvious horror of the video by engaging in phony grammatical analysis. Other commenters should refuse to play his game.

Sorry Gene you were caught in a manipulative interpretation, and like usual you are acting cornered. I presume you deleted my post on the old thread since I don’t see it anymore, no matter.

Flanker, there’s absolutely no need to delete anything you write; you’ve made it clear that you think it’s an act of proactive martyrdom to kill people on the London underground. I was inviting you to say that was murder, like it is, and maybe present yourself as someone not wholly despicable. Still, you don’t matter.

would be far better would be to ask all Muslims, including so-called ‘moderates’ such as the Quilliam Foundation, and their backers such as Shaykh ‘I’m a pseudoislamist get me out of here’ bin Bayyah, who wish to remain in the UK, whether they endorse such primitive punishments. To remain Muslims they must all answer in the affirmative, which brings us to the obvious quandary…

But is it helpful to ask these questions of moderates?

If militant Daily Mail types had some kind of code and said that indecency should be punished by 2 days in the stocks what would our reaction be?

It would be easier, and I’m making a presumption here of course, that would could and would challenge this thinking directly, as we’re from the same creed and thus have…. complete legitimacy as we consider ourselves of the same… origin.

Certainly, and I’m sure we all feel this, there’s a definite treading on the eggshells when talking of Islam, and of adherence to it. That’s because we weren’t brought up in that culture.

p.s. Perhaps Flanker is a clever parody? How can he/she, every time manage to rub everyone up the wrong way? Or is it pathological?

*that we could, and would, challenge

“Flanker, there’s absolutely no need to delete anything you write; you’ve made it clear that you think it’s an act of proactive martyrdom to kill people on the London underground. I was inviting you to say that was murder, like it is, and maybe present yourself as someone not wholly despicable. Still, you don’t matter.”

You tried to change the subject and you failed to bait me, I smelled it coming a mile away and did not bite, amateur.

Flanker - So, everyone must fit in with your definition of who is a Muslim, never mind that they don’t live in a Muslim country and the law of the land doesn’t provide for any such judgements. Or that sharia provides for financial restitution. Who brought you here, Inayat or Seamus?

I didn’t make the rules…Allah/Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah did…part of the affirmation of faith, the creed for ALL Muslims (Sunni, Shi’i/Zaydi/7ers, ‘Ibadi/Kharijii….indeed even for Qadianis) involves believing in the totality of the Qur’an and the pseudoprophetic tradition. Millions of classical and contemporary scholars and everyday Muslims attest to this. Indeed, belief in the entire Qur’an is a prerequisite for faith; to be considered a Muslim. This is not my rule….ask Muhammad!

If you choose not believe in the some of the Qur’an or Mhammad’s sayings that’s up to you…you not considered a Muslim though.

I welcome unconditonally any attempt to ‘reform’ the Qur’an and subject it to Spinoza-style Biblical criticism, but this is a massive undertaking and would require Herculean efforts from both Muslims and non-Muslims…previous attempts have not ended well…

“Is a combination of simple future tense combined with a simple past tense conditional.”

Excuse me for being, ah, anglo-saxon, but who actually gives a flying fuck?

Unless you are a Professor of syntax, in which case do please go ahead. Not.

So the creatures who caused commuters to be rendered limb from limb on 7/7 were “proactive martyrs”. Despite the fact you may be playing this for the rise (and that makes you a fucking sick puppy in itself), I really hope this is one of those little efforts of yours that comes back to haunt you.

Its sad when the really dull commenters are also the ones that try the hardest.

Has Flanker popped up in any of the Samir Kuntar threads?

Oh fuck Flanker. Please stop engaging. He’s no Sonic :P Sonic was hilarious

Hasan Pristina - So, everyone must fit in with your definition of who is a Muslim, never mind that they don’t live in a Muslim country and the law of the land doesn’t provide for any such judgements. Or that sharia provides for financial restitution. Who brought you here, Inayat or Seamus?

I’m sorry my fine fellow, but I’m buggered if I can see the connection between my post and what you’ve written. As I understand things, the Hamas TV cartoon was filmed for Ghaza and West Bank consumption. In Ghaza, if my mind serves me correctly, there is ‘legal’ status given to shari’ah law…

zzzzz

Marvin - But is it helpful to ask these questions of moderates?

That’s a very good question…the obvious answer would be no, for 2 reasons:

1. you’re unlikely to get a truthful response from such a loaded q

2. it might lead to violence and could scare someone who is actually ready to question some injunctions in the Qur’an…

A loving approach as advocated by the ABC is the Christian standpoint…but this will only get us so far. The Qur’an like the Old Testament contain some awful violent texts…fortunately the OT’s verses were temporal and time-constrained. Both Allah and Muhammad’s words exhort the timelessness of Qur’anic teaching…this is a problem.

The Qur’an is also sadly lacking in helpful ambiguous metaphors…

He’s no Sonic :P Sonic was hilarious

And thanks to you pesky kids and that Oliver Kamm I am now having to work to pay back my bet and have no time to wind you all up…

Zionazis!

Marvin - It would be easier, and I’m making a presumption here of course, that would could and would challenge this thinking directly, as we’re from the same creed and thus have…. complete legitimacy as we consider ourselves of the same… origin.

Certainly, and I’m sure we all feel this, there’s a definite treading on the eggshells when talking of Islam, and of adherence to it. That’s because we weren’t brought up in that culture.

You’re right we’re all members of the human race…forget the Anglo-Saxon, Black Briton, Kurdish Welsh bunkem…we all have something to contribute to modern Britain..labels are at the very least unhelpful.

Alas, Britain has allowed Islam and discusion to becomea taboo: partly through the misguided but well-meaninf ethos of multiculturalism; and partly through genuine, lily-livered appeasement of terror…

I still don’t see a ‘joined-up’ strategy from Hazel ‘my Salford constincuency office is just two doors down from the police station but violent, feral chavs rob and rape students in the shadows of the university opposite’ Blears…

Seamus the magic dragon lived by the sea…he frolicked in the Green mists in a land called Honour Me…or else!

Alas, Britain has allowed Islam and discusion to becomea taboo

This strikes me as untrue, and possibly hysterical. Let’s calm down and face the facts bro.

‘Facts’ as in now, not some imagined future.

I wish it were so Starvin’…how much real textual criticism of Islamic doctrine rather than headline grabbing ‘PCs forced to wear Burqas’ headlines in the red tops (and er the Mail…and DT) is actually conducted in the UK? Groups of propagandists like my personal pet hate JIMAS (Ipswich-based) seem to work with impunity, subtly spreading their ‘Islamophobia agenda’…

What arethe facts as you see them?

Shalomo..

I must congratulate on your scholastic knowledge

But… is it helpful to cultural Muslims? Is it helpful at all? I need not remind you we have 1.2 billion human beings described as Muslim. You take a hostile line of approach. A true conservative would calmly reflect, unless life is in immediate danger. Do you understand my point?

Ok Shamlo. Either calm down, and come back with some persuasive rational debate, or forget it.

Marvin - I have studied Islam and Semitic languages for quite some time. On my travels I have encountred many cultural Muslims as you call them…it is hoped that the majority of Muslims resident in the UK become ‘cultural Muslims’ in that they consider the more violent aspects of Islamic doctrine to be anathema…there is still the nagging concern that cultural Muslims aren’t all as harmless as you imply…why write Shamlo…when Shlomo could very well be my given Hebrew name for all u know…

You say that a conservative would reflect…but shouldn’t anyone reflect? Reflection is hardly the preserve of conservatives now…it’s hardly libertarian or indeed truly Marxist to conspire in the annihilation of rational thought and replace it with centuries old, human-inspired dogma?

there is still the nagging concern that cultural Muslims aren’t all as harmless as you imply

Fuck nagging concern my friend. Persuasive, rational argument is what I asked for. FAIL

Shlomo, are you angry at the Islamisation of the Western world?

In my view, any act of compassion which springs from a desire to live in peace, such as confronting Muslims resident in the UK and elsewhere with the positively Satanic doctrines that they subscribe to…however marginally, is beneficial and helpful.

If you’re implying by cultural Muslim, a fellow of Turkish origin living in Seven Sisters, who smokes hash at the weekend but also doubles as care worker during the week…then yes, I think it would be compassionate and helpful to confront such a ‘cultural Muslim’ with the ruthless inevitability associated with belief in Allah and his pseudoprofit…

Am I angry at the Islamisation of the Western world?

Two points:

1) to believe in an ‘Islamisation’ concept you must either be deluded or have been reading too much MSM

2) the concept of the Western world is a false one…just as its co-conspirator the East is…you’d have been useful at Gallileo’s trial…

No. I’m not.

al-Huthi / Tannenholz do have a point about the absolute rulings in what are the fundaments of Islam. I have heard several converts squeezed on the matter of amputations, capital punishment of adulteress and apostates and so on, they was obviously very uncomfortable with it and evasive starting to twaddle about it’s not really applicable her and now but squeezed on the matter they have to admit they cant say its wrong or immoral then it says so in the Koran and Sunnah. Then they usually start driveling about that it would not happen in the Islamic utopia because no one will commit these crimes there. And these people are otherwise ordinary nice citizens, the moderates of the moderates. Usually it’s obvious that it is quite a personal dilemma but they can’t bring them self to dissociate from the rulings of the religion.

Shlomo:

“‘Marvin - But is it helpful to ask these questions of moderates?’

That’s a very good question…the obvious answer would be no, for 2 reasons:

…2. it might lead to violence and could scare someone who is actually ready to question some injunctions in the Qur’an…”

Your [entirely reasonable] answer highlights the Catch 22 in the quest for the “moderate Muslim”. If asking someone to merely question their values risks provoking a violent response, then they fail to meet the definition of “moderate”.

If the “moderate Muslim” is someone who does not support Islamist rhetoric or terrorist violence, but is still willing to act violently to “defend” his religion, then we are in a considerable pickle.

“It’s OK, he doesn’t bite. Just be careful not to do anything that might annoy him”

You know if you once banned Benjamin for exasperating readers with nonsense can’t the same be done for us about Flanker?

First one of these I’ve seen (referring to the op) and I was surprised that it was so human and allowed fun. No-one seemed all that keen on chopping off hands. Everyone seemed to be aware that chopping off a hand was pretty drastic and was holding it out (as it were) as an ultimate - and thus a bit unlikely - threat. The reference to KSA by a caller seemed to be made in a “If you were a starviing refugee in Ethiopia you’d be grateful for the spinach - so eat it” sort of a way.

Flanker: “You really do not understand the point of the discussion, it is not necessarily what the definition of martyr is, but what the rabbit meant.”

I’m going to be giggling at that all day ;-)

I’m sorry my fine fellow, but I’m buggered if I can see the connection between my post and what you’ve written. As I understand things, the Hamas TV cartoon was filmed for Ghaza and West Bank consumption. In Ghaza, if my mind serves me correctly, there is ‘legal’ status given to shari’ah law…

It’s very simple. The connection comes because you weren’t talking about Gaza at all, but the UK:

What would be far better would be to ask all Muslims, including so-called ‘moderates’ such as the Quilliam Foundation, and their backers such as Shaykh ‘I’m a pseudoislamist get me out of here’ bin Bayyah, who wish to remain in the UK, whether they endorse such primitive punishments. To remain Muslims they must all answer in the affirmative, which brings us to the obvious quandary…

fortunately the OT’s verses were temporal and time-constrained.

They are? I didn’t know keeping kosher was time-constrained. And no one’s told the people out there trying to breed red heifers. Or the Christian Identity movement. You may have studied a little about Islam, but you don’t know a great deal about Judaism.

If you’re implying by cultural Muslim, a fellow of Turkish origin living in Seven Sisters, who smokes hash at the weekend but also doubles as care worker during the week…then yes, I think it would be compassionate and helpful to confront such a ‘cultural Muslim’ with the ruthless inevitability associated with belief in Allah and his pseudoprofit…

So they don’t even need to have seen a mosque in their lives, let alone be circumcised or married, to satisfy someone who gets his jollies from reading out gory stuff about their cultural background. And ignores any alternative the system itself provides about financial restitution.

I have spent most of my life among cultural Muslims. You demand their heads both for being Muslims and for failing to live up to the standards proclaimed by you and the Taliban. You then propose to ‘confront’ people who never bothered about religion with your ‘compassion’ and ‘helpfulness.’ Excuse me, but I fail to see the compassion or help in smearing whole groups of people for your pleasure. You might wish to reflect on your support for HP.

Don’t know what you’re on about. I have it on good authority from Hazel Blears on the Today programme this morning that Islam is a religion of peace and compassion. And if anyone’s going to know it’s her isn’t it?

Let’s hope the committee of Eminent Muslims that the Government is setting up to examine Islam and Britain find that teh Koran was a precursor to New Labour, if not, it might be difficult. The only thing to do in my humble opinion is ‘Jobs, Peace and Land’. Once the need for religion and faith-based organisations is taken away by prosperity and the provision of schools, hospital etc then alot of this nonsense will crumble away. Let’s face it, religion had practically died out in England until Tony Blair came to the throne and started ruthlessly cutting back on social spending. Incidentally, I see King Tony could visit Gaza the other day because of an assassination threat. Naughty Hamas.

Sorry, that should have been ‘couldn’t’.

Once the need for religion and faith-based organisations is taken away by prosperity and the provision of schools, hospital etc then alot of this nonsense will crumble away

That’s wishful thinking I’m afraid. Actually, it’s worse than wishful, it’s balls-to-the-wall leftist nonsense. There are too many examples of prosperous religious comminunites (of all flavours of religion) to render your supposition moot.

What kind of a society illustrates that stealing is wrong to children by threating to cut off their hands? Am i missing the point or was that horrific ‘kids’ TV show for real?