Latest
» On #murdochgate it comes down to hacked names. If they get together for a class-action lawsuit, NotW would collapse. 12 hrs ago

» Coulsongate: a huge indictment of our system (by me) http://tr.im/ry6p 13 hrs ago

» Anyone have the Newsnight report on #coulsongate / #murdochgate uploaded to YouTube? Want to embed on liberal conspiracy. 23 hrs ago

» I propose #coulsongate over #murdochgate here - the latter being a more directly related target, and one that is close to Cameron 1 day ago

» Bizarrely, "leading Tory bloggers" are completely silent over the Coulson phone-tapping affair, while CH readers are in denial. 1 day ago

More updates...


  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sajini W
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Will Douglas Murray now condemn Bishop Nazir-Ali?


    by Sunny on 6th July, 2009 at 5:08 am    

    In addition to being an anti-Muslim bigot, Lord Nazir Ali continues his homophobic tirades:

    The Bishop of Rochester has been accused of pandering to hate and homophobia after calling on homosexuals to repent. Michael Nazir-Ali provoked outrage among gay groups when he urged Church leaders to stick to traditional values instead of being swayed by “culture and trends”. While calling for the “traditional teaching” of the Bible to be upheld, the Bishop said of homosexuals: “We want them to repent and be changed.”

    His controversial remarks were published just hours after more than half a million people, including the Prime Minister’s wife, Sarah, took part in the Gay Pride parade in London.

    Here’s the thing. Bishop Nazir-Ali happens to be on the board of advisors for Douglas Murray’s (oxymoronic organisation) Centre for Social Cohesion. Murray himself constantly condemns (rightly) Middle Eastern governments for being homophobic and says he would be hanged if he lived in those countries on account of his own sexuality.

    Will he now condemn or distance himself from Nazir Ali’s homophobic comments? Somehow, I doubt it.



      |   Trackback link   |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: British Identity, Media




    36 Comments below   |   Add your own

    1. Costello — on 6th July, 2009 at 12:10 pm  

      Christian Bishop in “expresses Christian belief” outrage. Why exactly should Murray feel the need to condemn some priest who has done nothing but express a view inherent to his faith out of some desire to achieve an (entirely imagined on the part of the article author) consistency with regards to his condemnation of Middle Eastern regimes which actively discriminate and persecute people because of their gender.

      On one side you have a priest expressing daft views from a daft book at the centre of a daft religion. Religion (be it Abrahamic or statist/socialist/Marxist in nature is daft) but all Nazi-Ali has done is express views which are entirely consistent with the tenets of the Christian faith and which in no way inconvenience anyone who is homosexual – irritate perhaps but that is all. On the other side you have the (to various degrees) authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes which do more than merely inconvenience homosexuals – to say the least. The comparison of the two made my the article author, Sunny, is simply indicative of someone lacking a mature, serious, intellect.

    2. Sunny — on 6th July, 2009 at 12:54 pm  

      Why exactly should Murray feel the need to condemn some priest who has done nothing but express a view inherent to his faith

      Except that Murray does exactly that with regards to Muslims.

    3. munir — on 6th July, 2009 at 12:55 pm  

      Costello
      “On one side you have a priest expressing daft views from a daft book at the centre of a daft religion. Religion (be it Abrahamic or statist/socialist/Marxist in nature is daft) but all Nazi-Ali has done is express views which are entirely consistent with the tenets of the Christian faith and which in no way inconvenience anyone who is homosexual – irritate perhaps but that is all. On the other side you have the (to various degrees) authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes which do more than merely inconvenience homosexuals – to say the least. The comparison of the two made my the article author, Sunny, is simply indicative of someone lacking a mature, serious, intellect.”

      Great. So perhaps you can explain why Murray and his ilk get so hot and bothered at surveys of British Muslims expressing near unanimous opposition to homosexuality?

    4. Trofim — on 6th July, 2009 at 1:41 pm  

      Let’s have a bit of perspective: the Bible does stipulate that homosexual activities, especially ones involving the back passage, are a no-no. The Christian population of Africa overwhelmingly are opposed to homosexuality. That’s maybe half a billion people. Probably a billion people in the world, and that’s erring on the side of caution, believe that homosexuality is wrong. As Costello says, the bish is not actually harming gay people. On the other hand, there are those who not only condemn homosexuality, but like to see gays dead.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-slater/the-roots-of-homophobia-i_b_190122.html

    5. Don — on 6th July, 2009 at 2:30 pm  

      I’d be interested to know which passages the bish had in mind, and whether or not he also advocated returning to the values of the adjacent strictures.

      Leviticus? Which definitely called for capital punishment for gays and a whole bunch of other stuff nobody seems too bothered about these days.

      Kings? Ambiguous, KJV says ‘took them out of the land’ which could mean exile, RSV says ‘exterminated’.

      NT? Well, Jesus didn’t express an opinion either way. That had to wait for Paul, who clearly had issues. I mean, god was pretty comprehensive about what he did and didn’t like but it wasn’t until Paul that lesbians got a clear reference. Maybe, like Queen Victoria, god didn’t believe women did that sort of thing or maybe he was just relaxed about a little girl on girl action. It had to wait for Paul to get that one on the books.

      So either his biblical morality is based on Leviticus which (as B’brain has pointed out) is not binding on anyone except, um, Levites. Or it is based on Paul’s personal hang-ups. Certainly not on anything the founder of his religion ever said.

      Of course the term ‘traditional teaching’ is useful here. Meaning, ‘No, we can’t make a good argument for this policy, but we’ve been saying it for a long time so that’s good enough.’

      Trofim,

      No, the bish is not actually harming gay people. He is just urging us to return to a morality based on scriptural passages which say, at worst, that they should be killed and, at best, that they are worthy of death. There’s no way that could hurt anybody.

      There is nothing in the bible which supports the position that they are misguided individuals who should be treated to a sympathetic chat and lovingly persuaded to give up their errant ways.

      So there is either Jesus’s position (no opinion) or the other bits (kill ‘em). He’s a bishop, he should at least provide references.

    6. bananabrain — on 6th July, 2009 at 4:13 pm  

      personally, if the bible is so important to the bish, i suggest he calls for the death penalty for people gathering sticks on the sabbath. no? he’s not going to do that? you astound me. is he still tucking into bacon for breakfast? yes? fascinating consistency there.

      i did go and ask a bunch of christians about this, incidentally - and it turns out that even if you ignore the “old testament” (and i would argue that you certainly can’t apply it selectively) never fear, there are plenty of grounds for homophobia in the “new testament”. either way very few people actually understand the issues involved, or the texts.

      you can read the discussion here:

      http://www.interfaith.org/forum/scriptural-basis-for-christian-objection-6391.html

      i might actually blog about this now i come to think about it.

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    7. Rumbold — on 6th July, 2009 at 4:47 pm  

      The Peter Hitchens of the Church of England.

    8. Golam Murtaza — on 7th July, 2009 at 7:47 am  

      I remember when Nazir Ali first became prominent in Britain. A number of articles in sober-minded publications enthusiastically predicted that his Christian faith, allied to his Pakistani background, would make him the ideal figure to build bridges between different communities. So much for that idea.

    9. Sunny — on 7th July, 2009 at 11:39 am  

      Golam Murtaza - lol! Yes, so much for that idea…

    10. munir — on 7th July, 2009 at 12:02 pm  

      Golam Murtaza
      “I remember when Nazir Ali first became prominent in Britain. A number of articles in sober-minded publications enthusiastically predicted that his Christian faith, allied to his Pakistani background, would make him the ideal figure to build bridges between different communities. So much for that idea.”

      Those were different times. Now he is used as are many with Muslim names such as Irshad Manji, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan,Magdi Alam, Maryam Nazamie etc etc or even to a lesser degree people in QF as an attack dog so it can be said “look he/she is Muslim and from this background so how can they be prejudiced”

      It is of course a rehash of the medieval tactic- Jewish converts from Christianity were used to explain how evil Judaism and the Talmud were since they as insiders really “knew”

    11. Cjcjc — on 7th July, 2009 at 12:11 pm  

      I like Douglas - very impressive debater.

      Sadly you’re probably right though - I wait to see what he says.

    12. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 7th July, 2009 at 12:14 pm  

      You were on Shitoon castigating Muslims for saying the Torah ha been changed and generally being very orthodox in your approach to it (ironic that such a defence of Orthodox Judaism was put on a site which claims as its tag “heresy is another name for freedom of speech”)

      Why do certain people get so riled up by articles that they so patently and wilfully misunderstand?

    13. munir — on 7th July, 2009 at 12:15 pm  

      cjcjc
      “I like Douglas – very impressive debater. ”

      you would. He is a nutjob. Who can forget his hysterical (in both senses) performance on Question Time shaking with outrage as he gulped down copious glasses of water and ranted about how Hamas were about to take over Europe.

      The man is a loony

    14. Leon — on 7th July, 2009 at 12:23 pm  

      banana brain, you bearded inbred, you seem a little inconsitent here.

      You can make your point without resorting to personal attacks like that. Please desist.

    15. bananabrain — on 7th July, 2009 at 12:46 pm  

      munir,

      banana brain, you bearded inbred, you seem a little inconsitent here. You were on Shitoon castigating Muslims for saying the Torah ha been changed and generally being very orthodox in your approach to it (ironic that such a defence of Orthodox Judaism was put on a site which claims as its tag “heresy is another name for freedom of speech”)

      no, not at all. you’re just revealing your usual cloth-headed lack of comprehension, which appears to go with your penchant for ill-advised insults that reveal more about you than they do about anyone else. i would agree, of course, that the area of inbreeding is one with which you are likely to be more familiar than i. if you understood the tag in question, you would probably understand that it is insecure gibbering obscurantists like yourself that would prefer to run crying “munafiq” to their imams than actually examine the true complexity of the Divine Will as expressed through the Text. you are the sort of person that would confuses closed-mindedness with learning and prejudice with precision. if you understood what i was saying, you wouldn’t confuse it with a wish to show my “orthodoxy”. i consider this term to drive harmful and perverse behaviours within traditional judaism and i am increasingly coming to recognise the same dynamic within islam. you are, rather amusingly, a case in point and reveal it every time you are foolish enough to set finger to keyboard - no doubt one at a time.

      i note further in passing that your attempt to swamp the website in question with your particular mass-market brand of feculent, drooling invective has been seen off in no uncertain terms. long may this continue.

      you prating, ignorant little dog’s pizzle.

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    16. Imran Khan — on 7th July, 2009 at 12:50 pm  

      Leon - “You can make your point without resorting to personal attacks like that. Please desist.”

      Might be wise to remind your fellow contributors of this as well as they like to resort to personal attacks as well :-)

    17. hantsboy — on 7th July, 2009 at 12:51 pm  

      you prating, ignorant little dog’s pizzle.

      banana brain

      Go easy on the compliments will you ?

    18. Leon — on 7th July, 2009 at 1:16 pm  

      BB was responding to provocation which is different in my book.

    19. dashenka — on 7th July, 2009 at 1:18 pm  

      my question

      will ever Sunny notice any slight tiny hypocrisy or racism, or idioticy among muslims for example or other, just anybody exept white men and non-mulims?

      i doubt that. seriously

    20. Imran Khan — on 7th July, 2009 at 1:28 pm  

      Leon - “BB was responding to provocation which is different in my book.”

      I wasn’t referring to BB and in my opinion the original comment was uncalled for.

      However there are Official PP Contributors who resort to personal attacks and you need to also warn them.

    21. Cjcjc — on 7th July, 2009 at 1:52 pm  

      Munir - takes one to know one…

    22. Sunny — on 7th July, 2009 at 2:27 pm  

      munir’s commnt has been deleted. He can make comments without resorting to idiotic name-calling. That is only reserved for BNP operatives.

    23. munir — on 7th July, 2009 at 2:28 pm  

      banana brain
      “no, not at all. you’re just revealing your usual cloth-headed lack of comprehension, which appears to go with your penchant for ill-advised insults that reveal more about you than they do about anyone else”

      Actually I was simply repeating the phrase “bearded inbred” you used in your pathetic shitoon article

      http://www.spittoon.org/archives/1305

    24. munir — on 7th July, 2009 at 2:31 pm  

      dashenka
      “my question

      will ever Sunny notice any slight tiny hypocrisy or racism, or idioticy among muslims for example or other, just anybody exept white men and non-mulims?

      i doubt that. seriously”

      1) There’s no such thing as idioticy
      2) Sunny isnt Muslim

    25. Leon — on 7th July, 2009 at 2:49 pm  

      However there are Official PP Contributors who resort to personal attacks and you need to also warn them.

      Sorry but I wont be taking orders on how to moderate PP from the likes of you.

    26. Imran Khan — on 7th July, 2009 at 2:51 pm  

      Leon - “Sorry but I wont be taking orders on how to moderate PP from the likes of you.”

      Nice to know then that your mates can do and say what they like - nice fair minded policy you run.

    27. Imran Khan — on 7th July, 2009 at 2:51 pm  

      Also Leon what is the likes of me?

    28. bananabrain — on 7th July, 2009 at 2:51 pm  

      Actually I was simply repeating the phrase “bearded inbred” you used in your pathetic shitoon article

      yes, that article you didn’t seem able to criticise over there, so for some reason you’re doing it here.

      and if you’re going to attempt to insult me, have the creativity to try and make your own things up, you loathsome little maggot. i mean really, you don’t have to imitate me quite so slavishly, although i am sure you don’t have many options now your teachers have caused your critical faculties and capability for independent thought to atrophy.

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    29. Imran Khan — on 7th July, 2009 at 2:54 pm  

      Also Leon it wasn’t an order it was a request but as usual you don’t like to criticize your mates when they resort to personal attacks.

    30. Imran Khan — on 7th July, 2009 at 3:02 pm  

      “you loathsome little maggot.”

      Again is this called for as its a personal attack.

      The rules need to be enforced for all and not just against some. I accept Bananabrain has been provoked and he has had his say but this is going to far and no deletion. The rules are being applied selectively.

    31. bananabrain — on 7th July, 2009 at 3:45 pm  

      imran, as you know i don’t tend to indulge in invective, fun though it is. i have better things to do. i think munir/blah/me richly deserves it though and i thought it wouldn’t hurt for once. as it happens, i think i’m done. i don’t really see the point of you whining to leon about me handing the troll who has done most to ruin civilised discussion at pickled politics a well-merited kick in the nadgers. normally he gets away with it. today, i’m not having it. tomorrow, i dare say i’ll be done.

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    32. Imran Khan — on 7th July, 2009 at 3:57 pm  

      Bananabrain - I am referring here to the selective way Leon and his friends apply the rules.

    33. Imran Khan — on 7th July, 2009 at 4:03 pm  

      Munir - In answering Bananabrain’s point it is a sad fact that people do abuse the notion of The People of the Book and deviate from the Orthodox Position in Islam.

      I think you’d be better off conveying with goodness the true orthodox position of the people of the book than attacking Bananabrain.

      I don’t like that he posted on Spitoon - however the position on his question is clear and your approach is simply causing the Muslim community to lose people who are in ways sympathetic to Muslims and indeed Islam.

      Fact is that here despite the likes of Leon and Kulvinder - Sunny has given Muslims a chance to have their say.

      Equally I would say that the approach of some posters here means that some good Muslims have left due to the level of abuse which can’t be a good thing. Again this also applies to other religious people and I fear that the likes of Bananabrain, Katie and Chairwoman do not post as much as they used to.

    34. Imran Khan — on 7th July, 2009 at 4:53 pm  

      Leon - what is the likes of me?

    35. Imran Khan — on 7th July, 2009 at 7:11 pm  

      Leon – what is the likes of me??

    36. Imran Khan — on 8th July, 2009 at 4:42 pm  

      Leon – what is the likes of me???



    • Post a comment using the form below

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.