quote:

---

There is no greater hypocrisy than remaining silent about the sins of your own religion whilst indulging in the petty politics of attacking parties such as the BNP that have no history of organising or inciting violence. More people have been murdered by religious bigots than any other kind in history.The moral high ground that these Holy men pontificate from is built upon a graveyard hiding the historical crimes of their blood soaked religions.

---

quote:

---

The BNP has been a political party only since 1982. The party has NEVER been involved in any political violence - unlike Sinn Fein and the I.R.A who take regular lunches with Tony Blair and have offices in the House of Commons and are to a considerable degree afforded protection by the catholic church.

---

quote:

---

We are dedicated to the democratic political process and public accountability - whilst each of these religions are merely fascistic structures based on enslaving their adherents and ensuring their own increased power. They are nothing more than fascists in their religious robes and frocks!

---

quote:

---

I am one of the speakers at the launch on 15 January representing a Christian viewpoint. The BNP has tried to rebrand itself as a viable opposition party. Its policies remain as extreme right wing and divisive as they ever have been. As far as asylum seekers are concerned ... imagine there is someone with a gun held to your head because, as a religious minority, you are no longer welcome in your village. You flee for the safety of your family. You come to this country and you are told that you have nothing to fear because "X" is a safe country. You are now in another country but extremely vulnerable still and subject to racial harrassment locally. Manchester has a proud tradition of independent thought and dissent. Historically it has stood by the poor and oppressed. Those of us who are working for racial harmony and justice hope to be numbered in that tradition. We are confident in the goodness and good sense of the people of this great city. We are standing up, being counted ... and we ain't going away.
Fr. Gregory Hallam, Levenshulme, Manchester
09/01/04 at 17:03

---

quote:

---

The BNP are getting my vote next June. They speak out for the majority of white people in this country.
Dave, Manchester
08/01/04 at 21:36

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:


I think they are referring to me (among many).

---

I think they are referring to the letter quoted on their website.
 

---

Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
Well, they start by claiming that the church is siloent on the issue of our past sins. That's not true. Then they contrast this supposed fascistic hypocrisy with their own umblemished record of peaceful community building, democratic engagement and full accountability, when in fact they are an organization that has consistently used street violence in the pursuit of political goals, are demonstrably anti-democratic, and have never told the truth about a) their fascist ideology and b) their contemptible record of law breaking.

They've parroted what might, in the mouth of a real person, be at least some grounds for debate; but it's not criticism I'll accept from that pack of thugs.
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
only a party since 1982? that is rather odd. i was watching a dvd of original "are you being served?" episodes last night (one of the funniest tv shows ever made imho), and caught a humerous reference to "the bnp", which from context certainly seemed to be refering to the british national party. "are you being served?" was made in the middle 70s. was there a precursor of the organization that existed before, but wasn't technically a party? and if so, does their claim to have never taken part in violence still hold good?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Wow Peppone! Spot on. Fantastic. The BNP is utterly, utterly despicable. They are trying again to build on fear ... as are so many nowadays. Their pretty little persecution complex is laughable. Don't they understand the political process? Churchill said that the price of freedom was eternal vigilance. Wake up UK. The fascists are back. They may have shiny new clothes but the sepulchral stench is within the white facade, as it always has been.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
... sorry for the double post ...

... and of course they know sod all about Christianity as they seem to think that "Catholic" and "Christian" are alternative designations and they think that we should atone for our own sins. Repent certainly, not atone. Anyway I digress ...

[ 10. January 2004, 14:52: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by Genie (# 3282) on :
 
I think it may be worse than that. I was talking to a BNP member on a political newsgroup recently about the context of asylum seekers, and she mentioned that she was a Christian because "it is part of the traditional culture of the British Isles and it has served us well". Once I'd finished vomiting I wrote back questioning whether she really meant that and that she should be ashamed of herself for claiming to follow a religion whilst trampling wholesale over virtually all of it's teachings about loving your neighbour and not oppressing the alien. Her only response was to quote that passage where Jesus says he comes only to the lost sheep of Israel and to call me a piece of leftist filth.

I don't think it's merely them ignorant of and opposed to Christianity. I think there is a major misunderstanding of Christianity that leads them to believe that the Church should be on their side which is why they are angry and disappointed that the Church rightly opposes them. What makes me sad is that there is a historical shred of truth in the actions of some Churches throughout the years in perpetuating the concept that church is for nice 'middle class white people'.
 

---

Posted by Amphibalus (# 5351) on :
 
Could I make two comments, please?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The BNP has been a political party only since 1982.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Genie:
Her only response was to quote that passage where Jesus says he comes only to the lost sheep of Israel...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
Well, they start by claiming that the church is siloent on the issue of our past sins. That's not true. Then they contrast this supposed fascistic hypocrisy with their own umblemished record of peaceful community building, democratic engagement and full accountability, when in fact they are an organization that has consistently used street violence in the pursuit of political goals, are demonstrably anti-democratic, and have never told the truth about a) their fascist ideology and b) their contemptible record of law breaking.

---

quote:

---

They've parroted what might, in the mouth of a real person, be at least some grounds for debate; but it's not criticism I'll accept from that pack of thugs.

---

quote:

---

originally bleated and bullshitted by some fascists

whilst each of these religions are merely fascistic structures based on enslaving their adherents and ensuring their own increased power. They are nothing more than fascists in their religious robes and frocks!

---

 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
In as much as they are BNP members/ supporters they are less human than they would otherwise be. Such is the nature of sin.

On another point, interesting though this thread is, there is no point at all in arguing with fascists. Fascism is an ideology which glorifies the irrational and instinctual, which (in its more cerebal forms) defines itself in absolute opposition to the Enlightenment project. It cannot be argued with precisely because it does not establish itself by means of argument. The only way to beat fascism is to falsify it in practice, to show that it is irrelevant to the real needs of people. And the churches have consistently been at the forefront of this struggle. I recommend the Jubilee Group's excellent pamphlet about the response of local churches to the BNP's victory in the Isle of Dogs by-election.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Marvin - The BNP's beliefs are sickening, their actions are verminous, their ideaology is Fascistic, their lies about themseleves are truly moronic, their lies about everyone else are so breathtaking disgusting that they make me want to vomit. They are proud to own them.

You know, a bloke called William James said something very interesting once. He said "the line between what is me and what is mine is very hard to draw".
 

---

Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
(I am so going to regret this...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
they are an organization that has consistently used street violence in the pursuit of political goals, are demonstrably anti-democratic, and have never told the truth about a) their fascist ideology and b) their contemptible record of law breaking.

---

Since we're in Purg, do you have a link to back up these claims?

---

quote:

---

Kevin Scott (Gateshead – High Fell)
Was convicted in 1993 for throwing a glass at a black person. Writes articles for the fascist group, the International Third Position, and regularly posts on the National Front website.

Mark Collett (Leeds – Richmond Hill)
BNP Yorkshire organiser. Claims that Adolf Hitler is his hero and that he’d prefer to live in Nazi Germany rather than today’s Britain. Formerly in the National Front. Threatened a woman with sexual violence outside a council meeting in Halifax earlier this year.

Daniel Hannam (Hull – Orchard Park and Greenwood)
Hull BNP organiser. Was sent to prison in 2000 for producing and distributing racist and antisemitic leaflets. Distributed under the BNP banner, the leaflets called for all Jews to be expelled from Britain.

James Breslin (Bradford – Great Horton)
Another Bradford BNP activist with links to the White Nationalist Party. Was photographed selling nazi newspapers alongside Tony White. Currently in jail for distributing racist material to schoolchildren, in Pudsey last year.

---

quote:

---

Peppone generously conceded

And you were right to call me on the "real person" remark. I withdraw it and apologize to any BNP member who may have read it and felt dehumanized.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
If anyone from the BNP reads my remarks on this thread and feels I ought to apologise than tough shit. I haven't said you not a person, I said that you are the lowest of the f**king low.

---

quote:

---

...misrepresentations about asylum seekers, refugees, racism and encouragement of anti-semitism and Islamophobia...

---

quote:

---

Racism: "Racism" is when you ‘hate’ another ethnic group. We don't 'hate' black people, we don't 'hate' Asians, ...all we want to do is to preserve the ethnic and cultural identity of the British people...We are against mixed-raced relationships because we believe that all species and races of life on this planet are beautiful and must be preserved. When whites take partners from other ethnic groups, a white family line that stretches back into deep pre-history is destroyed.

---

quote:

---

Asylum Seekers: The United Nations states that those forced to flee persecution to claim asylum should seek refuge in the first peaceful country they come to. On this basis, generally the internationally recognised one, we will not accept those seeking asylum apart from those fleeing the countries immediately surrounding Britain, such as Holland,Iceland, France, Norway, Germany, Belgium or Ireland.

---

quote:

---

anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: The BNP takes no particular religious position...We are, however, opposed to the growth and increased militancy of the various Asiatic religions that have been brought to this country by mass immigration.

---

quote:

---

More people have been murdered by religious bigots than any other kind in history.

---

quote:

---

We are, however, opposed to the growth and increased militancy of the various Asiatic religions that have been brought to this country by mass immigration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
If your looking for mass murderers that Stalin was more successful than the church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
Well, they start by claiming that the church is siloent on the issue of our past sins. That's not true. Then they contrast this supposed fascistic hypocrisy with their own umblemished record of peaceful community building, democratic engagement and full accountability, when in fact they are an organization that has consistently used street violence in the pursuit of political goals, are demonstrably anti-democratic, and have never told the truth about a) their fascist ideology and b) their contemptible record of law breaking.

They've parroted what might, in the mouth of a real person, be at least some grounds for debate; but it's not criticism I'll accept from that pack of thugs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
He was. And Hitler does pretty well in the murder league as well. The phenomenon of a fascist party accusing other organisations of being historically complicit in mass murder is beyond irony.

Certainly if the BNP take the standard fash line, they think Britain should have made a deal with Hitler and not fought World War II. They have given ideological shelter and support to Holocaust deniers. Altogether very nasty. And dangerous.

---

quote:

---

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"I had so often sung 'Deutschland u:ber Alles' and shouted 'Heil' at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction."

"Certainly we don't have to discuss these matters with the Jews, the most modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image."

"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Do you have any links to support BNP's "consistant street violence" and "contempltable law breaking"?

---

Well, start with the link I posted above. It details the BNP's involvement in street violence and the law breaking of its members over the years.

If you mean, can I prove that it is official BNP policy to encourage street violence and break the law, then I cannot. However, the fact that it is fielding dozens of candidates who have been convicted of offences ranging from simple affray to distributing racist literature to schoolchildren (yes, illegal in the UK under our draconian public order legislation ) confirms, for me at least, that they are a political organization which does not respect the law. I also believe that a reasonable observer may conclude that the BNP, while publicly denying it, regards street hooliganism as a campaigning tool, both as a method of suppressing opposition, and as a way of, as Mosley put it, "keeping the boys happy."

Then again, I'm biased. I'm an ideological anti-fascist. I see blackshirts under the bed every time I turn around.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
And you were right to call me on the "real person" remark. I withdraw it and apologize to any BNP member who may have read it and felt dehumanized.

---

quote:

---

The BNP has been a political party only since 1982. The party has NEVER been involved in any political violence - unlike Sinn Fein and the I.R.A who take regular lunches with Tony Blair and have offices in the House of Commons and are to a considerable degree afforded protection by the catholic church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Hitler made it clear in Mein Kampf that he believed he was doing God's work. Whether he was crazy or not doesn't change the fact that his mass murdering was done out of religion.

---

quote:

---

I'm not interested in what pro-BNP sites say, or what anti-BNP sites think. I want to know the "provable" truth not a bunch of crap from people who are just as bigoted [: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices] as those they claim are morally inferior...

How do I know that the accusations against the church are exhaggerations? How do I know the accusations against the BNP are not?

---

quote:

---

Summing up for the defence, Mr Griffin reiterated that the magazine could not be construed as inciting racial hatred, and predicted that a multi-racial jury would find him not guilty. He was wrong. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty. The judge imposed a nine-month prison sentence on Mr Griffin and a six-month sentence on Mr Ballard, both sentences being suspended for two years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
It's still early here, so I took a look using Google myself. Wood is right: it's easy as pie to dig up incriminating stuff on the BNP. Here's a bunch of BBC links and a thoughtful piece on the BNP's attempted makeover into a populist "segregation" party while not alienating its "supremacist" and neo-Nazi members.

Nick Griffin's conviction on inciting racial hatred tells it all for me. Issue 12 of The Rune had a cover with a white hangman’s noose accompanied by the words “What has a rope got to do with WHITE UNITY?” An editorial “called for the unification of all ‘white nationalist’ organisations into a single body with the purpose of achieving ‘final victory over those who wish to destroy us so that they can rule forever over a mass of mongrel slaves’.”

quote:

---

Summing up for the defence, Mr Griffin reiterated that the magazine could not be construed as inciting racial hatred, and predicted that a multi-racial jury would find him not guilty. He was wrong. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty. The judge imposed a nine-month prison sentence on Mr Griffin and a six-month sentence on Mr Ballard, both sentences being suspended for two years.

---

That tells me all I need to know. Maybe the nasty, vicious, bigoted, closed-minded multi-racial mongrel slave jury was a little hard on poor, free-thinking, peaceful, intellectual, pure-white-with-untainted-bloodlines Mr. Griffin. Let’s grant him the freedom of speech to warn whites to avoid being turned into “mongrel slaves.” Clergy from any religion, regardless of the past history of the religion to which they belong, ought to be able to say that Griffin and his party are racist and no one should vote for them, because division and hatred are likely to result. The very fact that Griffin responded with a vicious attack on religion simply because they recommended voting against his party gives evidence that he is prone to hatred.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
They say even a broken clock is right twice a day. Why should it be newsworthy that the BNP once in a while says something true? Unless one is seeking to advance their agenda, or advance them themselves, why would one point out that such as the BNP are right in one little case (if in fact they are)? Even the KKK will be likely right in suggesting what sheet-whitening products work best.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
You are taking the actions of a few and saying anyone who is a member of that goup is behaving and believes in exactly the same way. Remember our discussion about Howard Dean? I said he's a democrat so he must be a socialist dirt bag (words to that effect) and you (at least I think it was you) provided me a link to some Dean info that changed my mind and broadened my perception of the DNC...

My point is, if judging an entire group by the actions of some members of that group is unacceptable in some cases, it is unacceptable in all cases. We can either use stereo-types, or not. I hate it when the only ones we are allowed to use are those that apply to white males.

---

quote:

---

In the aftermath of the BNP's electoral success on May 1, the Bishop of Burnley, the Rt Rev John Goddard, expressed his dismay. "It is now seen as not impossible to vote for such a party," he said. "We have crossed a line, a line which is against everything that is best in our culture."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why is it that everyone in the country must either hate racists or be one themselves?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
Nick Griffin's conviction on inciting racial hatred tells it all for me. Issue 12 of The Rune had a cover with a white hangman’s noose accompanied by the words “What has a rope got to do with WHITE UNITY?” An editorial “called for the unification of all ‘white nationalist’ organisations into a single body with the purpose of achieving ‘final victory over those who wish to destroy us so that they can rule forever over a mass of mongrel slaves’.”

---

You are taking the actions of a few and saying anyone who is a member of that goup is behaving and believes in exactly the same way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why is it that everyone in the country must either hate racists or be one themselves?

---

Because racism is an evil sin condemned by God and the Church. If you don't hate it, you condone it

---

quote:

---

Wood:
Nick Griffin is the party chairman, not an isolated extremist mook on the street.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why is it that everyone in the country must either hate racists or be one themselves?

---

Because racism is an evil sin condemned by God and the Church. If you don't hate it, you condone it

---

Link? Racism hasn't always been condemned by the church - was it okay back then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
re: The rope as a symbol of white unity.

The rope is a symbol taken from the Turner Diaries (made infamous by Tim McVeigh) and evokes a time when the white race will get tired of being trod upon by the government/society and will rise up and destroy it, forming a new, more "perfect" society.

---

You see this as a bad thing, right?
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
There are two different types of people that join the clan (that I am aware of). The first is the racist, the one who hates. The second, which I prefer to think of as misguided rather than "racist" (the way y'all use the word), think that minorities should have equal rights, but that whites and minorities should remain seperate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Link? Racism hasn't always been condemned by the church - was it okay back then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
re: The rope as a symbol of white unity.
The second, which I prefer to think of as misguided rather than "racist" (the way y'all use the word), think that minorities should have equal rights, but that whites and minorities should remain seperate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why is it that everyone in the country must either hate racists or be one themselves?

---

Because racism is an evil sin condemned by God and the Church. If you don't hate it, you condone it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Ambrose of Milan's opposition to anti-Jewish pogroms is an excellent early example of Christian 'anti-racism'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Wood: I am not opposed to a dismantling of society (being anarchist) but I don't believe that any one race is more qualified to rule than any other. I don't believe any person is more qualified than any other. I don't believe we should be ruled. Guided, perhaps, but not forced.

---

quote:

---

Alan: The way most people here seem to define "racist" is in the context of hate, so I try to refrain from expressing my views in words that mean a particular thing to a particular group of people. I've tried offering dictionary definitions, but that just gets people more vicious in their rebuttals.

There are racists who are seperatists but do not hate.

There are liberals who are racist out of pity, because they don't believe that a particular minority can assimilate and advance on their own. These are the most dangerous kind because their attitudes are more easily accepted on a broad scale.

Then there are racist that hate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
(PS. Am I the only one thinking that 'The Holy Men of Manchester' would be an excellent 'Lesser Festival' for inclusion in the next edition of Common Worship?!)

---

That is kind of cool.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
(PS. Am I the only one thinking that 'The Holy Men of Manchester' would be an excellent 'Lesser Festival' for inclusion in the next edition of Common Worship?!)

---

That is kind of cool.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
There are racists who are seperatists but do not hate.

---

quote:

---

When whites take partners from other ethnic groups, a white family line that stretches back into deep pre-history is destroyed.

---

quote:

---

Originally hissed, Gollum-like, by Nick Griffin, on his little website:

We don’t hate anyone, especially the mixed race children who are the most tragic victims of enforced multi-racism, but that does not mean that we accept miscegenation as moral or normal. We do not and we never will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:

quote:

---

Originally hissed, Gollum-like, by Nick Griffin, on his little website:

We don’t hate anyone, especially the mixed race children who are the most tragic victims of enforced multi-racism, but that does not mean that we accept miscegenation as moral or normal. We do not and we never will.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I don't know who 'we' are in Nick Griffin's mind (sic), but the lovely folks at Redwatch seem to be sympathetic to his party, and seem perfectly capable of hatred.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I'm curious as to how many of you who throw around the "racist" lable so easily have ever applied it to a minority race.

---

quote:

---

The attitude seems to be that any rumor or innuendo will do for a conviction of the BNP, but one must present irrefutable, hard boiled, cast iron, stainless steel, dyed in the wool, card carrying, Grade A, 100% truth when speaking against the Catholic church, especially if you want to accuse them of having erred in the past 30 years.

---

quote:

---

The fact is that the Vatican is more of a political organization than a religious one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Well, Okay - BNP policy makers do sound villainously racist.

---

quote:

---

I'm curious as to how many of you who throw around the "racist" lable so easily have ever applied it to a minority race. I've never seen a discussion here in which the Nation of Islam or similar group has been accused of racism. Its always "white" organizations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
So easily?! Read my lips: Nick Griffin was convicted of inciting racial violence in open court by a multi-racial jury. Who throws the word "racist" around "so easily?" It's the other way around: you refuse to allow it to be used when you are utterly ignorant of the facts, like you claimed to be on the Strom Thurmond thread and ably demonstrated here regarding Nick Griffin.

---

quote:

---

Haven't they always been willing to change their religion to suit the political climate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
With that in mind, can members of ethnic groups really be technically racist?

(I've recently become part of the school of thought that suspects they can't, in case you haven't noticed.)

The Nation of Islam is a pretty good example. They're a more or less a hate group, right? Are they racist? That all depends on what your definition of racism is.

Is it:

a) a system of prejudice perpetrated against minorities by the majority due to ethnic concerns;

or is it:

b) contempt for others based on the colour of their skin?

They're both valid, but we have to be clear which of these we mean.

---

quote:

---

rac·ism
n.
1- The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2- Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

racist adj. & n.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
It is a fact that if you are the victim of a race based murder you are significantly more likely to be white, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Where is the outrage and the 6 month run of news articles in the paper? Oh thats right, in the interest of fairness, we've quit reporting the race of the offender in print - that is, if the offender is a minority.

---

These are not race-based murders. They are just murders where the victim and offender happen to have different-coloured skin. Naturally, black on black crime dwarfs this- if African americans were consumed with hate towards whites, why is there so little black-killing-white murder compared to black-killing-black?

Are you saying that every time a white person is killed by a black person it is a race crime? (Before you start, the "liberal media" does not say every instance of black people killing white people is a race crime.) Isn't it more likely that most of these killings are for more mundane reasons? A hate crime is when race, religion etc. can be shown to be a factor, and most cases of these are perpetrated by white people against black people. The fact that the total number of white people killed by black people exceeds the total number of black people killed by white people* does not affect this.

None of this should be taken to mean African Americans are a race of murderers- after all, there is more white-killing-white murder in the last three years of your list than black-killing-black. In fact, I hope the media in your country is diligent in informing white americans that they are over 5½ times more likely to be killed by a white person than a black person. After all, knowledge is power.

When I go to America, I'll hang out in the "hood" (or whatever it is called these days). These white Americans sound bloody dangerous. In fact, can I apologise to any and all white Americans I may have offended in the past on this board? Please don't kill me, I meant no harm.


Lurker
who only signs long posts


*We're talking murder here. If I was to include African Americans dying from pollution, poverty, fighting unjust wars, inadequate healthcare, etc. it may be a different story.
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'Lurker':

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
It is a fact that if you are the victim of a race based murder you are significantly more likely to be white, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Where is the outrage and the 6 month run of news articles in the paper? Oh thats right, in the interest of fairness, we've quit reporting the race of the offender in print - that is, if the offender is a minority.

---

These are not race-based murders. They are just murders where the victim and offender happen to have different-coloured skin. Naturally, black on black crime dwarfs this- if African americans were consumed with hate towards whites, why is there so little black-killing-white murder compared to black-killing-black?

*We're talking murder here. If I was to include African Americans dying from pollution, poverty, fighting unjust wars, inadequate healthcare, etc. it may be a different story.

---

quote:

---

Rates in this report are on an annual basis and, except for infant
and maternal mortality rates, are per 100,000 estimated population in a specified group or area.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
With that in mind, can members of ethnic groups really be technically racist?

(I've recently become part of the school of thought that suspects they can't, in case you haven't noticed.)

---

There was, back in the 1980s, a use of jargon which distinguished the word "racism" from "racialism".

One was used to mean something like "thinking that the world is divided into distinct races with very different characteristics and that this distinction is very important and probably biological in origin" (i.e. what another generation of lefties called "scientific racism" - we could call it "racism type 1")

The other meant "not liking people of other races (however defined)" (i.e. what others called "racial prejudice" - call it "racism 2")

The trouble was no-one could rememember which was which unless they had had their Ideological Soundness top-up injections.

And then along came what some called "systematic" or "structural" racism (I could call it "racism 3") and some people used one or the other of words to mean that, and two almost identical words were being used to cover three quite different things (all of whch exist, and all of which are morally bad)

Which just goes to show that whatever the human failing that leads us to fight wars over the difference between homoiousiousand homoousious it isn't confined to Early Church Fathers.

I remember having a drink after a fringe meeting at one of the early 80s Labour Party conferences (in the Quadrant in Brighton, a wonderful pub with great beer ) with Russell Profitt (later a candidate for one of the Lewisham parliamentary seats, which he almost certainly lost only because he is black) and someone else who I forget, who were explaining to a poor confused and white conference delegate who was insisting that he couldn't be a racist because his wife and children weren't white, that he was a racist but he wasn't a racialist. Or perhaps it was the other way round?

And apparently black people could be racialists but could not be racists. Pr maybe the other way round. According to a slightly different technical use of the word "racist". Or maybe "racialist".

But back on the point if we call these racism(1) racism(2) and racism(3), it is certainly possible to say that members of minority ethnic groups in whatever country can't commit racism(3), but that almost anyone now and again does racism(2).

And that it is possible to be a member of an organisation that propagates racism(3) without personally doing either racism(1) or racism(2).

Or something like that.

NonProfiteer was claiming that his KKK friends, like those nice Afrikaaners one hears about (Oom Paul was always polite to his poor black neighbours, or so we are told) do racism(1) but not racism(2). I don't believe it of course.
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
There was, back in the 1980s, a use of jargon which distinguished the word "racism" from "racialism".

One was used to mean something like "thinking that the world is divided into distinct races with very different characteristics and that this distinction is very important and probably biological in origin" (i.e. what another generation of lefties called "scientific racism" - we could call it "racism type 1")

The other meant "not liking people of other races (however defined)" (i.e. what others called "racial prejudice" - call it "racism 2")

Or something like that.

NonProfiteer was claiming that his KKK friends, like those nice Afrikaaners one hears about (Oom Paul was always polite to his poor black neighbours, or so we are told) do racism(1) but not racism(2). I don't believe it of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
if the 80 or so thousand members of the various white supremecy groups all hated, we would see a significant increase of white-on-black homicide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
You seem to be defining "racism" as "hating a darker colored race". Is it beyond comprehension that black people, or any other race could hate white people simply because of their color? You may not be saying that, but your post confused the hell out of me. I'll re-read it after I get some sleep.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
How can you re-read something that you never read in the first place?

And why do you think that people who hate people always kill them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Me, yesterday:
I suspect it's not your definition of racism that most people here disagree with - certainly, I'm in agreement that all the people you mention are racist.

But.

I suspect that some might take issue with you on your definition of "hate".

---

quote:

---

Posted by John Wayne: Perhaps I define hatred differently. Not liking someone, for whatever reason, is one thing. Hating someone is: [a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy : LOATHING]. To me, "intense hostility" doesn't include talking about someone behind their back, or whispering slurs or telling offensive jokes. Hence my problem with always equating "racism" with "hate". Maybe I am more a man of action than some people - if I hate something or someone, I am outspoken about it and take whatever action I can to be rid of it.

How broadly or narrowly do you define hate? And remember, the broader you define it, the more it applies to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
The fact is that I knew very little to nothing of BNP and was not willing to take some obviously biased information and use it to form an opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Your turn Jim. Tell me about Black supremecists. Explain to me how 2300 white and 500 blacks are charged with hate crimes every year, but blacks kill 2-3 times as many white people as whites kill blacks?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
When someone says "racist", you immediately think of a white guy. I know you do, you know you do. Thats a fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
As for the Catholic Church/Vatican: Are they not represented at the UN? Are they not considered permanent members of the UN? Haven't they always been willing to change their religion to suit the political climate? Find your own links. Google "Vatican politics" and you'll have a boatload.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Are you really saying that you define hate as "enough antipathy to cause one to seriously consider violence"?

Really? If this is the case, I am sure that I will not be alone in saying:

Yikes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT

[opening tangent]
Reading this thread, I am even more convinced that vitriolic counterattacks are a sign of trying to hide something.
[/end opening tangent]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
It is also a fact that you were not willing to do even a modest amount of research to see why people were so upset. Maybe they had a good reason to be upset? Oh no, that can't be. They are Shipmates. But Nick Griffin? Innocent until proven guilty. That's my point. Nick Griffin gets the benefit of the doubt. Strom Thurmond gets the benefit of the doubt. Shipmates get... doubt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I have done some research into the BNP, and it seems that they are an organization that is trying to change. Perhaps not in the way YOU or some of the other people here want them to change, but they have either developed a strategy to seriously change their public image, or the body isn't quite as racist as the head so management is changing to suit their members.
Not to say they are no longer racist, because they obviously are, but they are at least trying to become a "kinder, gentler" racist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
If someone hates black people, but never takes any overt action to harm a black person or people, then more power to him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I do not believe in saying its okay to hate someone simply because they hate someone else, nor to punish them for actions they have not taken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Those who hate a person because of the way they think are just as bad as those who hate because of a skin color.

---

No, that's bullshit.

Going back to Wood's definitions (Jan 13, 07:56) A & B, I have some sympathy for the distinction being drawn by people who go with definition A, but I am firmly in the B camp: all contempt for others based on skin color or other racial characteristics is racism. And it's all evil and destructive.

There is a great deal more that I would like to say on this topic, but I find working through it emotionally draining, and can't, at this moment, muster more energy than it took to get through those points.

I remember some black racist backers of Wood's definition A who came to speak at Columbia University. Their argument came down to: it's OK for us to be racist because we are not in power... Sorry, but no. I rather enjoyed the classroom discussion the next day when a PC white student was doing his best to justify this pernicious doctrine and was challenged by a south asian student who had been showered with racist abused by the same visiting black racists... The ideological house of cards collapsed rather quickly.

I wish that someone who is more detached would take up the argument that the attempts by racists to adopt a kinder public face (and avoid paraiah status by eschewing the label "racist") in order to promote racist ideology is not a good thing.

JimT has already touched on this but it's a bigger issue.

[grammar!]

[ 14. January 2004, 00:55: Message edited by: Jerry Boam ]
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Cheers JimT
 

---

Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Cheers JimT

---

quote:

---

New Labour is working very hard to steal the BNP’s best-known clothes. This presents both the need and the opportunity for us to clarify our position on the crucial subject of race.

---

quote:

---

Nor even does it mean that we think that it is a good thing for even a single person of European stock to have so much as one child with a Japanese or Chinese.

---

quote:

---

At a more basic level there can be little doubt that virtually every one of our voters and a majority of our activists are compromised by some aspect of the ‘multi-culti’ experiment, whether it be supporting sports teams which include non-whites, buying ‘ethnic’ take-aways, or getting on perfectly well with a few individual members of ethnic minorities

---

quote:

---

many people would rather see a totally all-white Britain, this less than perfect arrangement is the price our children will have to pay for the treason of our Masters and the fact that the United States of America is under the control of multi-racist fanatics who would bomb this country back into the Stone Age if we gave them the excuse by evicting the last non-whites at gunpoint.

---

quote:

---

There are a hundred ways in which miscegenation could be discouraged – having TV soaps portray the problems it really can cause rather than presenting a fantasy picture of how wonderful it is supposed to be would be just one. Best of all, however, would be an education system that teaches children of different races to have pride in their own people and to understand the essentially unnatural and destructive nature of miscegenation. We will replace promotion with rejection, but we cannot introduce persecution.

---

quote:

---

Do I regard someone with half-caste grandchildren as a suitable member or candidate for the BNP? Yes, if that individual personally believes in and adheres to our principles. That doesn’t for one moment mean that we approve of their circumstances, but the wrong-headed decision of their grown-up offspring is something over which they have no control. I would ask them not to bring those grandchildren, despite their probable love for them as individuals, to BNP events because they must understand that, to many of our people, the British National Party is the only respite we have from an otherwise endless diet of force-fed multi-racism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Perhaps not in the way YOU or some of the other people here want them to change, but they have either developed a strategy to seriously change their public image, or the body isn't quite as racist as the head so management is changing to suit their members.
Not to say they are no longer racist, because they obviously are,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
I hope that NP is open to the possibility that the BNP still actively promotes physical violence behind the scenes while they clean up their public image to get elected. Doesn't that make more sense than assuming they've turned over a new leaf?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Not to say they are no longer racist, because they obviously are,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Not to say they are no longer racist, because they obviously are,

---

Obviously, you missed that part twice. See what I mean about being blinded by anger and hate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Not to say they are no longer racist, because they obviously are,

---

Obviously, you missed that part twice. See what I mean about being blinded by anger and hate?

---

quote:

---

If someone hates black people, but never takes any overt action to harm a black person or people, then more power to him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

The only person I've heard from here that has some kind of "right" to "hate" the BNP is Papio - having suffered abuse from its members.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Hosting

That's enough, nonpropheteer and JimT. If you want to fight - take it to Hell.

Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host

---

quote:

---

I can see the Catholic church being in a weak position to criticise a country club for letting blacks play on the golf course but not them eat in the dining room given its stance on closed communion. I can see the Catholic church being in a weak position to criticise homosexual advocacy groups on the basis that they promote and protect pedophiles. That I can handle. But any religious group is in a position to tell its members not to vote for the BNP because it is divisive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Voting for the BNP is, therefore, entirely inconsistent with Christian doctrine and every Christian church has a right, indeed an obligation to say so.

---

quote:

---

Even your own hero, Mr Thurmond, ...

Now it is by no means clear that the BNP have materially shifted their position.

A shift from "we're facists and we hate black people and want to deport them" to "we're not facists and of course we don't hate black people, but we still want to deport them" is not, frankly, adequate.

Jesus said: "He who hates his brother in his heart is a murderer". ...Hatred does not constitute an explicit intention to harm someone. It constitutes the emotion which motivates this harm whether it is acted on or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
The only person I've heard from here that has some kind of "right" to "hate" the BNP is Papio - having suffered abuse from its members.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Ok, NP, you have point - you shouldn't "hate" anyone.

But are we allowed to oppose their vile policies with every fibre of our being?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Voting for the BNP is, therefore, entirely inconsistent with Christian doctrine and every Christian church has a right, indeed an obligation to say so.

---

Christian doctrine (inclusive of all christian faiths) or Catholic doctrine (which some christians feel is inerror)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:
Don't you mean the Palestinian terrorists, old chap?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
... the BNP stands in opposition to all Christian thought because Christian ... it is the duty of all Christian churches to urge its members not to support the BNP. ...it is the duty of all professing Christians to show BNP policies on race to be anti-Christian and indefensible as "Christian." ... has the duty to attack BNP policies on race. Defending BNP policies on race in any way disrespects American democracy, atheistic humanism, Catholicism, and Christianity in my personal opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Voting for the BNP is, therefore, entirely inconsistent with Christian doctrine and every Christian church has a right, indeed an obligation to say so.

---

Christian doctrine (inclusive of all christian faiths) or Catholic doctrine (which some christians feel is inerror)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

As I understand (from limited exposure obviously) one new BNP doctrine, they want to stop immigration to stabilize the economy, and pay (through "Homeward Bound" grants)current immigrants to return home [...] I'm not opposed to offering immigrants money to leave a country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I wonder how many white English people would take 20 grand to relocate to Barbados or Spain or Brazil?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What kind of distinction are you trying to draw here, NP? Why on earth would opposition to political motives such as the BNP's not properly be a matter of agreement between all the churches?
Do you mean that you see nothing wrong with first generation immigrants who have attained citizenship/permanent residency from their new country being offered money to return to their countries of origin?
CB

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I wonder how many white English people would take 20 grand to relocate to Barbados or Spain or Brazil?

---

Quite. And I imagine that Scotland would beconme dangerously depopulated overnight if such offers were on the table.

CB

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
The moral equality of human beings before God is a basic tenet of Christianity which is shared by all reputable churches including the Catholic church. I'm sure that some Catholics are racist, human sinfulness being what it is, but Catholic teaching clearly, and in conjunction with with the witness of the majority of Christian churches, condemns racism. Galatians 3:28, if you want chapter and verse.

Are you adding vulgar anti-Catholicism to your list of prejudices?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Are you adding vulgar anti-Catholicism to your list of prejudices?

---

Sure. Why not? I don't typically trust organizations, especially religious and political ones. But are you saying the RCC has never been racist? To be honest, I don't know if they have or not, so I'll withdraw that claim. I was raised to believe that catholics were in "league with the devil", a belief I have since pushed aside...but still some remains. I apologize.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I believe that in a democracy, if the majority of citizens do not want non-citizens in their country, then they should have the option. Though it would be kind of ironic for that to happen in America - seeing as how 98% of the population are a result of immigration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
NP, you're making it too easy for me - you're confirming all my worst suspicions about your whole argumentative stance here. Where's the challenge for me in that?

---

quote:

---

Why should any of us engage with your self-confessed prejudices (inherited or otherwise)? None of is free from prejudices, but most of us at least try to keep them checked in open debate. It's just embarrassing not to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
Plus, they are not talking about asking non-citizens to leave, but about taking citizenship away from a set of people, then asking them to leave. Hardly the same thing, and not acceptable on any level.

---

quote:

---

from Callan

What the BNP have done is distanced themselves from the rhetoric of a)violence and b) overt National Socialism. Now obviously this constitutes an improvement on what went before

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Ok, NP, you have point - you shouldn't "hate" anyone.

But are we allowed to oppose their vile policies with every fibre of our being?

---

Yes. As a matter of fact, Aren't we to strive against sin?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Ok, NP, you have point - you shouldn't "hate" anyone.

But are we allowed to oppose their vile policies with every fibre of our being?

---

Yes. As a matter of fact, Aren't we to strive against sin?

---

Indeed.

Given your view that persons should not be judged for what they think but only for what they do, how do you respond to Jesus' words in Matthew 5:22?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
I am not talking in terms of civil or secular law (otherwise, of course, you'd have to believe that Jesus was a book-burning fascist). Your comments on "hate" and striving agaisnt sin are within the context of Christian ethics and behaviour, and it is within that context I am asking the question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
I think (and I am making no guarantees that I undertand this myself, yet) that what I'm trying to work out is this:

On the one hand, you appear to be holding a position where you were unprepared to acknowledge that members of the BNP actually hate people because the organisation itself had not organised/committed/endrosed acts of (fatal) violence against other persons.

At the same time you expound, in response to many posts here, that it is wrong to express hate of people's views.

Now, you have acknowledged that Jesus teaches that hatred within one's heart is still hatred - therefore, do you now consider both that members of the BNP can hate others despite not having committed acts of violence, and that the same rule - no hatred - should apply to them as well?

---

Okay - I was actually withholding judgement that BNP was violently or criminally racist until someone showed me some evidence that didn't come from an obviously anti-BNP source. Which they did, more or less.

As an aside, this is what led me to discover my own unreasoning prejudice (which I didn't even realize I had till Callan brought it to my attention) against RCC - all of my "facts" about RCC were coming from obviously anti-catholic sites and people.

I admitted somewhere upthread that I have become convinced they are villianously racist, but that we still shouldn't hate them, because hate is wrong. You are judged (IMO) by who you love, not who loves you back. Disagree, vote against, etc - fight the sin, punish any violent actions, but not allow ourselves to become filled with hate. Doing so makes us no better than them from a religious perspective.

The rule of "no hatred" does apply to everyone, but I don't think any of us has the right force it upon someone. One stumbling point here is that we (shipmates, not just you & I) have been discussing this from two or more almost incompatable positions. What should I do as a Christian? vs What should I do as a member of society? As a member of society, I am free to hate them, hate the organization, or hate anything else I want and all I have to do is justify that hatred to myself.
As a Christian, I am still free to hate, but I have to justify that hate to God, and he (she/it) finds hate dwelling in your heart rather offensive.
I've often heard, and repeated: Hate the sin, not the sinner. I'm not sure how that applies in this case, or even if it is biblically supported. If it is okay to hate the sin, then I suppose it would be okay to hate the organization and its policies, but we would still have to (try to anyway) love the members themselves and pray for their enlightenment.

While I agree that one can hate without being violent, I don't believe society should be able to act on that hate alone. It must be followed by something tangible, such as violence before I believe society has a right to take action against it.


The problem, as I see it, is that when people allow themselves to hate -whether a person or a sin, they bcome blinded. I'm by no means a racist, but I've been accused of it many times just for questioning the validity of racist accusations against other people (both here and IRL). Its very hard to have a quiet debate with someone that has an entrenched view. NOTE: This is not aimed at anyone in particular, I know I've been guilty of entrenched views, and probably will be again in the future. Feel free to point it out to me at any time

Forgiveness, I think is WJWD.

Chester: The apology was owed, thank you for your gracious response.
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
NOTE: This is not aimed at anyone in particular, I know I've been guilty of entrenched views, and probably will be again in the future. Feel free to point it out to me at any time

Forgiveness, I think is WJWD.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Friendly Hosting Voice
Jim, that's a personal swipe.

Cut it out, will you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
Can the lawyers here tell me if it is illegal in the US for a party to have segregation on its platform? Obviously, it appears legal in (I'm going to get this wrong) Britain or the UK or the whatever the right jurisdiction is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
...the BNP were outside by the main door making sure that everyone who went in felt and heard their presence. Some were taking photographs of attendees and those of us marshalling. This...allows them to put us up as targets for disdain on their nasty little web sites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry Boam:


Is advocating free speech really the same thing as demanding protection for your right to limit the speech of others?

---

quote:

---

"we believe that all species and races of life on this planet are beautiful and must be preserved."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
NOTE: This is not aimed at anyone in particular, I know I've been guilty of entrenched views, and probably will be again in the future. Feel free to point it out to me at any time

Forgiveness, I think is WJWD.

---

Jesus would also:

1. Take JimT off his ignore list so that JimT can give Jesus precisely the guidance for which Jesus humbly asks.

2. Make it more a personal responsibility to control his own behavior rather than to warn others that his behavior is likely to be inappropriate and that others should recognize it as such, not become inappropriate in response, and simply inform Jesus that he is (once again)...and again, behaving inappropriately.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
NOTE: This is not aimed at anyone in particular, I know I've been guilty of entrenched views, and probably will be again in the future. Feel free to point it out to me at any time

Forgiveness, I think is WJWD.

---

Jesus would also:

1. Take JimT off his ignore list so that JimT can give Jesus precisely the guidance for which Jesus humbly asks.

2. Make it more a personal responsibility to control his own behavior rather than to warn others that his behavior is likely to be inappropriate and that others should recognize it as such, not become inappropriate in response, and simply inform Jesus that he is (once again)...and again, behaving inappropriately.

---

I'm sure if Jesus puts someone on his ignore list, there is a valid reason. Though I do find it interesting that you feel you could show Jesus the error of his ways. I don't think Jesus is in error. Perhaps I am, but certainly not Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Can I say how extraordinary I find it that in the UK, which has been held up so many times as so much more liberal than the US, a party such as the BNP can get any mainstream following at all, or at least, can get so much support that there is a need for a "Manchester against Racism" rally!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Can I say how extraordinary I find it that in the UK, which has been held up so many times as so much more liberal than the US, a party such as the BNP can get any mainstream following at all, or at least, can get so much support that there is a need for a "Manchester against Racism" rally!

---

It doesn't get mainstream support. That doesn't mean its not nasty when it crops up. Nor does it mean it shouldn't be opposed.

---

Also, I don't think it's entirely fair to say that we have held ourselves up as 'more liberal'. Quite a few of us have railed against the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum seeker, generally nasty bias of our tabloid newspapers. These are not minority papers, as I believe US tabloids are, but mainstream. And they frighten the hell out of me.

The headline that Ken quoted on another thread - "Mum Weeps For Little Johnny Killed by Immigrants" - is a typical example. As are hysterical articles about how "millions" of our money is spent on asylum seekers, who swamp towns and live lives of luxury. Things which are not, in any reasonable sense of the word, true.

It is this kind of influence against which meetings like Fr G.'s have to stand. If Coronation Street stars can challenge the preconceptions of people whose only news source is The Sun, then good on them.

{spelling )

[ 16. January 2004, 13:18: Message edited by: Rat ]
 

---

Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 
If the Press Complaints Commission was beefed up so that the tabloids couldn't get away with daily headlines like "illegal asylum seekers housed in five star hotels while Britons starve" then this would be a much nicer country to live in.

They should be forced to print a massive, grovelling apology on the front page (with the wording supplied by the PCC) for every damaging error.

Or maybe every nasty, vicious little article about asylum seekers should, by law, be accompanied by two cuddly human interest stories along the lines of "plucky little Sarah from Sudan escapes jaws of death, gets top marks in grade 8 trombone"... Dream on, eh?
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
I would like to branch in another direction related to the OP. If we were to assume that the BNP really is a supporter of racial segregation that abhors violence of any kind, and had it responded to the churches by saying that the church criticism of racism is ironic given that some churches are sexist, might it then have made a "good point?"

It does seem to me that a segregationist party that says "Neither God nor nature intended for races to mix" is in a position to call some churches' positions against racial segregation hypocritical. These church positions basically say that Holy Scripture teaches that God did not intend women to serve sacraments and that Nature and God both teach that marriage and sexual relations between the same sex are not intended.

In both cases, there is a separation of privilege (marriage and holy orders) based on arguments from nature and faith and not in rational distinctions (like calculus for physics professors). The result is divisiveness and bitterness in women and gays. Perhaps the only reason why sexism has not led to overt violence is that homosexuals were able to attain positions of power by hiding their difference with others and so were in a position to effect a "quiet revolution." Most women live in association with men and their children. It is difficult for them to take their children, separate, and go to war with men.

But heterosexual males from minority racial groups have the capability of responding with violence, and eventually it seems they do when they are forced to suffer rationally arbitrary discrimination.

So this is my question: if the BNP were "peaceful segregationists" would they be in a position to claim hypocrisy in churches denying full religious status to women and gays that criticize BNP segregationist policies? I think so, and would remark that it is sad to think that so many see secular society ahead of the church in this area of moral progress with the church lagging behind. It should be the church leading secular society in morals, not the other way about.

I notice that Nightlamp has not made an appearance since the OP. Is this perhaps what he was referring to, or something like it?
 

---

Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 
But the BNP site makes the argument that no adherent of any faith can make any claim about the immorality of voting for an organization like the BNP unless that faith is entirely free of internal moral strife and no member of that faith ever does anything wrong.

There's just no way to make a good point out of these ingredients...

Can one find reasons to be critical of violence and oppression in the name of faith? Sure... Does this have anything to do with the BNP or their spew on the site? No.
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
There's just no way to make a good point out of these ingredients...

Can one find reasons to be critical of violence and oppression in the name of faith? Sure... Does this have anything to do with the BNP or their spew on the site? No.

---

quote:

---

Interfaith issues are close to Bishop Nigel’s heart. He watched with horror the civil disorder that broke out in Oldham last year. Since then, churches have been among those working hard to secure goodwill on the ground. An interfaith forum has been established and there is regular contact between faith leaders. In the Wakefield Diocese Bishop Nigel has made sensitive links with the area’s ethnic groups and communities of other faiths. Earlier this summer he was invited to give a ‘Christian Perspective’ at the funeral of the family of eight who died in the house fire in Huddersfield. More than 5,000 Muslims were there.
During his time in Wakefield he has gained respect and affection from all sides for his ability to be a reconciler and healer. This is matched by a readiness to speak out with courage for what he believes in.

---

quote:

---

Our report comes from a commitment that abuse is sinful and the Church must and will oppose sin wherever it comes to light. When it has come to light within the very heart of the Church it has not been easy to understand or respond in a pastoral and healing way. It is true that people in the Church have made errors of judgement and acted in a manner that has been more a reaction to the shame than to the hurt of victims.

---

quote:

---

We need to become a Church more conscious of our own needs for repentance. ... Whatever our past failures, our lives can be recreated. We know all too well that this is a costly process; forgiveness is not easy or painless. Christ's risen body still carries the mark of his wounds. If we are willing to seek the risen, wounded Lord, we and our world can be transformed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
Is it a good point to say that such a man should be silent on an issue he believes in until every Christian is perfectly ethical?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
...in the light of such efforts by Jews, Muslims Christians and then ogoing internal debates over issues of gender and sexuality being carried on by at least some members of each of these faiths, can anyone legitimately deny, on the basis of their faith alone, any follower of these religions a voice in public debate on such issues and their expression in political parties?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
If i thought sex and race were at all comparable, JimT, I might do so. But I don't.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0