Skip to comments.Lord Pearson: 'Government Should Stop Claiming Islam is Religion of Peace'
Posted on 07/25/2014 7:16:22 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The Government should stop claiming Islam is a religion of peace in the light of the Trojan horse allegations, a former leader of Ukip has said.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch said the problems could only be cured from "within Islam".
An investigation led by former anti-terror chief Peter Clarke today reported there had been a deliberate effort to introduce an "intolerant and aggressive Islamic ethos" into a number of Birmingham schools.
The damning report, commissioned by former Education Secretary Michael Gove in April, was highly critical of Birmingham City Council, accusing the authority of failing to support under-pressure headteachers dealing with inappropriate behaviour by governors.
Ukip former leader Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Education Minister Lord Nash in the House of Lords: "Do you not agree that this scandal like Muslim segregation and Islamist violence more generally are problems which arise from within Islam and can only be cured from within Islam?
"Given all that is happening in Africa as well, why does the Government go on intoning that Islam is a religion of peace?"
Lord Nash, who had repeated Education Secretary Nicky Morgan's statement on the issue, told him: "I think that what happened in Birmingham was unacceptable to all communities in Birmingham including all the Muslim parents and teachers. I don't recognise your analysis of the religion of Islam, which I see as a religion of peace.
Ads by Google Voted # 1 River Cruises Viking River Cruises Official Site. River Cruises, 2-for-1 Offer vikingrivercruises.com/OfficialSite Start Your Claim Here Free Disability claim information SSI/SSDI, See If You Qualify Free! ssdisabilityapplication.com "I do think there are issues of developing narratives of counter-terrorism, but I don't think there is time to go into that here."
Liberal Democrat Baroness Hussein-Ece said the report had found no evidence of a "plot" or "violent extremism" in contrast to "lurid headlines".
She added: "We know there is a difference between religious extremism and religious conservatism and that hasn't really come out in a lot of the narrative in these schools. I think that has been quite damaging.
"We need to refrain from the generalisation we have seen that stigmatises whole communities and faiths.
"This has been very damaging and will make it more difficult to get moderate people from the Muslim communities and other communities who want to become involved in British civic life and become school governors and councillors."
Lord Nash said she was right to draw a distinction between extremism and conservatism and said all pupils needed to be taught about "inclusiveness".
Labour's Lord Rooker, a former minister and Birmingham MP, called for the city to be split into three boroughs.
"London is no less London for having 32 boroughs dealing with social security and education," he said.
And he added: "With wards of 20,000 electorate for three councillors in that city compared to 6,000 electorate for three councillors in London, there is a disconnect in democratic accountability.
"The councillors can not possibly be in touch with things that happens on their patch.
"It is the only place in the country that has such a democratic dislocation on the ward level between councillors and the electorate."
He said the result would be more people would "know what is going on".
Lord Nash said "all possible solutions" were under review.
It’s too late for the UK.
It took Spain 800 years to clean house.
And yet, they are back. ;-)
Islam is incompatible with The USA constitution and polite society.
Its more a political system than it is a “religion” and should be treated as such.
Which is exactly what they are going to say about Christianity.
The US constitution has its roots in Christianity.
Those who follow Islam to the letter seek to destroy. So, while there are peaceful people within Islam, they are so because they are heretics to their faith. Islam itself is violent...and only ignoramuses don't get it.
It’s going to be argued that Christianity is the ONLY religion that the Constitution specifically limits.
I disagree with you. Islam is NOT stronger than the USA.
Islam is a religion of conquest and murder. Islam has invaded and destroyed HUNDREDS of local cultures and replace them with Islam.
I created a whole blog to reveal what Islam is about. Check it out. http://debatingislamquestionstoconsider.blogspot.com
Islam is not rational because for the most part it has failed to experience the enlightenment and the Reformation. It operates as though it were European Christianity in the 30 Years War. There is no conception of toleration which means at the individual level there is no golden rule. It also means that there is no scientific method but rather an authoritarian philosophy guided by superstition.
To declare that this distorted mind warp is a "religion of peace" is absurd but it was an understandable position for Bush to take. If one is trying to motivate his own nation and align allies in a multigenerational, intercontinental world war against militant Islam, it is understandable that Bush thought it better to call it a war on "terrorism."
That strategy has obviously failed and it is time to consider that Europe is about to be lost and, with Europe, the war against Islam itself. We have got to win the propaganda war which we are clearly losing and that means we have to describe Islam for what it is just as we had to fight the fellow travelers in our midst when it came time to accurately describe the horror of communism.
We might ask Israelis how it has been done since 1948 with some success, at least until now.
Muslim terrorists are credited with 23,470 terrorist attacks since 9/11/2001. But you can’t generalize from those tens of thousands of terrorists and their hundreds of millions of supporters to all of Islam.
You are absolutely right. Violent jihad is a fundamental aspect of Islam. It’s heresy to claim jihad means to peacefully proselytize nonbelievers. In Islam, nonbelievers must be crushed—either converted or killed. Jews and Christians, “People of the Book,” must be converted, killed, or forced to submit to paying the religious tax.
This religion of peace nonsense is such blatant propaganda! For decades, we’ve seen Islamic fundamentalists, i.e. true followers and believers, act as terrorists, but we’re supposed to believe it’s a peaceful religion? Even worse, some Republicans, like President Bush, spun the same nonsense.
Don’t ask me who W thought he was helping by trying to smooth over Islam’s continually violent transgressions. You can’t have peace with someone who wants to kill you. The only possible peace at that point is to kill or be killed. I’m truly sorry the world is like this, but it’s the truth.
Think Islam will EVER make peace with the Jews? No way. The ONLY way the Muslims will ever make peace is when Christ returns and destroys them along with all the other non-believers.
Sorry, but I don’t give President Bush a pass on the “religion of peace” nonsense. #1 We don’t really need moderate Muslim allies to defend ourselves. #2 It flies in the face of all evidence and only delays the inevitable confrontation between the West and Islam (as Islam grows stronger).
I disagree with you. Islam is NOT stronger than the USA.
I'll have to go back and read what I said but I really don't recall saying that.
I am responding to nickcarraway...
nickcarraway, this is 2nd thread I have read from you in the past 2 days, where for some reason you create & fabricate false accusations & strawman arguments as if someone is actually saying or doing what you are suggesting they are doing. You know, kind of like the false strawman arguments that 0bama fabricates every time he opens his mouth and then supposedly shoots down the false strawman argument.
Stick with the truth and stop the fabrications & false strawman responses. Look at the notes above? cripplecreek never insinuated or declared that Islam is stronger than the USA, but that is what you accused him of doing. Maybe you should stop posting if you can't accurately represent what is being said in a posting by someone else.
Yep. And Bush also said something else just as silly: The terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedoms. As if 9/11 happened because al qaeda didn't like my right to vote for county commissioner.
How can we possibly win a war when none of our leaders are willing to speak plainly?
He looked at the globe and saw that one and a half billion people were Muslims and even a relatively infinitesimal percentage of them means that millions can be committed to wage murderous, even suicidal, war against the United States. That in a context in which it required only 19 militant Muslims to bring down the World Trade Center and bomb the Pentagon.
Ultimately, I think Bush understood that such a war had to be won by Muslims themselves reforming themselves. At least that was at the time a strategy one as president of the United States dared not throw away with loose rhetoric.
So Bush chose to wage war against terrorism rather than against militant Islam because he feared that 1.5 billion enemies were worse than a minority of Muslims committed to terrorism. As I said in my original post, this strategy has obviously failed but it was not an unintelligent effort.
The support of moderate Islam is precisely what we need in this war against militant Islam. Without it we are going to suffer setback after setback, incur casualty after casualty, and spend ourselves bankrupt. That does not necessarily mean that we have to kowtow to the inflated sensibilities of Muslims who are, as I pointed out in my original post, often thoroughly irrational.
Like tolerance, inclusiveness must be a two way street. Islam has repeatedly failed that test.
This is what Cripplecreek said I objected to:Islam is incompatible with The USA constitution and polite society. Its more a political system than it is a religion and should be treated as such
It's no straw man, at all. The United States was founded on certain ideas and traditions. When we say, we have to abandon those traditions and ideas to fight the enemy that is a very bad thing. I won't go for that in any way shape and form. We can have Muslims in this country. We don't have the P.C. ideas that Bush and Obama promulgate. We can deal with them just fine on our own terms. No changing our values. No ditching the First Amendment. If what Cripplecreek said above is true, then Islam is stronger than the USA.
Certain people on the right are falling for a left wing trap. The left is ginning them up about Islam and trying to get them to abandon our tradition. After we get ride of it, their will be noting to defend. Taking the Constitution and Christianity and and changing into Islam to fight Islam is a losing battle. If you think that is necessary, then you DO believe the USA and Christianity are weaker than Islam. I'll let you in on a little secret: they aren't.
I like Cripplecreek as a poster. But I have to challenge people when they are falling for the left's trap.
Yes. We need to remember the first war our country was in was against the Ottoman Empire. It was the First Barbary War, 1801-1805. Things haven’t changed much since.
Nonsense. When you are attacked, you retaliate. Sink their navy, flatten their air power, and crush their armor. Then air drop small arms the oppressed. Leave and let them and allah sort out what remains. You don't build schools, hospitals and infrastructure. Let them do that.
The president addresses the nation and expresses resolve never to surrender, the FBI and CIA and NSA go into overdrive to discover who planted the bomb and who posted the Internet demand. Three days later an atomic explosion occurs in Lexington Kentucky. Same demand same reaction.
Three days later an atomic explosion occurs in a mall in short Hills New Jersey. Same demand same reaction from officials but an up swelling of demand by a growing number of parents, particularly mothers, who insist that the government surrender rolls across the land.
After two more explosions the country disintegrates and the government is forced to follow instructions imposing sharia and requiring the conversion of Americans to Islam.
Far-fetched? Perhaps, perhaps not. But whom are you going to bomb? You scream "retaliate" even louder. There is no one to bomb. You scream, "sink their Navy, flatten their power, and crush their armor" but they have no Navy, no air power, no armor. Europe has long ago submitted to Islam and America has virtually no allies in the world.
There is no one and nothing to bomb. You don't know what to do. There are many in the Muslim world who know who is responsible but you do not have a relationship with them, you have not cultivated them, they have nothing to gain by helping you and nothing to lose by watching you lose.
You have lost the war.
Governments support murderous cult
I disagree, after the first demand from the scumbags we nuke Medina and tell them Mecca is next. The only thing they understand is brute force so let's get primal on their butts! Unfortunately we have a Muslim in the White Hut so it will take someone high up in the military to decide to do what is necessary, ignore the commie in chief and save our country.
The phrase, “Islam is peace” is not defining Islam. It is redefining peace.
Maybe you can't figure out who to fight or what to do. Very simple, Take everybody that doesn't belong here in the US and ship them to Mexico. Let the Mexicans figure out what to do with them. Far fetched? Don't forget, Roosevelt rounded up the Japanese. The liberals still love him.
W actually wanted to say - religion of pieces.
Cripplecreek never said that at all! It is incredible how you misrepresent what is being said, and then when you are confronted with the actual words themselves you still misrepresent the words, in fact you twist them to say something exactly opposite to what is being said.
Islam is incompatible with The USA constitution and polite society. Its more a political system than it is a religion and should be treated as such.
He is 100% correct. Islam is not a religion but instead is a political system of absolute tyranny that seeks to control every aspect of life - political, economic, civil, religious, monetary, etc
He never said at all that "we should abandon those traditions and ideas to fight the enemy that is a very bad thing".
The only one making that absurd statement is you, no one else (well excepted for mentally disordered liberals) would so profoundly twist a statement into something that it never said in the first place. As you recall a WWII vet chastised you for misrepresenting what Jim Gilchrist is attempting to do in order to stop the invasion, and he said that outside of you, no one else was making THAT ridiculous observation or conclusion.
I think it would be better if you just post the articles and then don't comment on any of the postings, since you seem to make the opposite assertion of what it is actually saying.
And no, I'm not going to apologize for calling you out for your habit of misrepresentation, which then deflects from the entire article or postings and does not accomplish anything except for arguing about the sparsing & nuancing of words.
Have you ever read the First Amendment. Check it out sometime.
I just read things and use my brain. You need to stop focusing on the media and regurgitating their crud.
If Gilchrist was trying to stop an invasion he wouldn’t compare the USA to NAZI Germany. Even Obama has never compared this country to Nazi Germany. Sorry if you think patriotism is a crime.
Like I said, you gotta stop commenting on other FReepers postings, since you misrepresent regularly what is being said and then you hide behind a false patriotism.
Your logic & arguments & conclusions are that of a hard-core Marxist liberal, like 0dumb0 & his entire corrupt administration & democRATs in general. Michael Savage wrote a book called Liberalism is a Mental Disorder and that describes you. I think you're a DU troll, trying to stir up strife & discord amoung the FReeper brethren with false attacks and stupid logic.
By the way, how is your organization & website coming together to mount a vigorous defense of our border with Mexico, like Jim Gilchrist is doing? Do you have a sign-up website yet? Do you have your organization in place and ready to roll? At least Jim is doing something, rather than attacking our own side like you're doing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.