And now, what she actually said...

John Patrick

If there is a 'phobia' in Britain today that is tolerated in official circles, the media, and the judiciary, it is Christianophobia. The recent judgement against the B&B owners in Cornwall is more evidence of that. Let's face it. This is, in some sense, a Christian country. In the 2001 Census and in the recent Integrated Household Survey over 71.4% declared themselves to be 'Christian'. I realise that can cover many things but that is what they said. By contrast, the rest were: 4.2% Muslim, 1.4% Hindu, 0.6% Sikh, 0.5% Jewish, 0.4% Buddhist, 1.1% 'any other religion'. Only 20.5% had no religion at all. Yet, the religion of the great majority of British people is pilloried, mocked, attacked in the most disreputable manner.

EDDIE

As far as I can gather, ”Islamises” are just following the Koran exactly as it is written, so maybe the problem resides there. According to the government there are 2000 British citizens under surveillance for possible terrorist activity. There seems to be no action being taken by our government to control what is being preached in mosques or in schools that might be against our laws. Although our government does not hesitate to ban a silly man who once threatened to burn the Koran in case his presence might start a wholly illegal response. There has been no move t o ban other preachers who really do inflame the situation here. I am actually surprised at baroness warsi’s restraint.

Lao Tzu's best friend

I strongly disagree with your analysis that "most of what is termed 'Islamophobia' arises from entirely rational and legitimate concerns." As Baroness Warsi astutely elucidates, it is the lack of rationality and reason that leads to socially acceptable racism.

The prevailing paradigm is generally (often non-specifically and automatically) critical of Islam, largely fuelled by ignorance, exaggeration, distortion and oversimplification.

Much of this results from the disturbing supremacist ethnocentric rhetoric that is all too evident in the Western media (newspapers, films and even video games), which seems to denigrate the entire Muslim world at every opportunity.

However, a far greater proportion results from in-group cognitive bias and similar self-serving viewpoints which are prevalent (and positively encouraged) here in the West. While these remain in our current Zeitgeist, it is impossible to be truly rational and logical when considering the balance of evidence.

michael

The crux of the issue... North West Frontier Province Pakistan wholesale price of opium £3000/kg
Bradford wholesale opium price £25000/kg
The feeling round here is that communal power is unequally distributed - bought and paid for.
Don't know how long its going to be before you lot down yonder feel the same.

Andy Gill

Given the abominable behaviour and the sheer arrogance of some Muslim fundamentalists in this country, not to mention the numerous plots to mass murder British citizens, Warsi should be thankful that there is so little prejudice against Muslims.

Graeme Thompson

I've just heard the superb words by Blair on the Iranian threat and no doubt Melanie will be commenting.

Such was his fervour and conviction on the need to deal with Iran one cannot help but feel one would rather see him as head of a Coalition Government than Mr Cameron.

I wonder if there would be any basis for him coming back into politics as leader of a new Coalition Party drawing together conservative strands from across the democratic spectrum?

There is no sign that Cameron and his team 'geddit' (quite the opposite with the pronouncements of Cameron and Hague on Gaza and Israel).

One looks forward to Melanie's take on Blair's Iran comments.

Publius

Lao Tzu's best friend writes:
"The prevailing paradigm...ignorance, exaggeration, distortion and oversimplification...
disturbing supremacist ethnocentric rhetoric... in-group cognitive bias... While these remain in our current Zeitgeist, it is impossible to be truly rational and logical when considering the balance of evidence."

I put it to you that it is you with your Olympian pose of objectivity and absurd language of abstraction who is the victim of "cognitive bias"

Robert Mitchum

These last two blogs are excellent, being typical examples of your straight talking and refusal to tailor your view to any current trend or leftist media distortion.

Denis Cooper

Glad to see the government is "ramping up the fight against all phobias", but there are quite a lot of them ...

http://phobialist.com/

"Phobophobia- Fear of phobias" seems very prevalent these days.

Raymond

John Patrick, excellent post. Could not believe Warsi actually believes the nonsense she is spouting. Norman Tebbit is right. Had not Labour so disgracefully encouraged mass Muslim immigration into this country for electoral reasons, we would not be having this conversation !

Mosquito

I believe that Melanie is right in criticizing the factual accuracy of the Baroness' account. Baroness Warsi says "Let me repeat again: extremists are a minority of a minority."In this she is being disingenuous. All the polls I have seen down the years have shown substantial minorities in favour of extremist positions. In the case of suicide bombing anywhere between 10-20% have been sympathetic. Of course not all those who express sympathy will actually do anything. But it does explain why our police, airports etc are kept so very busy.

John Steadman

The IRA humbled the British government into submission, not because of it's killers on the steets, but because of it's supporters - "passive" it might be claimed - in the housing estates of Belfast and Londonderry. And this is why the British government is afraid to tackle militant Islam, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of Muslims - but what sort of majority? - have little or no interest in jihadist activity.
If we are not discussing extreme and moderate Islam over dinner, perhaps we ought to be.

Celato

'Unlike Islam, Judaism has always mediated [Old Testament] passages through rabbinic interpretation'.

Strange, then, that despite the lack of leeway to 'interpret' the Koran, there is such a variety of belief among Muslims. Some sects are even prepared to slaughter each other over such differences!

Baroness Warsi clearly does not believe in executing women for adultery, persecuting gays, imposing Sharia law on the western world, or dispatching suicide bombers. Did she arrive at this position 'out of her own head', or were her beliefs founded in clerical interpretations?

The latter is by far the most likely explanation - particularly in view of the widely-acknowledged 'tiny minority' status of Islamic fundamentalists in the UK and US where other religions and cultures prevail.

Warsi is quite right to illustrate her plea for rationality in religious debate by pointing out that Islam should no more should be judged on the basis of its extremists than should Christianity or Judaism.

All have evolved according to changing times, cultural influences and accompanying clerical/rabbinical mediation. And ALL in their modern mainstream incarnations reject Old Testament-style punishments such as stoning for adultery.

Frank Sutton

Lao Tzu's best friend - what a marvellous post! Where did you learn to write like that? A master of obscurity, you have effectively concealed any meaning.

david elder (protestant)

Judaism no doubt had some practices which are harsh by modern standards. But like Christianity it has developed in a less harsh direction over time. So I expect have many Muslims. But extremists among them can point to the Koran's more severe edicts in the later parts of Mohammed's life - which are supposed to take precedent over earlier gentler sayings. May Christians and Jews be permitted to suggest to their Muslim brethren that Muslims change this interpretation and unambiguously give priority to the gentler earlier traditions of the Koran, not to the later harsher ones?

Joseph Mackie

Melanie, how refreshing to see a journalist writing the truth.

Muslims are not the problem, it is Islam that is the problem as a outdated system of rules and beliefs instructing how to live ones life.

Indeed, in Malmo, it is Islam achieving something the fascists could not achieve, the driving out through force and intimidation the Jewish and indiginous community.

It is amazing how quickly the Baroness holds up the race card to try and stifle free speech and debate.

Keep up the good work Melanie.

d gray

If Warsi thinks she can bleat about ill feelings towards a religion with more faults than the the ones that lie underneath San Francisco she's mistaken....I will criticise islam all I want and if I am accused of islamophobia [fear of islam...not hate of islam as she asserts] than I could care less.I dont care....its my right to say what I want about religion and I will do so. She just thinks her little speach will cow the population into feeling guilty about being deaply uneasy about her faith. Sorry Warsi, better get used to people asking lots of uncomfortable questions about islam...ITS CAlLED FREEDOM.

mapa

Warsi - a true yorkshire lass! for the 1st time in many years of reading Melanie's columns, i feel a sense 'your scared of her...

Augustus

This whole problem of Muslim bigotry has solely come about because of mass immigration. Admittedly, not solely in Britain, but through much of Europe as well. It also seems a bit odd to appoint someone to the House of Lords for no other reason than being a 'moderate' Muslim.

anne

Mapa she most definitely is not a true yorkshire lass. We yorkshire lasses tell it how it is not how we think it should be.

Tilly

d gray

The crucial word you miss out in your definition of a phobia is "irrational". (Thus, Islamophobia = IRRATIONAL fear of Islam.)

Baroness Warsi wasn't saying that people should not be free to discuss, debate, question or challenge religious beliefs - only that they should do so in a rational way, based on knowledge rather than misconceptions, exaggerated claims and innate bigotry.

John Leyden

In the Baroness' speech, the President Bartlet quotation really took the biscuit. The charge of taking scripture literally by both the "President" and the "Baroness" is laid at the door of modern Christians.
So all that stuff about "slay them wherever you find them" is presumably based on a more modern interpretation of Islam?

AY

"..to the House of Lords for no other reason than being a 'moderate' Muslim..."

From Baroness side, this is nothing but
1) declaration of allegience to political Islam.
2) claim of the position of controller in the office of PM.

This is dangerous. It is already difficult to get rid of that position, - who would risk "proving the point" of "Islamophobia" by removing her?

Derek Pasquill

Well now we know that the Coalition Government is just as useless as the last lot in standing up to Islamic fundamentalism and its corrosive impact on Western societies.

A work that should be on the desks of all policy makers is the sober analysis by Lorenzo Vidino - The New Muslim Brotherhood in the West. Perhaps then we would not get such confused opinionating by senior Tories.

toby forward

This is a genuine question, seeking an answer, and not an attack on anyone, so please treat it as such. When did jewish legal custom stop stoning people to death for crimes such as adultery? I ask this informed only by passages from the New Testament, such as the one in John's Gospel where Jesus prevents the crowd from stoning the woman taken in adultery. I'm also interested in the passage in Luke's Gospel where the congregation in the Nazareth synagogue try to take Jesus out of the town and throw him from a cliff, which I understand is also a judicial punishment, not a piece of mob violence. I would be very grateful for information. Thank you.

Dr Michael Ward

If anything, the Bible seems to be worse than the Koran here: The bible says: Leviticus 20:10 "the adulterer & the adulteress shall surely be put to death" whereas the Koran (24:2) merely calls for the adulterer and the adulteress to be scourged "each one of them" with "a hundred stripes" - though I confess I haven't seen the rabbinic or mullah-nic interpretations of these passages.

TomTom

"John Leyden
January 21st, 2011 11:56pm

In the Baroness' speech, the President Bartlet quotation really took the biscuit."

Hilarious ! Chairwoman of Conservative Party quotes fictional character using dialogue written by Aaron Sorkin for TV series.

What next ? Star Trek ?

Augustus

If the ball is in Baroness Warsi's court to show that her religion is capable of being a modern and moderate learning, she should surely address a few
uncomfortable issues. Is it not the case that extremist imams and teachers are highly selective in their interpretation of sacred texts?
And that they accept or reject
even sacred texts according to whether they support or contradict their own personal
dogmatic and militant positions?
Clearly, the Koran features both
incendiary messages as well as
conciliatory ones, and clearly,
the incendiary ones are offensive to infidels (whoever they may be). As regards the conciliatory texts, Sura 60.80
confirms: "God doth not forbid you to deal with kindness and fairness toward those who have not made war upon you on account
of your religion." And Sura 8.63
states: "And if they lean to peace, lean thou also to peace."
My worry though is that the 1400
year old conciliatory texts may fall by the wayside, (fall on stony ground, to use a Biblical
text), while the equally old offensive messages, which call for bloody murder etc., become fair game for extremists to use and update into our own time for
their own malignant ideology.

And another thing, if the moderates are winning the battle against the extremists,
and if the moderates are so heavily in the majority, why has
the large scale immigration of Muslims into Western countries in recent years resulted in so many no-go areas in Britain, France, and Germany? All politicians, including the Baroness, are aware of this phenomenon, but they do precious little about it. No one seems either willing or capable of addressing this integration problem, choosing instead to appease the radical Muslims whose only goal appears to be yet further radicalization. To the appeasers
it's as if their own culture and lifestyle has lost all meaning.

Expat

Thank you for posting access to the full speech. This woman is totally out of her depth, promoted only because she is a female Muslim. She has no qualifications to be giving the Sternberg lecture, no achievements to be appointed to the House of Lords. Her analysis is superficial and peurile. This reflects on the emptiness of Cameron and his ideas, indeed it is a result of this emptiness that this ignorant woman's pontifications are known to us. How long before we get a real Conservative Party, unafraid to deal with Britain's problems? When will political correctness be abandoned?

Lawrence

Speaking at Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdoğan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said, ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007

Hexhamgeezer

Warsi and Abbot. Two sides of the same coin. Intellectually incoherent and overpromoted beneficiaries of positive discrimination

Kayson

In drawing comparisons between the Bible and the Koran, Dr Michael Ward is not comparing like with like. The Koran is the actual word of the prophet Mohd and must therefore be interpreted literally whereas The New Testament (not The Old Testament which advocates the stoning of adultresses and an eye for an eye) is an "account" of the life and teachings of Christ written some 80 years after he died. Christianity is based on the New Testament in which the basic tenets are love thy neighbour and forgiveness/turn the other cheek, something which prompted Ghandi to say "we'd all be Christians if it weren't for the Christians"!

James Hodson

EDDIE writes: "As far as I can gather, ”Islamises” (sic) are just following the Koran exactly as it is written, so maybe the problem resides there" and I think he does have a point.

I am now an agnostic - I tend towards atheism - and long-time lapsed Catholic but am technically a member of the Roman church. At least, I have yet to receive a missive from the Pope, a bishop or priest excommunicating me.

Roman Catholicism has the Pope; Anglicanism has the archbishop of Canterbury; Judaism has the Chief Rabbi (Melanie will correct me if I am wrong, I'm sure).

However, the power in Islam seems to reside in the Imams, giving a local man an extraordinary amount of power.

The same is true of evangelical preachers such as Pastor Terry Jones, the Florida man who threatened to burn the Koran and has recently been banned from entering Britain.

Leaving power and influence in the hands of an individual has led to extremism.

If I still believed I am sure that the idea of making one's own mind up locally would be great but having a more considered and broader view is, I believe, preferable.

Elizabeth

Unfortunately, Jews don't pose a threat even to those who try to wipe them out. This is why anyone can say (and do) anything against them.

Derek BLADES

Melanie says that "Judaism has always mediated such passages [as recommending stoning adulterers] through rabbinic interpretation". Quite right. But she could also have pointed out that rabbinic interpretation has changed over the years. In Christ's time rabbis still endorsed stoning for adulterers but have since adopted a softer line. Imans' interpretations of the Koran are changing in a similar fashion and only a small minority of Moslem states still practise lapidation. (Ahmedinajad is president of one of these and has defended stoning on the grounds that the executioners only have a limited supply of ammunition. The victims are let off if they are still alive when the stock runs out and he believes that this demonstrates the merciful nature of Sharia law.)

What I find astonishing is that any religion at any time should have recommended such a barbaric practice. The real message to come out of Baroness Warsi's speech is that all religions are, and have always been, inimical to the good conduct of society. Those who promulgate religions of any kind should be held up to shame and ridicule.

John.

Derek Blades: Would you proscribe Zen, Taoism, Sufism and Hindu Advaita Vedanta?

Dixon

Not just that though. The entire meme that criticism of Islam equals "bigotry" rests upon the presupposition that it is an attack on Muslim people. I have no objection to immigration and love the variety of people it brings into my life, including Muslims.I have in the past shared a flatwith a Muslim and have had a Muslim work for me. It pains me to think of those who are oppressed by and must flee their co-religionists, especially women or homosexuals, or other "dissidents", who have to come here to escape persecution,now being subject to the same oppression as this country begins to resemble the ones they have fled. It is precisely BECAUSE I LOVE Muslim PEOPLE that I abhorr the ideology of Islamism! It is the absolute opposite of racism. It is why I will not settle for resistance to Islamisation in "our" country but have for decades dreamed that eventually, some bright blue daybreak hence, over a billion people of Muslim descent wherever they are will be free from the shackles of their "religion".

Regarding Warsi I think it particularly keen that she is at the top table of the governing party of the country, has been given a non-elected and permanent seat in the legislature of the country, yet claims the same country as has awarded her these privileges is prejudiced against what she sees as her "ethnic group"! How patently obvious and ridiculous a contradiction.

BTW, I last came here about 23rd December, amidst a jihad of ad-hominem being waged upon me by messr/ messrs "Harold" / "Wm". I return a month later and discover that there has not been a single comment on anything by this / these trolls in my absence. One is hard pressed not to find unintended flattery in this singularly focussed attention. I've checked, not a single comment by "either" of "them" on any topic in the past four weeks! Its only when I am here that "Harold" / "Wm" appears, like djinn in the ether. It will be tremendously thought-provoking if "they" suddenly reappear now Im back! Can "they" really be watching silently as "lurkers" awaiting my return or are "they" here all along in another guise? Either that or it would be a tremendous coincidence if they show up now!

Reb Shlomo Silverstein

This is not the place for a lecture in Judaism and indeed I really don't have all that time but I felt I had to reply to some of the comments made.

To answer Dr Michael Ward’s question:

As a general introduction to the Jewish concept of death penalty, according to the Oral Torah (which was later written down and became Mishna and later still, Talmud),given by G-d to Moshe and the elders of the Jewish people at Mount Sinai and handed down from generation to generation in an unbroken chain of tradition...

- only an authorised high court of the great Rabbis in each generation can sentence anyone to death - and only if there are two reliable valid witnesses (which have to meet a long list of requirements in order to be valid) and the accused was warned within three seconds of the action and the accused understands the laws which he/she broke and many other requirements. So difficult was it to sentence anyone to death that the Talmud says (Meseches Makkos 7a ) that if the death penalty was given out once in 70 years they called it “a destroyer” (a bloody court).

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon (the same Rabbis in the Pesach Haggadah) say that had they been in the Sanhedrin, no one would ever have been put to death!

To try and answer toby forward’s question:

In short, your question presupposes that your source, that is, the Xtian Bible, known to you as “The New Testament” is historical fact when in fact it is a piece of anti-Jewish propaganda written some 100 years or more after the events it is supposed to describe actually took place. There have been thousands of different versions and revisions made to this document over a good few generations. The Torah is known by Xtians as “The Old Testament” because in their theology, it has, along with Judaism, the Jewish people (and if the truth be told, G-d Himself), been superseded by the new “improved” religion.
But we Jews, despite being dispersed throughout the world, have an unbroken chain of tradition, passed down from parent to child in every place and every generation, that Torah (both written and Oral) was given to the Jewish people on behalf of all mankind by G-d Himself at Mount Sinai some 3,500 years ago and that everything which was written down or/and said by G-d is the Eternal Truth.

You now may be expecting me to say that there is one single version of the written Torah.

In fact, for thousands of years there has been a dispute as to which of TWO versions of the Torah is the original as given to the Jewish people by G-d. The argument centres on a single letter (a “Vav”). The word itself, with or without this letter “vav” still retains the same meaning but nevertheless, the argument remains and will only be resolved when the Mashiach arrives.

SO the “testimonies” you quote are a work of pure fiction, written by early Xtians. They are not to be trusted as representing Jewish practice in that time or in any other.

The key to understanding the Torah is to know that in fact only half of what was given to the Jewish people by G-d was in written form. The Torah is in fact divided into the written document (which you call “The Old Testament”) and the Oral laws, which were meant to be passed down, word of mouth from generation to generation. The Xtians rejected (most of) the Oral tradition and so as a consequence, have no chance of understanding what G-d actually meant in the written Torah.

The written Torah however frequently refers to the Oral Torah or assumes that you already know it when explaining something.

A few examples are:
"Come up to Me to the mountain, and I will give you… the Torah and the commandments" (Shemos 24:12).

The Jewish people had already been instructed orally in the mitzvos (commandments) concerning ritual slaughter (shechitah).

This is why the Torah says "You shall slaughter your cattle… as I have already commanded you" (Devarim. 12:21),

There are other such examples. Also it is clear that certain pasukim (verses) assume prior knowledge such as:

"And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes" (Devarim 6:4¬8).

Ask any Jew and he/she will tell you (from our Oral tradition) that this pasuk (verse) is talking about Tephilin (black boxes containing mini scrolls worn on the arm and head of Jewish men during morning prayer), yet ask the vast majority of Xtians and they won’t have a clue what this verse is talking about.

Similarly in the verse "Remember the Sabbath day to make it holy" (Shemos 20:8) the written Torah does not need to go into details as to what it means in all it’s fine detail “to keep it holy” because the Jewish people already know this through the Oral law.

Just one more example of many:

“And you shall take for yourselves on the first day a pri etz hadar (fruit of the beautiful tree) an unopened palm frond, myrtle branches and willows that grow near the brook; And you shall rejoice before G-d for seven days" (Vayikra 23:40)

You would not have a clue what this “fruit of the beautiful tree" is which we Jews are commanded to take if it were not for the Oral Law which tells us that it is an Esrog (a citron fruit).

I really must go now.

Derek BLADES

John asks me if I would "proscribe Zen, Taoism, Sufism and Hindu Advaita Vedanta?"

The first two are really just early examples of the "how to succeed/get rich/make a sale/be happy" literature popular in the United States. The last two can properly be called religions but I would not wish to see them proscribed. What I suggesgted is that those who promulgate religions should be held up to shame and ridicule.

Madge Hirsch

Baroness Warsi revealed her intellectual dishonesty several times in her speech. She talked of Old Testament punishments but of course did not point out that the ONLY places where such measures are in force today are Sharia governed countries such as Iran (blinding criminal blinders) and Saudi Arabia (stonings whippings for adultery). Her quote of Benazir Bhutto really takes the biscuit.Many muslim families in the Middle East and the Sub-continent still regard the birth of a girl as a curse.If women were still not considered as chattel in the Muslim world why are there such ludicrously low penalties for ''honour'' murders and why are all attempts by human rights/womens groups in these countries to have these penalties increased fiercly resisted on the grounds of being unislamic? I cannot believe that Warsi is unaware of the problems her religion drags in it's wake. As for rational discussion of Islam- I don't believe anyone should discuss islam at all till they have read the Koran-all of it. Once one has done that and become aware of the hatred of the ''other''ie non Muslims spewed out in it's pages it's very hard to take people like Warsi seriously. The New Testament quote about removing beams from ones own eye comes to mind.

Dr Michael Ward

@Kayson
You seem a little confused.
Leviticus was probably written in the 5th century BCE - and certainly not 80 years after Jesus's death. (It's also very unlikely that any of the New Testament gospels were written soon after the notional time of Jesus, but that's a different debate.) Melanie Phillips is comparing the Jewish Torah (1st 5 book of Old Testament) with the Koran so what Christians say about the New Testament is not really relevant here.

Dr Michael Ward

@Reb Shlomo Silverstein
I think you are confusing me with "toby forward"

John.

Derek Blades: Zen is a version of Budhhism which goes back 2,500 years and Taoism goes back even further. They both posit the same point of view as Sufism and Advaita Vedanta, namely that there is ultimately no-one there and so no-one to succeed, get rich, make a sale or be happy or unhappy. Everything apparently arises and passes away to no-one. Everything unfolds in the way it unfolds and could not be any other way than it is. This realisation occurs or doesn't occur (to no-one!) without it being possible for anything to be done about it. I don't think that the USA has much to do with their message, though perhaps a little to do with perverting their message - but that is also an aspect of all that is - of the One - so it's fine too! As is an apparent misunderstanding on "your" part.

eeore

I can't help but feel that Baroness Warsi has got things the wrong way around, as to where any racism is coming from. Which is why her comments boarded on the delusional.

toby forward

Reb Shlomo Silverstein, thank you for your reply, which I think falls short of being an answer. Let me start by saying that I agree with you that we cannot take Gospel accounts as necessarily historical events. That isn’t the point. Nor do I accept that the Gospels are simple anti-jewish propaganda.
The point is that the evangelists wanted and expected the listeners/hearers to be convinced by what they presented to them. Setting aside the miraculous events, the day-to-events had to be credible. So, whether or not they happened, the story of the woman about to be stoned for being caught in adultery, and the story of the crowd try to push Jesus to his death from a high place are both acceptable to the contemporary audience. It would have been stupid for the Gospels to alienate readers who would respond, ‘but the Jews don’t do that’.
So, I repeat my question. When did Jewish legal custom stop stoning people to death for crimes such as adultery and blasphemy?

Graeme

When will this silly woman be sacked from her irrelevant position? This woman runs with both the hares and with the hounds.

Peter

Baroness Warsi is a bright, brainy woman. But her promotion and perrage was a grave mistake. With her strong Muslim background she was always going to be an accident waiting to happen..over and over, like a drunk trying to balance an apple on his nose.

This is only the first... of many, I fear.

sly insinuations

"The sly insinuation that Islam is inherently no more dangerous to life, liberty and human rights than is Judaism is quite wickedly false -- and all too telling."

Read the speech. Takes some effort to read this "sly insinuation". What I see here however is a "sly insinuation" that Islam is "inherently dangerous to life, liberty and human rights".

And if Warsi is deprecating this kind of thing, I think she'd be right to do so.

John.

Derek Blades: Furthermore the Tao, Zen, Advaita Vedanta and Sufi mysticism all urge people to see by experience whether what they suggest is so, is so. They rely upon first-hand experience. The other religions rely upon belief in second-hand dogma, not on experience. Why believe in what can never be proved and in what relies upon documents now proven be of extremly doubtful veracity? Insofar as that is true I fully agree with you.