The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester and the Church's only Asian bishop, says that people of a different race or faith face physical attack if they live or work in communities dominated by a strict Muslim ideology.
The Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester
Bishop Nazir-Ali warns that attempts are being made to give Britain an increasingly Islamic character
The Muslim Council of Britain today described his comments as "frantic scaremongering", while William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said the bishop had "probably put it too strongly".
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said the idea of no-go areas was "a gross caricature of reality".
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, Bishop Nazir-Ali compares the threat to the use of intimidation by the far-Right, and says that it is becoming increasingly difficult for Christianity to be the nation's public religion in a multifaith, multicultural society.
His comments come as a poll of the General Synod - the Church's parliament - shows that its senior leaders, including bishops, also believe that Britain is being damaged by large-scale immigration.
Bishop Nazir-Ali, who was born in Pakistan, gives warning that attempts are being made to give Britain an increasingly Islamic character by introducing the call to prayer and wider use of sharia law, a legal system based on the Koran.
In an attack on the Government's response to immigration and the influx of "people of other faiths to these shores", he blames its "novel philosophy of multiculturalism" for allowing society to become deeply divided, and accuses ministers of lacking a "moral and spiritual vision".
Echoing Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights, who has said that the country is "sleepwalking into segregation", the bishop argues that multiculturalism has led to deep divisions.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, has accused Muslims of promoting a kind of "voluntary apartheid" by shutting themselves in closed societies and demanding immunity from criticism.
In the Synod survey, to be published this week, bishops, senior clergy and influential churchgoers said that an increasingly multi-faith society threatens the country's Christian heritage and blamed the divisions on the Government's failure to integrate immigrants into their communities.
It found that more than one in three believe that a mass influx of people of other faiths is diluting the Christian nature of Britain and only a quarter feel that they have been integrated into society.
The overwhelming majority - 80 per cent - said that the Government has not upheld the place of religion in public life and up to 63 per cent fear that the Church will be disestablished within a generation, breaking a bond that has existed between the Church and State since the Reformation.
Calls for disestablishment have grown following research showing that attendance at Mass has overtaken the number of worshippers at Church of England Sunday services.
Bishop Nazir-Ali, whose father converted from Islam to Catholicism, was criticised by Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain. He said: "It's irresponsible for a man of his position to make these comments.
"He should accept that Britain is a multicultural society in which we are free to follow our religion at the same time as being extremely proud to be British. We wouldn't allow 'no-go' areas to happen. I smell extreme intolerance when people criticise multiculturalism without proper evidence of what has gone wrong."
But the Bishop's concerns are shared by other members of the General Synod.
The Rt Rev Nicholas Reade, the Bishop of Blackburn, which has a large Muslim community, said that it was increasingly difficult for Christians to share their faith in areas where there was a high proportion of immigrants of other faiths.
He believes that increasing pressure will be put on the Government to begin the process of disestablishment and end the preferential status given to the Church of England. "The writing is on the wall," he said.
Gordon Brown relinquished Downing Street's involvement in appointing bishops in one of his first facts as Prime Minister - a move viewed by some as a significant step towards disestablishment.
Last night, Mr Davis said: "Bishop Nazir-Ali has drawn attention to a deeply serious problem. The Government's confused and counter-productive approach risks creating a number of closed societies instead of one open, cohesive one. It generates the risk of encouraging radicalisation and creating home-grown terrorism."
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "Bishop Nazir-Ali appears to be exercised by what he perceives as the decline in the influence of Christianity upon this country, but trying to frantically scaremonger about Islam and Muslims seems to us to be a rather unethical way of trying to reverse this.
"He talks about the rise of 'Islamic extremism' but fails to mention how some of the policies of our government and especially that of the United States in the Middle East over several decades now has clearly contributed to this phenomenon."
I'm waiting especially for what Ben is going to say.
Fortunately the bishop is a Pakistan-born so the accusations of racism cannot be taken into account
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject: Re: Bishop M. Nazir-Ali said...
KSa wrote:
I'm waiting especially for what Ben is going to say.
I feel loved.
The first thing that irritates me about this article is that it goes on and on about 'Britain' but then mentions only the Church of England. But what can I expect? This article is from the Telegraph — a very right-wing newspaper which is effectively an unofficial organ of the Conservative Party, so they probably haven't even noticed that Scotland exists. The implication in this article is that the Church of England is the main Christian tradition throughout the UK, but this is not the case at all.
Quote:
The Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester
Bishop Nazir-Ali warns that attempts are being made to give Britain an increasingly Islamic character
...
Bishop Nazir-Ali, who was born in Pakistan, gives warning that attempts are being made to give Britain an increasingly Islamic character by introducing the call to prayer and wider use of sharia law, a legal system based on the Koran.
Only about 4% (at the most) of people in Britain are Muslims, and if anything, they have a disproportionately low level of political and economic influence within society. Bishop Nazir-Ali is blowing things out of all proportion if he believes that Islam is really taking over Britain in this way.
Quote:
It found that more than one in three believe that a mass influx of people of other faiths is diluting the Christian nature of Britain and only a quarter feel that they have been integrated into society.
The percentage of people in Britain who practice a non-Christian faith is no more than about 10%, and it's much lower than that in many areas (e.g. Scotland), even if it is higher in others. And even then, it's a very wide variety of religions, and does not represent a coherent movement at all. I think the main reason for why the 'Christian nature of Britain' has been 'diluted' is because people from nominally Christian backgrounds have largely abandoned Christianity.
Quote:
The overwhelming majority - 80 per cent - said that the Government has not upheld the place of religion in public life and up to 63 per cent fear that the Church will be disestablished within a generation, breaking a bond that has existed between the Church and State since the Reformation.
I find the bias in this paragraph especially interesting. It seems to imply that those people who believe those things also believe that they are bad things, or at least would regret them. It fails to recognise that many of the 80% probably think it's great that the government has not 'upheld the place of religion in public life', and that many of the 63% (and others) support the disestablishment of the Church of England in England.
Quote:
The Rt Rev Nicholas Reade, the Bishop of Blackburn, which has a large Muslim community, said that it was increasingly difficult for Christians to share their faith in areas where there was a high proportion of immigrants of other faiths.
I wonder what he means by Christians 'sharing their faith'. I'm also very much opposed to the constant association between 'people of other faiths' and 'immigrants' — the majority of people in Britain who practice a non-Christian faith are British and were born in Britain. But this sort of thinking is very typical of the Telegraph.
Quote:
He believes that increasing pressure will be put on the Government to begin the process of disestablishment and end the preferential status given to the Church of England. "The writing is on the wall," he said.
Benjamin:
1. Now I realize that the fact that the article was published in "Daily Telegraph", a right-wing newspaper, makes all the matter "lost" a priori. You are prejudiced to everything that is conservative, traditional, or "right-wing". You do not seem to understand that "right-wing" people sometimes are decent and are able to tell the truth from time to time Of course their decency is far from that observed in "left-wing" people, especially ultraleftist members of green parties, but still...
2. The fact that there is 4% of Muslims in Britain doesn't mean that they are evenly distributed. I imagine they make up communities which greatly outnumber non-muslims in neighbouring areas. For example that is confirmed in the following sentence:
>>The Rt Rev Nicholas Reade, the Bishop of Blackburn, which has a large Muslim community>>
3. You seem to be (sub)consciously manipulating:
>>I find the bias in this paragraph especially interesting. It seems to imply that those people who believe those things also believe that they are bad things, or at least would regret them. It fails to recognise that many of the 80% probably think it's great that the government has not 'upheld the place of religion in public life', and that many of the 63% (and others) support the disestablishment of the Church of England in England. >>
In the text there is clearly stated that:
>>up to 63 per cent fear that the Church will be disestablished>>
4. Your conclusion, which you have not voiced directly, is that the "right-wing" newspaper is "blowing out things of proportion" by quoting a bishop who is "blowing out things of proportion". Have you forgotten what happened in 2005? Was it not a "warning signal"? I don't mention many comments that followed the main article. Read them.
Benjamin:
1. Now I realize that the fact that the article was published in "Daily Telegraph", a right-wing newspaper, makes all the matter "lost" a priori.
Not entirely. But I do feel that the Telegraph is putting a certain spin on the issue, and yes, I am prejudiced against that newspaper. This is the same newspaper which continuously perpetuates the myth that Scotland is funded by English taxpayers, and encourages anti-Scottish sentiment south of the border. I will say that I don't think it's quite as bad as the Daily Mail though.
KSa wrote:
You are prejudiced to everything that is conservative, traditional, or "righ-wing".
For the most part, I am opposed to policies which run contrary to those of the Scottish Green Party — in other words, practically everything that the Telegraph advocates. Not out of tribalist loyalty to a certain political party though, but out of coincidence that the Greens are the party in Scotland which best espouse my views and general ideology.
KSa wrote:
The fact that there is 4% of Muslims in Britain doesn't mean that they are evenly distributed. I imagine they make up communities which greatly outnumber non-muslims in neighbouring areas.
Of course. That was certainly the case when I lived in Birmingham. As I've mentioned before, about 30% of people in the school I used to go to were Muslims.
KSa wrote:
3. You seem to be (sub)consciously manipulating:
>>I find the bias in this paragraph especially interesting. It seems to imply that those people who believe those things also believe that they are bad things, or at least would regret them. It fails to recognise that many of the 80% probably think it's great that the government has not 'upheld the place of religion in public life', and that many of the 63% (and others) support the disestablishment of the Church of England in England. >>
In the text there is clearly stated that:
>>up to 63 per cent fear that the Church will be disestablished>>
I'd be interested to know what people were actually asked. I interpreted it as saying that 63% believed that the Church of England would probably be disestablished within a generation, without taking into account whether they would oppose or support such a move. Considering that only about 1% of people in England regularly attend services at Church of England services, it seems somewhat unlikely, at least to me, that such a high percentage would be disappointed to see it disestablished, let alone 'fear' it. Either way, there doesn't seem to be a high level of genuine commitment to the Church of England in England anymore.
But ultimately, I don't view the status of the Church of England as something for me to decide, because I don't live in England.
KSa wrote:
4. Your conclusion, which you have not voiced directly, is that the "right-wing" newspaper is "blowing out things of proportion" by quoting a bishop who is "blowing out things of proportion".
Effectively, yes. It's nothing new though.
KSa wrote:
Have you forgotten what happened in 2005?
Some bombs were set off in London by a few Muslims, killing 52 people. To put it crudely, more people in Britain have died in their own bathtubs over the past few years than it terrorist attacks. Yes, I do think that the 'terrorist threat' has been grossly exaggerated by governments and sections of the media.
KSa wrote:
Was it not a "warning signal"?
Perhaps. Have you forgotten what happened in 2003? Have you forgotten what 'the West' has been doing for centuries?
KSa wrote:
I don't mention many comments that followed the main article. Read them.
They reflect the readership of the Telegraph. If a story about this had been on the website of, say, the Independent, then the comments may have been rather different.
This is the same newspaper which continuously perpetuates the myth that Scotland is funded by English taxpayers, and encourages anti-Scottish sentiment south of the border.
I always respect the nations' right to independence. The history of my country teaches that this is the value worth fighting for. In this sense I'm against the newspaper.
Quote:
Of course. That was certainly the case when I lived in Birmingham. As I've mentioned before, about 30% of people in the school I used to go to were Muslims.
And what the bishop was saying is that some people living around such communities feel unsafe or uncomfortable. Whether this is true or not I cannot say but certain "signals" coming from different sources can suggest that it may be true in some cases.
Quote:
I'd be interested to know what people were actually asked. I interpreted it as saying that 63% believed that the Church of England would probably be disestablished within a generation, without taking into account whether they would oppose or support such a move. Considering that only about 1% of people in England regularly attend services at Church of England services, it seems somewhat unlikely, at least to me, that such a high percentage would be disappointed to see it disestablished, let alone 'fear' it. Either way, there doesn't seem to be a high level of genuine commitment to the Church of England in England anymore.
That would suggest that the Telegraph has manipulated the data. If it turned out true it would discredit the newspaper. The reliability of the poll can be easily checked so I think no serious newspaper would do it.
Quote:
Some bombs were set off in London by a few Muslims, killing 52 people. To put it crudely, more people in Britain have died in their own bathtubs over the past few years than it terrorist attacks. Yes, I do think that the 'terrorist threat' has been grossly exaggerated by governments and sections of the media.
So I understand you see no problem. I also understand that, consistently, you wouldn't see any problem if the members of, say, the Church of England killed 50 innocent people in a terrorist attack.
Quote:
Have you forgotten what 'the West' has been doing for centuries?
Is it justification for terrorist attacks done by muslim extremists?
Quote:
They reflect the readership of the Telegraph. If a story about this had been on the website of, say, the Independent, then the comments may have been rather different.
It also reflects the fact that life is not so simple and there are other people and other options and the truth is not always in "our hands". It doesn't mean it is fully in the hands of "Daily Telegraph's" readers. Sometimes the truth lies somewhere in-between.
And what the bishop was saying is that some people living around such communities feel unsafe or uncomfortable. Whether this is true or not I cannot say but certain "signals" coming from different sources can suggest that it may be true in some cases.
I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is that it is as much of a problem as many politicians and newspapers such as the Telegraph make it out to be. Yes, there has been a lack of integration in many areas. But overall, I view it as a minor issue compared, say to the high consumerism in this country which is contributing significantly to environmental degradation.
KSa wrote:
So I understand you see no problem. I also understand that, consistently, you wouldn't see any problem if the members of, say, the Church of England killed 50 innocent people in a terrorist attack.
I am opposed to all violence. However, I do think that the scale of the 'terrorist threat' has been grossly exaggerated.
Quote:
Quote:
Have you forgotten what 'the West' has been doing for centuries?
Is it justification for terrorist attacks done by muslim extremists?
I am opposed to all violence. However, I do think that the scale of the 'terrorist threat' has been grossly exaggerated.
Just recent years:
2001: WTC, Pentagon
2002: Bali
2003: Istanbul
2004: Madrid
2005: London
2001-2008: dozens of attacks prevented.
Congratulations. I envy you your good frame of mind.
I am opposed to all violence. However, I do think that the scale of the 'terrorist threat' has been grossly exaggerated.
Just recent years:
2001: WTC, Pentagon
2002: Bali
2003: Istanbul
2004: Madrid
2005: London
2001-2008: dozens of attacks prevented.
Congratulations. I envy you your good frame of mind.
Those tragic events which you've listed collectively resulted in 3,499 deaths.
At the last estimates, the illegal war in Iraq had caused 1,220,580 deaths, and the war in Afghanistan had resulted in over 13,000 deaths.
An estimated 33.2 million people worldwide are living with HIV/AIDS and an estimated 2.4-3.3 million people died of AIDS-related complications in 2005 alone. This is not helped by the attitudes and practices of pharmaceutical companies and the anti-condom policy of the Roman Catholic Church.
Thousands of millions of people continue to live and work in appalling conditions and die prematurely, and this is not helped by the practices of multinational corporations and the attitudes of 'Western' governments. The high consumerism and excessive industrialism which exists in the minority world is releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide and is contributing significantly to climate change, which is resulting in the melting of the polar ice-caps, subsequent rise in sea levels, increased flooding, droughts and suchlike. We'll all be affected by it, but the people affected worst will be the majority world, i.e. those people who already live in appalling conditions and weren't even responsible for the problems in the first place.
Of course, these issues are emphasised a lot as well. But do you now understand why, on the grand scheme of things, I view the 'terrorist threat' as grossly exaggerated and as a relatively minor issue overall?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
