Brickbat: Strict Scrutiny

Jcpjr / Dreamstime.com

Both the Church of England and the National Secular Society have lashed out at a British government decision to deny asylum to an Iranian Christian because the man claimed Christianity is a peaceful religion. The Home Office rejected the man's case, writing a letter to him citing violence and violent imagery in the Bible which it said "are inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a 'peaceful' religion, as opposed to Islam which contains violence, rage and revenge." After the response, a government spokesman acknowledged, "This letter is not in accordance with our policy approach to claims based on religious persecution, including conversions to a particular faith."

Comments

[DRM]

So, has the bureaucrat who wrote the letter been fired?

See, this isn't a problem with training. This is a problem with a self-righteous asshole who believes a government job is a license to be a petty tyrant. You can't train that out of someone. What you can do is fire the mini-despot in a press release that includes name and photograph of the person fired. And if civil service laws prohibit that, you ram through a bill in Parliament that authorizes it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There is no difference between this ruling and a Muslim ban, except perhaps the point that claiming Christianity to be a peaceful religion is nonsense. But people who subscribe to substandard superstition have rights, too.

Carry on, clingers.

[Rossami]

Do you see DRM calling for a Muslim ban in the post above? Do you even have a record of him/her calling for one in a previous post in some other thread?

Or are you just a troll set on autopilot?

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""There is no difference between this ruling and a Muslim ban,""

This ruling exists. The Muslim ban does not.

I get that TDS prevents you from understanding a Muslim ban would ban Muslims, all Muslims. And a ban on certain nations would apply only to those nations.

[Agammamon]

So you'd rather have people subscribe to the not 'substandard superstition' that is Islam?

[ace_m82]

Remember kids, "Christian" is self identified. It means "little Christ", or "Christ follower".

What did Christ command? "Do unto others..." Which is just NAP + doing good to others also!

So, Christianity is of peace, though people who call themselves "Christian" can say or do anything, because anyone can call themselves by a certain label.

[Fist of Etiquette]

...inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a 'peaceful' religion, as opposed to Islam which contains violence, rage and revenge.

This comparison likely stuck in someone's craw.

[Radioactive]

I'd like to stick something else in their craw...sideways

[Seamus]

What are the odds it was a Muslim civil servant who thought it would be a nice irony to visit some non-violent rage and revenge on the apostate?

[Eddy]

I don't know, maybe Home Secretary Sajid Javid can explain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sajid_Javid

[BearOdinson]

I read the article and looked some things up about him. He is hardly the example of a Muslim out for revenge.

He actually seems like a very good person.

[Eddy]

Wikipedia indicates that he's kind of a PC, gay-rights-boosting (in a Conservative Party kind of way) moderate Muslim.

Which could potentially put him under some pressure to prove to his community that he's not an "Uncle Tom," or whatever the Muslim equivalent is.

Or the bureaucrat who made this decision might have done so without any connection to his nominal superior. I mean, I saw "Yes, Minister," too.

[Agammamon]

Ammo Tom

[Longtobefree]

The term for moderate Muslim is "apostate".

[Jerryskids]

"This letter is not in accordance with our policy approach to claims based on religious persecution, including conversions to a particular faith."

But it soon will be, inshallah.

[mastonson]

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

[Conchfritters]

They were probably doing this Iranian Christian a favor - fuck that place.

[Zeb]

Pretty sure it's still better than Iran.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

Agreed; garbage island

[Vernon Depner]

There is nothing in the Bible that exhorts contemporary believers to commit violence. The same cannot be said of Islam and the Koran.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

'My fairy tale can beat up your fairy tale' is always a charming argument, particularly among ostensible adults, most especially in a context of libertarianiasm. 'My fairy tale is the bestest ever, and can beat up every other fairy tale' is even more embarrassing for anyone older than 12 or so.

Carry on, clingers.

[Zeb]

Says the "Reverend" Mr. Idiot.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

He's a worthless piece of shit troll; they thrive and negative responses as it beats loneliness, if only by a little.

[Radioactive]

way too kind...

[Lurker Kurt]

Vern is merely comparing the contents of the fairy tales. One of them specifically condones conversion by the sword, discrimination against other faiths and has incentives for waging wars of religion. The other fairy tale has none of this.

Your troll game is weak. You need to skill up.

[SQRLSY One]

Oh yeah?!?!

God COMMANDS us to kill EVERYONE!

Our that them thar VALUES of society outta come from that them thar HOLY BIBLE, and if ya read it right, it actually says that God wants us to KILL EVERYBODY!!! Follow me through now: No one is righteous, NONE (Romans 3:10). Therefore, ALL must have done at least one thing bad, since they'd be righteous, had they never done anything bad. Well, maybe they haven't actually DONE evil, maybe they THOUGHT something bad (Matt. 5:28, thoughts can be sins). In any case, they must've broken SOME commandment, in thinking or acting, or else they'd be righteous. James 2:10 tells us that if we've broken ANY commandment, we broke them ALL. Now we can't weasel out of this by saying that the New Testament has replaced the Old Testament, because Christ said that he's come to fulfill the old law, not to destroy it (Matt. 5:17). So we MUST conclude that all are guilty of everything. And the Old Testament lists many capital offenses! There's working on Sunday. There's also making sacrifices to, or worshipping, the wrong God (Exodus 22:20, Deut. 17:2-5), or even showing contempt for the Lord's priests or judges (Deut. 17:12). All are guilty of everything, including the capital offenses. OK, so now we're finally there... God's Word COMMANDS us such that we've got to kill EVERYBODY!!!

[ace_m82]

*Facepalm*

Yes, We are all guilty of everything, and that implies death. However, you missed a few REALLY IMPORTANT verses.

"It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them." Deuteronomy 32:35

So, it's God's to do that (see the book of Revelation).

Also, you missed this one:

"These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the LORD, the God of your ancestors, has given you to possess--as long as you live in the land." Deuteronomy 12:1 (restated elsewhere)

So, though while those death penalties did apply, they applied only on God's land (Leviticus 25:23) to the ancient Jews. God's property, God's rules.

If you want to know more, I've been through this discussion many, MANY times.

[SQRLSY One]

William Shakespeare comes to mind... He had one character say to another, "The Devil, too, knows how to quote scripture".

The evil will do evil, and find verses to justify themselves. The kind and decent, will also find verses to justify themselves. So the Holy Books (of whatever kind) are only for academics, reference, and inspiration. They make lousy law-books. We really need but ONE law; "Love one another".

The rest is details. One of my fears is that some of the Scriptural Literalists can and will fall prey to the "wolves in sheep's clothing" among them, who decide what to do first, and consult the Scriptures later. Doing that is quite OK if you have a functioning conscience. If not... We're in trouble!

Well OK then, hopefully a short summary, to the point: "I'm just doing what the Bible tells me to do" is a prime method by which the "wolves in sheep's clothing" will trick us, if we worship the Bible too much, and "Love" too little! "I'm just doing what my conscience tells me to do" isn't as sexy or glamorous to some of us, but may often be considerably less dangerous.

[ace_m82]

I like nitpicking, so I'll do it a little.

The only way you could worship the Bible too much is to put it above God himself.

All one would have to do to show what the Bible says about love would be to search it for the word.

(1 Corinthians 13)

"I lavish unfailing love to a thousand generations."

"love your neighbor as yourself"

"Treat them like native-born Israelites, and love them as you love yourself. Remember that you were once foreigners living in the land of Egypt." (Hit an immigrant-phobe with that one.)

"And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength."

"For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

Etc...

[Radioactive]

the anti immigrant -phobe comment struck me as pretty sane, if they willing to live in slavery and build pyramids, they can stay...otherwise keep walking!

[SQRLSY One]

"Treat them like native-born Israelites, and love them as you love yourself. Remember that you were once foreigners living in the land of Egypt." (Hit an immigrant-phobe with that one.)

Yes,I like that one! We are all human beings, no matter where we were born!

[colorblindkid]

There is nothing in the "New Testament". The Old Testament has plenty. Jesus' life and teachings were like the polar opposite of Mohammed's.

[Agammamon]

There is nothing in the Bible that exhorts contemporary believers to commit violence.

Really?

*REALLY?*

[ace_m82]

Really, see above.

[Vernon Depner]

Yes, really. Unlike the Koran.

[Ken Shultz]

"The Home Office rejected the man's case, writing a letter to him citing violence and violent imagery in the Bible which it said "are inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a 'peaceful' religion, as opposed to Islam which contains violence, rage and revenge."

The writer of that letter doubts the sincerity of the applicant's conversion to Christianity because the the applicants says Christianity is peaceful and Islam is violent, and we might suspect that the writer of the letter was personally offended by this man's conversion. The writer at the Home Office may have been a Muslim. In the strict sense, a Muslim who converts to Christianity is a kafir.

"The term[3] refers to a person who rejects or disbelieves in God or the tenets of Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir

The writer of the letter may be a Muslim who considers it his duty to shun kafir.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Choose reason. Every time.

Childhood indoctrination fades as an excuse for gullibility, superstition, ignorance, and intolerance by age 12 or so. By ostensible adulthood it is no excuse.

Choose reason. And education, tolerance, science, progress, freedom, and modernity. This means avoiding bigotry, superstition, backwardness, authoritarianism, and insularity.

Choose reason. Be an adult.

Or, at least, try.

[Rich]

Well said.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

That doesn't even begin to comport with your usual and customary posts, asshole. Let's add hypocrite to your list of offenses.

[ace_m82]

That was one of the most hypocritical things I've ever read.

[Radioactive]

not to mention toots douchebaggy...

[0x1000]

Ahh, the new Kirkland is a man who practices tolerance and allows others their freedom. He certainly eschews bigotry and authoritarianism. This is a turning point in the ranks of the trolls of Reason.

[Eddy]

As even the letter-writer acknowledges, the issue is the sincerity of the conversion, not whether the state accepts the logic of the conversion.

In any case, even many of the non-pacifist versions of Christianity see war as a last, not a first resort.

[Eddy]

And the issue of the applicant's truthfulness is relevant to the question of whether he actually faces persecution as he claims.

If the Iranian government thinks this guy is a Muslim-turned-Christian, then that would make him a target for persecution, regardless of what kind of Christian he is.

[Agammamon]

What I don't get about this is - why would it matter?

1. Sure, Christianity is not a 'religion of peace' - though nowadays its a fairly peaceful one.

2. But being a Christian in a majority Muslim state, especially one that openly persecutes, still puts you in danger - even if you converted 'for the wrong reasons'. Hell, converting to the wrong sect of Islam can get you killed by your co-religionists. Christianity looks like frickin' Buddhism compared.

[ace_m82]

(From above)

Remember kids, "Christian" is self identified. It means "little Christ", or "Christ follower".

What did Christ command? "Do unto others..." Which is just NAP + doing good to others also!

So, Christianity is of peace, though people who call themselves "Christian" can say or do anything, because anyone can call themselves by a certain label.

[colternile]

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com