Saturday, 3 January 2015

PEGIDA's Christian-Democratic agenda

You'd need to be a professional political analyst to pick out the differences between PEGIDA's agenda, published in December, and the post-war caucus of German Christian Democrat party policy. The movement's logo makes quite clear where it stands; a swastika, hammer and sickle, anarchist banner and Islamic flag all tumble into a rubbish bin. The key manifesto points so hard for the liberal left to argue against include:-

  • The protection of Germany's Judeo-Christian culture
  • Tolerance toward assimilated and politically moderate Muslims
  • That war refugees should be welcomed in Germany
  • The current facilities for the housing of immigrants are inadequate and partly inhumane
  • Wants a fairer distribution of immigrants amongst EU nations
  • German immigration policy should be modelled on that of Australia and Switzerland
  • Foreigners should integrate into German society
  • Criminal immigrants and refugees should be promptly expelled
  • People should be free to determine their own sexuality 
Two of the organisation's tenets however run contrary to mainstream German political belief;
  • Islamism is a misogynist and violent ideology
  • Constraints on political speech imposed by gender mainstreaming or political correctness should be loosened
The first and second Enlightenments in Europe led us to abandon the literalism of the Old Testament; the world was not 4,000 years old but millions, eating lobster will not earn us eternal damnation, Darwin was right and Eden's serpent is just an allegory. Islam has never experienced such an enlightenment, and the literalism of the Koran is a matter of explicit and unquestioning belief for millions, amongst them the world's most illiterate and uneducated peoples. They dwell in darkness and ignorance. The mainstream parties must be brave enough to admit this explicitly; there is a huge difference between defending someone's right to spiritual faith and condoning their belief that stoning women to death for adultery is cool. If Muslims want to live in Europe, they must wholly adopt Europe's Enlightenment - and this means dropping the literalism of the Koran. That's it. That must be the deal.


Anonymous said...

The liberal left ("liberal" sounds so good when applied to politics doesn't it?) in our metropolitan elite just cannot square this circle. On the one hand (the hand that hasn't been cut off yet!) they espouse the freedom of violent Islam to come to our country and cause mayhem without sanction and on the other hand they espouse women's rights and gay rights. Doesn't work, does it?

Coney Island

G. Tingey said...

Unfortunately, even though your main drift is entirely true, one sentence stands out as only partly correct.

Here it is, with altered/inserted words IN CAPS...

Islam & MUCH OF CHRISTIANITY has never experienced such an enlightenment, and the literalism of the Koran OR THE BIBLE is a matter of explicit and unquestioning belief for millions, amongst them the world's most illiterate and uneducated peoples.

If you think this is wrong, try defending the factual basis of evolution in many parts of the USA, or arguing with this recently-decorated primitive christian fuckwit :

Any dispute with that, on a factual basis only, will be welcomed.
No shouting about how wonderful your particular version of BigSkyFairy-worship, is, please?

DeeDee99 said...

There is little hope for an Islamic Enlightenment, as this article demonstrates. The right to marry a baby girl "in the cradle" and rape her as soon as she is strong enough to bear a man's weight is endorsed by the Grand Mufti in Saudi Arabia

It should ALWAYS have been a condition of immigration to the West that immigrants (regardless of their religion) adopt the laws and customs of their new country. But our liberal Establishment have never required that: instead deliberately promoting multiculturalism and failing to take action against violent, cultural practices and religious extremism.

They aren't going to change that now. They're too terrified of the religion they call "peaceful" and its violent adherents.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

Lobster? Who knew?

Thanks Radders, every day's an education!

Raedwald said...

WY - Old Leviticus didn't like lobster. Or prawns. Or squid. Eels were out, and oysters, mussels and scallops could get you killed;

"11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

Cascadian said...

"If Muslims want to live in Europe, they must wholly adopt Europe's Enlightenment - and this means dropping the literalism of the Koran. That's it. That must be the deal.".......which means the centres of radicalisation commonly known as mosques have to go, and tolerance of the Saudis has to be extinguished.

Since Europe is now a windmill economy dependent on Russia and Saudi Arabia for survival your hopes are futile and honest people expounding a different view of how they wish to live must be villified.

Coney Island's comment is well made, where are the Home Office-funded gay and wimmins groups who were so loud in the gay marriage debate? Surely these brave warriors would not desert the cause of gays and wimmin everywhere-snort!

Ps John Waller said...

Meanwhile back on earth...Western culture did not benefit from an enlightenment nearly so much as it benefited from a Reformation. This was a return to the Bible not a departure from it.

History has shown that wherever the Bible is revered there is greater freedom and enhanced human flourishing. Conversely wherever the scriptures are rejected tyranny soon follows.

The communists might have taught us all of this, but we are in the process of learning it for ourselves anyway but the hard way.

Raedwald said...

So no Lobster then, John?


Anonymous said...

My understanding of religious dietary laws for Muslims and Jews is that the latter are stricter, so that while crustacea are forbidden to Jews they are not to Muslims, and while Camel is acceptable to Muslims as transport, food and love-interest, Jews cannot munch on a camel butty.

Tingey has a thing about Christianity, and although I'm no lover of the BSF myself, even the most extreme version of it is more benign than the extreme branch of Islam, so we are comparing spectra not absolutes.

Old Testament dietary regulations apply to Jews. Jesus's clearing of the temple and various other pronouncements and acts are metaphors for the rejection of the unnecessary parts of Judaism ('supersessionism').

We often hear of US southern Christians rejecting 'evolution', but this is an extreme sect, whereas it is mainstream Islam.

Anonymous said...

halal and kosher dietary laws are there to prevent food poisoning,shellfish and pork go off rapidly in the ME climate.Today in Israel you can buy pork under the name of white beef,with the advent of modern food storage and preperation the old rules make a lot less sense.

Cascadian said...

Unlike camoron, obama, merkel and the other appeasers this man knows whereof he speaks.

G. Tingey said...

Ps J Waller
NOT if you were a resident of Geneva.
Jean Calvin was seriously not a nice person.
A "return" to biblical literalaism - is precisely what drives nutters like the one I linked to earlier.
Sorry, go back to the beginning & start AGAIN!

I have "a thing" about RELIGION - I merely happen to know most about christianity, because I'm an escaped one - but I have read the "recital" ( NOT recommended, btw)
& cobblers -see my remarks on Calvin, above ...

Cascadian's link is well worth the read - truly startling stuff.

Budgie said...

G Tingey, you flatter yourself. You know remarkably little of the etiology of Christianity or even religion. You continue to use descriptors of value without the slightest ground.

As for Creationism vs Darwinism, there are so many holes in the theory of evolution solely on Earth, whichever flavour you adopt, that clearly Creationism is a a better bet. However I tend to favour Panspermia, whilst recognising that theory just puts off the evil day.

I always like Sir Fred Hoyles story -
Scientist: "And so the Earth floats in Space orbiting the Sun"
Old lady: "No, the Earth rests on a turtle"
Scientist (humouring old lady): "So what is the turtle resting on?"
Old lady: "On another turtle"
Scientist: "So what is that turtle resting on?"
Old lady: "You can't fool me mister, it's turtles all the way down".

G. Tingey said...

GROW UP, please ..
Or go & get a science education - it's all too plain that you haven't a clue.
The fact that you refer to the entire body of evolutionary studies as "Darwinism" is itself a give-away.
We don't call Physics: "Newtonianism" do we?

Elby the Beserk said...

Tingey - have you READ Calvin? If not, on what do you base your judgement of him?

Elby the Beserk said...

Calling Mr. Tingey...