Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ comity

September 27, 2023 • 9:15 am

Today’s Jesus and Mo strip, called cover 2, is an oldie, but is given new relevance by the news revealed in the description:

A flashback to 2009 today, in light of recent developments in the UK.

First, the strip, in which the Divine Duo immediately break their promise to the barmaid:

And the link: a new report from the National Secular Society (click screenshot to read):

An excerpt:

One in seven local authorities has adopted a definition of ‘Islamophobia’ rejected by the government over free speech concerns, a new Civitas report has revealed.

In 2018, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims defined Islamophobia as “rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. The definition has now been adopted by all major UK political parties except the Conservatives.

The National Secular Society has opposed the APPG definition from the outset on the grounds that it conflates legitimate criticism of Islamic doctrine with racism, thereby creating a de facto blasphemy code.

The Civitas report, authored by journalist Hardeep Singh, reveals over 15% of local authorities in England have now adopted the APPG definition. It also highlights how NSS lobbying successfully resulted in Lancashire and Aberdeenshire councils voting against the adoption of the definition.

As the Civitas report notes, the UK government has rejected this definition of “Islamophobia” because it violates free speech. And it does, at least if you construe Free Speech in the American First-Amendment way.  In fact, even if you define “Islamophobia” as it is often (and improperly) used, as “an unwarranted fear of Islam”, that’s still free speech.  (If you have an unreasonable fear of Muslims themselves, it should be “Muslimophobia”.)

But the definition adopted by 1/7th of local authorities is worse, because it can easily be construed as “fear of Muslim doctrine”, which, as the NSS points out, is not “racism”, but a form of anti-theism.  Since this flawed definition has “been adopted by all major UK political parties except the Conservatives”, I call on the Labour Party in particular to rescind this definition.

They won’t, of course.

14 thoughts on “Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ comity

  1. Religions are right wing and misogynistic. How muslims can successfully coerce left wing and centrist parties to protect their religion’s interests is beyond me. These parties should be concerned with women’s rights first, way ahead of religion’s rights.

  2. By the APPG definition, those of us who are against theism are defined as:
    Islamophobic, Catholic-phobic, Protestant-phobic, Jewish-phobic, etc.

  3. The definition of Islamophobia as anti-Muslim racism is absurd, since the Muslims are not a race but a multiracial, multinational, and multiethnic religious community.
    (I know the Nazis regarded the Jews as a race, speaking of “die jüdische Rasse”/”the Jewish race”; but their doing so was absurd too.)

    1. I would argue that Muslims are not a religious community. Like a lot of large religions, they have their schisms and these schisms often turned out to be very deadly for ordinary people caught on the wrong side of the line.

  4. “…Islamophobia as “rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.”

    For example, it follows from this definition that all those are guilty of Islamophobia who (like me) demand that female Muslim teachers at public schools don’t wear hijabs for the sake of religious neutrality in their role as teachers.

  5. “The definition has now been adopted by all major UK political parties except the Conservatives.”

    That definition results from what is called “islamo-gauchisme” (“Islamo-leftism”) in France, which term refers to the strange political alliance between (certain) leftists and Islamists. The woke left regards the Muslims as a major victim group that must be protected against all forms of “Islamophobia”.

    1. How can Muslims be protected against all forms of an “irrational fear of Islam” ? Islamophobia.
      Those who fear Islam need the protection. Islam causes the fear.

  6. I’ve always felt that “islamophobia” is a non-accusation towards myself. I’m an atheist—what do you expect? Of course I’m going to criticize your religion, just like all the rest. But it dawns on me that this will be no defense at all, as Islam is special.*

    *For values of special involving beheadings, hi-jackings and explosive vests. It is fear, and nothing else.

  7. Hydrophobia doesn’t mean a ‘fear’ of water … it refers to an ‘aversion’ to water.

    According to the Chambers Dictionary of Etymology, the word is first attested in Middle English in 1392 in the form ydroforbia, but it is first attested in the standard modern spelling of hydrophobia in the sixteenth century. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) identifies hydrophobia as the model for all subsequently coined words in English that use the suffix -phobia.

    Phobia’s original use as a suffix meant ‘aversion’.

    1. I have an aversion to Islam. It’s primitive superstitious woo (just like all the other religions) and it causes a lot of harm to people.

      In that sense, I am islamophobic, but what of it?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *