Episode 148 – English Weddings and English Signs

Episode 148 – English Weddings and English Signs

We discuss the test case against School Chaplains and The Fist identifies a possible problem. We give you a different take on the Royal Wedding ceremony and Hugh and The 12th Man gang up against The Fist over English signs and banning books that incite violence.

A legal challenge to School Chaplains

Ruddock review delivers final report to government, which will be released shortly. Peter Dutton begins beating the drums.

Royal wedding – thoughts

A transcript of Bishop Curry’s speech

If you’ve ever wondered why the Western world put the United States in charge of popular music some time in the second half of the 20th century, have a look at the Eurovision Song Contest.

A council wants English language signs

More on book burning – Teaching manuals in Gulf Arab-financed mosques in Belgium promote anti-semitic stereotypes of Jews and call for the persecution of homosexuals, according to a leaked Belgian intelligence report.

What exactly is modest about dressing in such a way that everyone, man or woman can’t help but stare at you?

2018 has been deadlier for schoolchildren than service members

Since 1968, more Americans have been killed by guns than have been killed in all wars in U.S. history

How do you define success?  What are your goals for the podcast?

From a listener – Your most recent episode is the most hair-brained, left-wing pinko episode I’ve listened to yet. So mad I’m going to have to write an email response outlining all of the nonsense … but very entertaining

 Henry Ford – The Fist says “I told you so”

One comment on “Episode 148 – English Weddings and English Signs
  1. The Iron Fist says:

    I received this comment from listener Janelle – Great episode as always guys. We shouldn’t outright ban the Qur’an or mandate that the sword verses be censored. The 12th man is right, this book is already out there, its futile to think you can censor it in the age of the Internet. Yet I agree that we should not allow speech that intentionally or recklessly incites violence. How do I reconcile this? I would argue that people publishing, using or quoting from the Qur’an (or Mein Kampf, The Bible etc) do not necessarily do so with the intention of inciting violence. The authors of ISIS’s magazine Dabiq ARE obviously trying to incite violence, to encourage the murder of infidels, and they should be guilty of an offence. Likewise ISIS sympathisers republishing and distributing it may be guilty of terrorism offences. But then we have many commentators (e.g. Clarion Project, Sam Harris, various journalists) who have quoted from or republished Dabiq articles in full. Clearly their intent is not to incite violence but to show Western audiences the mindset of a jihadist, to better understand this group and their ideology. For a similar reason we should never ban the shitty bits of the Qur’an and Hadith – how could we in Australia possibly understand and interpret the behaviour of Islamic countries – killing atheists, whipping adulterers, executing gays – armed only with cherry picked and sanitised versions of the Qur’an & Hadith? The “Nothing to do with Islam” brigade would have a field day – even now they don’t want to admit that the actions of jihadists groups have any connection to Islamic doctrine. How can we understand the dynamics of domestic violence in Muslim communities if surah 4:34 gets excised from the official version available to researchers and social workers in Australia? Changing our laws about what can be published here is not going to make an iota of difference to anyone who believes the book is perfect and inerrant. They will keep reading the original text. The only thing we are doing is hiding the problem by presenting a sanitised version of the Qur’an and pretending this is the one everyone reads. Pslam 137:9 “Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock” as horrible as it sounds, is interpreted as the yearnings of the Jewish people in exile, expressing a violent fantasy of revenge against the Babylonians. It is not interpreted by any religious group in the modern era as a commandment to kill the kids. If this psalm is read aloud in a Catholic Mass, I cannot see how it would be construed as incitement. The whole congregation would probably be very alarmed if the priest didn’t follow it up with an explanation of the historical context. On the other hand, if the priest followed up the Psalm with a sermon that this was a commandment, and encouraged his congregation to kill their kids, then this would clearly be incitement to violence. The Qur’an is more difficult because the orthodox Islamic view is that the Qur’an is inerrant, perfect and “uncreated” – there is less scope for progressive apologists to argue that the Qur’an should be understood within a historical context when it is believed to be eternal. Yet still, despite the horror of many verses and their supposed “inerrancy”, somehow the majority of Muslims around globe do not spend their days slaying the polytheists wherever they find them. Clearly there are some non-violent ways to interpret the text (or at least to call yourself a Muslim while ignoring inconvenient verses). On the other hand: – A sheik who lectures about the sword verses or the hadith about killing Jews, and argues that they should be understood literally and are still relevant today, should be guilty of incitement. – The publisher of a new edition of the Qur’an with a preface that encourages the reader to enforce the sharia punishment of death for apostasy and sodomy, is guilty of incitement. – Even someone who does as little as putting up a poster with Quran 9:5 on it, if their intent was to encourage other Muslims to hurt some Hindus or Yazidi in the neighbourhood, or if they had reckless disregard for that consequence, that’s incitement. Someone who publishes and examines these horrible verses in a religious studies journal, or analyses them linguistically, or an ex-Muslim who publishes them to criticise them, is not going to be guilty of incitement. You can’t have a blanket ban on a text because they are used for all sorts of purposes that have nothing to do with inciting violence. Intention and context matter. Under my definition, there are probably a fair few Islamic preachers guilty of incitement in Australia today – and I think that is the correct outcome. I don’t want the censors pen on their holy book, but they had better start cherry picking like mad and considering historical context instead of citing the sword verses approvingly and preaching a literal, violent version of the faith. I don’t make any exceptions for “genuinely held religious belief” – a religious belief should not trump any other type of genuinely held belief.

Leave a Reply

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


Regular per episode donations

One off donations