HOW CHURCHILL RESPECTED ISLAM AND OTHER RELIGIONS

HOW CHURCHILL RESPECTED ISLAM AND OTHER RELIGIONS

In February 1945, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was in Egypt and wanted  to discuss with the Saudi King ibn Saud a definitive and lasting settlement between Arabs and Jews.

Churchill was told that the King would not allow drinking or smoking in his presence. Churchill recorded:

"I was the host and I said that if it was his religion that made him say such things, my religion prescribed as an absolute sacred ritual smoking cigars and drinking alcohol before, after, and if need be, during, all meals and the intervals between. Complete surrender." Churchill by Himself, p353.

Jihad9: Muhammad, Schuman and the Limits to Free Speech

On 7 January 2015, France, Europe and the West were faced with people who killed rather than let journalists expose an unpopular truth. Shouting ‘Allah is great‘, three gunmen with automatic weapons launched an attack on the satirical publication, Charlie Hebdo, killing a dozen journalists and others and wounding many more.
News sources recorded reactions of horror. Almost immediately there were also reactions of joy and congratulations at the killings and woundings.  ‘This news quenches the thirst for revenge,’ said one. ‘France was [once] part of the land of Islam and will return to be the land of Islam‘ said another. Some newspapers in Turkey and elsewhere blamed the deaths on the journalists themselves.
Who is responsible for the cold-blooded murders? It was not the pope’s Vatican Swiss guard armed with pikes or orthodox Jews wielding prayer books that sent a death squad. Both the pope and Jews were satirized mercilessly by Charlie Hebdo. What are the limits to what I can say? Can I criticize just the blameworthy, murderous religious leaders and expose them and their books as frauds?

The duty of every human being is to search and find the truth about himself and about society. It is a fundamental to life. Each individual also has the duty before God to seek the truth about the Creation and the Creator.
Truth is not only the foundation of a stable society. It is the enemy of dictatorships, rascals, mafias, conspiracies and villains. The pantheistic Roman emperors decreed that British and Gaulish druidic Kelts should be put to death if found in Rome. Why? They worshipped one supreme being and began all their meetings with their recitation: ‘Truth against the world!‘ Julius Caesar records with some consternation that at their colleges in Britain they trained their youth in sciences, theology and philosophy for twenty years. Rome also decided to destroy all the Jews, and then Christianity. Instead it was pagan Rome that collapsed.
Today, in certain societies it is not always wise to speak the truth out loud. On the southern flank of the Mediterranean from the Atlantic to Egypt and Gaza, it is difficult to find a free distribution of the Bible in Arabic. Under Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, curiously underwritten by the EU, Coptic Christians were islamized by force, or even crucified. Bible shops were burnt. Further east, Christians are killed as soon as they are identified as such by the Islamic State. Thus the attack is much deeper and broader than just a ‘freedom of speech‘ issue.
Democracies should be different.
Democracies, according to Robert Schuman, the founder of the European Community, are based on Judeo-Christian principles. The search for truth requires both tolerance and the means to exchange information, knowledge and wisdom. His own life experience also showed an intolerance to those, like the Nazis and Communists, who used the tolerance of democracies to subvert them.
What are the limits to free speech? This is what Schuman wrote in Pour l’Europe, p75.

In an authentic democracy, there is but one limit to freedom: the institutions of the State and society must remain protected from violence and from destructive operations. Every reform, every claim can be not only the object of free discussion, but by individuals or collective activities in relation to public authorities in the framework foreseen by law.

Violence must be outlawed, not discussion. What then is the end result of this ‘free discussion‘? Will it lead to confusion, disputes, anarchy? Clearly not. Nor did Schuman mean the rootless, modern liberalism that would not recognize truth if it stared it in the face. Because someone declares an opinion to be true, does not make it true. Discussion cannot be stopped by ‘political censorship‘ by declaring a topic to be not ‘politically correct‘. Truth has to be tested. Both the Kelts and the Jews demonstrated the method.
Democracies are instruments to search for what Schuman called supranational values: justice, truth, science and authentic communalities that bring together a Community.
US Secretary of State John Kerry said: ‘Today’s murders are part of a larger confrontation, not between civilizations – no – but between civilization itself and those who are opposed to a civilized world.’
What is this ‘civilization‘? It involves rational, patient discussion, and the analysis of all dogma. How does one judge what is dogma and what is truth? Schuman continued:

There is no place here for the sort of dogmatism that can only be claimed by unchangeable and absolute truths, revealed and sanctioned by God, who is the unique Master and Judge of our consciences.

The killing of those who trouble consciences is a heinous violation of this principle.
Schuman further warned of the dangers of theocracy, the combination of religion and politics.

Theocracies fail to recognize the principle of separation of the spiritual and the profane. A theocracy causes a religious idea to take on responsibilities that do not belong to it. Under such a regime political differences are likely to degenerate into a religious fanaticism. Holy war is the most dangerous expression of a bloody exploitation of people’s religious proclivities. (p65)

Those like the Muslim Brotherhood who make an idol of the Koran make the double mistake: that of the book’s infallibility and that of confounding the realms of religion and politics into Sharia law. That governs every aspect of a human’s life. It includes death as a slave for Allah as its highest aspiration. The Egyptian people could not stomach the Muslim Brotherhood or Morsi’s deceit.
Recently, President of Egypt al-Sisi told Egypt’s top clerics and scholars at Cairo’s Al-Azhar university that they must change their {political} ideology and bring the seventh-century religion up-to-datAe with realities. The ideology had become ‘hostile to the entire world.‘ He asked: ‘Is it conceivable that 1.6 billion Muslims would kill the world’s population of 7 billion, so they could live on their own?‘
What of those who believe the Koran is written in heaven and has intolerance to kaffirs (unbelievers) written as its marching orders? Such beliefs in a movement started by an illiterate person cannot be much countered rationally by other uneducated, illiterate people. Islamic and Arabic countries are among those with the highest levels of illiteracy. Saudi Arabia did not have a single high school until 1930. (But it had the petroleum the West needed!)

For a ‘civilized person‘ to follow Koranic texts without understanding their context and after logical and historical analysis is as illogical as to assume that two, out-of context Christian texts such as ‘Judas went and hanged himself‘ and ‘Go thou and do likewise‘ represent the essence of a well-founded religion.

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services0

Jihad8: Before acting 'like a monkey with a grenade,' EU should get facts straight on Syrian poison gas attacks

Why is the United States rushing to take military action in Syria BEFORE it has ascertained the facts from the United Nations chemical warfare specialists? The US alleges that the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad has exploded chemical weapons with poison gas just a few kms east of Damascus at Ghouta in disputed suburbs of Jobar, Zamalka and Ein Tarma and possibly several others to the south. What will more deaths by US missiles achieve among those like al Nusra/Qaeda who say they 'love death more than life'?

There is no doubt, said US Vice-President Biden, that the Assad regime was responsible. They have the weapons and the means to deliver them, he said. US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said that the US military was ‘ready’ to attack. ‘I think the intelligence will conclude that it wasn’t the rebels who used it, and there will probably be pretty good intelligence to show that the Syria government was responsible,’ he told the BBC. This conclusion was reached before the UN inspectors were given safe passage to view the site and collect materials. Secretary of State Kerry said on Monday 26 August that there was ‘undeniable’ evidence of a large-scale chemical weapons attack on several towns in the Ghouta area. U.S. intelligence, he said, strongly points to Assad’s government as the guilty party. Even if they have intercept correspondence, does this mean that only one side is responsible for poison gas? What are the facts?

1. The timing is suspicious. This latest chemical attack took place on Wednesday 21 August at the time when UN chemical warfare experts had just arrived there to investigate another alleged chemical attack dating back to March. Assad had agreed to talks with rebels. Now they are off. That does not appear to be to Assad’s benefit. The USA said military action was needed immediately. Then Assad agreed to open up the path for inspectors on the 21 August attack. This did not change US policy. The US and UK do not appear to want the results of the UN inspectors investigations.

2. The alleged culprit is dubious. Carla Del Ponte, member of the UN investigating panel on Syrian war crimes, former prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, uncovered evidence from casualties and medical staff pointing to ‘strong, concrete suspicions‘ that the rebels, not Assad, were responsible for this March attack. ‘This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.’ A White House spokesman for President Obama disagreed. He said it was likely that President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, not the rebels, were behind any chemical weapons use. After this debunking by UN Senior investigator Carla Del Ponte, the US ceased its insistence on a military attack as response to the loss of life by the poison gas attack.

3. Both sides have chemical arms. Assad’s ambassador told the UN in July that rebels had captured chemical stock. Russia supplied the UN with 80 pages of evidence that can be analyzed. Videos show the Free Syria Army using sarin or poison gas and Saudi chemicals uncovered earlier at Jabar by Assad forces.

4. Neither side are Sunday school teachers. They cheat, lie, and ruthlessly kill opponents. Christians are being crushed. The rebels include foreign jihadis, funded heavily from the Sunni oil States. EU-banned terrorists such as Lebanon’s HezbAllah and Iranian forces like the Revolutionary Guards help Assad while vicious, infidel-hating al-Qaeda groups like Jabhat al-Nusra lead the rebels. Qataris have poured some 3 billions dollars to aid the rebels and Saudi Arabia has supplied arms. The Saudis are now the biggest funder of the rebels. The Assad regime is non-sectarian and various religions have cohabited in Syria.

5. The haste is uncalled for. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Rogozin warned the West against acting like a ‘monkey with a hand grenade.’ The Russians also warn against action that has no known forensic evidence to condemn the alleged perpetrator and without UN Security Council accord.

6. Facts are weak. Estimates of fatalities at Ghutta are uncertain. They range from 100 to 1300 people. Why such a hugely uncertain body count? Where are the bodies buried? Russian Foreign Minister Lazrov criticized US impetuosity and scorn for facts: ‘They cannot produce evidence, but keep on saying that the ‘red line’ has been crossed and they cannot wait any longer,’ he said Monday, 26 August. Russian State TV has shown Syrian videos of actors playing the part of victims, being daubed with blood, before shots were taken of the ‘dead’.

7. The timing is politically suspicious. The outcome of this latest chemical weapon attack was the postponement of peace talks between Assad and the mixed-bag ‘Free Syrian Army’. It plays into the hand of the hardliners, paid for by Qataris and other oil-rich Sunnis who want to use every means to remove Assad and his clique. ‘No compromise’ plays into the hand of violent extreme jihadis.

8. The outcome could be catastrophic for Europe. The EU is the world’s largest economic power. It will be deeply affected by Jihadis igniting the Syrian-Lebanese tinder box which will then explode across Israel, Gaza and Egypt. Why has the EU not at least had proper debates in national, European parliament and in the United Nations? Western experts have diverse views on the video evidence some pointing to obvious fraud. The conflict has all the nature of a sectarian dispute between Sunnis, Shiites and the numerous Islamic sects that Jihadis cannot tolerate. These include Ismailis, Twelver Shias, Sufis, Druzes, Yazdis and Bahai.
Syria has a delicate balance of religious populations. The ruling clique is Alawite, a secretive Islamic sect associated with the Shiites. It makes up around 11 percent of the people.  However 60 per cent of the population are Sunni. Christians of various persuasions amount to 13 percent. The Jews which were numerous for thousands of years now reduced to a few hundred.

9. The motivation of the US is unclear. The American leaders are not religious illiterates. President Obama was raised a Sunni Muslim in Indonesia. His father and step-father were both Muslims. His brother Malik Obama is actively propagating Islamic ‘da’wa’ that is the conversion of infidels and infidel countries to Islam. He works with President of Sudan Omar al-Bashir, classified by the USA as a State Sponsor of Terror. Key figures in the Obama security administration have served in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries.

It seems bizarre that the USA is rooting now on the side of just one faction in the Syrian civil war. That side involves Jabhat al Nusra a jihadist Sunni organization, a clone of Al Qaeda. Why on earth would USA support al Qaeda-led rebels against the Shiite Alawite regime of Bashur al Assad?

The EU is founded on religious tolerance, free speech that extends to critical analysis of religious opinions.

The Middle East has been devastated of its Christians from Iraq to the Palestinian Authority and Gaza. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, the leader of the worldwide Anglican church, said we are living in ‘terribly, terribly dangerous times‘. He warned that military intervention could have catastrophic unseen consequences. There are ‘numerous intermediate steps’ between doing nothing and regime change, said Welby who has toured the Middle East and Africa seeking paths for reconciliation.

• Western experts have questioned video that shows unreal white foaming at the mouth. They say that poison gas would produce a yellow retching foam or one covered with blood.
• Victim do not show characteristic pinpoint eyes after poisoning. Sarin is doubted. Little evidence of convulsions or secondary contamination.
• No people attending ‘poisoned’ people had protective clothing.
• No doctors seem affected by poison gas with no reported fatalities among doctors or medical staff.
• Some videos were, according to Russian authorities, broadcast before the  alleged time of the attack!
• Body evidence and numbers remain untestified.

How can the EU cut through the disinformation to the real facts? The European Community system set up by Robert Schuman initiated a scientific centre so that scientific facts can be distinguished from political and ideological narratives. Science is one of those supranational values on which the European Community is based. The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre has been called in to investigate frauds in all areas of European life. An escalating Syrian and Middle Eastern religious war will cost all Europeans dear. The JRC should be asked immediately to investigate fraud in video evidence, in medical evidence and chemical analysis. European citizens require this action!

12 Cyprus-2 Should an Asian island be part of Europe?

For centuries Europeans have argued: where are the limits of Europe? Professors and writers have battled on the subject. So have armies. Europe as a political and organisational entity would never exist if citizens had had to wait for experts, academics and politicians to agree.

"The definition of Europe as a geographical entity has long been a topic of academic debate," Robert Schuman told a meeting of foreign ministers and ambassadors in London’s prestigious St James’s Palace. "But Europe cannot wait for the end of a seemingly interminable discussion. She will define herself by herself by the willingness of her populations."

Schuman was speaking at the signing of the statutes of the Council of Europe on 5 May 1949. By their votes and those in their parliaments, Europeans began defining Europe. France, under Schuman’s premiership, had been largely responsible for the creation of this, Europe’s first international democratic institution. It allowed European citizens through their elected ministers and their politicians to express European public opinion and democratically define policies of cooperation.

Thus Europe's ultimate borders are defined in the minds of Europeans and an act of political will about human rights and fundamental freedoms. (See Holocaust2 Human Rights vs Final Solution) The adherence to these principles in the Human Rights convention are the touchstone of being European.

Robert Schuman’s initiative helped break the centuries-long log-jam made by wars, competition and dominating sovereignties. Europe would be defined, he said, through a democratic act of will of its citizens mutually reinforcing humane, moral values for peaceful development.

More than half a century later, some politicians have reopened the ‘interminable’ debate. They insist that states and citizens of the European Union, must conform to their definition of European geography and their concept of history. It is too late to turn back the clock. The Founding Fathers would not agree with the statement of a politician that European "geography sets the frame."

In May 2004, Cyprus became a full member. In its "geographical frame," it is not in Europe. It is entirely in Asia. Up to 1878, Cyprus was part of Turkey's Asian Ottoman empire. Over the thousands of years of its history, Cyprus had been part of the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian empires. When it was part of the Egyptian empire, it did not become African. Nor did its geography change later when conquered by Roman plots and arms. Some argue that because its culture is "European," it is part of Europe. But that would make Australia and the USA equally "European". In 1961 Cyprus became "European" when it joined the Council of Europe. Member States agreed with this definition. It was voted in all parliaments of the European Union. Greece and Turkey together became members of the Council years earlier, in 1949.

Europe's Asian footprint is now irreversible. This is not an accident. 'Europe' has long had irreversibly global geography. The official map of the European Union shows that its legal borders already extend to Africa and the Americas too. The French departments of Reunion (Africa) and Guyane (South America) Guadeloupe and Martinique are internal territory of the EU, as are the African islands of Portuguese Madeira and the Spanish Canaries.

It is the act of will or consciousness which Robert Schuman mentioned that decides the "limits of Europe" in today’s fashionable term. Schuman had a broader vision right from the start. ‘Europe’ is a dynamic project, not an empire or state. It was concerned with what he called Europeans duty to prevent "global suicide."

This may sound a vague and imprecise hope to some politicians and academics but in fact it has a solid intellectual basis which is little discussed today. It has real power. It is stronger than armies. The philosophical and scientific concepts he enunciated in the 1940s are the driving force of today’s enlargement process. He predicted it would be so, based on logical deduction. It created "a well spring of unexploited energies to take advantage of," he told the Council of Europe in 1950. He said that on the occasion he presented to the Consultative Assembly the details of the Schuman Plan, creating the European Community.

Schuman supported the Turkish adhesion to the European values of the Community system. He also made clear that northern, central and eastern European countries, including Russia, must be considered "European" when they embrace European values. These involved supranational rule of law protecting democracy and the human rights and fundamental freedoms.

These include not only freedom of speech but the freedom to hold a religion. Most importantly for any community based on supranational --that is eternal -- values it assures the right to change one's religion without let or hindrance. The Community is focused on a long-term democratic debate on moral improvement including personal values like truth and honesty and society values for physical, mental and spiritual health.

Schuman, together with the foreign ministers of the other European states, signed this Convention on 4 November 1950. The Council established working relationships with other democracies like Australia and New Zealand. And importantly for the future, it sustained and supported democracies under pressure and aspiring for more freedom like Finland and Israel.

The real difficulties of today’s debate arise only when people misconceive Schuman's Community system as a club leading to a super-state or federation. These politicians want to be the leader, whether wanted or not. This is a major intellectual block in discussions; people still talk in terms of federations and confederations while Schuman, a lawyer and constitutional expert, announced in the 1940s that he was about to create a third, system, the supranational, totally new in practice and in the history of political constitutions. Schuman's design was aimed at strengthening the open practice of democracy and the guarantees of the rule of law. He intended the impact of this supranational, democratic revolution to be planetary.