Is Jack Straw a racist for requesting that women remove their veils?

[magicfarawaytree]

just watching the news. didnt personally think he had done anything terrible in asking.

nearly3, sorry was not being serious.

Am not new age, not pagan.

Its my dd who believes in God and Fairies

many years ago when I was at school (C of E as it happens) we had a philosophical debate on the difference between knowledge & belief.
It never did have a clear answer.

I like the idea of putting on a census form that you have no beliefs, I wouldn't believe that

phantomCAM, so does mine! And why not? I think any spirituality is something to treasure. If you go to the Religion topic you'll see a lot of people go for the New Agey stuff, and it's not hard to see why given how crap everything is atm. I probably sound like a wet relativist but I truly don't care.

Yes, absolutely, I have no religion or supertitious beliefs at all. I do not have a 'belief system'. Don't want one, don't need one. I think the term atheism is a bit silly really as it confuses people. Why should there be a term for not believing in gods? There isn't a special term for people who don't beleive in fairies or astrology, is there?

I see you do not believe in dragons. Logically if you define not believing in something as a belief system, then this has to be your belief system.

MB, my kowledge of the Shia belief is sketchy, I think they believe that mantle of rule sohuld have passed on to the nearest blood relative of the Prophet(pbuh) after him.
It was also a shia who killed the Prophets (pbuh) grandson, and they self flagellate on the anniversary of his martyrdom. He lies in Kerbala, hence it being a holy place of pilgrimage for shi'as.

This is by no means an experts description.

Dinoetc (do you have the longest name on mumsnet?)

Yes the perception that the army were impartial in N.Ireland changed, hence the belief by some that the IRA were freedom fighters not terrorists I suppose.

Were there 'occupying' army forces in Afghanistan or Iraq before September 11th? I don't think I made a point of finding out why the terrorists did what they did.

Also curious to have a muslims answer to nearlythrees question please?

And anyway, atheism is not a 'rejection' of God. In order for that to happen there must necessarily be a belief in God to start with. Or at least a belief in God must be a norm. We are all born atheists. We gain faith or are taught about god(s) as part of our socialisation.

hooleymama, in answer to your questions

1. Only around Halloween time, I go back to being dinosaur therefter (at least until Christmas, when I may change again)

1. For really good background on the rise of militant Islam, read Jason Burke's book "Al-Qaeda". And also very good, and a slightly easier read, for the background (not just 9/11, bur much wider) to why the US went into Afghanistan, his book "The Road to Kandahar" is very good.

slug do you really think we are all born atheist? How do you know? People think that religion is something that people are indoctrinated with but alot of people come to the conclusion themselves that a being created us. I have friends who were absolute confirmed atheists, could not see the need for religion, they knew the difference between right and wrong etc but suddenly they had an experience of God and became very devout Muslims (possiblsy the same has happened with some Christians). Yusuf Islam's (formerly Cat Stevens') experience is somewhat like this.

thanks dinosaur..does it include info. about the US support of the mujahaddin during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan..(talk about their tactics coming back to bite them).

Well, it's obvious to me that we are NOT born muslim or christian or 'knowing god' and that it is social because people only believe what they are told about by other people. ie people in ancient greece believed in ancient greek gods (which nobody believes in now, save maybe three people on earth, not in Allah, and so on. They believed in the god of their peers.

"Al-Qaeda" does, yes.

There is a theory that humans are vulnerable to superstition & religion because we want to make sense of things we don't understand. I even read about a genetic susceptibility to belief.

sorrell-

temporal lobe and religious experiences

hooleymama and Nearlythree.
Muslims, just like within any other religions are all different.
Most of the Muslims I know are generally more tolerant and relaxed.
I think The Muslim Council of Britain does try but its really difficult for them as ignorant Muslims think they are pandering and more relaxed Muslims aren't actually interested in Islamic politics.

Sorry, should have said 'aren't active in Islamic politics' rather than interested.

To me at least the belief in god is something I came to realise just by observing how perfectly the world is balanced by all the things in and around it. I cant just imagine that this was a result of one big bang. When I had by DS it reallly put life into perspective. For me religion isnt some something i rely on for the things i dont see but really to explain the things I do

Well, a big bang followed by millions of years of evolution is probably a better description of what scientists believe....

Sana, what is the Muslim line on evolution? I am embarrassed to admit I have no idea!

hi wintersun
News reports constantly talk of 'community leaders' and that's my perception of the muslim council. A bunch of people who are respected enough to have an influence.
When you say moderates are disinterested in politics doesn't that leave the way open for an energetic extremist minority?
Is it possible to be tolerant and to care enough to be politically active or does tolerance equate to apathy as Dominiconnor implied earlier?
At what point does caring about an issue become intolerance?

Catching up with this thread and saw a reference to the temporal lobe, so perhaps things have moved on, but saw this .

hooleymama there is no actualy 'body' that speaks for all muslims.

Which I think makes it diffcult, when there are constant demands for muslims to denounce the terrorists within!!!!

ie (please correct me if I'm wrong), but I get the idea that probably the pope would be considered the person to speak for Catholics, and by the same note I should think the king/Queen of england would speak for Protestants no???

Becky, regarding that news article, the MCB is right, there is no need to cover in front of pre-pubescent children.... Did this teacher suddenly walk into class with a veil or was she always wearing one though????

Fuzzy. Am I right in thinking that it would be acceptable for her to wear a lowered veil so that, if a man walked into the classroom, she could then cover for the duration of his visit?

What ???? I can't believe the number of you who have simply agreed with his statement without even questioning his motives!....what is this country coming to?
Can no one see the connection between his comments and his recent admission that the situation in Iraq is indeed desperate( don't forget he was the foreign secretary who took us in there in the first place) AND his ambition to become the deputy leader of the labour party.
I agree in sensible open debate but I cannot abide naked political opportunism, especially when it stirs up in some cases violence towards any group in society(woman in Liverpool ..had someone threatening to hit her child and hurling abuse at her).
Judging by this thread so far it seems to have worked in his favour.
Let'd realise that he is taking us for a bit of a ride.
We see this all too often with labour politicians, whether it was Blunketts vendeta against parents of minorities who couldn't speak english very well to John Reids belief that we should shelve the Human Rghts Act when dealing with Islamic terrorism, they are resembling George Wallace ..senator for Alabama who when he lost an election after having been Mr liberal and continuously losing elections to segrgationists avowed he would never be "out niggered again". He was duly electeda nd susequently turned his police force, against Martin Luther King...and turned the world against segregation.
I think politicians like Straw should be careful.....and we should not be so easliy duped!!

FW - yes I suppose the pope would be the spokesman for roman catholics
For the CofE it would in practice be Archbishop of Canterbury/general synod I think.

And even the Arch Bish wouldn't speak for the whole of the Anglican Communion...there is a great deal of debate on a whle range of issues, homosexual priests for one.