EU calls for protection of Christians in Egypt. So will Egypt suspend dialogue with EU, as they did with Vatican?
I’m delighted to report on a new EU Resolution condemning violence against Christians in Iraq and Egypt.
So, my question to Egypt would be:
Do the Egyptian authorities intend to withdraw from dialogue with the European Union, as they withdrew from dialogue with the Vatican, following the Pope’s criticism of recent Egyptian Muslim violence against Christians?
Just wondering…..
January 21st, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Radio 4 had an item on the other day (the slot where members of the major faiths discuss a topic) about the Egypt. It was extremely disheartening and distressing. They had an interview clip of a woman who had converted from Islam to Christianity and was subject to death threats (including from her family) and pressure from the State to her family and employer. I think the Muslim member claimed that the Coptic Church also used pressure tactics to stop conversions in the opposite direction. We’re lucky here in the UK that we have a mostly non-religious State and Article 9 of the Human Rights Act which prevents the State from forcing us into one religion or another.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Thanks for that DanJo. Yes we are very lucky in many respects.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Called “Beyond Belief” Here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00xhd7s/Beyond_Belief_Egypt
At about 13 minutes in.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Thanks, I’ll give that a listen.
January 22nd, 2011 at 12:15 am
@DanJ0,
Not what it appears to be -
Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law, what if that law is sharia law?
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:39 am
I’ve explained this several times in the Bulls thread. The first part is an absolute right, the second a qualified right. I know you struggle with this sort of stuff and have strange issues about Muslims but you need to get to grips with it.
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:27 am
@DanJ0,
I know that Human Rights are divided into absolute, limited and qualified rights, but they are not literally absolute they are more qualified assertions.
Here you can get to grips with islam and the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam that will serve as a general guidance for Member States in the Field of human rights.
The CDHRI was adopted on August 5, 1990 by 45 foreign ministers* of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to serve as a guidance for the member states in the matters of human rights.
2011 – 57 member states.
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:05 am
Goy, why are you posting that?
I mentioned Article 9 (implicitly part 1) of our Human Rights Act in the UK because the Beyond Belief link talked about the Egyptian State putting religious pressure on its citizens. That’s the context here. It nominally protects alike CofE Christians from being coerced into the Catholic Church, Muslims from being coerced into the CofE Church, and atheists being coerced into any religious organisation.
In the UK, we have an over-arching European Convention of Human Rights and we have the Human Rights Act to enable our courts to deal directly with those things in the first instance. Yes of course they’re assertions which are dependent on the various parts of the State and the people working together. But that’s the best sort of thing we have and can have.
I don’t know what your issue is with Islam although it appears to consume you. If I were to hazard a guess then I’d say you are one of those Christian BNP members given the things you say but perhaps I’m wrong and it is no real matter. The way to deal with Islam in the UK is to set up a truly secular state. France has one and deals robustly with such stuff. I think we’re going the same way and I hope so too since we’re a multicultural country now and that’s not going to change.
My neice is a British Muslim and her husband is Moroccan Muslim. I have been to the rural areas of a number of Muslim countries of various types. I know Islam is unlikely to be a friend to me, a gay liberal atheist and I don’t like some of the religious things that happen in Muslim societies. Yet I given it valid space in the same way I give Christianity valid space and so too with the other religions here. That said, religious certainty scares me deeply. I want the whole lot of you to be denied temporal power at the level of the State. If you think about it then I suspect you are better off in a secular State where your boundaries are formally protected if you are a Christian because there are lots of British people who are Muslim or Hindu or Sikh now. Christians are just one of a whole bunch of people vying for their interests.
January 22nd, 2011 at 2:35 pm
@DanJ0,
The 57 state OIC disregard of the UDHR could be summed up with this statement –
“a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition” – Said Rajaie-Khorassani.
Note the word SECULAR in this statement it is not only a disregard for Judeo-Christian tradition but of Western secularism.
Now read what the judge said in the Bull case,
3. Why are those statues there? Perhaps there were many reasons for them but I venture to suggest that one was to emphasise the Judaeo-Christian roots from which the common law of England was derived.
4. A great deal has however happened since King Alfred and his Saxon laws, and even more has changed since Moses, King Solomon and Jesus Christ walked upon this earth. Those Judaeo-Christian principles, standards and beliefs which were accepted as normal in times past are no longer so accepted. Things have radically changed since the days of Queen Victoria or even, for that matter, since the days of her grandson King George V.
Is he not stating the very same disregard as Said Rajaie-Khorassani.
Islam is a wolf in sheeps clothing – a martial code veiled as a religion, as was the case in Egypt and was commented on in the “Beyond Belief” programme one of its strategies of conquest is to subvert and undermine the hospitality and goodwill of the majority targeted society.