From 2:14:00
Instead of trying to explain how and why so many Muslims came to be convicted of sexual offences against underage white schoolgirls, my short answer should have been:
"Does Christianity stop Christians from committing sex crimes?"
If it is claimed that Christianity is better at restraining Christians from committing sexual offences than Islam is at restraining Muslims from committing sexual offences, then we need to know the percentage of sex offenders who are Christian and Muslim.
Are these crime statistics available, I wondered.
No, is the answer.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/criminaloffencesreligionandethnicity
Who is a Christian?
I define a Christian as someone who believes or claims to believe that Christ is the co-equal of the eternal and supreme Abrahamic God.
If there are hardly any convicted sex offenders who are Christian, does this mean Christianity is better than Islam at restraining its adherents from sex crimes? Or is it because there are hardly any Christians around?
If there are hardly any Christians around in a supposedly Christian country, what does it say about the success of Christianity?
How are Christians counted? Surely the C of E should have a list of people who have been confirmed in the faith?
Are you Christian if you consider yourself Christian as https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/13/anglican-church-congregation-numbers-have-stabilised/ suggests?
The report says: "The proportion of self-describing Anglicans in Britain has more than halved, from 40 per cent in 1983, down to 17 per cent in 2015.
"That said, the past three years are worth highlighting. If talk of even a modest Anglican revival would be premature, one certainly can speak of a newfound stability."
Professor Bullivant added that the release of Dawkins' book had stopped a lot of latent Anglicans from describing themselves as Christian.
"That book was really aimed at those people who said they were Anglican but didn't really believe in God," he said.
"So a lot of them stopped ticking Anglican on the forms and started to tick atheist instead."
Are you Christian if you say you are? Certainly, if you are prepared to say that you believe that Christ is the co-equal of the eternal and supreme Abrahamic God.
How many people who call themselves Christian even know of this requirement?
How many people who identify with Christianity for cultural and family reasons would be angered and disgusted by the requirement to believe in an absurdity when made aware of it? (People who come from a Christian background I have spoken to are not even aware that they are supposed to believe in it.)
The other problem of definition is Islam.
Is it fair to expect Islam to work on Muslims not living in an Islamic society with Islamic laws? Is it fair to expect a car to run if it has no source of energy?
A system of morality is only as good as its enforcement, and the law is the only means of enforcing any rule.
If the rules are not enforced, then they become merely optional. Not fornicating becomes merely optional.
How many of victims of the sex predators in Rochdale and Rotherham were the daughters of married mothers still living with their husband when they were abused?
Indigenous white sex predators tend to work alone. Muslim sex predators tend to work together sharing information and resources making them more effective sex predators.
If there are underage schoolgirls to be sexually abused, Islamphobes would doubtless prefer it that they are sexually abused by white indigenous non-Muslim sex predators.
Understandably, white men consider it an outrage that white girls in their own country had become the victims of immigrant Muslim sex predators operating under the noses of the police for so long. I doubt that these Islamophobes would lose any sleep over white indigenous sex predators preying on the illegitimate and abandoned daughters of unmarried white mothers. It is only to be expected that females abandoned by their unmarried mothers would fall prey to sex predators, after all.
It is the racial and religious element that they find so outrageous, understandably, with the added implication that white men have lost control.
The question no Islamophobe will ask is "Where were the fathers of these abused schoolgirls?"
There is no point having rules if you don't enforce. Islam is theocracy the way Christianity is the Trinity. Those Muslim sex predators were not living in a theocracy where fornicatresses would be punished. In fact, they live in a society where fornication has been normalised and underage sex condoned since 1985.
This is why our laws should be in harmony with our chosen moral system.
What is our current chosen moral system? It is EU Directives promoting open borders, the Equality Act 2010 and other laws promoting sexual liberation from the rules of marriage that has overthrown the patriarchy and established the matriarchy.
Underage sex can be aided and abetted by doctors, perfectly legally, provided the easy to satisfy conditions at https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-protection-system/legal-definition-child-rights-law/gillick-competency-fraser-guidelines/ are satisfied.
If the law had forbidden fornication as quran.com/24/2 does then the victims of these sex predators would not have been conceived, born, abandoned and then subsequently abused by sex predators or gone into child prostitution.
To sum up, no one just told a bunch of rules is going to obey them unless they live in a community that enforced them.
A moral system that is not supported by the law is toothless.
Our moral system is liberalism which these days means no more than sexual liberation from the rules of marriage and parenting.
Child prostitution in the post-industrial cities of the north has been a fact of life for decades.
https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/09627259708553131.pdf
A better question would have been "Does any law stop crime?"
The correct answer must be "Not entirely."
Do laws prevent crime?
Does the survival of Western civilisation depend on defeating Muslims?
Why doesn't it matter that Mohammed was a paedophile?
No comments:
Post a Comment