#aequalitatemuk

The Muslim couple who killed 14 people in San Bernardino were going to be reported by a neighbour who was suspicious of them but didn’t because she did not want to racially stereotype them and be seen as an ‘Islamaphobe’.  It is extremely unfortunate that they did not get reported sooner, as in this case the couple were extremist Muslims who carried out terrorist attacks. However, I do not believe it was the neighbour’s fault of trying to see the best in humanity and keeping an open mind. I do not think in a liberal society that you have to judge and be weary of every single Muslim and jump to the conclusion that they may be a terrorist or extremist, nor being weary of every single German being a Neo-Nazi. ISIL or ‘Daesh’ and other extremist groups like Boko Haram make up such a minority of the Muslim community. Is it really justifiable to blame or accuse someone who looks racially Muslim or dresses in Muslim clothing of being a terrorist? It was stated by Mehdi Hasan ‘that Islam allows warfare, violence and military action under certain conditions in specific contexts and of course minority extremist groups take it out of context, but is it religious?’ He also goes on to emphasise that ‘here we are dealing with a 1,400-year-old global religion (Islam) followed by 1.6 billion people, a quarter of humanity’ and some people generalise all these followers as terrorists or fundamentalist extremists? He also states ‘if Islam is such a religion of war, hate and violence, then let me ask you this question? Why aren’t the rest of us doing it? Why is it such a tiny minority of Muslims? Let us assume there are 16,000 suicide bombers in the world, which there’s not, but for the sake of argument, say there are, that makes up 0.001% of the Muslim population globally. What about the other 99.999% of the Muslims that are not? The reality is that not the rest of us are blowing ourselves up tonight.’  

When Dylann Roof shot nine black people in a church earlier this year in Charleston, there was no description of him as a terrorist or a racist white man. THAT WAS AN ACT OF TERRORISM. The definition of terrorism is ‘the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims’. Dylann Roof was found with his own written material of white supremacy in his home and a follower of Neo-Nazism and attacked those black people in a political pursuit. That is terrorism. What people often mistake is that terrorism doesn’t always have to be associated with religion, it is terrorising people for political purposes. Yes, ISIS fit the definition of being a terrorist organisation as they act on their extremist views as a pursuit for Sharia Law. The same as Dylann Roof’s aim for white supremacy and his reasoning for shooting the nine black people. However, of course the media will not use the words ‘terrorist white American man shoots nine black people for white supremacy’. The Christian Crusaders were terrorists, those Christians who bombed abortion clinics are terrorists; therefore, a terrorist does not have to be part of the Islamic faith. Islamophobia is on the rise, and I am an ex-Muslim, but never did I believe Christianity was a religion of violence because of the Crusades or what the LRA does in Uganda. It isn’t about religion, it isn’t about killing people in the name of God, it’s about terrorising people for political purposes.

Out of the cave, I am saved, From the chains of illusion, The religious infusion, Ingrained beliefs from birth, That I was the worth, Of a slave of Allah, To read salah, Five times a day, To make sure I didn’t enter hell one day.

Aged seven, “What happens in hell?” My mother would tell, Me that people burn in hell, And on Judgement Day, Everyone pays, For the sins we commit, And that we should’ve all submit, To the almighty Allah.

Catholicism, along with being the single largest denomination of Christianity, which in turn is the largest religion is the world, is the oldest institution in the western world. Nowadays, it seems to me as if it’s become somewhat infamous for the strict conservative values it tries to place upon the lives of people. The Catholic Church is renowned for it’s, what seems from the surface to be, all-forgiving and accepting nature, and whilst there may be a few aspects of the church which reflect these virtues, it’s important that we do not forget the unpleasant side to the church, which it tried desperately to hide from the public. There have been countless truthful allegations of sexual abuse that have been made against priests, nuns, and members of Roman Catholic Orders as young as 3 years old, with the majority of them being between 11 and 14 years old. Numerous cases have also been brought against the members of the catholic hierarchy for not reporting sex abuse allegations to the legal authorities, which begs the simple question that would be posed by any rational human being – why?

These cases make it possible to infer that the Catholic Church, whether or not intentionally, fosters paedophilia. Molestation and sexual abuse is almost certain to occur in the Catholic Church, it’s just a common case of rebellion against the unnatural vow that priests must take which commands them to remain celibate. By actively discouraging a healthy sexuality, the Catholic Church inadvertedly promoted and encouraged sexual perversion. In my opinion, what made the situation even worse was the Catholic Church’s pathetic and futile attempt to cover what went on behind closed doors. Perhaps they may have still received a shred of respect for being courageous enough to put their hands up and humbly confess that they ‘messed up’ to put it very lightly. It’s all very hypocritical really. The institution itself looks down upon arrogance and sees humility as a virtue, yet when an occurrence threatens to tarnish the good name of the institution, in a desperate attempt to keep up appearances, it forgoes one of the very things that it imposes on others.

We’re all aware that the arrogant piety of the Catholic Church is second to none, however, one would think, or at least hope, that the cowardice of the institution in question would end at their attempt to cover-up their felony. But evidently the lengths to which an institution as pompous as the Catholic Church would go were far more than anyone would expect. Quite despicably, a number of Catholics have blamed the large amount of homosexuals in the lower sections of the Catholic hierarchy for priestly paedophilia. I could not believe that such an outrageous claim could even come to fruition in the minds of those who claim to be wiser than the average bloke due to their religious enlightenment. I believe Wikipedia puts it more quaintly and appropriately than I’m able to: Some Catholics have blamed the high number of homosexuals in the priesthood for priestly paedophillia. However, since absolutely no scientific evidence has been presented of such a connection other than people’s conjecture and opinions, rational thinkers ought to dismiss the charge as sheer bigotry against “abnormal” sexual choices. One phrase I’d like to highlight is ‘rational thinkers’, implying that those, such as the majority of the Ugandan parliament, who believe homosexuality and paedophilia are in anyway linked are completely irrational if they truly hold that opinion, because, as previously mentioned there is absolutely no scientific evidence linking the two separate entities. It’s simply an illogical way to justify prejudices, so that personal beliefs can be enforced upon others, an act which many hypocritical priests are guilty of.

Writer’s blog