Racism: Infidel Papers and Counting Mohammeds
Now and again, I get those big chain emails forwarded on to me by people who think that they are funny, that the messages are inspiring, or that there’s certain information I just must know. I don’t tend to get these emails very often because I tend to work on the theory that if it’s been forwarded on to a dozen different people and you can’t be bothered to delete the reams of email headers, I can’t be bothered to read it.
Also, the few I have actually read tend to be crap, and I’ve been publicly scathing about them from time to time (although generally polite to the people they have originated from). It’s always possible that this is just down to me being a bad-tempered so-and-so as well. But while I find it easy to ignore the ones which don’t interest me (I might read the bad jokes, I will skip ‘inspirational messages’), I find it impossible to ignore the ones which are told as truth but are actually full of racist bullshit.
The Infidel Papers
There was a diatribe called ‘The Uncomfortable Definition of an Infidel’ which describes how a prison officer attended his annual training session for maintaining his security clearance as a prison officer, where he had to sit and attend a presentation by preachers from the Protestant, Muslim and Roman Catholic faiths, and basically it turned out that according the the Muslim preacher, every good Muslim should kill anyone who wasn’t a Muslim.
The message was from a John Harrison MBE, and contained the tag line ‘this happened in London’, and closed by saying:
Everyone in the U.K. should be required to read this, but with the current political paralysis, tolerant justice system, liberal media and p.c. madness, there is no way this will be widely publicised.
Anyone reading that message, and accepting everything at face value, would presume feel a little more uncomfortable about Islam, see it as an intolerant religion incapable of coexisting peacefully with other religions. Maybe we should be asking the question “why hasn’t this been widely publicised”? Isn’t it something everyone should know about?
Well, no. Because it’s all bollocks. A big fat racist lie.
Firstly, while I’m quite happy to believe that members of the prison service may be required to attend diversity seminars, I fail to understand how a diversity seminar is necessary for them to maintain their security clearance, nor why a diversity seminar would include two Christian preachers, one Muslim preacher, and no representatives of Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism or Atheism.
Secondly, there’s the matter of John Harrison MBE. Wondering how and why a prison officer got an MBE, I looked him up, to discover that he’s not actually a prison officer at all, it would appear that he’s a photographer. And, more than that, he’s actually gone to the trouble to explain on his site that the whole thing has nothing to do with him:
There’s a link on his site which says ‘click here if you have received an email from John Harrison ref. religion’, which then goes on to say:
An e-mail purporting to be from John Harrison MBE is currently circulating following the release of the New Years Honours list, this e-mail is in no way associated with John Harrison MBE of Harrison Photography.
But he’s just the John Harrison MBE that it is most easy to find, he wasn’t actually the John Harrison MBE MIDSc referenced by the article. This one is:
John Harrison, MBE. MIDSc. 2006 saw John’s 50th year in the health service having worked in military and civilian hospitals around the world. He has been heavily involved with training and became
a member of the Institute of Training and Development as well as continuing as a full time sterile services manager, currently at The North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust.November 07 issue of ‘Medical Device Decontamination’
Only it didn’t have anything to do with him either.
Right. So if the details about the seminar are incorrect, and the details about the author are also incorrect, should we not then begin to treat the rest of the message with a little less respect — and maybe a bit more contempt?
If anyone actually bothered to try and corroborate the details in any way shape or form, then as well as discovering that the details and the author or incorrect, they would find that this has been circulating around the internet for about four years and is an editorial written by someone from a Christian ministry, purportedly about his experience at a prison in Missouri (so look, the location was a load of bollocks as well). Only it would appear that he wasn’t telling the truth exactly:
the event described was a training program for prison volunteers, for which ministers from several faiths were invited to give presentations in order to acquaint prison volunteers with the varied religious beliefs of the inmate population. The man who gave the presentation about Islam was not a Muslim minister; he was an inmate pressed into service [...] Mr. Kniest, the prison’s Volunteer Coordinator said that “The inmate did a good job,” adding, “He was asked a few questions that were beyond his ability to answer. But he was not asked anything like that question [in the editorial]“snopes.com
And as snopes.com points out, if you cherry-pick your points from the Bible, you can find references suggesting that anyone who works on a Saturday should be put to death (Exodus 35:2). But of course the minister would ignore the bits from his Holy Book which suggests Christianity may be intolerant, and instead invent stories relating to another religion suggesting instead that they are intolerant.
That’s hardly what I call Christian behaviour. But then again, I’m not a bigot.
And what worries me is that people see this as plausible, as if the majority of muslims worldwide are somehow hiding the secret that really, all of them want to kill all of the rest of us. Fortunately, when I pointed this out to the person who had sent it to me, they quickly realised that they had been taken in and that it was indeed a load of bollocks (and took the time to assure me that they were not indeed a racist — which I already knew, although some degree of piss-taking for having fallen for such obvious racist crap without any checking may indeed be in order).
But that is really the thing that worries me: not that there are racist bigots out of there, pumping these sorts of stories out by email, but the fact that ordinary people are doing their work by believing them and then forwarding this poisonous crap on to everyone else. Whether I’m going a bit far by describing this as everyday racism I don’t know, but I think there’s certainly at least some element of this in the matter — would people have been so quick to believe a similar sort of nonsense relating to baby-eating Catholics?
Not only do we, as members of society, have a responsibility to correct this sort of garbage when we hear it (it isn’t really that hard to check, if you’ve got an internet connection and understand how a search engine works) but the media also need to take their share of the blame for promoting negative attitudes towards Islam.
And the media seem happy to promote the idea that Islam is something we should be worried about:
Counting the Mohammeds
Just look at the Telegraph from yesterday (HT to @antonvowl for bringing this article to my attention):
The ONS was criticised for treating the various spellings of Mohammed as different names. It only published the top 100 names for each sex which meant figures were only released for three variations of Mohammed. Mohammed was placed 16th with 3,423, Muhammad 37th with 2,068 and Mohammad 65th with 1,100.
Figures for five other alternative spellings – Muhammed (496), Mohamed (428), Mohamad (40), Muhamed (11) and Mohammod (10) – were later released to the Daily Telegraph. That made a total of 7,576 and put Mohammed and its alternative spellings ahead of the official second place name, Oliver, of whom there were 7,413. There were 8,007 Jacks.
The Office of National Statistics is accused of being disingenuous by not lumping all the ‘Mohammed’ names together. Presumably therefore the Telegraph would expect ‘Jack’ and ‘John’ to be added together? And certainly all Bills, Williams, Wills and Liams would need to be added together, would they not? After all, they are just variations of the same name also, aren’t they?
And if you add Billy, William and Liam together, you get 8,824, making William (and variants) the most popular boys name, more than 800 ahead of Jack (or only about 10 ahead if you count ‘John’ in with Jack), and a comfortable 1250 or so ahead of the entire combination of Mohammed variants (and don’t take my word for it: check the stats yourself (xls)). But for some reason the Telegraph don’t seem to mention this…
Or is it just that the Telegraph wants to add the Islamic names together to generate a little bit of scaremongering about Islam? After all, what is there for the ONS to be disingenuous about? It’s not as though there would be a problem if the most popular boys’ name was Mohammed, would there be?
Or is it just that we are being conditioned to believe that there’s some sort of problem with Islam? Who wants us to think this — and why? Is it just to sell papers? Frankly, I’d expect better from the broadsheets, but maybe I’m just a romantic.
And if you’re going to go on about traditional “British” names, please take note: unless you’re prepared to change your name to (or name your children) Egbert, Æthelwulf, Oswald or Cœnwulf, then you’re just using the usurping Christian names yourself and you’re not exactly following the British “tradition” either.
Bloody Normans. They come over here with their Domesday Books and their fucking tapestries…
Chris Hunt says:
September 14th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Nothing British about “Egbert, Æthelwulf, Oswald or Cœnwulf”! Ruddy saxons coming over here etc. etc.
Maybe Caractacus might serve – but the celts are incomers too if you go back far enough.
How I love our mongrel nation!
Alen McFadzean says:
October 1st, 2009 at 8:59 pm
I stumbled on this website because an email supposeldly from John Harrison MBE MIDSc was forwarded to me and I suspected that, because it was a pile of poisonous and ill-informed shite, the author did not exist. The worrying thing is that people read this crap and digest it.
Good blog. Reassuring that there are intelligent people out there. Even in Whickham.
JackP says:
October 1st, 2009 at 9:58 pm
@Alen, ah well, I’m not from Whickham originally… does that help explain it?
Philip H says:
October 5th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Why is it that The Truth cannot believe the truth.
What John Harrison has written is in fact the TRUTH.Irespect of who wrote it.
GET REAL AND FACE THE FACTS.
JackP says:
October 5th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Erm… so what you’re saying is “it’s the truth, whether or not it happened”. Well, no, that’s not how we define the truth at all. And that is precisely why it’s dangerous racist bullshit.
A. Thiest says:
October 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
The sentiment that this is racist bullshit! Well without a doubt it is made up, however you do not review what the fundamental message is and to answer that you have to ask.
What does Islam define as an infidel today?
Does Islam today preach the killing of all those who are defined as infidels?
If the answers of those two questions end up involving me being dead then the central message holds true.
If not then it’s all garbage.
Can anyone shed any useful light without selective quoting of religious texts, what does an actual Muslim cleric who is recognised to speak for Islam actually say today?
JackP says:
October 11th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
@”A Thiest” the problem is that there are different interpretations. I don’t know offhand what different interpretations of Islam would presume, but I doubt many Christians would suggest – given the example of ‘literal truth of the bible’ quoted above that we should stone to death people who work on the Sabbath, irrespective of what the text actually says.
It’s wrong to assume that fundamentalist/hardline beliefs accurately represent the views of adherents.
It’s also wrong to assume that fundamentalist/hardline beliefs are associated with religion only; they are also associated with specific cultures and also socioeconomic circumstances: there aren’t many people burned by the Catholic Church these days for heresy, for example.
So even if some interpretations of Islam treat non-believers as infidels who should be killed (and I’ve not heard any evidence for this), this would not mean that all of Islam believes that (I have certainly heard muslim clerics rejecting this, while I have not heard any agreeing with it) Just because some atheists are racist and homophobic does not mean I assume this is true of all atheists. Just because some Christians are misogynist and mean-spririted does not mean all Christians are.
So why do people feel the need to assume all the followers of islam are a more homogenous group then those with any other belief…?
A. Thiest says:
October 12th, 2009 at 12:31 am
It would be a sweeping generalisation of me to suggest that all of Islam thought the same way. I know so little about this religion I ask these questions in ignorance and therefore don’t actually know if either end of the Islamic spectrum actually would refer to me as an infidel or “kafir” and would be pleased to see me dead. I do however find the lack of voice in rejecting extremist views from within religions a grave failing, such as the catholic’s and protestants in Northern Ireland who, until recently, killed each other in the name of god, without much repeated condemnation from the religious leaders from either viewpoint – that is if the condemnation of this received as much publicity as the murders themselves.
So I have not established if any part of Islam wants to see me dead, but if so could we quantify a percentage of followers?
In answer to your question.
“So why do people feel the need to assume all the followers of Islam are a more homogenous group then those with any other belief…?”
This is my answer and not “peoples” answer, but to understand me you first have to have to know I dislike all religions in equal measure, though that does not mean I dislike the people who follow them. I am also saddened by that fact that, as an atheist, I believe society has yet not reached a point where we are ready to confine religion to the past and do actually see it as a “necessary evil”
To the answer
My view is, any religion that affects almost everything you do in life and is indoctrinated from the earliest age, where the consequences of rejection of those beliefs can be the very thing that keeps you “believing” creates a group who core beliefs are homogenous. Would it not be true put the Islamic faith in that category?
JackP says:
October 12th, 2009 at 9:14 am
That’s not my experience of religion. Indeed, I doubt I would have had any time as a Christian, had that been my experience (I am now a hardline agnostic). My experience of religion is that all the groups and church figures I know are happy for people to encourage, question, and think for themselves. They also will admit that they don’t necessarily know the answers. Nor are the church figures I know anti-science: indeed one I know is very sceptical about schools which treat evolution as “only a theory”.
In terms of religion affecting what people do in life, Christianity strikes me as (as well as the obvious ‘believing in God’ bit) as being about tolerance, compassion and understanding, not reacting with violence and so on. To me, irrespective of belief, this is not a bad way for someone to be living their life.
I will argue against the rent-a-quote mob (Christian Voice and so on), but I think it’s very wrong for atheists to equally assume that these voices are representative of belief. The problem is that moderate, reasonable people don’t get quoted on the media, because it isn’t a story.
It’s not the religion or belief that is the problem, it is the actions of particular adherents. Do not excuse them by allowing them to hide under the cover of their religion: the individuals who are unpleasant people need to shoulder their own burden of guilt.
Serajul Islam says:
October 12th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Because it’s all bollocks. A big fat racist lie.
Like a commenter above I found your site via the chain email that I was sent and googling John Harrison. I knew immediately that the info. was spurious, albeit with an element of truth.
Sadly, reading 3 of your posts was enough for me as it’s clear that you’re the mirror image of the bigots you claim to oppose. Have you reflected on how often you vituperate unnecesarily? And Islam isn’t a race or a social category, it’s a philosophical belief system. Therefore, even if someone chose to essentialise ALL Muslims, they’re hardly guilty of that ultimate liberal crime ‘racism’ as you would have it.
Peace
JackP says:
October 12th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
@Serajul,
eh? Hang on a minute while I look up ‘vituperate’…
Ah, right. You feel I am being unfairly critical of people I label as racist, and I shouldn’t be using that term because it’s a belief system rather than a race per se. That’s true, but I feel that most definitions of racism would include discrimination against people because they have a particular religion, when that discrimination also tends to be against a specific other ethnic group or groups.
If you don’t like that definition, that’s fair enough, but I think a lot of people would be perfectly happy with it.
Can I query what you mean by “3 of my posts”? Do you mean separate blog posts, or are you referring to comments on this entry? In either case, making assumptions that you know me – and what I think – from so little information is, I would suggest, not necessarily going to give you an accurate impression of me.
Although I would strongly object to your suggestion that racism is the ultimate liberal crime. I know plenty of people who I wouldn’t necessarily describe as liberal who would say that racism is wrong. I’m sorry that you associate it only with liberalism, as this would imply that you can see certain circumstances where racism should be tolerated.
And, just to make my position clear: I’m against sexism, racism, homophobia, discrimination on the grounds (or lack of) religion, disablism and ageism. For example, in terms of looking for a job, I believe the job should be given to the best candidate. In some cases, race, sex or age may be a factor in determining this. In most cases, they are not.
And is you know more about Islam than I do (I don’t claim to know), could you perhaps expand on your interpretation of it, to help increase my understanding?
Oh, and I’ll continue to roundly abuse those groups who I find offensive (I like to think that I am tolerant of all but the intolerant). This is my personal site after all: everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I’m also entitled to voice mine as I see fit.
I don’t say “peace” myself, but I’ll leave you with my own equivalent: “cheers!”
A. Thiest says:
October 13th, 2009 at 10:36 am
In responding to Serajul Islam, whilst I am not quite sure exactly who that was aimed at – you have managed to come to the conclusion we are racist bigots in such a short time. This is indicative of a society, and that does not mean just an Islamic society, that is too quick to call the racist card when anything is expressed that is negative about them. Please don’t forget just because I dislike all religions or divine being belief systems in equal measure does not mean I will treat the followers any differently. For example, if a group of devil worshipers wish to drink each other’s urine as part of their worshiping routines, whilst I might think they are truly insane for following these beliefs that does not mean I will treat them any different in life, what they do does not cause me any harm (as long as they clean their teeth afterwards).
Perhaps you could shed light on the questions I asked if you know anything about Islam, again I reiterate I am ignorant and not racist.
What does Islam define as an infidel today?
Does Islam today preach the killing of all those who are defined as infidels?
Or at least tell me how those questions could me misconstrued as racist.
[Ed: apologies, this comment was mis-identified as spam by my filter, and I've only just checked the filter, so it should have been published this morning]
C Curry says:
November 13th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Its just odd I suppose that 90 % of all trouble round the world involves muslims. The American military just woke up with a start and when Rushdie got his first fatwa all the pakistani corner shops stopped selling pork products and alcohol.They were nice helpful and friendly till then now they all wear smock things instead of ill fitting suits.
Islam is a VERY prescriptive religeon and we ignore its growing presence in our western culture at our peril. The PC world does not permit people to say something seems wrong till it blows up and its too late – that’s why those worried have to resort to shock tactics like the chain email – at least it was in prose and not blood and guts.
JP says:
November 18th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Good one although frightening to think that people really do think this to be the truth.
Frank says:
November 18th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I find the John Harison MBE story hard to believe. The Muslims I have met do not subscribe to this interpretation of Islam. If the Imam actually said what he did, he is rather ignorant about the teachings of Islam. If Mr Harrison or the Imam actually existed, I would challenge them to find in the Qur’an where it says that Muslims are supposed to kill infidels. Here is what the Qu’ran actually says:
“Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors.” 2:190 (What this says to me is that self-defence is justified; that the person who fights beyond a reasonable limit is not loved by God. To my mind a suicide bomber for example has definitely transgressed limits.)
“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.” 2:193 (What this says to me is that fighting is justified if it is against persecution; that fighting is not justified where there is no persecution.)
“If they seek peace, then you seek peace. And trust in God for He is the One that hears and knows all things.” 8:61 (I don’t think any Christian would have a problem with this, would they?)
By the way, the Qu’ran also spells out who is a believer and who is not. “Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah (God) and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” 2:62 (Christians, Jews and Sabians, likely Zoroastrians, have a privileged place in Muslim teaching because we all believe in One God and the final judgement.)
As Christians, let us speak the truth and not spread scandalous stories about other people. This is NOT the way to attract people to Christianity. They will know we are Christians by our love, not by our false witness. Unfortunately there are extremists among Muslims who do not know what their own religion teaches, just as there are Christians who do not know what Christianity teaches.
Dave B says:
November 26th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Like others, I stumbled on this after reading the chain letter. Firstly, if you want to be accurate, remember that the Bayeux Tapestry is actually ENGLISH and that Normans are, well, Danish.
The Koran, Which I have read, is open to as much interpretation as the bible, also read. presbyterian or sunni, jehovahs or shi’ite, you get the drift. I am an atheist but were I to choose a religion it would have to be Christian or Taoist as all the rest were founded by violent people, Cane, Abraham, Buddah, Mohamet,Quetacoatl. The letter is rubbish, and probabl American altered to British tastes, sadly people will believe anything plausible, MP’s, Eastenders, its human nature.my local corner shops, incidentally, are both Sikhs, most people assume that they are indians thereford muslims, one is Pakistani the other from Sri lanka. ah, ignorance is bliss.
amronsrieps says:
December 1st, 2009 at 3:14 pm
thank you Frank. At last some thing that was illuminating. I received this from a friend who continually tries to educate me, assuming I cannot read or inform myself. I fear after my response she may be a friend no longer
christianbutdarentsaysoopenlyanymore says:
January 3rd, 2010 at 12:33 pm
You have soooooooo much to say about this Harrison item (I wondered how long you’d take to use the ‘R’ word) but even if it’s made-up crap, you must be living on Planet Janet if you don’t think it reflects life in Britain today. Must be nice ‘n’ cosy in your cocoon! You must resolve to ditch your rose-coloured specs!
JackP says:
January 3rd, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Well, if you actually read more than one article, you’d see that I am opposed to any form of religious intolerance: I’ve disagreed with various sides of the coin.
And as I am living in Britain today, and what I write about reflects my experiences, then it may be that my experiences are different to yours. Or that we perceive the same experiences differently.
For example, I don’t assume that just because I disagree with someone that their viewpoint is necessarily false, or seen through ’shit-coloured glasses’ (or whatever the opposite to rose-tinted is).
As for it being racist – well if it’s made up, and its lies about a religion/ethnic grouping, then it is racist. It’s not being ‘PC’ to say so. It’s being accurate. I’m sorry if you can’t see that…
Keith says:
January 15th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Only one problem. For all his degrees, Harrison, (Fake or not), makes a common error. ‘Protestant’ is not a religion and nor is the Arch Bishop of Canterbury head of them but the Church of England. In fact the word Protestant is a Catholic word for all Christians, of many faiths, not Catholic. No more actually exist since the reformation was about 400 years ago. I am called a protestant but only protest about being called a protestant when I prefer Christian. One of the damaging things about the word is that it distorts the balance somewhat. Catholics are made to feel very outnumbered when in fact, if we broke down all the Christian faiths to their individual identity, the Catholic faith is in fact the strongest and most powerful in all forums in our society, including parliament. Throughout the Northern Ireland troubles, the word allowed the impression of an oppressed minority against a larger group instead of, in truth, the largest group against the rest.Worse that there were ‘two sides’ instead of one side v the rest. And so I find Harrison’s mistake rather depressing. And that this blog hasn’t spotted it either. But in this matter I am happy to be associated with the Christian side of any faith.
)
Phil says:
January 29th, 2010 at 11:44 am
I was just about to send this on when I thought it seemed a bit extreme and like others, Googled John Harrison and ended up here.I have emailed the sender to refer people he sent it to your page.
Rick says:
January 30th, 2010 at 11:45 am
I received this message and thought that it was questionable.As always there are two sides to every story.I would be interested to know where I can read the information regarding the Missiouri prison message so perhaps you would kindly advise me?
Next I would quote from your text ‘Not only do we, as members of society, have a responsibility to correct this sort of garbage when we hear it (it isn’t really that hard to check, if you’ve got an internet connection and understand how a search engine works) but the media also need to take their share of the blame for promoting negative attitudes towards Islam’.
I would also point out, in the interests of giving the other side to the story, that this appears to be a one way street at present. Why? Well bombs are being exploded indiscriminatly in the Middle East, albeit by Sunnis, Shias or Kurds against each other yet the Moslems in this country say nothing except blame Great Britain. Do they also not have a great responsibility to share the blame for their negative attitude towards the tolerant country that has given them a home? Is it not about time that their leaders utterly condem all Moslem terrorist activities,instead of issuing the odd supine statement.
The vast majority of this realm are not racist yet we have been branded such by the government and zealots as a defence in their own actions. Whatever you think, people are concerned even though I do firmly believe that most look further than the end of their nose! It is a shame that we cannot say with any confidence, the same about too many Moslems.
GuyinDubai says:
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:05 am
Having also been sent the email I too found the need to check its authenticity which lead me to this blog.
Firstly JackP thankyou for taking the time out to investigate this and provide the forum to repond.
I am a Brit who lives in the UAE (an Islamic state) as an “infidel”, where I am given the right to follow my belief as a Christian in any of the numerous churches here. There are also temples for Hindhus and Sikhs. (btw Dave B generally people from India are not Muslims. Pakistan is Islamic and Sri Lanka is Buddhist/Hindhu)
I work with people from all beliefs here and have never found any of the intolerance described in the some of the responses to the initial blog or indeed the email.
If anything religious discussions, if any, are centered on the similarities between the beliefs and not the differences.
Having spoken to Muslims from many races I would suggest that the reason why Islam is rising within the World (not just the UK)is that it holds many common sense philosophies it is not judgemental in the way stated in the intial email.
Islam is also considered by many to provide true equality of faith and not to discriminate on colour as has been the case of the mainstay Western religions on occassions.
Also Imam’s are considered teachers of Islam as they are considered appointed by God and are pure towards humanity in all aspects of life. (see Wickipedia).
Unfortunately around the World some individuals have taken this power and at times corrupted it for their own purposes (er..hmm Christianity and first to throw stones springs to mind). Unfortunately these are the headlines that grab attention and not the 99.99% of normal everyday people with normal everyday lifes.
Finally I live and work in an Islamic country where I am called brother everyday. I think I’ll stay a little bit longer rather than be confronted by the biggotted and narrow minded views expressed by some bloggers above, back in the UK.
Get your nose out of the tabloid dross (written and viewed) and start to live in a world you would like, rather than let one be dictated and suggested to you by others.
I am comfortable with wishing everyone “Peace” so…
Peace
Reality says:
February 4th, 2010 at 12:25 am
I too don’t believe everything I’m sent to read or read in general, hence why I’m here.
With regards the core of this particular subject I think you’re all digging a bit too deep.
Humans who have nothing better to do or live for are easily swayed by those who think or feel they do.
Given this, being at the right/wrong place at the time, factoring in populous and frequency will determine the strength of a movement.
In reality any excuse will do. It’s just the way it is and the way it will be, rightly or wrongly. It’s as simple and complicated as that.
Enjoy…
More comments please says:
February 10th, 2010 at 9:41 am
[...] 3 Times in 3 Posts Sorry looks to be a bit of a spoof ThePickards Racism: Infidel Papers and Counting Mohammeds If you have more posts this year than dives you should really get out more!! Reply With [...]