What chance the Infidel

Subject: What chance the Infidel

The argument raging about freedom of expression, the freedom to wear what you want the freedom to join which ever congregation you want, both religious and political, always rightly expresses its rage at 'loosing the right of an individual' to follow what ever course they wish to follow, so long as it does no harm to others.

Two things spring to mind. 

The law is all about the individuals freedom and doesn't seem to acknowledge that individuals are few and far between. Most people are collegiate in the sense they are followers of a group. It should therefore be the group and its intentions which should be scrutinised.

The second thing. Is the balance in any society, between the groups and the influence a group has on society as a whole in equilibrium 

Wearing the Burka or a Yarmulke, a Turban or the symbolism of hanging a crucifix around your neck is an example of Group Speak. It is a reflection of an individual's choice and in so doing the individual is expressing their right. The question of whether  wearing a Burka is simply a Patriarchal travesty is a topic for another day. 

But what if the person decides to wear the swastika, is that freedom stretching societies goodwill because of its connotation with the extreme National Socialist Workers Party in Germany, the Nazi party. This is an example of a group become persona non grata and their rights as a group curtailed. 

Any group can have atavistic tendencies, desires which reach far back into the past and which their proponents wish to reignite within modern culture. Whether it is healthy and benign like the Morris Dancers I went to watch last weekend, or an anarchist group who see current society as despotic and wish to bring their own form of despotism into play to defeat it is the point.  One is tolerated and the other not so, even though its aims have on an individualistic basis a perfectly tolerable argument.

The toleration of an argument, a point of view, is at the basis of the human rights act but if the aim of a group is subversion (an attempt to transform established power) then society has a right to defend itself. 

The question being asked is :- Does religion in the form of Islam pose a threat, since Islam is more than a religion it is also a social and legal code based on religious belief.

The behaviour of people who follow a religious code is implicit, it's behaviour towards other people should reflect the teaching of a tolerant god. 

The tolerance of the Hindu the Buddhist, and the Christian (these days) is benign and stays well within the tolerance of secular society. 

The Jews because of their exclusivity are less well tolerated and almost feared because of their strength in networking between each other in business, particularly in finance. 

The Muslims are beginning to be feared because of their historic intolerance to people outside their faith made even more confusing by the intolerance they show towards each other depending on which sect or branch of the religion you belong. 

One has to ask the question " if they can be so brutal towards each other what chance the infidel".