In these circumstances I think Nick Clegg’s comments are exactly what I would expect a liberal leader to say. In my own council ward I have taken a reasonably tough stand on all sorts of “Religious” practices which have bugger all to do with Islam and everything to do with patriarchy and illiberal tribal politics. That doesn’t blind me to thought to a horrible strain of Islamophobia that hasn’t entered public debate which the Bishop appears to be making unsubtantiated appeals to.

But you will notice, James, that I have scarcely mentioned Muslims on this thread. Instead I have attacked Islam for the vile ideology that it is. On the whole, I would much prefer not to criticise Muslims, recognising as I do that to some extent they are victims of their own religion. But if you wish to talk about Muslims, then we can do just that.

Let us take just one of the ghastly tenets of Islam – that apostates should be put to death. Just an extremist viewpoint, unrepresentative of Muslims as a whole? Not quite. In fact it is a belief held by 36% of young Muslims. You appear to be in a state of some denial about the scale of the problem we face.

As for Sentamu, you are welcome to him if you really want bits of chopped up dog collar all over your living room. Now I repeat – give me one good reason why I should respect religion. You can’t, can you?

“By supporting “Multiculturalism” (”the pernicious species of relativism which anathematises criticism of Islam and its odious cultural practices”), liberals and progressives “according ‘respect’ to honour killings, female genital mutilation, arranged marriages, the veil, the putting to death of gays, apostates and adulterers, etc.”

I have given the example of Germaine Greer, generally considered a “progressive”, who is in favour of female genital mutilation and arranged marriages, and is on record as saying that it would be justifiable for Moslems to murder Salman Rushdie. All in the name of showing “respect” to Islam.

Then there is the recent case of Ronan Bennet, (he of the mystery terrorism acquittal), who wrote in the “Grauniad” late last year that ALL criticism of Islam is racist.

George Galloway and Ken Livingstone have said very similar things to Greer and Bennet (though they have stopped short of defending female genital mutilation). Livingstone has even invited to London at public expense the odious Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, who says that gays should be put to death and husbands have a duty to beat their disobedient wives.

There is indeed an increasing and alarming tendency among liberals and progressives, as much as the left, to make criticism of Islam taboo.

James Graham, with his OTT personal attack on me, is contributing to this process of taboo creation by issuing a warning to anyone who acknowledges the real situation that they will get a fusilade of abuse and be bullied out of the debate.

If James Graham really wants to improve the conditions of Moslems in this country, then he should be complaining about the one legitimate grievance which they (and people of colour in general) have, and that is racial discrimination in private sector employment.

Is Marxism ultimately what you make of it (note use of the word ultimately)? I would have thought that is self-evident. Not every Marxist is a wannabe Joseph Stalin. Not every Marxist is even a wannabe Tony Benn. There are plenty of Marxists (and Tories, and Christians, and Muslims) I would happily have watching my back and find myself in close agreement with. There are plenty of atheists whose views I find abhorrent.

You and I both call ourselves secularists, atheists, rationalists and liberals. But let’s face it, thereafter the resemblance ends. The reason I call you a bigot, and with much justification I feel, is that you can’t see beyond how people identify. If one is a Christian or a Muslim, you sign up to a “vile, pernicious, and utterly false ideology” and that’s the end of it. There is no room in your personal belief system for someone who might believe in God and be a member of an organised religion yet be impeccably liberal.

But then, you only selectively pick and choose from liberalism yourself, don’t you? You entirely dismiss all that guff about civil liberties. Clearly if you and I can both call ourselves liberals, there is at least some room for interpretation. But given the forced choice between you or John Sentamu to run the world, I’d pick John Sentamu in a heartbeat.

You see this is where I just can’t lose. I can only aspire to be as laughable as religion.

Laurence, I’ll say one thing for you. You may be a bigot, but at least you’re an equal opportunities bigot.

Now that is a bit sloppy for you James, notwithstanding the fact that you are presently under a Huck-attack. What makes me a bigot precisely? You are right that I make a point of respecting all religions equally. In fact I respect none of them at all. Why? Because in my view religious beliefs are not deserving of respect – only contempt and mockery. Give me one good reason why I should respect religion, otherwise please don’t call me a bigot.

Religions are ultimately what you make of them.

Is Marxism ultimately what you make of it? Again, very sloppy.

In the real world, Mr Graham. Unlike some people.

Perhaps it might dawn on you one of these days that no-one on this planet gives a monkey’s what you think (least of all Nick Clegg).

In answer the Crewegwyn (whose ego is usually under a greater degree of control than the upthrusting Mr Graham’s).

Propagating noise may be a public or private nuisance, depending on the circumstances. The ringing of church bells (1) emits less noise, (2) the sound is melodious (not distorted by amplification), (3) doesn’t wake people up and (4) has been carried on for hundreds of years, meaning that people who have gone to live close to churches know they will hear church bells. If bellringing were an innovation, then neighbouring residents would have reason for complaint.

Watch Mr Graham.

I catch him lying, so he tries to muddy the water by attacking other things I have said rather than admit to the lie itself.

Mr Graham said I had claimed that in Britain there are “no-go” areas for infidels. I did no such thing, and he knows it. His attacks on other things I have said are irrelevant. He remains an unrepentant LIAR (capitals, please note).

Ah, dear old Murphy strikes again. If ever one makes a spelling mistake, it will always be in a post accusing someone else of having poor spelling. Still, I’ve not seen one /that/ amusing for a while…

* cough *

I’ma stop trolling now, I swear.

I have proved you are a liar. You can’t get out of it, because it’s there in black and white. I didn’t say what you claimed I had said.

So what do you do?

Admit you are wrong? Apologise?

Not a bit of it.

You respond my showering me with personal abuse. And in so doing, prove yourself a puerile, emotionally immature egotist.

Having already exposed yourself as a liar, that is some feat.

(By the way, you don’t know how to spell “diningenuous”. If you want to impress the great and the good, you’ll have to try harder.)

Although I am now trying to get the Mister Oogie Boogie song from Nightmare Before Christmas out of my head, and I blame you for mentioning Boogie men…

James Graham, you are a LIAR.

I have made NO extraordinary claims.

It is Bishop Nazir-Ali who made the claim you say is extraodinary, not I. Unless the Bishop and I are the same person, which we are not.

I questioned Nick Clegg’s competence to dismiss the Bishop’s claim in such a peremptory fashoin, but that is NOT the same thing as making the claim myself.

Ooh, scary. You even used capital letters; it must be serious. No extraordinary claims? Don’t agree with the Bishop? In terms of the latter, maybe you haven’t said so in so many words but you’ve made it clear where your sympathies lie.

Let’s explore some of your “extraordinary claims” shall we?

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM #1 (see I can use capital letters too): “many young Moslem men have become increasingly aggressive and macho in their religiosity, and there will doubtless be lots of people who find this intimidating”

You could say the same about young men from any religious, cultural or racial background. Where have you been? Just as I defend the right of white Christian (and Atheistic) young men to be allowed to walk around without being condemned for “intimidating behaviour” I defend Muslim men as well.

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM #2: “I agree with the Bishop that the propagation of noise from minarets is anti-social and a public nuisance. It should not be tolerated.”

But church bells and the aforementioned Donkey and Cockerel can be? On what basis? In what way does this harm anyone?

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM #3: By supporting “Multiculturalism” (“the pernicious species of relativism which anathematises criticism of Islam and its odious cultural practices”), liberals and progressives “according ‘respect’ to honour killings, female genital mutilation, arranged marriages, the veil, the putting to death of gays, apostates and adulterers, etc.”

There are as many flavours of “multiculturalism” as there are people. Defending the right of people to dress as they wish or practice their own religion – yes, even say prayers in a public space – is a far cry from tolerating honour killings. To imply otherwise is possibly the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever heard.

EXTRAORDINARY STATEMENT #4: Critics of Nazir-Ali claim that “because there are right-wing people who criticise Islam, all criticism of Islam is therefore right-wing.”

No one on this thread has argued that, as you well know.

EXTRAORDINARY STATEMENT #5: “Amazing to see these so-called secularists, all too willing to stick the boot into Christianity, getting scared out of their wits when anyone says anything critical of Islam.”

When I pointed out the fallaciousness of that statement, you started getting all angry and shouty. This is a thread about the rights and wherefores of the Bishop of Rochester claiming there are Muslim-dominated “no-go areas” – suddenly you’ve turned this into a debate about whether Islam can be criticised at all.

That may not by “LYING” (in small or big caps) but it is certainly INTELLECTUALLY DISINENUOUS IN THE EXTREME.

#28: Laurence, I’ll say one thing for you. You may be a bigot, but at least you’re an equal opportunities bigot.

#29: Jennie. You hit the nail on the head.

#30: JamesS. Precisely. Religions are ultimately what you make of them. Secular ideologies are too. Let’s not let individuals off the hook by turning their beliefs into boogie men, shall we?

Religions are practiced, not thought up: each to their own, for one’s self to disown – your anti-religious proselytising is practiced with positively missionary zeal, perhaps you were indoctrinated more than you recognise.

When I was at school (more than 15 years ago) I was told that you couldn’t walk up Gibbet Street in Halifax if you were a white girl without a headscarf. Me being me, the first opportunity I got, I walked up Gibbet Street, just to see what would happen. Knack all happened. Yes, I got a few odd looks, but then (me being me) I generally get odd looks whatever street I’m walking down.

People being intimidated by the sight of bearded men in tunics and ladies in headscarves are a product of media scare stories, propagated by credulous idiots. Yes, there are some areas where white people get beaten up by gangs of Asian men; but there are many many more where Asians get beaten up by white people, and it is the violence we should be condemning, not one or other group of people whose members may or may not be perpetrating it.