Down the Rabbit Hole

British Political Parties Being Dragged Down The Rabbit Hole

UK political parties are now truly being dragged into the Rabbit Hole of Madness, Middle East Hatred, Anti-Islamic or Antisemitic, It’s a case of Pick your Poison!

Both Labour and the Tories are being pulled into the conflict of hatred.

One bottle of poison prescribed by Baroness Warsi says:

The Muslim Council of Britain has now called on the Tories to launch an independent inquiry into allegations of Islamophobia.

The group said the last month had seen weekly incidents of Islamophobia from Conservative representatives and candidates. Baroness Warsi told Sky News the issue was a long-running one for the Tories and “was an issue for us long before the issue of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party became public”. She said: “I’ve raised this issue with successive chairman, I’ve raised the matter informally, I’ve raised it formally, I’ve had meetings about it, I’ve even written to the prime minister.

“I wrote to her last year about this issue, and each time it seems that we’ve kind of said ‘yes, we take these issues very seriously’ and then shrugged our shoulders and moved on. “What’s really concerning for me is that the frequency of these incidents seems to be now increasing, whether that’s because there’s now more public awareness about reporting these issues.

I hope, sincerely, the party now will deal with it.

The other prescribed by Jonathan Arkush:

This comes from Jonathan Arkush, who in attacking the Labour Party and in particular Jeremy Corbyn has branded it antisemitic.

Arkush says:

Jeremy Corbyn holds “antisemitic views” which could drive Jewish people to leave Britain if he becomes prime minister, one of the UK’s most senior Jewish leaders has said.

Jonathan Arkush, the outgoing president of the board of deputies, said Corbyn “has views which are antisemitic, and he has problematic views”. He also criticised the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who should have had a “stronger, clearer voice” in support of the Jewish community, he said.

Arkush, who was among senior Jewish leaders who met Corbyn in April to discuss concerns about antisemitism, told the Daily Telegraph that British Jews were asking: “Do we have a future here?”

“Delegitimising the state of Israel is antisemitic,” Arkush told the newspaper. “He was a chairman of Stop the War, which is responsible for some of the worst anti-Israel discourse.

“If he shares the prevalent discourse about Israel, then that view is unquestionably antisemitic.”

Arkush said Corbyn would need to tell Jews that he “will not accept a discourse which denies the existence of their own land to the Jewish people … I think we are all entitled to some clarity on his real views about Israel”.

Corbyn’s spokesman said the comments were “personal attacks without any evidence to support them … Jeremy has been absolutely clear that he is a militant opponent of antisemitism and is committed to driving it out of our movement.

We do not want what you are selling.

My view is, we do not want what the haters are selling. We do not want the continuation of both sides of religion and conflict that will not be resolved by attacking everything about each other. People, for those who have migrated here, I am sure when they come to the UK, they come in the hope of a better life—a life away from hatred, free from persecution, and intolerance.

I realise this is too much to ask, but can we stop the creation of a political divide based upon the poison of religious hatred? We will always have haters; we should not let mainstream politics be the base to hate from—a place where the haters can choose their poison by a political party that appears to be set firmly in one camp or the other.

I say: The British people at large are warm, welcoming, and accepting, but what is now happening and instigated by just a minority with axes to grind on both sides will only create bitterness and lead to more bigotry, racism, and hate for all.

We have issues in this country that need resolving without having to adopt the very same things that have been tearing the Middle East apart for a millennium.

Whatever responsibility you want to place on the U.K. historically, it is gone! You are no longer part of that conflict. The people in the Middle East and people of divided religions can only reflect on their own actions, not what others have done or did not do!

You have made your home here, some for generations, just like the rest of the world—we have changed. We are all trying to work for a better future, an inclusive future that does not look at religion or race but at the person, not the gender, colour, or former nationality, no matter our political divide.

The attitude of most working-class people is ‘leave your troubles behind; this is not an extension of your differences. This is a fresh start. We all reserve the right to call out injustices in the world, but we also reserve the right not to let it dominate our political world.

I respect your freedom to have a religion and even practice it. But I do not respect the fact that you want your religion to dominate our politics or undermine the working-class struggle.

Rosa Luxemburg talked about religion in politics over a hundred years ago, and how it diverts away from the working class struggle 

The Church under the Monarchy and the Republic (1903)

When one speaks of an anti-clerical policy of Socialism, it is evident that it is not intended to attack religious convictions from a Socialistic point of view. The religion of the masses will only completely disappear with the society of today, when man, instead of being dominated by the social process, will dominate it and consciously direct it. This sentiment grows less and less as the masses, educated by Socialism, begin to understand social evolution.

That “religion is a private affair“ only compels us to be neutral and not to take part in religious questions, when these only refer to intimate convictions and to the conscience. But this rule has another meaning, it not only constitutes a directing principle which should determine the proper conduct of Socialists, but it is an appeal addressed to the actual State. In the name of liberty of conscience, we demand the abolition of all public privileges which believers enjoy to the disadvantage of unbelievers, and we will assail all efforts attempted by the Church to become a dominating power in the State. It is not here a matter of conviction but of politics, and in this point, the Socialist Parties of different countries can, according to circumstances, adopt very different tactics.

Read more…LINK

Rosa Luxemburg Socialism and The Churches (1905)

From the moment when the workers of our country and of Russia began to struggle bravely against the Czarist Government and the capitalist exploiters, we notice more and more often that the priests, in their sermons, come out against the workers who are struggling. It is with extraordinary vigour that the clergy fight against the socialists and try by all means to belittle them in the eyes of the workers. The believers who go to church on Sundays and festivals are compelled, more and more often, to listen to a violent political speech, a real indictment of Socialism, instead of hearing a sermon and obtaining religious consolation there. Instead of comforting the people, who are full of cares and wearied by their hard lives, who go to church with faith in Christianity, the priests fulminate against the workers who are on strike, and against the opponents of the government; further, they exhort them to bear poverty and oppression with humility and patience. They turn the church and the pulpit into a place of political propaganda.

The workers can easily satisfy themselves that the struggle of the clergy against the Social-Democrats is in no way provoked by the latter. The Social-Democrats have placed themselves the objective of drawing together and organising the workers in the struggle against capital, that is to say, against the exploiters who squeeze them down to the last drop of blood, and in the struggle against the Czarist government, which holds the people to ransom. But never do the Social-Democrats drive the workers to fight against clergy, or try to interfere with religious beliefs; not at all! The Social-Democrats, those of the whole world and of our own country, regard conscience and personal opinions as being sacred. Every man may hold what faith and what opinions seem likely to him to ensure happiness. No one has the right to persecute or to attack the particular religious opinion of others.

That is what the socialists think. And it is for that reason, among others, that the socialists rally all the people to fight against the Czarist regime, which is continually violating men’s consciences, persecuting Catholics, Russian Catholics, Jews, heretics and freethinkers. It is precisely the Social-Democrats who come out most strongly in favour of freedom of conscience. Therefore it would seem as if the clergy ought to lend their to the Social-Democrats who are trying to enlighten the toiling people. If we understand properly the teachings which the socialists bring to the working class, the hatred of clergy towards them becomes still less understandable.

The Social-Democrats propose to put an end to the exploitation of the toiling people by the rich. You would have that the servants of the Church would have been the first to make this task easier for the Social-Democrats. Did Jesus Christ (whose servants the priests are) teach that “it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven”?  The Social-Democrats try to bring about in all countries social regimes based on the equality, liberty and fraternity of all the citizens. If the clergy really desire that the principle “Love thy neighbour as thyself” be applied in real life why do they not welcome keenly the propaganda of the Social Democrats? The Social Democrats try, by a desperate struggle, by the education and organisation of the people, to draw them out of the downtrodden state in which they now are and to offer a better future to their children. Everyone should admit, that at this point, the clergy should bless the Social-Democrats, for did not he whom they serve, Jesus Christ, say “That you do for the poor you do for me”?

However we see the clergy on the one hand, excommunicating and persecuting the Social-Democrats, and, on the other hand, commanding the workers to suffer in patience, that is, to let themselves patiently be exploited by the capitalists. The clergy storm against the Social Democrats, exhort the workers not to “revolt” against the overlords, but to submit obediently to the oppression of this government which kills defenceless people, which sends to the monstrous butchery of the war millions of workers, which persecutes Catholics, Russian Catholics and “Old Believers”. Thus, the clergy, which makes itself the spokesman of the rich, the defender of exploitation and oppression, places itself in flagrant contradiction to the Christian doctrine. The bishops and the priests are not the propagators of Christian teaching, but the worshippers of the Golden Calf and of the Knout which whips the poor and defenceless.

Again, everyone knows how the priests themselves make profit from the worker, extract money out of him on the occasion of marriage, baptism or burial. How often has it happened that the priest, called to the bedside of a sick man to administer the last sacraments, refused to go there before he had been paid his “fee”? The worker goes away in despair, to sell or pawn his last possession, so as to be able to give religious consolation to his kindred.

It is true that we do meet churchmen of another kind. There exist some who are full of goodness and pity and who do not seek gain; these are always ready to help the poor. But we must admit these are indeed uncommon and that they can be regarded in the same way as white blackbirds. The majority of priests, with beaming faces, bow and scrape to the rich and powerful, silently pardoning them for every depravity, every iniquity. With the workers, the clergy behave quite otherwise: they think only of squeezing them pity; in harsh sermons, they condemn the “covetess” of the workers when these latter do no more than defend themselves against the wrongs of capitalism. The glaring contradiction between the actions of the clergy and teachings of Christianity must make everyone reflect. The workers wonder how it comes about that the working class in its struggle for emancipation, finds in the servants of the Church, enemies and not allies. How does it happen that the Church plays the role of a defence of wealth and bloody oppression, instead of being the refuge of the exploited? In order to understand this strange phenomenon, it is sufficient to glance over the history of the Church and to examine the evolution through which it has passed in the course of the centuries.

Read More: Link