As a proud and historic nation, and the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, Britain has been responsible for the invention of innumerable wonders of note down the years. Amongst the many fine products to have first been born on these islands are the steam and jet engines, the lightbulb, the programmable computer, the television… and, of course, homophobia, too.
That is the rather strange opinion of Diarmaid McCulloch, Emeritus Professor of Oikophobia at Oxford University, about whom a headline from the Telegraph was featured in the Daily Sceptic’s round-up of possible April Fool’s stories last week, to wit: ‘British Empire taught Muslims homophobia, claims historian’. Amazingly, this was one of the stories in our list which wasn’t fake – at least, not intentionally so.
Driller On the Loose
According to Professor MacCulloch, prior to Britain’s Empire extending its hate-filled tendrils out across the globe, the highly live-and-let-live Muslim world of the Middle East, and the pagan world of black Africa, not to mention the Indian subcontinent, were all beacons of absolute and unending tolerance for the various queer human tribes – which finally explains why such countries were always painted pink on Imperial-era maps. Places like Iraq, Pakistan and Nigeria may today seem hotbeds of anti-gay intolerance, but this is really only a hidden consequence of such attitudes being imported there from the 1800s onwards by deviant-hating white Christian males from truly morally primitive places like London, Edinburgh and Cardiff.
I wouldn’t like
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
OK, let’s not murder or even hound people because they are homosexual but would “Jack shall have Jack” be reasonably, or even intelligibly, followed by “And all will be well”, as “Jack shall have JIll” is?
Islam is an ugly religion but obviously white people, particularly white British people have to be responsible for that too.
The colonial authorities often codified local cultural norms and customs into law.
Professor Diarmaid McCulloch has omitted the most important fact about Islam, in which ONLY THE VICTIMS of Sodomite Rape are regarded as “Guilty of Tempting the Innocent Rapists”, and can be legally thrown off high buildings.
And well done to Steven Tucker for pointing out the Biblical story of Lot (Lut in Islam), lauded as a virtuous man who escaped with his wife and daughters from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, condemned to destruction by God for practicing Sodomy and all other forms of perversion such as Incest.
He conveniently got rid of his wife, telling the daughters she had miraculously turned into a pillar of salt, then kept them imprisoned in a cave, where he later told others he had been raped while [pretending to be] blind drunk by his own daughters to impregnate themselves, blaming his daughters for practicing the very Incest for which Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed. He was a liar and an evil, dirty old man.
All prostrate and face in direction of South Midland Arts College.
Another earnest academician spent too long exploring up own sphincter.
It seems to me to be a bit disrespectful towards anti-gays in the Muslim and African world to claim that they weren’t intelligent or capable enough to reach their own conclusions, or create their own laws, regarding homosexuality.
Is MacCullough accusing them of being less intelligent than white, Christian Brits?
In the late 19th century and early 20th, Christian missionaries such as the American Samuel Zwemer only made a handful of converts despite working for years in Egypt and the Arabian peninsular. The latter was particularly resistant to Christianity.
Prof McCulloch wouldn’t be the first person to mistake resentment for something noble. Especially if treated harshly or unjustly by the Church. If the Prof is an expert in Christianity he would know that the premise of the Gospel story is of a Good Man mistaken for a bad man by other good men. The Good Man didn’t respond with resentment.
But at the heart of the Prof’s definition of belief is his insistence that for a belief to be legitimate it must have the imprimatur of homosexuality. This is simply the application of the present-day system of governance known as diversity. If the Prof actually visited C of E congregations he would find that very largely they are ‘inclusive’ in just this way. It would be a rare Christian today who held to the original doctrinal position that any animus to Christianity was evidence of a person being in an unpardoned state.
Clown world isn’t it Steve?
Muhammad famously killed ‘effeminates’ Koranic speak for queers. The Koranimals had no tolerance for queers, women were made to create ghazis in their view, the more boy warriors the better. Queers don’t reproduce.
Yet that is of course my fault. Twas we Catholics that taught the Jihad, happily killing, slaughtering, raping and destroying for 1400 years, that hating queers was cool.
I am sure the kids are taught this crap in school just after the Trans lesson where John is told he is Jane, or sorry, more accurately, Ahmed is told he is Aisha and that nasty Christians invented queerophobia.