But then most of the population are white aren’t they, would this be one of those red herrings you like so much? What is % of offenders in relation to ethnicity or would that be racial profiling?

And how many Christians are killed by other Christians?

Cheers for the red herring, dude.

“You have a lot to say buddyhell, yet in the face of Dr Taj Hargey views on the issue you fall silent and practically accuse me of almost condoning child abuse for simply presenting his views, you certainly are coming across as an individual with something at stake here”.

What on earth are you talking about? I never “accused” you of “child abuse” but it’s clear that you have some rather curious ideas about child abuse. Indeed, you seem to believe that grooming is unique to Islam, when the majority of people incarcerated in British prisons for child sexual abuse are white. Now, I’m sorry if you can’t wrap your big thick head around that but tough. Furthermore, if you don’t think patriarchy has anything to do with this, then you’re more than likely to accept the patriarchal status quo and probably hold some decidedly dodgy views on Otherness.

Over to you.

” that’s like the Americans saying all terrorists are from a Muslim background, which considering the majority of terrorist act committed in the US are by White Christians is a bit rich
What are your sources for that?”

It’s said in context in relation to the point I was trying to make, but for factual data it’s worth looking through the FBI’s own data who themselves admit that between 1980 and 2005 90% of domestic terrorism was committed by non-Muslims (link below)

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — A federal judge Thursday turned down a request by five nudism activists for a temporary restraining order blocking a San Francisco ban on nakedness on public streets, sidewalks and transit vehicles. [21 May 2013]
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/03/21/federal-judge-upholds-public-nudity-ban-in-san-francisco/

Is this intolerant?

Sorry, but sharp edges are prickly.

“As for “dumb”, I suppose that…”

I may disagree with you, and I may say that some arguments are dumb, but I do not think that you are stupid.

Although if the problem is that I can’t see the problem that you are presenting in my face, and the problem that you are presenting in my face is the problem that I can’t see the problem that you are presenting in my face, and so on, it’s probably best to leave it blurred.

(Reuters) – A German court ruled on Wednesday that Muslim girls must take part in school swimming lessons with boys, in a landmark decision that touches on the sensitive relationship between religion and the state.
The decision by Germany’s top court for public and administrative disputes signals that the state’s constitutional obligation to educate children can take precedence over customs and practices linked to an individual’s religious beliefs.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/11/uk-germany-muslims-swimming-idUKBRE98A12E20130911

After France banned the wearing of hijabs in schools in 2004, intolerance in European countries over the insistance of Muslims to continue with their religious practices regardless of the sentiments and indigenous practices of European host communities seems to be spreading.

That is your problem. You are unable to see the problem when it is presented in your face.

I tried to use your mirror, but couldn’t see my face and cut myself whilst shaving.

As for “dumb”, I suppose that if I had said that child abuse in “Christian countries” (by which I assume Mr B. means the atheistic West) was largely the preserve of Muslim rape-gangs, then your comment might have some merit.

As it happens, I made no such assertion. What I asserted was that it is no bigotry to care for one’s own people, and to seek to protect those people from the predations of others. That this is the sort of thing everybody understands naturally — except perhaps for ultra-liberals, who can always be found scrambling to the nearest patch of moral high ground, from where they are better able to look down upon their fellows — can be seen by examining your own feelings for your family, which you undoubtedly love more than mine. Which makes you a bigot, by Mr Hundai’s lights.

Substantively (and quite obviously), what I wrote has little to do with the actions of Muslim rape-gangs or child abuse more generally; it was a comment about the extraordinarily silly contortions into which the ruling ideology of our age leads its more committed proponents. Caring for particular people is wrong, because it implies that one doesn’t care for anyone else. Criticising particular people is wrong, because it legitimises the existence of particular people, whereas we know that humanity is one universal brotherhood, wherein all people are the same and no differences exist.

As best I can tell from news reports, sexual abuse of the young, mainly young boys, was nowhere nearly as prevalent in Anglican churches and church schools as in Catholic institutions.

As the French say: Chacun a son gout, but at least we can agree that abusive sex is not peculiar to Asian religions and cultures. Be that as it may, there remains the challenging policy issue of what to do about the social consequences of the gender imbalance in Asian countries.

Amartya Sen:

In Europe and North America women tend to outnumber men. For example, in the United Kingdom, France, and the United States the ratio of women to men exceeds 1.05. In many Third World countries, however, especially in Asia and north Africa, the female:male ratio may be as low as 0.95 (Egypt), 0.94 (Bangladesh, China, and west Asia), 0.93 (India), or even 0.90 (Pakistan). These differences are relevant to an assessment of female inequality across the world
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dludden/GenderInequalityMissingWomen.pdf

Anglicans may disagree. Ask them about fiddlers.

As best I can tell from news reports, sexual abuse of the young, mainly young boys, was nowhere nearly as prevalent in Anglican churches and church schools as in Catholic institutions.

Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases have affected several American dioceses, whose compensation payments have totaled in the billions of dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlements_and_bankruptcies_in_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

If there is a case for banning pornography, there is surely a more compelling case for a universal ban of the Catholic church to protect the young from abuse. The list of countries afflicted by the abuses of the Catholic priesthood is horrifically long.

At least that makes clear sexual abuse is not restricted to the followers of Asian religions and cultures but it dodges the fundamental issue of what to do about the social consequences of the missing millions of women in Asia as the result of gender selective abortion and infanticide.

Police forces and ‘child care’ agencies have been alerted to the fact that many of their staff do not give a shit about kids.

Muslim groomers assume that nobody cares; non-Muslim abusers presume the same fucking thing.

@Sid: “and (b) trying to turn this into a race/religion issue by implying these men only target girls outside their race/religion.”

I don’t want to think about victims too much. I wanna think about high fliers.

Poundland sells mirrors.

Consider what you wrote @33 which is equally dumb.

If enforced Catholic celibacy was a root cause of kiddy fiddling, why was child abuse common in Anglican churches and church schools?

—
Hargey responds to the sentencing of Muslim men in Oxford for grooming vulnerable young women with a polemic against Muslims. I am prepared to believe that Hargey has been selectively quoted. I believe that he spoke without thinking — about what he really meant and how it might be used.

And some of his words were really dumb.

Hargey: ‘But then part of the reason this scandal happened at all is precisely because of such politically correct thinking. All the agencies of the state, including the police, the social services and the care system, seemed eager to ignore the sickening exploitation that was happening before their eyes.’

This is like blaming a pond drowning attended by rescue services on health and safety: we all know that somebody probably died because somebody else was unwilling or incapable of doing their job, but blame was passed to another body.

Hargey blames non-intervention by the police and social services on ‘political correctness’. Some people view non-intervention as the police and social services not doing their jobs. One of the survivors of Oxford abuse grooming sees it that way.

Hargey defends uselessness further: ‘Terrified of accusations of racism, desperate not to undermine the official creed of cultural diversity, they took no action against obvious abuse.’

So whilst dealing with young women who displayed physical evidence of sexual and violent abuse, abuse survivors delivered to them by the perpetrators, ‘care workers’ were allegedly afraid to declare that young women were being abused. What a crock of shit. They just weren’t bothered.

Telegraph: ‘The men were allowed, he said, to come and go from care homes by the authorities, and if the situation had been reversed with gangs of white men preying on Muslim teenagers ”the state’s agencies would have acted with greater alacrity.”’

So it is fundamentally about whether ‘care workers’ give a shit about ‘their’ kids.

Hargey: ‘The view of some Islamic preachers towards white women can be appalling. They encourage their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent, and sleazy — sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs or non-believers.’

That is a statement about hate speech in mosques, which may cause social tension. Hargey does not have the knowledge or balls to name preachers or mosques which incite violence and abuse. I believe that they exist, but Hargey leaves me ignorant about who and where.

Hargey: ‘Their dress code, from miniskirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished for their behaviour by being exploited and degraded.’

Sadly, Hargey does not go on any further in the quote. For which I suspect a journalist trimmed the dialogue. I do not know what Hargey might have added.

Whilst being an atheist, I think about the messages of theism. I don’t recall any religious text which justifies abuse of impure and immoral women and men. Apart, perhaps, from the works of Aleister Crowley?

Telegraph: ‘Such cases can only be prevented in the future if Britain abandons the blinkers of political correctness, he concludes.’

The Telegraph set that quote up nicely.

What are your sources for that?