Unless Christianity is the wrong religion, in which case it'll be "go straight to Hell, do not pass go, do not collect 200 virgins. Allah hates you."

Thats a good point.

How many religious representatives do you think you could gather around your deathbed during your final breaths ?

Just in case.


On the other hand I think we've just spotted a new business opportunity - savioursupermarket.com - you fill in all of your details and our search engine will automatically submit your final confession to all of the worlds deity's and seek online absolution for you, instantly, within one last breath.

Tick box to not receive any further email advertising from this web site.

Well according to George Pell atheists will still get in heaven anyway, God's well forgiving!

I've no doubt Hiltler will have, his mate Eugenio Pacelli will have done it.

Jemima Khan wrote a New Statesman article claiming that 10 years ago or so, George Galloway went through a ceremony to convert to Islam. She claims that she put this to him in a taped interview and that he did not deny it.

Now Galloway is making a big fuss and threatening libel proceedings. He claims it is not true and that he did deny it.

Khan says her information is from someone who attended the alleged ceremony. I don't know whether Galloway is a muslim or not, and can't find anywhere where he has said one way or the other. The nearest I can find is a quote from the Blackburn (or was it Bradford) election where he said words to the effect of "God knows who is a muslim and who isn't".

Why does it matter? Does it matter? Why doesn't he just categorically say what (if any) his religion is? Surely in the case of an MP that is valid info for the public domain? Or maybe he HAS publicly stated what religion he is and I can't find it?

If it is untrue that he converted to Islam, how would alleging that he did make any right-minded person think worse of him? Or is he threatening libel on the grounds of effectively being called a liar?

I read somewhere else that George has won something like 30/30 previous libel actions so maybe the New Statesman should be worried?

Interesting to note that he "affirmed" the Loyal Oath on taking his seat in Parliament, as opposed to "swearing" on a religious text. It all seems a bit strange when viewed against his rabid catholicism of not so long ago

His explanation as i understood it is that there is no question he could swear allegiance to the queen etc and actually mean it, as he has absolutely no such allegiance, and so that's the reason he could not "proper swear" on a holy book.

In fact, unless Jemima Khan's transcription is further faulty, in the New Statesman article it said:

He appears to be talking bollox then (not for the first time), here's the affirmation:

Members who object to swearing the oath are permitted to make a solemn affirmation under the terms of the Oaths Act 1978:

I... do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.

If the quote was accurate, then he would in effect be saying is that he lied on oath, as although he read out the words, the truth is that he bears no allegiance to QE whatsoever. The result is seemingly he would view it as an unacceptable thing to say that lie under a religious oath (can't be upsetting your god) but if you affirm instead, that's OK even if you don't actually mean it, as you're not upsetting your god.

I recall that the NI Sinn Fein MPs never took their seats or claimed any allowances etc as they were not entitled to as they would not on principle take the oath of allegiance. Clearly they didn't think that doing so with your fingers crossed (a la Tony Banks) was the right thing to do.

Came across a case a few years back where a party to a civil trial refused to take the oath on the holy book, unless the judge promised that if he took the oath, the judge would accept that every word of his evidence was true, as he couldn't allow a situation where he had sworn on the book but a court disbelieved him.

So, if he thinks being called a Muslim is derogatory, and thus requires legal action, how will some of new constituents respond to that?

I thought that, bar a few, they're generally ok with people not believing in Islam or becoming a Muslim. Its becoming a Muslim and then abandoning the faith that's the real no no?.