- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You nailed it, Wiggen.
This may have been raised elsewhere in the thread, but I'm not going back and reading 25 pages. It is this:
Why is it that the only place Muslims feel secure in holding a peace conference and condemning terrorism is in a non-Muslim, western democracy? When this conference is held in Cairo or Damascus
or Beiruit or any other Arab capitol, let me know. I'll join in the celebration.
When we say that there is a problem with Islam, or a problem with Islamic terrorists, do you feel it's necessary to say that not all Muslims are terrorists or that some parts of the Islamic world are quite peaceful. Do these qualifications still have to be made after all these years? Do you sincerely believe that no one understands that by now?
When I overhear several Americans in a bus in Oregon, asking "why can't we just nuke these sangniggers and towelheads, why can't we just bomb Mecca and be done with it", when I read of people in Western countries protesting against the right of Muslims to worship in mosques, when I see people proposing public Quran burnings, when native Westeners commit arson attacks against mosques and Muslim community houses ... hell yes! You can't even say it often enough!
If we were to say there is a problem in the "Black community" I doubt most people would feel the need to say that "not all Blacks are a problem" or that the crime of "Blackophobia" is being committed. The same goes for any community that is a part of society. We should be sophisticated enough to understand the differences by now, and in most of the world I believe that's the case..
Well, maybe I am wrong, but everyday anew, I see evidence to the contrary. Most people do not make this difference. They simply hate Muslims. Not even for the reasonable, understandable reasons, but often enough, because they simply are xenophobes and racists who complain about anybody who spoils their racial and cultural purity.
In my opinion, the number of these people by far outnumbers the problematic Muslims.
It might be the case where Europeans aren't all that experienced in dealing with folks with another set of values based on a different set of religious beliefs. You seem to believe that the best way to incorporate those with different beliefs into your cultural community is to just accept them with a smile, let them follow their own rules and adapt your rules to theirs, offer up the multicult platitudes and then hide in your homes when the problems inevitably begin.
In case you have read my other postings above, you know that's not what I believe. I'm not opposed to tough measures against real troublemakers, as long as we rather use a scalpel than a sledgehammer.
On the other side, I'm not so pessimistic about the power of pluralistic and individualist thought within our society, as some seem to be. The Western way of life has already made the East Bloc collapse, mostly by good example and attractiveness. And then, people don't think immigrants will realize the opportunities the Western way of life offers, when given a chance? (Note again: I don't believe that carrot alone will do the trick. For the few remaining troublemakers, a stick is just fine.)
I'm Canadian and have lived, worked and traveled all over the US. I know a great deal more about the United States than you do. Let's stick to the discussion at hand.
I believe you know more about life in the US than I do. Never claimed otherwise. No need to get codescending, I was just asking questions. I notice you said "no".
Germany seems to have gone from one extreme to another. What Germans consider to be a "no go" is only more political correctness, which is one of the greatest scourges of the age. I have no interest in your no go areas, or anyone elses for that. It emasculates discussion.
You may be right. On the other side, I really hope the continously lowered threshhold of civility and respect in the US debate will not cause severe problems for you in the future. I like to think a sane middle way is preferable.
You're obviously in no position to do that anyway.
Yeah, I know you don't like Europeans. Sorry for that. I forgot that lack of respect is common sense in America, which is what we're talking about.(Sorry, couldn't resist. No hard feelings, really.)
It's is not a 'trivial' thing but neither is it as high on the agenda right now as the economy, or governmental corruption and debt. That's probably because a good job is being done in ridding the world of the more outspoken Islamic leaders and terrorist supporters, though we also have to do that domestically as well when they riot or suggest a form of Sharia law be introduced.
It is still a 'thing' though, a seriously worrisome thing in many areas of the world, and certainly worthy of discussion.
I don't know, I find the reaction of some people hysteric. For example, Oklahoma recently had a bill to vote on, which was banning the introduction of Sharia law in that state. 80% or so of the voters of course voted "yes". But how many Muslims are there in Oklahoma anyway? Some say they were six, their dog being the seventh. Others say, they were eight, their dog was the ninth.
You are watching American culture through the German perspective. I have heard Europeans make these same arguments so frequently and all you do is embarrass yourselves. You remain ignorant on American culture, apart from the highlights you get in your media, and yet you still set yourself as being qualified to offer up your goofy opinions.
No American I know would b so presumptuous to comment on the German culture, or Finnish or Czech culture, without at least having some intimate knowledge of the subject. The same, frustrating enough, does not hold true for far too many Europeans. You really do embarrass yourselves. This American thing seems an obsession with far too many Europeans.
And what's this with Fox news? Do you watch it at all? Have you ever seen it? Where's your problem with Fox news?
Well, maybe I am wrong, but everyday anew, I see evidence to the contrary. Most people do not make this difference. They simply hate Muslims. Not even for the reasonable, understandable reasons, but often enough, because they simply are xenophobes and racists who complain about anybody who spoils their racial and cultural purity.
I believe you're wrong. In depressing times they can get 3% of the electorate ;-) All the rest are mistakenly indentified as racists and xenophobes. Never thought I'd say this, but even you contribute to that. This is one of the big reasons why people like Wilders have succes; people like me are sick and tired of being portrayed as a racist or xenophobe. He exploits the leftist dogma you swallow for cotton candy.
I don't like religion, I hate fundamentalism/literalism and I oppose mass migration. That doesn't make me a racist or xenophobe. There used to be some of those on this board. Wish you were here at the time, you would have known the difference. Because they're quite vocal, they don't hide it. Racism requires a certain amount of stupidity, most can barely write.
When I overhear several Americans in a bus in Oregon, asking "why can't we just nuke these sangniggers and towelheads, why can't we just bomb Mecca and be done with it",
when I read of people in Western countries protesting against the right of Muslims to worship in mosques,
people proposing public Quran burnings
when I see phen native Westeners commit arson attacks against mosques and Muslim community houses ... hell yes! You can't even say it often enough!
Well, maybe I am wrong, but everyday anew, I see evidence to the contrary. Most people do not make this difference. They simply hate Muslims. Not even for the reasonable, understandable reasons, but often enough, because they simply are xenophobes and racists who complain about anybody who spoils their racial and cultural purity.
In my opinion, the number of these people by far outnumbers the problematic Muslims.
In case you have read my other postings above, you know that's not what I believe. I'm not opposed to tough measures against real troublemakers, as long as we rather use a scalpel than a sledgehammer.
On the other side, I'm not so pessimistic about the power of pluralistic and individualist thought within our society, as some seem to be. The Western way of life has already made the East Bloc collapse, mostly by good example and attractiveness. And then, people don't think immigrants will realize the opportunities the Western way of life offers, when given a chance? (Note again: I don't believe that carrot alone will do the trick. For the few remaining troublemakers, a stick is just fine.)
I believe you know more about life in the US than I do. Never claimed otherwise. No need to get codescending, I was just asking questions. I notice you said "no".
You may be right. On the other side, I really hope the continously lowered threshhold of civility and respect in the US debate will not cause severe problems for you in the future. I like to think a sane middle way is preferable.
Yeah, I know you don't like Europeans. Sorry for that. I forgot that lack of respect is common sense in America, which is what we're talking about.(Sorry, couldn't resist. No hard feelings, really.)
I don't know, I find the reaction of some people hysteric. For example, Oklahoma recently had a bill to vote on, which was banning the introduction of Sharia law in that state. 80% or so of the voters of course voted "yes". But how many Muslims are there in Oklahoma anyway? Some say they were six, their dog being the seventh. Others say, they were eight, their dog was the ninth.
Yeah, I know you don't like Europeans and that you believe arguments don't deserve attention, but nationality does. Not sure what happened, if your European girlfriend cheated on you or anything. I am convinced I won't be able to change your mind on Europeans, so why bother. Although I believe you'd find some of us are nice people, if you gave us a chance.
No hard feelings, really. If you ever happen to visit Berlin, let me know. I'll buy you a beer.
Is that one a lager or a stout?
Life's a never ending quest for knowledge. Thanks for the compliment thoughThis coming from you, a person I have come to know as very reasonable, makes me think I should take this to my heart. You may be right to some extent, although you'll probably forgive me when I tell you that I'm not entirely convinced yet.
In general I think you're right, but there's a big difference with a Turkish person from Istanbul, vs. one from the highlands of eastern Turkey. Looking a the problems we have with some of our immigrant community's, Islam is not the common denominator.Also, I don't know if there may be a difference regarding the problems with immigrants in Germany, vs. Belgium/Netherlands (where you live, or don't you?). Most immigrants in Germany from Muslim countries are from Turkey rather than from Arab countries, and the "ghettoization" is much less extreme here than, say, France. No idea if that makes a difference, maybe it does, maybe not. My impression is, anyway, that many of these Turkish immigrants here are not even that religious. Guess a few Kemalists have found their way here too.
This stereotype has always existed, and it still does. Some people think like that, and surely they'll feel at home with parties who are tough on migration. Not everybody thinks it's a good idea to rapidly change the demography of a country. They may also vote for Wilders if the conservatives or right wing liberals fail to deliver. Wilders got 20% of the electorate, most of them are not xenophobes.I'm aware people of the Wilders calibre are not Nazis. In fact, the Sarrazin or Wilders fans over here are distinctly not Nazi. But my impression is, they are indeed xenophobic. Note that this now is just my subjective impression, I might be wrong: They hated "multiculturalism" from the beginning, even before it was about Muslims, but already when it was about Italians, "Yugos" and Poles. Their main concern is that they somehow feel intimidated and afraid of visible expressions of non-German culture, be that döner kebap stores, mosques or people talking in a foreign language -- or even native subcultures, be that rockers, metal fans or punks. And they have a paranoid fear of becoming victims of crime, fueled by the tabloids. Usually, they are lower middle class to working poor, and feel especially threatened by economic decline, which they then scapegoat on foreigners allegedly taking their jobs. They are very white-bread, they want the good old days back, when everybody spoke German, crime was not hyped yet in the media and thus allegedly didn't exist, when spanking kids was still acceptable and people went to church every sunday (or to the union meeting).
Because they know they can secure a lot of votes that way. It's not their strenght, it's the weakness of the political elite on this subject. They keep on talking about respect, while the public wants action. Of course they don't support banning mosques or 'deportations', but they don't have to worry something like that could get through parliament.Then the Islam debate came. Suddenly, they had a focal point for all their fears. And they too, although not decidedly Nazi, certainly don't keep the debate civil, but their activism is usually limited to banning mosques and wanting these foreigners deported, in one word: Ostracism.
Well, we have an obligation to combat racism and violence. A mature democracy protect its minorites. Considering what conservative christians had to go through from the 60s - 90s, in terms of abuse, muslims will have to deal with a lot of stereotypes. They can prove them wrong, we can't.You are certainly right that any society should take such fears into consideration, no matter how irrational they are. Maybe the rejection of Islam as a symbol for all their fears is not rational, but those things which worry these people, especially the fear of economic decline, unemployment, to some extent crime and so on, certainly are. But I'd prefer the real reasons being addressed, rather than fighting this fight on the backs of Muslim scapegoats.
This of course, the biggest Lie in the string.
You never engage in argument except in a semantic sense.
One oft sees this kind of cuteness/dependence on ones confidence in semantic ability to Bluff thru many topics on which that poster obviously has No knowledge.
You Didn't answer questions directly or forthrightly.
You ignore posts like my #193, the Meatiest in the string, and Instead make a stupid objection to 'au contrare'. (your #200)
Most indicative, you abuse and wear out the word 'islamophobe', Instead of engaging in debate about Islam. (10 yet?).
And in a similar matter to Gunner, do it mostly third party/Whoring to someone else.
Is pointing out Islam has an Inordinate problem with Violence and intolerance "islamophopbic'.
Djoop and Gardener have said - After I did - 'acknowledging the problem is the first step in a solution', to several 'Likes' from people who Won't acknowledge there IS a problem!... to me.
We/You must keep the fact there IS a problem, or Spelling it out, under wraps, stealthily/disingenuously trying to solve the 'nonexistant'/unspecified problem. ie, cheering the minority who demonstrate against it. "it" however, dare not be specified/elucidated.
Painfully contorted and Dishonest PC.
I'll ask directly: Ben K., do you really believe these problems do not exist, or do you merely believe it's wrong to smear Islam in general in a broad-brush manner with it?
As neither of is know any, how do you know they exist? Are you just guessing?
I Know of some Christianophobes. Do you have anything that can possibly compare with this?
Iran readies to hang Christian pastor for ‘apostasy,’ pastor refuses to recant « Quite Normal
I believe you're wrong. In depressing times they can get 3% of the electorate ;-) All the rest are mistakenly indentified as racists and xenophobes.... This is one of the big reasons why people like Wilders have succes; people like me are sick and tired of being portrayed as a racist or xenophobe. He exploits the leftist dogma you swallow for cotton candy.
I don't like religion, I hate fundamentalism/literalism and I oppose mass migration. That doesn't make me a racist or xenophobe. There used to be some of those on this board. Wish you were here at the time, you would have known the difference. Because they're quite vocal, they don't hide it. Racism requires a certain amount of stupidity, most can barely write.
‘cultural racism’ can appear more tolerant, and therefore command greater public legitimacy.They function by systematically and radically
stereotyping core cultural features of a target group. By targeting cultural markers of identity (such as religious faith), rather than physical
appearances as found in the ‘biological racism’ of older far right movements, such sustained, negative stereotyping creates a xenophobic
discourse of exclusion. In particular, it is recognisable by its presentation of the scapegoat community as having a culturally ‘fixed’ set of
values. These values are held to be diametrically opposed to those of the national community, as well as being inferior and dangerous. In the case of
‘nativist’ Islamophobia, the Koran is a key propaganda tool. One of the key recurring themes within the ‘new far right’ is the argument that
Muslim adherence to the Koran is deemed essential to the Islamic faith, yet the text is also presented as the antithesis to European values. In
sum, according to the stark ‘new far right’ ideology either one rejects the west, or one rejects the
Koran.
Following this ‘nativist’, or culturally racist turn, Europe’s ‘new far right’ calls for the removal of such feared influences. This is to be achieved via compulsory assimilation to a predefined national identity, while rejecting any values deemed ‘alien’. In the main, such ideas have displaced those of compulsory deportation found
in the far right of a generation ago. Removing a culture deemed alien, rather than a body of people, is often now the core goal.
Anders Brevik.
The victims of Anders Brevik were mostly teenagers. Perhaps he was a teenageraphobe.
If he was an Islamophobe he probably would have targeted Muslims, not young people.
Are you declining to comment on his well known ideology as put forth through his manifesto which drove him to commit an act of terror?
The victims of Anders Brevik were mostly teenagers. Perhaps he was a teenageraphobe.
If he was an Islamophobe he probably would have targeted Muslims, not young people.
Often not directly, but my convictions have been attacked as islamophobia on numerous occasions. I could easily turn it around and ask YOU, more than anyone else on this board, if you consider me to be one.I don't believe anyone has ever called you an Islamophobe Djoop It is yourself who is always calling yourself out as not being one, not anyone saying you are one.
People can be foolish, especially when their emotions are part of the decision making process. They may vote for less migration, a stronger stance on Islamic extremism, while not supporting policies I discussed with GG. Do you support the entire program of the party you voted for last election? I sincerely doubt it.The idea that people would vote for an anti islam party because people said they were anti islam when they are not is foolish. Although the report below goes with what German Guy said that the people drawn to groups like the EDL or Wilders Freedom party, tend to be lower middle class or working class that does not mean that they do not know what they are voting for or getting involved in.
I don’t want to ban any book. I’ve criticized Wilder’s idiotic counter-productive proposals like these a lot. Hell, I don’t even want to polute our lawbook with bans on certain religious garments (burkha f.e.). I think you’d be surprised how few of these policies I support.You do not like religion. If you agree with Wilders desire to ban the Koran, do you work for the Bible and the Torah to be banned as well as the Koran?
I do not support mass immigration. The French are free to settle in NL, they’re part of the EU. I would also oppose Chinese immigration at a certain point. Not because I dislike Chinese people, but we can’t handle 50-100.000 Chinese immigrants each year. We have nothing to offer. Immigration requires investment (education, housing, employment, social cohesion). We have failed to provide it for previous immigrants and I know we don’t have the funds and political will to support even more.You do not like immigration. Do you have as much of a problem with French and Chinese immigration as Muslim?
Well I’m glad you add nuance by saying that it’s not necessarily true. My position is not that racism against muslims doesn’t exist, my position that it isn’t as prevalent as you, and posters like GG, fear. I do realize that some people think the way you have described, and it doesn’t surprise me to find it back in these polls.The report below found that though immigration was stated as the problem their research found that is was aimed at Muslim immigration and Muslims already settled rather than say Asians who were just Asians. If they are not Muslims, according to this report, immigration is not a problem - I know that is not necessarily true. In the UK for instance there is a lot of resentment concerning East Europeans, but with regard to those who support Wilders, the EDL and other new far right groups or parties, this report found that was the case.
I’ll take the time to study the link tonight and give it some thought. Have to warn you up front, I doubt it will convince me, considering the creation of new terms like 'cultural racism'. You may expect me to judge people by their actions, my mind reading abilities suck.The new far right is very careful to keep it's image as not being racist in the 'vulgar' old sense. Rather it is what the report below describes as 'cultural racism'.
Northampton University has recently come out with a paper on the new far right, in particular the EDL. Here is how they describe the difference
http://www.radicalism-new-media.org...DL_Britains_New_Far_Right_Social_Movement.pdf
They specialise on the EDL but this much fits a picture I have been reading also from Australian Academic's on the new far right. They also speak of the front image by which they attract recruits/voters and of course the behind the scenes one.
That I do agree with. Even when you don’t agree with their choices, the only thing you should do is challenge those choices, you can’t force people to change their identity.Now how this will in the end work out we do not know but given the link up of the groups, the fact that you cannot forcibly change people's identity and that it is totally illiberal to deny people the right to their own choices it definitely has the potential to be extremely serious.
Often not directly, but my convictions have been attacked as islamophobia on numerous occasions. I could easily turn it around and ask YOU, more than anyone else on this board, if you consider me to be one.
People can be foolish, especially when their emotions are part of the decision making process. They may vote for less migration, a stronger stance on Islamic extremism, while not supporting policies I discussed with GG. Do you support the entire program of the party you voted for last election? I sincerely doubt it.
I don’t want to ban any book. I’ve criticized Wilder’s idiotic counter-productive proposals like these a lot. Hell, I don’t even want to polute our lawbook with bans on certain religious garments (burkha f.e.). I think you’d be surprised how few of these policies I support.
I do not support mass immigration. The French are free to settle in NL, they’re part of the EU. I would also oppose Chinese immigration at a certain point. Not because I dislike Chinese people, but we can’t handle 50-100.000 Chinese immigrants each year. We have nothing to offer. Immigration requires investment (education, housing, employment, social cohesion). We have failed to provide it for previous immigrants and I know we don’t have the funds and political will to support even more.
That said, it would be dishonest to suggest I don’t have more problems with muslim immigrants. I do, but I’m also a libertarian, I refuse to support discriminative laws.
Well I’m glad you add nuance by saying that it’s not necessarily true. My position is not that racism against muslims doesn’t exist, my position that it isn’t as prevalent as you, and posters like GG, fear. I do realize that some people think the way you have described, and it doesn’t surprise me to find it back in these polls.
I’ll take the time to study the link tonight and give it some thought. Have to warn you up front, I doubt it will convince me, considering the creation of new terms like 'cultural racism'. You may expect me to judge people by their actions, my mind reading abilities suck.
That I do agree with. Even when you don’t agree with their choices, the only thing you should do is challenge those choices, you can’t force people to change their identity.
In particular, it is recognisable by its presentation of the scapegoat community as having a culturally ‘fixed’ set of
values. These values are held to be diametrically opposed to those of the national community, as well as being inferior and dangerous. In the case of
‘nativist’ Islamophobia, the Koran is a key propaganda tool. One of the key recurring themes within the ‘new far right’ is the argument that
Muslim adherence to the Koran is deemed essential to the Islamic faith, yet the text is also presented as the antithesis to European values. In
sum, according to the stark ‘new far right’ ideology either one rejects the west, or one rejects the
Koran.
Following this ‘nativist’, or culturally racist turn, Europe’s ‘new far right’ calls for the removal of such feared influences. This is to be achieved via compulsory assimilation to a predefined national identity, while rejecting any values deemed ‘alien’. In the main, such ideas have displaced those of compulsory deportation found
in the far right of a generation ago. Removing a culture deemed alien, rather than a body of people, is often now the core goal.
alexa #265 said:I don't believe anyone has ever called you an Islamophobe Djoop It is yourself who is always calling yourself out as not being one, not anyone saying you are one.
Djoop #270 said:Often not directly, but my convictions have been attacked as islamophobia on numerous occasions. I could easily turn it around and ask YOU, more than anyone else on this board, if you consider me to be one.
"Unaware"? "Unaccused" ?alexa #271 said:Really I was Unaware of that. I don't know you well enough to say one way or the other, though it has seemed that whether you are or not amuses you.
Who else But an "Islamophobe" would "Prefer to Pretend otherwise" and 'Like' my posts in the string.alexa #70 said:[.. LIST ..]Djoop #68 said:Indeed they do not. But it would be very human to condemn it. No 'normal' human being enjoys the suffering of others.
One of my problems with Islam, in general, is the selective outrage. You'd expect to see more outrage when such an atrocity is committed in name of your religion. Unfortunately, far too many believe a cartoon does more damage.
10 years after 9/11 and these are a few I have picked up still online. Do a search and you will still find many many more but you Prefer to Pretend otherwise.
:shrug:
You love to obfuscate, don't ya? The man was a number of things - sexist, paranoid and nationalist. That doesn't make him any less of an Islamophobe based on the videos he made. The fact that he murdered people doesn't make him one either - as if you had to kill people or be a supporter of murder to be a racist, anti-semite, sexist etc. The man clearly had irrational hatred and fear of people identifying as Muslim.
Let me try to explain. In NL, this sentiment arose during the 90s. Previously, most politicians were PC, to avoid slaughter in the election. No one dared to say there were a lot of problems with 'muslim' youths at the time. Of course we're not talking about devout muslims, but that was the common denominator, they came from a muslim background. Eventhough politicians didn't talk about it, people on the street did. At some point you get the first politician (Fortuyn) who adresses the problem and calls for action. Social democrats attacked him on it and expected to gain seats in parliament. Instead of debating the problem and possible solutions, they questioned the politician's intentions and accused him of racism. It became counter productive, they lost a lot of seats. Wilders still uses that, he succesfully tries to portray social democrats on their perceived unwillingness to deal with the problems of our melting pot.What I understood you to be saying was that people would vote for an anti islam party just because people accused them of being anti islam.
Ow I agree, but there's a world between dislike, prejudice and downright racist. We all have our dislikes, and most of us have a few prejudices as well. I voted for Fortuyn back in the day, because I was extremely annoyed with the way they debated him. The same on this forum, I often thank people for posting a simple truth when I feel they had to combat a falsehood.Looking at what gets people hooked to such parties is a large and different issue. My own personal opinion is that it would be impossible for someone who had a dislike of prejudice to join one unless they were drunk. We will need to agree to disagree for the time being.
We have mandatory language courses, for which the immigrant has to pay roughly E6000 upfront. Great way to promote a country don't you think. BTW, there's a two year waiting list. We have political refugees. If they report themselves, they're placed in jail type institutions. They get a weekly allowance of E15, but are not allowed to work or study. However, the illegal ones can get a working permit. Our system, designed by sociopaths, creates sociopaths.There seems to be a pretty uniform opinion that immigration has reached it's limit (apart from Alex Salmond in Scotland). Now it is difficult to remember everything but after the English riots and looting I can remember reading that some of the kids on the loot were not even capable of filling in an application form for a job. Because of this we were keeping them on the dole and bringing in new immigrants to do jobs they could be doing. If true that is a bit silly.
I disagree. I dislike many things. I also dislike, heavily prejudiced against, christian extremists. Doesn't mean I want to kick them out of the country or try to annoy them with discriminative legislation. I do want to challenge their views, and there's no free pass. As soon as they enter the battle of ideas they're fair game as far as I'm concerned.Well you may have a conflict of interest there and need to make a choice as to which is more important to you.
What we find with people suffering from anti islam prejudice is that they are not just bothered about new Muslim's coming in, they appear to believe that those already citizens are not citizens just like everyone else. My own view is that all citizens here are citizens of equal standing. All are British and all have the same rights.
That could be the case in the UK. In NL, Wilders openly talks about curtailing 'non western immigration'. There's no disguise, pretty clear he opposes muslim immigration a lot more than east european immigration.I wasn't exactly saying that. I was saying that immigration is a major problem felt by many people and does not necessarily have anything to do with race/religion. As I said in another thread the only complaints I have personally come across about immigration in the past ten years have been people complaining about East European immigration. These are usually workmen I have coming to my house believing they are being undercut. I now have an excellent Polish plumber who does a good job for a fair price
The point was that such groups as the EDL and other far right groups will use immigration as a front force but really it is Muslim immigration and Muslim's already citizens they are concerned about rather than immigration itself. Most people in the UK know this and so do not join these parties/organisations regardless of their views on immigration.
The foreword alone contains many questionable positions presented as truths. A thread in itself. Pretty ridiculous to criticize a race, human races are 99,9% a like. But cultural or religious behavings are something different, there can be all kinds of valid reasons to criticize those. The line between criticism and racism aka the heart of our disagreement. Criticizing Islam is dangerous enough as it is imo.A word is a word. Few people would find the term anti-semetic appropriate if it were to be introduced nowadays. The quote I gave I felt gave a good discription of what is was talking about and I felt justified the use of the term. The attack is on a negative stereotypical presentationn of a culture/religion rather than on a negative stereotype of race.
You can't refuse islamic schools when you fund christian schools, or even catholic boarding schools. I don't want Sharia law, but muslims have every right to try and secure it (through the democratic proces). But some parents think they should send their daughter to Somalia, to have her genitals cut. I don't think I should try to change their cultural identity, but if they violate the bodily integrity of their child, I'd be the first to notify the police.I find this a bit difficult to respond to. My answer only came into existence if you agree with what I was referring to which was
I do not. I do however see this reflected from some groups on from both sides of the Atlantic and it is the network of people presenting these distortions that I see as dangerous. Given that it would appear we both agree it is not possible to forcefully change people's identities and consciousness, then we need perhaps look further than the front door and start to consider what the next step of this movement would lead to when they discovered they could not change these people by magic – if indeed you believe that Western society has the right to attempt such brainwashing to begin with.
Hopefully certain moves in the political scene will change and this movement will quickly disintegrate with those involved trying to pretend they never really agreed with it.
If not, the situation could be extremely concerning.
GG you're a Good Guy.
But Every post you make to me Engages in Strawman debate.
Literalism/Fundamentalism as in Christianity is a problem. Tho less so than Less compatible Islamic Fundamenatlism which sees 'us' as scriptural enemies and is in general Less compatible with Western culture.
"Radicalism" is a nebulous/relative term as used by many as you have here. Unfairly allowing for Fundamentalist/Literalist Islam but condemning same in Christianity as "Religous Right" "Nut jobs'. etc etc.
We have a string in the Philosophy section about YEC. Most, including me ridiculing this Literalist Folly.
In Islam, this degree of piety however would be Normal. "Broad Brush" Normal.
An average Muslim would be as pious as a Fundamentalist Christian... or... as a Muslim Mod on Israel Forum explained, an Orthodox Jew.
Of course Islamic Piety/Holy Book/Law is Less compatible with the West's culture than the Judeo-Christian foundation on which it was built.
And of course, the Koran's enemies, Us, are still extant.
So, that's two problems, one compounding the other. Being Far more literal ..... AND To a book that's more dangerous/intolerant.
See my #193.
There are No Christian nor Jewish Theocracies like Iran or Saudi Arabia doling out Stone Age justice.
And Most Islamic countries have at least Partial Sharia.
Majorities Or Significant Minorities favor Penalties like Amputation for Theft, Stoning for Adultery, Death for Apostates, etc.
"Radical"? "Terrorist"?
No, Mainstream/"Broad Brush" Islam.
Literal Scriptural adherence, NOT "Radicalism"/"Terrorism" per se is the MAIN problem.
Tho literalism also, Will Inevitably spawn a percentage of those willing to commit terror acts in the name of Islam as the ideology is there.
Being unable to change the Koran's unfortunate words which most Muslim feel are perfect (see Manji #193 again) (No 'NKJV' koran is coming), Irshad is going for Reinterpretation of verses.
A Muslim Reformation.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/54964-wanted-muslim-reformation.html#post1058210688
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?