4
   

Anti-Muslim Dutch politicians in hiding after death threats

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 04:28 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
It would seem that way at times. But its not the man, its the ideas that make him do bad. If those ideas are political, we have no reservations about condemning them. But if its religion that inspires wrong doing it seems criticism is automatically deemed to be grossly insensitive and unfair at best or prompted by latent racism at worst. Why?

That's a very good question. I encourage you to take it a few steps farther: Read the Bible cover to cover. Ask yourself whether the theology you find in there is any less violent than what you find in the Q'uran. Thhen ask yourself whether you'd want your wife to work for a government of her majesty the queen, who is also the leader of your country's established religion, which in turn is based on this abhorrently inhumane document called the Bible.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 05:13 am
Wilso wrote:

I rarely have reservations about condemning politial ideas. Especially those from the far right. They disgust me in way I find difficult to explain.
me too. Thats why I react when someone equates criticism of Islam with being right wing.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 05:59 am
Thomas wrote:

That's a very good question. I encourage you to take it a few steps farther: Read the Bible cover to cover. Ask yourself whether the theology you find in there is any less violent than what you find in the Q'uran. Thhen ask yourself whether you'd want your wife to work for a government of her majesty the queen, who is also the leader of your country's established religion, which in turn is based on this abhorrently inhumane document called the Bible.
And thats a good point Thomas. It illustrates rather well the difference between east/Islam and west/Christianity.

I have not read the whole Bible, and have no intention of doing so. The Old Testament describes a God, according to Richard Dawkins

Quote:
(Who)..is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty unjust unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.


Winston Churchill's son Randolph was challenged for a bet to read the Bible (actually to keep him quiet in barracks)...with unexpected results

Quote:
'Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has nver read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud "I say I bet you didnt know this came in the bible..." or merely slapping his side and chortling "God, isnt God a sh1t!"'
Smile

I was of course indoctrinated into the central message of the New Testament as a boy...but that's another story.

My point is simply this no-one today on the right side of sanity reads the Bible, believes every word came from God, and therefore believes all law and morality should be based upon it. (actually there might be one or two...but thankfully not in positions of power)

England had a century of religious wars. But finally with the reformation and more importantly the Enlightenment we came to treat the Bible as allegory, metaphor and parable i.e. NOT to be taken literally.

The same cannot be said of the Koran. The Koran IS Islam. It is not just divinely inspired...the Muslims believe it to BE the actual perfect unchanging unchangeable and final word of God.

It is from this absolutist position which brooks no challenge, that all the problems of Islam originate imo.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 06:33 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
England had a century of religious wars. But finally with the reformation and more importantly the Enlightenment we came to treat the Bible as allegory, metaphor and parable i.e. NOT to be taken literally.

The same cannot be said of the Koran. The Koran IS Islam. It is not just divinely inspired...the Muslims believe it to BE the actual perfect unchanging unchangeable and final word of God.

What makes you so sure of that? As a statistically informed citizen, have you considered the possiblilty of reporting bias? After all, if there are Muslim equivalents to Christian Lutherans, Anglicans, and mainstream Catholics, you wouldn't expect them to make spectacular news. Therefore, when you watch BBC and observe that most Muslims you hear about are Jerry Falwell types, you cannot generalize this to the overall Muslim population.

If you did consider the possibility reporting bias -- which I see no evidence for in your posts -- on what basis have you dismissed it?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 06:50 am
Thomas wrote:
If you did consider the possibility reporting bias -- which I see no evidence for in your posts -- on what basis have you dismissed it?
I dont understand you. Are you suggesting the BBC is deliberately biased against Muslims? That we only hear about Islamic terrorists, while all the Christian and Jewish terrorist plots go un reported?

Of course the vast majority of Muslims are not involved with terrorism. But those religiously inspired maniacs who are up to no good are inevitably Muslim. What are we supposed to think? That once a follower of Islam becomes a jihadist, he is no longer a Muslim?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 07:21 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
Thomas wrote:
If you did consider the possibility reporting bias -- which I see no evidence for in your posts -- on what basis have you dismissed it?
I dont understand you. Are you suggesting the BBC is deliberately biased against Muslims?

No. All I'm suggesting is that you live in London, so you're most likely to get your news from BBC. I wouldn't expect the BBC to be biased against Muslims.

Steve 41oo wrote:
That we only hear about Islamic terrorists, while all the Christian and Jewish terrorist plots go un reported?

You mean Christian terrorist plots like the IRA bombings? Yes, of course they got reported. Conversely, if you just go to a Catholic burrough in Belfast and ask people if they are being terrorized by an Anglican occupation force. You will get a clear, affirmative, if possibly painful answer. The difference is, most people can differentiate between the IRA in particular and Catholics in general. Most people can differentiate between Northern Islands Anglican terrorists and Anglicans in general. It is only with Muslims that people unthinkingly generalize from terrorist acts by a few to the rest of the Muslim population.

Steve 41oo wrote:
Of course the vast majority of Muslims are not involved with terrorism. But those religiously inspired maniacs who are up to no good are inevitably Muslim. What are we supposed to think? That once a follower of Islam becomes a jihadist, he is no longer a Muslim?

In the post I replied to, you made a sweeping generalization about Muslims, not about terrorists. Because terrorists make up a negligible share among the world's Muslims, and because the other the other 1.4 billion Muslims don't usually make news in the West, the information you presented about terrorists tells us nothing interesting about Muslims in general.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 07:38 am
Well, I agree with Thomas; good points.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 07:42 am
Steve 41oo wrote:

My point is simply this no-one today on the right side of sanity reads the Bible, believes every word came from God, and therefore believes all law and morality should be based upon it. (actually there might be one or two...but thankfully not in positions of power)


I'm not claiming that GWB is on the right side of sanity, but I think he would qualify as someone you've described here. And, unfortunately, he most certainly is in a position of power.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 08:14 am
And there certainly are a couple more in other countries - although not as hish positioned as GWB is.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 08:15 am
The religiously inspired terrorism that we see today is different from politically inspired terrorism of the past.

I have never heard, until you used the phrase, about the IRA being a Christian terrorist organisation. The reason I have never heard it is that its a misnomer. What inspired the IRA to do what they did were political ideas of a united Ireland, free of British oppression - as they saw it. They were not killing police, soldiers and civilians for God. They were doing it for Ireland.

Of course the Provisional IRA tended to be Catholic, because the vast majority of the people they claimed to represent were Catholic. But the Offical IRA were marxist. Moreover several leading Irish nationalists have been Protestant.

If I made a "sweeping generalisation" about Muslims (what was it btw) it certainly wasnt to call them all terrorists. My argument is not with Muslims anyway but with Islam. In my opinion it's ideas range from daft to delusional to definitely dangerous. However I'm not saying all Muslims are dangerous. But just because this collection of ideas came together to form a religion - Islam - does not make it immune from criticism. Its failure to challenge the absurdities within Islam (out of an unwarranted deferrence to "religion") that have got us into this mess in the first place imo.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 08:32 am
people probably think I'm obsessed with Islam but in UK right now it seems there are two or three stories every day

this the latest to break from BBC

Quote:

Terror alert school is shut down

An Islamic school at the centre of a terror alert last year is to be shut down after education officials said it was no longer good enough to operate.

The Department for Education and Skills has removed the independent Jameah Islameah school in East Sussex from the Register of Independent Schools.

This means it is illegal for the school, which was raided by anti-terror police last year, to operate.
good.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 01:01 pm
Quote:
Radio Netherlands Press Review
Monday 5 February

* Dutch blood

The front-page of De Volkskrant is dominated by a photo of a hooded youth attacking a young man squirming on the ground in what looks like a park. We are told the attacker belongs to the extreme right-wing Blood and Honour movement.

Members of Blood and Honour used coshes and clubs to attack people on an anti-fascist demonstration in Uitgeest in North Holland on Saturday. Twenty-five of the violent right-wingers were arrested and police are appealing for witnesses to come forward.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 01:15 pm
nimh quoted Radio Netherlands Press Review
Quote:
The front-page of De Volkskrant is dominated by a photo of a hooded youth attacking a young man squirming on the ground in what looks like a park. We are told the attacker belongs to the extreme right-wing Blood and Honour movement.


Here's that photo, published again on February 8 in De Volkskrant (on page 27, different report ["Weg van de est hetiek", a report about World Press Photo])

http://i16.tinypic.com/330bjt3.jpg
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 01:46 pm
Thomas wrote:
You mean Christian terrorist plots like the IRA bombings? Yes, of course they got reported. Conversely, if you just go to a Catholic burrough in Belfast and ask people if they are being terrorized by an Anglican occupation force. You will get a clear, affirmative, if possibly painful answer. The difference is, most people can differentiate between the IRA in particular and Catholics in general. Most people can differentiate between Northern Islands Anglican terrorists and Anglicans in general. It is only with Muslims that people unthinkingly generalize from terrorist acts by a few to the rest of the Muslim population.

...
...
In the post I replied to, you made a sweeping generalization about Muslims, not about terrorists. Because terrorists make up a negligible share among the world's Muslims, and because the other the other 1.4 billion Muslims don't usually make news in the West, the information you presented about terrorists tells us nothing interesting about Muslims in general.



Interesting dialogue between Steve and Thomas.

I agree with the specific points made by Thomas with respect to potential errors in making sweeping judgements about Moslems. However, it appears to me that Thomas wrongfully ignores obvious differences in the collective postures of Moslems with respect to issues in the modern world and those of Christians (or former Christians). The fact is that organized Islam has never accepted the existence of a system of governance apart from its own doctrinal structures. It contains no 'rendering of things that are Caesar's' in its doctrine or tradition. Indeed it avowedly excludes such a possibility.

In addition Islam is still locked in the kind of internal doctrinal disputes and cultural-political conflict from which the Christian Western world emerged several centuries ago. Finally, lacking anything comparable to an Enlightenment, it has tolerated no spirit of inquiry and no practice of toleration of others.

A result has been the inability of Moslem States to develop any non authoritarian system of secular governance. There are some encouraging evolutions going on in some areas (Malaysia is a notable example), however the general picture is very grim.

Finally, I believe Thomas should reflect also on the failure of secular humanist ideas alone to develop a competing self-contained system of thought, behavior and governance that does not itself embody the worst elements of the theocratic systems it often wrongfully opposes. The history of the awful 20th century amply demonstrates this point.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 02:50 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
However, it appears to me that Thomas wrongfully ignores obvious differences in the collective postures of Moslems with respect to issues in the modern world and those of Christians (or former Christians).

Point taken, I'll think about it, while keeping in mind that the point comes from an Irishman who may or may not have links to the IRA, and that we sure don't want the terrorists to win.

georgeob1 wrote:
Finally, I believe Thomas should reflect also on the failure of secular humanist ideas alone to develop a competing self-contained system of thought, behavior and governance that does not itself embody the worst elements of the theocratic systems it often wrongfully opposes. The history of the awful 20th century amply demonstrates this point.

I would have said that from Hong Kong's classical liberalism to Scandinavia's Social Democracy, there's a whole range of countries who are governed by secular and humanist philosophies. I would also have said that all the countries within that range are attractive to live in.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 04:26 pm
Thomas wrote:
Point taken, I'll think about it, while keeping in mind that the point comes from an Irishman who may or may not have links to the IRA, and that we sure don't want the terrorists to win.
....
...

I would have said that from Hong Kong's classical liberalism to Scandinavia's Social Democracy, there's a whole range of countries who are governed by secular and humanist philosophies. I would also have said that all the countries within that range are attractive to live in.


Well, as you know I believe the "War on Terrorism" cant is misguided and foolish. Terrorism is merely a technique of warfare.

The IRA (as we see it today) is but an isolated relic of an overall very successful and tolerant Irish revolution. It produced synthesis and growth (after the departure of Devalera), and, even immediately after victory inflicted no revenge or retribution on the remaining elements of the former ruling establishment.

Intriguing point about the 'new models' of Hong Kong Liberalism and scandanavian Social Democracy. (I wonder - somewhat maliciously - if you would include Singapore in those categories.) However, just how exportable, or conversely, how singular are these examples. For example the Scandanavian model really refers only to Sweden (Denmark's contemporary situation is hardly different from the rest of Western Europe; Norway's isolation and petroleum wealth make it the exception to every rule. There are few/no examples of the successful application of this model anywhere else.

As you know I am skeptical (at best) about the potential for successful political & economic development under purely secular humanist principles. It is noteworthy that the most successful Western Democracies developed in more varied and complex conditions. Their adoptation of contemporary secular humanistic structures came generally after the fact, not before it. Moreover the recent (by historical standards) attempts at recreation or development under materialist humanist doctrines were all rather frightening and destructive in their respective failures. It will be very interesting to observe the cuyltural and political development of China during the comng decades.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 08:10 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
people probably think I'm obsessed with Islam but in UK right now it seems there are two or three stories every day

this the latest to break from BBC

Quote:

Terror alert school is shut down

An Islamic school at the centre of a terror alert last year is to be shut down after education officials said it was no longer good enough to operate.

The Department for Education and Skills has removed the independent Jameah Islameah school in East Sussex from the Register of Independent Schools.

This means it is illegal for the school, which was raided by anti-terror police last year, to operate.
good.


Perhaps you are obsessed with Islam. If you think of nothing but Islam; you probably are. On the other hand, if you alarmed by a rapidly growing religious, cultural, and political influence within your country, not to mention the physical threat presented by extremists ostensibly acting in its name, then you are more than likely simply a sensible person.

Immigrants who are not substantially assimilated within the culture of their new home present difficulties for the society that has welcomed them. These difficulties are more pronounced if the cultural norms the immigrants hold on to are in direct opposition to those of their new home. These difficulties rise to the level of threat (cultural and possibly physical) if the immigrants are not content with maintaining their ways within separate institutions and enclaves, and insist that the larger culture either adopt them or make concessions to them that impose on the choices of the host citizens. Add to the mix demographics that indicate the newcomers are out-procreating their hosts at a rate that can, by itself, assure an Islamification of Britain, and I think you have every reason to be interested in Islam in the UK.

Until this thread, I thought I had a pretty good idea of how things will play out in the UK and Europe in the relative short term: The increasing popularity and power of far Right parties and increased acts of violence by both Muslim immigrants (including second and third generation citizens of the host countries) and the non-Muslim host "natives." Walter though, has added a fascinating wrinkle though with his note about Catholicism overtaking Anglicanism.

Of course it isn't very hard for any faith to outpace the moribund Anglican Church in England, and someone could probably create a religion based on worship of Princess Diana and in 30 days have more adherents than the Anglicans in the UK, but the rise of Catholicism is an interesting dynamic. The article Walter cites indicates the rise of Catholicism has at its roots the same cause as the rise of Islam --- immigration.

Assuming the Catholic immigrants continue to adhere to and practice their faith, it will be interesting to see what sort of interaction they have with UK Muslims, particularly if they are competing for the same or similar economic niche. What will the multi-cultural, secularist Brits do in the midst of a modern crusade for control of London rather than Jerusalem?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 12:21 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Assuming the Catholic immigrants continue to adhere to and practice their faith, it will be interesting to see what sort of interaction they have with UK Muslims, particularly if they are competing for the same or similar economic niche. What will the multi-cultural, secularist Brits do in the midst of a modern crusade for control of London rather than Jerusalem?


Yes, you're correct. But that started already in the forth/fifth century: England was converted to Catholicism by Roman missionaries moving from the south to the north and by Irish missionaries moving from the north and west to the south.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 05:45 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
... What will the multi-cultural, secularist Brits do in the midst of a modern crusade for control of London rather than Jerusalem?
emigrate
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Feb, 2007 04:48 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
... What will the multi-cultural, secularist Brits do in the midst of a modern crusade for control of London rather than Jerusalem?
emigrate


Too true, and perhaps sooner than we think.

And where will they go?

Australia and the US.

The irony in this situation cannot be contained.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 10:19:13