The Anti-Muslim predjudice on A2K is wrong.

But I at least have seen very little of this on A2K, and none at all on this thread.

I have, however, seen a good deal of rather sweeping criticisms of Christianity and Christians. I understand your rationalization - Christians are more ubiquitous in your neighborhood. That makes it OK - at least in your view..

No I am not. If it is fair and appropriate to prejudge the worth of one group of individuals, then what is to stop the same kind of thing being applied to another?

Setanta's defense was that there are more Christians than Moslems in his neighborhood and that, in his judgement, the Christians represented a more proximate threat to his safety or security or whatever. (Odd in view of 9/11). Californians made exactly the same argument with respect to Japanese-Americans.

If you don't like prejudicial words and actions taken against Moslems, why encourage or rationalize them against Christians?

Certainly Miss Flyer is to be commended for her honestly, but i have a real problem with this:

Piffka wrote:

Moreover, Muslims have a huge tendency to be insular... to only help "their own." It is not just the outsiders like me who see this... the adherents are themselves trying to be different, to create their own enclave in the midst of a free society. I know that German Baptists AND the Mormons AND other religious sects get that same kind of resentment in this state. They don't even want to "fit in" with our society... what's not to resent there? I have some real problems with people who come to my "free" society and then set up a bunch of rules for themselves that begin to spill over onto me.

I woud be interested to know how the insular character of Muslims will spill over onto you. You write: "I have some real problems with people who come to my 'free' society and the set up a bunch of rules for themselves . . ."--just before your spilling over onto you contention. How is a society a free society if they cannot live as they choose? Absent criminal activity, they are free to live how they choose, without regard to how relatively uncomfortable that may make you.

You mentioned the Mormons--are you aware that the United States and the Mormons fought two "wars," and that the Second Mormon War in 1857-58 required the dispatch of United States troops? There has been no comparable behavior by Muslims who are citizens of this country. I find your objections odd, to say the least.

"All religions are hostile to women, without exception," asserts writer Taslima Nasreen in an interview on the occasion of the annual world education week. "They oppose the freedom and the rights of women, who they oppress with the same claims that culture, conventions and patriarchal systems do. I refer to Islam in particular, because it opposes democracy, human rights and the emancipation of women. In Islamic countries, the situation is worse than elsewhere because there is no clear distinction between religion and the state. The law is rooted in the religion and that is the source of all evil for women."

Diversity is a treasure to be appreciated. There is no superior, no inferior, culture in this world, only various cultural patterns that make up our beautiful multicolored mosaic. But, humans should not allow oppression in the name of religion or culture. Humans should not allow torture such as female genital mutilation. Humans should not allow barbarism, humiliation, inequality, or injustice in the name of culture. Culture should not be and must not be used against humanity.

When I look around, I see the same picture everywhere: women are oppressed. Whether they are poor or rich, beautiful or ugly, have blue, black or brown eyes, have white, black and brown skin, are unmarried or married, illiterate or literate, believer or non-believer, women are oppressed. Everywhere women are oppressed, and the source of the problem is male-devised patriarchy, religion, tradition, culture, and customs. Because of blind faith, humans are suffering bloodshed, hatred, ignorance, illiteracy, injustices, and poverty. But if we on Earth sincerely wanted to replace injustice with justice, we could eliminate all the problems of humanity which are caused by a blind faith in religion. Both the Judeo-Christian Bible and the Qur'an clearly accept and condone slavery. Jesus explicitly tells slaves to accept their roles and obey their masters. No one in this world today would defend chattel slavery in any public forum or allow it under any legal code. Neither fundamentalist Christians nor Orthodox Jews talk about animal sacrifice or slavery. In those countries in which sharia or Islamic law exists, where stoning for adultery and amputation for stealing are legalized, no legitimization of slavery is ever mentioned. Polygamy and concubinage are clearly accepted in the Old Testament, but nowhere in the Judeo-Christian world are either of these practices legalized. Thus, insistence upon continuing those practices that denigrate, oppress, and suppress women under the guise of scriptural reference is a sham. Such practices could and should be de-legitimized just as chattel slavery has been de-legitimized.

Humankind is facing an uncertain future. The probability of new kinds of rivalry and conflict looms large. In particular, the conflict is between two different ideas, those of secularism and fundamentalism. I don't agree with those who think the conflict is between two religions, namely Christianity and Islam, or Judaism and Islam. After all, there are fundamentalists in every religious community. I don't agree with those people who think that the crusades of the Middle Ages are going to be repeated soon. Nor do I think that this is a conflict between the East and the West. To me, this conflict is basically between modern, rational, logical thinking and irrational, blind faith. To me, this is a conflict between modernity and anti-modernism. While some strive to go forward, others strive to go backward. It is a conflict between the future and the past, between innovation and tradition, between those who value freedom and those who do not.

Brandon, my answer to your question is "No."

georgeob1 wrote:

But I at least have seen very little of this on A2K, and none at all on this thread.

I have, however, seen a good deal of rather sweeping criticisms of Christianity and Christians. I understand your rationalization - Christians are more ubiquitous in your neighborhood. That makes it OK - at least in your view..

Pompous foolishness . . . no, "it" is not OK, because i am not guilty of "it." I am not rationalizing, i'm pointing out that i make valid criticisms of christian fanatics, and that these are the people i have to deal with in my life. I have had no problems, ever, from the Muslims in my area. I live in the area with the largest Somali population in the country, too, by the way.

Your "onward christian soldiers" attitudes, combined with your hilarious "secular humanist" conspiracy theory get tedious after a while, especially as you so commonly selectively note or outright distort the historical record to attempt to support your propaganda.

Perhaps if you were to reread some of your earlier posts on this thread, you would modify your defense above. Now you claim you are only making "valid criticisms of Christian fanatics". However your repeated statements go much farther than that, both in the number of Christians included and in the extent of your mocking mischaracterizations. I submit that even remotely equivalent sweeping criticism of Moslems would bring down the wrath of the PC crowd here and, in particular, yours -- as it already has even in the case of highly qualified and even restrained criticism - as illustrated again above.

You are just throwing dust in the air in an attempt to distract attention from the absurdity of the corner into which you have painted yourself. I have not exhibited anything remotely like the attitude to which you refer. Nor have I raised here any references to a conspiracy, secular humanist or otherwise. I have not distorted history at all. Instead I have simply pointed out the rather considerable hypocrisy and intolerance implicit in your sweeping and mocking mischaracterizations of Christians - and anyone who has the temerity to confront your bombast and overlong, overheated rhetoric.

kicky

You may think nigger and towelhead are equal in insult value. (I cannot believe this conversation...)

I don't think they're in the same ballpark. When you and everyone else excoriate the legions here who insult Bible thumpers and rednecks and Christianists (you are a major offender, eh?) and all the other slurs against Southerners, Christians and other non-protected minorities, I may take your deep sensitivity toward "towelhead" seriously.

Diane wrote:

...BTW, I can't think of one liberal who defends or supports terrorism or terrorists. Had to get that off my chest.

Can you think of any liberals who criticize various aspects of the fight against terrorism so much that it undermines the effort?

No, Miss Flyer, i was not defending the Mormons and cannot imagine what would lead you to assume as much.

But European intellectuals and cultural critics who blasted the fatwa at the time were stunned to learn many British Muslims, born and educated in the U.K., openly supported the death sentence -- in defiance of Western law and European civilization no less.

The other important difference between the London bombings and 9/11 has been the response of the world of Islam. For months after 9/11, I kept writing that it was sad and disturbing that Muslims were reluctant to condemn the attacks. This time is different. Major Muslim groups in Britain have unambiguously denounced the bombings. Even the so-called fundamentalist organisations have condemned it. The Muslim Association of Britain, a hard-line group with alleged ties to militants in the Middle East, called the bombings "heinous and repulsive" and urged Muslims to help the emergency services and police. "We have faith in Britain and British people that we as a country will not be defeated by this," said its spokesman, Anas Altikriti.

The response outside Britain has also been much stronger than ever before. The grand imam of Al-Azhar, Shaikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, condemned the bombers but went further, rejecting the argument that this attack could be justified as an attempt to force Britain out of Iraq. "This is illogical and cannot be the motive for killing innocent civilians," he said. More striking have been the condemnations from radical groups like Hamas, Hizbullah and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, all of which have denounced the bombings. Many of them have, of course, coupled their attacks on the terrorists with denunciations of American and British policies in the Middle East, particularly regarding Iraq and the Palestinian territories. But that kind of rhetoric is old news. What is new here is the fact that no one, not even Hamas, can continue to condone or even stay silent about these barbarities. September 11 shocked the Arab psyche. For months afterward, Arabs and many Muslims went through phases recognisable to psychologists: shock, denial, anger. (Remember those absurd claims that 9/11 was a Mossad plot?)

They are finally, slowly, moving toward recognising that there is a great dysfunction in the world of Islam, which has allowed Muslims to concoct wild conspiracy theories, blame others for their problems and, worst of all, condone grotesque violence.