Obit: More Muslim intolerance?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 11:30 AM

He said he'd do it again if he could and that he would kill more critics of Islam if he ever was released.

Kinda like the "Christians"[sic] who gun dowm abortion providers, eh?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 11 - 10:27 AM

The law makes it a crime punishable by death to insult Islam

Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- A Pakistani court has suspended the death sentence of Mumtaz Qadri, a security guard who killed a liberal politician over the latter's remarks on the nation's controversial blasphemy law.

"Qadri was provoked by the governor and should therefore be tried for murder, not an act of terror which is what he was tried for earlier" said his attorney Raja Shuja Ur Rehman in confirming the judge's decision.

Earlier this month, a terror court in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, near Pakistan's capital, sentenced Qadri to death. The Islamabad High Court suspended the sentence Tuesday until the appeals process is complete.

The court did not say when it will meet again to consider the case.

Police said Qadri, a policeman serving as a security guard for Punjab Gov. Salman Taseer, fatally shot him in a market in Islamabad on January 4 because of Taseer's remarks on Pakistan's controversial blasphemy law.

Police said Qadri confessed to gunning down the man he was supposed to be protecting.

Qadri's lawyer appealed the sentence imposed by the Anti-Terrorist Court, saying the court did not have the jurisdiction to make the death penalty decision.

Taseer, a successful businessman as well as politician, had said Pakistan's controversial blasphemy law is too harsh.

The law makes it a crime punishable by death to insult Islam, the Quran or the Prophet Mohammed. The legislation has been criticized by some as being used to entrap minorities

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 02:56 AM

More on this story.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/20/afghanistan.islam

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 12:39 AM

"There ain't no religions that instructs people to go out and do dumbass stuff...

None..."

None? Nada? Non?

Shariah law states that any Muslim who rejects Islam should be sentenced to death, according to Ahmad Fahim Hakim, deputy chairman of the state-sponsored Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. Repeated attempts to impose a jail sentence were barred.

The prosecutor, Abdul Wasi, said he had offered to drop the charges if Mr Rahman converted back to Islam, but he refused. "He would have been forgiven if he changed back. But he said he was a Christian and would always remain one," Mr Wasi said. "We are Muslims and becoming a Christian is against our laws. He must get the death penalty."

A Christian aid worker in Kabul, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there was no reliable figure for the number of Afghan Christians. He said few admit their faith because of fear of retribution and there are no known Afghan churches. An old house in a war-wrecked suburb of Kabul serves as a Christian place of worship for expatriates. The only other churches are believed to be inside foreign embassies or on bases belonging to the US-led coalition or a Nato peacekeeping force

Subject: RE: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 04:59 AM

Today was the day of the sentence for van Gogh's murderer: Life (the highest sentence in the Netherlands)

The judge called it a crime done out of a religiously motivated hate.

The murderer, Mohammed Bouyeri, was completely remorseless and declined any attempt of a defense. He said he'd do it again if he could and that he would kill more critics of Islam if he ever was released.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 11:33 AM

Thanks for that link. More background information in the Guardian:

Final act of rape case puts Pakistan on trial

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 11:21 AM

Pakistan's Supreme Court orders rearrest of 13 men in high-profile gang rape

"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Pakistan's Supreme Court has ordered the rearrest of 13 men acquitted of gang-raping a villager whose case has drawn international attention to the sometimes harsh treatment of women in parts of this deeply conservative country, officials said Tuesday.

The ruling came a day after the victim, Mukhtar Mai, in a dramatic appearance at the Supreme Court, appealed a lower court decision to acquit five of the men who allegedly raped her on orders of a council of village elders. The eight members of the council, an influential force in rural Pakistan, were acquitted three years ago..."

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 11:22 AM

Ah good this thread appears to have been heavily pruned.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 11:16 AM

Yesterday I was reading an article about similar occurances in Pakistan. Tribal councils were giving punishments to men that involved committing crimes against women. One of these was a case of a man who had committed sexual indscretions with a woman. The tribal council decided that the man's punishment would be that his sister would be gang-raped.    A Pakistani court has given a death sentence to the men who committed the gang-rape. I don't know if I would support the death penalty for such crimes, but maybe the government of your country needs to be a little bit more like that of Pakistan on these issues, Wolfgang. (Carol)

Here's a recent follow-up to this story:

Ban on rape victim leaving Pakistan

The rapists are free, meanwhile, BTW. US foreign secretary Rice has made clear to her Pakistani colleague that the USA expects that Ms. Mukhtaran Bibi may travle freely. That's a move by the US government I wholeheartedly agree with.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 03:42 PM

Thought provoking
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 03:30 PM

A Critic Accuses Islam
An article translated from German about Hirsi Ali, often mentioned in this thread.

Excerpts from an interview (yesterday) with her (my translation):
Q: Have you lost friends?
Well, first of all my family. The distance to my parents is very big. And I have Muslim friends who have told me: Because of your critique of Islam, we don't want to see you any longer. But I would have lost them anyway...
Q: But you make yourself easy game for your critics by indicating that aggressivity and hate are not fundamentalist aberrations but part of Islam itself.
By all means, I also point to the good sides of Mohammed's sermon, however, in the sources of Islam you can find things unreconcilable with a liberal democracy...There are passages in the Koran admonishing to peace and passages admonishing to fight with non-Muslims....
Q: ...What do you say...about the US soldiers in Abu Ghraib...and about Guantanamo?
These are awful scandals and human rights violation that a country as the USA shouldn't commit...In no way I want to be brought into any connection with these things. I don't want to humilate anyone. I want to think aloud about the values under which I have been educated.
Q: Many Muslims consider the film 'Submission' as an insult.
I take a quote from the Koran according to which women are to be dominated (subjugated) by men and write it on the body of a battered woman. I point to the humilated woman...
Q: You see, like Irshad Manji, a central role for women in this educational process.
Meanwhile there are so many women who had the chance of a good education and to lead a life of self determination. We have the obligation to take care that there is no backlash, that this type of life cannot be refused to some women for religious reasons....
Q: You now work on a book titled 'Shortcuts to Enlightenment'.
The shortcuts mean to make use of the developments the West has already made. Islam doesn't have to restart at zero. Muslims always say that is haram, forbidden by the religion. Well, I say, you fly the planes developed in the West, you drive theior cars, use radio, TV, and internet. Why do you adopt only the material and not also a few of the intellectual values?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 01:24 PM

A busline interrupted since 1947 is planned to reopen tomorrow. It links the Indian and the Pakistan part of Kashmere. Muslim terrorists have published the names and full addresses of all the first passengers and have threatened: "You will pay with your blood and your ashes".

Today there has been an attack upon the tourist office in which the passengers wait.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 02:58 PM

Are You a "Right-Fighter"?


Do you find yourself needing to "win" arguments? Do people ask you why you always have to be right? Does conflict you engage in typically end with you having the last word, but no one feels good about the argument? If you have said yes to any of these questions, you are likely a right-fighter!

A right-fighter is someone who needs to win arguments. To be seen as right, you also NEED to make someone else seem wrong. A right-fighter gets overly emotional or angry when people do not agree with them and their opinions or beliefs. A right-fighter is someone who insists on having the last word in an argument or refuses to back down no matter what.


People who are right-fighters, (or those who are driven by the need to be right), have their value or worth literally attached to the outcome of being right. The "right-fighter" desperately believes (unconsciously) that others must agree with her to feel ok about him/herself.
   
Right-Fighting is an acceptable form of violence or aggression. Because the right-fighting pattern usually ends up one sided and includes a winner and a loser, the effects are similar to those of physical abuse. Learned submission on the part of the children and often the other parent/spouse is inevitable. "Right-Fighting" is in fact a form of emotional abuse.

If you have found that you may have some qualities of a right- fighter, don't start beating yourself up, begin working on it! You are a wonderful and lovable person with far more positive qualities than negative... this is certain! This habit does NOT have to define you. You are capable of releasing this habit at any time (please seek help if you need it, a partner in change is always a wonderful gift to yourself and your family!). Acknowledging your habit of right-fighting and becoming aware when you are engaging in this habit is the first, most important step in leading a more successful and happy life.

"Right-fighters": Begin to gently remind yourself of your unchanging value and worth during arguments and disagreements, whether or not you fully believe it. "Fake it till you make it"! Begin to imagine what conflict would be like if the outcome was not important. Begin to allow others to hold one opinion and you another without having ill or hurt feelings. What would life be like to be loved, cared for and respected rather than being "right"? Try validating others' opinions as equally valuable. This doesn't mean you must agree, only to say "yes" you and your view are as valuable as mine". I promise you, peace will begin to flow into your life.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 12:46 PM

Here's a link about the documentary:

Mum, I'm a Muslim

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 12:37 PM

In the meantime, I was watching a documentary about discrimination and hate as practiced against Muslims in England the other day. The documentary follows four Muslim women in England and showed what kinds of challenges they were facing. All four of them were (white) English women who had converted to Islam on their own, and they all were facing having to deal with the way Muslims are treated in many western countries, especially problems of hatred and discrimination directed against women who wear a hijab.

One of the women ended up moving with her husband and children to Yemen because she didn't want her children to have to grow up in the climate of hatred against Muslims that they were experiencing in England.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 11:51 AM

When an Indian man told Wadud that he understood racism, she replied, "No you don't understand. You are not Black; you don't know what it is to be Black."

Was it just me, or did this remark make anyone else think twice about this woman? [Just the woman CarolC not her religion!]

Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 09:26 AM

I remember reading "The Life of Malcolm X" and he seemed to draw great comfort from the color blindness of Islam. Wolgang's link and some experiences of my own indicate that Malcolm's opinions on the issue were sadly ill informed.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 06:18 AM

Amina Wadud was the first woman ever to lead a Muslim Friday prayer last week. Three mosques had turned down the request to open the doors for the event. One other place shied back after a bomb threat, so the Muslim prayer was held in a church. The reaction was predictable: sin and apostasy called it a (female) Egyptian professor for Islamic law, a crimepunishable with death according to some interpretations.

Islam needs more of the courage and stance of this admirable woman. To get an idea what she's up against you can read this:

I am a Nigger, and you will just have to put up with my blackness

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 02:55 PM

Let's hope theyve plenty of time to spare and a bottle of asprin handy.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 01:47 PM

I stopped calling you a bigot a long time ago, Ooh-Aa2. I told you before why I was engaging in that level of dialogue... I got tired of seeing you abuse me and people I care about in the forum generally, and I handed some of it back to you so you could see what it looks like coming from someone else.

And I am perfectly aware of the fact that others besides us can read our posts. In fact, I'm counting on it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 06:19 AM

"You know nothing about my self-doubt or lack of it."

Snap! But it won't stop you calling me a bigot.

"Wolfgang and Ooh-Aah2 are resorting to the cyber equivalent of playground taunts."

Balls.

You are forgetting that our posts are there for anyone to read, along with your garbled, interminable, over-prolific and often hilariously incoherent replies. Your posts have brought non-sequiturs, fudges, distortions, evasions and ad hominem to a new high (or low). I'm not cross - my sister is much the same - but amused.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 04:41 PM

...meanwhile, Wolfgang and Ooh-Aah2 are resorting to the cyber equivalent of playground taunts. Intelligent and unbiased responses my arse.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:57 PM

You know nothing about my self doubt or lack of it. All you know is how I have responded to what people have put in this thread. If we are going to go by what people have put in this thread, we could say exactly the same about you and your lack of self doubt as well.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:47 PM

It is your lack of self doubt I find so attractive

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:35 PM

A careful scan of which posts you have agreed with and which posts you have criticized ought to give an objective indication of whether I am right or wrong, Mr. MacKenzie, regardless of the relative openness or lack of openness of my mind.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:25 PM

Nice to know you're so open minded

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:12 PM

Not bloody likely, John 'Giok' MacKenzie. You welcome responses that are in agreement with your point of view.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:01 PM

I welcome all intelligent and unbiased responses.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 02:36 PM

My experience has been that people who only see and/or hear one side of an issue, regardless of how intelligent and independent-minded they are or may be, frequently only know about one side of the issue. I'm sure some people will check things out for themselves. But I also know from experience that many will not. If you don't want anybody to respond to what you post here, I suggest you not post it in a public forum where responses are possible. Otherwise, you're stuck with whatever responses you get.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 02:29 PM

You must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of you fellow Mudcatters if you think they will be influenced by what I and others write here. They are I find, mostly intelligent people with minds of their own, and are unlikely to swayed by rhetoric, either yours or mine. Not only that they are usually tolerant of other people's point of view, as they know they do not have the monopoly on 'right on' points of view.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 01:27 PM

I'm not trying to change your thinking, nor am I trying to change that of Ooh-Aa2, or Wolfgang. I'm just showing that there are other possible ways of looking at things in the hopes of reducing the amount of damage done by your activities, and those of Ooh-Aa2 and Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Giok
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 01:21 PM

Well anyone who thinks they can change other people's prejudices by continually telling them their thinking is wrong, has not learned the lessons of history. It doesn't work with kids, it hasn't worked in Israel or Northern Ireland, and it won't work with anyone else. Conditioning is only changed by self awareness, and the word 'self' says it all. It's a bit like when most people ask for your opinion on something, what they are looking for is confirmation of their own thoughts on the matter, and if you don't agree then they discount what you said. So as with so many opinions expressed here, it is just a waste of breath.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 01:11 PM

You're fooling yourself, Ooh-Aah2. You and Wolfgang are saying the same thing over and over and over, with only slight differences in wording and new anecdotes to make the same old point. That's why I keep making the same response over and over again. I'm just reponding to your same tired old agenda each time. I didn't start this thread, and everything I have posted to it is in response to someone else.

Anyway, Wolfgang, of all people ought to understand the concept of conditioning. I don't care what either of you think about what I post. What you are doing is conditioning people to have a certain mindset about a specific group of people by repeatedly exposing them to negative (and stereotyped) images, anecdotes, and narratives about that group, over and over and over and over, ad nauseum. If I succeed in interrupting this process of conditioning by responding with another point of view each time you do that, I will have accomplished my goal.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-aah2
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 04:57 AM

Not really.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 11:01 AM

But one that cuts both ways, boys.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 09:50 AM

Half and half. First time intentionally, all the other times not.

Wolfgang (smile)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 04:02 AM

A point neatly made Wolfgang! (intentionally or not).

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 04:02 PM

Dutch Muslims on the other hand only feel more isolated and cornered, as a consequence of which they are increasingly falling back on their own Muslim community for protection and for a sense of belonging, defeating the stated purpose of those who blame Muslims for failing to integrate. (Peter Speetjens)

What he writes fits well into my thoughts already posted in this thread:

one reason that... the Muslim preachers find open ears among young Muslims in Germany is that for far too many years we have treated them as second class citizens who will go away sooner or later. Treat someone as a second class person with no real chance to make his way in our society and he may start to listen to extreme propaganda.

recently there seems to be a kind of backlash in second or third generation German Muslims

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 03:54 PM

Dutch Muslims on the other hand only feel more isolated and cornered, as a consequence of which they are increasingly falling back on their own Muslim community for protection and for a sense of belonging, defeating the stated purpose of those who blame Muslims for failing to integrate. (Peter Speetjens)

What he writes fits well into my thoughts already posted in this thread:

one reason that... the Muslim preachers find open ears among young Muslims in Germany is that for far too many years we have treated them as second class citizens who will go away sooner or later. Treat someone as a second class person with no real chance to make his way in our society and he may start to listen to extreme propaganda.

recently there seems to be a kind of backlash in second or third generation German Muslims

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 03:45 PM

Dutch Muslims on the other hand only feel more isolated and cornered, as a consequence of which they are increasingly falling back on their own Muslim community for protection and for a sense of belonging, defeating the stated purpose of those who blame Muslims for failing to integrate. (Peter Speetjens)

What he writes fits well into my thoughts already posted in this thread:

one reason that... the Muslim preachers find open ears among young Muslims in Germany is that for far too many years we have treated them as second class citizens who will go away sooner or later. Treat someone as a second class person with no real chance to make his way in our society and he may start to listen to extreme propaganda.

recently there seems to be a kind of backlash in second or third generation German Muslims

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 03:35 PM

Can someone please stop me reposting the same post?

W.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 03:35 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 03:31 PM

Dutch Muslims on the other hand only feel more isolated and cornered, as a consequence of which they are increasingly falling back on their own Muslim community for protection and for a sense of belonging, defeating the stated purpose of those who blame Muslims for failing to integrate. (Peter Speetjens)

What he writes fits well into my thoughts already posted in this thread:

one reason that... the Muslim preachers find open ears among young Muslims in Germany is that for far too many years we have treated them as second class citizens who will go away sooner or later. Treat someone as a second class person with no real chance to make his way in our society and he may start to listen to extreme propaganda.

recently there seems to be a kind of backlash in second or third generation German Muslims

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 03:23 PM

Dutch Muslims on the other hand only feel more isolated and cornered, as a consequence of which they are increasingly falling back on their own Muslim community for protection and for a sense of belonging, defeating the stated purpose of those who blame Muslims for failing to integrate. (Peter Speetjens)

What he writes fits well into my thoughts already posted in this thread:

one reason that... the Muslim preachers find open ears among young Muslims in Germany is that for far too many years we have treated them as second class citizens who will go away sooner or later. Treat someone as a second class person with no real chance to make his way in our society and he may start to listen to extreme propaganda.

recently there seems to be a kind of backlash in second or third generation German Muslims

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 03:12 PM

Dutch Muslims on the other hand only feel more isolated and cornered, as a consequence of which they are increasingly falling back on their own Muslim community for protection and for a sense of belonging, defeating the stated purpose of those who blame Muslims for failing to integrate. (Peter Speetjens)

What he writes fits well into my thoughts already posted in this thread:

one reason that... the Muslim preachers find open ears among young Muslims in Germany is that for far too many years we have treated them as second class citizens who will go away sooner or later. Treat someone as a second class person with no real chance to make his way in our society and he may start to listen to extreme propaganda.

recently there seems to be a kind of backlash in second or third generation German Muslims

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 03:11 PM

Yes, I noticed that, Wolfgang. In my opinion, that is the sort of discussion that will help to bring the various sides together in cooperation to try to find solutions to the problems, rather the current trend of promoting conflict between groups that we see in many countries lately.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 03:00 PM

Dutch Muslims on the other hand only feel more isolated and cornered, as a consequence of which they are increasingly falling back on their own Muslim community for protection and for a sense of belonging, defeating the stated purpose of those who blame Muslims for failing to integrate. (Peter Speetjens)

What he writes fits well into my thoughts already posted in this thread:

one reason that... the Muslim preachers find open ears among young Muslims in Germany is that for far too many years we have treated them as second class citizens who will go away sooner or later. Treat someone as a second class person with no real chance to make his way in our society and he may start to listen to extreme propaganda.

recently there seems to be a kind of backlash in second or third generation German Muslims

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 11:55 AM

Here's a thoughtful article on the subject of the Van Gogh murder by a Dutch journalist who currently lives in Lebanon...

Van Gogh's murder brings out Holland's contradictions, By Peter Speetjens

From what this journalist says, it looks like even this event has complex ramifications as well as causes, and cannot be boiled down to a simplistic charge of "Muslim extremism". It looks to me like both sides of the issue are inflaming the other side. The populist anti-immigration people making life very difficult for the immigrant community just as much as the immigrant community bringing into the country questionable practices. Van Gogh's murderer was born in The Netherlands to a middle class family, and did not embrace any sort of extremist ideology until fairly recently...

"The average Dutchman feels confirmed in his stereotypes of Muslims, and this is good for politicians like the late Fortuyn or Hirsi Ali, as they use this to attract the public's vote. Dutch Muslims on the other hand only feel more isolated and cornered, as a consequence of which they are increasingly falling back on their own Muslim community for protection and for a sense of belonging, defeating the stated purpose of those who blame Muslims for failing to integrate.

Take van Gogh's killer Mohamed B. He is not a fundamentalist immigrant who recently came to Holland. He was born there to a middle class family, speaks fluent Dutch and finished high school. According to his teachers he was the kind of guy whom people liked, someone who would probably make it. He did not. Over a year ago, following his parents' divorce, he dropped out of university and came under the influence of a radical mosque in Amsterdam. "Why would I study?" he asked a friend; 'An American who doesn't speak a word of Dutch has more chance of finding a job than me.'"

Ironically, Hirsi Ali, having benefited herself from having the opportunity to emmigrate to The Netherlands, is now making it much more difficult for other women in her situation to do the same.

One other thing to try to keep in mind... when stereotypes are promoted about any group, it really is the most vulnerable members of that group who suffer the most. In some of my reading, I have come across websites for organizations that exist for the purpose of helping women escape from domestic violence. Some of these sites have said that one of the reasons more women from southeast Asia (India, Pakistan, etc.) don't come forward and report the domestic abuse, or try to leave the abusive situation, is fear of stereotyping. So Wolfgang, I agree that scrutiny is good. But scrutiny of the practices. Not one-sided scrutiny of the group in question. This does not help the most vulnerable members of the group.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 04:31 AM

No separate school and, in particular, no separate courts, I couldn't agree more. If the recent demands from German Muslims for separate schools lead to a rethinking about privileges of the Christian churches, I'll be very happy.

The recent (in historical terms) mass immigrattion of Muslims to Europe leads to a cultural clash, because it is more more easy to move by a large physical distance than to move from one culturally based frame of mind to another. However, that's what we have to expect unless we want to give up our present state of human rights. On the other hand, we should not forget how hard the fight was for general human rights and how recent some changes.

For instance, only during my life time women in Germany were allowed to spend large amounts of money (that is more than buying food and small items of clothes) without asking the husband first. Even if the woman was the only one to earn the money she couldn't buy a car on her own without her husband's signature. A hoover would have been barely acceptable. So, the Muslim community in Germany might need some time to adapt. What worries me is that recently there seems to be a kind of backlash in second or third generation German Muslims.


equate severe spankings by some loony Christian with crowds of people stoning to death Muslim women (Ooh-Aah2)

Yes, that's the central point stated very clearly. I'm completely sure that within each religion you'll find abusive and murderous people, some of them even ready to excuse what they do with their personl view of religion. But the difference that warrants a look not only at the individual but at the religion is when the violation of human rights seems to be condoned by a quite large, perhaps even majority, percentage of followers of one religion. That is the central point that makes the teachings and practise of one religion, and not only of individuals the target of scrutiny.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 12:50 AM

I just read Ooh-Aa2's post again, and realized he thinks it's ok to spank a three year old child until it dies and its buttocks look like hamburger meat. Hmmmm...

CarolC's pathetic attempt to equate severe spankings by some loony Christian with crowds of people stoning to death Muslim women is certainly risible

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 12:36 AM

This very evening the US Show "60 Minutes" did a piece on Theo Van Gogh's violent death, including an interview with the Islamic woman of Somali nationality who originated the film piece about Muslim Women called "Submission". Theo Van Gogh was a well known 'gadfly' figure who had been an equal opportunity arouser of the vindictive. The assassin plugged him a few times, then walked up to him and plugged him (shot him) again, then stabbed him and left a note indicating that the woman would be served much the same. She was in protective custody till she ended it early this year.

Hirsi Ali

60 Minutes also interviewed a Muslim cleric living in Holland. I think it would be fair to categorize his stance that he didn't support the violent killing but he found it understandable. The street killing triggered violence against Muslim institutions in Holland.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 12:19 AM

"The real problem is the three monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Any lip service to peace and brotherhood they bullshit on about has been more than wiped out by the massive numbers of people killed over the years because of them - I hate the lot of them - utterly worthless wastes of time - before they were spawned religious intolerance was pretty well unknown in Europe. Christianity can take zero credit for being (just barely) more civilised than the Muslims, this is entirely due to the rise of secular humanism, and exists only because (in civilised parts of the world, ie not America) it has more or less had its teeth drawn. It's true we now have Hindu Nationalism (the BJP) but we can thank the others for this mutation of an otherwise undogmatic religion. Be a Pagan like me!"

"It's strange that 'pillocks using religion as an excuse' always seem to be from these three faiths - coincidence? I don't think so."

"Time you learned to read Carol C"

"Carol, Carol, Carol. I'm starting to think you must be a bit thick"

"Carol, I'm sick to death of your absurd hysteria"

"I don't know if there's an internet equivalent of verbal diahorrea, but if there is Carol C has got it bad!"

"Just come back to this thread - can't believe CarolC is still in her flower-scented dream-world re. the Muslims are no more disposed to violent fundamentalism than anyone else - oh pleeeeze Carol, wake up or shut up (fat chance I know)."

"My God, how you love to write, or transcribe, or whatever! All a waste of time..."

"With regard to your very lame response..."

"My last post was of course, addressed to the ubiquitous CarolC."

"I find the words of thoughtful people who have been, seen for themselves and researched their travels infinitely more convincing than your pathetic Google-reliant flailings."

"Unlike yourself I do not like talking rot about what I know nothing about."

"Your last post on this subject is quite remarkably incoherent"

"Watching CarolC try to argue that Islam is no worse than any other religion is like trying to watch a worm wriggle off a hook with an especially large barb."

"You are not by any chance a stuck record player are you CarolC?"

"You've certainly posted with your usual incredible prodigality CarolC (man 0 man - 13 of the last 20 posts, and often very long ones - don't you think that if your arguments were stronger they would need less scaffolding?)"

"There has not been many laughs on this thread, but CarolC's pathetic attempt to equate severe spankings by some loony Christian with crowds of people stoning to death Muslim women is certainly risible! (unless you happen to care about women's rights of course). How sick can one be to dismiss medieval barbarism against innocent women to save one's ego in an argument? What planet is this woman on? CarolC, your heart is in the right place but your brain is in your head, which is up your arse. And yes, that is an insult."

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 11:29 PM

Oh shut up, Ooh-Aa2, and go find another form of recreation. I don't have time for your infantile trolling any more.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 11:26 PM

CarolC you are now venturing into the realms of downright untruth about me. Search the posts folks!

There has not been many laughs on this thread, but CarolC's pathetic attempt to equate severe spankings by some loony Christian with crowds of people stoning to death Muslim women is certainly risible! (unless you happen to care about women's rights of course). How sick can one be to dismiss medieval barbarism against innocent women to save one's ego in an argument? What planet is this woman on? CarolC, your heart is in the right place but your brain is in your head, which is up your arse. And yes, that is an insult.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 02:18 PM

Thank you, freda, I appreciate that. And if, on my part, I have caused you any hurt, I apologise for that.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 01:53 PM

you're right, i can't find it here either, so repeat: I apologise for any hurt I have caused you, that was not my intent!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 01:00 PM

Carol C. - Yes, you "have prevailed". Do you feel better now?

Not really, dianavan. I would much prefer it if the people on this thread were discussing something other than me. On the other hand, I would be even more pleased if this thread were to disappear over the horizon forever, never to be seen again.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 12:34 PM

On the other hand when I suggested calling it a day once before she said I was going off 'with my tail between my legs in defeat.' Tricky!

Tricky indeed. On more than one occasion, I have let you have the last word after you have lobbed an insult at me, letting it slide off of me like water off a duck's back and letting this thread fall off the page, only to have you refresh it and accuse me of ignoring you.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 12:28 PM

I have not seen any apologies from you, freda. Had I seen one, I would have acknowleged it, and moved on.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 12:25 PM

John 'Giok' MacKenzie, the religious texts of all of the major religions promote some pretty nasty stuff. Not all that long ago, women were being burned at the stake for being "Witches" (with the "thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live" quote from the bible as the excuse).   I've never heard of any women being stoned to death outside any mosques here in the US, either. I have, however, heard of cases here in the US in which children have been spanked continuously for long periods of time and have died because all of their blood went to the site of the spanking and not enough blood was going to the heart. In one such case, the medical authorities said the child's buttocks were like hamburger meat. This was done by fundamentalist Christians who believed that Satan was causing their three year old child to misbehave, and that for the sake of the child's soul, they had to beat him until Satan was vanquished. This happened in the 1980s.

As I have been repeatedly saying (and as you seem to be purposfully ignoring) is that it's not the texts themelves that are the problem. It is how people interpret the texts that is the problem.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 06:14 PM

"When I see you taking Ooh-Aa2 to task for similar and worse things that he has said to me in this thread, I'll take what you have to say on the subject seriously, freda. Until then, I'll just file what you have to say in the same folder as what Ooh-Aa2 and Wolfgang have to say. The one-sided, and without any objectivity folder."

Carol, this was a thread about intolerance, and if you are trying to prove you are the only tolerant one here, you have failed dismally. if you recall, my comments to you that upset you so much were made defending myself from comments you had made to oo-aah, but had worded in such a way that I got the impression you were talking to me. i have apologised for that, i'm still waiting for an apology from you to me and others on this thread, and by lumping varuious people in generically into a group you have decided to hate, you are doing the very thing you are accusing everyone else of.

Re: telling me you expect me to get stuck into oo-aa etc, I'm not into harassing people Carol, and if I have to do that for you to consider me objective, I'm outta here.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 06:11 PM

Nobody was ever going to win this one anyway, so what the heck!
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 05:09 PM

While I seem to be the one who has rattled CarolC's cage the most I call on everyone to check through my posts and see where I have insulted her (as opposed to attacking her arguments). On the other hand Wolfgang has posted a long - - list of insults which she has applied to others, most of which (from memory) were aimed at me personally.

I really think that continuing this thread has an air of 'putting the boot in' to CarolC which is not good. On the other hand when I suggested calling it a day once before she said I was going off 'with my tail between my legs in defeat.' Tricky!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 03:24 PM

Carol C. - Yes, you "have prevailed". Do you feel better now?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 01:48 PM

I don't see many women 'caught in adultery' being stoned to death outside any of my local christian churches carol.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:58 PM

If only she used her powers for good! ;-)&

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:09 PM

If ever I needed a good defence lawyer, who would I choose? Carolc everytime.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:09 PM

I say vindictive in respect of the punishments prescribed in the Koran for sinning, such as cutting off the hand of thieves, and beheading for adultery, both of which most people find a touch extreme.

And this is where I find myself talking about one-sided discussions. You keep pointing the finger at the Koran for language that is no better or worse than what can be found in the Bible. If you were interested in objectively discussing this topic, you wouldn't be so selective in how you measure the relative "vindictiveness" of each religion.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:05 PM

Yes, I expected the next one to come from you, GUEST,Giok, and you didn't disappoint me at all. In fact, you exceeded my expectations. I thought I would have to wait a few hours before you joined in on the little feeding frenzy, but instead I only had to wait a few minutes. Congratulations.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Giok
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:03 PM

Well the thing is CarolC you do seem to be verging on paranoia sometimes. Every time someone comes up with a new angle you dismiss it with the same arguments, or you say they're against you, surely you have more than two weapons in your argumentary armoury? This whole thread has been conducted in a very civilised manner, and demeaning the validity or otherwise of your argument by descending into personal attacks doesn't do your crusade any good.
The constant introduction of side issues does not alter the fact that Islam is by western standards a cruel and vindictive religion, we all know that doesn't apply equally to all Moslems, and I never said it did.
I say vindictive in respect of the punishments prescribed in the Koran for sinning, such as cutting off the hand of thieves, and beheading for adultery, both of which most people find a touch extreme.
Anyway don't expect this will meet with anything but an accusation of stereotyping from you, I don't really know why I bother to try.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 11:50 AM

Dianavan, I invite you to take a look throughout this thread, objectively, and see whether or not I have been the target more often than the one doing the targeting. Until then, what you have to say on the subject doesn't interest me very much either. And considering some of the knockdown-dragout fights I've seen you get into, I don't think you are in a position to point fingers.

I am interested in discussing the issues. You, freda, Ooh-Aa2, and Wolfgang seem to be mostly interested in discussing me. I guess that means I have prevailed in the discussion of the subject of this thread, or you all would be discussing it instead of me.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 11:42 AM

CarolC - If you want people to hear what you have to say, you have to state your opinion without anger. When you are angry, all I can hear is your anger. This thread has pushed you over the edge of reason and, although I entirely agree that Muslims are being stereotyped and villified, I do not agree with your personal attacks.

I have learned alot from this discussion but I find it really boring when a thread degenerates in this way. Nobody wants to wade through this kind of shit to get at the truth.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 11:41 AM

Your description of a 'moderate' Muslim family in the US was encouraging and well worth reading - but it only confirms my point that 'moderate' Muslims often come to the west to enjoy freedoms which they don't have at home.

It confirms no such thing. You have no idea why that family came to the US. People come here for all kinds of reasons. For all you know, they could be from families who were fleeing what is now Israel during the Nakba.

The US may be the biggest Christian country in the world but there are many others - which was my point.

No it wasn't. This was your point:

I agree with you that moderate Muslims are not a problem - though I think that the relative centre of gravity in Islam means that a 'moderate' Muslim looks pretty fundamentalist through western eyes compared with his/her equivalent in most other religions, (unless you wish to look at US Christians in isolation from their co-religionists, as you constantly do).

You have no idea how I look at US Christians, and whether or not I look at them in isolation from their co-religionists. All you know is that on this thread, I have discussed some of the Christians in the US and their agendas.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 11:09 AM

When I see you taking Ooh-Aa2 to task for similar and worse things that he has said to me in this thread, I'll take what you have to say on the subject seriously, freda. Until then, I'll just file what you have to say in the same folder as what Ooh-Aa2 and Wolfgang have to say. The one-sided, and without any objectivity folder.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 08:10 AM

meanwhile, once more back at the ranch - yes, muslims are the new reds under the beds - and have been vilified since Sep 11.

and yes - a religious excuse for limiting human rights in any way is unacceptable.

i hope on these two points we agree carol. good night and best wishes

freda

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 03:20 AM

"If you want to have a civil discussion with me, all you have to do is conduct yourself in a civil fashion. But it's not possible to have a civil discussion with you if all you want to do is fling poo and try to bully me. "

I have not decided i weant to "bully" you, Carol, nor do i wish to, it is not my way.

"You can't boil everything down into simple, one sentance pronouncements as you frequently try to do. Things are so much more complex than you seem to think. Nothing is served by trying to oversimplify real problems, or by stereotyping people according to your prejudices."

yes, i thought these comments were directed at me, not Ooh aah, hence the straw man link. but I dont think its civil for you to say those things to anyone here, me or ooh-Aah, whatever we think.
freda

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 01:19 AM

That post from you, Ooh-Aa2, is quite typical of your usual "to hell with substance, just go for the jugular" type of post that I have come to expect from you. I thought we had gotten beyond that sort of behavior and were recently having a civilized discussion on the actual subject at hand. I see I was completely wrong about that.

You make your own points, and you take up as much space as you please in the process. You make whatever points (largely unsubstantiated) you want to make, but if I respond, you attack me for posting too much. That's a hell of a debating tactic. "I get to say whatever I want, but you are not allowed to say anything in response." You've got a point there. I can't see how you could ever lose a debate if you don't allow anyone other than yourself to say anything. Seems like a pretty cowardly approach to me though. If you were confident in your arguments, you wouldn't always be trying to shut up those who disagree with you.

If my posting to this thread is so offensive to you, I suggest you not ask me to post any more information for you. I do have other things with which to occupy my time, and I would most definitely find them more stimulating as well as satisfying than playing caged bear for your stick poking activities.

Clearly, arguing a legitimate point is not your primary agenda on this thread. If it were, you wouldn't be so eager to fling poo at me whenever I respond to your questions. I see we're back to the slapping me around just for fun part of the thread.

On the subject of freda, I have no problem with her disagreeing with me. But I do not take very kindly, people putting words into my mouth and trying to make me defend arguments I have not made. Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt with me until they abuse it. You did that long before this thread was ever started, so you never had the benefit of the doubt, as far as I'm concerned, on this thread at all. freda did have the benefit of the doubt with me until today. I have been extremely civil towards freda in all of my communications with her in threads, even when I have disagreed with her, prior to today. But for some reason, she has decided that she needs to take me on. So be it. She no longer has the benefit of the doubt with me.

to the discomfiture of female travellers. My sister left a trail of fractured fingers all through India!

I don't think your sister's experience is necessarily any different than what the women of India have to put up with all of the time from men of such a patriarchal and misogynistic culture.

If you want to have a civil discussion with me, all you have to do is conduct yourself in a civil fashion. But it's not possible to have a civil discussion with you if all you want to do is fling poo and try to bully me.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 01:13 AM

Exactly, Ooh-Aah2 - There should be no govt. funding for private schools. Kids need to grow up together and learn to understand similarities and tolerate differences. The best place to do this is in public schools that are adequately funded.

Separate schools and separate courts are ridiculous and only lead to further divisions in society.

It may be the Muslims that force Western civilizations to deal with these inequities and we may end up thanking them after all.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:54 AM

I agree completely Dianavan. The position of non-Muslim minorities who face having sharia law imposed on them is particularly distressing.

It's the same with education as with justice. Muslims in Britain have correctly pointed out that to have Christian schools and not allow Muslim schools is blatant discrimination. But in my opinion the solution is not to have Muslim-only schools but that all schools should be entirely secular (at least if they expect government funding). Religion should be a private matter taught at home. Since most Muslims in Britain are from non-white backgrounds one can expect that widespread Muslim-only schools will lead to more ghettoisation, ignorance, fear and intolerance on both sides. It is vital that children from all backgrounds mix to get rid of racist myths.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:17 AM

Violence must be addressed by secular law.

Most religions are patriarchal and do not address women's rights. The Bible is no better at protecting women and children than the Koran.

Women's rights must be legislated and enforced. Separate courts for specific groups of people deny women equal justice under the law.

How can Jews be given separate family courts without affording the same privilege to Muslims? There should be one court system for all, regardless of religion.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:10 AM

You've certainly posted with your usual incredible prodigality CarolC (man 0 man - 13 of the last 20 posts, and often very long ones - don't you think that if your arguments were stronger they would need less scaffolding?) but none of this has answered my points of 10 March 1:21 with any conviction. The closest you have come is to point out that the US props up bad regimes in Islamic countries because of oil - but this does not really explain the frightful position of women in Islamic countries - indeed when I travel the world I usually notice that strong US influence is almost universally associated with increased sexual freedom for women, partly accounting for why so many men in these cultures consider western women 'easy', to the discomfiture of female travellers. My sister left a trail of fractured fingers all through India!

Your description of a 'moderate' Muslim family in the US was encouraging and well worth reading - but it only confirms my point that 'moderate' Muslims often come to the west to enjoy freedoms which they don't have at home.

The US may be the biggest Christian country in the world but there are many others - which was my point.

I don't like the way you are getting stuck in to Freda. She is quite clearly not on my 'side' but has her own position. It confirms my opinion that you tend to fly off the handle at anyone who dares to disagree with you. Next you will be calling her a bigot, as you so often have called me.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:50 PM

And at least, I had the courtesy to ask you what your meaning was when I was unclear about it, instead of telling you what your meaning and intent was, and then attacking you for it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:38 PM

why do you spend so much time attacking people's motives, methods of argument, and language

Based on this quote from you:

you raised Syria as an example of a good middle eastern state

I would ask you the same question.

I did not at any time raise Syria as an example of a "good middle eastern state". If you had actually read my posts, you would know that. I raised the subject of Syria as an example of a government of a majority Muslim country that is not a fundamentalist Muslim government, in response to Ooh-Aa2's request for me to provide such examples. In fact, if you had actually read my posts, you would have noticed that I agreed with you that Syria has some serious human rights issues. Everything else is your own projection onto me of what you figured you wanted me to say.

If your comment was addressed to Ooh aah 2, how could anyone conclude that from a post that started off saying "Although I'm still having some difficulty getting a sense of your intent, freda, ,..." and then argued on for some time without mentioning Oah aah's name?

Since you don't seem to understand how people use italics in posts to indicate whom they are quoting, I will explain it to you. If I use your name, for instance if I say, "freda, yada yada yada", that means I am addressing you

If I quote, using italics, something someone else has said, whatever I say in response to that quote is directed at whoever posted the part that I have quoted. Seems pretty simple to me, but maybe you needed to have it explained to you.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:22 PM

sigh..

why do you spend so much time attacking people's motives, methods of argument, and language. If your comment was addressed to Ooh aah 2, how could anyone conclude that from a post that started off saying "Although I'm still having some difficulty getting a sense of your intent, freda, ,..." and then argued on for some time without mentioning Oah aah's name?

you raised Syria as an example of a good middle eastern state - it was you who injected syria into this discussion, and i responded.

but i will respond no more today.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:15 PM

I have not at any point said the government of Syria practises Islamic fundamentalism, Carol.

If that's the case, why are you interjecting comments about Syria into a conversation that is about Muslim fundamentalist governments that Ooh-Aa2 and I were engaging in? And if you are not interjecting, why did you bring up Syria at all?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:14 PM

What's your point with the straw man link, freda? Is it your turn to take potshots at me? That paragraph you quoted from me is directed at Ooh-Aa2. If you want to gang up on me with Ooh-Aa2, go right ahead. I'm not afraid of taking both of you on at the same time.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:12 PM

I have not at any point said the government of Syria practises Islamic fundamentalism, Carol.

As well as Islamic fundamentalists and Islamic journalists, the Syrian government has also stripped citizenship from 200,000 Kurds, and will not restore it, effectively making them stateless.

They are denied the right to vote, own property, have marriages legally recognized, or be treated in public hospitals. They carry special red identity cards and are not allowed passports to travel outside of Syria.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:05 PM

No, freda, they were not directed at you. They were directed at, and directly quoted from Ooh-Aah2.

The discussion has been about Islamic fundamentalism vs. Islamic moderates. What the ruling party in Syria is doing is not moderate in any political sense of the word, but it is in no way a "fundamentalist Islamic" government. With the exception of Islamic fundamentalists (who are vigorously discouraged in that country), everyone else is free to practice whatever religion they belong to. So it is totally wrong to try to suggest that the government of Syria is an example of fundamentalist Islam, which it is not. My discusion of Syria is in response to Ooh-Aa2's direct request for me to show examples of governments in countries with majority Muslim populations in which the governments are not fundamentalist Muslim governments. Syria is one such example. To try to suggest otherwise is totally wrong.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 04:59 PM

"You can't boil everything down into simple, one sentance pronouncements as you frequently try to do. Things are so much more complex than you seem to think. Nothing is served by trying to oversimplify real problems, or by stereotyping people according to your prejudices."

I think the straw man has come to visit.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 04:41 PM

the syrian ba'ath party that leads the government is a Pan-Arab nationalist party, a fascist party and cannot be called moderate by any means.

Syria is a secular state in the sense that Iraq was - citizen's rights to pursue their religion were limited by the state, as this article from the washington post tells: religious revival in Syria

for those who can't get into the washington posts site, here are some excerpts:
"Syria's ruling Baath Party, an Arab nationalist movement, has been at odds with Islamists for more than 35 years. A military coup in 1970 brought to power a clique of officers, led by Hafez Assad, who were members of the Alawite sect, a secretive branch of Shiite Islam that comprises about 10 percent of Syria's 18 million people. Many Sunni Muslims, who account for more than 70 percent of the population, do not consider Alawites true Muslims, and Assad's legitimacy was always suspect among Syria's Islamists. In the late 1970s and early '80s, Assad's government staged a crackdown on a militant Islamic movement that killed tens of thousands of civilians.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the group behind the 1982 uprising in the city of Hama that was brutally put down by government troops, appealed last year for its imprisoned members to be granted amnesty. The government declined the request but agreed to review individual cases. Hundreds of prisoners were released, almost all of them jailed for their alleged connection to Islamic movements, Western diplomats said. In addition, Kuftaro and others say that clerics have more leeway to discuss politics in the mosques, although the unwritten rule is that criticism must be restricted to the United States and Israel."

Carol you have put a couple of quotes in your last posts, which were directed at me I think. just to clarify, i did not make those comments.

the Syrian Baath Party has close links with the Iraqi Baath party, and their secret police assist each other. One of the issues that Lebanese people are concerned about currently, is that if the Syrians do withdraw their 30 year occupation of lebanon - WILL THEY ALSO REMOVE THEIR SECRET POLICE?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 01:55 PM

Read your link, freda. Yes, Syria has some serious human rights issues, but ironically, they are for exact opposite reasons than Islamic fundamentalism. The Syrian government is so rabidly anti-Islamic fundamentalism, it has killed tens of thousands of Islamist fundamentalists. It does not want to become a fundamentalist Islamist state. So in terms of moderate Islam as opposed to fundamentalist Islam, Syria, being an entirely secular state, belongs one hundred percent in the moderate Islam category as far as its government is concerned.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 01:49 PM

Although I'm still having some difficulty getting a sense of your intent, freda, it looks to me like you are suggesting that patriarchalism and fundamentalism are the problem rather than Islam itself. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

I think on the subject of the Qur'an, though, as with Bible and the Torah (and the Talmud), the problem comes with how people interpret them rather than the texts themselves.

CarolC I agree with you that moderate Muslims are not a problem - though I think that the relative centre of gravity in Islam means that a 'moderate' Muslim looks pretty fundamentalist through western eyes compared with his/her equivalent in most other religions, (unless you wish to look at US Christians in isolation from their co-religionists, as you constantly do). In other words, define 'moderate', especially with regard to women's rights.

I think a moderate form of Islam with regard to women's rights would be along the lines of something I saw in a documentary about what life is like for Muslims in the US. A family of middle class American (US) Muslims was trying to figure out how to live their lives according to how they understood what it means to be a Muslim and also according to their consciences.

The father didn't want either his wife or teenage daughter to wear a hijab (headscarf). The wife had decided about a decade before to start wearing one (she had never been brought up to wear a hijab). The husband wasn't entirely happy with that, but he felt it should be her choice, so he resigned himself to it. When the daughter reached the age of about 16 or 17, she decided to wear a hijab as well. The father was pretty upset about this. He felt his daughter would be subjected to a lot of cruelty from people she encountered at school and in other aspects of her daily life, as well as the possibility of harrassment from the US government.

The family talked about it, and even argued about it a little bit. The father explained his reasoning. The daughter explained her reasoning. The mother acted more as a mediator than anything else. Finally, the father saw that his daughter was very serious and sincere in her intentions and her reasoning, and that she wasn't making the decision lightly. He still wasn't particularly happy about his daughter wearing a hijab, but he said she was his daughter and he loved her, and if that was what she felt she needed to do, she had his blessing.

(unless you wish to look at US Christians in isolation from their co-religionists, as you constantly do)

The US has more Cristians than any other country (several hundred million). It has almost twice as many as the next country down the list. The US probably has the greatest diversity of kinds of Christianity than any other country. This means it probably has some of the most rabidly fundamentalist as well as some of the most liberal Christians. The Episcopalian church in parts of Africa has been very upset (and has threatened a schism) about the US Episcopalian church deciding to allow homosexual priests. I would say that the African Episcopalian organization that has responded in this way is much more conservative than the faction of the US Episcopal organization that made this decision.

The US also has old order Amish, whose religion forbids them to have any modern conveniences, and in which the women are required to be completely covered up except for their faces, hands, and part of their necks. They wear long skirts and long sleeves and bonnets, even in summer. This Amish order forbids married couples to divorce. I used to know an Amish women (not even strictly old order Amish), who left her husband who had been physically abusing her. She was shunned by the entire Amish community in our area, which was pretty isolated from the rest of the world. Even her own family had to shun her. The only people who were allowed to talk to her, or even look at her were her young children. She lived alone with her children in a mobile home on her father's farm. But she was dead to her father and everyone else in the world that she had always been a part of. She eventually moved to another state and joined a much more liberal Amish order, and I believe she did re-marry. But when I knew her, she was extremely depressed, and I was afraid she might try to commit suicide.

You can't boil everything down into simple, one sentance pronouncements as you frequently try to do. Things are so much more complex than you seem to think. Nothing is served by trying to oversimplify real problems, or by stereotyping people according to your prejudices.

I don't have time right now to keep researching moderate Islam in the world (I have immigration issues of my own to deal with right now), but I'll keep at it, and I'll post something when I have the time to do it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 08:26 AM

meanwhile, back at the ranch ..

(the blicky is not working so here it is...) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4339927.stm

Friday, 11 March, 2005, 12:43 GMT; Rape ruling in Pakistan suspended
An Islamic court in Pakistan has suspended a High Court ruling that acquitted five men in a high-profile rape case. The Islamic - or Sharia - judges ordered the rape victim, Mukhtar Mai, and all the defendants in the case to attend a new hearing. A tribal council allegedly ordered the rape in February 2002 as punishment for a crime attributed to Ms Mai's brother.

Rights groups had expressed shock at last week's acquittals. On Friday, the Federal Sharia Court suspended the judgment of the Lahore High Court which exonerated five of the six men accused in the rape case and commuted the death sentence of the sixth to life imprisonment. The Sharia judges said they were acting according to the constitution which allows them to suspend any judgment of any criminal court pending their own ruling.

They ordered Ms Mai, the six defendants and seven men acquitted in an earlier decision to attend the new hearing. No date was given.
The BBC News website's Aamer Ahmed Khan says it is not common for the Federal Sharia Court to make such a high-profile intervention.
The court has spent most of its time since establishment in 1980 reviewing Pakistani laws to determine whether they conflict with Islamic injunctions.

But legislation does allow the Sharia court to hear any criminal case that falls under Islamic laws called the Hudood laws. These cases include rape and adultery. The Sharia court argues Ms Mai's case should have been tried under Hudood laws and not anti-terrorist legislation. There was widespread criticism of the High Court acquittals by human rights groups and political parties. The court ruled there was insufficient evidence and incorrect investigation procedures.

Ms Mai and the defendants must attend a new Sharia hearing
An Islamic court in Pakistan has suspended a High Court ruling that acquitted five men in a high-profile rape case. The Islamic - or Sharia - judges ordered the rape victim, Mukhtar Mai, and all the defendants in the case to attend a new hearing. A tribal council allegedly ordered the rape in February 2002 as punishment for a crime attributed to Ms Mai's brother.

Ms Mai built schools in her village with her compensation money. Ms Mai last week announced she would file an appeal to the Supreme Court and said the men should not be freed until it was heard. The Pakistani government also criticised the acquittals and said it would appeal. Hundreds of Ms Mai's supporters have attended protest rallies since the acquittals. A joint statement issued by several leading non-government organisations saluted Ms Mai's courage and bravery in taking on the system.

Hundreds of women are killed or injured in "honour" attacks in Pakistan every year. Village elders allegedly ordered Ms Mai's rape in February 2002 after allegations surfaced that her then 12-year-old brother had had sex with a woman from a more prominent clan. He denied the charges.

Amid international outcry at the rape, four of her alleged rapists and two village elders were sentenced to death the same year.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 07:44 AM

I worked with the Jewish community in Sydney for a couple of years - Jewish women in Sydney are not happy with the divorce deals they're getting (or not getting) through the council of rabbis or whatever.
my point again is that we do not have to accept any religious justification for limiting human rights. I believe that legislation which protects people has been hard won, and all people should have equal access to the protection of the state.

I have seen many Islamic women arguing that the Qoran itself protects women's rights - i believe they have succumbed to male arguments that say if you challeng my law, you must be against Islam. this is what human rights watch says about syria

last week I went to hear a young women from East Timor speak about a women's aid program in East Timor. She explained how they go into a new village and negotiate with the elders for permission to come in and provide education for the women, classes always given at night as the women have to work during the day. Some villages will not accept them, as the male elders do not want the program giving anti-domestic violence talks, they see it as threatening the family.

I can criticise any legal structure, religious authority or government authority I want. I myself have been under house arrest in a foreign country for three weeks, and understand first hand what it is like to be subject to oppression. I have granted refugee status to hundreds of refugees and empathise strongly with people who are escaping massacres in their country (like the Hazaras of Afghanistan, or the Kurds, Shias and Turkmen of Iraq.) some I have felt close bonds with, and will always remember.

In any argument I like to discuss ideas rather than speculate about the intent of the person who says something I disagree with. Just as with people from another culture - once a person is dismissed, categorised, they become the "other" which psychologically can allow us to rip into their motives. Okay, maybe I have put George Bush into a box as the "other" but the people here on mudcat i consider to be good people asking legitimate questions.

the personal is political, as they say. its easy to be humanitarian philosophically and in the abstract, but it doesnt help when youre really cheesed off with the person who has just stood on your foot in the bus. or someone on mudcat who says something that stinks, you think.

I am finding this thread invigorating to say the least. it has made me read a lot about women in different parts of the world, and their rights.

keep the arguments coming!

freda
(gets off soapbox and goes to get a drink of water)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:45 AM

500. Morning Terry.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 04:04 PM

I'm still looking for examples, but a number of Iraqi Christians seem to think that Syria is a country with a Muslim majority and a moderate government...

Why Iraqi Christians are Moving to Syria

Of course, that may change once the US gets through with Syria.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 03:34 PM

I'm looking into it, Ooh-Aah2, although I don't think the fact that most of the majority Muslim areas in the world happen to sit on top of important oil deposits (or areas that are in other ways strategically important to the oil industry) is at all concidental to the amount of interference by the US in those countries, and the presence of fundamentalist Islam or other kinds of dictatorial regimes. In three ways, it serves US based oil interests for the US government to promote dictatorial regimes (either secular in nature, or Islamic in nature).

1. When the US props up secular regimes like that of the Shah of Iran, it has complete access to whatever oil resources it wants, as well as a stong hand to keep the little people in line so they don't try to become independent and strong by themselves.

2. When the US props up dictatorial fundamentalist Islamic regimes, it gets pretty much the same thing as with the secular regimes.

3. When the US interferes with countries in a way that promotes the spread of extremist fundamentalist Islamicists (Afghanistan and the Taliban, for instance), it then has a handy bad guy to point to as justification invading the country in question and occupying it, thus giving it not only access to the oil, but also giving it the freedom to put military bases wherever it wants and to also maintain a very large military presence in those countries.

I don't think the spread of fundamentalist Islam in areas where there are important oil deposits or areas that are in other ways strategically important to the oil industry is in any way a coincidence. And I think that for the most part, if you look at the areas where Islamic extremism is a problem, you will also see the presence of Oil and/or the presence of US interference.

In other parts of the world where oil is a factor, we see different approaches but essentially the same end result. In South America, for instance, the favored "bad guy" du jour is either Communism, or drugs. Either way, the US ends up getting what it wants, and the little guy/gal is fucked, regardless of what religion they embrace. So really, the fundamentalist entity that is causing most of the world's human rights abuses today is extremist fundamentalist predatory capitalism.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 03:00 PM

I will buy your Iran argument - that's ONE country. Same thing will probably happen in Iraq - that's TWO.
And as I've pointed out before, The US interferes with many countries, not just Muslim ones. It's not enough to explain away what I've just written.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 02:15 PM

But where can you find a majority Muslim country where the 'moderate' Muslims predominate over their unrefined brethren, as, for example, moderate Christians do in Australia, Britain Canada, Russia, South Africa, maybe even the U.S. etc, etc?

You mean one in which the government (dictatorial regime) is not being propped up by the US, or in which the government (dictatorial regime) didn't recieve it's original training and support from the US' CIA? I'll see what I can find.

Iran had a democracy once. For just a little while. The US (CIA) crushed it and installed the Shah (and his dictatorial regime... the backlash against which is main reason there is a fundamentalist regime in power in Iran today).

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 02:01 PM

Wolfgang has only listed (some of) the things I've said, Ooh-Aa2, so how can it possibly be an objective assessment of how either one of us has treated the other? Kind of reminds me of the quality of discussion from many of the contributors to this thread. Totally one-sided and completely lacking in objectivity.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 01:56 PM

Here's a very interesting discussion about Islamic law and Pakistan's legal system...

http://www.crescentlife.com/articles/social%20issues/rape_laws.htm

This discussion examines what the Qur'an (Koran) has to say about Islamic law, and compares that to existing laws in Pakistan. I think it's important as well as enlightening to see the extent to which (and the ways in which) Islamic laws have been bastardized in service to political and other kinds of power agendas in Pakistan. Here's an example:


"C. Drafting Problems in the Zina Ordinance

1. The same brush: why rape as a form of zina? As we have seen, the Qur'anic verses regarding zina do not address the concept of nonconsensual sex. This omission is a logical one. The zina verses establish a crime of public sexual indecency. Rape, on the other hand, is a very different crime. Rape is a reprehensible act which society has an interest in preventing, whether or not it is committed in public. Therefore, rape does not logically belong as a subset of the public indecency crime of zina. Unfortunately, however, the Zina Ordinance is written exactly counter to this Qur'anic omission and it includes zina-bil-jabr (zina by force) as a subcategory of the crime of zina.42

Where did the zina-bil-jabr section in the Ordinance come from then, if it is not part of the Qur'anic law of zina? We will see later that in Islamic jurisprudence addressing zina, there is significant discussion of whether there is liability for zina under duress.43 But the language of the zina-bil-jabr section in the Pakistani Ordinance does not appear to be drawn from these discussions. (That is, it is not presented as an exception to zina in the case of duress.) Rather, the zina-bil-jabr language is nearly identical to the old common law of rape in Pakistan, the borrowed British criminal law in force in Pakistan before the Hudood Ordinances. The old common law Pakistani rape statute read:

A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the following descriptions:–

First.-–Against her will.

Secondly.-–Without her consent.

Thirdly.--With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her in fear of death, or of hurt.

Fourthly.-–With her consent when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

Fifthly.–-With or without her consent, when she is under [fourteen] years of age.

Explanation.-–Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.

Exception.–-Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under [thirteen] years of age is not rape (Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sec. 375).44

With the exception of the statutory rape section (under "Fifthly"), the language specifying what constitutes rape is almost identical to the zina-bil-jabr language under the Hudood Ordinance. Even the explanation that penetration is sufficient to constitute the necessary intercourse is the same. Did the Pakistani legislators, in writing the zina-bil-jabr law, simply relabel the old secular law of rape under the Muslim heading of zina (as zina by force–-jabr), and re-enact it as part of the Hudood Islamization of Pakistan's laws–right along with the four-witness evidentiary rule unique to zina? If so, this cut-and-paste job, albeit, a well-intentioned effort to retain rape as a crime in Pakistan's new Hudood criminal code, reveals a limited view of Islamic criminal law, which, as illustrated, ultimately harms women."


Interestingly, this site:

http://india_resource.tripod.com/grpakistan.html

...which criticizes Pakistan's Hadood laws (although it fails to understand the extent to which the Hadood laws are in violation of Qur'anic law), blames the problem, at least in part, on US interference:

"Women are thus paying an especially high price for the US's support of dictatorial regimes in Pakistan who have cynically allied with the most regressive of the Islamist forces to inflict highly discriminatory Islamic Hadood laws on Pakistan's hapless women."

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 01:42 PM

I think that Canada made its first mistake by allowing the Jewish Court, it isn't possible to have more than one set of laws in any given country. For a start, how do they classify converts particularly recent ones?
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 01:21 PM

CarolC I agree with you that moderate Muslims are not a problem - though I think that the relative centre of gravity in Islam means that a 'moderate' Muslim looks pretty fundamentalist through western eyes compared with his/her equivalent in most other religions, (unless you wish to look at US Christians in isolation from their co-religionists, as you constantly do). In other words, define 'moderate', especially with regard to women's rights.
   But where can you find a majority Muslim country where the 'moderate' Muslims predominate over their unrefined brethren, as, for example, moderate Christians do in Australia, Britain Canada, Russia, South Africa, maybe even the U.S. etc, etc? In Afghanistan? In Pakistan? In the Gulf States? In Algeria? In Egypt? In Morocco? In Tunisia? In Indonesia? Maybe in Turkey where the European influence is strong (would you really want to be a woman in Turkey - as far as your religion-defined status goes I mean?). Do you see what I'm saying? Muslims who are 'moderate' as Westerners define the word are pretty thin on the ground compared with almost every other religious group. They tend to exist in small, rather besieged elites in big cities and in the west, where, as Dianavan has pointed out, they have gone to seek the freedoms unobtainable at home.

I am not here to attack you, by the way. I am here to argue a legitimate point. The little list that Wolfgang has posted seems to indicate that I am the one being 'slapped'. (sniffle sob!)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 10:46 AM

By the way, the reason the issue of Sharia law in Canada has come up there is because Fundamentalist Jews already have their own set of laws in Parts of Canada, and the government is having difficulty allowing the Fundamentalist Jews to have separate laws and not also allow Muslims to have separate laws. It's a very tricky situation, and one that I don't think is served by oversimplifying it and giving partial accounts of what is going on with this issue.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 10:40 AM

freda, are you, as Ooh-Aah2 seems to think, suggesting the Islam is the problem, or that fundamentalist Islam is the problem? And are you suggesting that only in Islamic countries are women treated as badly as they are in the examples you are giving? Because just providing anecdotes and examples about experiences of some Muslim women isn't helping me to understand what you are trying to say.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 06:06 AM

In Canada, the Government of Ontario has been deciding whether to allow some Muslim leaders to set up sharia courts to settle family law matters, and Alberta is considering whether to follow Ontario's lead.

Most opposition to these proposals is coming not from Canadian-born feminists and liberals (Canada, after all, invented multiculturalism), but from Muslim women who have knowledge of sharia law, a code based on the Koran. Iranian-born activist Homa Arjomand said women are not treated equally under the laws, and that many Canadian Muslim women have been forced into marriage at 14 or into "polygamous arrangements".

Some Muslim leaders in Australia are negotiating to set up sharia courts here. actually, they are probably operating on the quiet, within communities, but at least women have the option of seeking protection of the courts .

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 05:47 AM

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an MP for the Liberal Party in the Netherlands, with a brief on immigration. Originally from Somalia, she fled to Holland after her father attempted to arrange a marriage for her.

"I left Somalia when I six-years-old. I lived in Saudi Arabia for one year, in Ethiopia for one and a half years, in Kenya for 11 years, and I live in the Netherlands now. If I were to say the things that I say now in the Dutch Parliament in Somalia, I would be killed

I left Kenya because my father had chosen someone for me to marry. He wanted me to go to Canada, where this man lived. On my way to Canada I made a stop in Germany. I didn't agree with this marriage, so I didn't take the plane - I took the train to Holland. You can say I ran away.

When I had finished learning the Dutch language, I thought I would like to go and study. I came from a continent which is torn apart by civil war, and I wanted to understand that. I took political science in college, and that's how I got involved with learning about power, about governments, about institutions, about citizenship - what makes Europe Europe, and what makes developing countries what they are now.

I wanted to understand - I came from a country in civil war, and I really wanted to understand why we had civil war and why it was peaceful and prosperous here. I am now a member of parliament for the Liberal Party. My subjects - my portfolio - include the migration of non-Western migrants to the Netherlands, the emancipation of women, and development aid to developing countries.

Unfortunately I cannot do this line of work in my country of birth.
Somalia is made up of a population which is 100% Muslim. The radical leanings of a huge number of the population is unfortunately growing, and the position of the Somali woman has never been worse than it is now.

If I were to say the things that I say now in the Dutch Parliament in Somalia, I would be killed. I wish I could go back, and I would love to go back, even if it's just to see my parents and brother.
But I can't go back, because the situation is that I have said things about the Islamic religion, I have said things about my past, I have said things about the Prophet Mohammed and his message about women.

By saying these things, I think I would be seeking danger if I went back to Somalia. I'm not intimidated by the threats and the attempts to make me shut my mouth, because living in a rich western European country like this one, I have protection that I otherwise would not have in Somalia or in Africa or in any other Islamic country. So I am going to make use of this huge opportunity - that I am protected and I can say what I want, that it gets published and spread, and that I am a voice in parliament for these women.

That's something that people forget, because that means you change the rights of women here. They have these rights, but you make sure they are implemented. I would not change that. I think I wouldn't be able to do that in another country, and I'm not going to allow people to intimidate me.

I have memories - my parents lived there, and I have good memories of the weather, of food, of how as a child I played. In a way I identify my childhood with my place of birth. I think that's just about it.

from BBC interview http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3322399.stm

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 05:43 AM

In Pakistan, if a woman is raped, she must have four Muslim, adult male witnesses to secure justice, failing which she may herself be considered guilty of fornication.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 04:59 AM

Yep I'm glad they stopped that punishing kids thing, just look what lovely well behaved little rays of sunshine they've all become now!
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 01:39 AM

How about some clarity here.

Are we talking about Muslims in the middle east or Muslims who have immigrated to other countries?

Are we talking about Sunnis or Shiites or just radical Muslims?

Freda has made a very good point and none of us would want laws that do not protect women. Is this a secular matter or a matter of religious law?

I understand competely what Carol C. is saying. Its not fair to stereotype. Muslims come in all shapes and sizes, same as Christians and Jews. You can't group them all together and say that Muslims immigrants are more prone to violence. In fact, most of the Muslim immigrants I have met are highly educated and obey the laws of Canada. They have left the negative part of their religion behind.

Lets face it, there are back-woods type of Fundamentalists everywhere, including North America.

Remember spare the rod and spoil the child? Times do change.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 06:03 PM

Btw, Wolfgang, since you are now discussing me, instead of the subject of this thread, I guess I can assume that you have run out of anything of substance to say pertaining to the subject of the thread.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:08 PM

Shall we now see the list from Ooh-Aah2, Wolfgang, or are you going to be as selective about whose language choices you will criticize as you are about which groups of people you choose to criticize?

Ooh-Aah2 comes to this thread just for the fun of verbally slapping me around a bit every few days or so. Even when I haven't been on this thread for a while. Especially when I haven't been on this thread in a while.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:00 PM

your hatred of Muslims and Arabs
campaign of promoting hatred of Muslims
stuff that helps people promote hatred of one group of people.
result of doing so is to spread hatred and intolerance
it doesn't serve any purpose other than to promote bigotry and hatred.
an agenda that is in reality an anti-human rights agenda - the promotion of hatred against Muslims.
hatemongers like yourself using that issue as an excuse to promote hatred against any groups of people.
When you promote hatred towards and discrimination against Muslims
the result of promoting hatred towards that one group
your campaign to spread hatred towards Muslims
find a way to help Muslim women that doesn't result in the promotion of hatred towards and discrimination against Muslims.
That does, indeed, promote hatred towards and discrimination against that one group.
threads like this one... serve to help promote the kind of hatred of Muslims
by virtue of the fact that it has considerable potential to promote hatred, discrimination, and hateful and innacurate stereotypes.
Ooh-Aah2's hypocrisy and hatred of Muslims
responsibility of all people of conscience to show these hatemongering stereotypes for what they are.
You hate all Muslims
kind of sound byte upon which hate campaigns are built.
bigoted Arab/Muslim-hater
racists, white supremacists, and hatemongers like yourself
promote a hate agenda, as you and Ooh-Aah2 are doing on this thread
hate campaign aimed only at one group of people
fostering a climate of hate against entire groups of people.
thread like this one promotes hateful and inacurate stereotypes about Muslims
promote hateful and innacurate stereotypes of a whole group of people
I fight against discrimination and hatemongering against Muslims
contributing to the promotion of hateful stereotypes and to discrimination against targed groups of people.
potential to promote hateful stereotypes
I am against waging hate campaigns against Muslims
bullshit that you have made up to serve your hate campaign against Muslims (Carol, each line a different quote from this thread)

With a bit less of stereotyping and with a bit more of trust that saying what you mean once or even twice is clear enough to make your point understood, Carol, this could could have been a more normal discussion. Even many differences in approach and opinion might have appeared between for instance Ooh-Aah2, Giok, and me.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 04:53 PM

Ooh-Aah2, you have just articulated one of the main points I have been making all along. It is not Islam that is the problem. It is fundamentalism that is the problem. Sharia law is not a form of moderate Islam. It is fundamentalist Islam. And it is in the more fundamentalist elements of other cultures (not always necessarily in a religious context) that we see these same kinds of human rights abuses against women. Your example of the laws in India is not a good one, since the laws in India protecting women from domestic abuse have recently been severely weakened by some of the more fundamentalist elements of Hindu culture in India. It is now legal for a man to beat his wife if he says he is doing it to protect himself, his "property", or anyone else or their "property". This means that in India, according to law, a man's "property" has more value than a woman's life.

Moderate Islam is more respectful of human rights than fundamentalist Hinduism.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 03:23 PM

Blimey! This is fast becoming absurd and it's because CarolC doesn't seem to be able to understand a basic point no matter how slowly and clearly Wolfgang, Giok (and to a certain extent) Freda and myself put it.

We know problems are not limited to Islam. But Islam still has not grown out of using religion to justify the indefensible and it does this TO A FAR GREATER EXTENT THAN OTHER RELIGION. Hindus beat their wifes in the name of religion, Christians beat their wives in the name of religion, but the secular rules of their societies mean they are breaking the law of the land each time they do so. Not so with sharia law - NOT ONLY DOES IT FAIL TO PROTECT WOMEN IT ACTIVELY ENCOURAGES MEN TO RULE THEIR LIVES. In India or America the religious freak who shoots a woman for 'immorality' has broken the law. In Pakistan and Afghanistan he has conformed to it. In many Muslim countries where he may have broken the letter of a law made for the sake of the countries' international reputation, not much happens because the majority of the Muslim inhabitants' lives are still ruled by Islamic custom rather than by the expectations of the international community. The same in India you say? Not so because such murders are widely condemned by the mainstream media, widely attacked by politicians and decent Hindu priests and laypeople and women's groups (who are allowed to exist!)and are subject to the attentions of crusading film-makers and journalists (none of whom have ever been murdered for their efforts as far as I know). Anyone who regular reads the online editions of 'The Hindu' 'The Deccan Herald' and reads the magazine 'India Today' knows that disgust at these atavistic actions are widely condemned in India. Not so in extreme Muslim countries.

I'm from Tassie Freda, when I'm not in India and Britain.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 02:07 PM

Acknowledging that the teachings of one religion can be taken to explain at least partly one crime is in contradiction to the premise that it is simply not possible for anyone to make a legitimate and verifiable argument about which religion or religions, if any, are more prone to any kind of tendencies whatever.

I disagree. People find all kinds of excuses to mistreat one another. The fact that some people use religious teachings as one such excuse doesn't in any way prove that there aren't an equal or greater number of non-religious excuses used by people for such behavior.

BTW, speaking about contradictions, when we first had this discussion and I argued that religion can be a meaningful variable you told us that you think it is not possible to disentangle the variable religion from other varibales like social background. Have you changed your mind now when linking to this study or do I misrepresent your past opinion?

No I have not changed my mind about that. Religion can be used to justify certain behaviors that are also found in other contexts besides religions. The fact that some people justify their mistreatment of others using religion doesn't mean that religion is the only or even the predominent justification that people use to mistreat one another.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 01:59 PM

I did not provide a link to that study in order to promote the study itself as evidence of what you are suggesting, Wolfgang. I was using that study as an example of the kind of discussion that is happening among Hindu women in India on the subject of domestic violence (as evidence that it is a problem there), and also to show a specific example of Hindu religious tradition that is being used as an excuse for mistreatment of women. I did not read the whole study since it was not my intention to use the data in the study to support any of my points.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 01:41 PM

No, you don't understand my point at all, Carol. But I might expect too much, for you have not understood it the first time.

A premise is something taken for granted anbd not open to change by empirical evidence or other kind of study. Any study or article looking for a religious background must be open to a finding that the religion studied is a variable worth considering as one reason for the incidence of particular crimes. If not it is worthless. Of course, the finding could be that religion does not play a role. I'm open to that. I would also be open to a finding (and consider it likely) that criminal activity in general is equally distributed across religions. My point only has been all the time that particular crimes may not be distributed evenly across religions.

The contradiction I see is that you link to a study trying to explain the incidence of a particular crime with one particular religion. This variable has no explanatory power at all if not the incidence of a crime (at least at one moment in time) did not vary with religion. Acknowledging that the teachings of one religion can be taken to explain at least partly one crime is in contradiction to the premise that it is simply not possible for anyone to make a legitimate and verifiable argument about which religion or religions, if any, are more prone to any kind of tendencies whatever.

BTW, speaking about contradictions, when we first had this discussion and I argued that religion can be a meaningful variable you told us that you think it is not possible to disentangle the variable religion from other varibales like social background. Have you changed your mind now when linking to this study or do I misrepresent your past opinion?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 12:00 PM

Some Christians use their religious texts as an excuse to beat their wives.

Some Muslims use their religious texts as an excuse to beat their wives.

Some Hindus use their religious texts as an excuse to beat their wives.

Now, based on these three statements, which of these three religions is more prone to having members who use their religious texts as an excuse to beat their wives? And based on these three statements, how much more likely are the members of these religions to beat their wives than people of other religions or of no religion at all?

You mischaracterize what I'm saying by suggesting that the two things I have posted are inconsistant. Which they are not. Providing examples that show the presence of the same or similar phenomena in more than one religion is not at all the same thing as saying some religions are more prone to those phenomena than other religions. And I can also give examples of the same or similar behaviors in situations where religions is not a factor at all (many of the spousal abuse cases in the United States, for instance), as well as giving examples in which members of all of the religions in question do not exhibit these phenomena.

My examples only show that the Muslim religion is not the only religion to have the problem of people using its religious texts as a justification for human rights abuses against women (contrary to John 'Giok' MacKenzie's assertion that "only one culture has a handbook saying it's OK to beat your wife"). They do not show that any particular religion is any more prone to this problem than any other religion.

Notice that word "more". That's the important one to notice in that bit you quoted from me. The most important one, in fact.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 11:26 AM

How can I mischaracterise what you have said when I quote you exactly?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 11:12 AM

Oops. Typo. My last post should read like this:

My examples do not suggest that any religion or religions is/are more prone to anything.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 10:54 AM

You are mischaracterizing what I have said, Wolfgang (willfully perhaps?)

I said this:

it is simply not possible for anyone to make a legitimate and verifiable argument about which religion or religions, if any, are more prone to any kind of tendencies whatever

My examplse do suggest that any religion or religions is/are more prone to anything. My examples only show the presence of the same phenomenon in more than one religion. Nice try, but no cigar. (And you should know better, too, being the language pedant you seem to think you are.)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 10:01 AM

My other premise is that it is simply not possible for anyone to make a legitimate and verifiable argument about which religion or religions, if any, are more prone to any kind of tendencies whatever (Carol)

This article discusses the role that the Hindu religion plays in the subjugation of women in India, and how it contributes to the problem of domestic violence against women in that country (Carol)

Here's an instance of a Hindu sect that is committing human rights violations against children (mostly female) in the name of their religion: (Carol)

I've tried to argue exactly this point with you for too many posts, Carol, namely that it is possible to pin down some behaviours and crimes to the variable 'religion'. It was no use for you insisted that such an argument could not be made at all. Now I see you citing approvingly (so it seems to me) instances in which religion is considered as a possible reason for a particular pattern of crimes. Thank you.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 09:27 AM

but only one culture has a handbook saying it's OK to beat your wife

This is such bullshit. The Bible has been used for eons as a justification for human rights abuses against women, including the practice of wife beating.

It's in the interpretation of the Bible and the Koran that the problems arise, not necessarily in either of those texts themselves. Both texts promote the subjugation of women by men, and that is what gives men and societies the "justification" for physical abuse.


This article discusses the role that the Hindu religion plays in the subjugation of women in India, and how it contributes to the problem of domestic violence against women in that country:

http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/10/1/94

"Domestic violence in not unique to India, nor is it a recent phenomenon. But in India what is unusual is the resistance to its elimination by society at large and society's lack of recognition of it as a serious issue. What is recent is the courage of women to face up to domestic violence - not just women in organized groups but also female victims who are well aware of the dverse consequences that "going public" will have on their lives. With the backdrop of the patriarchal social structure, the tradition of familial piety, and the asymmetrical gender expectaations in India, this defiant movement to expose domestic violence has created the space for a national debate on the issue.

This article will focus on the privileged position of men in the household and in society to implicate men as perpetrators in the debate on domestic violence. The focus is on men because it is men in India who define the household, the society, and the nation; women's status in India is purely relational (daughter, wife, and mother of father, husband, and son). This article will discuss how the status of Indian women is determined primarily by patriarchy, thus drawing women into a traditional gender hierarchy. Through a discussion of men's exalted position in Indian society, I want to delineate how the woman's very existence is created to cater to the patriarchy, which has "mastered the craft" of creating a social order that ensurees that service is provided not just with efficiency but also with devotion, silence, subjugation, and tolerance, even at the expense of glorifying such oppression through religion and mythology (e.g. Sita and Savitri, mythological Hindu figures whose chastity and devotion to their husbands make them role models for all Hindu women)."



Here's an instance of a Hindu sect that is committing human rights violations against children (mostly female) in the name of their religion:

"SAUDATTI, India (Reuter) - Frenzied worshippers gathered
near a south Indian temple Wednesday ready for the full moon
celebration of a Hindu goddess whose devotees include a cult
sentencing children to a life of prostitution.
Girls -- many under 10 years old -- chosen to become
Devadasis, meaning handmaidens of god, will be dedicated to the
goddess Yelamma in secret ceremonies before being brought to the
temple...

...Most of the girls brought into the Devadasi system will
return home, but once they reach puberty they will become human
cargo in the sex traffic in cities like Bombay, where sex can be
bought for less than the price of a bottle of beer.
Hunger, poverty and superstition are the root causes of a
practice which sees parents or relatives sell a daughter to a
pimp or brothel for $150 to $200."


When you focus on only one group of people who do these kinds of things, it becomes no longer about the victims, but about your own prejudice against that group.

Also, by dismissing what some of the women in this thread are saying about domestic violence in our own cultures as being different (irrelevant) because you think it's only bad to beat your wife if it's encoded in your "handbook", you are tacitly condoning that behavior in these cultures. Which makes you no better than the people you are criticizing.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:08 AM

According to a US State Department report on human rights practices in Pakistan released in February, anywhere from 70-90 percent of women are victims of domestic violence at the hands of their husbands, in-laws or other relatives.

The Hudood Ordinances, announced by the central martial law government in 1979, aimed to make the Penal Code more Islamic. They provide for harsh punishments for violations of Shari'a (Islamic law), including death by stoning for unlawful sexual relations. Women frequently are charged under the Hudood laws for sexual misconduct, such as adultery. According to the US State Department, in 1998 about one-third of the women in jails in Lahore, Peshawar, and Mardan were awaiting trial for adultery.

Furthermore the state department report says that discrimination against women is rife in rural areas of Pakistan, particularly Sindh and Baluchistan in the south, where it claims female literacy rates are two percent or less.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:03 AM

She comments further:
The prospect of prohibiting and punishing domestic violence depends, foremost, on the state?s willingness and capacity to reform criminal and family laws. But the issue?and possibility?of state-sponsored reforms is strongly affected by social beliefs and ideologies about gender and family relations.

Law reform strategies work best?when the social value base is in concordance with the desired new norms. As long as the old regime of values is in effect, the tasks of making the new norms operative, or activating the educative function of law to change values, will be difficult and require action on many fronts.[13]



When the administration of family relations is based upon or derived from religious texts and traditions, as is the case in Muslim societies where sharia constitutes the framework for family law, the possibility for reform is contingent on a serious and respectful engagement with religious beliefs and practices. But the challenges to reform law in order to promote and protect the rights of women are daunting; in many contexts, shari?a is interpreted to allow or tolerate certain forms of violence against women by male family members. This raises questions?and stimulates debates?about what religion "says" (or is believed to say) about the rights of women. It also raises questions about the willingness or ability of the state to prevent violence within families, especially when prevailing views or powerful constituencies regard curbs on male authority as a contravention of sharia.

She discusses some very interesting information at length and concludes:

Ultimately, the state is responsible for the regulation, restriction and punishment of violence. If sharia functions legally and/or socially as a basis for maintaining women as wards of "their men" rather than full legal subjects of the state, and if violence against women within the context of families is not regarded as violence but as a legitimate means of "social control", the harms women suffer go not only unpunished but unrecognized as harms. Thus, even if states commit themselves to the principle of women's rights (e.g., non-discriminatory clauses in national civil legislation, accession to international conventions), if they do not commit their resources to protect women from violence at home, they fail as states to assume their responsibility.

The authoritarian nature of many states in the Middle East, Africa and Asia bolsters patriarchal family relations, and fosters social and religious conservatism.

When the state is incapable or unwilling to represent the interests of members of society, the importance of family and kinship relations for social survival is inflated. Consequently, any challenges to patriarchal authority in the domestic sphere including but not limited to challenges to the use of violence can be construed as threats to the family as an institution.

Although sharia is administered, interpreted and used in a multitude of ways across Muslim societies, it provides justification for failures and refusals on the part of states to act responsibly to provide women the rights and protections that they are due as humans, as citizens, as women and as Muslims.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 04:54 AM

This article by the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues
points out that the richest countries in Europe and the most privileged population groups experience Domestic Violence (DV we call it is Oz) just as severely. All that varies between countries are the remedies which are attempted, whether by legislative means or by material and psychological assistance for the victims.

Certain European countries, such as Iceland, which in other ways is rather advanced from the point of view of women's rights, the Netherlands and Greece have no specific legislation on domestic violence. In Greece marital rape does not expressly constitute an offence ; whereas in Italy it is considered a crime. Unfortunately, the Italian judges have not changed their attitude and rarely apply these laws. In France, rape is recognised by the law and therefore punished.

The question of the implementation of the law is significant. In Portugal, for example, there has been a law protecting women from conjugal violence since 1991. However, it was adopted under international pressure and not following a new awareness of the issue. It is therefore not applied, the means for implementing it being non-existent. The problem is serious as a woman's life is sometimes at stake : in Northern Ireland, 40% of the murders of women are committed by their husbands. In Sweden, the reception centres for battered women advise leaving after being hit for the first time, as the situation can only get worse.

..it is interesting to note also that the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in Finland has remarked [1] that treatment programmes for violent men cost much less than the consequences of violence. In fact, it has been established that one act of violence in a family may easily cost society 185,000 Finnish marks (more than £20,000) [2]. In comparison, treatment of a violent man costs less than £700 (corresponding to individual evaluation sessions for three months and 15 group therapy sessions).

These figures provide food for thought, when it is known that in Finland 22( of women questioned in 1997 who were living with a man said that they had been victims of physical or sexual violence or of threats of violence by their partner at the time. In Greece, a study carried out in Athens showed that one man in four between the ages of 25 and 35 had beaten his partner at least once, and the National School of Public Health has estimated that one woman in four who arrives at the Accident and Emergency Services has been hit by her partner. In Austria, one woman in five is the victim at least once in her life of physical violence from a partner.

Legislation on conjugal violence is often very recent. Laws which punish rape between spouses are rare, or recent. In Switzerland, the legislation was modified in 1993 but only the victim may lodge a complaint, while in other rape cases a public prosecution may be brought. Conjugal violence is a phenomenon which is often taboo. States generally point to the fact that it occurs in the 'private sphere' as a justification for their inertia. Respect for private life in this instance means the protection of the interests of violent men, and not of those of battered women. Faced with this observation, the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has asserted in its General Recommendation 19 that States may be held responsible for 'private acts if they do not act with due diligence to prevent the violation of rights or to investigate acts of violence in order to punish them and to provide a remedy for them'.

More than a year ago, Spain acquired a spectacular, legislative arsenal to fight domestic violence, a plague of very worrying proportions in that country. Nearly 19,000 complaints of mistreatment were lodged in 1997. The plan, which has a total budget of 60 million dollars, envisages measures to distance by force a violent spouse from his victim, the systematic follow-up of cases of mistreatment, the creation of 'women's care units' in police stations and the launch of an awareness raising campaign. It is, alas, too early to evaluate the results of a purview of thes nature, but this initiative by the Spanish government deserves to be highlighted.

In some countries, specialists in the reception of battered women have been invited to develop and deliver training for police officers. This has been the case, for example, in Austria since the mid 1980s.

more of this interesting article can be found here...
domestic violence- a comparison between different countries in europe

the point that it makes, regarding the legislation and training of police officers in each country, is significant in this argument about "muslim intolerance".

Here is another article, on Domestic Violence and Sharia:A Comparative Study of Muslim Societies

this time comparing DV patterns in the Middle East, the sub-continent and Asia. The writer, a woman of Islamic background by her name, comments:

The role of the state is particularly important to any discussion of domestic violence because of its capacity and responsibility to regulate (i.e., prohibit, punish, etc.) violence. For the purpose of this study, which focuses on (and is limited to) relations and practices governed by shari?a, the categories of domestic violence considered here include, inter alia, beatings, battery and murder; marital rape; and forced marriage.

When violence occurs within the context of the family, it raises questions about the laws and legal administration of family relations. Are violent practices among family members legally permitted or prohibited? In practice, are they ignored, tolerated or penalized? Do perpetrators enjoy impunity (whether de jure or de facto) or do they stand to be punished? Are civil remedies available to victims (e.g., right to divorce, restraining orders)? Even failure or refusal on the part of the state to deal with intra-family violence is an act, not an omission or absence, of law.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 04:41 AM

Dianavan you're falling into the same trap as carolC by comparing apples with oranges. We know and abhor the fact that these things happen in both cultures, but only one culture has a handbook saying it's OK to beat your wife.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 01:19 AM

"...if you're a Muslim woman and report your husband beats you he may kill you..." Hello! Are you pretending that this doesn't happen in other countries?

Are you kidding? In Canada and the U.S., they not only threaten to kill you and the kids but they quite often succeed. If they don't kill you, they quite often kidnap the kids.

What planet are you from?

This is not just a Muslim problem!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 07:27 PM

Bigotry is an interesting one, Richard Bridge. I had been trying to get away from the use of that particular word in contexts like this one because in it's strictest sense it doesn't really mean what it seems to have come to mean in popular usage. But when I did that, I found communication to be more cumbersome than if I just went along with popular usage.

I was talking about something along these lines with someone I know recently. He asked me if the person I was talking about was a bigot. I had some difficulty expressing to him what I was talking about because he just wanted to know if the person I was talking about was a bigot. I explained how the dictionary definition seems to not be consistent with popular usage of that word, and was he asking me if the person I was talking about was the equivalent of a racist or an anti-Semite only in the context of people who are not of a different race or Jewish, which is what I took his use of the word to mean. He got a bit impatient and said, yes, just like most people mean when they use the word bigot. And I took that to be Joe Offer's meaning when he used it on the other thread.

We don't really have a word that is the equivalent of the words "racist" and "anti-Semite" when people are not being categorizec by race or Jewishness. We should. But it would appear that "bigot" is becoming that word in popular usage.

Specious means:

1 obsolete : SHOWY
2 : having deceptive attraction or allure
3 : having a false look of truth or genuineness : SOPHISTIC

Websters Online

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 06:28 PM

Some people need to look up the meanings of "bigotry" and "specious".

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 02:05 PM

But the Berlin police would act unresponsible if they would ignore that these killings (and threats of killings) come nearly exclusively from one particular subgroup of the population. For other crimes, I'd expect them to single out or at least look more closely to non-Muslim men, homosexuals, Russian Germans, Neonazis, Nigerians or whoever if they know that a certain type of crime is relatively more often committed by a member of one group.

Yes. But we are not the Berlin police. Also, if the Berlin police were to treat all Muslims in Germany as if they are criminals, that would in itself be criminal. Surely you know that.

I disagree with some of the premises in that book you are quoting from, Wolfgang, especially the idea that only in Islam is literalism mainstream. And also these...

* the inferior treatment of women in Islam;
* the Jew-bashing that so many Muslims persistently engage in; and
* the continuing scourge of slavery in countries ruled by Islamic regimes.

...are hardly problems that are unique to Islam.

However, I think that the fact that the book exists is yet one more example of what I am talking about... that Muslims are just as fundamentally human as the rest of us, and there are Muslims who seek to improve their way of being Muslims, just as there are people in all other cultures who seek to improve their way of being whatever they are.

My argument is not at all specious, John 'Giok' MacKenzie. Have a look at that thread I posted a link to. I never suggested in that thread that all Germans and Australians were responsible for the things I posted quotes about. All I did was to start a thread with a title very similar to this one with some quotes from some media sources that discussed a real problem in the world today. Just as you have done with this thread. But look how people interpreted my message. And rightly so, in my opinion. It does not serve the interests of human rights to only report human rights abuses that are committed by some members of certain groups of people. The only way to promote the cause of human rights is to shine a light on human rights abuses wherever and whenever they occur.

But of course lots of other religions have these problems, or did have one or more of them a century or two ago, or have induvidual members who are nasty.(Block your ears to the screams, people, and remember that to criticise Islam is bigotry!)

Wolfgang, I could be wrong about this, but I think this paragraph by Ooh-Aah2 was meant as a sarcastic criticism of what I have been saying in this thread, and was not meant to be taken literally.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 01:42 PM

But of course lots of other religions have these problems, or did have one or more of them a century or two ago, or have induvidual members who are nasty (Ooh-Aah2)

Ooh-Aah2's hypocrisy and hatred of Muslims makes him unwilling to see anything bad except that done by Muslims (Carol)

----------------

a constructive point for those people who just don't seem to be able to grasp (Carol)

I grasp your point, Carol, but I do not agree. A very very different thing. You seem to think that someone not agreeing with you cannot have grasped your point and vice versa, if one only had grasped your point one couldn't but agree. You err.

Even if not all members of one group exhibit a behaviour and members of other groups also exhibit this behaviour (I can't think of any real exception and noone in this thread argues that point), if it would be true (and that's the point of this thread) that one behaviour comes relatively more often from one group of people it would be better to be informed about that for protective and helping measures not to be wasted.

Take the honour killings in Germany for instance. By far not all Muslims come even close to consider these crimes and I'm sure that there must have been some non-Muslim German to have committed such a crime during the last decades. But the Berlin police would act unresponsible if they would ignore that these killings (and threats of killings) come nearly exclusively from one particular subgroup of the population. For other crimes, I'd expect them to single out or at least look more closely to non-Muslim men, homosexuals, Russian Germans, Neonazis, Nigerians or whoever if they know that a certain type of crime is relatively more often committed by a member of one group. Also for other measures (safe houses, leaflets telling about female rights, anonymous telephone) it makes sense to know who to address in particular.

The themes I'm exploring (in her book) with the utmost honesty include:

    * the inferior treatment of women in Islam;
    * the Jew-bashing that so many Muslims persistently engage in; and
    * the continuing scourge of slavery in countries ruled by Islamic regimes.

I appreciate that every faith has its share of literalists. Christians have their Evangelicals. Jews have the ultra-Orthodox. For God's sake, even Buddhists have fundamentalists.

But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam is literalism mainstream...

My question for non-Muslims is equally basic: Will you succumb to the intimidation of being called "racists," or will you finally challenge us Muslims to take responsibility for our role in what ails Islam? (Irshad Manji)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 01:32 PM

Your argument is specious, and is based on the belief that people cannot discuss the behaviour of members of a group of people, without prejudice. I assume when I state indisputable facts, and record actual events, that the person I am talking to, or discussing it with, is intelligent enough to know that this is posssible. I am not intersted in the excuse usually proferred of 'Yes I know that but what about other people?'
As you drive down the highway towards Mecca there is a big sign saying 'non-Moslems this way', and an arrow pointing to the route that by-passes the city, this is discriminatory, but it does not offend me!
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 01:21 PM

I can understand that, John 'Giok' MacKenzie. Where the bigotry/hypocrisy enters the picture is when you only focus on the destructive behaviors of some people, while completely ignoring the same or equally destructive behaviors of other people, including members of your own group, and at the same time, ignoring the vast majority of the people in the group you are afraid of who are not guilty of the things you are criticizing.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 01:14 PM

I don't hate anybody, but the behaviour of certain people, and groups of people horrify me. In order to make this clearer it would be necessary for me to specify the persons or people involved, maybe even their sex too.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM

Here's a constructive point for those people who just don't seem to be able to grasp what I am trying to say...

If you want to reduce and/or eliminate a negative behavior, you focus on the behavior, and not on the person/people (or group the person/people belong to) who are exhibiting the behavior. Focusing on the behavior allows people the freedom to take corrective measures. Focusing on specific groups of people who exhibit the behaviors only results in the scapegoating of the entire group, even when, A. not all memebers of the group participate in the behavior, and B. members of other groups also participate in the same or equally destructive behaviors.

This is very simple stuff, and it shouldn't be too hard to understand in the absence of any secondary bigotry and/or hate-related agendas.

So if we want to correct the problem of human rights abuses against women, let's discuss human rights abuses that are being committed against all women, rather than just those being committed by some members of only one group of people. Anything else is hypocrisy. And bigotry.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 12:12 PM

The Pope is a Catholic.
In thus stating the obvious I am serving no good purpose, nor am I adding to the store of human knowledge. I am also not saying that being a Catholic is a good or a bad thing. It does however fit in well with several other posts in this thread which use stating the bleeding obvious as a means of debate.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:59 AM

problems to which Islam is particularly prone!

This is pure bullshit that you have made up to serve your hate campaign against Muslims.

if you're a Muslim woman and report your husband beats you he may kill you

This happens quite often in the US, by white guys with European backgrounds who are not Muslim. In fact, the women at highest risk are the ones who have left their husbands and reported them. Many of them get killed. (By their White, husbands of European ancestry who are not Muslims) I bet it happens a lot in Australia too, by white guys with European backgrounds who are not Muslims.

To suggest that spousal abuse is a particularly Muslim problem is to avoid the truth of spousal abuse, which is that white guys with European ancestry, who are not Muslims, beat their wives too. Do all of them beat their wives? No, indeed. But a hell of a lot of them do. And many of the ones who beat their wives, also kill their wives. Shall we tar all men with European ancestry and who aren't Muslims with the same broad brush as the ones who beat (and often kill) their wives? Of course not. That would be bigotry, wouldn't it?

As Joe Offer has said on this thread

The basic premise of (this) thread is a thinly-veiled bigotry, the kind that seems to run rampant here at Mudcat...to my mind, it's bigotry whenever you accuse an entire group for the misconduct of individuals within that group.

When we blame groups for the actions of a few individuals, we divert attention from those who truly are to blame, and we also divert attention from serious attempts to solve the problem.

So, I think it's bigotry - veiled bigotry, perhaps; but still bigotry. And it happens here at Mudcat all the time.

What does CarolC think about the unnecessary violence used by the Turkish police against women who were demonstrating to mark World Womens Day?

It happens in the US, too. The most widely known, of course, was the violence used against the women who were protesting for the right to vote in the early part of the 20th century. And also to women who were involved in the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Two women (students) were shot to death by the US National Guard in the 1970s during a Vietnam War protest. But it still happens in some contexts, even today. Only thing is, you don't tend to see it being covered in the news.

What does CarolC think about genital mutilation, stoning to death, the forced wearing of the veil, lack of sufferage, girls being prevented from going to school,'honour killings', burkas, women being refused even to leave the house for decades on end, the law that dictates that a woman complaining of rape must have four male Muslim witnesses or risk being accused of 'fornication', the fact that even women in the west who criticise these things must go into hiding to survive?

I think they are horrible. And all of them are being done to women who are not Muslims by men who are not Muslims as well (except for the "four male Muslim witnesses thing... with Hindus in India, for instance, if a Dalit woman is raped by a higher caste man, she has no legal recourse whatever). But Ooh-Aah2's hypocrisy and hatred of Muslims makes him unwilling to see anything bad except that done by Muslims.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:24 AM

In the book, I say that there are two conditions under which the liberal reformation of Islam will take place. Condition number one is that Muslims stop taking the Quran so literally. Condition number two is that non-Muslims stop taking multiculturalism so literally. What do I mean by that? So many non-Muslims are afraid of being called racist if they ask hard questions about what is going on with human rights in Islam. But I say to them: You will be called racists. Get used to it. Make peace with it. But when you are called racist, remind your accusers that in the last 100 years, more Muslims have been tortured and murdered at the hands of other Muslims than at the hands of any foreign imperial power. So when you’re standing up for human rights in Islam, the people you’re defending first and foremost are Muslims themselves. What’s racist about that?

Canadian Muslim and writer (The trouble with Islam today Irshad Manji

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 07:32 AM

Sikhs in the UK exempted from the law that requires all motorcyclists to wear a crash helmet.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 07:31 AM

just curious, Ooh Aah -what part of Oz are you from? (Queensland?)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 07:18 AM

I don't have the impression that the behaviour of the Turkish police has anything to do with this theme.

Why should people be allowed to ignore the laws of the country they [have chosen] live in?

It depends. To tell you an example: In Germany, both members of the Jewish and the Muslim faith in large numbers ignore the German laws regarding treatment of animals when slaughtering them. A couple of years ago, our supreme court has accepted their right to slaughter animals in violation of the German law. The consequence is that if I would slaughter an animal their way because I might think it tasted better that way I would get punished but they wouldn't if they argued that they are following religious prescriptions.

The court has declared that the right to follow own's own religion is of higher value than a German law against animal abuse. One can have different opinions about that (I'm undecided) but we often allow people for religious reasons to be for instance louder than the law permits (bell ringing), but we would not allow for instance human sacrifices.

So in each case different values/rights have to be considered. And don't we all agree that abuse and killing of women should be treated differently from killing and abusing animals?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 06:28 AM

Yes, any preconceived notion is a prejudice (and no later additional information can alter that status).

Dianavan,
I think you have a point when saying that the immigrant status plays a big role. I have said in a previous post that the not overly nice reaction of some Germans to immigrants makes them even more sticking to traditional values than they'd be in their home countries. Our treatment of them is partially responsible for the problem of Muslim fundamentalism getting a hold in a subset of immigrant families in Germany.

However, the particular problem of (mostly) Turkish immigrants is worse than it was with for instance Italian immigrants (the main immigrants to Germany in the 1950 and 60s) or Polish immigrants (coming in the 19th century). (1) The difference in values is larger than with immigrants from a majority Christian culture and (2) the lack of acceptance of our law system is greater. This last bit (lack of acceptance of the law) is in my eyes a specific fundamentalist Muslim problem. For them the sharia is not just one competing idea at par with other ideas how to regulate human behaviour, it is the only acceptable one. For people brought up in a predominantly Christian culture, the Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's teaching makes it much more easy to accept a government not following closely what would be their ideal law.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 05:30 AM

What does CarolC think about genital mutilation, stoning to death, the forced wearing of the veil, lack of sufferage, girls being prevented from going to school,'honour killings', burkas, women being refused even to leave the house for decades on end, the law that dictates that a woman complaining of rape must have four male Muslim witnesses or risk being accused of 'fornication', the fact that even women in the west who criticise these things must go into hiding to survive?

But of course lots of other religions have these problems, or did have one or more of them a century or two ago, or have induvidual members who are nasty.(Block your ears to the screams, people, and remember that to criticise Islam is bigotry!)

I don't know which planet CarolC is on but I would like to visit. It sounds a lot NICER than hard reality. We would sit around all day being NICE to each other, and we would not have to ignore the bleeding obvious to do it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 05:11 AM

What does CarolC think about the unnecessary violence used by the Turkish police against women who were demonstrating to mark World Womens Day? Remembering that Turkey is an avowedly secular country with a largely Moslem population.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 05:01 AM

Strewth! People seem to demand 'statistics' before one can legitimately state that there are problems to which Islam is particularly prone! "Excuse me Mr Ali, how often and how badly do you beat your wife?" You'd get a long way doing that! Wolfgang's article is yet another piece of evidence to show that Mulsims try to hide their dirty laundry - to the despair of their women - so statistics such as hospital admissions, police reports etc would be comparitively sparse on the ground - if you're a Muslim woman and report your husband beats you he may kill you - with the strong and approving support and connivance of the majority of the Islamic community.And this post started with the murder of someone who merely dared to make a film on the subject!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 06:57 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 05:33 PM

Richard your ms's have been triumphs of supposition in the name of anti-supposition, from the point at which you re-inaugurated this thread with a rather superior comment that now that you'd skimmed the lot you had something ultimate to contribute. but in fact it was penultimate and did very little to advance the thread.

We have gone from a discussion about an obvious hate-crime to your confidence in telling all and sundry how the Neanderthal species, or 'race' as you would have it, met its end. There have been some actual experts on the education channels and they don't seem to have a firm answer so I wish you'd go enlighten THEM.

Finally, to clarify, when you say you are clarifying, you aren't.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 05:24 PM

Yes, Giok, that is illustrative of why I said that they too might transpire to be prejusdice.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:08 PM

Expert opinions didn't do much for Angela Canning, but I digress.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 03:52 PM

I am happy to make it clear (without the need to refer back a few posts in the thread) that the assertion about genocide I was questioning sis not come from Ooh-Aah 2.

Changing subject, neanderthals, I seem to recollect (but I cannot produce the citation), were wiped out by food competition and the (slightly) more organised aggressive behaviour of hom. sap. in times of climate change, not that the climate change was the causa causans. I infer that your point about "species" is to differentiate from "genus" and hence "genocide" but I think it is perfectly fair to treat neanderthals as "men" (no distinction from women being implied). I have no objection to the other examples given, and Neanderthals were the oldest example of genocide that sprang to mind, although I think there were also some other similar events in central Africa and the Malaysian region.

Finally there is what may be a linguistic thing. Your assertion "you know a bit less than that" may have force, but is perhaps unnecessarily vehement, even sarcastic, in context. I have not claimed expertise in that area, merely part of the stock of common knowledge.

Finally, to clarify, a preconceived notion may in due time turn out to be well founded. But until then it is a prejudice - unless perhaps it is expert opinion, although that too may later transpire to be prejudice.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM

Richard,

please drop the Neanderthal digression for good and take one of the much better examples from Little Hawk.
(1) You make it look in your post as if the 'Christian genocide' could be attributed to Ooh-Aah2 when in fact Dianavan has mentioned that topic (with good reasons, BTW)
(2) As far as I know the Neanderthal is usually considered as a different species. Now, humans are responsible for driving a lot of species to extinction but the word for that is not 'genocide'. So even if humans were responsible for the extinction of the Neanderthal it would not constitute an example of genocide.
(3) The reason why the Neanderthals were extinct is by far not as clear as you try it to make. You write who wiped out the Neanderthals? Someone did, or they'd still be here. That logic is nonsense. As if you had never heard of environmental changes bringing species to extinction. One theory is that ice age hardship brought them to extinction. So, the 'someone' in your post makes a bold and unnecessary assumption which is far from established, 'something' is the proper way to put it.
Nobody knows much about Neanderthals and you know a bit less than that. So, please take your example from another field.

But I'm glad about your call against asserting that a thing is so when we can't know and calling that a prejudice. Any preconceived notion, whether it be a premise that there can be no differences or the notion of belief in the 'superiority' of one subset of humans is ill founded. It is a matter of empirical data and nothing else.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 05 - 09:07 PM

Oh, there were some simply splendid cases of genocide long before the Christians....and even before the Jews (read your Old Testament for info on what happened to various places like Jericho when the Children of Israel arrived in the "promised land" and found out that it wasn't vacant of other human inhabitants).

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Mar 05 - 08:00 PM

Well, Robo, I just looked back, and I think I said "reportage". And no, I think I cast doubt on nothing at that stage, merely expressed a preferenge for fact over assumption.

So who wiped out the Neanderthals? Someone did, or they'd still be here. The issue at that point was whether it could be established that the Christians committed the first act of genocide. Still looks like a surprising assertion. I'm not all that keen on organised religion, but assertions like that need to be demonstrable.

My point on prejudice was that AO2 said "an investigation will indeed confirm that there are problems to which Islam is particularly prone". If he does not have the facts to establish that, then it is a prejudice. A statement of that kind requires proper evidence to be justifiable. Again, I'm not keen on organised religion, and the teachings of Islam about, for example female clothing, strike me as oppressive (and so does the Christian convention about female sexuality and fecundity), but do we have proper evidence that Islam teaches a propensity to violence?

What we need to know before we can rationally debate the issue is what the facts actually are.

Perhaps it was a mistake to revive this thread.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Mar 05 - 06:28 PM

Richard, you revived the thread this AM with a blandishment of all 'rapportage,' by which I think you meant reportage seeming to prefer real facts and apparently casting doubt on anything you might have disagreed with in your morning 'skim'.

Now just above you seem to indicate that Neanderthal's disappearance might have been an act of genocide? Just what is your historical reference or evidence?

I think the thread title and earliest postings made it clear what the thread was about, and accusing it of one-sided prejudice is rather a waste considering that by now quite a few sides have been heard from.

You also seem to think there is such a thing as 'proper evidence' in a thread. I think threads can only come up with references, the propriety of which is always likely to be questioned by whomever disagrees.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Mar 05 - 05:45 PM

Your bald assertion, Ooh-Aah2, in response to my post, does look rather more prejudiced than most of your material above, unless you have support materials that I have not seen (or perhpas noticed, I read the thread in rather a rush this morning).

"it was Christians who committed the first, recorded, act of genocide" - please be precise. The assertion seems surprising as put since we know for example that Neanderthal man is extinct.

Giok, subservience to law can be wrong. cf. Oliver Cromwell, Nazi Germany, South Africa, Margaret Thatcher, the Shrub. I omit Ireland, others may wish to add it. The morality or otherwise of resistance to unjust law makes the difference. The problem becomes intractable when differing groups have differing ideas about what is right or wrong. Democracy can become the dictatorship of the majority. The majority is not necessarily always correct.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 05 - 04:32 PM

I should also have mentioned Iraqi ex-patriates in my last post.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 05 - 04:29 PM

It happens all the time. Competing groups of people from other parts of the world who migrate to the US allow their allegiances to the countries from which they came originally (or other countries to which they feel allegiance), to overshadow what is good for the US. Many of them lobby government bodies to promote foriegn policies that may have some benefits for these other countries, but are often very bad for the majority of US taxpayers and also for US military personnel. Cuba and Israel are excellent examples of this. But I am just as strongly against waging hate campaigns against Cuban ex-patriates and Jews because some of them do these things as I am against waging hate campaigns against Muslims for any sort of bad thing some of them might do here in the US or elsewhere.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Mar 05 - 04:14 PM

Right! Forget about what religion people are. Why should people be allowed to ignore the laws of the country they [have chosen] live in? In America you pledge allegiance to the flag at school and other places on a daily basis, you 'vow to thee my country'. What do you think about people who live in your country who owe allegiance to other things and belief systems over and above that of the majority of the population? Which beliefs supercede all other considerations, up to and including the loss of their own life? Do you think it should be allowed?
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Mar 05 - 04:10 PM

Ooh-Aah2 -

If you truly believe that Muslim's are more prone to violence and sexism than any other religion, please provide a reference.

Violence and sexism is a world-wide problem and as Carol C. has pointed out, has many dimensions - including child prostitution and slavery. It would be quite difficult to compile a set of statistics regarding which religions or nations are most to blame. You would, of course, have to take into account history, as well.

Christians have nothing to brag about. In fact, Ooh-Aah 2, it was Christians who committed the first, recorded, act of genocide.

If you wish to discuss a world-wide problem, have at it but quit blaming Muslims for acts of violence and sexism that are committed everyday by members of every other religion.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 05 - 03:51 PM

Actually, I'm all for "rigorous media coverage". What I am against is one-sided, entirely biased, and discriminatory media coverage of the sort that we have now in the Western media, which only reports the bad things done by Muslims, and none of the good things, and reports very little about the bad things done by other groups.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 06 Mar 05 - 02:51 PM

Unfortunately CarolC is quite against 'rigerous media reportage' because she thinks it will promote hatred against Muslims. As Wolfgamg has pointed out, all this means is that people will automatically think the worst because of their 'suspicions', fuelled by partial reports. Of course the other, or real, reason CarolC is against opening this tin of worms is that she knows full well that an investigation will indeed confirm that there are problems to which Islam is particularly prone. If she was consistent in her arguments she would support 'rigerous media reportage', because she would confidently expect that it would find that Islam is no more violent and sexist than any other religion. She knows that this is not what would be found, and the anguished voices of Muslim women (in the link Wolfgang has provided - who knows what they go through in Muslim countries with NO western reporters to at least take an interest)are a reproach to those who opt for this kind of politically correct blindness.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Mar 05 - 06:30 AM

A murrrain on all of you! I have now spent the better part of a morning I wanted to spend doing something else, reading this lot.

The problem seems to be that there is a quantity of andecdotal reportage of misconduct or worse by those reported to be Muslims - but there is no (this is an overstatement, there does seem to be some actual evidence of discriminatory laws) actual evidence that such misconduct is disproportionately commited by Muslims.

Unless there is no proper evidence, then to assert that such a thing is so (as distinct from "seems to/might be so") can only be a prejudice. Perhaps prejudice would be a better word than "bigotry".

We may postulate all we like about the possible causes of such a thing, but the fundamental problem here is that at present we do not actually know. We only suspect, and we only suspect because the media reportage can never be fully rigorous.

Suspicion may (or may not) turn out to be right. History may not be the whole answer, but most of the current rapportage points one way.

If we only knew that something actually was so, we might have a better chance of finding out why it was so. We may have our suspicions but so far that is all we can say with certainty.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: sapper82
Date: 03 Mar 05 - 02:38 AM

Dianavan, we're having the same problems with abuse of women by Islamic men in the UK too. It is made worse by the idiots of the well meaning libertarian left screaming "Rascism" every time anyone critises the non-British part of our society.

As a further side comment, what is the point of having a cake if you can't eat it??

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 05 - 01:31 AM

robo - It means you can't have all the benefits of a 'free' society unless you are willing to extend that freedom to every member of your family.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 03 Mar 05 - 01:12 AM

divan:
You saying that abusing women is like having cake, and abusing women in a free society is having cake and eating it, too? Is this what I'm hearing?

I've never understood that phrase. Seems to me if you eat the cake, you have it for at least the next digestive cycle...

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 05 - 09:22 PM

As I said earlier, this is an immigration problem not a German or a Muslim problem.

Seems to me that when people seek immigration or refugee status it should be made very clear to them that women have rights that cannot be bound by religion or custom. If families can accept that, they should be welcomed. If not, they must take their chances in their country of origin.

You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-aah2
Date: 02 Mar 05 - 04:54 PM

Hell's bells, what a scary article.Do I hate Muslims more because of it? No - they are the victims here. Does it make me think that Islamic culture is more prone to this kind of thing? No - that was crystal clear before. Will it convince CarolC? No, she will point out that other (small, inactive, marginal, well-known to be wacky) groups do this so that it's not an 'Islamic' problem, and that anyway to SAY anything is to contribute to a culture of hate against Muslims. In fact we should point out these problems loud and clear because:
(1) If Muslims live in our country it is reasonable that they conform to our notions of human rights - like everyone else, including wierd Christian cults etc.
(2)If mainstream people do not comment on these abuses the racist right will, and use it to make political capital out of
(3)What is needed is not a culture of hate against Islam but a culture of change within Islam - and the Turkish women in this article are quite clear that this will not happen from the inside.
(4)It seems that to ignore these problems for fear of being called a racist does a lot more harm than good, and in fact provides an encouraging atmosphere for hard-line Islamists.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 02 Mar 05 - 04:41 PM

Wolfgang:

Great site. I bookmarked the English version in which there was an informative article about German bee research. Thanks!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 02 Mar 05 - 10:17 AM

'The whore lived like a German' (English language article from the left of the middle German magazine DER SPIEGEL)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 02 Mar 05 - 12:12 AM

Most of the time I'm not anti Curstian either (Hey, if our Prez can get away with nu-kyu-ler.....).

I really liked johnfitz post with his 'conservative' friend. Them's the kind of conservative friends I worked with, God bless 'em!

I'd add that to be really fair with complex issues is tough as well.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 10:06 PM

Just for the record, in case anyone has interpreted anything I've posted in this thread to be anti-Christian, I am not anti-Christian (I'm married to a Christian). But I have known people (and I've been related to one or two of them) who do have an end-times political bias, and these people are anything but independent thinkers. And we do have some people with that kind of bias making important decisions in and/or for the US government.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: johnfitz.com
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 09:53 PM

By the time I read to the bottom I'd almost forgot the original post. It's quite a grab bag of passion, genius, sublimity and stubbornness--though rarely and obviously stubborn enough to be stupid. Having friends in very different religious vocations, and observing their faith in action, I find it hard to be patently anti-religious. The people I know do good, decent and selfless work for the most oppressed on the planet; and they are not trying to convert those they are helping. I have worked with Muslim and Jewish teenagers trying to create a common camp for children in Israel and Palestinian areas. The common bond they share is their disciplined approach to living spiritually first and never politically.   I sometimes wish that as folksingers we shared that same comittment. Our anger at injustice often boils down to anti-Bush, anti Chrisitian and anti American diatribes which deafens the ears of those who we think need to hear our voice the most.

The initial post had a provocative title--and it worked. Sorry if I strayed from the original statement. A conservative friend said to me today: "I bet the average Iraqi feels less threatened by a Hum-vee than a beat up Toyota." Simplistic, but somewhat true. All I could muster in response was, "Yeah, but if we weren't there they wouldn't have to make the choice." His response: "I forgot, it's much better without choice."

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 09:16 PM

robomatic, I appreciate what you said in your 01 Mar 05 - 06:37 PM post.

there is a distinction between what "death and destruction" you say the religious right "is capable of creating" and what it, or any group, has actually done

This is true. There is also a distinction between what has already been done by the far right Christians in the US, and what they would like to do in global terms, and I would like to keep it that way. This is why I speak up on threads like this one which, regardless of the intentions of those who are posting here, do help to promote the agenda of the far right in the US.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 06:37 PM

Carol, I'll go so far as to say I was placed on the receiving end of a broadcast of mailings which indeed had a lot of very slanted jokes of the type that don't demonize but belittle islamic ways, y'know references to ragheads and what the men have to go through to keep their women, etc.... I sent out a reply to everyone on the thread which simply repeated the words to the song "You've Got To Be Carefully Taught" from South Pacific. It's a song I've been taught since I was 6 or 7 or 8. After that posting I noticed that several people asked to be unsubscribed, and without my asking I was unsubscribed as well.

But there is a distinction between what "death and destruction" you say the religious right "is capable of creating" and what it, or any group, has actually done. I'll go along with the fact that some of the religious right can be profoundly irritating, but if you go back in American history I think you'll find it has always been thus. This is not really new, it's merely 'fresh'.

I think there is a native sympathy for the underdog that runs through US culture, and while it may wander it isn't likely to go overboard at this time.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 05:01 PM

I disagree with you, robomatic, on the amount of death and destruction the religious right in the US is capable of creating (and to some extent, is already responsible for), and is likely to create in the future if they continue to demonize Muslims in the way they and many others are doing now.

Your point about appeasement vs opposition is irrelevant to the points I am making in this thread. I have not ever suggested, nor am I suggesting now, appeasement for violations of human right committed by Muslims. In fact, if you look at some of my more recent posts to this thread, you will see that I am suggesting that there is a constructive way to oppose the kinds of practices you have described in your 01 Mar 05 - 03:57 PM post.

But doing it the way some people are attempting to do it on this thread is counterproductive in the long run, and it is also very hypocritical because it is, in itself (by virtue of the fact that it only singles out one group for criticism of kinds of things that are not committed solely by that one group), an act of intolerance. And yes, it is an act of intolerance that can result in the deaths of innocent people by virtue of the fact that it has considerable potential to promote hatred, discrimination, and hateful and innacurate stereotypes.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 03:57 PM

Indeed Robomatic has lived in such a community and worked with such people and even had lunch with a hell of a lot of 'em over time. Among the many things that distinguish them from the topic of this thread is a high level of independent vision. These are people who think for themselves and respect opposing opinions if well stated.

The leader of the free world freely admits to having his life changd by Christ. I know several poeple I respect who say the same thing. One of them is a flaming liberal who started out as a devout Catholic and now leads her own Unitarian congregation.

As was made clear in a thread I started "Does W Believe In Evolution?", W has played his cards very close to his chest, which is the intelligent thing to do in his political position. he has NOT sided either way, he has issued a cover-all statement.

I think it is valid to state as a fear that someone with a belief in the end-of-time scenario might not be the best Leader of the free world, but I think it is valid to observe that every leader of the United States has been a follower of the New Testament (in some sense) and we're still here.

I was turned on to The West Wing by a friend who was a fundy and never missed an episode.

Now if we contrast this scene of things with peoples who riot to extreme death counts when a journalist makes a poorly chosen comment regarding Mohammed and the Miss World contest, when Arab countries make it a capitol crime to proselytize and accuse one man of great bigotry for use of the word 'crusade' when we hear the word 'jihad' many times a day, when Muslims may freely practise their religion in Western countries to the extreme of inculcating hateful ideologies in select European madrassas, I think we are in a non balanced world, and it is not only allowable, but healthy and even necessary to point it out, which was the original point of this thread.

As to the matter of radicalizing people who are otherwise moderate, that is a valid danger, but if the radicals are already running the show and utilizing bully tactics and fear to rule the moderates, the moderates might welcome some opposition as a breath of fresh air.

That's where the distinction between appeasement and opposition comes in.

One might reduce some of the issues to a neighborhood issue. If you complain to a neighbor because he appears to beat his wife, you run a risk that he may beat her all the harder, but if you do not do something you are likewise culpable.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 03:24 PM

robomatic has given his own perspective on the fundamentalist Christians in this country, but it is not shared by everyone. Many of us are very much afraid of the consequences of having nuclear weapons in the control of a government that is intimately tied to the Christian right, as the government of the US is now. Although robomatic may not know such people personally, there is a large contingent of people (many of whom are very powerful in the US government, or in some way very influential with the US government) who are the kind who believe that armageddon is something to be promoted in order to hasten the "second coming of Christ". These people are in many cases the very same people who are promoting the use of tactical (small scale) nuclear war in the Middle East. If you are not afraid of these people, you really should be.

The other thing to consider is that the more governments of counries like the US devastate countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc., the more radicalized the Muslim communities in general become, and the more refugees countries like Germany and the UK end up having to absorb. So if you are concerned about the impact that these kinds of refugees are having in your own neck of the woods, you might want to consider not helping the US government do the things it's been doing to these countries by posting things that have the potential to promote hateful stereotypes.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 03:07 PM

Thanks for that, robomatic.

The fairly peaceful anti-Darwinists were on my mind, but also the less peaceful anti-abortionists.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 02:40 PM

Wolfgang:

The fundamentalist Christians here are not as extreme as the fundamentalist Muslims that are endangering the secular freedoms of Europe, such as they are. There are Christians who are that weird, but they are few and far between, and make everybody here shake their heads, including the people you might refer to as fundamentlists. The fundamentalists here are a threat in a different kind of way, they are anti-scientific. They promote Darwin denial. The threat is to the ability of the United States to function on the cutting edge in the modern world, but not to our liberties. The threat to our liberties is coming from our own fears. But we've been through much worse than this.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 11:36 AM

Those who 'promote hatred' are the murderers and the 'judges' and not those who point at a pattern in the data.

Depends on how the data gets used, Wolfgang. It's possible (and it is happening, whether you happen to be aware of it or not) for governments to use such data to discriminate against (and even to justify human rights abuses against) innocent people based on incorrect application of such data. The US has quite a few innocent people being held illegally in places like Guantanamo Bay in Cuba because of the kind of data you're talking about.

And of course, by promoting Islam as the new "menace du jour", people don't care quite so much when governments of countries like the US bomb residential areas in countries like Iraq, killing tens of thousands of civilians.

This is an international forum. Your words here effect people in more places than just the region of the world in which you live.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 10:52 AM

Dianavan, you're right, the problem is not restricted to Muslims.

But I worry about present day Europe. I want her to remain liberal, with full human rights for anyone, I want her to be free of one dominating religion, I'd prefer her to be secular etc. From what I read (here and elsewhere) I guess that if I was in America (USA) I'd consider right wing Christians the biggest threat to liberal values. We do not have that problem in any sizable amount. Our problem (beside the violence prone murdering Neonazis, but they have no religious background to mention) regarding human rights are fanatical fundamentalist Muslims (the adjectives to be read: those of the Muslims who are...) planning a theocracy.

That is the theme of this thread: People using an argumentation coming (correctly or, rather, not) from a religious background thinking that their religion can decide who may live or be killed, or can decide which of the human rights they may accept for themselves and which rather not.

The list of religiously motivated murders, attempted murders, 'sentences' to death in Europe in the last years is not equally distributed across all religions: Rushdie, Van Gogh, Ates, Sürüncü just as one of many, the death list in the Netherlands headed by Hirsan Ali. I'm not willing to close my eyes on that. Those who 'promote hatred' are the murderers and the 'judges' and not those who point at a pattern in the data.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 02:28 PM

e.g.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 02:00 PM

What I am suggesting is that threads like this one, in the context of what the government of the US is trying to accomplish in the world at this time, serve to help promote the kind of hatred of Muslims that the US government then uses to get legitimacy for its violations of human rights. If we make sure we confine discussions of how immigrant communities effect and are effected by the countries to which they migrate, and we also focus on this issue as it pertains to other immigrant communities besides the Muslim communities, we are doing something productive. As soon as we single out just the Muslim community as the subject of a thread about issues that are relevant to other communities as well, we are contributing to the promotion of hateful stereotypes and to discrimination against targed groups of people.

My point is that it is more constructive to focus on the behaviors that we think need to be changed, and then address all of the groups who engage in these behaviors, than it is to single out one group for our continual haranguing, which is what this thread was started for in the first place.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 01:11 PM

Carol - In the context of this thread, Wolfgang should be free to focus on the violation of human rights within the Muslim community especially when those customs are deported to western cultures. I, too, think that we can go overboard when trying to be 'multicultural' and inclusive. Its a fine line.

When Muslims immigrate they also have a responsibility to learn about their new social circumstances. They do not have the right to import customs that conflict with the law of the land. They are free to retain their language, their customs and their religion so long as it does not conflict with the law. The laws of their new country supercede their right to practice what is traditional in their country of origin. Of course, the law can be changed to accomodate their needs if it is the will of the people.

When it comes to abuse of human rights (including women) it is our responsibility to educate and promote change. This doesn't happen overnight but it will happen. In Canada, there are many communities who continue to arrange marriages and keep their daughters enslaved until that time. These practices should not be allowed to flourish but it is a present reality that is not limited to Muslims.

You are right, Carol, when you say that criticism of women's rights should not be limited to Muslim practices. The women of Bountiful are not Muslim but a fanatical sect of Mormons. Women from the Punjab are not Muslim but they too endure the pressure of arranged marriages and servitude. Customs die hard but they do die. It usually takes a couple of generations.

Wolfgang, this problem is not limited to Muslims.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 12:02 PM

Insisting that calling attention to this is itself a form of prejudice is within the boundries of free speech, but inaccurate in this case.

But that is not what I am doing. I am saying, if you want to call attention to the problem of violation of human rights for women, don't just single out one group of people who are responsible for these things and hammer them repeatedly to the exclusion of all others. That does, indeed, promote hatred towards and discrimination against that one group.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 11:17 AM

Wolfgang's comments and translation are "on the money" within this thread. It is not a promotion of hatred to observe that within more than one Muslim community and government in this world there is just such a promotion of hatred, mistrust, and fear of the external world framed as a return to orthodoxy. It is true that this phenomenon is not solely the property of Muslims. It is universal, and it is not the first time this has happened within the world. This thread is however an exploration of it in the Muslim world as evidenced by a failure within Muslim communities to not only assimilate, but to tolerate outside opiinions, even if these opinions are outside opinions.

When the black muslim phenomenon was first observed in the 60's, the very appropriate television documentary that was aired was titled:
"The Hate That Hate Produced".

Insisting that calling attention to this is itself a form of prejudice is within the boundries of free speech, but inaccurate in this case.

Around the world we are witnessing a kind of new Enlightenment, and it is precipitating a huge amount of fear and hate, for many reasons. This already has happened in the European world, so there is a kind of tolerance built up among Westerners and Western Christians. This has not occurred ever in the Muslim world. Islam is a significantly younger religion with a lot of the self confidence that comes from comparative institutional youth.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 10:46 AM

Wolfgang, while your motives may be good ones, I would suggest to you that your methods will cause more harm to the very people you seem to be saying you want to help, than good. I suggest you find a way to help Muslim women that doesn't result in the promotion of hatred towards and discrimination against Muslims.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 10:35 AM

Carol, I can't explain more or better than I have already done what my motivation for my contributions to this thread is.

Just today, I have read an interview that I think fits well into this discussion.

Seyran Ates, 41, is a German Turkish human rights activist. In 1984, she has been severely injured when the Turkish women center she was working in has been firebombed by Turks. She now has been interviewed by the left German newspaper ‘Die Tageszeitung’. The partial (about two third of all) translation is mine:

Q: Ms. Ates, in Islamic circles one says, you are fouling the own nest and are distanced from god.
A: Typical, only because I do not want to keep the multicultural peace
Q: Your objection to multiculti (I leave the new German word Multikulti untranslated: It means tolerance towards other cultures up to the point of bending over backwards and the position of not forcing other living here to adopt the German culture; multiculturalism feels not quite right as a translation)?
A: None, viewed superficially, it’s a beautiful word. But it’s a cover for an ideology of not wanting to look.
Q: Look at what?
A: How it really looks in the Turkish communities – the communities I can talk about.
Q: What do you see that others can’t or don’t want to see?
A: That the idyll is deceiving. That in Berlin…for instance, the colour only comes from the Germans, not from the Turks themselves. The Turkish culture there is grey.
Q: The carnival of cultures…
A: ...is a German fiction.
Q: Beg your pardon?
A: Nobody looks up there, up the houses. There are the women not allowed to partake in any activity watching behind the curtains. Women who sometimes even don’t know where they are, they are locked up….they are slaves on the Muslim nuptial market
Q: But one sees many young women of Turkish descent in Berlin living like they want to.
A: Of course there are. Women like Hatun Sürüncü who have left their families to lead their own lives. In self-determination. Hatun has paid with her life, executed by her brothers, because she has resisted the compulsion by her Turkish family.
Q: It is said she has lived ‘like a German’.
A: Correct. And this phrase demonstrates for how ridiculous the idea of multiculti is considered in the Turkish community. They do not take serious the German civil rights standards.
Q: Do you feel threatened?
A: Of course. Each (Turkish) woman in the West refusing the wishes of her family is threatened. She always has to watch out. Intolerable, but that’s how it is.
Q: The ultra-patriarchal living-conditions within the migrant communities are not readily criticised by the German left. They fear to be considered racists or bigots.
A: Brilliant, fucking brilliant. The Germans are world champions in avoiding being considered racists or bigots. To criticise honour killings…has nothing, nothing at all, to do with racism. The victims of this particular sensitivity towards the Islam are we Muslim women.
Q: Ethnologists with a friendly attitude towards Muslims say that honour killings have less to do with the Islam and more with the patriarchal relationships.
A: You cannot separate one from the other. Only multiculti fanatics consider this differentiation interesting – to divert the attention from the bag of problems.
…
Q: You call for new laws against forced marriages. The Green (party) feel uncomfortable with this demand for it looks like a criminalisation of Muslims in particular.
A: They are terribly afraid to judge cultural minorities by the (German) constitutional rights. I’m particularly mad about that, for the Green in other contexts seem to be overly proud of supporting painstakingly human rights. Are women rights no human rights? Forced marriages are not merely a trifle.
…
Q: Can’t there be forced marriages that are happy?
A: Question back: How much should a woman trust in being lucky?...This is my take at things different from the complacency of the multiculti people. A way of looking at things that’s a pain in the arse for the idle and lazy among the Left.
Q: Why lazy?
A: Because they rest upon their good conscience of somehow not being racist or bigot. They drink prosecco, buy naturally produced healthy food from all over the world and feel really good about themselves. I look at multiculti as a kind of quasi organised lack of responsibility.
Q: One just doesn’t want to interfere with other cultures
A: Why not. We live together in one country. Silence is often a deadly mistake. …
Q: In Denmark, the conservative right government has passed a regulation that only those submitting to the Danish culture are admitted to live in the country. Forced marriages excluded.
A: Sounds like a good idea.
Q: But it’s the Right, the conservatives who have made that.
A: So what? It may be like it is. Conservative doesn’t mean illiberal. At least it is an idea of preventing the import of women without rights. The Left, the Liberal and the feminists are always only baffled, organise a congress and look for a compromise, that’s not enough.
Q: No wonder they consider you being an imposition upon them.
A: I can live with that…


Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 03:57 AM

All muslims are dirt.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 06:07 AM

.. let's keep the music happeing...


and the spelling!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 06:03 AM

Listen guys, I did the cowardly thing and said not a word - I posted bits of what more informed people have said.

I have to say that I am torn over this issue. i worked with refugees for ten years, met them, heard their stories. I met a lot of ordinary people, and some wonderful ones. I also met human rights violators amongst them, a few very ugly types, who were, I have to say, in the minority.

The problem is, everyone has a point. Carol is right when she says not to make generic assumptions.

but it is also a concern to me that people are always trying to form their own groups with their own laws. Within a tight community the leaders have huge control. Whether its a corporation, a religious sect, a government, or a small family business, the people in charge have the power.

talk of introducing shatria law in western countries sends shivers down my spine.

we are in a post multiculturalism phase. what does that mean? it means a lot of shit is happening. a lot of people are trying to reach out, on "both sides". and a lot of people are reacting, on both sides, sometimes criminally, again on both sides..

I can go to some parts of Sydney and the synagogue has been firebombed. and I go to another part and the mosques has racist graffiti on it. I go to another part and people are eating in restaurants from many different countries, and listening to music from all over the world.

let's keep the music happeing.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-aah2
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:55 AM

You are not by any chance a stuck record player are you CarolC? If you look at what Giok and Wolfgang have written they have answered your points already, not once but several times. Freda, thank you for your creative and helpful posts. The last two paragraphs of the second one exactly encapsulates the problem we are having with CarolC, who is determined to characterise us as racists because we recognise a problem when we see it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 06:35 PM

Wolfgang, this whole thread is about only the bad things done by Muslims. If you don't think a thread like this one promotes hateful and inacurate stereotypes about Muslims, rather than just rational discourse, why don't you start a thread called "Obit: More Jewish Intolerance", in which you post dozens of links to news items about every violent and/or intolerant act committed by Jews? The reason is not because Jews never commit violent or intolerant acts. It's because it would promote hateful and innacurate stereotypes of a whole group of people. And we already know what has happened to Jews when people have done that to them in the past. It's no different for Muslims. Focusing only on the bad, ignoring the good, ignoring the prevalence of bad behavior of other groups and only focusing on the bad done by one group results in the kind of thing the people of your country saw during WWII. Already we see it happening to Muslims, and this thread is a perfect example.

I don't know what to say, John 'Giok' MacKenzie. You say that the world would be better off without any Muslims in it. When you say something like that, you are not just talking about men. You are also talking about many millions of women. The fact that you don't seem to realize that (maybe you think only men are Muslims?), the fact that you suggested that because I fight against discrimination and hatemongering against Muslims, that means I should wear a burka (btw, most Muslim women don't wear burkas), the fact that you are so publicly vocal about this particular example of abuse of women, but you don't want to talk about any other kinds of abuse of women.

You are using the issue of human rights for women as a part of your campaign to spread hatred towards Muslims, about half of whom are women. Anyone with any compassion for women at all would never, ever, even think of using this issue for the purpose of promoting hatred. And that is what makes you a misogynist. You must have a hell of a lot of contempt for women to do such a thing.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 12:02 PM

Well, I prefer a less muddled and more focused discussion. If there was a thread about the Christian right in the USA and their violence against abortion clinics I wouldn't introduce violent acts by people with other religions. And a thread about attempts at cheating in voting in the USA in my eyes would be in no need of contributions about vote cheating in the GDR. The there-are-crimes-everywhere-of-all-kind-and-by-all-sorts-of-people approach is not helpful in my eyes. The bride burning by Hindus for instance can be discussed in the context of their culture, their tradition and, even, their faith. No need to discuss other crimes in the same thread.

lobby your government for stricter laws against these crimes
FYI, in Germany, the government doesn't make the laws (that was roughly sixty years ago).
But lobbying for these aims is an activity that I can wholeheartedly support.

fostering a climate of hate against entire groups of people
That is neither my intention nor I believe the effect of my posts though you do the worst you can to make it look as if it could. Even if an evil action would be found to be more often committed by one group of people than by another (like, for instance, rape by men) the mention of such a fact only could foster hate against the whole group in people whose judgement or thinking ability I would not trust. I would actively argue against such a wrong inference for it commits a serious error: If there was, to use the above example, a sororicide in Germany the probability is be quite high that this crime has been committed by a Muslim, but the probability that any Muslim would commit this crime is very low. Two extremely different things. But I'm not willing to stop thinking publicly about the differential incidence of this crime and reasons for it just because of the danger that some stupid idiot gets the wrong ideas.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 11:19 AM

Carol I don't want to get into a slanging match with you, as I agree with a lot of what you post, however I do find it strange that I am accused of misogyny with no grounds for that accusation, and of condoning violence against women of other countries and cultures, in a thread entitled More Moslem intolerance. Not only that but the post with which I started concerned the murder of a MAN by a Moslem extremist. as for the reviving of the thread, if you look back you will find that it has never been me who brought it out of retirement when it fell off the end. Face it Carol it's rampant thread creep, and if you want to bring in other issues I suggest you start your own thread about your concerns.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 10:51 AM

Wolfgang, my problem with the kind of posts that the majority of people are putting on this thread, and even refreshing it over and over after it has gone dorment is that it is taking only one group of people and hammering them repeatedly for things that are not done by them exclusively, while at the same time ignoreing the same or similar behaviors of other groups, has the result of promoting hatred towards that one group.   John 'Giok' MacKenzie has suggested that he thinks the world would be better off without Muslims. That's a recipe for genocide if ever I saw one.

Again, I say... if you want to discuss violations of human rights against women, let's discuss that. But let's also include some of the other horrific things that are being done to women by other groups around the world. We need to do more of that. But let's not use this issue as a part of a hate campaign aimed only at one group of people.

My line of reasoning in bringing up Pakistan is this: the problem of honor killings and other kinds of crimes against women of that nature (including dowry bride burning by Hindus in India, female excision by various peoples, including Muslims, but also including many peoples who are not Muslim, and the sex slave trade which is as much of a problem in "Western" cultures as it is in non-Western ones, and is responsible for the forced captivity, rape, beatings, and even death of hundreds of thousands of non-Muslim women every year), these problems are not remedied by fostering a climate of hate against entire groups of people. They are remedied by stronger laws against these crimes. Pakistan has taken that very important step in protecting women.

Only a few decades ago, here in the US, men were allowed by law to beat their wives. As long as they were allowed to do it, women had no legal recourse to end the beatings. Even when it became illegal to beat your wife in the US, for a long time, the problem was not taken very seriously and women still didn't have much legal recourse to end the beatings. Now, it is taken much more seriously, and while domestic violence against women is still a very big problem in this country, and many women are killed each year by their (non-Muslim) spouses/partners, women now have many more resources at their disposal to end the abuse then they ever did before. In Pakistan, they have taken that first step. They have made laws to help protect women. If the courts enforce those laws effectively, the lives of women in Pakistan will be greatly improved.

If you want to help end these practices, lobby your government for stricter laws against these crimes, and lobby your government for more pro-active help for women who find themselves in these situations. Do you know what your country does with women who are held captive as sex slaves and who manage to escape from their captors? In most countries, they are held in prisons until they can be deported to their home countries. Instead of just ragging on and on about Muslims, if you really care about Womens' rights, find out what is being done to women in your country... all women, not just Muslim women, and do something to help.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 08:09 AM

Thanks for the links, Freda, I had not seen them before posting.
And the same belated thank to you Carol for the Muqtedar Khan link. I have read more from him yesterday and he is in comparison to a fundamentalist Muslim what for instance Joe Offer is in comparison to a right-wing fundamentalist Christian.

One more remark: I think it could be argued that the patriarchal element is even more than religion what decides how a country deals with women rights. When searching for 'honour killings' yesterday I saw an interesting site comparing worldwide different law system whether male or family honour is explicitely mentioned as a reason for a milder sentence. Most of the countries listed were Muslim countries and those listed were most of the Muslim countries, but, interestingly (and fitting in my prejudice about 'machismo'), nearly all other countries mentioned were Latin American. I remember only one country that was neither Muslim nor Latin-American: Israel.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 07:51 AM

Carol,
I have addressed your point exactly as I have understood it, but I admit I had a lot of difficulties understanding the point of your 22 Feb 05 - 12:00 PM post, so maybe I still do not get it.

I have posted about a crime, sororicide, which in Germany, together with the motive 'honour', is a crime predominantly committed by Muslims. That was a contribution to my opinion that the variable 'religion' can play a role in incidence of, at least particular, crimes.

You then have posted about a crime, presumably also committed by Muslims in Pakistan, have added that the perpetrators have been sentneced to death and that the government in Germany needs to do a bit more about these issues. What was your point? In which way was that remark related to my post? Should German courts deal out harsher sentences against minorities (in this case, Muslims and Roma) in Germany committing crimes that in their culture are not considered real crimes? That's and old demand of the German Right and they'd surely applaud this.

I'm not ready to defend each single sentence in Germany, some are to harsh, some look incredibly mild to me, but on the whole I think our system of not saying murder is murder but to look at the circumstances is a good system. So the woman murdering her husband after decades of insults, battery and abuse gets a more lenient sentence than the woman doing it for the life insurance. The woman who has killed the murderer of her child in the court room did not get the same sentence the man would have gotten. In some court cases with minorities people have said that the judges have bent over backwards too much in trying to understand for instance the traditional Muslim background leading to an honour killing. Is that your argument?

Or is your point that Germany could learn a lot from Pakistan on human rights, in particular human rights for women? That looks like utter nonsense to me. Not that everything is alright in Germany or could not be better or that everything is bad in Pakistan, but comparing these two countries and finding that on the human rights angle Germany could learn a lot from Pakistan looks to me like an uninformed opinion. So that's why I linked to a few sites (there are many more but I choose the better ones) about the dismal state of human and women rights in Pakistan. This is relevant to your remarks about Germany and Pakistan. If you do not see this as addressing your point you must have had something in your mind I have not understood yet.

And, BTW, your response immediately after my links completely misses my point. The links were about Pakistan alone and not, how you misunderstand it in your response, about Muslims. When you read my links you will rarely find a mention of religion. These are sites/articles about a country and not a religion. Read the links and then try to tell that the state of human/women rights in Germany is worse or even equally bad. You have introduced the Pakistan/German comparison and when I link to sites about Pakistan don't make that an attack upon the predominant religion in Pakistan.

One more remark to your debating, Carol. It would help if you would not infer from the effect you think something may have to the motives of the people you are discussing with. You think that 'underreporting' of crimes of groups that are often discriminated is a good strategy against discrimination. I think (and have given examples far above) that this strategy backfires and on the long run adds to the discrimination by making the antidiscrimination argumentation and publications untrustworthy. That is the effect I think your strategy will have. But I am far from saying that this (making antidiscrimination arguments look weak) is your motive. That would be as stupid as saying to a poster identifying himself as a Jew: "You're in reality an antisemite because your arguments make the Jewish position look stupid". I'd appreciate if you could return this favour and not make the assumption that what you think the effect of a type of fact reporting could be is the intention of the poster.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 07:36 AM

the silence of the feminists...

some excerpts

...in Pakistan, 1250 women were killed in the name of honour last year, according to the Prime Minister's adviser on women's development, and in many cases, "their murderers are roaming free". A bill imposing death or life imprisonment for honour killings was recently signed by President Musharraf, in response to pressure from Pakistani women's and human rights groups.

A Health Ministry survey of 1000 women who gave birth at a hospital in Djibouti found that 98 per cent of them had been circumcised. Health experts said this practice, which involves cutting away the inner labia and clitoris and then tying the remaining lips together, is a major contributor to deaths in childbirth and exposing women to HIV infection.

...The great silence by left-leaning Western feminists, and other large parts of the left, to human rights abuses carried out in the name of Islam is, to see it as its kindest, caused by an overdeveloped sense of tolerance or cultural relativism. But it is also part of the new anti-Americanism. Look at American Christian fundamentalism, they say.

Dislike of George Bush's foreign policy has led to an automatic support of those perceived to be his enemies. Paradoxically, this leaves the left defending people who hold beliefs that condone what the left has long fought against: misogyny, homophobia, capital punishment, suppression of freedom of speech. The recent reaffirmation by Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie has been met by virtual silence; as has the torture and murder in Iraq of a man who would be presumed to be one of the left's own - Hadi Salih, the international officer of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions. The hard left these days is soft on fascism, or at least Islamofascism.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 07:30 AM

interview with an English feminist who lived in Pakistan for 17 years

some excerpts from this very interesting article..

Q: How do you see the fact that controlling women is so central to the agenda of conservative religious groups, Muslim as well as others?

A: In conservative religious discourses women come to be seen as custodians of community identity and authenticity, as bearers of tradition. Possibly this is because of their role in bearing and rearing children. Hence, defining and controlling women comes to be seen as central to a revivalist religious agenda. Along with this comes a host of burdens that are sought to be placed on women as bearers of the normative communitarian ideal. Let me cite an instance to substantiate this argument. One sight in Lahore that never ceased to amaze me was men wearing baseball caps and T-shirts displaying the US flag, riding motorcycles with their wives or sisters, heavily draped in black burqas, sitting behind them. No one ever seemed to question the men's identity as Muslims, but I presume if the women sitting behind them refused to veil up they would be damned as bad Muslims or even worse.

.. We in the network do not agree with the standard Islamist perception of privileging religion as the only structure through which society should be organized.

This is a politically far-right position which we are opposed to. Our position is that there are multiple ways of being and that they should all be allowed to exist. Within each of our communities we need to allow for proper democratic dialogue and discussion of what is or is not beneficial, within a human rights framework, but this is something that many Islamists are vehemently opposed to. However, Islamism is not the only way of imagining Islam, and I see very promising possibilities of working with progressive Islamic theologians who do not share the same basic premises as the Islamists. One good example is Nasiruddin Nasaruddin 'Umar, the vice-rector of a leading Islamic University in Indonesia, who is a man but is also very feminist in his approach. We've even translated one of his books on women and Islam.

Q: Feminists are often accused by the Muslim religious right of 'conspiring' to divide the community, setting women against men and thus playing into the hands of what are routinely branded as the 'enemies of Islam'. How do you respond to this sort of accusation?

A: I could cite the names of several progressive male Muslim theologians who share the same social vision as us to counter this silly argument.

We also have a number of like-minded men on our decision-making bodies.

We aren't an exclusively women's group and nor do we champion women's exclusivity. We talk of gender justice, not simply justice for women. We are not seeking to replace one form of gender injustice-rule by men-by another form.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 06:35 AM

Do you think then that I'm in favour of female circumcision in the Sudan, when it's done by non-Moslems?
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 07:40 PM

Only a true misogynist would pick and choose which kinds of human rights abuses against women he is willing to recognise and acknowlege, John 'Giok' MacKenzie, and use them as a cynical tool to promote a hate agenda, as you and Ooh-Aah2 are doing on this thread.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 05:29 PM

What we have here is prejudice plain and simple, but it's not as CarolC says from myself and others against Moslems, it is instead prejudice from CarolC against all who disagree with her Moslemcentric ideals. I think Carol you should finish of that outfit you're wearing, [the blindfold] and put on a burkah to complete the ensemble.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 03:47 PM

Let me rephrase that last one just for the sake of clarity...

You don't help Muslim women by promoting hatred towards, and discrimination against the group to which they belong.

Quite the opposite, in fact. When you promote hatred towards and discrimination against Muslims, you make life HARDER for Muslim women than it already is.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 03:14 PM

Ooh-Aa2, as a woman, I have quite a lot of experience with being on the recieving end of mysogyny. Certainly not as much as some other women in the world, but I know what it feels like to be on the recieving end of it. And as a woman who knows what that feels like, I resent the hell out of racists, white supremacists, and hatemongers like yourself using that issue as an excuse to promote hatred against any groups of people.

On a human rights website I encountered yesterday, the issue of underreporting of these kinds of crimes was discussed. One of the reasons that was given for such underreporting was the (justifiable) fear that to report the crimes would cause discrimintion against the entire group, rather than just the perpetrators of the crimes. You, John 'Giok' MacKenzie, and Wolfgang certainly provide excellent examples of this.

If you really cared about human rights for women (which you clearly do not), you would help find ways of promoting human rights for women that did not result in discrimination against whole groups of women, as you are doing with regard to Muslims.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 03:06 PM

Watching CarolC try to argue that Islam is no worse than any other religion is like trying to watch a worm wriggle off a hook with an especially large barb. The difference being that the worm didn't spike itself on deliberately. Also a barb does not grow bigger and bigger, as the nastiness of (modern) Islam increases the more one reads. A particularly good book on the license Islamic societies give to men and they way they repress women is 'My Feudal Lord' by Tehmina Durrani, by the ex-wife of a prominent Pakistani politician. If this is the way that an educated, articulated women can be treated by a man in public life one shudders to think what goes on in less affluent, less high-profile families.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 02:11 PM

Wolfgang, are you purposely ignoring the point of my last few posts to you?

The point is that the tribal/family system of "justice" that is being criticized (and rightly so) does not have the authority to make rulings that are illegal according to Pakistani law. When these local systems make illegal rulings that result in crimes being committed, the perpetrators of the crimes in question are subject to prosecution by the Pakistani courts. The article I provided a link to provides a recent example of this, in which the people who committed the gang rape are now facing the death sentence in Pakistan.

Alternatively, a few years ago in Germany, the perpetrator of an honor killing was given a reduced sentance (as compared to what would be considered normal in cases of murder), with the reason given being that the German courts were honoring the perpetrator's "tradition".

It's possible that the government of Pakistan has only recently been getting more strict on the subject of violation of women's human rights, but at least it's a step in the right direction. What is the government of your own country doing about it?

Interestingly, here in the US a just a few years ago, a man killed his wife when he caught her cheating on him. The judge sentenced him to six months in prison. The judge said he thought six months was enough because he (the judge), could understand the feelings of the man who killed his wife. These people were not Muslims.

If we're going to talk about human rights for women, let's talk about human rights for women. Don't be using the subject of women's human rights as a covert way of promoting an agenda that is in reality an anti-human rights agenda - the promotion of hatred against Muslims.

In fact, if we're going to talk about intolerance, let's talk about intolerance in all of its forms. This thread, under the guise of speaking out against intolerance, is really just a whole lot of very thinly disguised intolerance against Muslims.

Honestly, Wolfgang, I'm having some difficulty finding much difference between your attitude towards Muslims and and Neo-Nazi attitudes towards Muslims.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 01:55 PM

Violence against women in Pakistan (Human Rights Watch report)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 01:28 PM

Pakistan gang rape

This is the first time the government has taken a Panchayat to task for its decision to inflict gang rape on a young girl.

Human rights commission of Pakistan (lots of internal links to statistics and articles)

If the human rights situation in Germany would be similar to Pakistan or the protection by the courts would be as bad as in Pakistan, my country would be in a dismal state.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 12:28 PM

And I think you are a prejucided and possibly racist apologist for white supremacists, John 'Giok' MacKenzie. You broadly stereotype Muslims, ignoring the good and only focusing on the bad, while at the same time ignoring the bad in your own category of people. Shall we discuss the trafficing of women as sex slaves by members of your own country and ethnic category? Or shall we discuss the numbers of women killed, maimed, or otherwise brutalized by their non-Muslims spouses/partners in your country? Or how about hate-crimes committed against Muslims by non-Muslims in your country? Of course not. This thread is only for the purpose of Muslim-bashing.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 05:48 AM

Well I suppose that making a smart Alec remark is easier than looking for an argument to refute the irrefutable Carol. Personally; and I know you don't care so don't bother telling me so, I think you are an apologist for a cruel and mysogynistic religious sect that this world would be a safer place without. Especially its women!
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 07:36 PM

That's narrowing things down a bit more than necessary, Wolfgang. My point was that the way the courts in your country deal with crimes such as the one you described in your 22 Feb 05 - 10:43 AM post to this thread, can help determine whether or not the problem gets worse or better in your country. Pakistan, a Muslim country, appears to be taking a strict sentancing approach to the problem, if the contents of the link I provided are any indication. Perhaps the courts in your country also need to take such an approach.

Most 'knee jerk' reactions are not backed up by facts. There is none so blind as those that will not see.

My sentiments exactly, John 'Giok' MacKenzie.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 07:26 PM

Most 'knee jerk' reactions are not backed up by facts. There is none so blind as those that will not see.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 04:03 PM

I've never read about comparable crimes in Germany yet, but I'm sure our courts would not accept any sentences from kangaroo courts.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 03:46 PM

Ok, then I will rephrase...

I don't know if I would support the death penalty for such crimes, but maybe the courts in your country need to be a little bit more like those of Pakistan on these issues, Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 03:11 PM

From today's memorial demonstration:

An archaic traditionalist conception of honour has led to this execution...Human rights are no cultural pecularity they belong to everybody - even young Muslim women (Seyran Ates, German Turkish lawyer and feminist)

Neither religion nor tradition are a justification for this deed (Marieluise Beck, Green member of the German government)

Such murders are nothing new. (New is, however that) the media treat this theme now openly and without wrong tolerance. (Öczan Mutlu, German Turkish member of the Green faction in the Berlin parliament)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 02:52 PM

Are your courts not a part of your government, Wolfgang?

No, not at all.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 01:53 PM

Are your courts not a part of your government, Wolfgang?

Here is an interesting article on the subject of the kinds of challenges that Muslims face in developing an identity that is in keeping with their beliefs, but that does not become only a reflexive response to the perceived negative influences of the West. I find it refreshing in its honesty and balanced perspective, unlike the sort of knee-jerk stereotyping I see in this thread coming from people like John 'Giok' MacKenzie, Ooh-Aah2, and to some extent, also Wolfgang...

UNDERSTANDING THE TWO FACEs OF THE WEST Dr. Muqtedar Khan

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 01:16 PM

Carol,

giving sentences is not the task of our government and we are glad about that.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 01:15 PM

I believe in Islam all that is required to establish that a child is born a Muslim is that the father be Muslim. Therefore a Muslim man may 'screw around' without incurring shame 'within the tribe.' A woman is property in this view.

This is one of the reasons the systematic rape of Bosnian women was doubly cruel. Those women who conceived were destined to bear children that could not be accepted into their community.

By contrast with Jewish tradition, the child of a Jewish woman is Jewish. This is one of the best rules ever devised by a religion which could provide for the protection of the helpless by considering them to be within the community whether a product of rape or adultery.

Christianity has made this not a matter of tribes or family, but baptism.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 12:07 PM

Those same young Turks who condemned the victim for living like a German, and by implication not living like a Moslem, are quite likely to have sex with any female they can. In so doing it is most likely that their partner will be a non moslem, surely they must be breaking some religious law or other by consorting with a non Moslem. Or is it like so many other laws in that religion, mysogynistic? I've never heard of a Moslem man being killed for marrying a non Moslem.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 12:00 PM

Yesterday I was reading an article about similar occurances in Pakistan. Tribal councils were giving punishments to men that involved committing crimes against women. One of these was a case of a man who had committed sexual indscretions with a woman. The tribal council decided that the man's punishment would be that his sister would be gang-raped.    A Pakistani court has given a death sentence to the men who committed the gang-rape. I don't know if I would support the death penalty for such crimes, but maybe the government of your country needs to be a little bit more like that of Pakistan on these issues, Wolfgang. Here's the story:

http://story.news.yahoo.com

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 10:43 AM

Back to the theme of the thread:

A few das ago, a young Turkish German Muslim woman, Hatin Sürücü (23), has been murdered. Her three brothers have been arrested. Grown up in Germany, she had left her husband (she married a cousin in Istanbul when she was 16) when seh was pregnant and lived in Berlin alone with her child after breaking up with her family. She had finished school since then and has found work. She did not wear the headscarf any more. Her brothers had already threatened a few times they would kill her in order to restore the honour of the family.

Between 1996 and 2004, at least 45 Muslim men and (mostly) women have been killed in Germany for the honour of the family, a group of Berlin women working for the rights of young female migrants has reported. Sororicide is a crime nearly unknown in Germany and the small percentage of Muslims living in Germany is responsible for most of these crimes.

When the pupils in a nearby school discussed the crime, some young Turks defended the murder saying she deserved what she got for living like a German. A spokeswoman from Terre des Femmes: "Honour crimes are not a purely Muslim phenomenon, but reflect traditional patriarchal patterns." A spokesman for Muslims in Germany: the murder is "an abuse of religion". Nekla Kelek, turkish author (known for describing the life of Turkish women having no rights): "Traditional families don't want their children to become German."

It is the fifth murder of this type in Berlin in five months. The percentage of Muslim women coming to an advice center for domestic violence in Berlin is 50 to 60 %, much higher than the percentage of Muslims in Berlin.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 04:40 PM

Nice troll CarolC. I notice that the last time I 'had something of substance to say' YOU didn't say a thing. Just too good for ya? Or could it be that you were not interested because there was not enough to get on your high horse about, which is your reason to live? Surely not - I am sure you could summon moral outrage with ANYONE given enough time at the keyboard...

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 10:51 PM

Double post alert.

If you want to, Wolfgang, for the purpose of this discussion, you have my permission to declare my example of the Black prison inmate numbers to be too simplistic, and if so, I withdraw that example. My point in using that example was only to point out the fact that, as you well know, variables can be mistakenly correlated to the wrong things.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 10:41 PM

Certain tendencies' is very general

Yes, you are right. You may consider that particular use of that particular term from me in that case to mean the characteristics that we had previously been discussing, ie: fundamentalism, extremism, and violence. That is what I intended the term to mean.

Another point that you have never answered or even addressed as far as I see is my argument that with your thinking no valid research could be possible for instance on the influence of gender, social class and similar variables upon for instance proneness to violence, for these variables are as well confounded with others. You seem to agree (that's how I understand you) that 'impoverished background' may be a factor explaining that a disproportionate amount of blacks are in US prisons. To state that with some confidence one has to separate the influence of race and social/money etc background by use of a mathematical model. This is completely symmetric, for the same way of looking at the data allows you to factor out race alone.

The problem arises because, in the case of this particular question, there are too many variables (not just two or three), and any decision to leave any of them out would be arbitrary, not objective, and not conducive to producing reliable results. There is no scientific way to define the parameters without making non-scientific judgements. Value judgements.

It would not be possible to determine how to define the terms without making arbitrary distinctions (for instance, how do we define "violence"? How do we define, "fundamentalism"? How do we define "extremism"?). And how do we determine whether or not we define an act as being religiously motivated, or as being motivated by political realities on the ground but being acted by someone from a particular religion?. All of these things require the people conducting the study to make value judgements. And value judgements are, in the final analysis, nothing more than opinions.

Also, you can't really select for a time frame and get a reliable answer because each time frame will produce different results, but the results over time are what will give you accurate information. However, it is not possible to collect the needed data for many of the time periods in the past. In fact, it's probably not possible to collect sufficient data from this time period either, since we are talking about all of the people in all of the countries of the world. Leaving out some populations but using others will also produce different results, in the same way that leaving out certain time periods would.

Just BTW, the modeling for which factors influence the earth's climate is much more difficult and has much more problems and it still is done (and, of course, criticised, as is the good rule in science). But a position that it should not be done because it could be difficult has no supporters.

Modeling for which factors influence the earth's climate, done badly, would not cause discrimination against whole groups of people. The kind of study you are trying to defend in this thread, if done badly, would cause discrimination against at least one whole group of people (or put an "official", "scientific" stamp on already existing prejudice and discrimination).

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 03:30 PM

Wolfgang, the reason it is not possible to use impirical data to determine whether or not any particular religions are and have been more prone to certain tendencies than others (Carol)

'Certain tendencies' is very general. My point is that I try to show that this general statement is wrong. To do that I can chose any example I like fitting the description 'certain tendencies'. Your reading that I claim that crime could be used as an indicator for soemthing else misunderstands my point. I only wanted to demonstrate how it can be done and is done. What a good operational definiton for other concepts could be is open to debate with those who are open for debate and have not yet closed their minds.

Another point that you have never answered or even addressed as far as I see is my argument that with your thinking no valid research could be possible for instance on the influence of gender, social class and similar variables upon for instance proneness to violence, for these variables are as well confounded with others. You seem to agree (that's how I understand you) that 'impoverished background' may be a factor explaining that a disproportionate amount of blacks are in US prisons. To state that with some confidence one has to separate the influence of race and social/money etc background by use of a mathematical model. This is completely symmetric, for the same way of looking at the data allows you to factor out race alone.

If you are talking with confidence about the impoverished background being a sizeable factor then nothing mathematically different comes into the equation when you look at other causing factor like gender, religion or race. If your claim is that this tape of research should not be done for nothing of value can be found you shouldn't talk about the influence of an impoverished background. The math is the same and math is content blind. But then, I do not have the impression that you understand the math behind the modeling.

Just BTW, the modeling for which factors influence the earth's climate is much more difficult and has much more problems and it still is done (and, of course, criticised, as is the good rule in science). But a position that it should not be done because it could be difficult has no supporters.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 03:24 PM

Nice troll, Ooh-Aah2.

Btw, I often don't have time to respond to all points in a single post, so I get to them when I can. Sometimes that means multiple posts. Also, my triple post was an accidental hitting of the submit key too early, and an "oops" (mea culpa) when I discovered my mistake. However, I can see how you might cling to that sort of petty snipe when you don't have anything of substance to say.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 03:12 PM

How one's heart sinks when returning to this thread and noticing tht 7 out of the last 10 posts are from CarolC, with one double and one triple posting.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 12:41 PM

But why do you ask me about how to do research including such variables if you start from the 'premise' that there is no difference? Period.

Giving you a chance to put up or shut up.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 12:12 PM

The problem with your examples, Wolfgang, is that they only address the issue of "crime". It is impossible to answer the question of whether or not the Muslim religion is more prone to fundamentalism, extremism, or even violence than other religions using crime as an indicator.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 06:30 AM

Carol,

let me clarify: My post was a response to your 03 Feb 05 - 01:41 PM post in which you had claimed that research on race and religion serves no other purpose than promoting hatred. You had not mentioned the other variables in that post.

How research can be done? Well, for instance by multiple regression. The last article I had read with race as a variable has used this approach. It did look among other things how much of the variance in sentences can be attributed to the variable 'race'. Race was one among many variables like state (of the USA), gender, severity of crime. As could be expected, severity of crime had a very large influence, state a lesser influence. Race had in comparison to other factors a minor influence, but it was in the direction that blacks did get harsher sentences than whites.

This is one type of research including the variable race that you accuse of promoting hatred. I'd say any country should like to know such a result for its internal politics. So if you would take the same approach and change the dependent measure into type of crime add on the side of the input variables social background etc. you can find out whether the variable race explains anything that is not explained yet for instance by 'social background'.

Any country should want to know if some type of crimes are not evenly distributed across subgroups in that country. I wouldn't consider it sexist or 'ageist' to state the data show that young males commit more crimes than any other group of caomparable size. You can find that out though even sex/gender is in a somewhat tricky way confounded with, for instance, social background.

But why do you ask me about how to do research including such variables if you start from the 'premise' that there is no difference? Period.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 05:42 PM

Oops.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 05:41 PM

Almost forgot...

Carol, if you start with the premise that there are no differences there is no need for arguing that it would be difficult to conduct good research on that field. But since you discuss that I chose to take your 'premise' statement not verbatim.

I don't see how one logically follows the other. These are two different points. Neither one is in any way dependent on the other in order to be valid. I certainly am suggesting (one premise) that independent of other variables, the Muslim religion is not any more prone to fundamentalism/extremism/violence than any other religion. I am also suggesting (another premise) that it is not possible to objectively conduct research to determine whether or not my first premise is correct.

However, if you have a research model that you believe can stand the scrutiny of real science, go ahead and post it. In the absence of such objectively conducted and rigorously scrutinized research, I suggest that we can say that making assumptions and/or assertions about which religion(s), if any, are more prone to these tendencies than any others, is a form of bigotry.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 05:29 PM

Almost forgot...

Carol, if you start with the premise that there are no differences there is no need for arguing that it would be difficult to conduct good research on that field. But since you discuss that I chose to take your 'premise' statement not verbatim.

I don't see how one logically follows the other. These are two different points. Neither one is in any way dependent on the other in order to be valid.

However, if you have a research model that you believe can stand the scrutiny of real science, go ahead and post it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 03:38 PM

Wolfgang is correct. If CarolC is right, then she has nothing to fear from any detailed examination of this vexed issue. Looking back through the dirty annals of racism, one finds endless prejudiced, hypocritical, biased, misleading and ill-informed assumptions - very similar to those she asserts are now being made about the fundamentalist tendencies of Islam. These were not dispelled by ignoring them but by challenging them through data - for example that white and black brains are exactly the same size, that black crime can be explained by low socio-economic backgrounds caused by the legacy of racism and so on.

If we had asserted that black people are complete equals without backing it up, then racists would have remained both vocal and unconvinced. As it is, anyone publically making a racist statement now has zero chance of supporting it through any objective means.

On the other hand if objective study shows that Islam does have deep internal problems (as opposed to reacting to external threats) then pinpointing these can only be good, because it will offer support to those Muslims already confronting these problems - for example the brave young woman who is currently in hiding because of death threats. These people are their religion's equivalents of Voltaire, Bruno, Luther and Tyndale and we should not pretend that they are struggling against nothing. Simply stating that the way to deal with this problem is a blanket denial that any religion can have problems particular to itself gets us no further.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 11:54 AM

I don't think it is pure chance that you mention explicitely only the variables race and religion

Those aren't the only variables I mentioned. I also mentioned socio-economic and also socio-political variables.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 11:41 AM

Carol, if you start with the premise that there are no differences there is no need for arguing that it would be difficult to conduct good research on that field. But since you discuss that I chose to take your 'premise' statement not verbatim.

Any research on such questions would be quasiexperimental and/or correlational. Many variables would be confounded and the effect of one single variable would be difficult to detect. But it can be done and it has been done. The way it has been done is of course open to critique for that is the only way in science to separate the chaff from the wheat.

Take social background (or: class) for example, a very interesting variable which has often been used as a predictor. This variable too is confounded with gender, ethnic background, religion etc. Should we not do research on the influence of social background because it is difficult to isolate this variable? Should we not allow gender studies for that variable is confounded with so many others? A lot of very good and interesting findings would have been prevented to be found.

I disagree that such research would only promote hatred. It also can do a lot of good. I don't think it is pure chance that you mention explicitely only the variables race and religion. I see a deep rooted reluctance among USAmericans to consider these variables as input variables whereas they have no similar reluctance to consider social background, gender, even ethnic background as variables in a complex environment. The real reasons for that seem to me more ideological than methodological for the reasons actually given are reasons that are equally valid for each other variable considered.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 01:41 PM

I agree, Wolfgang, that I did not choose my words well when I used "fact" in that context. But we can't all be perfect all of the time like you. My use of premise on the other hand, I stand behind.

Carol, there are a lot of technical and methodological problems in data gathering and interpretation, therefore you would start more locally both in region and time. But the difficulty of a task is rarely a good reason not even to start.

Of course it's a good reason not to start, if the result of doing it shabbily is likely to cause prejudice and bigotry, and to harm people, as we have seen so many times in the coursse of history when people try to make formulaic assessments about whole groups of people based on race and/or religion (or the arrangement of the bumps in people's heads). That's not science, it's hocus pocus. There is no way to objectively conduct such research. If it can't be done objectively, it doesn't serve any purpose other than to promote bigotry and hatred.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 01:15 PM

Thanks for the kind words, Ooh-Aah2, yes that's what I mean.

Carol, there are a lot of technical and methodological problems in data gathering and interpretation, therefore you would start more locally both in region and time. But the difficulty of a task is rarely a good reason not even to start.

I'm glad, however, you got rid of that 'premise' and 'fact' nonsense. All your argumentation now was based on inferences and thought. You did not say that there is no difference, period, you said it might be too difficult to get reliable data. That's an argumentation to my taste though I do not share your inferences.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 12:53 PM

Well, if I'm a troll, it's more fun to get under your bridge than under your dress.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 10:09 PM

Do you see how excited Martin gets when you post, Ooh-Aah2? It's because he recognizes one of his own kind...

troll

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 09:32 PM

Incoherent!

That's what I've been trying to put my finger on about CarolC.'s posts here.

Thank you Oooh-Ahh.

The Incoherent World of CarolC.
Starring Abdul Mohammad as Nick Jones, Private Eye

Sounds like a good movie title.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 07:48 PM

LOL... how Freudian of me. This bit:

Wolfgang, the reason it is not possible to use impirical data to determine whether...

should read like this:

Wolfgang, the reason it is not possible to use empirical data to determine whether... (etc.)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 07:18 PM

Wolfgang, the reason it is not possible to use impirical data to determine whether or not any particular religions are and have been more prone to certain tendencies than others is because in order to do that, the data needs to be collected over the entire history of each religion, as well as in contexts in which data does not normally get collected and, in some cases, where the incidents of violence are deliberately kept from being reported.

One example of this would be violence committed against the Dalits in India by members of higher castes which, more often than not, does not get reported. Another example of this would be sexual molestation of children by adults working within the context of churches, temples, mosques, religios schools, etc. And also there is the problem of history being written by the victors. We can't call someone's version of "history" empirical data, because we both know that people are quite prone to manipulating historical narratives to suit their idea of posterity and what it ought to be. Plus, we have no way of counting the numbers of people who have belonged to all of the different religions throughout their histories, so a per capita equation is not possible. There is too much data that would have to be left out of any kind of examination of that sort, and for that reason, there is no way to know for sure that the results would be accurate.

Then there is the problem of defining the terms. If one would say "most prone to violence", how do we determine how to measure that? If one country wages a war against another for religious reasons, and that country kills 20 million people using a nuclear weapon, but only fifteen people were involved in making the decision to use the weapon and to launch it (and none on their side get killed), how do we compare that to a country that wages a religiously motivated war on another country in which only one million people are killed, but ten thousand people are involved in doing the killing (and five thousand of the people on their own side get killed)? I say it's not possible to measure these kinds of things without making some very arbitrary distinctions.

And then, of course, there is the problem of violence that is not really religious in nature, for instance when people commit suicide bombings in the context of a struggle for independence, but the acts are attributed to the person's religion instead. There is no way to determine how much of the reportage of this kind of violence really correctly addresses the real reason for the violent act. It would be like trying to suggest that there is a racially determined factor in the fact that in the US, a disproportionate number of prison inmates are Black, instead of suggesting (more correctly), that the majority of prison inmates in the US come from impoverished backgrounds, and that because of a history of institutionalized racism in the US, a disproportionate number of Blacks in the US come from impoverished backgrounds.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 03:48 PM

Wolfgang, thank you for putting your finger on something I have been trying but failing to articulate for this entire thread.

CarolC is clearly a nice person (if a bit boring and uneccessarily quarrelsome) and is right to suspect the motives of those who routinely bash Islam. However there is too much evidence about that Islam IS unusually prone to fanaticism and fundamentalism to dismiss it all as simply prejudice and racism.

Is this a fair summary of your last post?

(CarolC am I a bigot or not? Your last post on this subject is quite remarkably incoherent).

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 02:03 PM

GUEST 02 Feb 05 - 10:42 AM was I.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 10:42 AM

What I have been saying, and I continue to maintain, is the fact that:

1. the percentage of reprehensible acts committed per capita by Muslims is no greater than that of any other major monotheistic religion, as well as people of no religion... (Carol)

A very successful argument could probably be made that "Christians" have committed more reprehensible acts per capita over the history of that religion than any other (Carol)

My other premise is that it is simply not possible for anyone to make a legitimate and verifiable argument about which religion or religions, if any, are more prone to any kind of tendencies whatever, and that any kind of generalization one tries to make in answer to that question will be opinion and nothing more. (Carol)

Fact, premise, opinion?? Is your first statement that comes in form of an empirically true statement just an opinion or are your premises facts or your facts premises?

I can only repeat what I have said above: I have no empirical knowledge on any relationship between religion and number of crimes but I would consider it very likely that religion, like nearly all other cultural or biological contexts, also influences the number of per capita crimes. Incidence of crimes is rarely statistically independent of age, gender, social standing of the offender. So why should it be independent in the case of religion?
And add: Something like religion that influences so deeply ethics, morals and beliefs of humans is bound to have observable influences on behaviour. To state categorically that in this case the statistical null hypothesis will be true whatever relation is studied, does not make any sense.

I think what you mean, Carol, is very noble (you will correct me, if I don't get what you mean). Even if there should be any observable difference in behaviour (criminal, or other, perhaps even recommendable) being correlated with the variable 'religion', those mentioning such a fact would most probably have sinister motives. Any data of that kind could/would be used for political manoeuvres of a despicable kind. The interpretation some might make based upon such data may be biased and just one of many possible interpretations, the interpretation of the choice being influenced by prejudices or political opportunity. Therefore you prefer shunning even the thought that there could be data showing a difference.

That's the wrong and ill-fated approach in my eyes. Data are data, even if they can be abused and have been abused. The attack must be on the sinister interpretation and not on the data. It is a fact, for instance, that in the USA IQ-data differ depending upon ethnic origin. It is of no use to attack that fact, but it is worth looking closely at (and criticising) the possible interpretations ((1) shows genetic differences in IQ (2) demonstrates culturally biased tests (3) can be explained by economic disadvantages of some groups). The problem is that if one attacks a fact when you means one possible, or even popular, interpretation one looks quite silly if the facts are corroborated beyond doubt. Even worse, the sinister interpretation seems to gain undeserved support.

One example: The criminal statistics in Germany show higher rates of some crimes in some ethnic groups (and since religion is not equally distributed among ethnic groups, of course, religion would be a statistically valid predictor as well) living in Germany. The Neonazis like to quote those statistics for their "foreigners out" agenda. One approach, we call it the 'social worker approach', is to claim that this is not true, and to mix this way statement of fact with critique of a Neonazi agenda. They mean well, but they do damage to their good cause this way. The Neonazis then make the demonstratable empirical truth of the fact their issue and in some people ("well, at least they dare to tell the truth") their interpretation gains a support it should never have.

The right approach is not to question the facts (if they are true; sometimes they just aren't, but that's a different story) but to go the more difficult way and to question the interpretation (or the motives for chosing one particular interpretation). For instance, one could point out that a variable that explains much more of the variance in the data is economic background, and that a subgroup of Germans matched with the ethnic minority on economical variables shows the same amount of criminal behaviour (if that is true; it's not always true). Or one could point out that the average age of foreigners lies below the average age of Germans (that's true) and since the variable 'age' can explain a lot of criminal behaviour (that's true; males from puberty to roughly 30 dominate the criminal statistics) an age-matched group of Germans also shows a higher incidence of criminal behaviour.

However, the I-don't-want-to-hear-any-of-this approach of closing the eyes can backfire.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:24 PM

What a fucking waste of time.


Blah, blah, blah.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 04:28 PM

I have two main premises for the purpose of this discussion..

As I have stated several times already, my use of the word "bigot" with reference to Ooh-Aah2 in this thread is intended more as an illustration of how name calling and other kinds of personal attacks, as practiced by Ooh-Aah2 in a significant percentage of his posts in the Mudcat, do not serve the interests of cogent and rational discussion or debate, than it is in service to any of the points I'm trying to make on the subject of this thread.

However, on the subject of the word "bigotry", the meaning of that term does include the practice of prejudice against certain groups of people while favoring others. To whatever extent one focuses primarily on the bad things about one group, while diverting attention away from the good things about that group, and only focuses on the good things about another group, while diverting attention away from the bad things about that group, that is prejudice, and by extension, also bigotry (and scapegoating). Ooh-Aah2 has done quite a bit of that on this thread. But it is not really important to me to try to convince Ooh-Aah2 of that. Hence my willingness to agree to disagree.

My other premise is that it is simply not possible for anyone to make a legitimate and verifiable argument about which religion or religions, if any, are more prone to any kind of tendencies whatever, and that any kind of generalization one tries to make in answer to that question will be opinion and nothing more.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 02:27 PM

I think that what Wolfgang is saying is that this view is the end result of a process of observation and collection of empirical facts
and not the premise with which they started - in other words I have not gone out there specifically looking for facts and observations to support an initial view, (that Islam is more prone to fanaticism and funamentalism) but come to this view through legitimate observations and the discovery of facts. It's the difference between supporting an illogical predjudice and coming to a distinct independent view.

CarolC's premise seems to be that all religions are equally prone/not prone to fanaticism and fundamentalism, and that if you disagree with this one must be ignorant or a bigot or both. I do not think a process of observation and fact-gathering supports this view, especially if one has ever lived for 6 months with Tibetan Buddhists as I have.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 02:05 PM

You are correct, Wolfgang, he said "fanaticism" and not "fundamentalism".

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Oh-Aah2 - PM
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 06:11 PM

...To summarise: Islam IS more prone to fanaticism than other religions

I notice that Ooh-Aah2 didn't disagree with my use of the word "fundamentalism" though. And I don't know what the difference is between "fanaticism" and "fundamentalism" in Ooh-Aah2's mind. But I disagree with either premise at any rate.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 01:26 PM

I disagree with your premise that Islam is more prone to fundamentalism (Carol)

Premise?? It was extremely clear that Ooh-Aah2 never has had this as a 'premise' at any time. He tells why and for what reasons and in which context he comes to that observation. You may disagree with that observation, of course. But disagreeing with a premise he never has stated explicitely and, in my reading, never even once implicitely, is a bit nonsensical.

My explicit premise is that questions like whether people from one religion at one point in time, in comparison to people from other religions, are more or less prone to fundamentalism or intolerance has no ex cathedra response but is a question open to observation and empirical facts. That there is no difference between them in this respect is one possible of many outcomes.

The several 'supporters' for Ooh-Aah2 in the last couple of posts are supporters of a type I wouldn't wish anybody to have.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:07 PM

CarolC., in her last post basically went "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah."

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Com Seangan
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 07:19 PM

Now, now. Religion. Don't waste your time.Itwill always cause controversy. . My wife is Muslim. She agrees with me.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:14 PM

My whole point, Ooh-Aah2 is this one. You call people names, but you don't like it when other people call you names. You don't get to make up the rules. If you don't want people calling you names, have the consideration to not be calling other people names. If not, don't complain if you get what you dish out.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 02:50 PM

And I am not Dale Cunningham.

I wouldn't bother being him, whoever he is, but he, Oooh-Aaahh, myself, and just about everybody else have you pegged CarolC.

BTW, ooohh-Aaaahh, I believe it is you who has the blind spot about Israel, not me. As a Jew, I am automatically a citizen of that country and I take that seriously. As a non-Jew, I don't think you could ever feel for Israel what a Jew does.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:51 PM

(1) Guilt by association is reprehensible.

(2) I have already told Martin Gibson to try to grow up - several times - and specifically and clearly dissasociated myself from him, and his apparent pro-Israeli blind-spot.

(3)Yet again you don't bother replying to specific points but post a general attempt to characterise my motives and views completely at variance to what I have been telling you.

(4)I have no idea who Dale Cunningham is, or what his motives are, but his characterisation of you as someone who simply wears people down by endless multiple posts rather than by clear arguments seems, by any objective standards, to be correct.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 04:02 PM

Dale Cunningham is either Martin Gibson, or deliberately trying to sound like Martin Gibson.

Dale Cunningham, we are living on savings that my husband very wisely put away over a period of several years (during which, he was earning a six figure annual income). We are doing it this way because we want to, for reasons of our own that are none of your business. No taxpayers are being harmed in the process of our living our lives, and no taxpayers are contributing in any way to our livelihood.

Ooh-Aah2, you see the kind of people who are defending you. I think that says more about you than anything I could say.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 03:49 PM

dinavan, when feminist bitches like you call people names and accuse their family members of all sorts of things, that's OK, huh?

Everything you write here is man-bashing, Jew bashing, American bashing or a combination of all three.

You contribute as much as a fart in a perfume factory.

Oooh-ahh, you have way to much time on your hands. You lost the arguement because of how much time you could have been living instead of arguing with an Internet bully like CarolC.

Dale Cunningham is completely right about CarolC. At first I thought he might be related to her, but it's obvious he isn't. As in Cunningham. In her case it's cunning ham.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 03:26 PM

Dale Cunningham - It is blatantly unfair to accuse Carol C. of being a welfare bum. You don't know her personal circumstances. She may be anti-Israel and anti-American but I don't think you could call her pro-terrorist. I also think that personal attacks (name calling included) can be called bullying. In this case, I don't think Ooh-aa2 is a bully but you seem to be jumping up and down urging Ooh-aa2 and everyone else on Mudcat to ignore her point of view because you think she is a worthless human being.

Your comments are invalid.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Dale Cunningham
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 02:53 PM

Ooh-aa2,

The archives of Mudcat are littered with countless people who have entered into arguments with CarolC on various subjects relating to terrorism, Islam, Israel and the Palestinians. They've all been worn down by her and given up trying to argue with her anti-Israel, anti-American, pro-terrorist views. What you have to realize is that arguing on Mudcat is her full time occupation (paid for, of course, with the welfare dollars of American taxpayers) and that unless you are willing to devote ten or twelve hours per day to arguing with her, you toll will be worn down and give up.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-aa2
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 02:22 PM

It is too arguing robustly. Neither is it arrogant bullshit, though you are quite right to say it's designed to get a reaction - why bother to argue otherwise? The fact is that my views on reincarnation and Islam are what they are - your problem is that views other than your own must NECCESSARILY be the product of a bigoted mind. I believe reincarnation is gobbledy-gook. I believe Islam - perhaps, it is true, I should have put Islam at this point of its history - is a religion with an unusually high tendency to fundamentalism and fanaticism. I can produce arguments to back up both beliefs of mine which might be right or wrong, but the overwhelming impression I'm getting from you is outrage that I should dare to disagree with you at all. This is a tendency I notice a great deal among the primary school children I teach - complete outrage that anyone else should dare to have a different world-view, and thwarted fury when they continue to do so.

I'm quite pleased to say that 'in my world' it is QUITE OK to have free speech and robust free expression of considered opinions and yet not be called a bigot. Sorry if you can't handle that... Perhaps you should go and live in a majority Muslim country. They're not very fond of free speech either. You would love it, except maybe if it's one of the ones where you have to wear a tent to go shopping.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 04:03 PM

I have already agreed to disagree, Ooh-Aah2. See my last post.

So in your world it's ok to say "These people may be the bed-bugs, but Islam is the bed", and it's ok for you to call people who believe in reincarnation, "wishful thinkers who seize on second-hand stories and mystical-magical gobbledegook", but it's not ok to call you a bigot.

That's a hell of a double standard you've got there, Ooh-Aah2.

So basically, the rules according to Ooh-Aah2 are that whatever you say is ok, is ok, and whatever you say is not ok, is not ok. Nope. You're the troll. You throw out that kind of inflamatory bullshit just to get an emotional response from people. Just like this post from you after we had long since stopped talking about your being a bigot:

Just come back to this thread - can't believe CarolC is still in her flower-scented dream-world re. the Muslims are no more disposed to violent fundamentalism than anyone else - oh pleeeeze Carol, wake up or shut up (fat chance I know).

This is not "arguing robustly". It's trolling. And it's arrogant bullshit. And if you don't like people handing it back to you, don't dish it out.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 01:56 PM

CarolC -I have certainly argued in my usual robust way but your reflexive use of the word 'bigot' is quite uncalled for, and not at all reflective of the 'facts and data' I have been giving about myself. Indeed I noticed with irritation that you studiously ignored my attempts to agree with you over Israel/Palestine and my post of 30 Nov (among others) putting forward views which are certainly not characteristic of bigots. This suggested to me that you are some kind of troll determined to disagree at any cost.

With regard to the fanatic tendencies of Islam I suggest we agree to disagree. We are never going to covince each other and are rapidly becoming a two-person thread (I don't count Martin Gibson unless he uses some adult arguments and stops carrying on like a foul-mouthed 5 year old).

It would be helpful if you did not make any 'tail between the legs' comments at this point... (how provocative was that?)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 05 - 11:44 PM

Actually, Ooh-Aah2, my tone toward you in this thread is and has always been intended by me to be a mirror of the tone you, yourself have been taking toward people who disagree with you, both in this thread, as well as in threads on spiritual topics. It's not for nothing that beardedbruce noticed that I usually make my arguments without using personal attacks as a part of my argument strategy. I am perfectly happy to make my points in a neutral tone and to just deal with facts and data. I have not noticed the same tendency in you.

Having said that, I will now say that I disagree with your premise that Islam is more prone to fundamentalism than any other religion. That is my position for a variety of reasons.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 28 Jan 05 - 07:02 PM

There are two kinds of internet trolls: those who post obnoxious personal abuse to get a reaction (Martin Gibson type) and those who practice 'flooding' - post after post giving no time for the other person to respond in detail unless they want to spend their lives online - you are approaching the second type, CarolC. You will notice that since this thread re-opened I have, but for once, been confining my posts to one a day, giving you plenty of time to reply to each point- -which you have conspicuously failed to do.

Please tell me where I have 'claimed' to be an expert on India. I merely think that studying it for years is more convincing than a rapid once-over of various websites, which, I repeat, you are not qualified to evaluate in a wider context.

If you knew any of the authors I mentioned you would notice that non of them are Hindu fanatics and that otherwise they represent a varied spectrum of concerns, contexts and opinions. I would suggest that means that in this instance I can ignore any suggestions of not having an open an enquiring mind.

I am very glad you mentioned scapegoating, because it reminded me of the context you are writing from. Faced with the undeniable ignorance regarding Islam of Neoconservative America, rightly disgusted by the complete failure of the administration or public at large to take into account the appalling effects of western interference in the Middle East, and refusing, like any sensible person, to take the distortions and scapegoating of the media at face value, you have simply lumped me in with the bullshit you usually experience and flown off the handle - notably with your repeated and offensive references to me as a bigot. I also understand, via Little Hawk, that people have waged unpleasant campaigns against you in the past. All this leads me to see better where you are coming from.

However there are two ways one can come to the view that Islam is more prone to fundamentalism and violence than other religions.

One is because one holds immovable anti-Islam predjudice, would like 'an enemy' to replace the defunct Soviet Union, needs an excuse to invade an oil-rich country, is a Zionist needing excuses to ignore the fact that Israel is the child of Imperialist powers which perpetrates constant abuses and imperialism of its own, is a straightforward racist, is a western chauvinist blinded to the fact that the Islamic world led the west in almost every aspect of civilised life right up to the sixteenth century and possibly beyond. With this camp I utterly dissasociate myself.

The other is a person who notes that your main theme, that western interference the reason for violence done by Muslims is partially correct, but that a higher tendency to fundamentalism nevertheless does exist apart from this, for a wide range of reasons. This is my position. You mention your liking for looking under the surface of things - a vital trait in anyone with a media as apallingly agenda-driven and limited in America. But you must look under the further layer of a blanket denial, and you must differentiate between the right-wing lunatics you repudiate and people with no particular agenda who have come to a different view of yours through legitimate study and experience. I am not scapegoating Muslims - American foreign policy has killed far more people and accomplished infinetely more damage of all kinds than all the Muslim terrorists put together multiplied by ten. However that is neither controversial or the subject of this thread.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 05 - 04:34 PM

Here's the article I lost the link to before...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,678320,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,678321,00.html

The author, Pankaj Mishra, is from a Brahmin family, although I don't think he is currently a practicing Hindu. This article has some of the most balanced writing I have come across on this subject so far.

One of the recurring themes I have been encountering is the idea that the "British Orientalists" used the ancient, pre-Muslim cultures of India as a way of promoting a nationalistic feeling among India's "Hindus", and using this as a way of manipulating the upper castes to help them in their efforts to dislodge the Muslims from their positions of power in India. Mishra touches upon this theme in his article.

In any case, all of the invaders were just that, invaders. And each set of invaders imposed the cultures they brought with them onto those were there before them. And in the case of the British, the methods of divide and conquer (a method they have used in other contexts with equally disasterous results in the long run), are as much responsible for the unrest found today in India as anything else. This is not to say that the British were worse than any of the other invaders. But it is specious to suggest that they were any less destructive than any of the others. Each invading presence left its mark on the civilization of India. The Muslim presence is/was no better and no worse than the mark left by the Aryans and by the British.

I forgot to deal with this bit:

Unlike yourself I do not like talking rot about what I know nothing about.

And yet you did precisely that when you tried to suggest that the violence in Sudan is a product of Muslim fanatacism.

Many years ago, I had a very good friend who was from a wealthy upper-caste Indian Hindu family. He had come to the US to get away from his family, his father in particular. In fact, he completely repudiated his father and his father's way of life. He felt that his father's way of life was utterly wrong and that his father and people like him had the blood of a lot of people on their hands.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 11:53 PM

Thanks beardedbruce.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 11:30 PM

CarolC

No, I have not forgotten- I just wanted it on the record...

I rarely agree with you, but I respect that you believe strongly in what you say, usually without the need to attack the other side on a personnal basis. I will continue to challenge your facts, but I do not challenge your intent.

Sometimes I DO agree with you!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 11:07 PM

beardedbruce, have you forgotten the times when I have agreed with you that both sides are guilty of being blind to their own faults and agendas?

One last thing for this evening, Ooh-Aah2... I have spent almost my whole life being lied to by the "experts" about the history of my own country. This is, after all, the country where generations of schoolchildren have been taught that "Columbus discovered America".

You and I both know that is bullshit. Columbus accidently stumbled onto the shores of a part of the Americas, where he immediately set about enslaving the indigenous peoples. I've been fed too many lies by people we are taught to believe are the unquestioned experts on all things to be willing to ever take them just at their word. So I investigate for myself. And I cross reference. And I look underneath the surface of things. And I have uncovered a lot of lies and deceptions and also a lot of hidden truths that way.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 10:19 PM

CarolC,

"Because what I do know quite a lot about is scapegoating. When you see one group of people getting all of the criticism, and another group that is never (or hardly ever) criticized, especially when the bad things done by one group are the only thing that is discussed about them, while the bad things done by another group are completely glossed over, what you have is scapegoating. ...

When people scapegoat others, it is always in service of an agenda."



So, you agree with me about the one-sided scapegoating of the Bush admministration by the liberals here, to advance their own agendas.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 10:07 PM

Oooh-Aahh, great work. You've got her walking to the other side of the trailer looking for that box of extra wide tampons.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 10:01 PM

If you don't know facts as basic as the relative positions in time of the Aryan invasions and the rise of Buddhism - which is like thinking that the Europeans were in Australia before the aborigines - how can you possibly differentiate between the agendas behind the plethora of Inda-related websites?

Because what I do know quite a lot about is scapegoating. When you see one group of people getting all of the criticism, and another group that is never (or hardly ever) criticized, especially when the bad things done by one group are the only thing that is discussed about them, while the bad things done by another group are completely glossed over, what you have is scapegoating. And this is what you are doing with regard to Muslims and Hindus, and Muslims and the rest of the world.

When people scapegoat others, it is always in service of an agenda. Muslims are being scapegoated at this time in the history of the world. There are reasons for that. And those reasons do not really serve what is best for humanity on the whole, and in the long run. And you are contributing to that scapegoating.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 08:55 PM

Unlike yourself I do not like talking rot about what I know nothing about.

Yes you do. You think reading and believing propaganda is the same thing as "knowlege". It's not. What do you have to say about the contents of the links I provided?

I've been to Canada more than ten times, and I would never be so arrogant as to suggest that I am an expert on it. Hell, I've lived almost all of my life in the US, and I have studied it at the college level, and I wouldn't even try to suggest that I am an expert on that !

And unlike you, I don't claim to be an expert on India either. But apparently unlike you, I do have an enquiring and open mind, and I am willing to learn things from many different kinds of people who have spent their whole lives there (and whose ancestors have lived their whole lives there), and not just from the ones who support the British/Hindu fundamentalist point of view.

Your claim that Islam is more prone to fundamentalism than any other religion is not based on real knowlege of anything. It is a prejudiced and bigoted point of view that you learned from the Muslim-bashers amongst the British colonialists and the Hindu fundamentalists.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, an insult from Martin Gibson is a far more honorable thing to have than a complement from him. So that path of attack will accomplish nothing with me.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 06:47 PM

Martin Gibson is in the right of it, but I'll bite anyway. Here are some of the authors in my library with which I back up my views on India, quite apart from my studies at university and my travels. Please note I have not included the many travel writers in my collection, despite the fact that I find the words of thoughtful people who have been, seen for themselves and researched their travels infinitely more convincing than your pathetic Google-reliant flailings.

John Stewart Mill
Mark Tully (BBC correspondent in India for decades)
Nirad C. Chaudhuri
Norman Lewis (key founder of Survival International)
Geoffrey Moorhouse
Jawaharlal Nehru
Lawrence James
Ved Mehta
Rahman Azer
M.K. Gandhi
Mir Hassan Ali Khan Kirmani
Stanley Wolpert
Lord Macaulay
Christopher Hibbert
L.N. Swamy
R.V. Vernede
Bhagwan Gidwani
Prafulla Mohanti
Phillip Mason
Phillip Davies
D.P Singhal
Katherine Mayo

Unlike yourself I do not like talking rot about what I know nothing about.
'These are not your theories'? If you don't know facts as basic as the relative positions in time of the Aryan invasions and the rise of Buddhism - which is like thinking that the Europeans were in Australia before the aborigines - how can you possibly differentiate between the agendas behind the plethora of Inda-related websites?

Face it, you are stumbling in the dark. You haven't been to India, you haven't studied India, you have not had the humility to do any serious reading, and yet you think that doing a few blue clickies on sites which you are not in a position to evaluate gives you credibility.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 01:22 AM

Some people read and learn. Some people care.

Not everyone feels compelled to post insults all of the time.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 11:02 PM

No one noticed. No one cared.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:57 PM

LOL

In my second to last post, it should read "BJP". Not PBJ.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:57 PM

You CarolC are talking/posting to dead air.

Oooh-Ahhh finally caught on. Discussing anything with you is a waste of time and is the same as talking to a box of extra-wide tampons.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:52 PM

Those are not my theories, Ooh-Aah2. Reread my post. I said that I am encountering quite a lot of conflicting narratives about the history of India coming from various groups of people there. Your account is one of them, but hardly the only one. There is even a movement within the historian/archaeological community in India that says it has debunked the "myth of the Aryan invasion". You have not supported even one of your assrtions with any credible facts or data. You have only thrown out a number of unsupported generalizations. You have nothing to back up even a single one of your assertions except the fictional novels and travelogues you have read and the biased historical accounts written by an employeed of the British government in the 1800s (who, by the way, was allegedly made an honorary Arab because of his very deep respect for the Muslim religion).

If you bow out now, it will not be gracefully. It will be with your tail between your legs in defeat.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:45 PM

Here's an interesting site belonging to an Indian Christian organization. It lists some of the Hindu fundamentalist organizations and their objectives. I don't know if the information is 100% accurate, but it gives you an idea about what the Christians in India see themselves as being up against.

Know Your Hindu Fundamentalism:Brahmanic Terrorist Organisations

No fundamentalist Islamic regime has ever been removed from power by peaceful democratic means.

This statement is meaningless, and also misleading. And the comparison is specious. It would be much more accurate to say that no fundamentalist regime of any sort has ever been removed from power by peaceful democratic means. Because India is a parliamentary democracy, it is not accurate to call the PBJ led government that recently lost power "a fundamentalist regime". And so it is equally possible to say that no fundamentalist Hindu regime has ever been removed from power by peaceful democratic means.

Your posts also do not take into account the "terrorism" that is committed against members of the lower castes and the Dalits by members of the Hindu upper castes. This accounts for quite a lot of bloodshed and is mostly at the expense of the members of the lower castes. Here are a couple of sites that deal with that issue:

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2001_09/uk/doss22.htm

http://www.saxakali.com/southasia/hindu.htm

Earlier today I was reading an article by someone who comes from a Brahmin family background, and who has been debunking some myths about the Muslim presence in India. I have lost the link, which is a shame, because it is very interesting. And not at all in keeping with the sort of rhetoric one usually sees coming from Hindus on the subject of Muslims.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:38 PM

CarolC, with a certain reluctance (it's clear your heart is in the right place) I'm starting to think that Martin Gibson may be partially right about you. Your logic-chopping and peculiar combination of wierd theories which you have laid out above re. Hinduism, is so absurd it made me shake my head in disbelief. It might interest you to know, for example, that the first 'Aryan invaders'reached India's western borders somewhere between 1600 and 1500 BCE. The Buddha lived and preached around 563-483 BCE. It would be therefore rather difficult for the arriving Aryans to 'brutally repress' the Buddhists!

I'm sorry, but I feel I have underlined your basic lack of knowledge enough to gracefully finish here. I'm confident that any fair-minded person who reads through my posts will see that I am no bigot but a liberal struggling with an awkward reality, and that I have argued my point convincingly.

Pip, pip, pip, Beeeeep.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 12:40 PM

No one cares, anymore CarolC.

We are all sick of the world according to you.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 12:22 AM

It's true that I have been reading up on the subject of India and of Hindus and "terrorism" in India. And what I'm finding astonishes me. It shouldn't, I suppose, since I've seen the same thing with one or two other countries, but what I am seeing is that the line of reasoning you are using, Ooh-Aah2, is very much in keeping with the official version of events that is promoted by the government of India and some Hindu organizations. But there are many, many conflicting narratives of which you seem to be entirely unaware. One of which does, indeed, involve "terrorist" acts committed by Hindus during the struggle for independence from Britain.

But some of the other problems I've been encountering while trying to research the validity (or lack of validity) of your arguments, is that even terms like "Hindu" and "India", are exceedingly difficult to pin down, and the history of conflicts between different factions is equally so. For instance, one version of events I have encountered holds that the Aryans invaded India from the north and brutally repressed the Buddhists. And other sources (by far the majority) hold that the term "Hindu", in historical terms is completely meaningless because India had many, many different indigenous spiritual/religious sects, and that "Hindu" originally only referred to anyone who lived in India, or more particularly, on one side of the Indus River.

From what I have been able to gather, all of the different indigenous religions in India (plus whatever religions the Aryans brought to India with them) are grouped under the umbrella term "Hindu", while religions that traveled to India from elsewhere are called by the names they had before arriving in India.

In more recent history, the term Hindu has been defined by the government of India, but it only categorizes what can be legally considered "Hindu" in the present historical sense. It doesn't really address what was done by whom and when in the historical sense.

So to try to suggest that there is a particular tendency among Hindus (historically speaking) as compared to any other religions is very misleading, and just not true.

The other bit of misinformation you have is the idea that "Hindus" did not participate in "terrorist" acts during the struggle for independence. Again, that is the official government line, but people who were involved in revolutionary movements are saying otherwise. Interestingly, there are very few references to which religion the various participants belonged to. They just called themselves "Indians". I have had to do further research to get any idea about their religion, and also to try to deduce their religion from their names. But the idea that the people who were not Muslims (and who would be considered "Hindus" by the current legal definition) did not commit "terrorist" acts is incorrect, although the people themselves are pretty adamant that they consider what they were doing not to be "terrorist activities", but rather "revolutionary activities". Still, people got killed and buildings and other infrastructure were destroyed.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 06:06 PM

Ok then, let's start with this one right here:

(3)Most Hindu violence is short term, localised and directly caused by rabble-rousing local politicians for personal short-term political gain. The Muslim violence is far more widely directed (heard of what's going on in Sudan at the moment?) but mostly is part of a massive, coldly planned and executed campaign aimed at all aspects of the 'corrupt', 'decadent' west, quite apart from more reasonable reactions against direct western interference (please note, again, I was firmly against the Iraq war and am a solid Palestinian supporter). This brings us right back to the murdered Dutchman with which the thread started.

You clearly know nothing about either the Sudan, nor Hindu terrorism and what it is meant to accomplish.

In Sudan, both of the warring sides are Muslims in the Darfur region. That conflict is not Muslims against non-Muslims. Now, the southern rebels are a mixture of Christians and Muslims. But those rebels are acting against the establised government. So if countries like the US and Britain were backing the Sudanese government (which they are not... they want Sudan's oil resources for themselves), the US and Britain would be labeling the southern rebles as "terrorists".

The Hindu terrorists have a much more long term and cold blooded goal than you seem to realize. Their goal is to make India an all Hindu country. I can show you many cases where the tactics being used are totally cold-blooded, calculating, and highely organized acts that are designed to promote this long-term agenda.

Your idea that the real goal of all Muslim terrorism is to target the entire "West" is also bullshit. Their primary agenda (as stated by them) is to end the intereference of the West in the Muslim countries.

The practice of targeting people who criticize Muslims is not the kind of terrorism that is causing most of the problems with Islamic terrorism. And as we have established, Muslims are not the only ones who are committing those kinds of terrorist acts. In fact, I discovered an incident in which a Muslim painter was attacked for making paintings that the more fundamentalist Hindus find offensive because they portray Hindu deities in the nude.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Com Seangan
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 05:35 PM

We are all inclined to listen more to ourselves tahn anyone else. Yes, me included. If we stand back a bit maybe we have much more in common than we are prepared to admit.

I feel sure of one thing. Given the human condition, the people in power are reluctant to share that power with those whom they want to keep inferior. May I give Northern Ireland as an example? There would be still discrimintaion against Catholics getting jobs and Catholics getting housing were not people prepared to stand up and challenge and fight. That is the sad reality. It is not really a Protestant/Catholic thing. It is a poer thging. Like the Crusades was a power thing.

REligion is used as a tool.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 05:23 PM

It's more fun to cheer you on, Oooh Ahhh.

It's also that I don't feel like wasting my time arguing with a wench who thinks she knows it all like you are doing.

It's just not worth it. Time is precious.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 05:20 PM

OK CarolC, since you insist on me spelling it out, I meant my 'whole point' in mentioning that I had been to India and studied it - something you know perfectly well.

Nope. I do not know that perfectly well. I am not going to try to read your mind. It's far too convoluted, and not at all interesting.

So are you now saying that you do not maintain that Islam is more prone to fanaticism than any other religion, or are you still saying that it is more prone to fanatacism than any other religion?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:38 PM

OK CarolC, since you insist on me spelling it out, I meant my 'whole point' in mentioning that I had been to India and studied it - something you know perfectly well.

Now who's the troll?

Martin Gibson, I would be more impressed with your praise if you opposed CarolC with some kind of cogent argument of your own instead of constant foul abuse.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:32 PM

While you'r googling away I would like to aswer another point of yours, one especially offensive to one as fond of India and Indians as I am. This is that I am wilfully ignoring Hindu fundamentalism/terrorism because it doesn't suit my argument that 'only Muslims are terrorists' (where have I argued this? What were the IRA but terrorists? However this thread is concerned with whether Islam is more prone to terrism, or whether this is a misrepresentation), because it doesn't affect Westerners and because 'I don't give a shit' (what kind of talk is that?). Let me point out some differences between violence perpetrated between Hindus and Islam.
(1) Hindi fundamentalism certainly exists, but (I wearily re-iterate)the proportion of practitioners is higher in Islam than in Hinduism. Proof of this is that the Hindu Nationalist BJP had just been quietly removed from power in India by peaceful democratic means. No fundamentalist Islamic regime has ever been removed from power by peaceful democratic means. This is NOT because of 'western interference'; as Wolfgang has pointed out above, the whole way of thinking of fundamentalist Islam is opposed to democracy.
(2)Hindu terrorism and communal violence was almost unknown before the Muslim invasion of India, to which it is a historical response. The peaceful co-existence, merging and blurring between Hinduism, Jainism, Animism, tribal religions and Buddhism are familiar to even the most casual student of Indian history. From the start Islam has been rigid and dogmatic (with the honorable exception of the Sufis and other mystical sects, who were and are frequently persecuted). For most of its history Islam has sought to convert, kill or keep in subservience other religions in its orbit, exactly like medieval Christianity. The difference is that where Muslims are in a large majority this is still observable today - quite unlike Hindu India.
(3)Most Hindu violence is short term, localised and directly caused by rabble-rousing local politicians for personal short-term political gain. The Muslim violence is far more widely directed (heard of what's going on in Sudan at the moment?) but mostly is part of a massive, coldly planned and executed campaign aimed at all aspects of the 'corrupt', 'decadent' west, quite apart from more reasonable reactions against direct western interference (please note, again, I was firmly against the Iraq war and am a solid Palestinian supporter). This brings us right back to the murdered Dutchman with which the thread started.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:18 PM

CarolC, my whole point is that the British did not experience widespread terrorism in the independence struggle - only 60 years ago

This is your whole point? I suspect it was not intended to be your "whole" point, but you are now realizing how little you actually do know about history, and you don't want me to post any more information that will show you to be the ignorant person you really are.

However, you have been consistantly maintaining that this:

Islam IS more prone to fanaticism than other religions

...is your only real point. So do you now concede that the above statement by you about Islam being more prone to fanaticism than other religions is bullshit? Or shall we have at it some more?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:14 PM

Carol C.

This has played out pretty cool.

Stop googling and start gargling.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:11 PM

CarolC, my whole point is that the British did not experience widespread terrorism in the independence struggle - only 60 years ago. How sad you wrote all that accurate and true stuff about how nasty Christianity used to be for nothing!

With your post before that I scent victory, as you are resorting to sarcasm and personal abuse rather than argument. My only point is that I do know a little about India having visited it many times and studied it at Univesity and privately; rather a better foundation than a lot of desperate Googling, your all-to-obvious resource. Whoops! Phone! Back ina mo..

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:01 PM

CarolC......................

desparate housewife in a trailer court.

Certainly not Wysteria Lane.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:54 PM

I should clarify that by this statement:

The British began influencing the region in the early 1600s.

...I am speaking, in this case, specifically about India and the surrounding areas.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:50 PM

does the word 'Pindari' mean anything to you? Didn't think so!

Actually, it does mean something to me, but I don't see that it is in support of any of your arguments execpt for the idea that British colonial rule was preferable to all of the alternatives. Very ethnocentric of you, to say the least. The British government, and subsequently, the US government, also used arguments like those to justify their reprehensible treatment of the indigenous peoples of what is now the US and Canada.

To summarise: Islam IS more prone to fanaticism than other religions; this was true before stupid US and British actions fuelled the flames

Interesting point. Let's examine what Christian Europe was up to during the period in question....

The British began influencing the region in the early 1600s. What was Christian Europe up to prior to and during that time? It was conducting witch hunts, and torturing and killing people (mostly women) who were accused of being witches... burning them alive in many cases. In Spain, Jews and other people who were not Christians were being forced to convert or be exiled. Many thousands were killed for not complying with the edict to convert to Christianity. Scientists were being killed and/or imprisoned for promoting ideas that contradicted the Bible and/or Christian church doctrine. The Christian Church was the final word on everything in the lives of all Euopeans during that time, and people disobeyed or contradicted the church at their peril, and oftentimes at the cost of their lives.

And what was Christian Europe doing in the New World and elsewhere during that time? It was committing mass genocide against the indigenous peoples in the Americas for being "heathens" (and also for their gold and other riches), and enslaving Black Africans and shipping them to the New World where they were bought and sold as chattel and treated as no more than animals. And the Europeans found their justification for this practice of slavery in the Bible. (To be fair, there were also Jews who were involved in trading in African slaves, and I don't know whether or not they used any sort of religious doctrine as a part of their rationalization of this practice, but I think it's safe to say that at least a large percentage of the slave industry was driven by European Christians who found their "justifications" in the Bible).

Ha. Talk about being ignorant of history. You win the prize on that one.

More later.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 02:36 PM

Ooooh Ahhhh. Give her a top hat and cane for her tap dance performance.

she's just flailing in the wind.

I can dig it. thanks for so easily making her look like the idiot she is.

Plenty here are wise to her tactics. there's fine sport in it, occasionally.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 01:15 PM

Your 24 Jan 05 - 06:11 PM post, Ooh-Aah2, certainly has presented me with a few challenges. It's one of the most disjointed and incoherently assembled arguments I've ever seen.

Ten visits is it then? Oohhhh... I'm in awe of your amazing abilities. Ten visits to a country the size of India and with a history as complex as it is certainly makes you the world's foremost and most difinitive voice on all things India

historian you clearly aint

LOLOLOLOL... hahahahaha...

It's true. I do not claim to be an historian. You, on the other hand, oh great white hunter, you must certainly be the world's best historian. How could you be otherwise... your sources (the ones you have named at any rate) are impeccable... a novelist, a man who worked for the British government in the 1800s, during the period of colonial rule in India (and no doubt quite a good cheerleader for the cause of British colonial rule), and a man who wrote travelogues and memoires.

hahahahaha...

I'll sort out the rest of your mess as time permits.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 09:22 AM

Two very different voices (back to the theme of the thread):

Jordanian born al Qaeda leader in Iraq Zarqawi (I'm not sure I got the English transliteration correct):

"(why he is against elections) it's the aim of the USA to bring the Shiite pigs into power...(the aim in the long run is to help create a Great-Israel)...
(why he is against democracy) Democracy means that the people rule (but that's un-Islamic since the Koran says:) Let noone have part of God's rule. (Therefore no real Muslim can live in a democracy or in a country with freedom of religion. For) if a Muslim commits apostasy his punishment is death." (I don't a the full version)

Francois Zabbal has been university teacher in Jordan and been forced into exile in 1984:

(full German language version in a Swiss newspaper here; it's a translation from the French which I haven't located yet)

(my partial translation:)
Missed chance for a reform?
Muslim thinkers in Europe

(There once was said) that Europe will be the nucleus for a reformation of the Islam...(Now we can see, however,) that in this favourable context (Europe) the most promising and forward looking thinking about the Islam did not develop at all. Grown-up in Europe Muslim activists are now the backbone of European Islam....
As time goes by they (the exiled and born in exile) develop a more unified view of the Arab world. Looked at from afar it seems to be less torn and fragmented as it really is. In the host country they feel obliged to defend the world which they have left but that they, in a kind of sublimation typical for the exiled, build up into a world of intact living and faith....
From that comes a militant attitude both among the born in Europe and the migrating to Europe Muslim intellectuals making defense of Islam a political personal matter. Under the pretext of fighting against racism known intellectuals who up to now had rather been distanced from religion and faith become advocates of Islam...Under the pretext of objectivity Islam is condensed into its most orthodox and antiquated form.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:08 PM

Yeah, Carol's been to India 10 times also via www.india.com or some other stupid webstie that she belives everything it says.

Ooh-Ahh, my fedora is off to you.

She's gone running to the hills to regroup. She'll be back, though with a whole new army of links that of course must be fact, because she found them and for no other reason.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 10:00 PM

(1) If you think that the resistance of 18th century Indians to British incursons is in any was comparable to modern terrorism you have already lost the agument. Was King Harold at Hastings a terrorist?

Obviously not, because your definition of "terrorist", "fundamentalist", and "extremist" requires that the person so described be a Muslim. The same behaviors exhibited by people who are not Muslims, you manage to find other names and categories for.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Oh-Aah2
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 06:11 PM

Strewth CarolC, you are no historian. And you have picked the wrong person to expose your ignorance to, as 18th century Indian history is a passion of mine; I have travelled there 10 times, twice to gather material for a possible book. My main problem is that your ignorance is so invincible that to answer it I need to wriute half a book online.
(1) If you think that the resistance of 18th century Indians to British incursons is in any was comparable to modern terrorism you have already lost the agument. Was King Harold at Hastings a terrorist?
(2)The main initial resistance to the British was led by the Indian princes you accuse of selling out their people, including Muslims. Neither were they, or the Afghans motivated by any lofty patriotic ideas, as the country was a chaotic mis-mash of warring states due to the collapse of the Mughal Empire; they were often more aggressive in their expansionist plans than the British themselves. The British successively took on and defeated the French-backed ruler of Arcot (Muslim), then Siraj-ud Daula of Bengal (Muslim), then Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan of Mysore (Muslim), then the five Maratha kingdoms (several times), the Sikhs under the Khalsa, the Sindhis (Muslim) and the Gurkhas, along with large numbers of less notable rulers, (many Muslim), all struggling to carve out their independent feifdoms in the fluid political and military mess.
(3) I will not attempt to match the unbelievable facility with which you pin down the vexed issue of 'what won India for the British' - historian you clearly aint. However the common people were so exhausted and harried by endless invasions, forced levies, looting, massacres, raids, abductions for forced labour etc associated with the hideous anarchy following the death of Aurangzeb (does the word 'Pindari' mean anything to you? Didn't think so!) that the peace and stability which total British rule finally brought to India was at first seen a blessing. When Gandhi and the INC activated the people against the British there was negligible terrorism against them - except in Bengal, most of which is now Bangladesh, which is a M_______ country (fill in the blank).
(4)The Muslims of Afghanistan were not motivated by 'integrity' (unbelievable ignorance!) They were motivated by precisely the fanaticism which made it death for a non-Muslim to live in Afghanistan (do you know what the name of the Hindu Kush mountain range means - 'killer of Hindus'), which destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan, all Hindu temples and Buddhist monastaries and which made it death for a non-Muslim to visit Mecca for centuries (read Richard Burton, John Masters, Eric Newby, or, for that matter, anyone).
(5) the Hindu upper classes of India were precisely the people who founded the INC, being the most educated and self-aware. To suggest they sold out their people to the British is a monstrous untruth, and betrays a simple, black and white, paper-cut out understanding of history characteristic of all too many Americans.

It is neccessary to bring all this back to the thread. To summarise: Islam IS more prone to fanaticism than other religions; this was true before stupid US and British actions fuelled the flames. The more I become aware of your patchy knowledge of history, the more I realise how it is possible for you to deny this uncomfortable truth.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 04:31 PM

Don't count on it CarolC. I have no reason to remove my cookie. I'll say what I want to as me any time of the day. No reason not to.

OK so he's not your cousin. He's your blowjob.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 12:03 PM

He's not my cousin, Martin. I think he is probably you without your cookie.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 12:00 PM

Thanks for the pleasure of offending you!

I merely let dianavan know that her criticism of my penis is wrong and would show her in what is probably her favorite fetish.

Go take a dump in your pants, Guest. Then fall out of an airplane hard on your ass.

Carol C. Isn't Abu Mohammad your cousin? He's dead on right you know.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:44 AM

So Gibson is allowed, on this forum, to tell dianavan he will gladly urinate on her - you fucking sick sick bastard Gibson, do the world a big favour and walk in front of a truck.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 12:05 AM

Interesting to note, also, is the fact that Gandhi was assasinated by a Hindu fundamentalist.

The idea that the British never met with anything that might be described as "terrorism" is laughable. Indians put up a vigorous resistance to the British when they were first attempting to colonize India. What finally won India for the British was as much their ability to co-opt the upper classes in India to do their bidding... divide and conquer, as anything else. Perhaps it says something about the integrity of the Muslims in Afghanistan that they weren't so easily bought by the British, whose only goal was the exploitation of the people and resources of that country without any genuine regard for the rights of the indigenous population. The Muslims in Afghanistan didn't sell their people out to the British as the Hindu upper classes in India did.

To be fair, this can't be said about all Muslims. Napoleon was able to successfully use the same tactics on the Muslim Imams in Egypt as the British used on the Hindus in India.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 11:26 PM

GUEST,Abu is a bigoted Arab/Muslim-hater who is making an attempt at irony. Not a very good one, either.

No, Martin, you and people like you are the enemy of Jews everywhere. But you and people who think like you just haven't figured that out yet.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 09:04 PM

Guest, Abu - You are full of shit!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Abu Mohammed
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 08:36 PM

Terrorism is not something that is practiced randomly, despite what many people might like to think about it. Terrorism is designed to produce a specific result, and the targets of terrorists are chosen with specific strategic goals in mind. In the case of fundamentalist Muslim terrorism, the targets are chosen to promote the goals of removing/ending the interference of countries like the US, Britain, Israel, (and in the case of some countries, also France) in the affairs of Muslim countries that is ongoing and that is seen as a current threat to the interests of these countries. So this conflict would naturally involve both Muslim countries and "Western" countries.

I'm afraid that this CarolC is not as smart as she thinks she is. When we commit an act of terrorism against the zionist dogs, we know that it will not lead to the end of the occupation or the zionist repression.

We know that for every jew we kill, the jews will destroy more of our houses and more of our people. We don't care about that. The goal of our terrorism is to make sure there is no so called peace with the zionists. We don't care if our people live in misery for another decade or another century. We know that sooner or later, we'll so outnumber the jews that we'll drive all of them from a true Islamic Palestine that will cover every inch from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

When the great Osama brought down the towers, he knew that it would lead to more Muslim deaths in our lands than would die in New York. He didn't care. We don't care.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 07:00 PM

dianavan, as long as your asking, my penis works fine for all functions. It would gladly give you your favorite fetish. A golden shower.

CarolC. Wrong. People like you are the enemy of Jews everywhere.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 05:49 PM

Nope, that's not it, Ooh-Aah2.

The differences are these:

1. India has its share of fundamentalist Hindu terrorist groups, and fundamentalist Hindu terrorist incidents, but those incidents effect people that you and most of the West couldn't really give a shit about (they are mostly Muslims, Christians in India, and Sikhs), so you never hear about them.

2. Afghanistan's civil infrastructure was completely destroyed and people had no means of maintaining any kind of continuity in their civic life and in their civilization. India's civil infrastructure was never destroyed, and the continuity of their civilization was never fully disrupted. So even though both countries have problems with fundamentalist perpetrated terrorism, and even though the fundamentalist Hindus who are intolerant of people who are not Hindus are becoming more and more powerful in the Indian government, they haven't yet taken over all of it, as happened with the Taliban. In Afthanistan, the Taliban, terrible as they were, created order out of the warlord driven chaos that existed there before they took over.

3. Terrorism is not something that is practiced randomly, despite what many people might like to think about it. Terrorism is designed to produce a specific result, and the targets of terrorists are chosen with specific strategic goals in mind. In the case of fundamentalist Muslim terrorism, the targets are chosen to promote the goals of removing/ending the interference of countries like the US, Britain, Israel, (and in the case of some countries, also France) in the affairs of Muslim countries that is ongoing and that is seen as a current threat to the interests of these countries. So this conflict would naturally involve both Muslim countries and "Western" countries.

British colonial rule promoted divisions within India. It promoted stratifications and divisions that were not so much of a problem for India prior to British colonial rule, but which have become problems that have been continually increasing in severity over the decades since the end of British colonial rule. So the effect has been that the strategic targets of terrorists in India are, for the most part, other groups within India, rather than groups outside of India. The exception to this being some conflict between India and Pakistan over the disputed territory of Kashmir. There is no ongoing terrorism by people from India towards Britain because Britain is no longer any kind of threat to any of the different groups within India.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 03:43 PM

To repeat what has been stated above, Muslims have many different sects and theologies.

There are extremists in every religion.

I'm sure that those who planned and bombed the Oklahoma City building thought of themselves as good Christians.

This is why we must encourage religious plurality, and the rights of secular advocates as part of Separation of Church and State.

Frank

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 03:37 PM

How about that India is majority Hindu, while Afghanistan has long been noted for its particular brand of mullah-inflamed Muslim fanaticism? The British never had any more than about 200,000 people among India's population of millions - many of them civilians such as doctors, missionaries and officials in very vulnerable, isolated areas - and yet they never experienced widespread terrorism against them, even in the bitterest depths of the independence struggle.
   Incidentaly the British repeatedly got absolutely nowhere trying to pacify Afghanistan (they wanted to instal a fiendly puppet ruler - sounds familiar!- because, quite rightly as it turns out, they were worried about Russia's intentions in that area.) One of the main reasons they got nowhere because of the extreme Muslim fanaticism of the population - read some Kipling or the numerous non-fiction histories of the time! Muslim fanaticism long pre-dates meddling by Britain and America, but the modern world has given them better tools and a diaspora to work with.
   British soldiers in Afghanistan had no illusions about what would happen to them if they were caught - being beheaded was the least of it, they could expect to be castrated (usually by the women) have their mouth urinated in until they drowned, be pegged down on ant nest or even be flayed alive - as Kipling wrote (more or less)

          When your lyin' out wounded on Afghnistan's plains
          And the women come out to cut up your remains
          Just you roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
          And go to your God like a soldier.

The Afghans did not do this to fellow Afghans - then as now they were in a perpetual state of war amongst themselves - this was a religion-inspired response to infidel invaders. Sound familiar?
    I note you did not respond to my second post. And why should we pick on the USA all the time? China is a disgusting imperialist, killing about 1.1 MILLION Tibetans since they invaded. Ever heard of a Tibetan terrorist?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 03:26 PM

Well, it looks like this thread has become an Arab-Israeli thread, which I think would have been better done as its own (umpteenth) thread on the issue. The give and take here is interesting, but it's a challenge to my instinct to try and keep these issues appropriately labeled.

BUT -
just in case anyone wants to stay with the original title regarding "More Muslim intolerance" based on the apparent assassination of a Public figure in Europe for perceived anti-Islamic utterances, the current column by Thomas Friedman is appropriate:

Thomas Friedman: Divided We Stand

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 01:50 PM

Not at all Ooh-Aah2. You're not thinking things through. What are the differences between India, for instance, and Afghanistan?

I bet you won't be able to figure it out.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 05:38 AM

Wel Ooh Aah 2 since you put it like that, could the ongoing success of the Muslim faith in converting more people be put down to countries or people, wanting to know who their friends are?
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 05:31 AM

But I like the quiz! In fact you beat me to it, quizmaster's was just crying to be answered. Unfortunately for your argument, your list very obviouslyfails to include a great many other nations, people and places which we all know the US has unscrupulously meddled with and yet have conspicuously failed to produce global terrorist networks.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 05:14 AM

You've written it in big red letters - how exciting! Still doesn't make it true I'm afraid...

...otherwise India would be the worst terrorist nation of the lot, being the place where Britain came first, stayed longest and, arguably, exploited hardest.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 05:38 PM

Alright, Quizmaster. Here's a few for you:

Which nation used its intelligence services to squash the first ever fledgeling democracy in Iran and then installed the Shah as a (brutal) dictator and as its puppet?

Which proto-nation massacred hundreds of women, children, and old men, execution style in the late 1940s in order to frighten all of the people in the surrounding areas into fleeing their villages and homes so they could then steal all of the land belonging to those who fled?

Which country's intelligence services are responsible for the rise to power of Saddam Hussien?

Which Western country helped Saddam Hussien kill thousands of Iranians and Iraqi Kurds?

Which country used the Mujahadeen and the civil war in Afghanistan in order to help it in its cold war against the Soviet Union, and then, after helping to completely destroy that country, simply abandoned it, giving rise to the conditions that gave birth to the Taliban and its subsequent rise to power?

Which country funded the Taliban during its rise to power?

And here's the point. This is for you, Quizmaster, and also for the bigot Ooh-Aah2...

The reason that Islamic fundamentalism has become the problem it is today is because of the meddling of countries like the US and Israel (and Britain), who have created so much chaos in the Middle East and other Muslim parts of the world, that it is not possible for the people there to be able to evolve more liberal and democratic societies.

It is not because Muslims are any more inherently prone to fundamentalism.

Martin Gibson, I don't need to say anything insulting to you. You are your own worst enemy.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 04:57 PM

Martin - Are you still dreaming about having a penis that works properly?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 04:33 PM

Quizmaster, yours is one of the best posts here in a long time!

I got every answer right as I knew I would

CarolC., you goishe shiksa, what do you think of it?

Or are you daydreaming about Elmer Fudd's penis?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 04:24 PM

Quite true, Mr. MacKenzie. Don't expect an answer from CarolC anytime soon. She is stuck on the one about "Elmer Fudd".

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 04:05 PM

Quizmaster: PC it ain't but I damn near wet myself laughing at that one, thanks for bringing a bit of levity [one word not two!]into an otherwise po-faced discussion.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 04:02 PM

Whoops! Quizmaster nipped in before me. My last post was of course, addressed to the ubiquitous CarolC.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:58 PM

My God, how you love to write, or transcribe, or whatever! All a waste of time, as my basic point still stands: violence is getting the Palestinians absolutely nowhere. I am in complete agreement with you on all the disgusting Israeli behaviour you have so laboriously transcibed (if you had read my post more carefully you would have seen that I am already convinced that Israeli violence, agression and land-snatching is the root of the problem). However the fact remains that whatever apalling abuses the Israelis perpetrate can be neatly covered up by them and the western media (I completely agree that it is biased) by referring to the constant Palestinian violence, especially suicide bombings.

My mention of 'a few wet crunches' was too flippant. However I am convinced that peaceful civil disobedience on a massive sale would be infinitely more effective than endless desultory shootings, bombings etc. Expecting the problem to be solved by an Israeli Abraham Lincoln is as naive as Gandhi expecting the problem of the British in India to be solved by the King abruptly deciding that it was time to come home.

As for the other thing: I'm sorry (aren't we all) your Pres. is a fundie dickhead, but you are confusing the number of people killed by him with the broader statement that Muslims are more inclined to fundamentalism. They don't have the power to kill as many as he has (just wait until they get the bomb), but there's more of 'em in proportion to moderates than even Christianity (which, I repeat, I cordially dislike). In many Muslim countries and communities fundamentalism is actually considered normal - even in the US a fundie is viewed as a fundie.

With regard to your very lame response re. women in Muslim countries, you reply to the effect that one can't improve the lives of women in these countries by killing all the men, which is what the President is trying to do. Please let me know what the actions of Mr Bush have to do with the topic of this thread, with me, where I have ever supported him in any form, or where I have advocated killing all Muslim men - a classic CarolC fudge/non-sequitur.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,quizmaster
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:32 PM

HISTORY TEST
Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually happened!!!

Do you remember?


1. 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
a. Superman
b. Jay Lenno
c. Harry Potter
d. a Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4.During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7.In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8.In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10.In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11.On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12.In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

Nope, .....I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?

So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics
intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling.

Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel doubly ashamed of themselves - if they have any such sense.

As Forrest Gump so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does."

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:25 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,935018,00.html

Israeli troops 'shoot British peace activist'

Staff and agencies
Friday April 11, 2003

"Israeli troops in the Gaza Strip today shot a British peace activist as he was trying to move children away from gunfire, witnesses said.

The activist, named by Reuters as Tom Handoll, in his early 20s, had been working as a human shield with the International Solidarity Movement at the Rafah refugee camp, near the Eyptian border.

He was standing between Israeli troops and a group of Palestinian children when soldiers opened fire, said Khalil Abdullah, an activist with the Palestinian-backed group.

Mr Handoll was reportedly trying to help two children caught in gunfire to cross the street when Israeli soldiers shot him in the head.

The director of the Rafa hospital, Ali Musa, said that Mr Handoll was "clinically dead" after sustaining brain damage."

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:17 PM

It's close enough, pdq.

can't believe CarolC is still in her flower-scented dream-world re. the Muslims are no more disposed to violent fundamentalism than anyone else - oh pleeeeze Carol, wake up or shut up

The Muslim fundamentalists (not necessarily the same thing as people who are fighting for liberation from occupation... these can be from any number of other religions besides Islam) are repsonsible for the deaths of hundreds of civilians in Iraq. The Christian fundamentalist president of my country is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of civilians in that same country.

Yes, I think I would have a very difficult time as a woman in the more repressive fundamentalist Muslim countries. But you can't make the kinds of changes that the women of that region need by killing all of the men. And that is precisely what the Christian fundamentalist president of my country is in the process of doing (and in the process, he is killing large numbers of women and children along with them).

I think you are the one who needs to wake up or shut up.

if these young Palestinian men are brave enough to blow themselves up you'd think they would be brave enough to sit in front of tanks - a few wet crunches on the TV, and the world would be firmly on their side

This is one of the stupidest things I've read in a long, long time. When Arabs (including Arab civilians) get killed by the IDF (or Israeli settlers), it almost never gets reported in the Western Press. That's not because it doesn't happen... it happens with great regularity. But if the Western press reports even a fraction of these killings, they get accused of being biased against Israel (and by extension, of anti-Semitism). At least three human rights activists/peace activists who were not Arabs have been killed by the IDF, and more have been targeted with violence from Israeli settlers. There was some reportage in the Western press of the killings, but not any that I've seen of the other targeted violence. If these people had been Arabs, we in the West would never have seen one word about it in the our press. And yet, even with the limited press coverage that we saw about the killing of these activists, those "few wet crunches" have not brought the world firmly on the side of the Palestinians.

Anyway, the Palestinians wouldn't need a Gandhi if the Israelis had an Abraham Lincoln.


""My back is broken," Rachel told Alice Coy, a fellow ISM activist who was with her.

An Israeli pathologist, Dr. Yehudah Hiss, noted that Rachel appeared to have been run over by the bulldozer, Sweeney wrote. Hiss found the cause of death to be "pressure to the chest." Her shoulder blades had been crushed; her spine was broken in five places and six ribs broken. Her face was apparently slashed by the bulldozer blade.

The IDF produced a report that says, "Corrie was not run over by an engineering vehicle." It added, "for good measure" Sweeney says, that Corrie was "hidden from view of the vehicle's operator."

The footage seen in the BBC film proves these statements to be false. The family of Rachel Corrie believes the IDF report to "be a blatant fabrication," Sweeney wrote.

The British cameraman James Miller was shot dead by an Israeli sniper as he left a house in Rafah with two other journalists on the night of May 2. An Associated Press TV News (APTN) cameraman filmed the entire scene.

One of the three journalists held a white flag; Miller was shining a light on the flag and a third journalist held up her British passport. There was no shooting and the area was quiet as the audio track of the film clearly proves.

The three had walked about 60 feet toward an Israeli armed personnel carrier to request safe passage to leave the area when the first shot was fired. "We are British journalists," Saira Shah cried out into the darkness.

"Then comes the second shot, which killed James," Sweeney wrote. "He was shot in the front of his neck. The bullet was Israeli issue, fired, according to a forensic expert, from less than 200 meters [600 feet] away."

The IDF maintains that Miller was shot during crossfire, although no shooting is heard on the APTN tape apart from the two shots fired from the Israeli military vehicle.

When the APTN tape was shown to an Israeli soldier, who is shown in the film, he said the television team did not look like Islamic terrorists and concluded: "That's murder.""

www.realnews247.com/bbc_rachel_corrie_report.htm


Justice for James Miller

The Tomas Thurndale Fund

In Memorium: Rachel Corrie


http://us.altnews.com.au/drop/node/view/1125

By Nir Hasson,
Haaretz Correspondent

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/488976.html

Police say settlers may have been behind attacks on five international peace activists in the West Bank last Saturday. The peace activists were assaulted when they were escorting Palestinian children to school in the village of Al-Tuwani in the southern Hebron hills, on a route that passes between the settlement of Maon and the outpost called Maon Ranch. An Italian peace volunteer and an Amnesty International member required medical treatment after being badly beaten with clubs.

This is the latest of three attacks on volunteers perpetrated in the past month.

Kim Lamberty, an American volunteer with Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), described the first attack against members of her organization on September 29: "We were escorting five children to school, when five masked figures dressed in black jumped out at us. The children began to run. I was knocked down and beat with a chain. I lay immobile so they would think I was dead."

Lamberty's arm and leg were broken. Her colleague Chris Brown was also hospitalized with a punctured lung. Last Wednesday, rocks were thrown at a single volunteer, who escaped unharmed.

Police say the attacks are not spontaneous outbreaks of violence, but rather the work of a well-organized group, whose members wear black, don ski masks and arm themselves with wooden clubs, chains and rocks. Jewish settlers in the area have long been harassing Palestinian residents. Palestinian children are afraid to go to school and many have dropped out.

The recent attacks are seen as an intensification of the violence. "Until now we were subjected to stone-throwing and spontaneous actions, but not a planned ambush," says Rabbi Arik Ascherman of Rabbis for Human Rights, another organization active in the area.

Activists also complain about police indifference to the attacks. "We lay waiting there for half an hour before the police came. We could have easily been killed," says Lamberty. No suspects have been detained yet "but if the assailants were Arabs they would have arrested the whole village and found the guilty parties" says Ezra Nawi, an activist with Ta'ayush Arab-Jewish partnership.

Over the past week the Israel Defense Forces has been discussing solutions with the residents of Tuba and with the peace activists. The IDF is demanding that the international volunteers leave, promising that soldiers would take over the job of escorting the children safely to school. But Palestinian children are afraid of the soldiers. "We don't trust the IDF to keep up the routine either," Nawi said.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 12:38 PM

Nothing is 'exactly the same' as anything else.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 12:32 PM

...and furthermore, for Israel to keep those lands after liberating them from the Jordanians is exactly the same thing as if the US kept Kuwait after liberating it from Saddam.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 12:24 PM

beardedbruce, in looking over your posts from last night, I am getting the impression that the way you talk about Israel being "punished", by "punished", you mean not be allowed to remove all Palestinians from the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, and annex those lands to Israel. That is not a punishment. Israel has no more legitimate claim to those lands than Saddam Hussein had to Kuwait. It is not a punishment for you to force someone who is stealing your stuff to stop doing it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 12:08 PM

Zarqawi group beheads two Iraqis working at US base: video
AFP: 1/21/2005

DUBAI, Jan 21 (AFP) - The group of Al-Qaeda frontman in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, posted a video on the Internet on Friday showing the beheading of two Iraqis after they "confessed" to working at a US base in the country.

The men identified themselves as Ali Hussein Jassem Mohammad al-Zubaidi and Ahmad Alwan Hussein al-Mahmadawi, both residents of Sadr City, a teeming Shiite slum in Baghdad.

They said they worked at a US base in Ramadi, a bastion of Sunni Muslim insurgents west of the Iraqi capital.

Zubaidi said he thought he would be working for a Lebanese company named Safwan, but found himself working at the US base. Both he and Mahmadawi, who said he was a "tanker driver," called on those who work with US forces to desist or face death.

After making their "confessions" in front of a banner carrying the name of Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda Group of Jihad in the Land of Two Rivers, the video showed each man having his head cut off.

The severed heads were held aloft by the men's slaughterers and put on their backs to shouts of Allahu Akbar, or God is greatest.

The grisly footage of the beheading, in which about four men appeared to be involved, was followed by a chilling written warning from the group that "anyone who helps the occupying enemy in any way" would meet the same fate.

The group of Zarqawi, Iraq's most-wanted man, has repeatedly posted such videos showing what it calls "the implementation of God's ruling" against Iraqi "apostates" or foreign hostages.

Another Al-Qaeda linked group calling itself the Army of Ansar al-Sunna has also often released such footage, most recently on Wednesday when it showed two Iraqi men being shot dead for working with a US firm on preparations for the January 30 elections.


01/21/2005 18:52 GMT - AFP

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 12:06 PM

That's not possible, beardedbruce. The Palestinians in Gaza have ZERO rights. If the Palestinians in Suadi Arabia or Kuwait also have zero rights, then that would mean that the Palestinians in Gaza and the Palestinians in Suadi Arabia or Kuwait have exactly the same rights.

I'm working on it Ooh-Aah2.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:43 AM

Waiting with baited breath CarolC....

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 02:00 AM

Palestinians in Gaza have more rights than those in Suadi Arabia or Kuwait.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 11:03 PM

But they are NOT allowed, and do not have those rights. So, will you put the same burden you seek to place on Israel on those Arab countries?

I think they do have full citizenship in Jordan, beardedbruce. But you bet... I support the idea that the countries that have already absorbed Palestinian refugees absolutely should give them citizenship, and all of the same rights as the other citizens of those countries. But I also would like to see Israeli Arabs having the same rights as Jews in Israel... something they most certainly do not have at this time.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:59 PM

"The refugees that are already in other countries whould be allowed to become citizens if they want to, and to enjoy all of the same rights as other citizens of those countries. "

But they are NOT allowed, and do not have those rights. So, will you put the same burden you seek to place on Israel on those Arab countries?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:53 PM

I see that I misunderstood you question. I don't advocate for removing any more Palestinians from their land. The refugees that are already in other countries whould be allowed to become citizens if they want to, and to enjoy all of the same rights as other citizens of those countries.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:48 PM

Are you talking about the Jews who were driven out of the Wet Bank, and should now be allowed to settle there?

First of all, most of the Jews who are settling in those areas are not Arabic Jews. Many of them, in fact, are from the US originally. Secondly, if Arabic Jews wanted to go back to those lands and live as Palestinian Jews, with the exact same rights and responsibilities as Christian and Muslim Palestinians (and not in segregated, Jewish only communities, accessed by Jewish only roads, guarded by the Israeli Defense Forces), I would be ecstatic! I would be incredibly happy about that, and I would totally support their desire to do it.

Basically TRUE- So where are YOU asking other ARAB nations to settle them as citizens, like the Israelis had to do with the Jewish refuges from Arab nations?

If I heard of any sort of movement that advocated for Arabic Jews who wanted to move back to their countries of origin, I would be right there with them (figuratively speaking), advocating for their right to go.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:38 PM

"So now you're saying that the people whose families have been living on and working that land for more than a thousand years should be punished for something that was done by Hashemite Jordanians? "

Are you talking about the Jews who were driven out of the Wet Bank, and should now be allowed to settle there?

"The Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem have absolutely no rights whatever. "

Basically TRUE- So where are YOU asking other ARAB nations to settle them as citizens, like the Israelis had to do with the Jewish refuges from Arab nations?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:35 PM

So now you're saying that the people whose families have been living on and working that land for more than a thousand years should be punished for something that was done by Hashemite Jordanians? The Jordanians cheated the Palestinians far more than they cheated the Arabic Jews. At least the Arabic Jews have Israel. The Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem have absolutely no rights whatever.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:33 PM

So, Israel should be punished because the other Arab countries did not show the same humanity to the Palestinians thet the Israelis showed to the ( larger number of) Jews that the Arabs kicked out?

Is that what YOU are sugesting?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:30 PM

Or perhaps Israel should treat the West Bank the same way as the Arabs did when they had control? At least now they are just putting in some settlements- If they acted as the Arabs did, there would be wholesale removal of ALL Arabs from the region. And not allow ANY access to Jeruselum.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:29 PM

But what you are suggesting is that the people who have been living on and working on the land in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem

This part should read like this:

But what you are suggesting is that the people whose families have been living on and working on the land in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem for more than a thousand years...

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:27 PM

beardedbruce, do you think you should be punished for something that people in other countries have done that you have had no control over? Of course not. But what you are suggesting is that the people who have been living on and working on the land in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem should be punished for the actions of the governments of countries over which thay have absolutely no control. This is collective punishment... one of the favorite tactics of the Nazis. It wasn't right when they did it, and it's not right for you to advocate it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:24 PM

CarolC, the problem is that who is going to give back the land that the Arabs took from the 800,000+ Jews? Or don't THEY have any rights?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:22 PM

So, the conclusion is that Israel has to give up land to the Arabs to make up for... What?

No. Israel doesn't have to give up any land. It just needs to stop taking it away from other people.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:16 PM

I'll reply to your equally ignorant post later, Ooh-Aah2.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:15 PM

You are amazingly ignorant of your own culture then, Martin. While goyishe may literally mean "non-Jew", you and I both know that in common usage, "goyishe" always indicates inferiority of whatever is being called "goyishe" in comparison to its Jewish counterpart. And we also both know that "shiksa" is a very special word that is used commonly on non-Jewish women who marry or become involved with Jewish men. But here's it's actual meaning:

"Shiksa and Shaygetz are the Yiddish derivative of the respective
feminine and masculine Hebrew words for something unclean, dirty.

Theappellations are customarily applied to gentiles who do things
inimical to Jewish interests, such as vandalizing Jewish buildings,
robbing Jewish kids of their lunch money, or becoming romantically
involved with Jews :-). The root is "sheketz", which refers to house
rodents and lizards. They impart ritual impurity, and therefore the
term lends itself to the same kind of idea. Some have taken to using
the term to refer to Christian women in general. If Christians were
using the term against Jews in English, they would be saying "Filthy
Jews" or "Dirty Jews", and we Jews would rightly be offended. Hence,
use of these terms should really be avoided; it is insulting and
inappropriate, even if no bad intent was behind the usage. It is
always better to use neutral, less pejorative (judgemental) terms,
such as non-Jew or Christian."

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/11-Miscellaneous/section-7.html

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:11 PM

dianavan,

as you mention above- "or who were forced out of Arab countries after Israel was founded"

Approx 820,000 Jews were forced out of Arab countries- and settled in Israel. And how many Jews remain in Arab territories?

Approx 640,000 Arabs left the area that became Israel- NOT all of the Arab population, as can be seen by the existing Israeli Arab population. How many were allowed to settle in any Arab country as citizens?

So, the conclusion is that Israel has to give up land to the Arabs to make up for... What?

And what did happen to the Jewish population of the West bank, between 1948 and 1967 when it was under Arab control?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:59 PM

Alomzo - Thanks for the update. The information I had was at least 10 years old. Its entirely possible that the conservative numbers have declined.

From your link above: "In Israel, a little more than half of all Jews are Mizrachim, descended from Jews who have been in the land since ancient times or who were forced out of Arab countries after Israel was founded. Most of the rest are Ashkenazic, descended from Jews who came to the Holy Land (then controlled by the Ottoman Turks) instead of the United States in the late 1800s, or from Holocaust survivors, or from other immigrants who came at various times. About 1% of the Israeli population are the black Ethiopian Jews who fled during the brutal Ethiopian famine in the late 1980s and early 1990s."

If I said the Ashkenazic Reform Jews of Israel are the most willing to make concessions to the demands of the Palestinians, would that be closer to the truth?

I wasn't raised in the Jewish culture so I'm just trying to figure this out. I do not, however, take anything Martin says as fact.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:09 PM

CarolC, I still insist you know very little about Jews and their religion and culture. And goyishe shicksa is in no way like nigger ho. It just merely is Yiddish for a gentile girl.

Your interpretation and remarks border on laughable. No wait. They don't border on it. They are!

There isn't a Jew within 100 miles of your trailer court CarolC and I believe, for very good reason.

I am very very sure that my landsmen on this forum, if they read your interpretation of this Yiddish phrase, would be laughing themselves silly over your completely idiotic and desparate accusation.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 05:36 PM

ooh aah: Re the last para: Carol shares your opinions, but at least she put together some references to back her up. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but if I'm understanding what you've written correctly, you are blaming the bombing victims for the horrors perpetrated on them. Are you making the same argument for the destruction of the World Trade Center and the attack on the school in Beslan? Are you willing to give some of the blame to the intransigence of the Arab governments who could have resettled every Palestinian since 1948 as Israel has resettled the Jews from Arab countries, Ethiopia, and the USSR?

The focus of the Arabs has not been to resettle Palestinians, it has been to get rid of the State of Israel. They Palestinians have been victimized by the Arabs much more than by Israel.

I consider this strictly a response to ooh aah. I'm not interested in turning this thread into an Arab-Israel thread. There are plenty of those elsewhere and you can start a new one any time you want.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 03:42 PM

Just come back to this thread - can't believe CarolC is still in her flower-scented dream-world re. the Muslims are no more disposed to violent fundamentalism than anyone else - oh pleeeeze Carol, wake up or shut up (fat chance I know). Do me one favour - travel as a solo woman in a Muslim country and then see if your attitudes don't change. My mother, a very unbigoted 58 year old woman who has been to India 15 times, including long spells as a nurse, was completely disgusted by the behaviour - violent, sexual, disrespectful - she encountered in Turkey, a very moderate Muslim country. She had no such problems in Greece, another nation of similar status in the same region noted for its machismo.

On the other hand I support Carol against that raving lunatic Gibson re Israel. I used to be passionately pro Israel out of sympathy over the holocaust and a visceral hatred of the Hamas-type Muslim loonies who would like to kill every person in the country, but now I regard it with deep disgust, despite not being in the least anti-Jewish - indeed I've met very few Jews. When young educated women start blowing up other women and children on buses something really stinks - they have been turned into monsters, and it was Israel's appalling repression and land-stealing that did it. Too bad that the macho Muslim culture can't bring itself to put away its guns and bombs and practise Gandhi-style civil disobedience - if these young Palestinian men are brave enough to blow themselves up you'd think they would be brave enough to sit in front of tanks - a few wet crunches on the TV, and the world would be firmly on their side. As it is Israeli aggression and colonisation by stealth can hide under the smoke-screen of a response to Muslim fanaticism.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 11:20 AM

What it boils down to is goyishe shiksas like dianavan and CarolC know very little about Judiasm, it's history, it's culture, it's mindset as a whole, and American Jews' relationship with Israel and their automatic birthright as citizens of that country.

You are incorrect in this supposition, Martin. I know enough about Jewish culture to know that the term "goyishe shiksa" is a bigoted (possibly racist), and certainly misogynistic perjorative, very much along the same lines as calling a Black woman a "Nigger ho'"

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:50 AM

Thank you Zilch. Reform vs. Reformed is a minor technicality. The URJ is the largest group. I've heard it referred both ways and there is no sense nitpicking.

Actually, I had heard that the Conservative movement was the fastest dwindling group.

What it boils down to is goyishe shiksas like dianavan and CarolC know very little about Judiasm, it's history, it's culture, it's mindset as a whole, and American Jews' relationship with Israel and their automatic birthright as citizens of that country.

however, not all of Reform Judiasm is left in it's thinking. There is a sizable and measurable independent and right leaning faction especially when it comes to support of current American politics. I would suggest that you read anything you can by Dennis Prager or listen to his syndicated radio show. He is openly a reform conservative Jew and judging from his popularity and common sense approach, has a following that sizably supports those views.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive)
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:55 AM

Martin Gibson said: "I belong to the largest Jewish organization in North America, the Union for Reformed Judiasm and attend their regional meetings."

I've often noticed you referring to "Reformed Judaism." The correct term is "Reform Judaism" and the name of the organiztion that serves as the umbrella for Reform congregations is the "Union for Reform Judaism." A small point, perhaps, but something that a Reform Jew would know.

Also, Reform Jews *tend* to be the most left-leaning of the major Jewish denominations. Yet your postings here consistently express a hard-right tilt. That's somewhat unusual for a Reform Jew.

Dianavan said: "In America, the conservative Jews outnumber the reformists. It is my understanding that the reform group in Israel (Ashkenazi), are the most willing to make concessions to the demands of the Palestinians."

No, you are wrong on several counts. Reform Judaism is, by far, the largest denomination, in North America. Conservative Judaism is the second biggest, Orthodox the third. Reconstructionist Judaism, to which I belong, is the smallest.

Your use of the term "Ashkenazi" is completely incorrect. Ashkenazic Jews (descendants of Jews exiled to Northern Europe in the post-Temple era) reflect the entire spectrum of denominations. For a basic primer on what differentiates Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews, you can visit this site.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 07:34 AM

and going back to the original theme, its about rights - who's rights?

Individuals have rights

do groups have rights

does a country have a right to impose a culture?

does a minority culture have a right to to keep aspects of that culture (eg child wives to middle aged men) based on tradition?

please consider..

individual rights and robust group rights

or Pitcairn sex abuse trial

these Islamic women have made a A Declaration of Women's Rights in Islamic Societies

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 07:17 AM

when considering those ideas i just posted, to criticise Israel is not to be antisemitic. Criticising a government's policy is different from criticising the people who live in that country.

however, when a statement like this is made..
"The problem before the Arab countries is not whether the port of Eilat should be blockaded or how to blockade it — but how totally to exterminate the State of Israel for all time". President Gamal Abdel Nasser

or this..

On March 3, 1977, the head of the PLO Military Operations Department, Zuhair Muhsin, told the Netherlands paper Trouw that there are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese:

"We are one people. Only for political reasons do we carefully underline our Palestinian identity. For it is of national interest for the Arabs to encourage the existence of the Palestinians against Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestine identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian State is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity."…

the motivations of these people are anti Israel BECAUSE they are antisemitic.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 07:01 AM

"It is much easier to claim the entire world is against us than to admit that the State of Israel, which rose as a refuge and a source of pride for Jews...has become a genuine source of danger and a source of shameful embarrassment to Jews who choose to live outside its borders." Akiva Eldar, in Ha'aretz

"When every civilian death is a war crime, that concept loses its significance. When every expulsion from a village is genocide, we no longer know how to recognize genocide. When Auschwitz is everywhere, it is nowhere." Peter Pulzer

"But equally, when anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing--the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance." excerpt from The Myth of the New Antisemitism by Brian Klug

BTW, some people call Alan Dershowitz the Professor of Torture

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 05:27 AM

dianavan I thought the difference between Ashkenazim and Sephardim was geographical and not doctrinal, so using it as a label for reform Judaism could be misleading.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 04:24 AM

Religion isn't the problem here, and probably never was. The cause of all the death and misery commonly attributed to religion is, in point of fact, Fundamentalism. Not the prerogative of any religion, but present in all, this insidious process is concerned with the narrowest interpretation of the message, whatever that may be, and is the cause of the belief that "My view of God's wishes for the human race is the only true one, and he who does not agree does not deserve to live". Fundamentalists are dangerous precisely because of their belief that they are right, and they are present in every religion, great or small, as a poisonous minority capable of outrageous acts of violence. So we should not blame the vast majority of any religious movement, for the actions of a small group of extremists.

BTW. Anyone who knows a little of the history of the Romans (bless 'em) will confirm that they did incorporate the Gods of other faiths into their own rituals, probably on the basis that, in a tough world, it's wiser not to make more enemies than you already have.

Perhaps some of todays religious leaders might consider following a rather good example, but even that won't clean out the extremists. Like all vermin, I fear they may be indestructible.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Bah humbug
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 03:39 AM

Religion = The go-ahead to talk to your invisible friend without fear of being branded a nutter.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 11:39 PM

Actually, Martin -

In America, the conservative Jews outnumber the reformists.

It is my understanding that the reform group in Israel (Ashkenazi), are the most willing to make concessions to the demands of the Palestinians.

The information I have may not be current, but its the best I have. If you disagree, please let me know.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 10:36 PM

Addendum to my last post...

You, person who posts in the Mudcat under the screen name of "Martin Gibson", you use the terms "anti-Israel", "anti-Jewish", and "anti-Semite" as tools of power, as weapons, and as tools of revenge. You use them against anyone who says anything you don't like, whether or not there is any legitimacy to the charges. You use them like a petty little dictator who needs to control everyone's behavior and to punish anyone who displeases you.

These are illigitimate uses of those terms. Those uses do not serve the interests of freedom, tolerance, equality of peoples, or of any of the higher principles that they are meant to be used in service of. On the contrary... the only interests your uses of those terms serve are your selfish little ego massaging, self-aggrandizing, temper tantrums... your only buffer between your massive insecurity and self-loathing, and the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 08:33 PM

Robomatic, you did not say the "Islamic world of the Middle East" in your post that I quoted. You said precisely this:

Western Christianity has done the most changing the most recently with what is commonly called the Enlightenment. Islam has not.

There s a vast difference between the "Islamic world of the Middle East" and "Islam".

Martin, there is a world of difference between criticizing the policies and practices of the government of Israel and "anti-Israel ANTI-JEWISH" anything. Anyone who fails to understand or acknowelege the difference between these two things is a BIGOT.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 04:48 PM

And the Progressive Muslims are obviously scared shitless of the fundamentalist Muslims. and I believe greatly outnumbered.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 04:36 PM

Robomatic:
Western Christianity has done the most changing the most recently with what is commonly called the Enlightenment. Islam has not.

Carol:
This is not true. Islam has the same kind of stratification that we see in pretty much all religions. There are progressive Muslims and there are fundamentalist Muslims. The progressive Muslims have brought Islam just as far into the present cultural paradigm as progressives of all of the other religions. It's the fundamentalists of all religions who are stuck in the past, including the fundamentalists in the Muslim religion. You're painting all Muslims with the same broad brush, while ignoring the presence (and influence) of backward fundamentalists in the other religions.

No, Carol, I'm stating an opinion supported by history. Europe went through more than one extremely bloody phase of religious warfare, but got past that by the sixteenth century (and went on to bloody stages of political and nationalistic warfare). The Middle East is dominated by top-down regimes in which religiously codified leaders exert dominance through a religiously dominated political, and educational system. There are significant departures but they are very recent compared to the Western world. The progressive Muslims to which you refer definitely exist, they have been influenced by their openness to the outside world. Similarly, the interaction with the economies of the West has introduced new modes of thought, but the Islamic world of the Middle East is not in the same place with the rest of the world, viz. a lot of our current problems.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 03:55 PM

I'm already there.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 03:29 PM

Martin, you need to reform yourself.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 02:43 PM

Oh boo hoo Carol C.    Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
The effect on you? How about the effect on ME, with all of your lopsided bull-head anti-Israel ANTI-JEWISH crap you spew here.

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!


dianavan you have no clue as to what "most" Jews think or want.

You perhaps know a couple, tops. I belong to the largest Jewish organization in North America, the Union for Reformed Judiasm and attend their regional meetings.

believe me, you continue to be amazingly clueless and uninformed.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 01:55 PM

Refugees who have fled their country to find peace in UK are not well equipped to teach their children english before starting school. But they are very good at survivng in war torn lands and protecting their children.

UK schools recieve extra funding for each child who's first language is not english. These extra coppers in the pot lead to misrepresentation by some schools. A child with one parent who may be english and another parent not being english, is more often than not put on the 'english as a second language' list, especially if their surname is foreign sounding, regardless of the fact that their mother is UK born and bred.

Yes it is manipulation of the true figures, but the schools benefit.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 01:12 PM

That doesn't really matter, John 'Giok' MacKenzie. The effect on me is the same either way.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 01:01 PM

Ah but would he do it to your face Carol?
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 12:55 PM

when i visited england last year, it was a shock to walk down the street and have men of a particular culture make obscene comments as i walked past

...I forgot to also mention Martin Gibson's almost daily practice of making obscene comments to me or about me right here in the Mudcat. In fact there is at least one right here in this thread.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 12:42 PM

We have similar problems in the UK regarding British born children starting school unable to speak English. Surely one of the responsibilities of a parent, is to present their child at school in a fit condition to be taught. The end result is that teachers end up teaching some pupils the language while other pupils languish, falling behind the national curriculum, while their classmates are brought up to speed. The end result is that all pupils get behind schedule. When I was an employer it was frightening to read written job applications, kids should not be leaving school unable to communicate either verbally or in writing.
Many kids don't think they need an education anyway, as they're soon going to make it big as a pop star, a sports superstar, win the lottery, or maybe even as a drug dealer, all with a big car,lots of jewellery, and all the pretty girls they want!
If only :~(
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 12:25 PM

when i visited england last year, it was a shock to walk down the street and have men of a particular culture make obscene comments as i walked past

Freda, I've had that same experience, or similar ones with men of many different cultures (the most shocking for me, because of cultural stereotypes I held at that time, came from a man who was Amish).

Western Christianity has done the most changing the most recently with what is commonly called the Enlightenment. Islam has not.

This is not true. Islam has the same kind of stratification that we see in pretty much all religions. There are progressive Muslims and there are fundamentalist Muslims. The progressive Muslims have brought Islam just as far into the present cultural paradigm as progressives of all of the other religions. It's the fundamentalists of all religions who are stuck in the past, including the fundamentalists in the Muslim religion. You're painting all Muslims with the same broad brush, while ignoring the presence (and influence) of backward fundamentalists in the other religions.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 10:56 AM

We have a lot of problems in Germany with Non-German and with German foreigners (you'll understand that later). For a fairly big part of that problem our own politics is to blame. We did close the eyes to that growing problem for more than thirty years. We lived in the illusion that we are not an immigration country and that the foreign workers and their children and grandchildren (knowing no other home than Germany) would eventually go back where they came from.

Therefore, there was no offer at all for integration: no language courses (why should they learn German when they go back anyway?), no courses about cultural background (German law and all that). Left and Right, for differing reasons, made the same error. For the Right, only the blood line determined who was German and not the place of birth and therefore any help for integration would be the wrong path. Incentives to go back was their way. For the Left, a multi-cultural Germany was a dream and therefore any help for (or, heavens beware, pressure to) integration would would only level loveable differences. Money to support cultural differences was their way and they close their eyes and ears (well, nobody understood them anyway) to preachers of hate financed by German multi-cultural monies.

Slowly, it dawns upon the Right that a third generation kid from Turkish workers with no knowledge of any language except German and a bit of English but a passport from Turkey could safely been regarded as an immigrant. They even start to realise that the idea of blood line determining the 'Germanship' instead of who has grown up here is a relict from dark times and should be eliminated from our laws.

Slowly, it dawns upon my Left that, for instance, bad treatment of women, forced marriages, honour killings of sisters by brothers, violence in families cannot be excused on the long run by a cultural difference. They start realising that a mild pressure to learn German and to cultural integration, not on the level of food, folklore, and all that, but on the level of liberal values and fairly liberal laws is a good thing.

No, I don't want to give up our liberal ideas on personal (and not familial) choices, on sexual orientation, on freedom to criticise any belief system to preachers of hate (of whatever religion, but in our present situation most of them are Muslim) who only wait for the day when they can impose their illiberal ideas upon us.

There will always be fanatical preachers from different faiths, but one reason that the few Christians of that ilk we have are laughed about and that's it but that the Muslim preachers find open ears among young Muslims in Germany is that for far too many years we have treated them as second class citizens who will go away sooner or later. Treat someone as a second class person with no real chance to make his way in our society and he may start to listen to extreme propaganda.

That's how we helped making that problem we now deplore.

In addition to that we have fanatical Neonazis prone to physical violence (in particular in the former GDR), German foreigners ('blood-line' Germans with one German great-grandparent coming over mostly from Russia) with a German passport and no knowledge of German who have grown up in a climate of physical violence (who clash violently with German speaking Turks without German passport) and Ghettos.

In too many schools the German speaking kids are a minority. Imagine teaching a first class in which you can't communicate with two third of the pupils (that's about the highest percentage in my town, but there are higher percentages in other towns) whether they have a German passport or not. The Europeans may know about the PISA-study and which countries' pupils were better (Finland, for instance) or worse (Luxemburg, for instance). By far the best predictor how good one's country's pupils were was the percentage of foreigners in that country. If it was low, the pupils were good, if it was high, the pupils were bad. Two notable exception (I won't go into the reasons for that): Britain was better than it's percentage of foreigners let expect and Greece was worse. Within the country (in Germany, I don't know about others) the same picture: the higher the percentage of pupils who were not native speakers of German the lower the performance. And that was true even for the German speaking pupils. Those with many non-German speaking peers were worse than German speaking pupils in other courses. In my town, even some Turkish parents now send their kids to schools in other (German) districts in a private attempt to integration.

Most of that mess is due to a failure of politics. The mixture of problems is dangerous but there is still a lot of hope that a politic pushing (and financing) integration may isolate the extremists. Whether the extremists themselves or our reaction to them would make our country less liberal, it would be a loss.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 09:38 AM

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (While only 10 percent of the population is non-Dutch, this group accounts for more than 60 percent of abortions, "because the Muslim girls are kept ignorant," she said.)

has taken again her place in the Dutch parliament after a two months break despite the four pages long death threat letter fixed to the breast of the murdered film maker Van Gogh. If she would know the punishment waiting for her she'd wish to be dead already the letter said.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 08:51 AM

Germany too has its' problems, they actively recruited train loads of Turks to work in the car factories etc. then when there was an economic downturn they couldn't encourage them to leave fast enough. I did hear that resettlement grants were offered to immigrants to make going back more attractive. One way they got round the problem of these incomers causing problems was to refuse them full German citizenship which meant they had no vote and no civic right. I think this has now changed. You still see Moslems spreading their prayer mats every where, even by the roadside, and passers-by seem not to notice, whether this means they are fully integrated I don't know, I only know that of the few German cities I've been in most of them seem to have an immigrant quarter/ghetto.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 08:12 AM

There has been so much thread drift here that I'm tempted to just say whatever the hell I want to say right now, but I'm satisfied with my current recipe for French bread and I'll keep this tight:

Freda: I've heard some of that talk about Al-BERT Einstein and his first wife Mileva. It seems to come from a bigoted website attributed to a noxiously anti-semitic Serb. Einstein's theories were incontrovertibly Einstein's. That doesn't make him the world's best husband and father, he was not! He owed a great deal to alot of people, as did Sir Isaac Newton, whose famous phrase, "If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants." would be equally appropriate to Einstein. Einstein seemed to be quite willing to share credit where appropriate. There are fine female scientists and mathematicians. There's a guy at Harvard (Massachusetts, USA) who is in trouble for comments he made about women in the sciences.

Islam: Islam is like any other religion, one of the basic things that any starting cult has to do is creat a separation between it and the outside world, counteracted by the ability to resist internal cleavages. Some religions (and sects) do this better than others. Religions go through stages, initial organization and definition, rooting out of heretics, growth through reproduction, invasion, conversion, and adaptation to the changing world.

Western Christianity has done the most changing the most recently with what is commonly called the Enlightenment. Islam has not. Islam is six hundred years younger than Christianity. The Book "A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush" mentions the last holy war of conversion, taken against tribes of bandits in the mountains of Afghanistan int he late 19th century. It was convert or be beheaded. Are we going to have to wait six hundred years for Islam to come around? No, that would be a culturally pigheaded thing to believe. Islam will come around a bit faster than that, but not easilly. In the meantime we're gonna have to pay some attention to the religious blowhards of all pursuasions who believe it's alright to kill in the name of (insert deity here).

Christianity has only been a halfway decent religion with a certain amount of open-mindedness, for what, forty years, tops. And there are whole states in the US where Charles Darwin (Saint Chuck) couldn't get elected dog catcher.

There's plenty of intolerance to go around. And intolerance breeds intolerance. In fact, the toughtest position to maintain is that of tolerance beset by intolerance. It is by no means an automatic winner.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Schizoid
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 08:00 AM

If you are desperate to be able to talk to an imaginary friend without the fear of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital - find religion! - any!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 07:41 AM

hey, wasnt this thread about Muslim intolerance? now its morphed into israel/palestine.

back to the original theme - i respect Carole, Kevin and others who are strongly standing up against people who make generalisations about a particular race/religion.

but on the other hand, i also have to acknowledge Giok, Ooh AAh and Wolfgang for confronting some hard realities. when i visited england last year, it was a shock to walk down the street and have men of a particular culture make obscene comments as i walked past.

its interesting, in consideration of the comments made about germans here and there on this thread, that Germany has taken in a huge number of refugees, more than any other country in europe i think. and the clash of lifestyles and beliefs is playing out there and all over the world now.

yes, the rights and freedoms we have are hard won, and very fragile. we must do everything to uphold civil liberties.

just this week (here in australia i think), a professor of maths at a university conference said that he believed that men were genetically better at maths than women. Under his control, the number of women employed in his faculty had dropped considerably.

and you all know what they found out when alfred einstein and his first wife's letters were studied after their death - there is now a bunch of people who reckon SHE developed the theories. They certaionly referred to them as "our" theories in their letters to each other. and she had come top in her class at university from the start, whereas he performed dismally until he got together with her.

so maybe women CAN be good at maths (i'm not

freda

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 05:25 AM

As a matter of interest
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 01:20 AM

Martin, you do not represent the opinion of all Jews. You are not the voice of Israel. Obviously, not all Jews think alike and most Jews have stopped using persecution and hatred as an excuse for spewing hatred and violence toward others. Most Jews are able think logically and are not driven by paranoid delusions.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 11:55 PM

They're not lies, Martin.

And where people like you and I disagree is that you believe that you have to kill all of your enemies in order to survive, while I believe that it is not possible to kill all of one's enemies, because killing people creates more enemies.

Hamas would have very little power amongst the Palestinians if they (the majority of Palestinians) had something to hope for and to want to protect from extremists like Hamas. This is proven by the direct correlation between the rise in violence committed against Palestinians by the government of Israel, and concurrent rise in support for Hamas.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 11:34 PM

Lies, Carol. The Jews who do not support Israel are in a small minority. Tell your story to Hamas. The Hamas mentality will not go away until it is extinquished. Get rid of the Hamas mentality and there will be a chance for peace.

Whatever it takes to do that. The Hamas mentality will not be happy until there is no longer an Israel. So, it's us or them. Deal with that.

You honestly do not know what you are talking about, as you have never been a Jew who has been persecuted and hated for that very reason.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 11:26 PM

He's a self-hating Jew, Martin?

Are you also disputing the Israeli historians who have discredited Peters' book?

There is one thing I do know. There are many Jews who believe that what's best for Israel is not necessarily the same thing as what you believe is best for Israel, and what the government of Israel believes is best for Israel. It is possible to be a supporter of Israel, while disagreeing with the policies and practices of the Israeli government. I consider myself to be one such person.

And I also know that it is possible to be a suppporter of Israel while at the same time being honest about the real history of that region. In fact, there are many people, Jews as well as others, who believe that is the only way to accomplish real peace with Justice there.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 11:13 PM

Bobert, apples and oranges.

I'm not talking about Bush here like you and your butt buddy Amos are so obsessed with. I am talking about Israel and Jews, which you have exhibited that you know very little about.

Carol C. Norman Finkelstein has no creditionals and is the type of Jew I mentioned previously who has a major problem with his own identity. The link and article you frantically did a search for is complete bullshit. This moron obviously hates that he has a Jewish mother.

I also believe Carol C. that you know nothing at all about Israel and the Jewish experience.

Listen to top Jewish radio talk show hosts like Michael Praqer and Michael Medved. You will hear some true intellectuals who like Dershowitz, have some insightful thoughts.

Not Normie-baby Finkelstein. Man you'll post any link and say it's credible. You got your education obviously from the Internet and know very little about real life. That was a great example.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 10:32 PM

Alan Dershowitz may be an excellent attorney, but he is a very poor historical scholar (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he is not any sort of historical scholar). His book uses (or plagiarizes, as the case may be) as it's main source of historical evidence a book that is widely acknowleged by historians, including Israeli historians, as a fraud:

"In 1984, Joan Peters published From Time Immemorial, which claimed that Palestine was virtually empty on the eve of Zionist colonization, and that Palestinians are in fact foreigners who surreptitiously entered Palestine after the Zionists "made the desert bloom." The book is now widely recognized as a fraud. Baruch Kimmerling (of the Hebrew University) and Joel S. Migdal, in their authoritative study, Palestinians: The Making of a People, published by Harvard University Press, observe that Peters's book is "based on materials out of context, and on distorted evidence," and, citing my own conclusion that the book "is the most spectacular fraud ever published on the Arab-Israeli conflict," report that "similar evaluations were expressed by notable historians" in Israel and Europe.

Dershowitz states that he uses only a "few sources" cited in the Peters hoax. In fact, fully 22 of the 52 endnotes in chapters 1-2 are lifted straight from her without any form of attribution. In his defense, Dershowitz claims that no foul play is involved because he checked Peters's original sources before citing them, a laughable argument were an undergraduate to make it before a plagiarism committee. Dershowitz focuses on a lengthy citation from Mark Twain to argue this point. Yet, although Dershowitz reproduces Peters's page references to Twain's book in his own endnote, the relevant quotes do not appear on these pages in the edition of Twain's book that Dershowitz cites. Furthermore, Dershowitz cites two paragraphs from Twain as continuous text, just as Peters cites them as continuous text, but in Twain's book the two paragraphs are separated by 87 pages. It would be impossible for anyone who checked the original source to make this error."

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id142.htm

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 09:25 PM

And perhaps a good read for you, Martin, is Dershowitz's "Supreme Injustice, How the High Court Hyjacked Election 2000"

End of sidebar...

Bobert

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 09:07 PM

Alan Dershowitz a distinquished Harvard professor if I am not mistaken dianavan, is one of the most well respected writers in the Jewish community, makes your arguements look like the name calling no-nothing about the subject that you are.

I dare you to read his book but you can't because you are so full of hate for Israel and the Jewish people who support it.

So, you remain a completely uninformed and biased Israel basher and as Dershowitz would say, most definately an anti-semite who has no idea what Israel means to Jews across the world.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 08:56 PM

There are no fanatical religions... just fanatical people.

Bobert

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 08:39 PM

Alan Dershowtiz is a plagiarist and a slime ball.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 05:43 PM

I prefer the law of averages in situations like this one, Wolfgang, since it is impossible to produce enough empirical evidence to prove anything one way or another. And for the same reason, neither can my assertion be disproven.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 05:37 PM

You can't get a rise out of her, wolfgang.

That meat went numb.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 05:35 PM

I always care for empirical facts, Carol, mostly more than for opinions. I would have appreciated facts. I got new opinions. That's a pity, in my thinking.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 05:09 PM

dianavan, if you read the book "The Case for Israel" by the distinguished lawyer Alan Dershowtiz, you will see that it is completely impossible to not support Israel and not also be anti-semetic.

Read the book. You will have no arguement. the case is laid out very plainly and with complete common sense.

Only a few radical Jews do not support Israel. a very small minority who hate their own religion and do not practice it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 04:01 PM

That's a pity.

Why a pity, Wolfgang? It's not like you actually care about what I say other than whatever satisfaction you get out of being a troll and trying to get a rise out of me.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 03:33 PM

No documentation or link for the 'fact'? That's a pity.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jan 05 - 12:49 PM

You're right, Wolfgang. A very successful argument could probably be made that "Christians" have committed more reprehensible acts per capita over the history of that religion than any other, but I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 18 Jan 05 - 09:53 AM

I'm curious, Carol, have you any link to statistics or studies of what you call a fact (no greater per capita number of reprehensible acts...)?

I have no empirical knowledge on any relationship between religion and number of crimes but I would consider it very likely that religion, like nearly all other cultural or biological contexts, also influences the number of per capita crimes. Incidence of crimes is rarely statistically independent of age, gender, social standing of the offender. So why should it be independent in the case of religion?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Jan 05 - 01:52 AM

Exactly right, Carol.

I oppose the fanatical Muslim clerics who use their religion to enslave women and keep them behind the veil. That does not mean I hate Muslim people.

I also oppose George Bush. That does not mean I hate Christians.

I also oppose the State of Israeli politics. That does not mean I hate Jews.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jan 05 - 12:22 AM

pdq, I have never denied that there are Muslims who commit reprehensible acts. And for you to suggest otherwise incredibly dishonest. What I have been saying, and I continue to maintain, is the fact that:

1. the percentage of reprehensible acts committed per capita by Muslims is no greater than that of any other major monotheistic religion, as well as people of no religion, and:

2. that the reprehensible acts committed by people who are not Muslim are no less reprehensible than those committed by Muslims.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: pdq
Date: 17 Jan 05 - 10:34 PM

Here you go, CarolC,

      
         just another day for 'the religion of peace'

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 16 Jan 05 - 01:31 PM

Thank you, Carol.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: pdq
Date: 15 Jan 05 - 01:31 PM

"As Georges Braque has observed, 'Truth exists — only falsehood has to be invented'. "

Wow, great qoute, GUEST. Has anyone got Dan Rather's email address so I can send it to him?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jan 05 - 01:04 PM

Rule of thumb: check the dictionary

CMAJ 1998;158:1014


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the article "MDs have key role in bringing ugly secret of wife abuse out of closet" (CMAJ 1997;157[11]:1579-81 [full text / en bref]), by Nicole Baer, I was most perplexed to read the old chestnut that the expression "rule of thumb" is derived from an American law permitting a husband to thrash his wife with a "rattan no wider than his thumb." Although the derivation seems plausible, your readers can be thankful that this macabre yarn is a fabrication, first published in July 1986 in a letter to Ms. magazine from the creative mind of Claire Bride Cozzi. Within only 11 years even that version has evolved: Cozzi cited an undated "English common law" permitting a man to chastise his wife with a "switch" that was to be "no thicker than his thumb."
The true derivation of the term "rule of thumb" has never been in doubt. As the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles indicates, a rule of thumb is "a method or procedure derived entirely from practice or experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly practical method." It first appeared in 1692. In his book Not Guilty, D. Thomas explored the origins and significance of this persistent urban myth.1 As Georges Braque has observed, "Truth exists — only falsehood has to be invented".

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jan 05 - 04:02 PM

If you have heard the phrase "rule of thumb" its origin comes from a guide line in 20th century America that discouraged beating your wife with any stick that had a diameter greater than your thumb.

True tolerence is always a challenge but zero tolerence laws and gulde lines certainly don't help.

Even the KKK realizes that they have a great deal in common with fundamentalist intolerent Muslims.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/judge.gif

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jan 05 - 01:21 PM

Well, it might be a start, Carol C.

DougR

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jan 05 - 01:11 PM

Nice posts, Chanteyranger.

Ok. I have read the earlier post from McGrath about bowling and I now understand DougR's reference to it. So if we all go bowling together, what we will be able to establish is what sort jof bias we each have in our balls. Hmmmm... Yes, I'm sure that will settle everything.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 14 Jan 05 - 02:29 AM

....and it was the Hindhu Gandhi's example that inspired the Christians ML King, Jr. and Jim Lawson to mesh Christian pacifism with practical techniques of mass nonviolent action.

Chanteyranger

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 14 Jan 05 - 02:17 AM

Religious intolerance is a part of history, and our world today, we all know that. If there never were monotheistic religions, I'm sure murderous fanaticism would have taken another form. It already has. It's name was Communist totalitarianism and Nazism. The millions murdered in Nazi occupied countries, Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China, not to mention Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge were not killed by those purporting to practice monotheistic religions. It could be argued, though, that the same sort of fanatical mindset is at play in those who do murder innocents in the name of their twisted versions of religion, as it is in those who murder on non-religious or anti-religious beliefs and ideologies.

let's not forget that Christianity also spawned a significant part of pacifism and nonviolent action. Gandhi cited Jesus's teachings as a major influence, and we know that ML King, Jr. and many other significant activists in the civil rights movement (not all, I know) cite their belief in Christian nonviolence, and their training in, for example, Rev. Jim Lawson's workshops in how to apply Christian nonviolence to practical purposes.
Religion has always brought out some of the best AND the worst in humanity, depending on how one interprets or misinterprets it, and depending on how it is part and parcel of politics, and of people who are desperate psycopaths who murder in its name.

Chanteyranger

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jan 05 - 12:56 AM

Hey, Wolfgang, you're one up on me! I've never been bowling! (Well maybe a couple of times fifty years ago but I was a terrible bowler). However, since Carol C. doesn't even know what we are talking about, she should be a easy Mark, since you have bowled, atleast once, Perhaps McGrath will be too! Was it he, that brought the subject up, or was it you? I don't remember. We can be sure, though, that Kevin will know.

:>)
DougR

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Jan 05 - 06:16 PM

BTW, since last year May I know where Harlow is (I mean closer than "somewhere in England"). When Dave Bryant (and Essex girl) took Susanne and me from the airport to Hull (a very interesting town, BTW, a musical gem) we passed a sign pointing to Harlow with a single digit distance and I asked "Is that that<(b> Harlow?" It was and now I know.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 05 - 05:31 PM

I used to go bowling when I was younger. But I discovered that I am incredibly bad at it. So I gave it up.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Jan 05 - 05:29 PM

It could be fun, Doug ("I show you my bias when you show me yours"). They pay for the transport and I for the bowling court(?). The laugh would be on me I guess, for it would be the second time in my life going bowling.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 13 Jan 05 - 05:05 PM

And you shave and wear a turbin, also.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 05 - 05:03 PM

I pay taxes, Martin.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 05 - 05:03 PM

Actually, my last post is incorrect. Some of the more strict Muslims do not shave. Many Muslim men do shave.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 13 Jan 05 - 04:48 PM

Well, Carol C. you ought to go into the turban business. You could make a good buck at it and pay a few taxes while you are at it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 05 - 04:43 PM

Hindus shave. Muslim men do not shave. My understanding is that Hasidic Jews do not shave either, so I am a bit puzzled about why that would be an issue with you. Hindus and Muslims value cleanliness very highly, and they do bathe.

DougR, I'm still trying to figure out what you meant when you said what you did about bowling. So far, no luck.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 13 Jan 05 - 04:10 PM

I know they are allergic to shaving and perhaps bathing.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 05 - 03:18 PM

Sikhs believe in a single, Formless God, with many names, who can be known through meditation.

sounds like Islam more than Hindu

>>> "Sikhs have rejected the caste system of the Hindu religion."

again, more Islamic than Hindu

Not really. It looks to me like you don't really know very much about either Islam or Hinduism.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Jan 05 - 02:23 PM

I have an idea how the controversy about the meaning of bias could be settled Wolfgang. Why don't you invite McGratha and Carol C. to go bowling with you? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: pdq
Date: 13 Jan 05 - 01:28 PM

...from CarolC's link:


>>> "Sikhs believe in a single, Formless God, with many names, who can be known through meditation.  This concept is similar to Islam whose followers believe in a single God who has 99 names. Only he can be worshiped."

sounds like Islam more than Hindu

>>> "Sikhs have rejected the caste system of the Hindu religion."

again, more Islamic than Hindu

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 13 Jan 05 - 12:12 PM

Thanks for the links. It was very interesting to read about the Sikh history (completely new to me, I even didn't know even roughly how old that religion was).

One part of their history I now read about may possibly explain why they moved to India: All or (if I have overlooked one) nearly all their martyrs they list have been killed for declining becoming Muslims and by Muslims. So they may have looked to a (from their historical perspective) more tolerant context to live in.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 05 - 10:34 PM

Here's a site that calls itself The Sikhism Homepage. It does not mention any links to Islam, or links to Muslim practices. In fact, it specifically says it is not in any way related to Islam. It also says it is not in any way related to Hinduism, so I may have been wrong in that respect.

What I find noteworthy in this site... Sikhism :History, beliefs, practices, etc. (Religious Tolerance.org)

...is this part...

"An invasion by Great Britain triggered the Sikh Wars (1845-1849). The British successfully gained control over all of India. After independence in 1947, occupied India was partitioned on religious grounds into a mostly Muslim Pakistan and mostly Hindu India. A mass migration of Sikhs from Pakistan to India and a reverse migration of Muslims resulted, with immense loss of life. Some Sikhs have been seeking an independent homeland since the late 1940's."

The fact that the Sikhs left Pakistan and moved to India suggests that this sentance by you...

Gradually the Sikhs took on more Moslem traits until they could better be called an offshoot is Islam.

Is probably incorrect.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 05 - 08:43 PM

I did not see any mention of what you have posted in any of my searches on Sikhism, pdq. Can you provide me with some links or other sources for your information?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jan 05 - 08:39 PM

CarolC,

You are only partially correct. Yes, the Sikh religion was invented in India and has some connections to Hinduism, but your statement is misleading    .

The Sikhs started about 500 years ago as an attempt to put an end to centuries of feuding between Hindus and Moslems. Founders incorporated portions of each religion and they expected, as the story goes, to draw many of the warring people together and help find common ground. That did not happen and it became a third hostile constituency.

The Sikh religion is monotheistic as is Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and Islam. Hindus are polytheistic. Some estimate as many as 33 thousand major and minor spirits wth no person knowing them all.   

Gradually the Sikhs took on more Moslem traits until they could better be called an offshoot is Islam.

Politically, they the enemies of the Hindus. Sikh leaders have demanded a separate homeland carved out of India. This will be a big story sometime in the future as their Moslem friends in next door in Pakistan will likely join in an armed struggle. They will both support any actions that weaken India.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 05 - 02:17 PM

That's really what it's all about, I mean what other religion murders people who criticise it, justly or otherwise?

Well, now we know that some extremist Sikhs (an offshoot of Hinduism) will at least threaten the same thing.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 12 Jan 05 - 02:14 PM

...fixing at the breast of the murdered man a note who will be murdered next: former Muslim and now secularist Hirsi Ali. (in my post from 08 Nov 04 - 12:09 PM)

That was no empty threat. The Dutch police have prevented one murder attempt by Islamists against this brave woman in New Years Night they have announced today.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Dec 04 - 12:08 PM

That's really what it's all about, I mean what other religion murders people who criticise it, justly or otherwise? We all have to learn to take criticism, and fundamentalist Moslems should not be an exception to this.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Daisycutter
Date: 02 Dec 04 - 12:02 AM

Dutch Muslim woman is in hiding after killing of van Gogh

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Dec 04 - 03:48 PM

Im amazed that after all the work put in by campaigners for better working conditions , we now feel it desirable to extend working hours, with all the strains this puts on relationships.
And most importantly, the detrimental effect on our happiness and fulfillment.

This system stinks.    Is everybody blind as well as stupid.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 04 - 03:00 PM

In England we've got fewer "bank holidays" than in most if not all other European countries, so it's not quite the same.

Cutting down holidays to "raise productivity" seems a pretty daft idea to me. I'm sure that people more than make up for that kind of thing by feeling more entitled to skive off at other times. I'd be very surprised if there was any overall "increased productivity". Even aside from the fact that I think it wouldn't be worth it even if there was.

One suggestion going around these days is introducing prayer breaks to take account of practicing Muslims. I would hope that most workers would welcome the idea, as a way of defending and extending the tradition of tea-breaks for all.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Dec 04 - 02:40 PM

I can understand that this point looks puzzling to you, McGrath, but it was (1) the bad timing and (2) the persons involved which made that suggestion be met with derision.

We were (and still are) in a very heated debate whether we could (should) not give up some of our holidays in order to increase Germany's productivity (the main theme from the employers' organisations: we all should work more). We have already given up one Christian holiday some years ago, and at least two more of them are under attack. Just some weeks ago the plan by our minister for the economy and by Schroeder himself that our national holiday should always be on a Sunday was only turned down by a public outcry from left to right and by the Green party and ministers threatening to vote with the opposition.

And in this situation the suggestion by the two politicians came a bit untimely. Schroeder had not yet forgotten that just a few days before the Green party had helped to bring down his plan of having our national holiday always at a Sunday, so he had his revenge by doing to minister Trittin what the name does suggest (Tritt ihn = kick him). They have never liked each other and I'm fairly sure Trittin only supported Stroebele to get even with Schroeder for something else.

Stroebele has also a very clear personal interest: He has been elected as a direct Green candidate (the only direct candidate not from one of the big two parties winning a constituency since ages, perhaps 1953) in his constituency after his party had not nominated him as a candidate for the Green list in Berlin (half of our MPs come from party lists and not from constituencies). Of course, he'd like to be reelected (and it will be a very close race) and he knows that there are more Muslim voters in his constituency than in any other in Germany. His chances to be nominated for the Green list are close to nil. On the other hand, Stroebele could be serious, it would fit into his character.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 04 - 01:41 PM

Interesting article, Wolfgang. One thing puzzled me - "Green Party politician Hans-Christian Stroebele and fellow party member Juergen Trittin proposed adding a Muslim holiday to the German calendar. It was a ridiculous suggestion that was greeted with general derision and Trittin was rebuked by none other than Chancellor Schroeder himself."

Why on Earth is that a "ridiculous suggestion" inviting "general derision" and a "rebuke"? It sounds a perfectly sensible idea, well worth considering, even if in the end the politicians decided against it.

Aside from everything else, wouldn't an extra day off work for everyone because it's a Muslim holiday be the kind of thing that would make non-Muslim Germans feel quite pleased. I suspect that would be how it would work in England.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Dec 04 - 01:07 PM

How do you know I'm not an intellectual posing as trailer court trash?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 Dec 04 - 12:24 PM

And you CarolC are trailer court trash posing as an intellectual.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Dec 04 - 12:10 PM

I was wrong. What you are, Ooh-Aah2, is a troll posing as a bigot.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Dec 04 - 06:42 AM

Fighting the Preachers of Hate (an article from a moderately left German magazine in English translation)

"We must take advantage of democracy to further our cause."...
People were too worried that criticism of Islamists could be misinterpreted as xenophobia....
useless infidels whose armpits stink because they don't shave...
How far should tolerance of such hate preachers go?...
"cowboy discussion in which everyone is shooting from the hip"

That article gives you a good overview about the discussion in Germany and how it has been affected by the murder of van Gogh by a Muslim extremist.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 30 Nov 04 - 03:09 AM

I don't know if there's an internet equivalent of verbal diahorrea, but if there is Carol C has got it bad! The rest of us give up not because we are convinced by her arguments, which are wishful-thinking and blinkered in the extreme, but because we don't wish to spend the rest of our lives staring into a screen. (Stand by for a lengthy missive full of cut and pastes 'proving' that I did/didn't say this that or the other, and using the word 'bigot' at least twice).

Now I'll make my bigoted way off to a meeting of the Australia-Tibet council, being sure to insult any Muslims I see on the way. Whoops! I support a universal franchise, women's rights, religious freedom, free speech, free dress, sexual choice and gay liberation, so I guess I've already pissed off most of them! What a funny old bigot I am!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 05:12 AM

Nuke 'em and get it over with.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 02:25 PM

Easy to see how wars start init..?

:D

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 02:16 PM

Actually, McGrath, I don't recall ever using that quote from Wolfgang to indicate that he has a bias against Palestinians. My use of it in this thread had nothing whatever to do with a bias against anybody. That was an assumption (did you see that word, Wolfgang? assumption) on Wolfgang's part. My use of it in this thread was of the sacred cow sort. If he has a bias "on this subject" (no mention of the word against), that could explain why he is so unable to see the posts that preceed mine and to which I am responding when make posts about Israel. It is an example of a blind spot caused by one's bias in favor of one particular group. And that was my only reason for bringing up that quote from Wolfgang in this thread. Any other meaning Wolfgang chose to get from it was his own bullshit that he was projecting onto me.

Or as he would put it (and as he so often does), Wolfgang is making assumptions and selling them as truth.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 02:05 PM

Beam and mote I'd say.

In light of this post from you, Wolfgang, I'd say you're right on the money with the beam and mote analogy.

I'd appreciate if from now on you would not infer about me that a pro Israel bias means that I must as a consequence have an anti-Muslim anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian bias. You're making assumptions, Carol, and sell them as truth.

Especially considering the fact that the whole paragraph is an assumption on your part.

A fairly significant percentage of the posts you make to the BS section of the Mudcat seem to be for the purpose of criticizing other people's behavior; behavior that you are far more guilty of than those you are criticizing. Perhaps the day will come when the beam is removed from your eye, Wolfgang, and perhaps then a discussion with you that has some actual substance can take place. I'm not holding my breath, however. After more than four years of your bullshit, I've had enough. You are, without a doubt, the one Mudcatter I hope I never have to meet.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 01:59 PM

This is getting a bit silly, and also needlessly ill-tempered.

It seemed to me that Carol's paraphrase was a fair enough one. Wolfganf said he had a bias in favour of Israel, and Carol took that as an indication that he had a bias against the Palestinians and those who supported their cause. That seemed a reasonable way of understanding his words, and I do not think it was fair to accuse her of twisting them. If there was a misunderstanding, it was a reasonable misunderstanding.

I don't think sneering and ridiculing and insulting the people we are in disagreement with is a sensible or helpful way to proceed. There are too many people on the Mudcat who appear not to know any other way of indicating disagreement, but neither Wolfgang nor Carol normally fall into that category.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 01:35 PM

This is getting a bit silly, and also needlessly ill-tempered.

It seemed to me that Carol's paraphrase was a fair enough one. Wolfganf said he had a bias in favour of Israel, and Carol took that as an indication that he had a bias against the Palestinians and those who supported their cause. That seemed a reasonable way of understanding his words, and I do it think it was fair to accuse her of twisting them. If there was a misunderstaning, it was a reasonable misunderstanding.

I don't think sneering and ridiculing and insulting the people we are in disagreement with is a sensible or helpful way to proceed. There are too many people on the Mudcat who appear not to know any other way of indicating disagreement, but neither Wolfgang nor Carol normally fall into that category.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 12:04 PM

Carol,

using les mots gros makes no impression on me. But if you feel better this way it's fine with me.

I won't go on here for you just rant with your misinterpretations and putting words in my mouth. The ability to read is fine but not much use when it is not accompanied by the ability to understand.

Just one last word here: Checking the facts is really easy with a computer with a search function.

Wolfgang, you're the one who brought the subject of Israel into this thread. Follow your own advice and go back and reread some of your posts in this thread. (Carol)

Ariel Sharon has been threatened with assasination by many people in Israel as a result of his work toward removing Israeli settlements in Gaza. was actually the first post in this thread mentioning Israel. Who do you guess did write it? You, Carol.

Beam and mote I'd say.



McGrath,

I trust you that that word once has been used in bowling, though my dictionary of etymology says the word is older and just meant slanted (in a geometrical sense) originally. But that doesn't matter here. Words have developed in their meanings since then and also in several subgroups of the population they may be used differently. I know 'bias' originally from statistics and this words is used quite freely in psychology without all those implications you seem to hear. If 'prejudice' is much too strong and 'sympathy' is too weak, I use 'bias'. But I can see how what I said can be misinterpreted. I hope it is clear enough now after my long post to you before this.

I don't think it is fair to complain that Carol took you at your word (McGrath)
You're missing my main point. I'm not complaining that Carol took me by my word, I'm complaining that she didn't. I wish she would have quoted me and not used a paraphrase. Just imagine if she had quoted me instead of giving my words a slant fitting her purpose. I wouldn't have complained.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 10:20 PM

And not only do you frequently put words in my mouth and mischaracterize what I say, and make pronouncements about what I mean by what I say, and tell me what my opinions are, in the case of the following post from you, Wolfgang, you actually LIED about what I said (or didn't say)...

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat: Terrorize your enemy.
From: Wolfgang - PM
Date: 17 May 04 - 08:31 AM

Whenever something bad is said about Arafat, for the sake of balance within two hours something bad has to be added about either Sharon or Bush. McGrath and Carol are in charge of that (look at the Arafat's 300 million thread to see how elegantly Carol has introduced Bush in a thread about Arafat taking international monies for himself). Jack the sailor may stand in for Carol.

There is no equivalent rule when something bad is said about Sharon (see 'Sharon is a crook thread' or 'Sharon says, no I'm not in the mood' thread).

In this post, you use, to provide an example of my failure to ever come to Sharon's defence, a post in which I actually came to Sharon's defense.

Here's what I actually said in the Sharon is a crook thread:

Subject: RE: BS: Sharon is a crook (allegedly)
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 11:34 AM

Here's a current article about this:

Sharon (link no longer works)

I must say, I find myself wondering if the timing of this announcement has anything to do with Sharon talking about plans to remove some settlements in Gaza and the West Bank...

"The developments plunged Sharon deeper into trouble two weeks before a visit to Washington, where he hopes to win President Bush's backing for his plan unilaterally to evacuate Jewish settlements in Gaza and some in the West Bank."

For whatever bizarre reasons you have, Wolfgang, for almost as long as I've been a member of the Mudcat, you have been following me around making mischaracterizations of my posts and my points, and even lying about what I've said when it suits your purposes. You are one sick, twisted little man, Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 09:02 PM

I don't think you can use "bias" in quite that way, Wolfgang. The term "bias" comes from bowls, where a weight will be placed in a bowling ball which means it will veer off in a particular direction. That is the bias. It would be possible to place additional weights which would modify this effect, and the outcome would be a different bias. But it would still be a bias, and it would mean that the ball would always veer off the straight course.

Similarly we might have sympathies for different parties in a disoute which would pull us in different directions, and we might also have a committment to trying to be impartial. Only if all these things coming together balanced each other out, would we be entitled to say that we were not biased. (And even then, it might vary from occasion to occasion.)

But "sympathy" is not the same as "bias", any more than being tempted to steal is the same as stealing. "Bias" on any occasion means that we have veered off the straight and impartial path. It's a stronger word than "partial" - it can be right to be partial, to take one side in a dispute. But "bias" is a step too far.

I think that you could well have mis-stated your position when you said that you that you were biased, but I don't think it is fair to complain that Carol took you at your word. And I think that you may fail to appreciate the depth and virility of real bias and prejudice against Palestinians, Arabs in general and indeed Muslims which is present in many parts of the world.

Sometimes criticism of things which deserve to be criticised can be a cloak for other things. This has always been one of the ways in which anti-semitism and racism has operated. It is not unreasonable to ask for proof that it not operating in this context.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 08:11 PM

So... here's your lesson in logical communication for today, Wolfgang...

I said this earlier in this thread:

It has nothing whatever to do with suggesting that two wrongs make a right, Wolfgang. There are people on this thread, and in the world generally, who are practicing bigotry towards a whole group of people because of the actions of some of that group, ignoring completely the good people of that group, and ignoring completely the wrongs committed by the groups to which they themselves belong.

When people only focus on the wrongs committed by one group of people, ignoring all of the good that group is responsible for, and they ignore all of the bad things done by other groups, including their own, focusing only on what they perceive to be the good those other groups have done, they are engaging in bigotry and scapegoating. Especially when a genetic factor is introduced into the equation.

Here's the first bit of logic for you. I said "there are people on this thread, and in the world generally". I did not say you were one of them. If you read it that way, you were putting words into my mouth. And then I proceeded to address what happens when the people I was talking about, do the thing I said they were doing.

Then quoted the beginning of the second paragraph I quoted above and you said this:

Huh? You seem to address me, Carol.

Yes, I was addressing you. I was "speaking" specifically to you, about other people. You decided that I was speaking about you and you responded to what you imagined I was doing, but I was not.

Then you said this:

You seem to grasp this difference very well when it comes to Jews and Israel. When you (or someone else) criticises a criminal act or a violation of human rights by the government of Israel or a part of the IDF and someone else, let's say MG, cries 'antisemitic' you (or someone else) point out quickly that criticising one particular action or one particular person does not mean that the whole group of that faith or nationality is slighted.

But when it comes to Arabs/Muslims and one group (fundamentalists) or one action is criticised you parrot MG (though I appreciate the very big differences in level of argumentation and language): 'Anti-Arab', 'Anti-Muslim'. To call into doubt the motives of those criticising one particular group is a very weak last resort argumentation.

You have been following me around the Mudcat, pointing out the instances when I criticize different groups of people. You have also said that you have a bias in favor if Israel. You also don't seem to notice that when I say just about anything at all about Israel, it is always in response to something someone else has posted. I put what I do about Israel out of a need I have to make sure that not only one side of that story gets told. You keep trying to make me out to be a hypocrite for not also criticizing Muslims or Arabs when they do bad things. I am trying to help you understand that that side of the story IS ALREADY BEING TOLD BY OTHER PEOPLE, so my voice is not needed.

I have been reminding you of your stated bias in favor of Israel, because that bias is the best reason I can come up with to understand why you are so unable to understand what I have been trying to tell you for more than two years.

Now here's the really important bit, so pay attention. You said this:

But when it comes to Arabs/Muslims and one group (fundamentalists) or one action is criticised you parrot MG (though I appreciate the very big differences in level of argumentation and language): 'Anti-Arab', 'Anti-Muslim'. To call into doubt the motives of those criticising one particular group is a very weak last resort argumentation.

This is bullshit. I don't criticize everyone who criticizes the actions of some Arabs, or some Muslims. If I were to do that, I would have to make hundreds more posts daily than I currently do. I do however, and I have certainly done on this thread, call people who do not make the distinction between Muslims and some Muslims. And also the distinction between Arabs and some Arabs. And also the distinction between Islam and Islamic extremists.

Once again, I fear these distinctions will be too subtle for you, but I have put them out there for you just in case you manage just one fleeting moment of lucidity and hopefully, if that happens, you will find a way to understand what I am saying.

Now stop being an ass and leave me alone please. I have a holiday to contend with.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 07:37 PM

Wolfgang, you're the one who brought the subject of Israel into this thread. Follow your own advice and go back and reread some of your posts in this thread.

You must be desperate for someone to argue with, Wolfgang. I don't have time to argue with you today, but I'll see what I can come up with when I do have time.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Daisycutter
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 05:50 PM

And you have mentioned 'dutch culture and values'. First of all let me ask you, WHAT is your Dutch culture and values? Oh, you mean western culture? You mean the "culture" that promotes prostitutions

Scroll right and down.

D

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 03:44 PM

Carol,

please follow sometimes your own advice and don't put words into my mouth. I have never told you what your opinions are for I cannot know them, I have only told you what my perception of your opinions is. You can correct that then if you want.

And because I do not know what your opinions are I quote you and do not rephrase you. I would appreciate if you could do the same in future, for your attempts to rephrase me are too often completely off the mark, like in the example in the first paragraph. Had you quoted me with my remark Deep in my heart I have a pro Israel bias in this thread, everybody could have seen how irrelevant that remark is to the theme of this thread. The rephrasing a bias on this subject gives, intentionally or not, the wrong impression. May I repeat my question why you did consider my remark as relevant in this thread here?

A bias means a built-in tendency to go one particular way. That means by definition a built-in tendency not to go the other way. (McGrath)

I disagree, except in a very very narrow sense. In a two-choice situation and a single bias I agree. But most times, life is much more complicated. Most people whether they admit it or not have much more biases than just one and in most situations there are many more than two choices.

In the very simple case, existence of Israel or not (a much two easy two-choice situation) my bias would lead me ceteris paribus (which is an overly artificial assumption) to opt for the existence of Israel. However, I usually have also an in-built bias for the underdog, a bias for peaceful fights, a bias for human rights, a bias for compromise instead of domination and so on. In any real life situation some biases weigh on one side and some on the other.

'Against Bush' does not mean I have to be pro terrorists. That's the thinking of 'Uncle Sam' and his ilk. You usually have not such a simplistic black and white thinking, McGrath.

To make an overly simple example and also to mock Carol's paraphrasing instead of quoting I could say here that Carol has stated openly her pro terrorist bias. Huh, you might say, for you do not recollect anything similar to that rephrasing. The 'inference' is simple: Carol has stated the opinion that it is the US government that is putting the lives of all my family members in danger (she has said the same about Israel's government by the way). Well, at least for me, if I see my life and that of my family in danger, I must admit to a certain bias against those I perceive as the origin of that danger. So she has an anti-Bush bias. That means, applying your thinking, in all conflicts with Bush involved she will have a pro-his enemy bias. The terrorists are his enemies (or that of the American government) and therefore she has a pro-terrorist bias. Silly simple thinking in black and white.

But to end this post with a more conciliatory move, McGrath, let me quote you approvingly:

And respondintg to a criticism of someone you admire by pointing off into the distance to someone you think the person who made the criticism might admire is never a valid way of arguing.

Once we have dealt with a criticism, by either disproving it, or accepting it, then talking about the faults of someone else is fair enough. But not until then

Very wise words.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 09:07 PM

"Most Christians are not Nazis, but most Nazis are (sort of) Christians" would have been true enough, at one point. But it wouldn't actualy have been too meaningful, as an analysis of what is is good or bad about Christianity.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 08:24 PM

Don't know the answer to that one (I'll try to see what I can come up with when I have more time than I do right now), but there certainly are a lot of different kinds of terrorists. There are also terrorist groups in Mexico, and Central and South America, and also the Basque separatists, none of whom are Muslims as far as I know. The rebels in Sudan who are fighting agains the Sudanese government would probably be called terrorists if the US was on the side of the Sudanese government instead of on the side of the rebels. Many, if not most of them are Christians and Animists rather than Muslims. And of couurse the most spectacular of our own home grown terrorists here in the US are not Muslims, either.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 06:38 PM

I didn't say it Carol - But agree with your sentiments. It was the first bit I was trying to play upon but unscrupulous people could certainly pick up on the latter!

Does anyone REALLY know how many of the worlds terrorists are Moslems? We have the IRA and UDA and all their derevations, of whom I guess very few are Moslems. What about the African and South American factions? The Chinese? Koreans? The Israelis?

Hmmmm - Now you come to mention it Moslems are probably in a minority!

Perhaps a better byte would be most moslems are not terrorists and most terrorists are not moslems? Can this be true? If so it bodes ill for the leaders of the western world!

D.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 06:27 PM

but most terrorists are Muslims!

I am not sure if the second part is true.

If you don't know if it's true, do you think it's a good idea to be stating it as if it is true? Maybe finding out the truth would be a good thing before making such a statement. It is, after all, a very broad and sweeping generalization. The kind of sound byte upon which hate campaigns are built.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 06:20 PM

And it's now passed on to me...

Llanfranc just posted a lovely soundbite on another thread.

Most Muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims!

I am not sure if the second part is true. I have yet to see any stats to support it - But it's a grand statement that sums up what I have been saying!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 04:45 PM

You're getting Sir jOhn syndrome, Kevin...

(Multiplepostitis)

:D

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 04:41 PM

"Sorry, but I consider this argument confusing at best. Her being a Muslim was a reason for not denouncing the religion? So if she would not have been Muslim it would have been alright denouncing the religion? If you do not think so (what I presume) then why mention she was Muslim at all since it does not matter in your eyes." (Wolfgang)

Perhaps it's my fault, but you completely fail to take the point I was making, and instead take a point I definitely was not making, Wolfgang.

The reason I felt it relevant to mention Margaret Hassan's religion was that it is a reminder that the humanitarian work for which she has rightly been adnired, and which is in such contrast to the actions of her murders, appears in her case to have been a reflection of her religious commitment as a Muslim convert.

There is a real sense in which any blanket denunciation of the religion she chose to adhere to is a kind of insult to her memory. It is a bit as if someone werr to use a killing of a charity worker in Northern Ireland by co-religionists as grounds for an attack on the religion which killer and killed shared.

And blanket denunciations are in fact very frequently heard. Some - by no means all - of the comments in this thread are perilously close to it. I share Dave the gnome's worries about how it could grow. I think it is not safe to assume that there is a general attitude of acceptance towards Muslims in general, which means that there is no need to try to place in context criticisms that are made of particular excesses carried out by some Muslims, or within some Muslim groups.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 03:54 PM

"...if from a positive bias towards one person/people/country necessarily follows a negative bias towards others."

A bias means a built-in tendency to go one particular way. That means by definition a built-in tendency not to go the other way.

In any conflict situation a bias in favour of one side has to mean a bias against the other side. Perhaps you are taking bias as meaning something equivalent to "liking", or having sympathy for - and it would would indeed be possible quite consistently to like both sides, or to have sympathy for both sides, and to be completely impartial. But if we have a bias, that is just another way of saying that we are not impartial.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 03:07 PM

"...if from a positive bias towards one person/people/country necessarily follows a negative bias towards others."

A bias means a built-in tendencyt to go one particular way. That means by definition a built-in tendency not to go the other way.

In any conflict situation a bias in favour of one side has to mean a bias against the other side. Perhaps you are taking bias as meaning something equivalent to "liking", or having sympathy for - and it would would indeed be quite consistent to like both sides, or to have sympathy for both sides, and to ber ipartial. But bias cannot be impartial by definition.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 03:06 PM

I too am not convinced it will never happen. As long as people are using blanket terms like 'Muslin Intolerance' people will believe it to be true. I am by no means saying that anyone here would be guilty of such things (Even you, Martin ;-) ) but I have been in the pub when the Daily Sport readers start calling 'them f%^&ing pakis'. I have been in Patsons local mini mart when the local yobs have been in and left a train of devastation while yelling 'f&*( off back home rag heads'. This to people who were born in the next steet to them!

As long as we stereotype people as 'Muslim extemists' and as long as people are bandying stories of how bad the minority, yes tiny minority, of Moslems are the yobs will never look at the people themselves. They will never see the Patsons or Patels or Mistrys as people. They will only ever see the Fanatic Mullahs and their sick retinues.

Once enough people are doing that, and I am ashamed to say I know of many, then we are only a stones throw from murdering another 40 million. You can argue till you are blue in the face but the fact remains that it happened before. If anything can ever happen, be sure that it will. Stop spreading the stories. Ignore the idiots. Moslems are people just like you and me, Help the good ones to get rid of the trash themselves but please don't tar them all with the same brush.

Dave.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 02:54 PM

Deep in my heart I have a pro Israel bias

is what I had written and what you have misrepresented at the next opportunity as

I also think that people who start numerous Palestinian/Arab/Muslim-bashing threads are probably promoting an agenda that is biased against Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims. And in the case of Wolfgang, he has even admitted that he has a bias in this respect.

as if from a positive bias towards one person/people/country necessarily follows a negative bias towards others. And why you consider my pro Israel bias as relevant in the context of this thread (the bias...that you...have on this subject) makes perhaps sense to you, but it doesn't to me.

Of course a positive bias in favor of one group means a negative bias against the other group in the equation. It's not possible to both have a bias and be neutral. And if you're not neutral, you have a bias against the group in the equation who are not the group you have a bias in favor of. To try to suggest otherwise is totally illogical.

However, I did not say on this thread that you have a bias against anybody. You are putting words in my mouth and you are telling me what my meaning is. What I said can just as easily be stated like this:

"The fact that you don't notice the presence of whatever it is that I'm responding to shows the bias in favor of Israel that you have already admitted to having on this subject."

I'd appreciate if from now on you would not infer about me that a pro Israel bias means that I must as a consequence have an anti-Muslim anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian bias. You're making assumptions, Carol, and sell them as truth.

And I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting the things I say, and making pronouncements about what I mean by what I say, and telling me what my opinions are, as you do quite frequently, and as you have done on this thread. I don't expect that to happen, ever, but you really need to try to abide by the same rules that you want others to abide by, Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 02:11 PM

Yes, we have crossposted and more than once.

Deep in my heart I have a pro Israel bias

is what I had written and what you have misrepresented at the next opportunity as

I also think that people who start numerous Palestinian/Arab/Muslim-bashing threads are probably promoting an agenda that is biased against Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims. And in the case of Wolfgang, he has even admitted that he has a bias in this respect.

as if from a positive bias towards one person/people/country necessarily follows a negative bias towards others. And why you consider my pro Israel bias as relevant in the context of this thread (the bias...that you...have on this subject) makes perhaps sense to you, but it doesn't to me.

I'd appreciate if from now on you would not infer about me that a pro Israel bias means that I must as a consequence have an anti-Muslim anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian bias. You're making assumptions, Carol, and sell them as truth.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Daisycutter
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 01:59 PM

CC:

The only knowledge I can gather from the drivel you have posted here is that you disagree with everybody and you don't like anything.

You must be a miserable person.


D

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 01:33 PM

Here's the whole paragraph from which you selectively provided your quote from me (conveniently selective, Wolfgang?)...

You continually accuse me of being one sided when it comes to criticism of Israel. What you seem incapable of understanding is that there is also a very one-sided propaganda campaign here in the US on the subject of Iraael/Palestine. I only introduce information about Israel/Palestine as a response when I see some of this one-sided propaganda being promoted here in the Mudcat. I never introduce anything on that subject that isn't in response to something someone else has posted. I have no intention of criticizing Israel in the absence of someone else's introduction of one-sided debate on that subject, nor have I ever done so. The fact that you don't notice the presence of whatever it is that I'm responding to shows the bias that you have already admitted to having on this subject.

You have indeed admitted quite openly that you have a bias on the subject of Israel/Palestine. I can find that statement posted by you, and put it and a link to the thread it's in here in this thread if you want.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 01:17 PM

the bias that you have already admitted to having on this subject (Carol)

That's about the third time I read that rubbish from you Carol. It only shows your inability to comprehend what you read. When I did read that rubbish the first time I went back to what I had written to see whether I had actually written what you have read (well, I sometimes do write what I do not mean) only to find that that you misrepresent either from ignorance or from ill will what I had written. Go back and read what I have actually written to find that it is very different from how you recall it now.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 01:16 PM

I guess we must have crossposted, Wolfgang, because your last post doesn't reflect your having read what I put in my last post. It's about balance. There is plenty of coverage of the bad things done by Muslims in the news media, but very little coverage of bad things done to Muslims by other groups. There is no need for me to add my voice to the deluge of criticism of Muslims. There are plenty of other people taking care of that end of it. But someone needs to speak up for those who get scapegoated by the West, and that's why you see me speaking up for Muslims and Arabs, and not so much against them.

On the other hand, if you ever see someone scapegoating any other group, you will (and I dare say you have already) see me sticking up for them as well.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 01:04 PM

BTW, Carol, when I saw your name in the 'Mosque raided' thread I thought that's fine, now Carol will balance the information by telling us about instances when Muslims have raided churches, Christians have raided synagogues etc just to show us that it is not just one group doing the evil deeds. Carol is against double standards for different people for that's bigotry, she'll speak out now...

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 01:02 PM

I'd still prefer to focus on Muslim fanatics in Europe. To hold all religions to the same esteem and not be prejudiced does not mean that you have to add something bad about people fromother religions when you want to complain about fanatics from one religion. It only means that you use the same standard to apply to all. If more people from one religion violate one particular human right than others from other religions it is no bigotry to point that out.

The problem is when only the bad things committed by one group are being regularly reported while the bad things committed by others are not being reported, or are seldom reported. The result of that sort of thing becomes exactly what we have today in the US and some other parts of the West. Muslims become perceived as being the worst offenders (or even the only offenders), when they are not. You may prefer to only focus on Muslim fanatics in Europe, Wolfgang, but as long as the reportage only points to the bad in Muslims, and seldom or never to the bad in other groups, I'll probably continue to point out the fact that Muslims are not inherently any more prone to bad behavior than members of any other group.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 12:53 PM

(Carol, you have not understood any of my points, I even can't tell from reading your post whether you have tried)

I'd still prefer to focus on Muslim fanatics in Europe. To hold all religions to the same esteem and not be prejudiced does not mean that you have to add something bad about people fromother religions when you want to complain about fanatics from one religion. It only means that you use the same standard to apply to all. If more people from one religion violate one particular human right than others from other religions it is no bigotry to point that out.

the victim of this especially brutal murder was herself a Muslim, and that this was a reason not to use her murder as an occasion for denouncing the religion she chose to belong to. (McGrath)

Sorry, but I consider this argument confusing at best. Her being a Muslim was a reason for not denouncing the religion? So if she would not have been Muslim it would have been alright denouncing the religion? If you do not think so (what I presume) then why mention she was Muslim at all since it does not matter in your eyes.

If I denounce people from the fundamentalist fringe of a religion for a brutality I do not care whether the victim was Muslim or not.

Germany's lost daughters

This is a two part English translation in a German (moderately left) magazine about the role of women in Muslim families in Germany and about their victimisation. It happens as well in other parts of the world, it has happened at other times in Germany as well. But here and now it is much more likely to happen in Muslim families. You may discuss other possible reasons but exclude that religion may be one contributing factor would not be helpful.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 09:20 PM

My problem with his use of the Salmon Rushdie affair is his insistance that such behavior is unique to Muslims, or that such behavior is qualitatively more bad than bad behavior by extremists of other religions. It's very important to make sure the distinction is made between the extremists of any religion and the rest of the people who belong to that religion, and also to not fall into the trap of saying some kinds of killing or death threats are worse than others, depending only upon who is doing it.

To say that the Salmon Rushdie thing is any more reprehensible than Jewish extremists making death threats against human rights activists is bigotry, because he's indicting people for who they are and what group they belong to, and not for what they are doing.

But thank you for your kind words.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 09:10 PM

Carol ..I may not live in the US ,but I do understand how your less able electors are being manipulated by use of the religious card.

Our own blessed Tony is a touch messianic at times.

However I feel Ooh Aah has made some very good points, and dont think he deserves being described as "bigot".
His point about Salmon Rushdie was well taken ,and did refer to Islamic teaching.

As you know Im a great admirer of your stance in favour of the Palitinians, and hope you dont take my remarks amiss...Ake

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 09:04 PM

what you accuse men of when they are losing an arguement is not nearly so blatent as women turning on the tears when they are losing one.

I wouldn't know. It's not possible to use a tactic like that one on the internet, and I don't use that one off of the internet either. I'll just have to take your word for it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:55 PM

CarolC will always call someone a bigot at her earliest convenience.

Through it all, I still no other group besides Islamic fundamentalists videotaping their executions of cutting off heads and shooting women in the head.

There's absolutely no defense for it.

And CarolC, what you accuse men of when they are losing an arguement is not nearly so blatent as women turning on the tears when they are losing one.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:53 PM

I agree with you, akenaton, that fundamentalism is the problem. I disagree with you that Muslim fundamentalism is any more dangerous than other forms of fundamentalism. But it's perhaps understandable that you are not as afraid of the Christian fundamentalists who are running my country as I am, because you don't live here.

But our friend Ooh-Aah2, is not just indicting fundamentalists in his arguments. He's indicting all of Islam, and I'm sorry if you find the word "bigot" offensive in this instance, but bigotry it is.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:47 PM

McGrath ..Iv been read ing the posts from Carol and Ooh aah with interest, And I too find the careless use of the word bigot offensive.

I normally support Carol ,but on this occasion I think Ooh Aah has put forward a better argument.

The viciousness of the Islamic fundamentalists can in part be ascribed to a desperate fight to preserve their beliefs and culture from the ever advancing tide of "westernisation", but whether we agree with their analysis of not the fundamentalists will be a great danger to us all.

In Glasgow ,a month ago, a group of Pakistani muslims abducted and horrifically murdered a 15 yr old white youth. This bodes ill for racial harmony in Glasgow..Ake

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:02 PM

I've noticed that often when men know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are losing a debate with a woman, they start throwing around the "hysteria" word, and they start using florid language like "parrot-cry" and "howl" to refer to how the woman makes her agruments. I'm not at all surprised to see you resorting to those kinds of tactics in the absence of a real argument, Ooh-Aah2. I'm sure it's the best you've got to work with, and you can hardly be blamed for that.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 07:45 PM

"...but it certainly won't happen in Australia or Britain."

Never say stuff like that. It sends a shiver down my spine. I'm sure that if at the start of the last century anyone had suggested that Germany could organise Death Camps for its Jews, everyone would have said "it certainly won't happen".

It does seem to me, Ooh Aah, that you seek to single out Muslims for particular criticism in a way that brushes aside the very close parallels which can be drawn with other religions and secular movements even within the last century.

It is a terrible thing to make use of religion or of ideology as a foundation for systematic repression and intolerance, but that is a pattern of behaviour that repeats itself in various forms across all our religions and all our ideologies. And in many cases we can find what are essentially the same religions and the same ideologies being made use of to fight intolerance and to resist repression.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 05:49 PM

And another thing... as for your point about religious riots.. bugger it I haven't the energy! I know from experience that spelling things out for you doesn't help you own brand of bigotry.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 05:40 PM

Do you know what happened to Pauline Hanson? She narrowly missed out on a prison term (damn) and was utterly crushed at the last federal election. I can't answer for America, which seems to be going down the right-wing tube with a vengeance, but it certainly won't happen in Australia or Britain. May I remind you just how atrocious the actions of the Nazis were? People who use windy hyperbole to compare modern right-wingers (I don't mean the extreme fringe) to the deaths of...   um ... what was it, around 40 million people I believe, are venturing in the absurd. To compare people like myself, a liberal defending liberal values against the intolerance of extreme Islam, is to be not only ridiculous but to miss the point entirely.

Carol, I'm sick to death of your absurd hysteria, particularly by your use of the word bigot, which has become a parrot-cry to replace your arguments, which are almost as repeditive. I am confident that a person who reads through this thread will see that I have addressed the main points of your latest howl not once but several times. A final bit of food for thought for you: on the news today I heard that there is a Sikh festival on today in Pakistan. One thousand two hundred police will be deployed to prevent the pilgrims from being physically attacked by mobs. Perhaps the Sikhs should try making a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia or some other Middle-Eastern country where they would no doubt be greeted with kind smiles!
I suppose you realise that as a woman you would not be allowed to have this kind of argument in a strict Islamic country? You don't just need to do some reasearch, you need to have the scales removed from your eyes.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 03:44 AM

Ho- hum. There is a LONG way between being intensly critical of Muslim extremism and embracing Mr Hitler

The world depression that followed the economic crash, often symbolised by the Wall Street crash of 1929, was the real start of the rise of facism. In the early 1930s the German people were goaded into becoming 'intensly critical' of the Jewish religion. Not for any real threat they posed, like terrorism, but for supposed damage to the economy and well being of the Arryian race. By 1933 the had Elected Mr Hitler as chancellor. We all know what happened in 1939.

So if you mean 10 years by 'a LONG way between' then ,yes, I agree. Or are you saying that it could never happen again? That the people of the world, and those of Australia in particular in your case, are not as stupid or gullible as the Germans? I would take a very careful look at the rise of right wing poiticians if I were you. Particularly within the so called 'independants' in your own country. Was it Pauline Hanson who made the 'Swamped by Asians' speech not many years ago? And who's governament was it that turned away a ship load of displaced Afghan refugees in 2001? Just where is it that the extreme critisism ends and actions begin?

Ho-hum indeed...

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 08:33 PM

(1) Praying for armageddon is a harmless thing to do.

Unless one of those Christians happens to be "the leader of the free world" and has his finger on the buttons that control the largest stockpiles of WMD in the world, as appears to be the case with Mr. Geo. W. Bush.

Hindus are Pagans by this definition of the word "Pagan": a follower of a polytheistic religion. (And I am not a Christian.)

Religious riots and looting and the bloody communal hysteria which goes with them (I've seen them)are quite a different kettle of fish in both motive and method from cold-blooded martyrdoms, suicide bombings, assassinations, the favourite tools of Muslim extremists.

That's a dandy little bit of equivocation there, Ooh-Aah2. "Muslims kill people differently and for different reasons, so when they kill people, it's a lot worse than when other people do it." What a load of bigoted, hypocritical baloney.

It's true that Hinduism has become radicalised over the last few decades; the far-right Hindus cleverly use a well of hatred left from Muslim (Mughal) rule of India, and is strongest in Maharashtra where the Muslims attempted to put down Hindu rebellions with great cruelty.

There's always a reason, isn't there. And a lot of the extremist Islamicist behavior that we see causing problems today is a backlash against repression by people against Muslims. Iran is an excellent example of this. The fundamentalist Mullacracy that took power from the Shah was a backlash against the Shah's brutal dictatorship, a dictatorship that was a client state of the US and that was installed by the US after the US crushed Iran's fledgeling democracy. There's always a reason. But you are willing to accept the reasons of the people you consider legitimate and not the reasons of the people you don't consider to be legitimate. More bigotry.

To my knowledge none of the thousands of Hindus living in the West has ever killed anyone for religious motives; westerners have written books criticising the caste system and the apalling treatment of women in India without recieving any death threats, Fatwahs etc.

I don't know enough about this to address it right now, but I can tell you for a fact that in the US, human rights activists who advocate for human rights for Palestinians regularly receive death threats from radicals who are opposed to human rights for Palestinians. So once again, it's hardly just Muslims doing this sort of thing.

The treatment of Muslims in India is infinetely better than the treatment of religious minorities in neighbouring Muslim Pakistan; perhaps this is because India is a democracy whereas the number of Muslim democracies is extraordinarily small.

And the lack of democracies in Muslim countries is to a large degree because of interference by countries like the United States, who just can't bear to see people in Islamic countries having control of their own resources and political destiny, as I noted above in the case of Iran. Other examples of dictatorships in Muslim countries being propped up by the US include Saudi Arabia, and Iraq during the rise to power of the Ba'athist party (and also during much of Saddam's reign). In the case of Saudi Arabia, the interference in that country by the US was given as one of the reasons for the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the US. It doesn't serve the strategic interests of the US for Islamic countries to have true democracies.

However, noting the kinds of broad sweeping generalizations you have been making on this thread, and knowing how full of shit they are, on the subject of how Muslims are treated in India as compared to how Hindus are treated in Pakistan, I think it's fairly safe to assume that in order to find out the truth in this case, I'm going to have to do some research of my own.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 07:16 PM

Carol, Carol, Carol. I'm starting to think you must be a bit thick.

(1) Praying for armageddon is a harmless thing to do. Killing people isn't. Again only a tiny minority of Christians would condone this anyway.

(2) Hindus are not Pagans, unless you are a Christian using that word to put them down. Religious riots and looting and the bloody communal hysteria which goes with them (I've seen them)are quite a different kettle of fish in both motive and method from cold-blooded martyrdoms, suicide bombings, assassinations, the favourite tools of Muslim extremists. It's true that Hinduism has become radicalised over the last few decades; the far-right Hindus cleverly use a well of hatred left from Muslim (Mughal) rule of India, and is strongest in Maharashtra where the Muslims attempted to put down Hindu rebellions with great cruelty.
To my knowledge none of the thousands of Hindus living in the West has ever killed anyone for religious motives; westerners have written books criticising the caste system and the apalling treatment of women in India without recieving any death threats, Fatwahs etc.
The treatment of Muslims in India is infinetely better than the treatment of religious minorities in neighbouring Muslim Pakistan; perhaps this is because India is a democracy whereas the number of Muslim democracies is extraordinarily small.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 06:07 PM

Kevin McGrath of Harlow, apropos of your post of 05:22, I give you the Protestants and Catholics of Ulster.

You lost me there, Giok. My point was that the victim of this especially brutal murder was herself a Muslim, and that this was a reason not to use her murder as an occasion for denouncing the religion she chose to belong to. Her murder has in fact been widely denounced by Muslims as an offence against Islam.

There wasn't any implication that Christians don't all too often go killing each oither, ostensibly in the name of religion. Anyone who doesn't know that would have to have been living on another planet.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 06:03 PM

Okay, I've had just about enough of this... I mean, this is getting purdy danged rediculuos and nit pickin'...

As a Christian, I am not the least bit afraid of folks of Islamic faith. Hey, faith *is* faith...

What I am afriad of are folks who have *no* faith, say they *do*, and then hide behind their supposed faith while they do evil things...

There ain't no religions that instructs people to go out and do dumbass stuff...

None...

Now ya' all can get back to slingin' mud at one another...

Bobert

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 05:44 PM

The fact that I am not a liberal has nothing to do with the way the word is used in this country. It has everything to do with the fact that I do not fit into any stereotypes any more than anyone else. If you are content to be a stereotype, that's your business.

But   (1) Islam seems to have a much higher number of adherents ready to consider terrorism/ assassination / killing in the name of religion than other creeds and a much more muted response when it does happen.

This is your own personal impression based upon the selective information that you are apparently given. And, as I've said before (yawn), you can't be bothered to look into it any further (probably because you don't want to know the truth... makes it damned inconvenient when the truth interferes with your bigotry). These assertions of yours have no basis in truth. It's just made up fairy-tale stuff that helps people promote hatred of one group of people.
      
(2) I will oppose any creed that gets up to this stuff. I am not a bigot who is picking on Islam from some knee-jerk reason. My views on Islam were formed long before 11/9 and the subsequent anti-muslim hysteria. I can't stand fanatics from ANY religion, Islam seems to have a much larger proportion than other religions. Ever heard of a Buddhist suicide bomber? When did the leader of a major Christian church last call for an author to be killed? Why aren't I as a Pagan out there attacking Baptists who say my religion is an abomination? When did an atheist last stab a religious film-maker to death?
Once Islam was miles ahead of the west in its tolerance, respect for learning, arts, science and civilisation. It is not bigotry to say that this has since reversed with a vengeance.

You are being very selective in choosing your examples. And with the selectivity you are using, you are bound to end up agreeing with yourself about what you believe. Here's a nifty example for you on the subject of Christians... there are leaders of major Christian movements in the US who are praying for the coming of Armageddon so that all of the Jews will be killed or converted to Christianity. And Pagans... Hinduism is a Pagan religion. Thousands of Muslims have been killed by Hindus just for being Muslims. And then, of course, there are the burnings of women for the doweries by Hindus (Pagans). This is a very common problem in India. Buddhists are probably some of the most tolerant of the religions, and I don't know of any examples of intolerance practiced by them, but I also don't know for a fact that it hasn't happened.

It is bigotry to repeat fasehoods about a group of people as a whole when the result of doing so is to spread hatred and intolerance. The fact is that your "impressions" about the numbers of intolerant Muslims in the world as compared to other groups are not facts, and they are not true. They're just stuff that you have made up and they are a symptom of your own intolerance.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 05:22 PM

Re-read Carol, re-read (yawn). I'm sorry, I forgot the word 'liberal' is an insult in the US. Over here it means 'humane, unpredjudiced, generous.'

Yup, I see why it's an insult over there!

One last try. I know this behaviour is not unique to Muslims, right?
But   (1) Islam seems to have a much higher number of adherents ready to consider terrorism/ assassination / killing in the name of religion than other creeds and a much more muted response when it does happen.
      (2) I will oppose any creed that gets up to this stuff. I am not a bigot who is picking on Islam from some knee-jerk reason. My views on Islam were formed long before 11/9 and the subsequent anti-muslim hysteria. I can't stand fanatics from ANY religion, Islam seems to have a much larger proportion than other religions. Ever heard of a Buddhist suicide bomber? When did the leader of a major Christian church last call for an author to be killed? Why aren't I as a Pagan out there attacking Baptists who say my religion is an abomination? When did an atheist last stab a religious film-maker to death?
Once Islam was miles ahead of the west in its tolerance, respect for learning, arts, science and civilisation. It is not bigotry to say that this has since reversed with a vengeance.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 01:00 PM

Of course I'm re-using arguments from before. You still don't understand what I'm saying. My hope is that if I keep handing it back to you worded a bit differently, it might eventually penetrate.

I didn't conspicuously fail to answer your point about Salman Rushdie. My point is that I can (and have, probably on this very thread), pointed out examples of other groups of people doing exactly the same thing. The assasination of Rabin, for example. Your bigotry just prevents you from seeing the problem as being the same thing when people who are not Muslims do the it. Your bigotry makes you only see it as bad when Muslims do it. You are only coming up with these kinds of examples when they are done by Muslims because you see Muslims as being inherently different from all other groups and so you have a different set of rules for them than you do for any other groups.

On the subject of Mr. Hitler, you should never underestimate the ability of the US government to kill large numbers of people, and to find ways to manipulate large numbers of other people into supporting them when they do. The current campaign of promoting hatred of Muslims by the media and the government in the US is far more dangerous than you probably realize. This is why it is so important to make sure that criticism of any Muslims is done keeping in mind that it is a criticism of the behavior and not the people as a group, and with the recognition that the behaviors being criticized are in no way unique to Muslims.

By the way, I am not a liberal.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 07:03 AM

Ho- hum. There is a LONG way between being intensly critical of Muslim extremism and embracing Mr Hitler. An advocacy of tolerance means opposing both. To illustrate the point neatly I would point out to you that many of the kind of Muslims I dislike rather like dear old Adolf, for reasons you can probably work out.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 06:51 AM

Sorry - but I am 're-hashing the same old stuff' as well. Take away Islam. Take away Christianity. Take away Judaism. People will still knock the hell out of each other. Wars are not about religion - they are about power. Religion is often an excuse and I will grant you that Islam is the excuse that seems to be mooted most nowadays but it is still about power.

By supporting the views that Islam is the cause of all the problems at the moment you are falling into the politicians and spin doctors trap. Do you think for one minute that the west would be so keen to go into Iraq if there was no oil? Do you think for one minute that the people of Africa would starve and be left to bloody civil wars if they had the natural resources we require? Sorry, but no. The current conflict and most, if not all, of the ones before have been about greed and power.

Remember that blaming a specific religion or peoples for political problems is what politicians do. It is the easy option. But at its sickening worst look where it led Adolf Hitler...

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 04:34 AM

Carol C you are now re-using arguments from before. You have it in your head that I am a bigot and so feel justified in re-hashing the same old stuff. You conspicuously failed to answer my point on the Salman Rushdie affair, for example. Let me say that it is a strange bigot who has visited India 8 times, worked 6 months with Tibetan refugees and longs to re-visit Turkey as I have and do. As for 'ignorance' you hold the silly liberal shibboleth that only bigotry and ignorance can prevent a person from percieving how perfectly wonderful everything and everyone is, (so long as they aren't white and western of course!) I am a liberal myself, but my extensive travels and contact with real people in other countries means that I'm not quite that wet behind the ears.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 04:18 AM

Kevin McGrath of Harlow, apropos of your post of 05:22, I give you the Protestants and Catholics of Ulster.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 12:07 AM

and I am unconvinced that this has occurred with Islam. Do you remember the Salman Rushdie affair?

See, here's the problem with these kinds of discussions. You tell me an example of why Islam is the worst offender. I counter with examples that show that Islam is not any worse than any of the other offenders when you take all of the factors into consideration. Then Wolfgang comes on the thread and accuses me of trying to suggest that two wrongs make a right.

There is no way to counter this kind of bigotry except by demonstrating to people that their stereotypes are just that... stereotypes. That the very thing they are pointing the finger at one group of people about because of something some of their members are doing, and using it as their argument for why therse people are the worst people, are things that are done by some members of all groups of people, everywhere.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 11:59 PM

Sometimes Islam is the problem. Sometimes Christianity is the problem. Sometimes Hinduism is the problem. Sometimes Judaism is the problem. Sometimes men are the problem. Sometimes capitalism is the problem. Sometimes human selfishness is the problem.

In your case, Ooh-Aah2, ignorance seems to be the problem.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 08:57 PM

AS I pointed out earlier, Margaret Hassan, the Care worker who was murdered in Iraq,was a Muslim.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 07:41 PM

Muslim people, like Christians are (often) fine, it's 'Islam' that's the problem. The decency and other virtues that people like to ascribe to their religion is in fact a function of their humanity. Religions, especially unreconstructed, or only partly and patchily reconstucted ones like Islam serve mainly as excuses for justifying the otherwise unjustifiable. What could be argued about simply in terms of its impact of other human beings suddenly has the unquantifiable and mercenary element of 'what God wants' added to it. Unfortunately a scary number of them think that God wants them to kill in his name. I am interested in tolerating only religions where the vast majority of adherents have got past this stage, and I am unconvinced that this has occurred with Islam. Do you remember the Salman Rushdie affair? I was in Britain at the time, and I remember watching talk-shows in disbelief as well-off educated western Muslims calmly argued that his death was entirely justified because his book had insulted Islam. If these people didn't know any better (and were arrogantly prepared to spit in the face of a society that had tolerated them and allowed them to prosper) then we cannot be very sanguine about other Muslims in other parts of the world - unless of course they act according to their underlying human decency rather than from their religion.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 06:47 PM

As I mentioned in my first post for Justa Picker, just because you don't know about what moderate Muslims are doing and saying about the problem of extremist Islam, doesn't mean that they are not doing or saying anything. It just means that you aren't being given the information through your news media, and you couldn't be bothered to look it up for yourself.

You yourself are stunningly ignorant about Islam if you seriously believe that a religion can simply be characterised by its teachings!

I'm not just talking about the teachings. I'm talking about what I know about Muslim people I encounter in various places in my daily life, who are just as varied in the degree of strictness they practice in their religion as the members of every other relegion I encounter.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 06:38 PM

Time you learned to read Carol C. Again,it is not simply the different degrees of fundamentalism that bother me, it is the deafening silence from the overwhelming majority of Muslims when the horrors are perpetrated that worries me.

You yourself are stunningly ignorant about Islam if you seriously believe that a religion can simply be characterised by its teachings! A religion is a complex nexus of techings, beliefs, attitudes and actions (in this case the lack of them). If one were to judge medieval Christianity by its teachings, one would think it quite a nice religion (screams of mirth).

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 05:57 PM

The part that makes you a bigot, Ooh-Aah2, is the way you stereotype and characterize a religion that is as varied in the degree of fundamentalism (and/or lack of fundamentalism) and tolerance/intolerance as just about every other religion in the world, as well as quite a few non-religious philosophies, as if it was only represented by the standards of the most fundamentalist members of that religion. Approaching a discussion of Islam in a non-bigoted way would involve actually knowing something about Islam and its teachings, as well as the various degrees of strictness and/or fundamentalism that are practiced by its adherents, something you clearly know little or nothing about based on your 19 Nov 04 - 05:30 PM post to this thread.

Common sense involves not stereotyping whole groups of people based on your own ignorance of those people. So pardon me if I don't take any advice from you on matters relating to common sense.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 05:32 PM

Note I was going to attack the Muslim trweatment of women! Perhaps another time. The violence perpetrated and condoned by Islam is quite enough for now.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 05:30 PM

If there is one way of turning an adult argument into an infantile shouting match, Carol C, it is to accuse someone you know zilch about of being a racist bigot. I know sensible people are in a huge minority in the USA, but the pressure you are under from your own racists does not excuse you from a certain bigoted hysteria of your own. You know nothing about my views on race (a massive non-sequitur because we are discusssing a religion anyway) beside the fact that I have a mysterious dislike for a savage medieval creed which regards violence against unarmed and helpless people as either being (1) noble (2) acceptable, because they are only infidels (3) sad, but not worth protesting loudly about because the perpetrators are brother Muslims and 'Islam is under attack from the West'. I fail to see what the cruelties of other religions at other times and in other places has got to do with the rather large problems presented by Muslim loonies now. If I lived in the 12th century my views on Christianity would be identical. The clear point is that through various historical processes some religions have stopped being such savage fools, and we are left with Islam, who is still at a stage similar to Christianity before it had its teeth drawn by the Enlightenment - that is, thinking that religion is important enough to kill for.



that treats women like mud (and responds to criticism by stating 'our women LIKE being treated like mud', and even worse, brainwashing its women to say 'actually I like being treated like mud') and is somehow the only one which proudly boasts of its terrorist crimes and as others have pointed out,

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 05:22 PM

I get puzzled by the way people manage to work themselves up into such a rage because someone they have never met disagrees with them. Most people don't, from what I've seen here, but the ones that do really do seem to lose it sometimes.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 05:05 PM

Not sure what your point is there Justa Picker. I have never harbored the illusion that you could give a rat's ass what I thought of you. You asked me a question and I attempted to answer it. After I answered it, you accused me of hating Jews. And then you posted something that is such a reprehensible pack of lies, it cannot go without some response.

If you prefered not to get a response from me, it doesn't make very nuch sense for you to ask me a question.

By the way, even though you don't give a rat's ass what I think of you, I actually don't hate you, or even dislike you. I just vigorously disagree with you about some things.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Justa Picker
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 05:02 PM

(1) more thing.

The failure to contain Iran and their nuclear amibitions (something that should have been dealt with 15 years ago) IS going to result in fulfilling Nostramdamus's predictions of Armageddon. I wish I was wrong but clearly the writing IS on the wall now. But don't take my word for it. Just sit back, watch and wait.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Justa Picker
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 04:56 PM

Carol,
Let's get something straight.
I couldn't give a rats ass of what you think of me...so save your comments and your energy and perhaps misdirect it somewhere else.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 04:45 PM

That screed by Mr. Miller is a bunch of propagandistic bullshit, and I can prove it using nothing but declassified Israeli historical documents. But if I do that, you'll accuse me of hating Jews. You see, I understand the tactic of using the charge of "anti-Semitism" as a tool of power and control. And it doesn't work on me.

If I were really an anti-Semite, I would be saying exactly the same things that you say about Muslims, ie: that all Jews are the same and none of them are condemning or working against the most extremist militant Jews. But since I see Jews as human beings just like everyone else (unlike the way you see Muslims and Arabs), I know for a fact that there are many, many Jews who are not extremists, and who also condemn the actions of the government of Israel towards the Palestinians.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 04:39 PM

Hardly, Justa Picker. It's just that the Jews I quote here in the Mudcat don't meet your approval because they don't share your hatred of Muslims and Arabs.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Justa Picker
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 04:39 PM

I think Dennis Miller summed it up best.

========================================

The Story of the Middle East

Dennis Miller- Monday 10th Nov 2003

"A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all who still don't get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you Really need.

Here we go:

The Palestinians want their own country.

There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians.

It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years.
Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern Invention. Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, and there were no "Palestinians" then, and the West Bank Was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the Palestinians," weeping for Their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation."

So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our Deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."

I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters." Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing. No, they don't.

They could 've had their own country any time in the last thirty years, Especially two years ago at Camp David. But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to Figure out some way to make a living. That's no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region Want: Israel.

They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course -- that's where The real fun is -- but mostly they want Israel.

Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel - or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it -- for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on G-d's Earth, and if you've ever been around G-d's Earth, you know that's really saying something.

It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about. The great history and culture of the Muslim Mideast. Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, By the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.

Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five Million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a Pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, Everyone will be pals.

Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.

My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the Numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it.

Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the Worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations in Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a Roomful of supermodels who've just had their drugs taken away.

However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of Losing moral weight.

We've already lost some. After September 11 our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the Countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we Did, and we tell them to show restraint.

If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean and East of the Jordan.

----

Dennis Miller ia a Christian and a TV entertainer who has a Show called Dennis Miller Live on HBO.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Justa Picker
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 04:34 PM

"You hate all Muslims, and you are entirely incapable of seeing anything any of them do in a positive light. And you are entirely incapable of not seeing all of them as subhuman creatures who deserve to be killed."

And the same can be said of you towards Jews (and Israel.)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 04:28 PM

It's not that they aren't doing what you would like them to do, JP. It's that whenever they do, one of two things almost always happens. Either:

A. There is no media coverage of it in the US and Canada (and very probably most of Europe as well), or:

B. When it is pointed out that they have done exactly as you have said you would like them to do, someone will say "Well they can say that, but I don't believe them". I had just such a conversation with Rabbi Sol on another thread. He said the majority of Muslims never condemn or try to do anything to stop what the extremist Muslims are doing. I showed him a couple of dozen examples of condemnations and other efforts by moderate Muslim groups against the extremists. And he just said he didn't believe them and didn't trust them. So they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

It won't ever matter to you how hard they work to condemn or to end Islamic extremism. You hate all Muslims, and you are entirely incapable of seeing anything any of them do in a positive light. And you are entirely incapable of not seeing all of them as subhuman creatures who deserve to be killed.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Justa Picker
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 04:07 PM

If so the so-called Islamic extremists are such a minorty, than why are the MAJORITY not doing more to help eradicate those that tarnish and subvert Islam for their own extremist agendas? Seems like only Pakistan is taking a hard line towards the extremists.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 02:46 PM

McGrath expressed it well for me, I think, but I would go even further. If you were here in the US, your perspective might be a little different. We are inundated with an alarming amount of very one-sided propaganda that continually points the finger at extremist Islamists, but that does a deplorable job of showing that the extremists are a fringe and not the majority of Muslims. If you look at some of the posts from people in the US here in this thread, you will see that there are people who paint all Muslims with the same broad brush. The climate here in the US with regard to Muslims is not at all unlike what you hear coming from the neo-Nazis about certain groups of people, the only difference being that it is many outlets in our mainstream media that are putting this stuff out there, and not some fringe group.

We in the US are being programmed to hate all Muslims, so we won't mind it so much when we are expected to support our government killing them (which is does with great regularity). The best comparison I can come up with is that the US is, in many respects, becoming very much like what Germany was like just prior to WWII. And for this reason, I feel it is the responsibility of all people of conscience to show these hatemongering stereotypes for what they are.

You continually accuse me of being one sided when it comes to criticism of Israel. What you seem incapable of understanding is that there is also a very one-sided propaganda campaign here in the US on the subject of Iraael/Palestine. I only introduce information about Israel/Palestine as a response when I see some of this one-sided propaganda being promoted here in the Mudcat. I never introduce anything on that subject that isn't in response to something someone else has posted. I have no intention of criticizing Israel in the absence of someone else's introduction of one-sided debate on that subject, nor have I ever done so. The fact that you don't notice the presence of whatever it is that I'm responding to shows the bias that you have already admitted to having on this subject.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 06:35 AM

Wolfgang, you seem to have taken it that when Carol said "There are people on this thread, and in the world generally, who are practicing bigotry towards a whole group of people because of the actions of some of that group." she was referring to you, when clearly she wasn't, and equally clearly what she said was accurate.

It may possibly be that in Germany these days, in the light of history, the media and people in general are careful to make a distinction between the bad things that individuals or extremist sub-groups may do, and the wider community or group from which they come. If so that is a very good thing. But it is not something which can be taken for granted.

In my experience the "working assumption" that all people or the media in general make that kind of distinction is over optimistic. All too often there are coded messages about whole groups - "asylum seekers", "gypsies", "Asians", "Muslims" - masked as criticisms of individuals, or deviant sub-groups. Thatis why it is often important to be explicit about such distinctions.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 06:32 AM

Wolfgang, you seem to have taken it that when Carol said "There are people on this thread, and in the world generally, who are practicing bigotry towards a whole group of people because of the actions of some of that group." she was referring to you, when clearly she wasn't, and equally clearly what she said was accurate.

It may possibly be that in Germany these days, in the light of history, the media and people in general are careful to make a distinction between the bad things that individuals or extremist sub-groups within a wider community may do. If so that is a very good thing. But it is not soemthing which can be taken for granted.

In my experience the "working assumption" that all people or the media in general make that kind of distinction is over optimistic. All too often there are coded messages about whole groups - "asylum seekers", "gypsies", "Asians", "Muslims" - masked as criticisms of individuals, or deviant sub-groups.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 05:19 AM

'Preventing women getting sunburn'
ROTFLMFAO
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 04:53 AM

When people only focus on the wrongs committed by one group of people, ignoring all of the good that group is responsible for (Carol)

Huh? You seem to address me, Carol. I have singled out two groups, Neonazis and fundamentalist Muslims. Please, tell me why should I not focus, for instance, on the wrongs done by Neonazis without mentioning the good they do (increase the German beer consumption, for instance). And why should I not criticise the group of fundamentalist Muslims without mentioning the good they do (preventing woman geting a sunburn)? I think you know the difference between German Neonazis and Germans as a whole group and also that between all Muslims and Muslim fundamentalists. So please could you discuss on the working assumptions that others also do know this difference. So when I criticise let's say Bush I shall do so in future without mentioning at the same time that lots of US-Americans do good things and do not appreciated Bush's politics. I hope that's alright with you.


In a very similar way as I criticise our Neonazis without feeling compelled to mention (and, BTW, not mentioning is not the same as 'ignoring'; don't make assumptions here) the good things other Germans have done and still are doing, I see no reason to accompany each critique of fundamentalist Muslims by a praise of the good done by others of that faith.

You seem to grasp this difference very well when it comes to Jews and Israel. When you (or someone else) criticises a criminal act or a violation of human rights by the government of Israel or a part of the IDF and someone else, let's say MG, cries 'antisemitic' you (or someone else) point out quickly that criticising one particular action or one particular person does not mean that the whole group of that faith or nationality is slighted.

But when it comes to Arabs/Muslims and one group (fundamentalists) or one action is criticised you parrot MG (though I appreciate the very big differences in level of argumentation and language): 'Anti-Arab', 'Anti-Muslim'. To call into doubt the motives of those criticising one particular group is a very weak last resort argumentation.

And you made me laugh out loud when you told me what I should perceive as the greatest threat here in Germany. You know so much about that it seems.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 12:57 PM

"Omnes moritatem. Deus suos cognoscet."   Kill them all, God will know his own" When asked how to seperate Catholics from Cathars,at the seige of Beziers July 1209 AD said by the papal legate Arnaud Amaury. 60,000 men women and children. Catholic extremists against fellow Christians. 1209-1255 an estimate of 1 million casualties.
So there are examples of religious extremism all over the world.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 09:33 AM

No, I have read your posts about other religions, Ooh-Aah2, which is why I mentioned the bit about Athiests and secular governments. My point is that Muslims are not any more inherently prone to barbaric and destructive behavior than any other groups of people. Just you being the racist bigot you are, you don't tend to notice the atrocities being committed in your name. You're in Australia, right? Definitely no atrocities committed against indegenous people there by people who are not Muslims.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 06:13 AM

That's the one, Alba. Thanks.

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 05:10 AM

Rather be a bigot than blind, folks. The penalty for ignoring the clear and strong threat from Muslim extremists will be more champions of tolerance with their mouths full of earth. The clear difference between the Muslim morons and the Neo Nazi version is that the Nazis are a legacy of our history, and they are our problem. The Muslims are a problem we have imported.

Carol C, you clearly haven't bothered to read my earlier posts re. my view of Christianity, Judaism and right-wing Hinduism. Fuck 'em all.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 08:43 PM

but others (including me) talk about what (and who) threatens the peaceful living together now and here in this part of Europe. I only see two groups now that pose a relevant threat here

You are so, so wrong about that, Wolfgang. Germany is just as vulnerable to nuclear attack as any other country. Your way of life in Germany is much more at risk from the actions of the Right Wing Neocons who run my country than it is from the extremist Islamists.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 08:37 PM

It has nothing whatever to do with suggesting that two wrongs make a right, Wolfgang. There are people on this thread, and in the world generally, who are practicing bigotry towards a whole group of people because of the actions of some of that group, ignoring completely the good people of that group, and ignoring completely the wrongs committed by the groups to which they themselves belong.

When people only focus on the wrongs committed by one group of people, ignoring all of the good that group is responsible for, and they ignore all of the bad things done by other groups, including their own, focusing only on what they perceive to be the good those other groups have done, they are engaging in bigotry and scapegoating. Especially when a genetic factor is introduced into the equation.

We need to nip that sort of thing in the bud before it becomes another holocaust, only with a different group of people serving as the scapegoats.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 04:59 PM

"No tolerance for the enemies of tolerance" That's a good slogan, and I agree with it - but there's a danger it could be used by people trying to drum up hate against Muslims as such. That's the kind of game whch has been played in the past, for example against Catholics in England in the 19th century and before.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 04:06 PM

The beat goes on: Now a Belgian female politician, Mimount Bousakla, who has dared to criticise the supreme Belgian Muslim organisation for not condemning the murder of van Gogh has gotten the threat that she will be "ritually slaughtered" too.

Some may prefer to talk about other acts of intolerance at other times (with a very remote relevance to this thread) as if two wrongs..., but others (including me) talk about what (and who) threatens the peaceful living together now and here in this part of Europe. I only see two groups now that pose a relevant threat here:

Fundamentalist Muslims trying to force their way of life on others and
xenophobic Neonazis (or extreme rightwing groups) fighting (too often physically) for a Europe without foreigners.
These two groups even get part of their strength from the atrocities of the respective other group.

No tolerance for the enemies of tolerance.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 03:02 PM

Actually that's very much the kind of metaphor that anti-semites have been prone to use about Jews.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Chris Green
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 02:47 PM

"These people may be the bed bugs, but Islam is the bed."

Cool metaphor, OohAah. Shame it's bollocks.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 02:24 PM

"I notice they've just shot a gentle harmless woman who worked all her life for Muslims...

And who was herself a Muslim. This thing wasn't done by Musims as a group, but by some individuals who we can reasonably surmise were, in some sense, Muslims.
...............................

Incidently Carol didn't mention who the commanding officer of the Israeli unit involved in that massacre at Qibya, though if you follow that link you will find out. He was called Ariel Sharon, and later went on to bigger things.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 02:01 PM

Christian intolerance:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

"One source reported in late 1996, that there has been "over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups since 1982 in over 150 arson attacks, bombings, and shootings.""

More Christian intolerance:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1779713.stm

"The 1982 massacres of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila refugee camps claimed the lives of at least 800 civilians, murdered by Lebanese Christian militiamen allied to Israel during its brief occupation of the Lebanese capital, Beirut.

The killings are considered the worst atrocity of Lebanon's 15-year civil war and perhaps during the entire Middle East conflict."

Hindu intolerance:

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00001558&channel=civic%20center

"While Gandhi's fascination with Geeta is well-known, a lesser known fact is that his assassin, Nathu Ram Godse, too claimed to get his inspiration from the very same scripture. He said in his statement at his murder trial that he was an admirer of Gandhi and indeed revered him as a Mahatma. Gandhi was to him what Dronacharya, Arjun's guru, was to Arjun. Arjun revered Dronacharya, Bheesham Pitamah and other elders who were in the enemy camp, whom he was required to kill in the battlefield and the thought of killing whom was the reason of his despair and his pangs of conscience. Godse, indeed, bowed before Gandhi in reverence before he shot him to death, just as Arjun showed reverence to Bheesham Pitamah while he pierced him with his arrows.

Godse believed that Gandhi was responsible for the vivisection of his beloved motherland, had betrayed the Hindu nation and was the cause of the loss of life and honour of millions. Therefore, he deserved to die. There was no joy in this task for Godse. In killing Gandhi, he was just fulfilling what he believed to be his dharma. In his mind, he was following the same course of action that Krishna had asked Arjun to follow in the Geeta. Having accepted the role of the assassin, he did not let his personal feelings for Gandhi prevent him from carrying out his "dharma"."

Jewish intolerance:

http://www.counterpunch.org/ridenhour10142003.html

"October 14, 2003 marks the fifty year anniversary of a virtually forgotten massacre. In the Jordanian village of Qibya, a total of 69 civilians were murdered in a six hour killing spree, which almost totally destroyed the town. The attackers blew up about forty houses, a school, water pumping station, police station and telephone office (1) and they sustained no casualties, as Qibya was virtually undefended.

Of the first 42 bodies recovered after the attack, 38 were women and children.(2) One man lost all 11 members of his family. Describing the scene, a UN observer stated that 'Bullet-riddled bodies near the doorways and multiple bullet hits on the doors of the demolished houses indicated that the inhabitants had been forced to remain inside until their homes were blown up over them.'(1)"


I'm sure if I spend a little time at it, I can find plenty of examples of Atheist intolerance and intolerance on the part of secualr governments.

And for Guido, if it's a violence and aggression gene you're after, you want to be looking for that one in males of European ancestry, since it's that category of people who are responsible for most of the greatest atrocities in recorded history.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 12:09 PM

Here you go, Ooh-Aah2, you flaming bigot:

Iraqis Angry, Distraught at Aid Worker's Murder

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Alba
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 05:16 AM

Dave (the Gnome:>)....is the writing you refer to by Twain..The War Prayer?
Blue Clicky
Blessings
Jude

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 04:24 AM

I notice they've just shot a gentle harmless woman who worked all her life for Muslims through the head in cold blood. I can't imagine even US Christian fundies doing such a thing. OK, these creatures (they are not men) are a minority, but do I hear a great scream of rage from the Muslim world? No mate I do not. We will have this condemned by a few western Muslim leaders, who may well have been infected by humanity from living in civilised countries for so long, but the rest...? They won't bat an eyelid. Also a woman's body found a few days ago, mutilated beyond belief. These people may be the bed-bugs, but Islam is the bed.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 01:32 AM

Yeah Guido - So is the Mafia.

d

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Guido
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:16 PM

I heard of a scientist that has discovered the gene that makes people
prone to be "religious/spiritual". I hope that instead of looking for
this good and nice gene this scientist starts searching for the gene that make muslims prone to be "terrorists/murderers".   We could make
millions of anti terrorist-gene vaccine amd ship it all to muslim
countries. Islam is a problem wherever it go.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Nov 04 - 12:58 PM

It is without doubt a hate crime, the reason why it is not specified as such is because the murderer as a Muslim is expected by many to hate all non Muslims. We know that this is not true and that all Muslims don't hate all non Muslims, however it is also unfortunately true that more of them fear and hate us than vice versa. However due to the activities of a militant minority the balance is shifting.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,1127
Date: 08 Nov 04 - 12:24 PM

Could someone please explain to me why this isn't being called a hate crime? If a Dutch citizen had murdered a Muslim the media would be screaming "Hate Crime Against Minority Muslim!" But since a Muslim was the murderer and the Dutch citizen the victim no one mentions this. Is it a hate crime only if the victim is a minority?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Nov 04 - 12:09 PM

The murder has been planned for some time by a group of fundamentalist Muslims. The murder has been performed in the ritual slaughter style of the 11th century Muslim assassins together with fixing at the breast of the murdered man a note who will be murdered next: former Muslim and now secularist Hirsi Ali. A death list has been found with van Gogh being the first name. Several people who have been speaking critically of Islam are on that list and, who will be surprised, some prominent Dutch Jews.

This was not just one disturbed man, this is, at least in their perception, a part of a fight between cultures. We should not forget that in central Europe some liberal principles dear to us now are just about a century old or even younger: freedom of speech, equality of women including their right to leave a violent man, trial instead of personal revenge, freedom of (and from) religion, freedom of consensual sexual activity, freedom to criticise beliefs and governments... the list is long, but not very old.

Then people come to us from a culture with traditional values more similar to ours about 100 years ago and are immersed into a culture threatening their values. The power of the family patriarch about all his family is questioned, his wife may legally spend money without asking him, his daughter may date a man from another faith, may even marry without asking his permission, honour killings are not treated as understandable and give a token sentence but are treated as murder, literature critical of Islam is freely available, in School Islam is treated as one religion of many, woman walk about in a way no decent woman should but insist on being treated not as an easy quarry,...

On the other side, the majority society treats these people as second class, gives them bad jobs and little money, bad housing and looks down on them. In this climate, fundamentalist ideas gain support, the traditional religion in its most extreme variant seems to be a shield against the threats of liberal secularism. But for a fanatic fringe, it is not only the aim to live themselves according to the traditional rules but to want everybody around them to follow their rules. A young girl of sixteen grown up in a strict traditional way may start to question why all their friends walk around without head scarf, date young men, or simply go together without a brotherly watchdog to amusements. The patriarch (or a brother) may feel that the old way would be easier to implement if everybody around them would follow their way, the right way. From that, a dangerous mixture of anger, hate and longing for the old values may arise and lead to the conviction that the fight for the old values can and even must be fought with no restrictions whatsoever.

I love to live in our present secular society, with that big amount of personal freedom. I do not mind at all if someone else follows a strange (to me) set of rules as long as it doesn't interfere with what I consider my freedom of expression. Christians, at this time in history and at this place in Europe are no realistic threat to how I wish to live. If I would live on the Outer Hebrides they would be the focus of my critique. Here and now for me, Muslim fundamentalism is the biggest threat for my way of life, and, second to that, the immigrants form Russian with their culture of open violence and the German Neonazis with their ideas of roll back, are. I want these three groups to adapt to our style of living and interacting.

Those who think that giving in to a modest range of demands (oil etc.) are taken in by the Bin Laden front propaganda. The fight is about much more than oil and Israel, the first demands, it is a deep clash of cultures and it will be with us for long.

Those who do not share the fight, will share the defeat (Brecht).

Wolfgang

PS: And, also not surprisingly, the first attacks upon Mosques in the Netherlands are reported.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 11:32 AM

Sorry, e - Yes I was but I misunderstood. I thought you meant a war fought in gods name. It is certainly fair to say that in all conflicts gods name will be called upon by all sides so I guess you will never be able to find one that wasn't!

That does not necesarily make it a religious war though does it? Surely to be a religious war it would have to be fought with the primary purpose of damaging another religion in some way? If that is the case I think it would be hard to find one that qualifies, which was my original point. Wars are rarely fought with this primary objective. The cry may be for God or Allah, agreed, but the cause is inevitably for land or power.

Have you read Twains bit on god going into a church and explaining why praying for victory is wrong btw? Wonderful piece of prose posted elsewhere on the Mudcat if I remember rightly! I tried a search but there were too many Twain and Clemens references to look through! perhaps some kind soul will know where it is?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 10:42 AM

Dave, are you answering my question? You couldn't be, because "God" was surely evoked by both sides during the Civil War, and in many political speeches of the day.

"Is it possible that many of those who perpetrate the worst violence do so because they are not sure enough of their own faith to tolerate the fact that other people might not agree? "

Jacqui, I so agree with your last post, but I will only add this; though I do think you may be right in what I quote from you above, one can find portions in many religious texts about violence against others who are unbelievers. The Old Testament goes without saying as being one of the bloodiest books ever written, but I've found statements in the Koran, and the New Testament, where one could easily invoke the "right" to perpetrate violence.

So as far as I'm concerned, the answer to your question is yes, and no-because they are sometimes TOO SURE of their faith as opposed to others.

..xx..e

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 07:55 AM

American Civil War?

(Civil War? Oxymoron surely:-) )

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 07:44 AM

Seems to me that a lot of this discord has two bases. One is the push for power by individuals or groups and the other is the fear of anyone who appears to be 'different'. Put those two together and there really is the formula for violence.

There also seems to be an aggresive streak inherent in humans, which tends to show itself more in young men than elsewhere in the population. Just look at the violence in football and city gangs. While females do get involved this is a predominantly male activity. Maybe a lot of young males need an outlet for whatever hormonal activity might cause this tendency. Most probably get it from hobbies or pursuing a career, but there always seem to be those who channel it into violence, making them a good breeding ground for the power hungry.

I would agree that religion is often used as an excuse to beat the hell out of other people, because it is such an emotive issue, relying so much on the faith of the believer. Is it possible that many of those who perpetrate the worst viloence do so because they are not sure enough of their own faith to tolerate the fact that other people might not agree?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 06:59 AM

Precisely.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 06:24 AM

Religion doesn't murder people.

People murder people.

In the name of their religion.


I'm trying hard to think of one war where some kind of "God" wasn't invoked as being on somebody's side, if not both.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 05:01 AM

The standard analysis of Norn Iron was always that there were too many Catholics, AND too many Protestants, and not enough Christians. This aphorism uses christian in the sense I prefer it to be used.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 04:19 AM

The 'political' struggle in NI, for example - if all of NI was one religion or the other, the 'politics' would not have arisen

Sorry Ooh-Aah. Not True. There are Protestant republicans and Catholic loyalists. And don't forget, the trouble makers there are all so called Christians! The struggles in Northern Ireland were always about English domination. It would not have mattered two hoots if the Pope ruled England. The republicans would still have wanted a united Ireland. It is the English media that have given the struggles a religious camoflage in this case. It sounds better to have Catholics struggling against Protestants than to have an oppressed people struggling against the English!

And before you ask - No I am not a republican. I am nominaly a Catholic but was brought up Russian Orthodox and now have a religion all to myself:-)

I certainly agree it is odd that the political leaders can get people wound up more easily about religion than they can about anything else but that's human nature for you! Perhaps one of our resident psychologists can let us know why people get so exited about such a vague concept as God while ignoring the more tangible facets of life like music and beer;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 02:47 AM

But you and the Gnome are both forgetting that a great deal of the politics is created by the religions in the first place. The politics in these cases arises because of the hatred and difference fostered by religion. The 'political' struggle in NI, for example - if all of NI was one religion or the other, the 'politics' would not have arisen.

What does it say about these religions anyway if 'political' differences can be so easily be given a religious camoflage? - either they are quite able to cope with the idea of smiting the infidel ('The Quran or the sword!/ Onward Christian soldiers!/ Israel for God's chosen people!)or else we can ditch them anyway as few people apparently believe their surface love'npeace hypocracy enough to resist the temptation to accept their appropriation by 'political' motives.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Grab
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 06:50 PM

If we want to talk intolerance, maybe remember that the inhabitants of a godfearing Christian country called Serbia did their level best to wipe out Bosnian Muslims because of their religion. Or even better, think of Northern Ireland and the battle between two factions of Christianity.

As always, the religious thing is just the cover for political nastiness. Only a very few nutters really believe the religious stuff enough to kill, the rest follow for political reasons.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 01:04 PM

John 'Giok' MacKenzie, Ariel Sharon has been threatened with assasination by many people in Israel as a result of his work toward removing Israeli settlements in Gaza. And as we've seen, when people in Israel make those kinds of threats against their prime minister, on at least one occasion those threats were carried out. In India, Gandhi was assasinated by intolerant Hindi (Hindus?) who didn't like his positions with regard to Muslims. We've already touched on a number of examples of Christian intolerance. It's not just Muslims who sometimes practice intolerance. It's just Muslims who are the target of our scapegoating at this point in history.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:56 AM

It becomes more and more obvious that the murderer was not a lone extremists but the one acting for a group of Muslim fanatics planning this murder together since long.

In the Netherlands, like in many other European countries, there are closely cooperating small groups of Islamists ready to use physical force including murder for their aims.

That the murder was committed 911 days after the murder of the outspoken anti-Muslim-fundamentalism Pim Fortuyn may be a coincidence or a planned sign.

The Netherlands are asking now whether they are too tolerant towards militant groups. On the other hand, they have to ask themselves what they have done wrong (or failed to do) in the integration of foreigners: 40 % of the Maroccan youths in the Netherlands have not finished school. Foreigners are 4 times as likely as born Netherlanders to be without job. One third of all people in Amsterdam are not Netherlanders. They live in a parallel world, at best ignoring the liberal Netherland world or at worst fighting militantly against it and against the values liberal Dutch have fought for since decades.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: jaze
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 09:36 AM

I went to a "Christian" church and the Minister said "All gays and Muslims are going to Hell". I nearly fell off the chair. Sadly,this is the kind of thinking that half of America just voted for. God help us.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 04:49 AM

Jawbone of an ass? I thought it was the arsebone of a giraffe? Or was that another version?

:D

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 04:43 AM

The Roman persecution of the druids was political, not religious

And the situation in Palestine isn't political? Northern Ireland is realy about Catholics and Protestants? Hmmmm. In your own words, Ooh-Aah, dream on.

always seem to be from these three faiths - coincidence? I don't think so. I don't think so either. Considering that out of the worlds population of around 6 billion, 4 billion of them are of the three monotheist faiths there is a 66% chance that all troublemakers come from one of them.

Can I offer some advice? You don't need to take it:-) Think the argument through beyond face value. I am not disagreeing with you - honest! Religion does appear to be a major cause of conflict but things are not always what they seem. I can guarantee that anyone in a position to cause major upheaval in the world is not interested in what god you worship or how. They are only interested in one thing - power. They use religion and any other means at their disposal to stir up people who know no better while keeping their own hands clean. But it is not religion itself that has caused the conflict.

If you must choose to hate anything or anyone don't pick on the tool. Pick on the user. I'd rather you did not hate anyone though. It is far less stressful:-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 04:19 AM

You can always slay your enemy with 'the jawbone of an ass', they don't have to be Phillistines although there are still a few around.
I see now that a faction of Iraqui Moslems are threatening to kill one member of every christian family in Iraq, because their women go bare headed. Nothing intolerent about that is there?
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: NH Dave
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 03:43 AM

Ooh-Aah2, much of the persecution of which you speak was political in nature. The pan Arabic people and the Jews lived together in as much peace as any two peoples with differing beliefs and customs can do. Their lands were, however, conquored by the Romans, who brought and imposed Pax Romana on their subjugated lands, Jewish and Arabic alike.   During the initial rise of Christianity, the Jews delivered Christ to the Romans because he was a troublemaker, and when the Romans had no law with which to charge him, they released hom back into the Jew's tender mercies where he was promptly crucified! End of problem!

Except his words began to convert other Jews, and these converts began to annoy the polytheistic occupying Romans, so they started picking up these new Christians and using them as Gladiator and wild beast fodder in their ampitheaters and circuses, which didn't do the Christians any good at all.

A good 500 years later a man named Mohammed was born and decided that he had been given visions of greatness for his people, which resulted in the birth of Islam, which was a completely new belief set, as had been the Christian one some 500 years earlier. By this time Christianity had pretty much taken over the better part of civiized Europe, and since the Arabs, aka Infidels, were living in and ruling what had become holy sites for the Christians, Christian/Catholic popes encouraged armed expeditions to free these holy sies from the grasp of the infidels.

So now you have both the Jews and Arabs living in what we now call the Holy Lands, and the Christians in much of Europs trying to wrest these lands from the grasp of obvious unbelievers. These affairs went on until the beginnings of the plague years in Europe, when they had much to much on their local plates to worry about or conduct Crusades, and they just tried to keep on living.

From this, Judaism predated both Christianity and Islam by hundreds or even thousands of years, if you condider the original religious belief set that eventually became what we now call Judaism. Christianity and more importantly Islam were really Johnny come latelys to the region, and the damage each meted out to the others was usually politically motivated, and remains so to this day.

Dave

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:10 PM

The Roman persecution of the druids was political, not religious - the druids were constantly stirring up insurrection against them.

"If all the guns departed the world tomorrow we would still murder each other" - yep, and for the same reasons as ever, a fair chunk of that being the kind of intolerance brought to perfection by the three monotheisms. And before you make the obvious point, it's the intolerance I am intolerant of.

"Once the religions are at peace" - dream on!

Hatred is spread by the monotheisms - hating spreaders of hatred is quite legitimate (the religions themselves I mean, not the poor moderate dupes within them).

It's strange that 'pillocks using religion as an excuse' always seem to be from these three faiths - coincidence? I don't think so.

'Giok' you obviously didn't read my original post very thoroughly - I dislike Christianity just as much as Islam. The old Pagans certainly got stuck into each other but it was the advent of the three monotheisms which provided whole new reason/ excuse/ motivation for bigger, bloodier, bitterer wars than ever. Now we have modern weapons it's only going to get more hideous - medieval minds with missiles.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:26 AM

I'm not sure I do catch your drift, e? I would agree with the statement about guns. If all guns in the world disappeared tomorrow we would still murder each other!

It is not just an excuse saying it is people, but a truism. No religion, as far as I am aware, has ever gone for the 'hate your neigbour' doctrine. It is when the religious dogma starts to be interpreted by other people that the problems arise.

Did you ever see Johny Speights (of 'till death do us part' fame) play, 'If there wern't any blacks we'd have to invent them'? Fantastic study in intolerance where a blind man decides that someone he meets is black and, therfore, inferior. Could be equaly applied to religion.

Once the religions are at peace who are the politicians blame for all our ills? Folk singers perhaps? ;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:00 AM

...the guy in the Netherlands (Van Gogh) was murdered only once.

Wolfgang (grin)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 08:53 AM

"Religion isn't the cause of of all problems, Oooh-Aah2. It's people."

I dunno, it sounds too much to me like "Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people".


If you catch my drift.

..xx..e

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 08:31 AM

Just to keep a sense of perspective, Doug, the guy in the Netherlands (Van Gogh) was murdered only once. Apart from which, I'm with CarolC, Amos and John O'Lennaine on this. (If that embraces any contradictions, well that's me.)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 08:13 AM

before they were spawned religious intolerance was pretty well unknown in Europe.

Errrrrr - Didn't the pagan romans try to wipe out the pagan druids?

Religion isn't the cause of of all problems, Oooh-Aah2. It's people.

Statements like Be a Pagan like me! and I hate the lot of them - utterly worthless wastes of time seem to indicate that hatred does not seem to be the monopoly of the monotheists.

In answer to Giok's original question (more muslem intolerance?) I would say no it isn't. Just more pillocks using religion as an excuse.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 07:23 AM

There have been 15,087 reported instances of violence and/or harassment against abortion providers in America since 1977, including 7 murders and 17 attempted murders (actual instances are most likely much higher.) In 2000, more than half of all providers experienced anti-choice harassment.

Sources:

-National Abortion Federation Fact Sheet, "Violence and Disruption Statistics," December 2002.

- S.K. Henshaw, "The Accessibility of Abortion Services In the United States, 2001," Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35:1, January/February 2003.

Statistics compiled June 2003

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: greg stephens
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 07:02 AM

OohAah2: you make a remarkably dogmatic statement about European history in the period before the invention of the Jewish faith. You may be right, but for the benefit of those of us without your background knowledge: what is the date you are using for the invention of Judaism, and what European sources are you relying on that date from before that period?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:44 AM

Religious intolerence
Ooh-Aah, I suggest you brush up your european history.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:41 AM

Van Gogh (yes, a distant relation to the painter) has had several death threath from within the Muslim community in the Netherlands since his film 'Submission' about male dominance, incest, battery and forced abortions in Muslim families. This film was coauthored with Hirsi Ali, a black woman from Sudan who is now a member of the parliament. Hirsi Ali had fled Sudan to avoid a forced marriage and later has given up her Muslim faith.

She has had death threats since then and is always accompanied by two body guards which she considered unneccessary up to yeasterday. Van Gogh was murdered while making a film about Pim Fortuyn, the politician murdered 2 1/2 years ago.

Van Gogh had declined all offers for body guards saying just last week in an interview he was just a court jester and noone would kill jesters. He was wrong. The murderer has fixed a written paper on his knife before the last stroke so we'll soon read his motives. But his appearance in a Bin Laden lookalike 'uniform' at ther day of the murder leaves little doubt even now.

Van Gogh's fanciful(?) language has not made him friends within the Muslim community when he called the militant wing of the Muslim comunity "medieval goat fuckers".

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:39 AM

Although I wouldn't have used exactly those words, I think Ooh-Aah2 has a fair grasp of the problem.

The Abrahamic Discord (as I like to think of it) seems to be the most prolific taker of life on Earth, and the three relevant religions simply blame each other and kill each other, then blame each other again.

There is a new Christian Fundamentalism rising, But I don't think it's restricted to the USA alone.

I don't see any end of it soon either.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 02:12 AM

you are one confused dude

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 01:19 AM

The real problem is the three monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Any lip service to peace and brotherhood they bullshit on about has been more than wiped out by the massive numbers of people killed over the years because of them - I hate the lot of them - utterly worthless wastes of time - before they were spawned religious intolerance was pretty well unknown in Europe. Christianity can take zero credit for being (just barely) more civilised than the Muslims, this is entirely due to the rise of secular humanism, and exists only because (in civilised parts of the world, ie not America) it has more or less had its teeth drawn. It's true we now have Hindu Nationalism (the BJP) but we can thank the others for this mutation of an otherwise undogmatic religion. Be a Pagan like me!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,JFK
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:22 AM

It's all Bush's fault.
I can fix it.
I have a plan.

JFK

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:19 AM

...and I agree with Bill D. It's way, way more than one or two murders of people involved with abortions by so called "Christians".

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:17 AM

You cannot use the sins of one group to excuse the sins of another, remember the old saw, 'Two wrongs don't make a right'

No you can't. But you also can't use the sins of one or even a handful of individuals within a group to judge the whole group. And you also can't point fingers at other groups for sins that are also committed by members of your own group without being a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Justa Picker
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 03:27 PM

For Muslim intolerance I like this site!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 03:16 PM

DougR...abortion clinics have been bombed, people have been threatened and intimidated, windows have been broken..etc...it does not require a shooting death to document MANY religion-driven harassment events. (And some anti-abortion zealots are just better shots than others..)

violence with religious justification IS common in this country...

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 03:09 PM

The thread title is phrased as a question, not a statement.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 02:54 PM

Extremism in ANY walk of life is the cause of so much of the trouble in the world today !! And that includes Music Extremists as well as the Political and Religious ones !!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 02:21 PM

It's not an everyday occurrence to kill film makers in Holland either.

clint

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 01:31 PM

You cannot use the sins of one group to excuse the sins of another, remember the old saw, 'Two wrongs don't make a right' There is NO excuse for ANYONE to take the life of another on whatever pretext. Unfortunately for all good peace loving Muslims there is a tranche of their adherents who seem to be intent on establishing a monopoly on justice as they see it. It is not doing their religion any favour, mud sticks, according to news reports today German papers are today bemoaning the English inability to forget the war. This should be an object lesson to those who perpetrate acts of violence, and fanatacism, it was after all 49 years ago that particular war ended.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: DougR
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 01:07 PM

Carol C: In all fairness, you might point out that shooting doctors who perform abortions is NOT an every day occurance here in the U. S. It has happend, perhaps once or twice in my memory, but I think your statement is misleading.

DougR

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 12:59 PM

Psychos will use any group, and any cause, that floats their boat. They will operate alone, or in teams or use no cause or excuse at all.

To condemn any racial or religous group because of individual acts of psychosis is a risky proposition unless you can find some sort of evidence that the group is promoting insane acts.

A

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 12:49 PM

Fanatics come in every shape and size, religious or otherwise.

Throughout history, people have found reasons to rationalize killing.

To narrow it down to one group is irrational, but a definite sign of the times.

It's what we do-demonize others when they commit fanatical acts of barbarism, but deny the opportunity to examine other cultures...like our own, that have perpetrated enough bloodshed in the name of...well whatever or whoever for millenia.

I do understand your despair, Giok, but it would be wiser to simply despair for the human race, not just one group within it. Until everyone takes responsibility for the actions of our species, this kind of hatred will just richochet from one place, and one group to another.

..xx..e

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 11:48 AM

Yes but do you go shooting and stabbing anybody who says it's wrong, then use religion as an excuse?

Here in the US, people who call themselves Christians murder doctors who perform abortions, and use their religion as an excuse. All religions have extremists who commit reprehensible acts, while the majority people of all religions do not commits such acts.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 10:12 AM

The murderer has been caught (injured) and he is a Muslim with Dutch passport and Moroccan ancestry (just in case someone thinks these informations help to understand a murder). The last political murder in the Netherlands was also committed by a man (the other properties being different)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 09:27 AM

Sorry cookie done gone.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 09:26 AM

Yes but do you go shooting and stabbing anybody who says it's wrong, then use religion as an excuse?
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 09:14 AM

A facet of certain sections of Arab culture only? It happens all over the world in any culture.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 09:11 AM

Violence in marriage is not a facet of Islam or the teachings of the Koran. It is a facet of certain sections of Arab culture. Many people, including some Muslims, unfortunately confuse the two.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 08:55 AM

Theo van Gogh the Dutch film maker was assassinated today in Holland. It is suspected that this was work of Muslim fanatics, who have threatened to kill him previously. This man apparently died because he made a film, about domestic violence in Muslim marriages. So apparently not only can you beat your wife if you want, but you can kill anybody who criticises you for doing it. Why do these people threaten to kill people who criticise any facet of their religion? Don't they claim to be a great and good religion, that frowns on the taking of life?
Giok