Obit: More Muslim intolerance?

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 - 01:07 PM

How do you know I'm not an intellectual posing as trailer court trash?

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 04:48 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 - 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: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 05 - 05:03 PM

I pay taxes, Martin.

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: DougR
Date: 14 Jan 05 - 01:21 PM

Well, it might be a start, Carol C.

DougR

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: 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: 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: Peter Kasin
Date: 16 Jan 05 - 01:31 PM

Thank you, Carol.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:37 PM

You can't get a rise out of her, wolfgang.

That meat went numb.

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: dianavan
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 08:39 PM

Alan Dershowtiz is a plagiarist and a slime ball.

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: 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 - 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