Obit: More Muslim intolerance?

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: 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: 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: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 03:57 AM

All muslims are dirt.

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,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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 02:28 PM

e.g.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 06:57 PM

LOL

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 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 - 05:30 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.