Obit: More Muslim intolerance?

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: 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,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: dianavan
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 01:32 AM

Yeah Guido - So is the Mafia.

d

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 06:13 AM

That's the one, Alba. Thanks.

DtG

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: 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: 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: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 05:19 AM

'Preventing women getting sunburn'
ROTFLMFAO
Giok

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 04:34 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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 - 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.