Islamophobia in the US

[LeazesMag 0]

It's absolutely clear we have a clash of cultural values here and that's what worries me, I can't see any reconciliation between the muslim world and the secular left in my lifetime. So what's the solution? Is there even a solution other than segregation?

 

As I have said in other threads, the only way forward is to get to know each other better. People fear what they don't understand. I saw a poll recently - I will try to dig it up later - that said opposition to this mosque/community centre is lower among Americans who actually know individual Muslims.

 

I just think that's naive. When two culture are diametrically opposed, there will always be conflict by definition. I mean, look at this board, with one or two notable exceptions, most people are reasonable and tolerant people, yet threads like this invariably cause a shit storm.

 

I don't understand where you are getting the idea that our cultures are "diametrically opposed." Are we opposed because some idiot with a doctorate wrote a book called "The Clash of Civilisations"?

 

Islamic and Western culture have influenced each other since the 7th century AD. Our histories, while not intertwined, have always had more than a nodding acquaintance. It is only in the last century or so that this notion of "us vs. them" has developed, and that is because of unfortunate factors on both sides. You see us as primitive. We see you as imperialist. Maybe both of us are right to an extent. But we have to put that aside.

 

NJS brings up a brilliant point about the segregation of Muslim immigrants. From your perspective, you say "They keep to themselves. They don't want to integrate into our society. Why should we make the effort?" But we say "They don't approve of us or our culture. They don't want us to integrate into their society. Why should we make the effort?" Both sides must make the effort.

 

This is why the minaret ban, the veil ban, the effort to stop this community centre are such damaging events and why they must be stopped. What message can these actions possibly send other than "we don't want you, stay out"? What effect will that have on people who came looking for a new future away from possibly restrictive lives in their home countries? It will make them think that it really is "us vs. them" and it will make them easy prey for people who want to recruit based on that mentality.

 

But from our side, we have to realise that this is the 21st century and that it may be time to let go of some of the old ways and adapt to a new society. Sharia is a relic of the 7th century. I have never agreed with people who insist it must be implemented even in Muslim countries - have we learned nothing from the last 1300 or so years? It has to be abandoned. Women have to be given full and equal rights. The Prophet was a champion of women's rights in his own time and Islam vastly improved on their pre-Islamic status. But little has changed since his time. I don't think he would have wanted us to keep things the way they were, but to continue to strive to better our society.

 

The best way for these changes to be made is more intermingling and more commonality. It's a lot harder to hate someone whose children you have watched grow up, with whom you take the bus to work, with whom you share bullshit NUFC rumours that someone texted you. We have to make the effort - but so do you. We have to learn about each other - did you know something like a third of American Christians don't even know that Islam is an Abrahamic religion and that we worship the same God? How can you take someone seriously who thinks you worship a 'false god' called Allah? We have to learn about each other, otherwise it really will be "us vs. them" forever.

 

 

 

Well fucking said.....

 

wondered when the plastic yank would enter the fray

[Renton 21643]

It's absolutely clear we have a clash of cultural values here and that's what worries me, I can't see any reconciliation between the muslim world and the secular left in my lifetime. So what's the solution? Is there even a solution other than segregation?

 

As I have said in other threads, the only way forward is to get to know each other better. People fear what they don't understand. I saw a poll recently - I will try to dig it up later - that said opposition to this mosque/community centre is lower among Americans who actually know individual Muslims.

 

I just think that's naive. When two culture are diametrically opposed, there will always be conflict by definition. I mean, look at this board, with one or two notable exceptions, most people are reasonable and tolerant people, yet threads like this invariably cause a shit storm.

 

I don't understand where you are getting the idea that our cultures are "diametrically opposed." Are we opposed because some idiot with a doctorate wrote a book called "The Clash of Civilisations"?

 

Islamic and Western culture have influenced each other since the 7th century AD. Our histories, while not intertwined, have always had more than a nodding acquaintance. It is only in the last century or so that this notion of "us vs. them" has developed, and that is because of unfortunate factors on both sides. You see us as primitive. We see you as imperialist. Maybe both of us are right to an extent. But we have to put that aside.

 

NJS brings up a brilliant point about the segregation of Muslim immigrants. From your perspective, you say "They keep to themselves. They don't want to integrate into our society. Why should we make the effort?" But we say "They don't approve of us or our culture. They don't want us to integrate into their society. Why should we make the effort?" Both sides must make the effort.

 

This is why the minaret ban, the veil ban, the effort to stop this community centre are such damaging events and why they must be stopped. What message can these actions possibly send other than "we don't want you, stay out"? What effect will that have on people who came looking for a new future away from possibly restrictive lives in their home countries? It will make them think that it really is "us vs. them" and it will make them easy prey for people who want to recruit based on that mentality.

 

But from our side, we have to realise that this is the 21st century and that it may be time to let go of some of the old ways and adapt to a new society. Sharia is a relic of the 7th century. I have never agreed with people who insist it must be implemented even in Muslim countries - have we learned nothing from the last 1300 or so years? It has to be abandoned. Women have to be given full and equal rights. The Prophet was a champion of women's rights in his own time and Islam vastly improved on their pre-Islamic status. But little has changed since his time. I don't think he would have wanted us to keep things the way they were, but to continue to strive to better our society.

 

The best way for these changes to be made is more intermingling and more commonality. It's a lot harder to hate someone whose children you have watched grow up, with whom you take the bus to work, with whom you share bullshit NUFC rumours that someone texted you. We have to make the effort - but so do you. We have to learn about each other - did you know something like a third of American Christians don't even know that Islam is an Abrahamic religion and that we worship the same God? How can you take someone seriously who thinks you worship a 'false god' called Allah? We have to learn about each other, otherwise it really will be "us vs. them" forever.

 

 

 

Well fucking said.....

 

It's a well thought out post and most welcome, but I still think its naive.

 

If you really want to break down these barriers then you have to recognise that religion is the problem imo. Not just Islam, but all of the Abrahamic faiths. Bearing this in mind we can immediately do two things - ban faith schools and ban overtly religious symbols in public life, of which the full face covering is an obvious one, and one that is utterly alien and offensive to many people (myself included) in the West. There should also be complete freedom of speech regarding religion - if you want freedom (which is a prime requisite of western countries), then you simply have to accept you have no right not to be offended.

 

There's not a chance of this ever happening of course as long as Christianity and Islam remain so embedded in our culture.

[LeazesMag 0]

It's absolutely clear we have a clash of cultural values here and that's what worries me, I can't see any reconciliation between the muslim world and the secular left in my lifetime. So what's the solution? Is there even a solution other than segregation?

 

As I have said in other threads, the only way forward is to get to know each other better. People fear what they don't understand. I saw a poll recently - I will try to dig it up later - that said opposition to this mosque/community centre is lower among Americans who actually know individual Muslims.

 

I just think that's naive. When two culture are diametrically opposed, there will always be conflict by definition. I mean, look at this board, with one or two notable exceptions, most people are reasonable and tolerant people, yet threads like this invariably cause a shit storm.

 

I don't understand where you are getting the idea that our cultures are "diametrically opposed." Are we opposed because some idiot with a doctorate wrote a book called "The Clash of Civilisations"?

 

Islamic and Western culture have influenced each other since the 7th century AD. Our histories, while not intertwined, have always had more than a nodding acquaintance. It is only in the last century or so that this notion of "us vs. them" has developed, and that is because of unfortunate factors on both sides. You see us as primitive. We see you as imperialist. Maybe both of us are right to an extent. But we have to put that aside.

 

NJS brings up a brilliant point about the segregation of Muslim immigrants. From your perspective, you say "They keep to themselves. They don't want to integrate into our society. Why should we make the effort?" But we say "They don't approve of us or our culture. They don't want us to integrate into their society. Why should we make the effort?" Both sides must make the effort.

 

This is why the minaret ban, the veil ban, the effort to stop this community centre are such damaging events and why they must be stopped. What message can these actions possibly send other than "we don't want you, stay out"? What effect will that have on people who came looking for a new future away from possibly restrictive lives in their home countries? It will make them think that it really is "us vs. them" and it will make them easy prey for people who want to recruit based on that mentality.

 

But from our side, we have to realise that this is the 21st century and that it may be time to let go of some of the old ways and adapt to a new society. Sharia is a relic of the 7th century. I have never agreed with people who insist it must be implemented even in Muslim countries - have we learned nothing from the last 1300 or so years? It has to be abandoned. Women have to be given full and equal rights. The Prophet was a champion of women's rights in his own time and Islam vastly improved on their pre-Islamic status. But little has changed since his time. I don't think he would have wanted us to keep things the way they were, but to continue to strive to better our society.

 

The best way for these changes to be made is more intermingling and more commonality. It's a lot harder to hate someone whose children you have watched grow up, with whom you take the bus to work, with whom you share bullshit NUFC rumours that someone texted you. We have to make the effort - but so do you. We have to learn about each other - did you know something like a third of American Christians don't even know that Islam is an Abrahamic religion and that we worship the same God? How can you take someone seriously who thinks you worship a 'false god' called Allah? We have to learn about each other, otherwise it really will be "us vs. them" forever.

 

 

 

Well fucking said.....

 

It's a well thought out post and most welcome, but I still think its naive.

 

If you really want to break down these barriers then you have to recognise that religion is the problem imo. Not just Islam, but all of the Abrahamic faiths. Bearing this in mind we can immediately do two things - ban faith schools and ban overtly religious symbols in public life, of which the full face covering is an obvious one, and one that is utterly alien and offensive to many people (myself included) in the West. There should also be complete freedom of speech regarding religion - if you want freedom (which is a prime requisite of western countries), then you simply have to accept you have no right not to be offended.

 

There's not a chance of this ever happening of course as long as Christianity and Islam remain so embedded in our culture.

 

nah, it's only the muslims that are allowed to be offended Renton, and woolly headed liberals are defending them.

 

As for the chances of them allowing complete freedom of speech, that is a huge NO. Again, the racist muslims are the ones who would be "offended" by such a thing, the poor dears.

 

Their lifestyle is not compatible with life in the west, end of story, they can fight their jihads and getting all hot and bothered about teddy bears being called Mohammed, and daft fairy stories as much as they like, until they pull out the gun or the bomb and then they are causing real trouble.

 

Doesn't matter if we in the west are offended by aeroplanes flying into buildings though.

[acrossthepond 877]

It's a well thought out post and most welcome, but I still think its naive.

 

If you really want to break down these barriers then you have to recognise that religion is the problem imo. Not just Islam, but all of the Abrahamic faiths. Bearing this in mind we can immediately do two things - ban faith schools and ban overtly religious symbols in public life, of which the full face covering is an obvious one, and one that is utterly alien and offensive to many people (myself included) in the West. There should also be complete freedom of speech regarding religion - if you want freedom (which is a prime requisite of western countries), then you simply have to accept you have no right not to be offended.

 

There's not a chance of this ever happening of course as long as Christianity and Islam remain so embedded in our culture.

 

I will never agree with you on the bolded. I don't see how you can talk about freedom in one sentence and then say that symbols of religion should be banned in another. But that's an argument for another thread.

 

You're talking about the complete removal of religion from public society. That's something that will not happen in our lifetimes (and something, of course, that I think should never happen.) I'm offering solutions in the short-term. You reject those, but offer something that you admit has "not a chance" of happening. This is more of the clash of civilisations mentality - "there's an irrevocable difference between us that can never be fixed, we're doomed to conflict until the end of time." That's no good. What if the Israelis and Palestinians one day decided, "there's an irrevocable difference between us, it can't be fixed, peace talks are useless, conflict is eternal, let's keep killing each other until one is dead"?

 

I'm telling you this divide between our cultures is something that has developed over the last century. It is the result of short-term historical forces. And I believe that it can be fixed in the short term. It may be "naive", although I don't see how, but it's my belief and I think it's a much better one than to say that all is hopeless and there's no solution.

[LeazesMag 0]

It's a well thought out post and most welcome, but I still think its naive.

 

If you really want to break down these barriers then you have to recognise that religion is the problem imo. Not just Islam, but all of the Abrahamic faiths. Bearing this in mind we can immediately do two things - ban faith schools and ban overtly religious symbols in public life, of which the full face covering is an obvious one, and one that is utterly alien and offensive to many people (myself included) in the West. There should also be complete freedom of speech regarding religion - if you want freedom (which is a prime requisite of western countries), then you simply have to accept you have no right not to be offended.

 

There's not a chance of this ever happening of course as long as Christianity and Islam remain so embedded in our culture.

 

I will never agree with you on the bolded. I don't see how you can talk about freedom in one sentence and then say that symbols of religion should be banned in another. But that's an argument for another thread.

 

You're talking about the complete removal of religion from public society. That's something that will not happen in our lifetimes (and something, of course, that I think should never happen.) I'm offering solutions in the short-term. You reject those, but offer something that you admit has "not a chance" of happening. This is more of the clash of civilisations mentality - "there's an irrevocable difference between us that can never be fixed, we're doomed to conflict until the end of time." That's no good. What if the Israelis and Palestinians one day decided, "there's an irrevocable difference between us, it can't be fixed, peace talks are useless, conflict is eternal, let's keep killing each other until one is dead"?

 

I'm telling you this divide between our cultures is something that has developed over the last century. It is the result of short-term historical forces. And I believe that it can be fixed in the short term. It may be "naive", although I don't see how, but it's my belief and I think it's a much better one than to say that all is hopeless and there's no solution.

 

so you expect us in the west to understand you are offended by fairy stories and teddy bears called Mohammed, but you don't understand that we in the west are offended by women walking around with their faces covered or aeroplanes being flown into buildings and then a mosque being built near that very site ?

Edited August 26, 2010 by LeazesMag

[acrossthepond 877]

It's a well thought out post and most welcome, but I still think its naive.

 

If you really want to break down these barriers then you have to recognise that religion is the problem imo. Not just Islam, but all of the Abrahamic faiths. Bearing this in mind we can immediately do two things - ban faith schools and ban overtly religious symbols in public life, of which the full face covering is an obvious one, and one that is utterly alien and offensive to many people (myself included) in the West. There should also be complete freedom of speech regarding religion - if you want freedom (which is a prime requisite of western countries), then you simply have to accept you have no right not to be offended.

 

There's not a chance of this ever happening of course as long as Christianity and Islam remain so embedded in our culture.

 

I will never agree with you on the bolded. I don't see how you can talk about freedom in one sentence and then say that symbols of religion should be banned in another. But that's an argument for another thread.

 

You're talking about the complete removal of religion from public society. That's something that will not happen in our lifetimes (and something, of course, that I think should never happen.) I'm offering solutions in the short-term. You reject those, but offer something that you admit has "not a chance" of happening. This is more of the clash of civilisations mentality - "there's an irrevocable difference between us that can never be fixed, we're doomed to conflict until the end of time." That's no good. What if the Israelis and Palestinians one day decided, "there's an irrevocable difference between us, it can't be fixed, peace talks are useless, conflict is eternal, let's keep killing each other until one is dead"?

 

I'm telling you this divide between our cultures is something that has developed over the last century. It is the result of short-term historical forces. And I believe that it can be fixed in the short term. It may be "naive", although I don't see how, but it's my belief and I think it's a much better one than to say that all is hopeless and there's no solution.

 

so you expect us in the west to understand you are offended by fairy stories and teddy bears called Mohammed, but you don't understand that we in the west are offended by women walking around with their faces covered or aeroplanes being flown into buildings and then a mosque being built near that very site ?

 

Is there anyone else who has looked at my posts and thinks that what Leazes said is an adequate summary?

 

You can be offended by whatever you like, as will I. Doesn't mean either of us has the right to say it should be stopped. I think Rushdie's "fairy story" is a deliberate attempt to profane our religion and I think the entire teddy bear blow-up was a ludicrous overreaction (not sure how that got into this discussion), but I don't deny the rights of either one of them to publish the book/call the teddy bear whatever they like. Equally, you may be offended by face veils and a Muslim community centre being built (vaguely close to) the WTC site, but you can't deny the rights of people to wear whatever they like and build whatever they like.

[luckyluke 2]

Leazes IS Major Misunderstanding tbh.

 

NB I tried to find a picture of the Viz character but google images threw up this:

 

 

[luckyluke 2]

Leazes IS Major Misunderstanding tbh.

 

NB I tried to find a picture of the Viz character but google images threw up this:

 

 

Edited August 26, 2010 by luckyluke

[tooner 243]

It's absolutely clear we have a clash of cultural values here and that's what worries me, I can't see any reconciliation between the muslim world and the secular left in my lifetime. So what's the solution? Is there even a solution other than segregation?

 

As I have said in other threads, the only way forward is to get to know each other better. People fear what they don't understand. I saw a poll recently - I will try to dig it up later - that said opposition to this mosque/community centre is lower among Americans who actually know individual Muslims.

 

I just think that's naive. When two culture are diametrically opposed, there will always be conflict by definition. I mean, look at this board, with one or two notable exceptions, most people are reasonable and tolerant people, yet threads like this invariably cause a shit storm.

 

I don't understand where you are getting the idea that our cultures are "diametrically opposed." Are we opposed because some idiot with a doctorate wrote a book called "The Clash of Civilisations"?

 

Islamic and Western culture have influenced each other since the 7th century AD. Our histories, while not intertwined, have always had more than a nodding acquaintance. It is only in the last century or so that this notion of "us vs. them" has developed, and that is because of unfortunate factors on both sides. You see us as primitive. We see you as imperialist. Maybe both of us are right to an extent. But we have to put that aside.

 

NJS brings up a brilliant point about the segregation of Muslim immigrants. From your perspective, you say "They keep to themselves. They don't want to integrate into our society. Why should we make the effort?" But we say "They don't approve of us or our culture. They don't want us to integrate into their society. Why should we make the effort?" Both sides must make the effort.

 

This is why the minaret ban, the veil ban, the effort to stop this community centre are such damaging events and why they must be stopped. What message can these actions possibly send other than "we don't want you, stay out"? What effect will that have on people who came looking for a new future away from possibly restrictive lives in their home countries? It will make them think that it really is "us vs. them" and it will make them easy prey for people who want to recruit based on that mentality.

 

But from our side, we have to realise that this is the 21st century and that it may be time to let go of some of the old ways and adapt to a new society. Sharia is a relic of the 7th century. I have never agreed with people who insist it must be implemented even in Muslim countries - have we learned nothing from the last 1300 or so years? It has to be abandoned. Women have to be given full and equal rights. The Prophet was a champion of women's rights in his own time and Islam vastly improved on their pre-Islamic status. But little has changed since his time. I don't think he would have wanted us to keep things the way they were, but to continue to strive to better our society.

 

The best way for these changes to be made is more intermingling and more commonality. It's a lot harder to hate someone whose children you have watched grow up, with whom you take the bus to work, with whom you share bullshit NUFC rumours that someone texted you. We have to make the effort - but so do you. We have to learn about each other - did you know something like a third of American Christians don't even know that Islam is an Abrahamic religion and that we worship the same God? How can you take someone seriously who thinks you worship a 'false god' called Allah? We have to learn about each other, otherwise it really will be "us vs. them" forever.

 

 

 

Well fucking said.....

 

It's a well thought out post and most welcome, but I still think its naive.

 

If you really want to break down these barriers then you have to recognise that religion is the problem imo. Not just Islam, but all of the Abrahamic faiths. Bearing this in mind we can immediately do two things - ban faith schools and ban overtly religious symbols in public life, of which the full face covering is an obvious one, and one that is utterly alien and offensive to many people (myself included) in the West. There should also be complete freedom of speech regarding religion - if you want freedom (which is a prime requisite of western countries), then you simply have to accept you have no right not to be offended.

 

There's not a chance of this ever happening of course as long as Christianity and Islam remain so embedded in our culture.

 

nah, it's only the muslims that are allowed to be offended Renton, and woolly headed liberals are defending them.

 

As for the chances of them allowing complete freedom of speech, that is a huge NO. Again, the racist muslims are the ones who would be "offended" by such a thing, the poor dears.

 

Their lifestyle is not compatible with life in the west, end of story, they can fight their jihads and getting all hot and bothered about teddy bears being called Mohammed, and daft fairy stories as much as they like, until they pull out the gun or the bomb and then they are causing real trouble.

 

Doesn't matter if we in the west are offended by aeroplanes flying into buildings though.

 

 

"cut yer hair hippee".......hahahahaha

the way i took ATP's post was that we should be looking at the fact we truly have more in common than we do differences, the details are where it all goes to shit.

you're religious, we're religious. you want peaceful existence, we want peaceful existence. it is the intolerants on each side that cause the friction.

anyone read "childhoods end" by A.C. Clark? anyone? UFO lands, organized religion goes tits up because it has no way to rationalize or deify an external entity.

 

"one world is enough, for all of us. we can all sink, or we all float, because we're all in the same big boat"-da Police

 

 

.....I'm just sayin.

[LeazesMag 0]

It's absolutely clear we have a clash of cultural values here and that's what worries me, I can't see any reconciliation between the muslim world and the secular left in my lifetime. So what's the solution? Is there even a solution other than segregation?

 

As I have said in other threads, the only way forward is to get to know each other better. People fear what they don't understand. I saw a poll recently - I will try to dig it up later - that said opposition to this mosque/community centre is lower among Americans who actually know individual Muslims.

 

I just think that's naive. When two culture are diametrically opposed, there will always be conflict by definition. I mean, look at this board, with one or two notable exceptions, most people are reasonable and tolerant people, yet threads like this invariably cause a shit storm.

 

I don't understand where you are getting the idea that our cultures are "diametrically opposed." Are we opposed because some idiot with a doctorate wrote a book called "The Clash of Civilisations"?

 

Islamic and Western culture have influenced each other since the 7th century AD. Our histories, while not intertwined, have always had more than a nodding acquaintance. It is only in the last century or so that this notion of "us vs. them" has developed, and that is because of unfortunate factors on both sides. You see us as primitive. We see you as imperialist. Maybe both of us are right to an extent. But we have to put that aside.

 

NJS brings up a brilliant point about the segregation of Muslim immigrants. From your perspective, you say "They keep to themselves. They don't want to integrate into our society. Why should we make the effort?" But we say "They don't approve of us or our culture. They don't want us to integrate into their society. Why should we make the effort?" Both sides must make the effort.

 

This is why the minaret ban, the veil ban, the effort to stop this community centre are such damaging events and why they must be stopped. What message can these actions possibly send other than "we don't want you, stay out"? What effect will that have on people who came looking for a new future away from possibly restrictive lives in their home countries? It will make them think that it really is "us vs. them" and it will make them easy prey for people who want to recruit based on that mentality.

 

But from our side, we have to realise that this is the 21st century and that it may be time to let go of some of the old ways and adapt to a new society. Sharia is a relic of the 7th century. I have never agreed with people who insist it must be implemented even in Muslim countries - have we learned nothing from the last 1300 or so years? It has to be abandoned. Women have to be given full and equal rights. The Prophet was a champion of women's rights in his own time and Islam vastly improved on their pre-Islamic status. But little has changed since his time. I don't think he would have wanted us to keep things the way they were, but to continue to strive to better our society.

 

The best way for these changes to be made is more intermingling and more commonality. It's a lot harder to hate someone whose children you have watched grow up, with whom you take the bus to work, with whom you share bullshit NUFC rumours that someone texted you. We have to make the effort - but so do you. We have to learn about each other - did you know something like a third of American Christians don't even know that Islam is an Abrahamic religion and that we worship the same God? How can you take someone seriously who thinks you worship a 'false god' called Allah? We have to learn about each other, otherwise it really will be "us vs. them" forever.

 

 

 

Well fucking said.....

 

It's a well thought out post and most welcome, but I still think its naive.

 

If you really want to break down these barriers then you have to recognise that religion is the problem imo. Not just Islam, but all of the Abrahamic faiths. Bearing this in mind we can immediately do two things - ban faith schools and ban overtly religious symbols in public life, of which the full face covering is an obvious one, and one that is utterly alien and offensive to many people (myself included) in the West. There should also be complete freedom of speech regarding religion - if you want freedom (which is a prime requisite of western countries), then you simply have to accept you have no right not to be offended.

 

There's not a chance of this ever happening of course as long as Christianity and Islam remain so embedded in our culture.

 

nah, it's only the muslims that are allowed to be offended Renton, and woolly headed liberals are defending them.

 

As for the chances of them allowing complete freedom of speech, that is a huge NO. Again, the racist muslims are the ones who would be "offended" by such a thing, the poor dears.

 

Their lifestyle is not compatible with life in the west, end of story, they can fight their jihads and getting all hot and bothered about teddy bears being called Mohammed, and daft fairy stories as much as they like, until they pull out the gun or the bomb and then they are causing real trouble.

 

Doesn't matter if we in the west are offended by aeroplanes flying into buildings though.

 

 

"cut yer hair hippee".......hahahahaha

the way i took ATP's post was that we should be looking at the fact we truly have more in common than we do differences, the details are where it all goes to shit.

you're religious, we're religious. you want peaceful existence, we want peaceful existence. it is the intolerants on each side that cause the friction.

anyone read "childhoods end" by A.C. Clark? anyone? UFO lands, organized religion goes tits up because it has no way to rationalize or deify an external entity.

 

"one world is enough, for all of us. we can all sink, or we all float, because we're all in the same big boat"-da Police

 

 

.....I'm just sayin.

 

"the intolerants that cause the friction". When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Did you see the recent article about a woman in Egypt being charged for wearing a bikini in public ? Who's intolerant ?

 

Yet you think we should turn a blind eye to building a mosque near possibly the biggest terrorist atrocity in living memory to foster " better relations" ? You may be a softie liberal mate, but we aren't all like you.

 

By they way, I'm not religious, that's why I keep this bollocks in its correct perspective.

[LeazesMag 0]

It's a well thought out post and most welcome, but I still think its naive.

 

If you really want to break down these barriers then you have to recognise that religion is the problem imo. Not just Islam, but all of the Abrahamic faiths. Bearing this in mind we can immediately do two things - ban faith schools and ban overtly religious symbols in public life, of which the full face covering is an obvious one, and one that is utterly alien and offensive to many people (myself included) in the West. There should also be complete freedom of speech regarding religion - if you want freedom (which is a prime requisite of western countries), then you simply have to accept you have no right not to be offended.

 

There's not a chance of this ever happening of course as long as Christianity and Islam remain so embedded in our culture.

 

I will never agree with you on the bolded. I don't see how you can talk about freedom in one sentence and then say that symbols of religion should be banned in another. But that's an argument for another thread.

 

You're talking about the complete removal of religion from public society. That's something that will not happen in our lifetimes (and something, of course, that I think should never happen.) I'm offering solutions in the short-term. You reject those, but offer something that you admit has "not a chance" of happening. This is more of the clash of civilisations mentality - "there's an irrevocable difference between us that can never be fixed, we're doomed to conflict until the end of time." That's no good. What if the Israelis and Palestinians one day decided, "there's an irrevocable difference between us, it can't be fixed, peace talks are useless, conflict is eternal, let's keep killing each other until one is dead"?

 

I'm telling you this divide between our cultures is something that has developed over the last century. It is the result of short-term historical forces. And I believe that it can be fixed in the short term. It may be "naive", although I don't see how, but it's my belief and I think it's a much better one than to say that all is hopeless and there's no solution.

 

so you expect us in the west to understand you are offended by fairy stories and teddy bears called Mohammed, but you don't understand that we in the west are offended by women walking around with their faces covered or aeroplanes being flown into buildings and then a mosque being built near that very site ?

 

Is there anyone else who has looked at my posts and thinks that what Leazes said is an adequate summary?

 

You can be offended by whatever you like, as will I. Doesn't mean either of us has the right to say it should be stopped. I think Rushdie's "fairy story" is a deliberate attempt to profane our religion and I think the entire teddy bear blow-up was a ludicrous overreaction (not sure how that got into this discussion), but I don't deny the rights of either one of them to publish the book/call the teddy bear whatever they like. Equally, you may be offended by face veils and a Muslim community centre being built (vaguely close to) the WTC site, but you can't deny the rights of people to wear whatever they like and build whatever they like.

 

there probably is, but don't let one or two responses from softie liberals kid you that it isn't the case.

 

I'm not exactly offended by too much personally, or should I say offended is the wrong word, basically I just think that you - despite doing your best to put across your point of view in a patient and intelligent manner as possible - don't see the point which is quite simply that western society is such that people are open about their freedom of speech and identity, and you do not have the right to build whatever you like where you like at all. If the muslim world was at all serious about "building trust" etc then as others have said, building a mosque near the site of that atrocity is a no-no and the obvious conclusion is they don't give a shit about others' feelings about it and are being deliberately provocative. Far more so than writing a fairy story btw, the two just don't compare in any way whatsoever.

 

You will have to accept that your way is not the way of the free world, as Renton has also said.

Edited August 26, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Geordieracer 0]

The naivety in this thread staggers me.

 

Never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

[acrossthepond 877]

The naivety in this thread staggers me.

 

Never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

 

You've done a good job of standing off and interjecting little one-liners like this from time to time. Makes you sound oh-so-world-weary. Also makes you sound like you know what you're talking about, when I doubt you do. So what might these 'facts' be? Where is the 'conspiracy theory'? Who's being 'naive'? Join in the discussion if you have something to say.

 

I see your post Leazes and I'll respond later.

[LeazesMag 0]

The naivety in this thread staggers me.

 

Never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

 

You've done a good job of standing off and interjecting little one-liners like this from time to time. Makes you sound oh-so-world-weary. Also makes you sound like you know what you're talking about, when I doubt you do. So what might these 'facts' be? Where is the 'conspiracy theory'? Who's being 'naive'? Join in the discussion if you have something to say.

 

I see your post Leazes and I'll respond later.

 

OK. I respect you have a point of view btw, and agree with a lot of what you say on the footballing side of things. But I am not going to agree with you here.

[Geordieracer 0]

The naivety in this thread staggers me.

 

Never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

 

You've done a good job of standing off and interjecting little one-liners like this from time to time. Makes you sound oh-so-world-weary. Also makes you sound like you know what you're talking about, when I doubt you do. So what might these 'facts' be? Where is the 'conspiracy theory'? Who's being 'naive'? Join in the discussion if you have something to say.

 

I see your post Leazes and I'll respond later.

 

My point is that you all have theories/ideas based on your own agendas/something you've read rather than experienced or fact hence judgement on a book none of you have read but rather paraphrased via Google. Some are so anti US they believe anything they see written that slings dirt in their direction.

 

The whole point of this thread was basically outrage that people had the freedom to protest against something they felt was wrong. The fact that they weren't burning books, issuing death sentences is what sets them apart from those you see burning effigies of anyonr who had the sheer nerve to disagree with their opinions (almost what happens on here).

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Happy Face was shocked that the black man was moved on after stopping and mouthing off/swearing in the middle of the protest. As far as I could see no one was stopping him from joining any of the counter protests, hence my lack of shock. What does bother me is the perceived taboo around discussing Islam to the point where people are self-censoring and those that do enter the discussion are branded Islamophobes.

[tooner 243]

It's absolutely clear we have a clash of cultural values here and that's what worries me, I can't see any reconciliation between the muslim world and the secular left in my lifetime. So what's the solution? Is there even a solution other than segregation?

 

As I have said in other threads, the only way forward is to get to know each other better. People fear what they don't understand. I saw a poll recently - I will try to dig it up later - that said opposition to this mosque/community centre is lower among Americans who actually know individual Muslims.

 

I just think that's naive. When two culture are diametrically opposed, there will always be conflict by definition. I mean, look at this board, with one or two notable exceptions, most people are reasonable and tolerant people, yet threads like this invariably cause a shit storm.

 

I don't understand where you are getting the idea that our cultures are "diametrically opposed." Are we opposed because some idiot with a doctorate wrote a book called "The Clash of Civilisations"?

 

Islamic and Western culture have influenced each other since the 7th century AD. Our histories, while not intertwined, have always had more than a nodding acquaintance. It is only in the last century or so that this notion of "us vs. them" has developed, and that is because of unfortunate factors on both sides. You see us as primitive. We see you as imperialist. Maybe both of us are right to an extent. But we have to put that aside.

 

NJS brings up a brilliant point about the segregation of Muslim immigrants. From your perspective, you say "They keep to themselves. They don't want to integrate into our society. Why should we make the effort?" But we say "They don't approve of us or our culture. They don't want us to integrate into their society. Why should we make the effort?" Both sides must make the effort.

 

This is why the minaret ban, the veil ban, the effort to stop this community centre are such damaging events and why they must be stopped. What message can these actions possibly send other than "we don't want you, stay out"? What effect will that have on people who came looking for a new future away from possibly restrictive lives in their home countries? It will make them think that it really is "us vs. them" and it will make them easy prey for people who want to recruit based on that mentality.

 

But from our side, we have to realise that this is the 21st century and that it may be time to let go of some of the old ways and adapt to a new society. Sharia is a relic of the 7th century. I have never agreed with people who insist it must be implemented even in Muslim countries - have we learned nothing from the last 1300 or so years? It has to be abandoned. Women have to be given full and equal rights. The Prophet was a champion of women's rights in his own time and Islam vastly improved on their pre-Islamic status. But little has changed since his time. I don't think he would have wanted us to keep things the way they were, but to continue to strive to better our society.

 

The best way for these changes to be made is more intermingling and more commonality. It's a lot harder to hate someone whose children you have watched grow up, with whom you take the bus to work, with whom you share bullshit NUFC rumours that someone texted you. We have to make the effort - but so do you. We have to learn about each other - did you know something like a third of American Christians don't even know that Islam is an Abrahamic religion and that we worship the same God? How can you take someone seriously who thinks you worship a 'false god' called Allah? We have to learn about each other, otherwise it really will be "us vs. them" forever.

 

 

 

Well fucking said.....

 

It's a well thought out post and most welcome, but I still think its naive.

 

If you really want to break down these barriers then you have to recognise that religion is the problem imo. Not just Islam, but all of the Abrahamic faiths. Bearing this in mind we can immediately do two things - ban faith schools and ban overtly religious symbols in public life, of which the full face covering is an obvious one, and one that is utterly alien and offensive to many people (myself included) in the West. There should also be complete freedom of speech regarding religion - if you want freedom (which is a prime requisite of western countries), then you simply have to accept you have no right not to be offended.

 

There's not a chance of this ever happening of course as long as Christianity and Islam remain so embedded in our culture.

 

nah, it's only the muslims that are allowed to be offended Renton, and woolly headed liberals are defending them.

 

As for the chances of them allowing complete freedom of speech, that is a huge NO. Again, the racist muslims are the ones who would be "offended" by such a thing, the poor dears.

 

Their lifestyle is not compatible with life in the west, end of story, they can fight their jihads and getting all hot and bothered about teddy bears being called Mohammed, and daft fairy stories as much as they like, until they pull out the gun or the bomb and then they are causing real trouble.

 

Doesn't matter if we in the west are offended by aeroplanes flying into buildings though.

 

 

"cut yer hair hippee".......hahahahaha

the way i took ATP's post was that we should be looking at the fact we truly have more in common than we do differences, the details are where it all goes to shit.

you're religious, we're religious. you want peaceful existence, we want peaceful existence. it is the intolerants on each side that cause the friction.

anyone read "childhoods end" by A.C. Clark? anyone? UFO lands, organized religion goes tits up because it has no way to rationalize or deify an external entity.

 

"one world is enough, for all of us. we can all sink, or we all float, because we're all in the same big boat"-da Police

 

 

.....I'm just sayin.

 

"the intolerants that cause the friction". When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Did you see the recent article about a woman in Egypt being charged for wearing a bikini in public ? Who's intolerant ?

 

Yet you think we should turn a blind eye to building a mosque near possibly the biggest terrorist atrocity in living memory to foster " better relations" ? You may be a softie liberal mate, but we aren't all like you.

 

By they way, I'm not religious, that's why I keep this bollocks in its correct perspective.

 

 

if you are going to quote then do it accurately i said the intolerants on each side, did you see the recent article about the religious group that was camped out in front of a gay couples home telling them they were going to burn in hell, until the gay couples neighbours from all over the street came and ran them off, for being intolerant!

 

Look i understand that building a mosque near ground zero is in poor taste and very inflamatory. But its hardly illegal is it? And thats what it all boils down to, don't tax my gig if its not illegal.

[Park Life 71]

Middle class intellectuals get mixed up in state sponsored duality.

[NJS 4389]

The whole point of this thread was basically outrage that people had the freedom to protest against something they felt was wrong. The fact that they weren't burning books, issuing death sentences is what sets them apart from those you see burning effigies of anyonr who had the sheer nerve to disagree with their opinions (almost what happens on here).

 

I don't see the difference between burning flags/effigies and holding protests screaming hatred at Muslims - both are free (or should be) to do so but both show underlying intolerance which is identical.

[Guest alex]

The whole point of this thread was basically outrage that people had the freedom to protest against something they felt was wrong. The fact that they weren't burning books, issuing death sentences is what sets them apart from those you see burning effigies of anyonr who had the sheer nerve to disagree with their opinions (almost what happens on here).

 

I don't see the difference between burning flags/effigies and holding protests screaming hatred at Muslims - both are free (or should be) to do so but both show underlying intolerance which is identical.

Nicely put.

[acrossthepond 877]

The naivety in this thread staggers me.

 

Never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

 

You've done a good job of standing off and interjecting little one-liners like this from time to time. Makes you sound oh-so-world-weary. Also makes you sound like you know what you're talking about, when I doubt you do. So what might these 'facts' be? Where is the 'conspiracy theory'? Who's being 'naive'? Join in the discussion if you have something to say.

 

I see your post Leazes and I'll respond later.

 

My point is that you all have theories/ideas based on your own agendas/something you've read rather than experienced or fact hence judgement on a book none of you have read but rather paraphrased via Google. Some are so anti US they believe anything they see written that slings dirt in their direction.

 

The whole point of this thread was basically outrage that people had the freedom to protest against something they felt was wrong. The fact that they weren't burning books, issuing death sentences is what sets them apart from those you see burning effigies of anyonr who had the sheer nerve to disagree with their opinions (almost what happens on here).

 

I think I asked you for specifics. You didn't provide any.

 

It's unfortunate that you assume that a: I haven't read the book and b: that I don't base my ideas on 'experiences' or 'fact.'

 

Well, I can see 'The Satanic Verses' from where I am sitting right now. It's on a shelf, between 'White Teeth' and 'The Search for the Giant Squid' (don't ask.) Would you like me to quote from it for you? Here you go:

 

"The anger with God carried him through another day, but then it faded and in its place there came a terrible emptiness, an isolation, as he realized he was talking to thin air, that there was nobody there at all and thrn he felt more foolish than ever in his life and he began to plead into the emptiness, ya Allah, just be there, damn it, just be." Page 30. It's one half of a paragraph about 1/3 of the way down on the right-hand page.

 

Secondly, I think my 'experiences' and the 'facts' that I know will vastly outstrip yours. Unless you mean to tell me that you are also a Muslim and a New Yorker, that you were in NY on 9/11, that you have lived in a Muslim country (Egypt), that you have two degrees in Middle Eastern history and high school education, that you make your living teaching this exact sort of thing to adolescents, I think I have 'experienced' a bit more than you and I think I know a few more 'facts' than you do. Even those who most vehemently disagree with what I have to say on the subject have never tried to insinuate that my knowledge of the topic is 'paraphrased from Google', of all things.

 

So unless you'd like to join in the discussion in earnest and bring your own facts and evidence to back up the specific statements that you make instead of throwing out a few undefined accusations of 'agendas' and 'naivete' (that's with a second 'e', not a 'y', just for your information), then please, in the immortal words of Stevie, pipe down.

 

I don't think the 'entire purpose of this thread' was to express outrage at the freedom of people to protest, as you say. Look back at the first post. I think it was to express outrage and wonder at what they have chosen to protest. Similarly, did you think the teddy bear Muhammad scandal was an outrageous cause for conflict and inflammation? But do you support the right of those people to protest (peacefully) what they felt to be wrong?

[Guest alex]

Racer's comments do seem a little ironic given it would appear he hasn't read the thread properly but has judged it on the basis of his own agenda

Edited August 27, 2010 by alex

[Happy Face 29]

The whole point of this thread was basically outrage that people had the freedom to protest against something they felt was wrong. The fact that they weren't burning books, issuing death sentences is what sets them apart from those you see burning effigies of anyonr who had the sheer nerve to disagree with their opinions (almost what happens on here).

 

 

You're making it up as you go along.

 

 

Racer's comments do seem a little ironic given it would appear he hasn't read the thread properly but has judged it on the basis of his own agenda

 

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

3 points:

 

1. Speaking of protests and the like, will anyone be keeping an eye on Glenn Beck this weekend, he's going to be at the Lincoln Memorial with the tea party folk on the anniversary of MLK's speech, think he's comparing himself to MLK and saying he is the leader of a new civil rights movement.

 

"The event itself will shine a bright light, once again, on hysterical right-wing zealots and their bizarre leaders," says Steve Benen, who is worried about Beck's mental state. "The party that's been taken over by the extremists is feigning ignorance." "Republicans for well over the past year have firmly embraced the tea party and some of these right-wing fringe groups that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have rallied around," one Democratic spokesman said. "The fact that they're trying to plead ignorance is just completely absurd." http://slatest.slate.com/id/2265286/entry/9/

 

2.

 

 

3. What do you do with an Islamic dog?

 

Muzzlim.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[LeazesMag 0]

The whole point of this thread was basically outrage that people had the freedom to protest against something they felt was wrong. The fact that they weren't burning books, issuing death sentences is what sets them apart from those you see burning effigies of anyonr who had the sheer nerve to disagree with their opinions (almost what happens on here).

 

I don't see the difference between burning flags/effigies and holding protests screaming hatred at Muslims - both are free (or should be) to do so but both show underlying intolerance which is identical.

 

Sorry like, but I don't think objecting to people telling me what I can and can't say and/or demonstrating anti-British sentiments about our troop or our way of life is intolerant. I think it's quite justified. If they don't like it, they can fuck off to somewhere more suited to their beliefs.

 

Would you go to Egypt and walk down the street holding your wife's/girlfriends hand when you knew it wasn't the norm way of life and you would be in the shit ? Is that intolerant or showing respect for the host countries customs or way of life, or do you stand by your apparent claim that you should stand your ground at the Egyptian courts and legal system and insist how intolerant they are ?