A Very Positive Scene in Norway

In the wake of several high-profile attacks by reactionary Muslims in Europe, hundreds of young Muslims in Norway put on a very important public display in Oslo this weekend by surrounding a synagogue in a symbolic pledge to protect Jews from such attacks there.

In the wake of the attacks on Jews in Copenhagen and France, more than a thousand Norwegian Muslims gathered Saturday to form a human shield around Oslo’s synagogue. The group chanted, “No to anti-Semitism, no to Islamophobia,” as they stood in solidarity.

The demonstration was organized by young Muslims in Norway last week after a gunman believed to hold extremist views went on a shooting rampage in nearby Denmark, targeting a synagogue.

The Facebook page of the event explained the purpose of the event was to show that “Islam is to protect our brothers and sisters, independently of what religion they belong to. Islam is to rise above hatred and never sink down on the same level as the haters. Islam is to protect each other.”

“We want to demonstrate that Jews and Muslims do not hate each other,” Zeeshan Abdullah, an organizer of the event, told the crowd. “We do not want individuals to define what Islam is for the rest of us.”

This demonstrates something important, I think. It shows that the most violent and extreme elements of Islam do not define Islam completely. And it also shows, I think, why Presidents Bush and Obama have repeatedly declared, falsely but understandably, that Muslim terrorists aren’t really Muslim at all, that they’re distorting Islam. That position is false, absurd even (as is the position that those extremist views are the only “real” version of Islam), but I do understand why they have to say that publicly. It helps strengthen the moderate elements of Islam and helps build bridges to them.

Ultimately, this isn’t really about the United States at all. While specific actions may give rise to grievances, some of them entirely legitimate, that provide the context in which this battle has arisen, I think ultimately this is a war within Islam itself. It’s a battle between those Islamists who want to return to the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries and those who seek an accommodation with modernism. Christianity went through the same fight a few centuries ago. The modernists will win in the end, but a lot of blood will be shed in the meantime.

"So the Illuminati are more powerful than God, but if people just pray a little ..."

Taylor: The Illuminati Sent the Hurricanes ..."
"Eh, I'm not sure I would even go to "wrong". Perhaps inappropriate, rude, in poor ..."

Two More Accusers Step Forward in ..."
"The definitions of the terms are different in different countries. Some countries, it's assault. In ..."

Two More Accusers Step Forward in ..."
"Remember : when Alex Jones/Fox News/Jim Bakker/another wingnut tell that the Clinton run a pedophile ..."

Moore Controversy Shines Spotlight on Evangelical ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    This and all the other examples of anti-violence protests by Muslins aside, why don’t Muslins stand up and speak out against violent Muslins?

  • John Pieret

    Christianity went through the same fight a few centuries ago.

    Given the Christian right here in the US, I’m not so sure that fight is over yet, much less who won.

  • Chiroptera

    As a non-Muslim, it’s not really my place to judge what is “true” Islam, what is not “true” Islam, or how broad Islam can be. It doesn’t matter whether tolerant supporters of liberal democracy and brutal fascist theocrats are the extremes of a single broad religion or very different religions that use the same label, the point is the same: if someone calls theirself a Muslim, one must still examine the person to and judge the person on their own qualities, not on the label they choose.

    The problems is when US Christianists point the the violence by the brutal fascist theocrats and use that as an excuse to make life harder for people who call themselves Muslims before examining what it is that they individuals actual belief.

    It’s very similar to the US Christianists’ equivocation when they want to label anyone who yells “jesus!” when they stub their toes as a Christian when they want to claim that the US is a “Christian nation” or was founded on “Christian principles,” and then use this as an excuse to push their very narrow minority sectarian beliefs, or to cry “no true Christian” when it’s pointed out that these same Christian principles allowed owning slaves or murdering people of the wrong beleifs.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    The group chanted, “No to anti-Semitism, no to Islamophobia,” as they stood in solidarity.

    Sounds great — as long as these people don’t also agree to say no to the kinds of criticism that get dishonestly labeled “anti-Semitism” or “Islamophobia.”

    I wonder if either the Jews or Muslims here would form a human shield to protect a gathering-place for atheists.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    this isn’t really about the United States at all.

    I understand those words, but that sentence makes no sense!!

    EVERYTHING is about the USA! Hello, that is why we are so exceptional!!

  • Die Anyway

    re: theschwa @ 5

    OK, 3 brownie points. That got a LOL chuckle out of me.

    As to the OP, it’s nice that there are some Muslims behaving in this manner but they’re still delusional in their beliefs. Kind of like doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Pragmatically, I guess we take what we can get.

  • heddle

    Die Anyway

    Kind of like doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

    These, um, “wrong” reasons:

    We want to demonstrate that Jews and Muslims do not hate each other

    The group chanted, “No to anti-Semitism, no to Islamophobia,” as they stood in solidarity.

    Islam is to protect our brothers and sisters, independently of what religion they belong to. Islam is to rise above hatred and never sink down on the same level as the haters.

    It sounds to to me like they are doing the right thing for the right reason(s). What, exactly, do you find objectionable about their reasons?

  • Chiroptera

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/02/23/a-very-positive-scene-in-norway/#comment-405260“>Die Anyway, #6:

    Well, I’m pretty sure I’m wrong on a lot of things I believe. But I don’t know which ones are wrong, otherwise I’d quit having those wrong beliefs. If I protect the right of other people to hold beliefs that are different from mine, and those beliefs turn out to be the ones where I’m wrong, then I’m exactly in the situation where you just called those Norwegian Muslims delusional.

    Might be true, but I think that the characterization is beside the point of why different beliefs should be protected and tolerated.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    …it’s nice that there are some Muslims behaving in this manner but they’re still delusional in their beliefs.

    If they’re behaving decently and responsibly, there’s not much evidence to prove they’re delusional. As a mental-health diagnosis, “delusional” is proven by a pattern of actions that show disengagement from reality.

  • StevoR

    Beautiful gesture. Respect and more power to them.

  • jonathangray

    Appearances can be deceptive.

  • jonathangray

    The modernists will win in the end

    Why?

  • http://mostlyrational.net tacitus

    You quote Breitbart as a source? Are you new around here?

  • Nick Gotts

    I think ultimately this is a war within Islam itself. It’s a battle between those Islamists who want to return to the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries and those who seek an accommodation with modernism. Christianity went through the same fight a few centuries ago. The modernists will win in the end, but a lot of blood will be shed in the meantime.

    I’ve seen this supposed parallel scores of times, but in addition to John Pieret’s point@2 it doesn’t really hold up historically. The Enlightenment occurred at a time when European Christian cultures were establishing an increasing predominance in the world – scientifically, technologically, economically, militarily. Parts of the Islamic world have attempted to copy the move toward secular cultures and political systems, at various times between the early 19th century (Ottoman Sultan Selim III is the earliest example I can think of) and today (the largely-failed “Arab Spring”, Tunisia being the nearest to a success), but they have done so under the looming power (in many cases, the direct rule) of states and cultures long perceived as both inimical and inferior – so any move in this direction is liable to be denounced as treachery and apostasy. Even the most successful such move, in Turkey, looks in danger of being reversed. It can’t be assumed that “the modernists will win in the end”, at least, not without a much deeper analysis than a simple parallel with how things went in Christendom. There are interesting comparisons to be made with the ways in which non-Muslim states and cultures in Asia have adopted and adapted aspects of the Enlightenment legacy, on the whole with considerably more success.

  • Nick Gotts

    Jonathangray, of course, is (like Britbart) desperately disappointed at any evidence that Muslims can behave decently and show toleration of others. The following is from The Blaze:

    Breitbart described it as a “hoax” and a “complete fabrication by the mainstream media,” suggesting that few Muslims actually attended and that an anti-Semitic, 9/11 conspiracy theorist was one of those who organized what was described as a “ring of peace” around Oslo’s main synagogue. But leading synagogue members who were at the rally told TheBlaze that it appeared that most of the attendees were in fact Norwegian Muslims, and that the Muslim organizer — who had previously articulated anti-Semitic statements — opened his remarks to the crowd by admitting he had been wrong, apologizing and saying that he now believes Jews and Muslims should live together peacefully and with mutual respect.

    And:

    Norwegian media reported that Muslims in Copenhagen asked to demonstrate in support of the synagogue that was attacked last week but police turned down their request.

  • dingojack

    Run along and play with your toy soldiers Jon-Jon, the adults are talking now.

    Dingo

  • D. C. Sessions

    I wonder if either the Jews or Muslims here would form a human shield to protect a gathering-place for atheists.

    Given that a large minority (if not a majority) of Jews are atheist or agnostic, that’s not much of a stretch.

  • Crimson Clupeidae

    Did Breitbart also correct the numbers reported for the various ‘patriot’ marches in DC? Some people really need to get their heads out of the …bubble… occasionally.

  • Loqi

    Are you new around here?

    He’s old around here. “Old” as in both “the opposite of new” and “tired and uninteresting.”

  • jonathangray

    Jonathangray, of course, is (like Britbart) desperately disappointed at any evidence that Muslims can behave decently and show toleration of others.

    Whatever the truth about the synagogue photo op, I’m well aware that Mohammedans can behave decently. I’ve met decent Mohammedans. It makes no difference to the fact that Mohammedanism is an alien and inimical culture with no place in the West. Heartiste’s Law remains valid: diversity + proximity = war.

  • jahigginbotham

    Fairness? If dingojack can interrupt the adults, why can’t jonathangray? The linked article which claims over a thousand Muslims is quite likely exaggerated. See for example Jerry Coyne (and comments)

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/was-the-muslim-ring-of-peace-around-the-oslo-synagogue-exaggerated/

  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray
  • dingojack

    Dear Jon-Jon see mine #16

    Dingo

  • Nick Gotts

    I’m well aware that Mohammedans can behave decently. I’ve met decent Mohammedans. It makes no difference to the fact that Mohammedanism

    There are no such people as “Mohammedans” and no such thing as “Mohammedanism”, bigot.

    Heartiste’s Law remains valid: diversity + proximity = war. – jonothangray

    Hmm, so we should expel all Catholics from the UK forthwith. As a religious minority – moreover, one bearing allegiance to a foreign power – they will clearly cause a war if allowed to remain.

  • jonathangray

    NG:

    There are no such people as “Mohammedans” and no such thing as “Mohammedanism”, bigot.

    Followers of Buddha are Buddhists. Followers of Christ are Christians. So followers of Mohammed are Mohammedans. Where’s the bigotry?

    Hmm, so we should expel all Catholics from the UK forthwith. As a religious minority – moreover, one bearing allegiance to a foreign power – they will clearly cause a war if allowed to remain.

    “Wherever theological intolerance is admitted, it must inevitably have some civil effect; and as soon as it has such an effect, the Sovereign is no longer Sovereign even in the temporal sphere: thenceforth priests are the real masters, and kings only their ministers. … whoever dares to say: ‘Outside the Church is no salvation,’ ought to be driven from the State …” – J.J. Rousseau

    If our secular masters do not judge such a step to be necessary, it can only be because the Church’s leaders have cravenly sought, in the words of the then Cardinal Ratzinger, “an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789”. In other words, they have repudiated the distinctive diversity they might be expected to bring in order to be allowed to remain in proximity.

  • Nick Gotts

    jonathangray@27

    Where’s the bigotry?

    In calling members of a group by a name they object to, bigot.

    You quote the proto-totalitarian Rousseau as if you think I would agree with him, or at least find his pronouncements worthy of serious consideration. What a lackwit you are.

    it can only be because the Church’s leaders have cravenly sought, in the words of the then Cardinal Ratzinger, “an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789″. In other words, they have repudiated the distinctive diversity they might be expected to bring in order to be allowed to remain in proximity.

    Ah, so you define diversity in such a way that it is incompatible with peaceful coexistence – which of course makes “Heartiste’s Law” a tautology. But by your own criterion, we should certainly expel those Catholics who repudiate this repudiation. Need any help packing your bags?

  • jonathangray

    NG:

    Where’s the bigotry?

    In calling members of a group by a name they object to, bigot.

    My OED defines a ‘bigot’ as: One who holds irrespective of reason, & attaches disproportionate weight to, some creed or view.

    Wik defines ‘bigotry’ as: a state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.

    Even according to Wik’s somewhat looser definition, it is clear that merely “calling members of a group by a name they object to” does not (or at least need not) amount to bigotry. (If it did, a significant proportion of FTB’s posters and commentators would be guilty of bigotry (“wingnut” … “rethuglican” … “godbot” … “Christard” … etc).)

    You quote the proto-totalitarian Rousseau as if you think I would agree with him, or at least find his pronouncements worthy of serious consideration.

    No, I quote the proto-totalitarian Rousseau as a significant and influential anti-Christian Enlightenment thinker who agrees with Heartiste’s Law. I might have cited Voltaire also.

    Ah, so you define diversity in such a way that it is incompatible with peaceful coexistence – which of course makes “Heartiste’s Law” a tautology.

    Heartiste’s Law is basically an aphorism and as such there is obviously room for nuanced explication. A tautology or pleonasm can be a legitimate form of aphoristic expression, employed when a plain truth is stubbornly denied by the indoctrinated. The point is that profound differences in world view — e.g. Christianity/Mohammedanism, Christianity/Enlightenment, Enlightenment/Mohammedanism — make peaceful coexistence problematical. Christianity held Mohammedanism at bay by war; the Enlightenment hobbled Christianity through revolutionary violence. The liberal heirs of the Enlightenment, shorn of their former “proto-totalitarian” militancy, now find themselves face to face with a particularly militant strain of Mohammedanism. Their strategy so far has been to issue appeals to a supposed constituency of “moderate Muslims”, calling on them to throw their support behind the liberal Enlightenment world view and reject their “extremist” brethren. Let’s see how that plays out. (The question is of course complicated by ethnic tribal (as opposed to purely ideological) sentiments — another type of diversity to which Heartiste’s Law applies.)

    But by your own criterion, we should certainly expel those Catholics who repudiate this repudiation.

    Since those intransigents have been so effectively marginalised, it hardly seems worth the effort.

  • Nick Gotts

    jonathangray@29

    it is clear that merely “calling members of a group by a name they object to” does not (or at least need not) amount to bigotry.

    True, it need not, if the hostility and contempt that doing so indicates is justified. But you dishonestly pretend that such is not indicated by your use of “Mohammedans”, when you know perfectly well that Muslims object to that designation, and it costs you nothing – apart from a lost opportunity to express your hostility and contempt – to call them Muslims.

    Heartiste’s Law is basically an aphorism and as such there is obviously room for nuanced explication.

    No, it’s basically a piece of stupid bigotry – which is why you’re so fond of it. It can either be false, or a tautology, depending on the interpretation you put on it.

    Heartiste’s Law is basically an aphorism and as such there is obviously room for nuanced explication. A tautology or pleonasm can be a legitimate form of aphoristic expression, employed when a plain truth is stubbornly denied by the indoctrinated. The point is that profound differences in world view — e.g. Christianity/Mohammedanism, Christianity/Enlightenment, Enlightenment/Mohammedanism — make peaceful coexistence problematical. Christianity held Mohammedanism at bay by war; the Enlightenment hobbled Christianity through revolutionary violence. The liberal heirs of the Enlightenment, shorn of their former “proto-totalitarian” militancy, now find themselves face to face with a particularly militant strain of Mohammedanism.

    These are all ridiculously ignorant caricatures of complex historical processes, compounded by absurd conflations between ideologies and politcal formations. Islamic and Christian states frequently fought each other, true (and aggression came from both sides); but they also frequently made military alliances across the religious divide: in Iberia, in the Levant, in the Balkans. France allied with the Ottoman Empire against Austria, which retaliated by allying with Persia. Christianity was “hobbled” as much or more by its vicious internal feuds and by the advance of rational enquiry revealing its absurdities as by revolutionary violence; moreover, many of those involved in revolutionary violence were Christians, as were practically all of those involved in its reactionary counterpart. And the great majority of the victims of Islamism are either Muslims themselves, or the members of non-Muslim religious minorities in Muslim majority countries; Muslim states remain weak, and Muslim minorities in Europe and European-settler states both almost entirely peaceful, and politically inconsequential. As a real threat to the “liberal heirs of the Enlightenment”, it’s nugatory – although obviously you would very much like to think otherwise.

    Since those intransigents have been so effectively marginalised, it hardly seems worth the effort.

    True, but when one of them starts telling us we can’t possibly live peacefully with him, maybe we should take him at his word.

  • Nick Gotts

    If our secular masters do not judge such a step to be necessary, it can only be because the Church’s leaders have cravenly sought, in the words of the then Cardinal Ratzinger, “an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789″. – jonathangray@27

    It’s worth noting that this is historically absurd. The granting of full political rights to Catholics in the UK occurred with the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Act in 1829, at a time when the Church’s leaders were far from having reconciled themselves to “the new era inaugurated in 1789”.

    with regard to revolutionary violence, I happened yesterday to visit Il Museo Nazionale del Risorgimento Italiano in Turin. Many pictures of revolutionary uprisings showed priests supporting the nationalist rebels, and a banner was displayed bearing the legend: “Italia libera. Deo lo vuole” (Free Italy: God wants it).

  • Nick Gotts

    “Deo” should be “Dio” @31.

  • jonathangray

    NG:

    But you dishonestly pretend that such is not indicated by your use of “Mohammedans”, when you know perfectly well that Muslims object to that designation, and it costs you nothing – apart from a lost opportunity to express your hostility and contempt – to call them Muslims.

    But I’ve never made any secret of my hostility to that devilish creed — so if I were using that designation as a means of further expressing my hostility, why would I feel the need to pretend otherwise? I use ‘Mohammedan’ because it is a term traditionally used by Christians to describe the followers of Mohammed — one which, AFAIK, was purely classificatory, not derogatory (eg did not imply that Mohammed’s followers worshipped him as a divine being). If there is any prickliness in my use of the term, it is not directed at the infidel Saracen dogs but at the ethnomasochist elites in Western lands who poison the air we breathe by their cultural self-abasement before the idolised Other. One symptom of this is the creeping abandonment of hitherto common Western or romanised/anglicised forms — ‘Qu’ran’ instead of Koran, ‘Beijing’ instead of Peking, ‘Mumbai’ instead of Bombay etc.

    These are all ridiculously ignorant caricatures of complex historical processes, compounded by absurd conflations between ideologies and politcal formations. Islamic and Christian states frequently fought each other, true (and aggression came from both sides); but they also frequently made military alliances across the religious divide: in Iberia, in the Levant, in the Balkans. France allied with the Ottoman Empire against Austria, which retaliated by allying with Persia.

    Of course they are simplifications of complex historical processes; and of course political and tactical military realities do not always align themselves according to neat ideological or religious categories. That doesn’t mean those categories are invalid or irrelevant. With all their limitations, we may regard them as the clearest lens through which to observe at least some historical periods and processes.

    Christianity was “hobbled” as much or more by its vicious internal feuds

    Obviously heretical rebellions would tend to weaken the powers of resistance.

    and by the advance of rational enquiry revealing its absurdities

    What was that you said about ridiculously ignorant caricatures of complex historical processes?

    moreover, many of those involved in revolutionary violence were Christians

    Much like Judas.

    And the great majority of the victims of Islamism are either Muslims themselves, or the members of non-Muslim religious minorities in Muslim majority countries

    So? That doesn’t mean Mohammedanism can’t be a real and present danger to Christianity.

    Muslim states remain weak

    Maybe so, but strength and weakness are not measured solely by conventional political, economic, technological or military indicators. Strength of will can be decisive, as Vietnam and Afghanistan demonstrated. This not a clash between “states” but between cultures and I rather doubt modern secular liberal civilisation has the will and self-belief to effectively oppose radical Islam in practice, not least because it lacks a strong sense of common cultural or ethnic identity — indeed sees such a lack as a virtue. A majority with no shared values other than the negative one of tolerance (compounded of self-loathing ethnomasochism + romantic xenophilia), held together only by a neutral body of law and drugged with ever-more frivolous creature comforts, is no match for a zealous, determined, austere, proud minority who know who they are & what they believe and are willing to kill & be killed for their convictions.

    Muslim minorities in Europe and European-settler states both almost entirely peaceful, and politically inconsequential. As a real threat to the “liberal heirs of the Enlightenment”, it’s nugatory

    An extraordinary assertion. Sizeable, assertive Mohammedan communities exist in every major European country, probably every major European city. I don’t doubt they are “ almost entirely peaceful”. But their violent minorities have forced European authorities to place a military or militarised police presence on the streets. Governments fret over the ‘radicalisation’ of Mohammedan youth. Jews are considering fleeing France and the UK. That is not politically inconsequential.

  • jonathangray

    [contd]

    And even if these communities were entirely peaceful (rather than merely “almost entirely”), that doesn’t mean they would be politically inconsequential. In the UK Mohammedanism is the second largest religion, the Mohammedan population is rising 10 times faster than the rest of society and “Mohammed” (or variants thereof) is notoriously now the most popular boy’s name in the country. Do you seriously believe it isn’t only a matter of time before a Mohammedan occupies a high office of state? Imagine a Mohammedan Home Secretary, or a Mohammedan Foreign Secretary, or a Mohammedan Defence Secretary, or a Mohammedan Prime Minister. Or all of them at once! Why not? Would that be politically inconsequential?

    I daresay you are repelled by the classic Maurrassian distinction between pays légal and pays réel. If you define nationality as a legal identity rather than as an ethnic identity, there is nothing incongruous about the expression “British Muslim” or “Muslim Briton”. The problem is, if “Muslim Briton” is seen as unproblematic, you have no grounds for seeing “Muslim Britain” as inherently problematic. It is not at all inconceivable that cultural and demographic trends could transform a secular European country into a majority Mohammedan country. Would that be politically inconsequential?

  • jonathangray

    [contd]

    (You might be unperturbed by such a scenario, confident that your precious liberal Enlightenment values would survive the transition. Perhaps they would, but I wouldn’t bet on it.)

  • jonathangray
    Since those intransigents have been so effectively marginalised, it hardly seems worth the effort.

    True, but when one of them starts telling us we can’t possibly live peacefully with him, maybe we should take him at his word.

    Scattered individuals and obscure huddled congregations are perfectly capable of living in peace with the dominant culture; they don’t really have a choice. Heartiste’s Law kicks in when the dominant culture begins to lose its dominance (eg by making a principled renunciation of its dominance or by aborting and contracepting itself out of existence).

    The granting of full political rights to Catholics in the UK occurred with the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Act in 1829, at a time when the Church’s leaders were far from having reconciled themselves to “the new era inaugurated in 1789″.

    The Devil is subtle and uses many weapons — killing with kindness has its place alongside killing. (As it was, the Act wasn’t exactly a shoo-in.)

    with regard to revolutionary violence, I happened yesterday to visit Il Museo Nazionale del Risorgimento Italiano in Turin. Many pictures of revolutionary uprisings showed priests supporting the nationalist rebels, and a banner was displayed bearing the legend: “Italia libera. Deo lo vuole” (Free Italy: God wants it).

    Ah, the wacky world of revolutionary uprisings

  • jonathangray
  • Nick Gotts

    But I’ve never made any secret of my hostility to that devilish creed — so if I were using that designation as a means of further expressing my hostility, why would I feel the need to pretend otherwise?

    I don’t know, but that’s exactly what you did. Maybe you should ask yourself why you are so dishonest. It is, of course, not the creed that is offended by calling Muslims “Mohammedans”, but people. But you’ve given ample evidence that you don’t give a shit about people.

    One symptom of this is the creeping abandonment of hitherto common Western or romanised/anglicised forms — ‘Qu’ran’ instead of Koran, ‘Beijing’ instead of Peking, ‘Mumbai’ instead of Bombay etc.

    My, my, what a petty little shit you are!

    What was that you said about ridiculously ignorant caricatures of complex historical processes?

    Unlike you, I wasn’t putting forward a unicausal explanation. And the advance of rational enquiry did indeed reveal the absurdity of, for example, the claim that the universe is only a few thousand years old, many of the historical claims based on the Bible, the claim that moses wrote the Pentateuch, the miracle stories both biblical and those of churches and monasteries eager to drum up the pilgrim trade with healings attributed to (usually fake) relics, the claims of the church to dictate what discoveries could and could not be permitted… As for your frothings about “heretical rebellions” and “Judas” – you’re just conceding my claim while making a further idiot of yourself.

    I rather doubt modern secular liberal civilisation has the will and self-belief to effectively oppose radical Islam in practice

    And yet somehow it has somehow successively defeated the Catholic church, monarchical absolutism, fascism and Soviet communism. It faces very serious political and environmental problems, but radical Islam, in historical perspective, is scarcely more than a fart in a hurricane.

    A majority with no shared values other than the negative one of tolerance (compounded of self-loathing ethnomasochism + romantic xenophilia)

    Of course a bigot like you will see tolerance as negative, and will attribute an invented “self-loathing ethnomasochism” to anyone who does not share your racism.

    But their violent minorities have forced European authorities to place a military or militarised police presence on the streets.

    As ETA and the Provisional IRA, both apparently very strong of will, did not too long ago. Where are they now? Dead, in prison or obscurity – or in local government!

    Do you seriously believe it isn’t only a matter of time before a Mohammedan occupies a high office of state?

    Yes, that seems probable. What’s amusing is the way you’re simulataneously frothing at the mouth and wetting yourself at the prospect.

    It is not at all inconceivable that cultural and demographic trends could transform a secular European country into a majority Mohammedan country.

    It is not inconceivable. It is extremely unlikely, certainly within the next century. Actually, the country of origin with the largest number of immigrants to Britain over the past decade has been Poland – perhaps we should be more worried about a Catholic demographic takeover!

    Scattered individuals and obscure huddled congregations are perfectly capable of living in peace with the dominant culture; they don’t really have a choice.

    If bitter and bigoted enough, they may resort to terrorism. But do I detect just a hint of concern that your paeans of hatred might actually lead to personal adverse consequences?

    The Devil is subtle and uses many weapons

    Really, you are so utterly ridiculous – I actually did laugh out loud. Again, you concede the substantive point, making a nonsense of your original claim, while making a further idiot of yourself.

  • jonathangray

    NG:

    I don’t know, but that’s exactly what you did. Maybe you should ask yourself why you are so dishonest.

    In other words, you have nothing.

    It is, of course, not the creed that is offended by calling Muslims “Mohammedans”, but people. But you’ve given ample evidence that you don’t give a shit about people.

    Your newfound concern not to offend people’s religious sensibilities is noted.

    My, my, what a petty little shit you are!

    Losing a tooth is a petty matter … unless it’s a symptom of radiation sickness. The Devil is in the details.

    Unlike you, I wasn’t putting forward a unicausal explanation.

    Neither was I. You just assumed I was.

    And the advance of rational enquiry did indeed reveal the absurdity of, for example, the claim that the universe is only a few thousand years old, many of the historical claims based on the Bible, the claim that moses wrote the Pentateuch, the miracle stories both biblical and those of churches and monasteries eager to drum up the pilgrim trade with healings attributed to (usually fake) relics, the claims of the church to dictate what discoveries could and could not be permitted…

    I don’t have the time, space, energy, inclination or competence to adequately address that litany. The issues involved are complex. Suffice to say a better characterisation of the process would be that a bundle of dubious and unacknowledged metaphysical assumptions were artfully packaged as the only valid mode of rational inquiry as part of a propaganda campaign of genius that persuaded the semi-educated of the absurdity of what was more often than not a mere funhouse mirror-image of Christianity.

    What is amusing is how liberal or progressive atheists refuse to acknowledge that the same “advance of rational enquiry” threatens to “reveal the absurdity” of various liberal shibboleths.

    And yet somehow it has somehow successively defeated the Catholic church, monarchical absolutism, fascism and Soviet communism.

    Those who broke the temporal power of the Church, led the revolutions against monarchical absolutism, defeated the Axis powers on the battlefield and fatally sapped Soviet communism’s ideological strength were hardly what we would call liberal democrats.

    radical Islam, in historical perspective, is scarcely more than a fart in a hurricane.

    How does “radical Islam” differ from what Mohammed preached and practised? Was that a “fart in a hurricane” in world-historical terms?

  • jonathangray

    Of course a bigot like you will see tolerance as negative, and will attribute an invented “self-loathing ethnomasochism” to anyone who does not share your racism.

    So sorry.

  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray

    As ETA and the Provisional IRA, both apparently very strong of will, did not too long ago. Where are they now? Dead, in prison or obscurity – or in local government!

    True. But the essentially limited, secular, secessionist aims of these groups hardly compare with the universalist, imperialist and apocalyptic fervour of radical Mohammedanism.

    Yes, that seems probable. What’s amusing is the way you’re simulataneously frothing at the mouth and wetting yourself at the prospect.

    Is that probability politically irrelevant?

    It is not inconceivable. It is extremely unlikely, certainly within the next century.

    I don’t know why you think it extremely unlikely. The point is, there is nothing to prevent it occurring once nationality is sundered from ethnicity and redefined in terms of nebulous “shared values”. And if it takes a hundred years, so what? It’s odd to see a progressive appear so blithely indifferent to the future.

    Actually, the country of origin with the largest number of immigrants to Britain over the past decade has been Poland – perhaps we should be more worried about a Catholic demographic takeover!

    I believe there are still far fewer Poles in the UK than Mohammedans, though. And of course it’s easier for European Christians to assimilate into a country with roots in the same culture.

    If bitter and bigoted enough, they may resort to terrorism.

    It is not inconceivable. It is extremely unlikely. As far as I’m aware, the nearest to violence tradcats have come was the trashing of “Piss Christ” in Avignon by heroic defenders of civilisation.

    But do I detect just a hint of concern that your paeans of hatred might actually lead to personal adverse consequences?

    No.

    Really, you are so utterly ridiculous – I actually did laugh out loud.

    Number of shits given = 0.

    Again, you concede the substantive point, making a nonsense of your original claim

    You seem to have trouble with nuance.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    What’s with jonathangray suddenly deciding he has to post a lot of stupid bullshit on a thread that’s been inactive for a week?

    The point is, there is nothing to prevent it occurring once nationality is sundered from ethnicity and redefined in terms of nebulous “shared values”.

    Hey, if you don’t like living in a nation-state that upholds shared values (like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democracy, equal justice under law, that sort of thing), then maybe you should pack up and move to a place where ethnicity is considered more important…like maybe Somalia? Or Serbia? Write when you get work, and tell us how much safer you are from religious extremism and intolerance than you were here in the West.

    Oh, and why the FUCK are you wasting keystrokes typing obsolete words like “Mohammedanism?” That’s an English word that used to be used by pompous asshats who didn’t know what the word “Islam” meant, back in, what, the 19th century? 18th? I mean, it’s a little better than Dante’s word “Mohammetry,” but not much. Here’s a protip: using more syllables doesn’t make you sound smarter.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    …the ethnomasochist elites in Western lands who poison the air we breathe by their cultural self-abasement before the idolised Other.

    You really have a problem with the concept of religious tolerance, don’t you? You’re mot just a raving stupid bigot, you’re downright delusional.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Heartiste’s Law remains valid: diversity + proximity = war.

    Simpleminded, deterministic, racist, itching for war and bloodshed…and totally disproven by historical experience. In other words, just another day for jon-jon.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    BTW, jon-jon, that’s not just Heartiste’s law…it’s Hitler’s. I mean that literally, it’s in “Mein Kampf,” pretty much verbatim. Hitler rejected the Hegelian idea of “thesis + antithesis = synthesis,” and instead insisted that when two contrary ideas or systems met, one must totally annihilate the other — compromise or synthesis was not an option. The fact that you’re agreeing with Hitler on this — after he was so spectacularly proven wrong, no less — only shows what a stupid, bigoted, bloodthirsty chickenhawk you really are.

  • jonathangray

    Queen Bee:

    What’s with jonathangray suddenly deciding he has to post a lot of stupid bullshit on a thread that’s been inactive for a week?

    Because Nick Gott’s last comment was directed at me and merited a reply, albeit a belated one.

    maybe you should pack up and move to a place where ethnicity is considered more important…like maybe Somalia? Or Serbia?

    No need — thanks to the vibrant diversity of 21st-century multicultural society, Somalia has moved here !

    I’ll spell it out. Why don’t I move to Somalia or Serbia? Because I’m not a Somali or Serb.

    The reason why Western countries are (still) better places to live than shitholes like Somalia is not that the former are rapidly losing their ethnic homogeneity while the latter have kept theirs. It’s because the former culture is (still) superior to the latter.

    Oh, and why the FUCK are you wasting keystrokes typing obsolete words like “Mohammedanism?” That’s an English word that used to be used by pompous asshats who didn’t know what the word “Islam” meant, back in, what, the 19th century? 18th? I mean, it’s a little better than Dante’s word “Mohammetry,” but not much. Here’s a protip: using more syllables doesn’t make you sound smarter.

    Here’s another protip: it’s not usually a good idea to jump into a thread which you clearly haven’t read. I’ve already explained why I use that word.

    that’s not just Heartiste’s law…it’s Hitler’s. I mean that literally, it’s in “Mein Kampf,” pretty much verbatim. Hitler rejected the Hegelian idea of “thesis + antithesis = synthesis,” and instead insisted that when two contrary ideas or systems met, one must totally annihilate the other — compromise or synthesis was not an option.

    Why not avoid the whole problem by opting for respectful separation? Let a hundred flowers bloom!

    The fact that you’re agreeing with Hitler on this — after he was so spectacularly proven wrong, no less — only shows what a stupid, bigoted, bloodthirsty chickenhawk you really are.

    You seem to have forgotten that the reason you and I aren’t living in a National Socialist state is that the National Socialist ideology was defeated in a war. German armies were routed on the battlefield, German cities were firebombed into rubble and Germany herself was occupied by Allied troops who initiated a painstaking process of rooting out all traces of Nazi ideology from the subjugated populace. Which suggests Hitler was right on this matter — some ideas and systems are so inherently contrary that peaceful proximity is impossible.