by Custador
The Swiss, perhaps the only people on Earth to practise direct democracy, took a vote recently on whether to ban the building of minarets (the towers outside of mosques where Imams used to stand to call Muslims to prayer before the introduction of loud-speakers) in their country.
A majority of them voted in favour of the ban. I think it’s unfortunate that moderate Muslims have been caught out in what is probably a reaction by the Swiss to extremist Muslims elsewhere in Europe, but I’m really not surprised. Looking at Muslim extremism in Britain today, I see the like of Abbu Hamzah preaching hatred and I see a lot of deluded young men who want to make Britain an Islamic republic.
Is that frightening to the non-Muslim masses? Of course! Combine that with the 7/7 attacks and the attempted (but thankfully botched) 21/7 attacks on London and it becomes obvious where what I call “domestic Islamophobia” comes from.
Yes, most Muslims are moderate and peaceful, but those that are not (and the number is disproportionate to other religions) are so extreme that the question has to be asked: Would we be better off not having Islam in Britain at all?
I have to say that I think we would, not just because of those who want to physically attack us, but also because of those who would seek to take us over by whatever other means.
The idea of going back through eight hundred years of social development again disgusts me. Here I will put my hand in the air and admit that I am, to all intents and purposes, a racist. There is no question of that. I detest seeing women dressed in black from head to toe with just a veiled eye-slit as their window on the world.
I find it abhorrent that, in the 21st century and in a Western country, my country, such opression of women is tollerated. So when I see couples where the woman is dressed like that, my first reaction is to dislike and distrust the man. Is that wrong of me? Without a doubt, yes it is. But am I alone? Hardly.
In fact, as I think the Swiss vote yesterday amply demonstrates, my reaction is probably quite mild compared to most. On this site, Daniel gives us a platform to debate religion, and naturally that debate mostly encompasses Christianity, since that is what we are all affected by the most. In Europe, however, that is changing.
So am I a lone racist? Did the Swiss get this wrong? Should religious freedom take precedence at all costs? You tell me.
Personally I think they got it wrong, discrimination for what ever reason is wrong it doesn’t have to be religious. If they had banned all construction of religious buildings that would have been the better way to go and not have it faith based. I do agree that oppression of women under the guise of Islam is wrong and I quite freely argue against it and feel no need to “respect” their religion whilst doing so. Oppression of women is wrong according to the prevailing moral Zeitgeist today, and so is discrimination. this has just given the impression that the Swiss are Islamophobic and bigots.
Discrimination against discrimination, Gary?
The Swiss are rejecting the oppressive nature of islam. This is less about faith and more about how that faith manifests itself in a culture. What the Swiss are rejecting here is the manifestation of muslim beliefs in their culture. If it makes you feel better to label this rejection “islamophobic”, I guess that’s your business, but to imply that there is a direct, causal correlation between “bigotry” and rejecting the encroachment of another, radically different culture onto your own culture is irresponsible and narrow-minded, especially when the stated goal of this radical new culture is to supplant yours.
I think you just re-wrote my article but better!
The Christians are rejecting the oppressive nature of homosexuality. This is less about sinners and more about how that sin manifests itself in a culture. What the Christians are rejecting here is the manifestation of homosexual beliefs in their culture. If it makes you feel better to label this rejection “homophobic”, I guess that’s your business, but to imply that there is a direct, causal correlation between “bigotry” and rejecting the encroachment of another, radically different culture onto your own culture is irresponsible and narrow-minded, especially when the stated goal of this radical new culture is to supplant yours.
This same twisted logic could also be applied to athiests, and countless other groups that might encroach upon one’s misplaced feelings of superiority.
Golly! It almost seemed like you had a point there until I reread that first part. “the oppressive nature of homosexuality.” Then I LOL’d.
Nice one, Sunny Day. I couldn’t even be arsed replying to a post that stupid. Thanks for saying it for me!
Honestly, I’m not sure what you find so funny, Sunny Day. I guess I’m glad you find it so amusing, b/c it is kind of ridiculous, but I also wonder why you think “oppressive nature of homosexuality” is so LOL’able. It’s all too real of a situation for me, and probably countless other homos. I’m pleased that you can laugh about it though…
“me, and probably countless other homos” – Funny. You’re slightly less convincing as a homosexual than Jim Davidson in panto.
Eerm – @Rik and @ Sunnyday -I think we might be missing Janson’s point here – If youy put quotes around the first paragraph and compare it to Lowrack’s post two above it above you’ll see what I mean ;)
True. Still very telling use of words.
Hold on there Janson, I’m not sure I understand what you mean:
A) Are you saying that homosexuals are opressive of religion?
B) Are you saying that homosexuals are opressed?
From the rest of your post, particularly “What the Christians are rejecting here is the manifestation of homosexual beliefs in their culture”, I think that you’re saying homosexuals are opressive of religion. Now, that’s just bullshit. The fact that gay people won’t let religius people opress and persecute them does not mean that they are opressing or persecuting the religious. You write a lot of things as being established fact and seem to be quite indoctrinated, especially when you talk about “homosexual beliefs”, which goes back to the age-old argument; homosexuality is NOT a “choice” or a “belief”. It is something a person either IS or IS NOT. Referring to sexuality as a lifestyle choice is false and insulting. Gay men couldn’t choose to be attracted to women instead of men any more than I could choose to be attracted to male African Elephants instead of human females.
Custador, I literally just replaced a few words from Lowrack’s argument (see above) in an attempt to show how that is the same argument often heard from christians when they try to justify their bigotry of homosexuals and athiests. Christians seem to view anything that does not fit into their world view as oppressive to them (i.e. athiests’ war on christmas, gays’ attack on marriage, etc…).
Ah right, with you now. Sorry, I got the wrong end of the stick there.
I don’t really think it’s a cogent paradigm, though. Homosexuals just want to live and let live, they don’t want us all to be gay or to live in a world governed by gay law!
You nailed it, Janson. Homosexuality is all about oppressing heterosexuals and supplanting their culture, whatever that is. After all, it’s their stated goal.
Great analogy there.
Just so you know, I found this post on Plant Atheism and decided to comment.
First of all, you are not racist. It is impossible to be racist against a religion. Case in point, muslims are of many different races. I would also like to make the case that it is not morally wrong to be against a religion though.
You are anti muslim. It is not acceptable to be against people for reasons that they cannot change. It is okay however to be against certain aspects of a person’s acquired characteristics, such as religion, especially when that religion is as abhorrent as the three abrahamic faiths are (read the books those faiths are based on).
The only difference is that these religions have a different place in society than others. People would not be labeled as bigots if they came out against a religion that practices FGM (although many are labeled as antisemetic when they come out against a religion that practices MGM solely because it includes MGM. Odd) It is just that these religions have such a high place of power in western society that it is not okay to criticize them.
I do disagree with you on one thing. Wearing a burqa etc. is not oppression of women. Many women choose to wear it. To prove that it is oppression you must prove that it is non consensual. And until you provide conclusive studies showing that a large number of women do not want to wear the burqa it cannot be considered oppression.
I find that religion distasteful for other reasons including some of the ones you stated above.
Thank you,
jugglingbuffoon
A minor comment – whether a burkha is an item of oppression is independent of my ability to prove it with a study.
” do disagree with you on one thing. Wearing a burqa etc. is not oppression of women. Many women choose to wear it. To prove that it is oppression you must prove that it is non consensual.”
I agree in general with your comment, but not in this point. There are a lot of ways of opressing other humans beings, one of them is through indoctrination. A lot of muslim women are going to choose wearing a burka because they believe, they have learned from her parents and society in general, that wearing a burka -or being submissive- is what they have to do.
In the same way, while only a part of women argued in favour of her rights to vote, you can’t deny that not being able to choose their govern was, in fact, opression.
In XIX century some spanish people went -pretty violently- to Madrid’s streets claiming for the return of an absolutist monarchy; they were begging to be opressed.
some women prefer it because they find it freeing, being judged not by their looks but by their words, though of course in a western context it just means they’re judged by the looks they’ve chosen rather than by what they were born with.
Not at all. Spanish people in the Independence War was fighting the French invasion and being lead by Napoleon’s brother José; they claimed for the rightful king, from the Borbon dinasty, and that was the objetc of the Carta Magna or Constitution of 1812. They couln’t guess that the dirty bastard, once in power, would forget what the people had done for him and what that document meant. They didn’t choose to be oppressed at all.
Well, they were shouting “Vivan las cadenas!” (Hurrah the chains!)
so may be they guessed it…
I agree.
I think that’s feminist studies 101. Sure, women in our society ‘choose’ to shave their legs and armpits, and to wear makeup and high heels, because they think it makes them look pretty. But it’s not some crazy idea they all cooked up independently, it’s a societally imposed image of beauty that someone outside the culture might consider ‘oppression.’
It’s also worth considering the consequences if you don’t make the ‘choice.’ If a woman neglected to shave her armpits, in some circles, that would lead to humiliation, ostracism, and no male suitors. If that’s the case, it’s not really a true ‘choice.’
It’s kind of like how Christians always say ‘God gives you the choice to choose Him and live forever.’ As Christopher Hitchens is quick to point out, it’s not really a choice if the alternative is burning forever in a lake of fire.
It’s also worth considering the consequences if you don’t make the ‘choice.’ If a woman neglected to shave her armpits, in some circles, that would lead to humiliation, ostracism, and no male suitors. If that’s the case, it’s not really a true ‘choice.
On the other hand in fundie circles (not only muslim but some extreme jewish and christian groups as well, even if muslims are currently the most obvious) if a woman choose not to wear the liberating clothes she risk being beaten up by self appointed protectors of modesty and god’s word and in some cases she risk death. not exactly an equivalent.
Recently there was a case over here of a girl who went to college with a ultra-short skirt. She was beaten by her peers for no particular reason. There were no particular religious affiliations involved.
Yes, Islam does oppress women. There’s no question of it. But banning burqas or minarets doesn’t make an iota of difference; in fact, it might make them cling even tighter to their ideas. Instead of banning minarets of banning burqas, go after the a-holes who beat the women for not wearing them. Educate their kids. Integrate them in society. That makes a difference.
You’re wrong. Islam oppresses women, and not just with burqas. Watch this video from Pat Condell for another perspective on “islamophobia”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4FpTvp0tgs
Cheers.
None of these comments you’re replying to said that islam does not oppress women, just that the burka was not an inherent tool of oppression. I agree, it’s a bit silly to say clothes or other inanimate objects = oppression. They can be used for that purpose (and this item in most cases is) but some people may choose freely to use them, just as some people choose to wear collars because they happen to like it. There’s really no need to reiterate that islam oppresses women, because we get that, and that wasn’t the issue.
I also agree with Elliott’s comment. While some people may choose freely to wear it, it is extremely unlikely for this choice to have been made in a vacuum. There are great pressures to conform in your manner of dress in conservative religions, and it’s difficult to say where the line is between ‘choice’ and coercion. However, banning burkas, minarets or any other object is not going to make a bit of difference. These pressures are cultural, and just because you tell someone “we’re not going to let your women wear this any more” does not mean they are going to change their attitudes to women, and the women themselves are simply being denied yet another choice. It’s counter-productive in the case of burkas, and in the case of minarets it seems to achieve only increased tensions with an already alienated group. Bullying people into conforming won’t really make their conformity sincere. Muslims are not going to become less ‘dangerous’ if you try to take away their objects. Only cultural dialogue and exposure to new ideas can make any headway in changing minds.
Wearing a burka is not necessarily oppressive, but it usually is. Is it really a ‘choice’ if you know your parents will disown you (at best), or honor kill you (at worst) if you don’t wear it? I strongly suspect that the idea of ‘not being judged by their looks’ is a rationalization that these women tell themselves in order to not be miserable all the time. If they don’t want to be sexualized, they can wear baggy clothing that still lets them be seen as individual people; it’s not like the only options are burka or bikini.
It seems you’re using ‘racist’ as the worst thing one could be (it probably isn’t, but it’s close), but in this situation it doesn’t apply. The *race* of the people you’re objecting to doesn’t really matter, I would guess; the fact that they are probably asian (in the UK sense) is coincidental to your dislike.
As to whether your view is justified, I can’t really help, though I feel the same way myself. I’m sure that’s in part because I’ve been raised in the stereotypical Judeo-Christian tradition, so things like burkhas instinctively (as well as rationally) feel wrong. Perhaps the compromise in Switzerland would have been to allow the minarets, but ban the call to prayer on noise pollution grounds. As far as I’m concerned you could ban church bells for the same reason.
I disagree with the notion that the burqa is equated with oppression of women in Islam. It may be symbolic to you of endemic oppression in that community, and many who are forced to wear it may be oppressed. But while the underlying reason behind the burqa may be patriarchal and oppressive (the same could be said of high heels, incidentally), on an individual level there are many more positive reasons for wearing them, such as a connection with ones cultural identity. It’s easy to paint a picture of Muslim women of being forced into everything by an oppressive and overbearing man (whether husband, father or imam), but the fact is that a lot of women happily choose to wear clothes that reflect their religious beliefs.
I have to ask, are you equally concerned about nuns wearing religious habits? You could argue that the burqa is more extreme, but as I understand it, the justification for female religious dress across cultures is much the same.
Ultimately, I am very uncomfortable with the notion that any form of religious belief should be banned.
nuns of course are a small subset who have chosen to sacrifice a lot for a particular lifestyle, including their own choice of clothes. If the habit were as common as the hijab, you’d have a decent comparison.
For one thing, habits do not cover the face; the face is what humans are hardwired to recognize as making another being ‘human.’ Hair veils are not nearly as oppressive as chador or burkas.
For another, most nuns (at least in the U.S.) choose not to wear habits these days, and have done so for decades.
“Yes, most Muslims are moderate and peaceful…” Is this really true? I doubt it (the “moderate” part), maybe they do not kill and mutilate little girls but most muslims DO believe the Koran is literally true, that it is just a copy of a book that God has in heaven, and that sharia law should be compulsory…
I think it is a very dangerous mistake to pretend that islam has had its own enlightment. It has not!
Today’s “moderate” muslims are just like XIII century “progressive” christians.
…
“So am I a lone racist?” NO, you are not racist at all. And NO, you are not alone.
you… really don’t know much about Muslims at all, do you? There are 1.4 billion of them, and most of them are about as bad as midwestern American Christians, who we also call moderate.
But they believe the Koran is the literal word of God or not? They believe it is a compendium or metaphors and symbolisms (as most christians do regarding the Bible) or not?… I could go on on on but I guess we can all choose to live in an imaginary world… Well, unless we happen be a woman (or homosexual, or freethinker, or democrat…) living in a muslim country (and yes, I also mean “moderate” countrys like Egypt, Turkey, jordan…) where our freedom is a vaporous dream….
actually, Muslims are a lot less likely to believe the narratives in the Qur’an are literally true than Christians are to believe the same thing about the Bible. The stories are for moral instruction, not historical record.
Dreamland must be a nice place to live. I envy you.
hows about “studying under a professor with enormous experience and knowledge of actual Muslims” land
as opposed to your Fox News “information”
my point is that yeah, there are Muslims who are extreme, but the vast majority of them are less dangerous to the West than the kind of people who vote Republican.
Very, very interesting subject.
While I can somewhat agree that Islam is tied to a lot of fanaticism and violence, I’d also like to pint out that two major wars have been initiated by Christian nations at least partly on religious grounds.
Yup, dropping a bomb from a state-of-the-art bomber feels better than cutting heads, but who makes more deaths?
Who is more dangerous?
All the practicing Muslims I personally met were good people.
Yet, I do confess being uneasy at the spread of Islam.
Christianity, at least the one I know of here in Europe, is a largely watered down religion, Islam is not.
Many Muslim women cover themselves from head to toes willingly, because it is part of their culture, of their religion and ultimately of their identity, and does indeed make them feel safer.
I don’t like it, but they have to choose to free themselves.
Banning minarets does feel wrong, and I am not sure it’s going to accomplish much.
Safer about what? About not being beaten by their father or brother?
About not being looked in the streets, I guess. oO
I don’t necessarily agree with that (in fact I don’t).
Also, sorry for breaking this out for you, but domestic violence is far from exclusive of Muslim countries.
Could we please stop playing into Muslim rhetorics here by labeling ourself racists when speaking out against a vile belief “system”? Religion is not a race, but a choice and a bad choice at that. No amount of bending backwards will change that fact. There is no need to allow holy men to play the Hitler card here.
Can someone explain to me why they think freedom of religion is a bad thing? I’m slightly reassured by Custador’s OP and Confused’s comment, which both express some doubt about suppressing freedom of religion. But is there anybody around who’s in favor of abolishing freedom of religion altogether?
Ooooops, post in the wrong place, sry.
Yes. But the problem isn’t the burqa; it’s the connection it makes.
I see no difference between islamic women wearing a burqa or hijab willingly and women who partake in increasingly more dangerous procedures in a hopeless quest to be attractive. As someone mentioned before, the same can be said of high heels.
I see no difference between girls I know who wear the hijab yet work, date and function like normal human beings and my other friends who spend hours trying to starve themselves to be prettier (not healthier). At least the hijab is safer.
And, I hate the idea of both equally.
I too hate both ideas, but I do think that one is less opressive than the other. As males we also have social obligations, but we are going to agree -I assume- that our obligations are less opressive than those of women. Neither of us have the power to break those social rules alone.
The difference may be that, when an european woman doesn’t shave, she may have less pretendents or she may be mocked. When an egyptian woman decides to take off her hijab/burka she may be beaten by her husband.
Or if a kid thinks she’s overweight even when she isn’t, because the current standards of beauty are unrealistic, she might get seriously ill. I’ve also met more than one girl who was severely depressed because she couldn’t get a mate, or be pretty enough. It sucks.
Well, I frankly don’t know about how Muslims go about in Europe. But I’ve also seen a lot of women beaten by their husbands because they were dressed indecorously or because he thought she was flirting with someone or whatever, no Islam involved. Jerks will be jerks.
But I don’t think ostracizing these people is helpful. I’d rather that instead of banning symbols, people actually started undermining the thought process behind the symbols – by education, by helping those who want out, by… other means. Banning symbols is silly and only serves to entrench them even further in their sense of “specialness”.
I may agree about not banning symbols, when those symbols are not part of the opression we are trying to fight, and I think burka is. I would have voted “no” to the banning of minarets, and I would defend their rights to say “hey, I’m a muslim” if it implied a little chain with a symbol -like a lot of christians out there. When it implies that the women are hidden because they might cause a man to sin, I draw the line.
Muslims go about in europe pretty well, men and women learns about our culture and “evolve” a lot in matters of equality.
Jerks are jerks everywhere, but usually christians -though the bible speaks in favour of women submission- don’t defend the jerks because they had the right to beat their women. So what we are distinguishing is between a jerk in a society who encourages it or a jerk in a society who doesn’t.
So basically your position is very thinly vailed racism. Made evident by your use of the term My country. So what makes it your country and not their’s, you realize there are alot of muslim citizens right? Is it not their country because they are mostly not white?
Another point is if you are so concerned with oppression of women why not ban orthodox jews, and jehovas witnesses (who actually kill their children by denying blood transfusion). I’m personally for banning all religion but I don’t think one religion should be singled out and made a scapegoat, last time that happened in europe things didn’t turn out very well.
And by the way the mosques that extremists generally belong to don’t have minarets, wahabists don’t like them.
I’m very disappointed to see this on this site.
+ 1 vote to ban Jehova’s witnesses
(… when any of them, as individuals, break a discrimination law or take any “dangerous” decision about their child’s health)
How is my racism veiled? I made a point of putting my hands up and calling myself a racist! Did you even read the whole post?!
Custador, maybe you should have said that you are against complete freedom of religion, would have spared a lot of misunderstanding.
Reposted, cause I’m dumb…
Can someone explain to me why they think freedom of religion is a bad thing? I’m slightly reassured by Custador’s OP and Confused’s comment, which both express some doubt about suppressing freedom of religion. But is there anybody around who’s in favor of abolishing freedom of religion altogether?
I don’t. I support freedom of religion and speech — with one exception, and that is, when it incites violence (and perhaps hatred, which often leads to violence).
Banning religion would be stupid, wrong, ineffective, and dangerous.
Thanks Daniel! – I think there is a lot of confusion over the term “religion”. Sometimes it is used to reference religious institutions and power structures – other times it is used as a synonym for religious belief. It would be possible (though not neccessarily advisable) to ban the former; impossible to ban the latter and dangerous to try.
It disturbs me that this failure of distinction should be happening on here – I am more used to seeing it on forums or in other discussions where the motives of the obfucator are clear – i.e. clearly dishonest.
Regarding abolishing “religion”…”but the fruit (evidence) of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, against such things THERE IS NO LAW”. (Gal 5.22&23).
If its all internal, is a part of you (the kingdom of heaven is within you, Luke 17.21) is the very substance and ground of your being than it can never be made illegal, outlawed. Who wants to live in a world (within) devoid of such “evidence”?
All the best.
…….
And Jesus said unto them, “And whom do you say that I am?”
They replied,”You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed.”
And Jesus replied, “What?”
Fentwin. I’m not entirely sure that this moves the debate forward – but I LOVE it ;)
Yeah, I know it doesn’t add much, but I was sure I had heard a lot of JC’s fluff before so I thought I’d see if people could tell the difference. :P
I don’t think freedom of religion is a bad thing. I think banning of most personal choices – including religion – is an ineffective way eliminate them. In fact, it can lead to their increased popularity.
That being said I also believe strongly in freedom of speech, and personally use that speech to denounce the myth of religion. I hope someday to live in a world where religion is marginalized to the point of insignificance. Not because of oppression though but because it is exposed and accepted as a fraud.
Tell me this isn’t racist!
http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/images/fearmuslims.jpg
Although it is a nice distinction between racism and opposition to a religion, it is nevertheless true that organised racism cynically attempts to use that distinction to obfuscate the issue.
Steve
Firstly, there are many Muslim women who chose not to wear a burqa and are free to do so. Secondly, the number of Christians who literally believe in the Bible is not insignificant. A Jehovah’s Witness told me, “Women must be in subjection to their husbands”. Well is that eight hundred years of development for you? If you fear losing development, you should fear all religions, not just one. There are many Muslims who are not Muslim by choice but by birth just as there are many atheists born in Christian families who find it difficult to reveal their lack of faith. I do not like the idea of religion at all. But I do not like the idea of having any religion at all.
Your tirade against one religion and your recommendation to get rid of that religion is reminiscent of a historic German figure who was fixated against a particular religion. And we all know what that led to.
I call Godwin! That didn’t take long…
I think he was talking about Martin Luther
Doh! Of course, my mind immediately jumped to a historic *Austrian* figure who was fixated against a particular religion. I’ve been reverse-Godwin’d!
there is no way he’s talking about Martin Luther.
All Martin Luther did was break away from the catholic church
Paul was right in his call
Oh wait Luther did have some anti-semitism going on too . Damn!
I know, it’s so hard to keep competitive religioning straight, isn’t it?
It is also worth noting that a large number of the people in the UK that are applauding the Swiss vote (some of whom have begun circulating a “British” version of the racist poster I linked above) are also calling for the withdrawal of British forces from Afghanistan. Great! let’s not fight the Islamic extremists who are killing innocents and attempting to impose brutal Sharria “law” by force – we should concentrate on bullying moderate Muslims at home.
many of the extreme muslims in Britain were kicked out of their home countries because they were causing problems for the oppressive regimes there… they’re actually a lot like the American Pilgrims in that sense, fleeing persecution so they can do some persecuting of their own.
It’s not racist, but it does discriminate. OTOH, I’m scared of all religions as they themselves are only covers for legitimizing discrimination. That said, I especially don’t trust any organization that uses a weapon as one of their primary representative symbols. I’d love to see the day when minarets, crosses/steeples, and stars of David were banned.
As other people have posted, Islam is not a race, it is a choice. The Islamists and their western apologists are trying to equate any criticism of Islam as racist. And we know the best way to stifle debate on any issue is play the race card.
Until recently, in America, any criticism of Israel equated one as being an anti-Semite. Even now the Israelis know they can keep steeling Arab land and building settlements. They know the American government would never impose sanctions or cut aide, because American politicians live in fear of being called anti-Semitic.
I would have voted for the measure. As of now, infidels can’t visit Mecca. Christians, Jews, Buddhists and other infidel faiths are not free to build houses of worship in most Muslims countries. (And how would us atheists be treated?)
As Muslims and their western apologists complain about this vote, I hope the press will remind Muslims how religious minorities are treated through the Muslim world. Muslims complaining about religious intolerance is like David Duke or complaining about being the victim of racism.
It doesn’t matter what they do. It matters what we do.
We’re supposed to neither oppress nor favour any religious group that doesn’t endanger our society, and moderate Islam doesn’t do that. If they wanted to pass this law, they should have banned the construction of any structure over a certain height not intended for occupation or office use, or something along those lines.
So, being hypocritical makes you any less racist?
“you” is not intended to you wazza, but it is an impersonal “you”. Sorry for my grammar. It should have been “makes anyone”, not “makes you”
it’s the hypocritical banning of these tall structures (Minarets) without a corresponding ban on church steeples that makes this discriminatory (though not racist, as noted above)
That’s not hypocritical. Of course it is xenophobic (not racist, I agree), swiss are shouting “hey, we are xenophobes!”, but they are not being hypocrite because there is only a religion they are against to (or afraid of).
What you proposed, banning minarets as part of a construction law done specifically to forbid them, but hiding it, THAT is hypocrite. My point is that, besides being an hypocrite law, it would be as xenophobe as the banning.
it wouldn’t be hypocritical because it would ban all tall religious structures such as steeples etc. It’s hypocritical to ban minarets but allow the other structures.
Excellent point(s).
I usually am just a reader at this blog however this topic is one which is unsettling. The ban against Minarets is something which strikes me as a bit weird. The ban is against the future building of a type of architecture which serves 2 purposes[a] to strike the eye & [b] to help the imam in spreading their voice.
Now this ban is what could be assumed as a shallow strike against extremists. When you cannot strike directly you strike rather obliquely. This ban serves no purpose as such other than to show the Swiss muslims that the Swiss people do not hold their religion in high regard.
Lets look at this from the other side, why are these Minarets built and whats their purpose for being so tall. The main thing with Islam is that it believes itself to the Alpha & Omega with no secondaries allowed. If you follow the Quran verse by verse it say that there is no other deity to be followed other than Allah & Mohammed was the last and best prophet. Islamic culture has spread all over the world so quickly because of its non-tolerance towards others and us-against-them attitude.
I don’t feel you are a racist Custador as I have stayed in India & have learnt quite a bit about the Hindu, Muslim culture there as well. The basic divide in that country stems from this single fact that most of the Muslim rulers often sought to convert their subjects. and that’s how Islam spread in India & many other countries. The beauty of the burkha is that Muslim women are trained to feel impure[Na-Paak]/incomplete without it. For many women it is enforced upon them from childhood & thus when they grow up they see it as part of their identity. They say that it is a requirement as per the Quran. The basic premise is to shield them from the harm/lustful eyes of men & so you have to cover one’s own body. See this logic is a bit faulty, its like if there’s any disease caused you don’t try to eliminate the causative agent but only focus on the ailing person and try to prop him up for the future. If you do not treat the cause the disease will never stop recurring. The problem is with the lustful nature of men, so try to cirrect that & make it safer for women rather than covering them up & calling it Pure.
The Burkha is an illogical attempt to undermine women & should be removed definitely. Also the key idea here is to change the mentality about wearing a burkha once that’s resolved I believe other reforms can be worked upon. Also Mark D. brings up an excellent point, if Muslim people complain so much in the western nations how come they do not allow the same liberal attitude in the middle eastern nations or in places where they have a firm majority.
Its un-justifiable when its being done against their religion however when worse atrocities occur against other religions in countries where there’s a Muslim majority, that somehow is not so much of a problem. But in the end this measure does seem a bit weird as by banning Minarets we are not taking any concrete steps against Islamic fundamentalism. Its just a weird attempt to show of Christian majority in a European nation.
Smart-Alec
Here’s a link to a Jezebel post about the ins and outs of wearing the burkha, hijab, and other variations of muslim women’s wear. I found the comments to be enlightening. I have a hard time w/the radical aspects of all religions. I hate the thought of going backward in any sense.
I’m not seeing a link – would like to read this
Steve
Oops. HERE is the link. Here’s a link to a Jezebel post about the ins and outs of wearing the burkha, hijab, and other variations of muslim women’s wear. I found the comments to be enlightening. I have a hard time w/the radical aspects of all religions. I hate the thought of going backward in any sense. http://jezebel.com/5369314/muslim-fashion-blogger-speaks-out-on-the-veil
It’s not Islamophobia when their stated purpose is to take over the World…. It’s realism!
If you had read ANY of the discussion on here you would know what a fundmentally incorrect statement that is. If you simply want to make contentious statements for the sake of it – fair enough, But it does seem rather pointless.
It’s humorous that there are cries of racism. Can I build a Christian Church in a country that practices Sharia Law? In the larger scope of things, Islam is being treated better than Christians would be by Muslims. Your yard stick of using our Western Standards is inequitable here.
In life, you treat your neighbor as he treats you. Why should we be held to a higher standard in politics? Muslims are not being treated unfairly or harmed. They move to locations without minarets all of the time. If it was so painful I submit that they wouldn’t move to locations without minarets.
When a Islamic Cleric marries a Gay couple and Sharia based countries allow other religions, that’s when we should start to treat Islam equally. This should open the eyes of the “Moderate Muslim” and they should work to change their own society within if they desire fell equality.
@gaytor: here in the US, there is a lot of homophobia. And a priest marrying a gay couple is not regarded as welcome in many places. There are many “moderate Christians” whose views on homosexuality are extreme. There have been many violent crimes against LGBT individuals in the US.
does that mean we get to persecute Americans, too?
And of course just because they’re being dicks doesn’t mean we get to as well. If we stop being civilized because they haven’t caught up, do we have any claim to being civilized in the first place? We have to be tolerant even if they aren’t, because it shows we’re better than them.
Intolerance begets intolerance – but who bears the greatest responsibility to break the cycle? If the tolerant won’t, how can we expect more of the the intolerant?
Can I build a Christian Church in a country that practices Sharia Law?
Yes.
This is priceless. I’m an atheist and you guys thought that I was a fundie because my view was different didn’tcha.
This is about equality for all religions. Saudi just had their first Christian Church built last year. In Afghanistan Americans were jailed for proselytizing as we were about to enter. If they adhere to Sharia, you cannot present another God within their land.
Preventing them from building a Minaret is not uncivilized. It’s bring about a point and makes a statement. It creates conversation about being fair. This is a political play. It’s strong arm diplomacy from the people rather than from a leader. Un civilized would be bulldozing the ones that exist.
To the Gay point… The difference for a Christian marrying gays versus a Islamic Cleric is not an apples to apples argument. The Christian may be frowned upon by old timers and lifted up by the young progressives. The Cleric would be hung. My statement was to support the LGB community in they need to be treated equally.
I feel that many Islamic leaders see the West as weak. Sometimes you have to speak their language and cause a little pain (political/emotional/ non-violent) to get their attention and control of their ear.
I’m an atheist and you guys thought that I was a fundie because my view was different didn’tcha.
No.
If they adhere to Sharia, you cannot present another God within their land.
If they actually adhere to Sharia, people of the book and their places of worship are to remain unmolested.
Ban all religion? Yes! Hmm…I wonder Who’s idea that was originally? LOL
Love is a Vortex…from which (thankfully) there is no escaping!
All the best to all my precious friends of inestimable, incalculable, unfathomable (you get the idea) worth and value! (did I mention priceless? :)
I don’t know who’s idea it was originally, but I know that Jehovah was pretty big on banning and destroying all other religions (by violence). So was the Catholic church.
Which of these images is most disturbing?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/10/22/article-1222090-06E759D9000005DC-342_468x342.jpg
http://koptalkinsider.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/burkha1.jpg
Sorry to make you do extra clicks – but i don’t think we can post images directly on here.
I’d add that, having spent some time in Leeds city centre on a Saturday night I can assure anyone the first one is far from as extreme as it gets!
I’m not trying to defend the Burkha here – I find it a distasteful aspect of Muslim culture. Just trying to establish some balance.
Steve
I vote for image #2 because with image #1
its difficult to hide a bomb while wearing a short skirt and no underwear.
Among many other reasons. But I guess yours is quite compelling.
The sort of argument that led to an innocent man being shot dead police in London because “he had a big coat on”
Your arguments are either bad humour or go right to the heart of Islamophobia and racism
Well, while you were writing these lines, a suicide bomber, a man, dressed in a burqa, killed at least 22 people in Somalia with a hidden bomb:
http://fwd4.me/6wh
There goes your “racism” and “islamophobia”…
Your comment appears to be devoid of relevance. A tragiic murder by a sad, wicked, deluded man perpetrated against almost certainly moderate Muslims who were striving to make a better future for their people – and you try to use this as justification for the harrassment of moderate Muslims in the West.
You have an amazing power to interpret every piece of reality in whatever way fulfills your wishes and imagination. I must confess I am not able to deal with that kind of logic.
you don’t seem to be able to deal with any kind of logic…
you do realise that these events, whenever they happen, are international news, right? That means they’re the kind of event that happens once or twice a month. Statistically speaking, you’re probably more likely to be killed by a comet impact than by a dude in a burqa with C4 underwear.
Flea – please clarify – which part of my comment above yours is “imaginary”? I went and read the news items and made a wholly justifiable observation.
Ok Steve:
1. You write:” Your comment appears to be devoid of relevance”; Let’s see:
a) MARK D writes: “…its difficult to hide a bomb while wearing a short skirt and no underwear.”
b) I say that I find that argument (among many others) compelling.
c) You criticize that same argument.
d) I point to an example that happened YESTERDAY where someone did just what MARK D mentioned.
If d) is not relevant here, I would like to know what is.
2. “a sad, wicked, deluded man”:
How do you know that? You do not; just choose to believe that because its convenient to your argument.
3. “almost certainly moderate Muslims who…”:
Again, gratuitous speculation… (you’re probably right here but, again, you just don’t know).
4. “..you try to use this as justification for the harrassment of moderate Muslims…”:
I do? Please reread what I have written. Where have I “justified the harassment…”? If this accusation is not “imaginary” I don’t know what is.
1. The only part of your contribution that is relevant here is the last line – “There bgoes your ‘racism’ and ‘islamophobia’ “. The preceeeding text and link is simply a citatation. Where actually does the racism and islamophobia “go”? If you are arguing that the fact that a terrorist used an available means of camouflage in order to assist in the committing of an atrocity means that hostility to the burka (as opposed to big coats, flowing robes or a rucksack) is somehow justified then you are simply talking nonsense – there is no link – therefore the comment is “devoid of relevance”. In another sense, I see that you can argue that your comment is “relevant” to the thread – but it is not a relevant argument.
2. SAD – would we not all agree that it is very sad that any human being should sink so low? WICKED – I guess murdering 22 human beings would be generally accepted as a wicked thing to do. DELUDED – in believeing that any religious faith (or much else) can morally justify this sort of action.
3. Indeed – as I said – “almost certainly” – i.e. the best interpretation a reasonably intelligent person could come up with on the evidence available to them at the time. I read the article you cited and one or two others as well. And as you yourself said, I’m probably right.
4. Having re-read the whole thread, I do see that you have not made a definitive statement about the Swiss minaret decision or other restrictions, proposed or actual, on Muslim cultural expression. However, you have entered this debate clearly on the side of distrust of and hostility towards Muslims over and above hostility to fundamentalism and terrorism (which last I’m sure we all share). So – I’ll make a minor re-phrase to: “..you try to use this as justification for hostility to Muslims in general…”:
Essentially, if you are being honest in your statements, any unbiased observer can see where you stand.
Steve
Ok Steve. O give up. You are right, I am wrong. I apologize.
It’s hard to know what to say to that – so I’ll simply accept it at face value. I would though add that I personally am deeply disturbed by the wearing of the burka – but I am absolutely convinced that this is a problem for people from the cutures concerned to sort out, and in no doubt that in due course, they will.
Steve
@Steve
“I would though add that I personally am deeply disturbed by the wearing of the burka”
Have you tried getting one tailored made as I found the bog standard ones were somewhat tight in the crutch region and produced a bit of chaffing especially in warm weather.
@jabster – Touche ;) Sometimes when we’re picking words very carefully in order to be clear, we don’t notice that we’re saying something else as well!
Steve
Um, no! He was shot dead because he unfortunately happened to be the double of an Al Qua’ida operative who was being surveiled and lived in the same building, because he was performing classic anti-surveilance manouvers (as it turned out thanks to a closed tube station which SO19 hadn’t noticed) and because he then boarded a tube train with a rucksack on – all of which happened a week after the failed 21/7 attacks and just three weeks after the 7/7 attacks. Now, I’m not saying that excuses the police’s actions, but let’s get it in perspective and give them the benefit of the facts and the actual context of the events that took place, shall we?
Just when I thought I had managed to close Pandora’s box, here comes Custador and wide opens it again! :-)
Well, I’m staying in the box. Too far off topic (even if I started it)
Number 2 definitely.
The young lady in picture 1 might be a drunken idiot, but it’s her CHOICE to be a drunken idiot. And can you honestly say you’ve never been a drunken idiot in public? I certainly can’t. But I’m older now, and not likely to return to the idiocy of my youth; the woman in the first picture will grow out of that phase just as most of us have.
The woman in picture 2 has no choice. She can’t grow out of her roll as a piece of baby-making machinery owned by her husband; not allowed to get an education and grow and become her own person.
Give me the choice to be a drunken idiot over the mandate of being a slave any day.
That drunken idiot is at the bottom end of St Mary’s Street in Cardiff, Wales – where I live :D
apples and oranges. You are comparing a full-body picture of someone from one culture behaving badly with a headshot of someone from another culture who is apparently not doing much at all (not that we could tell).
My answer is this – BOTH are cultural stereotypes and both have made choices. The drunken girl is behaving in a way that is generally acceptable among a fairly large sub-culture in modern western society. I promise you, MUCH worse goes on, regularly, in UK city centres and clubs.
The Muslim woman is obeying the dictates of her culture. Perhaps through pressure from relatives or peers, or perhaps through choice – maybe because she cannot see other choices.
The only way we are going to change either of them is by offering them better choices.
The comments about hidden bombs I make no further reference to. They are contemptible.
LOLOL!!!! I vote for image number one because it makes me laugh!!! That is freakin’ hilarious!
Now, for a more serious point, you really can’t compare the two pictures. Apples to oranges.
But why the minarets?
In answer to your question, Yes and no. You are a racist, but are unfortunately not alone.
The problem I have with this post (and other pro-minaret-ban rhetoric) is exactly that the rhetoric doesn’t match the measure in question. Even if we accept that the burkha is always oppressive, that it should be extirpated, and that Muslims generally need to be brought out of the dark ages–what the hell has that to do with minarets? If you don’t like the burkha, you should support banning the burkha.
Minarets are an architectural feature, not “going back through eight hundred years of social development”. I highly doubt you and 58% of Swiss voters care that much about skinny towers.
Banning minarets–and the proponents of the ban don’t deny this–is an entirely symbolic gesture. It’s baldly flipping the proverbial bird to Swiss Muslims. If you’re really interested in bringing people out of a backward culture, you should oppose the ban because it is in the best case utterly ineffective in achieving that goal, and it may just drive people who are reasonable and progressive into the arms of the reactionaries.
I don’t know if you are a racist, but you sure are a jerk if seeing this ban passed gave you a jolt of positive emotion.
Excuse me, but that is not what I said, and I have made a strong point of questioning my own motives and reactions to this story!
I actually find minarets (and generally, Islamic/Middle Eastern architecture) to be quite pretty.
But yeah, it’s a symbolic gesture. A stupid one, too.
Custador –
I don’t think that you are a racist, because your dislike of Islam stems from legitimate criticisms of its structure and belief system. As a gay man, I too find many of the teachings of Islam abhorrent. Mainstream Islam teaches that homosexuality is completely unacceptable. Even Iqbal Sacranie OBE, former Secretary General of the ‘moderate’ Muslim Council of Britain has said that homosexuality is “not acceptable” and “harmful”.
But even though I dislike Islam intensely, I completely disagree with the ban on minarets. This ban will do nothing to actually change the belief system of Muslims. In fact, it could do more harm than good as Swiss Muslims now know that they and their culture is not wanted in Switzerland. This has the effect of enforcing an Us versus Them culture, which has, along with many other factors, contributed to the problems we are having in Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. There is no easy solution to the problems we are facing and banning things has a tendency to push them underground, where unregulated and unchecked, they can become even bigger problems later on.
So how do we solve this problem? The answer is that I really don’t know. I think countries like Tunisia and especially Turkey, while being far from perfect, can show us that Muslim countries do not always have to be raging hot beds of extremism. Turkey is certainly a country that, with time, could live quite peacefully with Western Europe. Unfortunately, the problem of how much we as a nation must accomodate to a small minority that doesn’t share our views is, I think, a very difficult question with no easy answers. One thing I do know is that it must be done very slowly, through dialogue and mutual trust and that knee jerk reactionism will only solve to push the two cultures irreconcilably apart.
Listening to comments on BBC Worldwide over the weekend the comments by interviewed Swiss that struck me the most we those along the lines of “We couldn’t build churches over there.”
My response to this is: you are saying their country is bad because of their intolerance and your response to this is to lower your country to their level?
Let me ask a couple of more questions on this:
Firstly, do the Swiss as a people have the right to resist the Islamification of their own culture in this way? In other words, do they have a right to say “No, we are a European country and if you choose to live here you must choose to adopt our culture.”
Secondly, Do you think Islam has made Britain (for example) a better place?
Thirdly, do you think it’s right that Arab Muslims should move to Western European countries and choose to completely disregard the cultural and social rules and niceties of the country they have moved to?
The way you phrase this question is based upon a flawed premise, namely that “the Swiss as a people” do not include Muslims. If you rephrase your question to as
then it gets quite a bit dicier.
But even accepting your flawed premise, I think the answer is still “No.” By way of analogy: I am originally from South Texas. I’m Texan through and through. I lived for two years in Cleveland, and now I live in Michigan. Is it the right of the Ohioans or the Michiganders to pass a law keeping me from flying a Texas flag off my front porch? I moved here, remember; I’m the immigrant. I’m nowhere near being able to call myself culturally a Michigander, nor am I interested in assimilating culturally.
More generally, I think that culture–like language–is an organic group project. Culture changes, and it changes by incorporating elements from other cultures. It may be possible to stop cultural change, but seems to me that cure is worse than the disease. And I don’t particularly see it as a disease, either. I think nearly everybody benefits from exposure to and mixing with other cultures (would you rather eat in Gatesville, Texas or Brooklyn, New York?).
Now as to the desirability of particular cultural items, we can have a debate. And I encourage anyone who is concerned about the direction their culture is heading to have that discussion. But lumping it all together into “Islamification” is unhelpful and obscures the question. I don’t know what “Islamification” is. I know what a burkha is. I know what minarets are. I know what honour killing is. But I do know that one of those things is much, much worse than the other two.
I think the flaw in your analogy is that you’re not an immigrant; Michigan didn’t give you some right to residency, nor can it revoke your residency. In contrast the vast majority of Swiss Muslims were given the ‘gift’ of residency/citizenship, or are descended from those that did. Some would argue that implicit in that gift is that you’ll join the existing culture rather than bringing your own. I’m far from convinced by that argument, but it’s not without merit.
Hmm – I think it was the British who “going native” as aperjorative term for westerners who adopt the culture of whatever country they were trying to dominate at the time
I don’t think any religion makes any country a better place. That is one of the reasons I am an atheist. I do know that most of the many British Asians, from children to adults, I have known both professionally and as friends and neighbours, have enriched my life and my understanding of the world – they have made this country a better place for me.
On your third point, see my first answer. Also, it is simply not the case that most “Arab Muslims …… choose to completely disregard the cultural and social rules and niceties of the country they have moved to”. No doubt some of them do. No doubt some people of many different origins living in or visiting countries not of their birth behave in this manner. I call them bad-mannered people.
Incidentally – why do you say Arab Muslims? Most people who attend Mosques in the UK are either British born or come originally from Pakistan. Most Muslims in Switzerland come from the former Yugoslavia.
Steve
I have a question: are minarets necessarily associated with the guy who stands at the top yelling (sometimes with loudspeakers) that it’s time to pray several times every day, starting at dawn? If so, I could see banning them (or at least the yelling) just to avoid the noise pollution. If not, what’s the harm in a piece of architechure, as long as it conforms to all the other building codes?
None of the minarets in Switzerland broadcasts a call to prayer. And in any case, if that were the intent of the law it’s an egregiously poorly-written law. If you want to ban the adhan, ban the adhan. Banning minarets is beside the point even then.
The call to prayer is already illegal in Switzerland.
Pingback: Schweiz und die Minarette « Aufklärung 2.0
Yes, you’re a lone racist.
Religion is not race.
Never said it was.
So the Swiss voted on something that affects them, in their own country. Well,shame on them..
well, if someone gets pissed off at them about this, you know next thing they’ll be bombing Denmark… they never can get the flags right.
Tsk tsk. I’m sure dozens have already told you but I’ll mention it again: you cannot be racist against Islam. That said, I’m 100% in favor of the Swiss ban. The Swiss already have extremely strict rules of architecture, so the ban is not nearly as “bigoted” as everyone is whining about. And even if it were: good — it’s past time to put a foot down against a violent, archaic mythology that deadens the human spirit with fantasies about another life and gives zealots absolute certainty with which to execute their agenda of subjugation. It’s not even Islamophobia since a phobia is an unreasonable fear — to be concerned and abhor Islam is easy for all rational men and women.
I accept my Islamophobia, but being generally quite liberal I’m not hugely comfortable with it.
That said, having examined my motives for it, I genuinly think that there are aspects of Islam which are abhorrent in the modern world. The same is true of Christianity, of course, but (in Britain at least) I don’t see Christianity stripping women of their identities and rights and making them no better than chattels or slaves.
Has anybody here every been to Luton in Bedfordshire, England? There are shopping malls in Luton where white people cannot go safely. They are Asian-Muslim only zones. I’m not exagerating.
Also in Luton, Baroness Warsi (most powerful Muslim woman in Britain and also a complete bitch IMO, but that’s beside the point) was recently confronted by a group of Muslim men who pelted her with eggs and accused her of not being a “proper Muslim woman” – by which they meant she doesn’t wear a burqua or hijab and is not subservient to a man.
Now: Can you honestly tell me that I’m wrong for wanting people like that who don’t wish to conform to modern Western values such as gender equality and who do want to turn a whole town into their own racially exclusive ghetto to either shut the f*ck up or to f*ck off to a country where their attitude is the prevailing one? I absolutely refuse to believe that it’s wrong for me to be against such people, even if that makes me Islamophobic.
Oh, the Swiss and their “you can only plant the same flowers on your balcony as everyone else in the building” rules. :D
“it’s past time to put a foot down against a violent, archaic mythology that deadens the human spirit with fantasies about another life”
Hm, what about the others?
“gives zealots absolute certainty with which to execute their agenda of subjugation”
Are we still speaking about muslims? That sounds like fitting pretty well to other religions too
Minarets give zealots absolute certainty? Damn. Had no idea they were that powerful.
I accept my Islamophobia, but being generally quite liberal I’m not hugely comfortable with it.
That said, having examined my motives for it, I genuinly think that there are aspects of Islam which are abhorrent in the modern world. The same is true of Christianity, of course, but (in Britain at least) I don’t see Christianity stripping women of their identities and rights and making them no better than chattels or slaves.
Has anybody here every been to Luton in Bedfordshire, England? There are shopping malls in Luton where white people cannot go safely. They are Asian-Muslim only zones. I’m not exagerating.
Also in Luton, Baroness Warsi (most powerful Muslim woman in Britain and also a complete b**** IMO, but that’s beside the point) was recently confronted by a group of Muslim men who pelted her with eggs and accused her of not being a “proper Muslim woman” – by which they meant she doesn’t wear a burqua or hijab and is not subservient to a man.
Now: Can you honestly tell me that I’m wrong for wanting people like that who don’t wish to conform to modern Western values such as gender equality and who do want to turn a whole town into their own racially exclusive ghetto to either shut the eff up or to eff off to a country where their attitude is the prevailing one? I don’t want them here, and since they’re mostly migrants or the children of migrants they can migrate off back East as far as I’m concerned. I dislike Baroness Warsi intensely as a person (nothing to do with race or religion, she’s just horrible), but I despise those men who confronted her far more. I absolutely refuse to believe that it’s wrong for me to be against such people, even if that makes me Islamophobic.
Generally speaking it takes two-and-a-half generations to assimilate…more if the host society is openly hostile. The ghettoisation and lack of interest in assimilation may have as much to do with prevailing majority attitudes and treatment as internal cultural insularity.
I grant you that there are no shortage of vocal (and sometimes violent) racists in Britain, but we are a pretty multicultural society, and these issues just don’t seem to arise with other ethnic groups – certainly not as often or in as extreme a fashion.
…and these issues just don’t seem to arise with other ethnic groups – certainly not as often or in as extreme a fashion.
I imagine they did when they first arrived. In the US, *every* new ethnic or cultural group that has arrived has followed pretty much exactly the same pattern, except for those that were directly entangled with slavery. Do you think that Britain works substantially differently?
Asian Muslims are hardly a new group to Britain, though.
Interestingly enough I remember not-so-long-ago when young Afro-Carribean men were the object of similar fear in parts of the UK. Nowadays, and even despite some well-publicised incidents, they are not, as a group, considered threatening.
They also didn’t have a subculture which espoused stone-age values and murder-suicide as a political tool, though.
Um, seriously? Pretty sure they did.
African-Carribean migrants in the UK? I’ve certainly never heard of them having such a subculture, but by all means give me linkies!
You should probably be disgusted by your Islamophobia, being “fairly liberal” and such.
re: Islam and racism.
While it isn’t possible to be directly racist against a religious group, it is possible that if one associates that religion with a racial/cultural group and then forms stereotypes about religious adherents based on racial stereotypes, that’s racism.
I don’t think that’s what we are speaking about. It is possible to be “racist” if, when you see someone who looks like a muslim, you decide that he is a muslim, and so he is a potential islamic terrorist. Ok. But…
In the case we are discussing here, I think the proper word -far better than racist- is xenophobic. Swiss people are afraid of people from a different culture.
Yes, xenophobia is overall a better descriptor. Muslims are seen as the “Other”.
I don’t know if “afraid” is the right word. I think they see the worst of what gets reported in other countries where there are more Muslim migrants and don’t want it happening in their own country. I still maintain that they have every right to enforce their will – that’s democracy, the definition of which does not include “Is always pleasant and respectful towards diversity”.
That’s not always democracy. “Democrately” US people could decide to ban atheism, or to force religions in schools. Not always what the majority wants is democratic (hey! I could do that assertion without any reference to past german “decisions”!)
“Democrately” US people could decide to ban atheism, or to force religions in schools.”
No they couldn’t. That would be against US law.
“Not always what the majority wants is democratic”
Um…. That’s exactly what democracy is – the majority exercising their will.
“No they couldn’t. That would be against US law”
Yep. Hence my (“) around the word “democratic”. I can’t consider as democratic any decision taken by the majority wich involves not conceding rights to a minority
Yes, but that’s a little like John C saying that Catholics aren’t real Christians, if you follow my reasoning; the definition is what it is, not what we’d like it to be.
It’s not. I’m pretty sure that which decisions can be made by a democratic government is not an easy question, and that a lot of people agrees that not all those decisions are legitimate. Hence the existence of constitutions in all democratic countries
Wait a goddamn minute. What the hell does a minaret have to do with terrorism?
Apparently, people are intimidated by tall, thin buildings.
makes them feel inadequate?
I have at no point made that connection. Read again.
Well, why the fuck does a minaret scare the bejeezus out of the Swiss?
Because they worry that Muslim migrants will try to subsume their culture with Islam, and looking at the rest of Europe they feel quite justified in that worry.
Why? Name one country in Europe where that has happened.
Chunks of Britain. I’ve already used Luton as one example on this thread, I could have used Bradford as another.
Nope, sorry. An small minority enclave within a city or two is not the same as the usurpation of an entire culture. They have “subsumed” in it’s absolutely most literal sense (like every other immigrant group to Britain in the last couple of thousand years) but I fail to see how you see that as a threat.
No, I mean Luton and Bradford are both almost entirely populated with Asian Muslims. I’m not exagerating when I say that there are places in Luton that caucasians cannot safely go. Read also the story about Baroness Warsi and her recent trip to Luton here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8387110.stm
Watch that video and tell me that those men are going to “integrate” into any society but Islam. I think not.
You see, Custador, in your OP you came accross as a liberal atheist who had some issues you wanted to discuss – but the longer this thread goes on, the deeper you get into out-and-out mis-informed racism and the more you sound like an advert for the BNP. Bradford is NOT “Almost entirely populated by Asian Muslims”. At the 2001 census just 16% of the population were Muslims – and even so Bradford has second largest Asian population in the whole of the UK. I visit Bradford city centre (where most of the Asian population is concentrated – though still in no way dominant) frequently. I have never felt intimidated.
City centres versus suburbs Steve, I’ve addressed that below.
And 14% of the population of Dollis Hill are Irish. Has anybody ever tried to persecute their religion…..Oh – hang on…..
Hmmm, but is their culture significantly different to British culture? Not really. Are any of them determinedly isolationist? Um, no. Are they determined to usurp British law with Catholic law? No. Not really a cogent paradigm, I’m afraid.
Luton and Bradford are NOT “almost entirely populated with Asian Muslims”. What a ridiculous thing to say. If that’s the basis for your argument, you have no argument.
LOL! I lived in Milton Keynes (near Luton) for eight years and in Leeds (right next to Bradford) for four years- You’re wrong. I’m talking from experience. Assertions on your part that I’m wrong carry no wieght. Did you watch that video? If so, did it not make you even slightly angry to see a group of young British Muslim men angrily demanding of a British Muslim woman why she isn’t representing Shariah law? I don’t know how any British person can watch that and not want those young men to f**k off to a country where they have Shariah but don’t have all the luxuries that come with a free society.
(apologies for previous posting of this in wrong position)
YES! you are WRONG Custador
http://83.137.212.42/sitearchive/cre/diversity/map/yorkshireandthehumber/bradford.html
Yes – I have watched that video, and seen it on the news. Like all bigots, those guys made me angry. Most Muslims are not bigoted – they are often conservative (small “c”)
You should retract your statement at once or accept that you are the bigot.
*shrugs* I already replied to the previous posting.
But we can talk about Newham ( http://83.137.212.42/sitearchive/cre/diversity/map/london/newham.html ) or Brent ( http://83.137.212.42/sitearchive/cre/diversity/map/london/brent.html ) if you like…
And 14% of the population of Dollis Hill are Irish. Has anybody ever tried to persecute their religion…..Oh – hang on…..
Can we try to talk about this in one nest of comments at a time, do you think?!
apologies – I accidentally put one post in the wrong section and now it is difficult to keep tarck – no delete unfortunately. However. I sense that this conversation is almost at an end.
Yep. And I lived (until quite recently) in Leeds for 12 years and worked and went out in Bradford quite a bit and I’ve been around Luton too. Yes, there are some radical idiots out there. Every population is going to have some (small) percentage of extreme ideas – that is the nature of a democracy. They do NOT, however, (and I can’t stress this enough) represent the majority. You appear, at best, to be incredibly misinformed and, at worst, to be, as you yourself suggested, a racist. I would advise you pay less attention to The Sun and its ilk and actually look at what is really going on in your own country.
I can’t stand Racists, Bigots or the Swiss.
There are two things in this world that I hate: People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures. And Muslims.
I hate blog commenters :-p
YES! you are WRONG Custador
http://83.137.212.42/sitearchive/cre/diversity/map/yorkshireandthehumber/bradford.html
Yes – I have watched that video, and seen it on the news. Like all bigots, those guys made me angry. Most Muslims are not bigoted – they are often conservative (small “c”)
You should retract your statement at once or accept that you are the bigot.
LOL! You claim to have read the OP – if you actually HAD you would know that I’ve already called myself that and don’t require you to do it for me.
Okay, I accept that I have the wrong impression of the populations of Luton and Bradford and both are at roughly 20% (though those CRE stats include the suburbs, which waters down the true picture of the centres of both towns enormously), compared to a national average of roughly 10%. There we go. Does that explain why there are places in both towns (especially Luton) where it is not safe for a white person to go? Does that excuse it? No, it doesn’t.
HAH! – 20% of our street is 100% dominated by Islam – they are called Sulamen and Lone and their families occupy two houses. My culture is being usurped HELP!!!!
Uhu. Whatever Steve, if that’s the level you want to take it to, you carry on.
No – that is a perfectly serious point – the form is intended to point up that waht you calim as reasoned debate is in fact little more than hysterical, ill-informed ranting. You are DETERMINED to hate Muslims and will scrape the barrel to find dubious justifications.
I am DETERMINED to hate Muslims who want to treat women as slaves, who want Sharia law in Britain and who do not want to be an inclusive part of British society. Those people I hate. I do not deny it and I never have.
.. and you think want to, or think you can, resolve this “problem” by denying all British Muslims freedom of religious expression, and deporting British Muslims – whether born in this country or not – if they express views that you don’t like.
I strongly suggest that you DO join the BNP – you will feel really at home
“if they express views that you don’t like.“
It goes a bit further than that though, doesn’t it? I’m talking about people (yes, an extremist minority, I accpet that) who not only want to treat their women as slaves – they actually do treat their women as slaves.
Do I think that those people deserve the luxuries that come with living in a prosperous Western country? No, I do not.
Do I think that they have any right to put Sharia law ahead of British law (which has a lot to say about gender equality) at the same time as wanting to live in Britain? No, I do not.
Incidentaly, I have NOT said that I want to “[deny] all British Muslims freedom of religious expression”.
I have no problems whatsoever with religious freedom – provided it does not usurp the law and does not harm or cause to come to harm other people.
Moderate Muslims, I have no problem with. Your determination to hate me for hating extremists though? Very knee-jerk indeed.
Quote from OP:
“Would we be better off not having Islam in Britain at all?
I have to say that I think we would, not just because of those who want to physically attack us, but also because of those who would seek to take us over by whatever other means.”
You entered this debate in defence of the Swiss decisision to ban the building of minarets, which, while some may dbate it’s importance, is clearly a denial of freedom of religious expression,/> though not of belief.
Throughout you have made increasingly extreme statements about the “threat” posed to other UK nationals by the level of Muslim populations in some towns and cities, latterly by making incorrect and misleading claims about the number of Asians (not Islamic extremists) living in some British towns and cities.
You effectively call for the deportation of British citizens who have committed no crime (repugnant though Sharria law may be, expressing an opinion about it is not yet a crime in the UK – Do you think it should be?)
Here are some more useful questions to discuss (and I freely admit I do not have any easy answers)
As fellow citizens, how best do we engage with the mass of moderate Mulims to both re-assure them that we are not hostile to their culture, and to ensure that the zealots (who most Muslims would deny as true believers) do not gain a hold with the young and imppressionable?
How do we use our existing laws to deal effectively with violence, intimidation and disorder wherever it occurrs without the fact or appearance of bias or prejudice?
As atheists – how do we ensure that our rejection of religion is even handed and based on reason rather than prejudice?
Your position is not only wrong (i.e. incorrect / mistaken) it is not helpful.
“You entered this debate in defence of the Swiss decisision to ban the building of minarets”
Bullcrap. I sought to explain it, not excuse it. You have to read it through a thick lense to read it any other way.
“As fellow citizens, how best do we engage with the mass of moderate Mulims to both re-assure them that we are not hostile to their culture, and to ensure that the zealots (who most Muslims would deny as true believers) do not gain a hold with the young and imppressionable?”
That’s a question well worth asking, but should we not also ask this: How can we encourage moderate Muslims to engage with extremists and bring them back towards a moderate standpoint?
To support my last reply, from the OP:
“I think it’s unfortunate that moderate Muslims have been caught out in what is probably a reaction by the Swiss to extremist Muslims elsewhere in Europe, but I’m really not surprised.”
“Bullcrap. I sought to explain it, not excuse it. You have to read it through a thick lense to read it any other way.”
Not so. You have made a point of “holding your hand up” to Islamophobia and racism on a number of occasions. To then say you did not, in the overall debate, support the Swiss decision is disingenuous.
I’ll try again, shall I?
“I think it’s unfortunate that moderate Muslims have been caught out in what is probably a reaction by the Swiss to extremist Muslims elsewhere in Europe, but I’m really not surprised.”
How is that “defending” it?! I sought to explain why I thought it had happened, not to say that it was right or that all Swiss Muslims deserve the same level of contempt. In fact, f*ck it Steve, I wrote it, not you, and I know what I wanted to say. Accept it or don’t, at this point I don’t really care.
I don’t dispute what you wrote in the OP (in that I read it and accept that you wrote what you wrote) – that is why I used the word “disingenuous”. If we take everything you have written on this subject at face value you are a self professed Islamaphobe and racist who does not (necessarily) support the ban on Minarets in Switzerland but who nevertheless thinks Britain would be “better off” without Islam – while having nothing against “moderate” Muslims. (One could be forgiven for wondering how “moderate” you want them to be though – perhaps so “moderate” that you can’t tell they’re Muslims?)
That your arguments are so riven with contradictions is not surprising since you have such a sketchy grasp of what is really going on in terms of population levels and integration.
In the end you just come over as a confused racist scratching around for justification.
TEH QUOTE MINING! IT BURNZ!
“Britain would be “better off” without Islam”
Said in the context that we can’t seem to have moderate Islam without also having extremeist Islam – and you know that, so why try to quote-mine it to me when I’m the one who wrote it?
In the end you come across a somebody so liberal that they react without thinking that perhaps there might be a basis for some prejudice.
I though of a compromise. Cell phone towers as minarets. The Friday call to prayer is send directly to a Muslim’s cell phone. That cell phone call passed thru a cell phone tower. In that way the cell tower is acting as a minaret.
Lol! I like that idea :D
Religion is a cancer, a diseased remnant of our relatively recent past whose destructive power has been displayed all too frequnetly. Islam is a particular virulent form of the cancer and anything our societies can do to excise it will improve those societies. The problem that must always be taken into account is what effect the cure has on healthy institutions, especially freedom.
I see many muslims here in Europe and unlike the other immigrants like Italians, Greek, Russians they do not integrate in any society. It is eroding the European historical way from within. No problem if there are only a few of them, but we are getting a critical mass.
Step by step they are trying to inforce their religion on us. They rarely marry a European person no they either i;port one from Marokko or they expect the European person to convert to Islam.
I don’t understand it, political leaders ignore the big signals from the European people that a critical mass is coming. More and more people become rasists because of this. Way too much muslims here that do not integrate. But politicians want to do the political correct thing and refuse to tell the muslims to integrate because it might upset them. At this rate I expect a civil war starting in the future here in Europe.
Don’t get me wrong, I work with integrated muslims at my work and these are great people. But they are a very small minority. Look at the burning in Paris a few years ago. It also happened in Brussels a few weeks ago but not that bad. Big signs but politicians pretend that nothig is there.
One example, many times I see Muslim people at public transport. It gets very scary if you have one that mumbles prayers openly or the ones that uses the word Allah very 4th word in the same sentence when they talk Arabic.
It is as bad as the creationists, and many Muslim; believe just like the creationists that evolution is wrong.
Wow, Olaf. There’s some pretty intolerant BS on this thread, but I think you win. Someone speaking a language you don’t understand uses a common word. SO SCARY.
yeah, especially since all you’d really be able to pick up is the ll sound in the middle, and that’s really common in Arabic…
and Muslims use a lot of formulas from the Qur’an the way we use basic things like how are you and goodbye (the latter having a religious origin, remember) so it’s not like anyone quoting the Qur’an in everyday speech is automatically a suicide bomber
Just a comment on one paragraph I saw:
“The idea of going back through eight hundred years of social development again disgusts me. Here I will put my hand in the air and admit that I am, to all intents and purposes, a racist. There is no question of that. I detest seeing women dressed in black from head to toe with just a veiled eye-slit as their window on the world.”
This doesn’t make you a racist. I guess you could be a “culturist” or something if such a word exists. You could certainly be called bigoted and intolerant of them, but none of what they do in any way ties in to their genetic heritage.
Being white means that my skin is pale (when not tanned, anyway) and that I have certain physical characteristics. It doesn’t mean that I listen to any particular type of music or that I wear particular clothes or that I have particular religious inclinations.