Increased Islamic Influence in European Nations

[inked]

EU may be taking a different approach to arse kicking!

Posted by dvirtue on 2004/12/4 5:41:00 (567 reads)
__________________________________
Islamic fundamentalism is causing a 'clash of civilisations' between liberal democracies and Muslims

Charles Bremner reports
The London Times

12/4/2004

DAYS before she was due to be married, Ghofrane Haddaoui, 23, refused the advances of a teenage boy and paid with her life. Lured to waste ground near her home in Marseilles, the Tunisian-born Frenchwoman was stoned to death, her skull smashed by rocks hurled by at least two young men, according to police.

Although the circumstances of the murder are not clear, the horrific
"lapidation" of the young Muslim stoked a French belief that the country can no longer tolerate the excesses of an alien culture in its midst.

A few days ago, pop celebrities joined 2,000 people in a march through
Marseilles denouncing violence against women, particularly in the
immigrant-dominated housing estates. The protest against Islamic
"obscurantism" and the "fundamentalism that imprisons women" was led by a group of Muslim women who call themselves Ni Putes ni Soumises (Neither Whores nor Submissive).

The movement, which emerged three years ago to defend Muslim women, is spawning similar groups across Europe, supported by a mainstream opinion that has recently abandoned political correctness and wants to halt the inroads of Islam.

From Norway to Sicily, governments, politicians and the media are laying aside their doctrines of diversity and insisting that "Islamism", as the French call the fundamentalist form that pervades the housing estates, is incompatible with Europe's liberal values.

The shift is not just a reaction to exceptional violence such as the Madrid train bombings, or the murder of Theo van Gogh, the anti-Islamic Dutch film-maker, by a Dutch-Moroccan. It stems from a belief that more muscular methods are needed to integrate Europe's 13-million strong Muslim community and to combat creeds that breed extremists and ultimately, terrorism. With mixed results, governments are trying to quell the scourge by co-opting Muslim leaders to promote a moderate European Islam.

In Germany, with its three million - mainly Turkish - Muslims, and France, with its five million of mainly North African descent, television viewers were shocked when local young Muslims approved of Van Gogh's murder. "If you insult Islam, you have to pay," was a typical response.

"The notion of multiculturalism has fallen apart," said Angela Merkel,
leader of Germany's Christian Democrat opposition. "Anyone coming here must respect our constitution and tolerate our Western and Christian roots."

Italy's traditional tolerance towards immigrants has been eroded by fear of Islamism. An Ipsos poll in September showed that 48 per cent of Italians believed that a "clash of civilisations" between Islam and the West was under way and that Islam was "a religion more fanatical than any other".

Similar views can be heard across traditionally tolerant Scandinavia - and no longer just from the populist rightwing party's such as Pia Kjaersgaard's People's Party in Denmark. The centre-right Government of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has equipped Denmark with Europe's toughest curbs on immigration, largely aimed at people from Muslim countries. In Sweden, where anti-Muslim feeling is running high and mosques have been burnt, schools have been authorised to ban pupils who wear full Islamic head-cover, although the measure comes nowhere near France's new ban on the hijab in all state schools.

In Spain, with a rapidly rising population of nearly a million Muslims, the
backlash has been less visible despite the bombings, but thousands
demonstrated in Seville this week against plans to build a mosque in the
city centre. The Government has also won approval by sending 500 extra police to monitor preachers and Muslim associations.

Police across the EU are closely watching prayer meetings in makeshift
mosques in cities and housing estates, and media accounts of the jihadist, anti-Western and anti-semitic doctrines of the imams are fuelling public anger. In Germany, pressure is growing for sermons to be preached in German rather than Turkish or Arabic. Hidden TV cameras recently broadcast an imam in a Berlin mosque telling worshippers that "Germans can only expect to rot in the fires of hell because they are nonbelievers".

The debate over the limits to free speech is loudest in France, which now acknowledges the failure of its "republican" approach to integration whereby immigrants were supposed to blend harmoniously into society and not exist in separate communities.

Dominique de Villepin, the Interior Minister, is deporting foreign imams who support wife-beating and other uncivilised practices. This week the
Government moved to ban a Lebanon-based television channel for anti-semitic broadcasting. The left wing, which long shunned criticism of Islam as the stock-in-trade of Jean-Marie le Pen, the far-Right leader, now denounces the "totalitarian", anti-feminist, antisemitic doctrines of the fundamentalists.

Jacques Julliard, a leading left-wing commentator, said the Left's
longstanding tolerance had been used as "an agent for the penetration of Islamic intolerance".

Some on the Left have also taken strong exception to the concept of
"Islamophobia", a supposed sin defined by EU anti-racism watchdogs as akin to anti-Semitism.

The French consensus was symbolised by the 80 per cent public support for the head-scarf ban, which started with little trouble in September. While many Muslims felt stigmatised, the Government took comfort from the approval of the ban by a substantial minority of the 10 per cent of the population that is of immigrant origin.

Among them is Fadela Amara, a Muslim town councillor from Clermond Ferrand, who heads the Ni Putes, Ni Soumises movement. "The veil is an instrument of oppression that is imposed by the green fascists," she says. Mme Amara, who led the Marseilles march, advocates an "open Islam, an Islam of French culture a bit Gallic around the edges". This is also the aim of the state, which two years ago created a national Muslim Council to promote moderate mainstream Islam. The council was set up by Nicolas Sarkozy, the then Interior Minister, who now heads the UMP, President Chirac's centre-right party.

M Sarkozy has just caused a stir by going a stage further, proposing that France's rigorously secular state fund the building of mosques. "Whether I like it or not, Islam is the second biggest religion in France. So you have to integrate it by making it more French," he said. To general dismay, however, the national council is coming increasingly under the effective control of radicals.

Reluctantly, some intellectuals have lately concluded that the model for
Europe should be the US. On Tuesday a writer for Libération, the French
left-wing daily, noted that immigrants in the US threw themselves into "the American dream" and prospered. "There is no French, Dutch or other European dream," she noted. "You emigrate here to escape poverty and nothing more."

END
_____________________________________

GK Chesterton observed that tolerance is the result of a man who has no convictions.

Tolerance unfortunately can be the breeding ground of undermining a culture or cultures by a manipulative plan on the part of select groups. Note how tolerance of Christians and Jews and Bahai et alia has not led to this problem.

The point, IMHO, is not that one should attack Islamics, but that a very real failure of tolerance is its inability to draw a reasonable line for all. It is sad that this "cultural war" is being fought by extremists on both sides with attacks on individuals from both sides and firing of houses of worship.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by inked

:
:
:
The point, IMHO, is not that one should attack Islamics, but that a very real failure of tolerance is its inability to draw a reasonable line for all. It is sad that this "cultural war" is being fought by extremists on both sides with attacks on individuals from both sides and firing of houses of worship.

Interesting post inked. I wonder if it should be split off though, as it goes a different direction. Will try to think of a good title later.

Brings to mind a statistic I once heard though - something about how whenever the Muslim population of a country reaches 33%, there is a revolution. Intriguing...

[Artanis]

I'm itching to reply on inked's post, all the more because Norway is explicitly mentioned too, but it IS off topic here. Val, please split.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Artanis

I'm itching to reply on inked's post, all the more because Norway is explicitly mentioned too, but it IS off topic here. Val, please split.

*sigh*

Splitting threads is SUCH hard work though! How'd I do? Did I scratch your itch?

Guess I owe it to ya for help with my new avatar!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

GK Chesterton observed that tolerance is the result of a man who has no convictions.

Tolerance unfortunately can be the breeding ground of undermining a culture or cultures by a manipulative plan on the part of select groups. Note how tolerance of Christians and Jews and Bahai et alia has not led to this problem.

The point, IMHO, is not that one should attack Islamics, but that a very real failure of tolerance is its inability to draw a reasonable line for all. It is sad that this "cultural war" is being fought by extremists on both sides with attacks on individuals from both sides and firing of houses of worship.

Interesting article Inked.

Booya for groups like Ni Putes ni Soumises! I think movements like theirs will have a positive influence on women worldwide.

About the segment that I quoted though... do you have a problem with tolerance? If so, why? I disagree with GK Chesterton - I have strong convictions, and one of them is tolerance. I do not tolerate violence, I do tolerate religious and cultural freedom.

I don't think that's quite what you were getting at, but I'm not sure what you mean by your comment on Islam not being able to draw a reasonable line.

Nice split Val.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

... do you have a problem with tolerance? If so, why?

Nice split Val.

Interposing - for my part, I'd say it depends on the definition of tolerance. As classically defined, it simply calls for allowing for differences, which I think is great. However - as defined by practice and common use today, it has come to mean something else.

Time fails me though - and I even suspect that either inked or Rian could express that difference better than I could, so I'll hold off on a further attempt for now.

Oh... and thanks! HARD work though!!

[jerseydevil]

I was going to post something about the general growing racism in Europe here - but I decided to post that here... anti-immigration It is however related to many of the things that Inked stated.

As for this - I have been following the violence in the Netherlands in response to Van Gough's murder. It seems sort of ironic since this violence there is a result of ONE film makers death, the burning of mosques, the burning of schools - the overall violence, the talk of deporting muslims out of the country, etc - yet the US after 9/11 had a miniscule amount of backlash against muslims. There were isolated incidents - sure - but no where near the scale that is occuring in Europe and in particular in the Netherlands.

I find it funny by the way - that the ariticle - as well as most articles only point out that Muslims are restricted from wearing a headscarf in school. That is NOT the case. They can not wear it in ANY public building - that means hospitals, courts, police stations, government buildings. Muslim woman can not request female doctors either.

I've seen womenin the past walking the streets in Philadelphia in full Burqa. In france - on French 2 news - a person stated that people in France should look french - and that was the general attitude with most people interviewed and their stated support for the headscarf ban. When I saw these woman dressed like that - all I thought was why they were wearing it when they were free here not to. But it was also their choice.

So my question is - why does Europe seem to be such a breeding ground for these muslim extremists? Why do so many of them set up shop in London, Germany, etc to plan out their attacks against the US? Why do we, even though we have very large muslim populations - have the same problems here? (I'm not saying we have NO problems with muslim extremists - but we have very few and most of them have first lived and studied in Europe where they became extremist)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

So my question is - why does Europe seem to be such a breeding ground for these muslim extremists? Why do so many of them set up shop in London, Germany, etc to plan out their attacks against the US? Why do we, even though we have very large muslim populations - have the same problems here? (I'm not saying we have NO problems with muslim extremists - but we have very few and most of them have first lived and studied in Europe where they became extremist)

i think there are many factors involved... but one major difference between Europe and the US is history... Europe has 2000+ years of entrenced culture and attitudes, while the US only a mere few hundred by comparison... they also have a lot more history (as a result of being around for so much longer) of problems as a result of culture clash... the fear of "the outsider" is much more real to them because it is so much a part of their own histories... as opposed to the US, which has never seen a real "invasion"... and this fear, more than anything else, fuels the fires of extremism

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As for this - I have been following the violence in the Netherlands in response to Van Gough's murder. It seems sort of ironic since this violence there is a result of ONE film makers death, the burning of mosques, the burning of schools - the overall violence, the talk of deporting muslims out of the country, etc - yet the US after 9/11 had a miniscule amount of backlash against muslims. There were isolated incidents - sure - but no where near the scale that is occuring in Europe and in particular in the Netherlands.

Actually, no, it wasn't simply the result of one filmmaker's death. IMO this has been shimmering in the Netherlands for some time so I don't think you can succesfully draw paralels with post-9/11 USA. It's also more related to the fact that his murder comes so close to that of Pim Fortuyn, which also caused an uproar in the Netherlands. And it's not just his death, it is also the issuing of threats to politicians that clearly give a message of: "We don't care whether the Netherlands have freedom of speech, if you say something about the islam that we don't like, you're a dead man or woman. Shut up and we let you live."

Such a thing is unheard of in the Dutch culture, so I can understand some people became quite infuriated with it. (I find it infuriating myself, but I don't go firing religious houses over it.)

And the burning of mosques (haven't heard any of schools, can't remember) were IMO also isolated incidents, it was far from being grand-scale. But regardless of that, setting fire to those mosques still is bloody stupid.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I don't think the headscarf ban is a good demonstration of liberal values.

I think it depends on how you look at it. Here the headscarf is often seen as a means to suppres muslim women. Regardless of women who wear the scarf freely and of their own choice, the scarf has a rather negative image.

Originally Posted by Artanis

I agree with you in this: Why should we care about how people dress. That is really not important. There are far more serious matters we have to deal with, which are more bound to culture and habits than religion, I think. Such as the practise with circumcise (is that spelled correctly? Is it the right word?) of women, as an example.

I quite agree.

[Nurvingiel]

Yes... *resists urge to debate*

Maybe we should continue general EU stuff in that thread.

Moving on, this comment was something I meant to ask about ages ago. (Or did I..?)

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I find it funny by the way - that the ariticle - as well as most articles only point out that Muslims are restricted from wearing a headscarf in school. That is NOT the case. They can not wear it in ANY public building - that means hospitals, courts, police stations, government buildings. Muslim woman can not request female doctors either.

Shouldn't anyone be allowed to request a female doctor? I did that once.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

GK Chesterton observed that tolerance is the result of a man who has no convictions.

tolerance is the result of a man who is a realist... the problem is not tolerence, but individuals... muslims commit crimes, christians commit crimes, catholics commit crimes... you can refuse to tolerate the actions of a given individual and yet tolerate the belief system they happen to follow at the same time

Tolerance unfortunately can be the breeding ground of undermining a culture or cultures by a manipulative plan on the part of select groups. Note how tolerance of Christians and Jews and Bahai et alia has not led to this problem.

intolerence is the breeding ground for extremism and violence... when one begins to look at statistics instead of individuals those same individuals respond violently to this dehumanisation

The point, IMHO, is not that one should attack Islamics, but that a very real failure of tolerance is its inability to draw a reasonable line for all. It is sad that this "cultural war" is being fought by extremists on both sides with attacks on individuals from both sides and firing of houses of worship.

i think the ultimate solution is to try our best to slowly erase that line... moving towards a unified world social structure, while moving away from the more devisive religious and national cultures

i.e. tolerance

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i think the ultimate solution is to try our best to slowly erase that line... moving towards a unified world social structure, while moving away from the more devisive religious and national cultures

I think people can be fully tolerant and still believe in Religion and have a national identity. I think that has nothing to do with it, You are basically saying you are against people being different and you want everyone to be the same. We're not the same and never will be the same. It's a matter of accepting people's differences though that leads to tolerance and understanding - not making everyone the same and doing away with "countries" and "religion".

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I think people can be fully tolerant and still believe in Religion and have a national identity. I think that has nothing to do with it, You are basically saying you are against people being different and you want everyone to be the same. We're not the same and never will be the same. It's a matter of accepting people's differences though that leads to tolerance and understanding - not making everyone the same and doing away with "countries" and "religion".

not at all... difference is fine, and in fact a positive thing... it is the "we are better" and/or "they are worse" that is the issue... nationalism and religion have positives and negatives, and i'd like to see people move towards the positive factors while slowly disregarding the negative ones

tolerance is not just about accepting differences... it is also about trying to understand and accept the reasons behind those differences... even if you do not agree with them

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

not at all... difference is fine, and in fact a positive thing... it is the "we are better" and/or "they are worse" that is the issue... nationalism and religion have positives and negatives, and i'd like to see people move towards the positive factors while slowly disregarding the negative ones

I see nothing wrong with being proud of your country or nationality. And there is always some countries who are better and some who are worse. Would you say that Nazi Germany was the same as the US? or would you say their culture was acceptable and we should have just been tolerant of their views? I could think the US is the best country in the world - it does not mean that I don't admire or think highly of many others though or that I look down on anyone else.

tolerance is not just about accepting differences... it is also about trying to understand and accept the reasons behind those differences... even if you do not agree with them

So do you find yourself tolerant of women being stoned to death for looking at a man or in the case inked quote - of refusing a teenage boy?

[inked]

Wow! Do I get credit for a new thread? I thought the Times article was worth discussing in view of multiple other threads, so I tried to find a suitable vehicle and the EU thread was as close as I could find. My point in the GK Chesterton quotation was paradoxical: convictions are necessary for tolerance in a political reality. If no one will draw a line for behaviours that are clearly intolerable, the result is chaos. So what we have are extremists on both sides doing a great deal of harm while most persons are not so inclined. Unless the conviction that such behaviours as noted among Islamics and between Islamics and non-Islamics are not going to be tolerated and that conviction enforced, Europe will enter a blood bath over these issues: Islamic cultural fundamentalism versus European tolerance of multiculturalism.

JD summarizes the differences between Europe and the USA very well and, IMHO, correctly.

Valandil's point is well worth consideration from a historical vantage. I for one would like more info on those lines, if you can arrange that.

PS I know that the Genesis account says one will work by the sweat of one's brow, Val. What I didn't know was that thread-splitting was such HARD work, apparently. Now I feel for those Islamics who determine the initiation of Ramadan daily by the daylight being defined as present when one can tell the difference between a blue and a black THREAD! Just think, they have to do it 40 days in a row, first thing in the AM, ...every year!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Down below you say you would change muslim attitudes toward stoning and so forth. YOu obviously don't care to understand the "why" in those regards? So I guess you pick and choose then based on how strongly you feel about things. As for all of Germany being evil - of course not - but you have to admit - former friends turned each other in. There isn't much of a difference in the blind hatred and group think the Germans had - as to what is going on in the Middle East today. Do you deny that in Muslim schools that they teach hatred and death to the Jews and infidels?

i do care to understand the "why"... much of the rise of nazism in germany was due to the extreme economic punishment put upon germany post-ww1... desperate people go for desperate measures... when your children are dying it isn't quite as hard as it use to be to kill another human being to keep them alive... or to be convinced that certain actions may keep them alive

some muslims do teach hatred... the question is "why"... might it be in part that the very autocratic rulers they despise were put in place by the west post-ww2 and are still supported economically to this very day?

Well their society finds it acceptable. So I guess we have it - you think that our way is better than there way - because you want to "change them" and "teach them". What happens if they don't want to?

no one responds well to forced change... i.e. war... it tends to make matters worse... a much better method is change by example... show a better way (which costs money) and people will follow... in the end, humans are humans, and they would much rather survive than die for ideals... the problem is most see their ideals as their only road to survival

[inked]

Posted by dvirtue on 2004/12/21 5:41:00 (518 reads)
We are committing cultural suicide

Anthony Browne
TIMES ONLINE

LONDON (12/21/2004)--Christianity is being insidiously erased from the map. It’s time we fought back

COMPARE AND contrast 1:
(a) Sikhs storm a theatre in Britain showing a play depicting rape inside a Sikh temple;

(b) The Red Cross bans Nativity scenes in its shops;

Compare and contrast 2:

(a) Christmas trees and decorations are banned in Saudi Arabia;
(b) Christmas trees and decorations are banned in Britain’s Jobcentres.

The extremes that other religions go to preserve their cultural heritage is only matched in Christianity by its extreme death-wish.

Christmas has always stirred passion, attracting opponents and supporters. But until recently banning it has been so culturally offensive that fictional Christophobes entered the English language for their infamy. Ebenezer Scrooge declared “every idiot who goes about with ‘Merry Christmas’ on his lips should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly in his heart”. Dr Seuss’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas declared that the Grinch’s motivation was “that his heart was two sizes too small”.

But real-life Scrooges and Grinches have banned Christmas before, not because their hearts were too small, but because their bigotry was too great. And now it is happening again.

In 1647 Oliver Cromwell cancelled Christmas: no parties, no fun, no days off work. Cromwell’s Puritanism was offended by bacchanalian revelry, led by the Lord of Misrule. Each year, town criers went through the land ordering that “Christmas and all other superstitious festivals” should not be celebrated.

The English were outraged. Secret festivities were held, pro-Christmas riots broke out and dozens of Christmas martyrs were jailed. A pamphlet called An Hue and Cry after Christmas was published, demanding that: “Any man or woman, that can give any knowledge, or tell any tidings of an old, old, very old grey bearded gentleman, called Christmas . . . let him bring him back again into England.”

In the past century, the godless Communists banned Christmas. In Cuba, Fidel Castro allowed people to take Christmas Day off work only after an intervention by the Pope.

Now the Christophobes are on the rampage again. The heirs of the Puritans and Communists have declared war on Christmas. But this time it is by stealth and guilt-tripping. The first step is to eviscerate the festival of any meaning by taking the Christ out of Christmas. Even as a lifelong atheist who finds all God stuff embarrassing, I appreciate Christmas’s religious message. But you are as likely to find a reference to Christ in civic Christmas decorations as you are to find a sixpence in a Christmas pudding. Almost no companies and few individuals send cards with any religious message. For the third consecutive year Christmas postage stamps will be Christless. A quarter of schools will not have Nativity plays, and almost as many have banned carols.

Once Christmas has been supplanted by a spiritually vacuous post-Christian orgy of consumption, the next phase of the war is to ban it altogether. Simply turn it, as Birmingham famously did, into a generic “Winterval” to make it equally meaningless to everyone. Tony Blair’s Christmas cards have no reference to, well, Christmas. The Eden Centre in Cornwall has banned Christmas, replacing it with “a time of gifts”.

The war on Christmas is being waged across Christendom. In Italy, a school replaced the Nativity play with Little Red Riding Hood, while another replaced the word “Jesus” in carols with “virtue”. The Mayor of Sydney caused outrage by reducing the city’s Christmas decorations to a single secular illuminated tree with the sign “Season’s greetings”. The US now has a national “holiday tree” and schools take “ winter holidays”. Christianity has gone back to its origins, and become the world’s most widely persecuted religion, finally prompting the Vatican to hit back with a campaign against “Christianophobia”.

So who are the modern-day Scrooges, Grinches, Cromwells and Castros, and what motivates them? In most cases, the Chistophobes use the excuse of multiculturalism, insisting that celebrating Christmas is offensive to non-Christian minorities, often citing Muslims. But the truth is that it is done in the name of Muslims, rather than at the request of Muslims, who accept the existence of Christ. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists don’t mind Christmas celebrations any more than Christians object to Diwali, Eid or Chanukkah. As Trevor Phillips, the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, said: “It’s not offensive to minority communities to celebrate the festival of Christmas.”

No, the real Christophobes are the self-loathing, guilt-ridden politically-correct liberal elite, driven by anti-Christian bigotry and a ruthless determination to destroy their own heritage and replace it with “the other”. It is the American Civil Liberties Union that is threatening lawsuits against any schools that allow the singing of carols and the BBC’s editorial policy bans criticism of the Koran, but not the Bible.

In reality, the Christophobes are acting against the interests of ethnic minorities. By stripping Britain of its culture and traditions, they are causing a dangerous rising tide of anger. It prevents social cohesion and integration — who could want to integrate into a culture that is committing suicide?

So do your bit for community relations. Don’t let Scrooge and the Grinch win. Like the English under Cromwell, protest if you spot any Christophobes waging war on Christmas, sing a Christmas carol, and wish your neighbours “Merry Christmas!”

END

[Artanis]

Let me first say this: I may have misinterpreted things that are posted here due to unsufficient comprehension of the English language. And for the same reason I think it is hard to express myself clearly. So bear with me.

Originally Posted by inked

The point, IMHO, is not that one should attack Islamics, but that a very real failure of tolerance is its inability to draw a reasonable line for all. It is sad that this "cultural war" is being fought by extremists on both sides with attacks on individuals from both sides and firing of houses of worship.

And it is sad IMO, that the media is hopping on this so-called "cultural war", reporting ideas and utterances from the extremists on both sides, often set out of context, and thus putting fuel to the fire. There are actually cities in Europe where people from many cultures and religions are living peacefully together, but they make no news.

I feel I have to comment on this from the London Times article:

From Norway to Sicily, governments, politicians and the media are laying aside their doctrines of diversity and insisting that "Islamism", as the French call the fundamentalist form that pervades the housing estates, is incompatible with Europe's liberal values.

I ask then: What is Islamism? I feel that this statement from London Times is only partly true. There are many of us who believe that Islamic values and culture can live well within Europe. And as far as Norway is concerned, the fear of Islam as it is seen from some groups of people, is nothing new. Voices like that have been heard in this country ever since the first wave of immigrants arrived here during the 70s.

Another thing: I think the word "fundamentalist" is often used in a wrong way. An islamic fundamentalist is a person who holds to the basis of Islam, but that is NOT the same as accepting violence or going against "Europe's liberal values".

Edit: Oh Val, the itch is gone, thank you.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Artanis

And it is sad IMO, that the media is hopping on this so-called "cultural war", reporting ideas and utterances from the extremists on both sides, often set out of context, and thus putting fuel to the fire. There are actually cities in Europe where people from many cultures and religions are living peacefully together, but they make no news.

of course they never make the news - just like the many many good things in the US which don't get reported by the international media. I hope people will remember that.

I feel I have to comment on this from the London Times article: This is only partly true, there are many of us who believe that Islamic values and culture can become an integrated part of Europe. And as far as Norway is concerned, the fear of Islam as it is seen from some groups of people, is nothing new. Voices like that have been heard in this country ever since the first wave of immigrants arrived here during the 70s.

I know France isn't all of Europe - but I do know that France also isn't the only one with this kind of problem. Almost once a week there is another story about some cemetary getting descecrated (mostly Jewish ones). Also - I have a question - what is "integrated" to you mean? Does it mean that they dress and act like Europeans? We have indians and muslims throughout Plainsboro - and I don't think anythign about it - even though many do wear native dress. It seems to be less of a deal in America how people dress - whereas in Europe, such as france - it's either you are like us - or you're not welcome.

I've said this before - there was this person I worked with in Indiana - she was black and we got into discussing the concept of the "melting pot" - she didn't understand what it meant. She thought it meant that she had to be like everyone else and give up her heritage and culture. I explained to her - that was not the case. The melting pot means - I take some of the properties from you and you take some of my properties. Together - we make a stronger whole. It's why many Americans - including me - have taken up the practice of going to Mexican restaurants to celebrate Cinqo de Mayo. We celebrate St Patricks Day, Italian festivals, Swedish celebrations, etc - because this is what America is - a hodgepodge of cultures. We're used to this diversity and seeing a million different faces and hearing a million different languages and religions is normal - at least around me (not so much in Indiana) - and yet they're all Americans. European culture seems to be much more narrowly defined than American culture and hence much harder to be accepted when one is not a native.

Another thing: I think the word "fundamentalist" is often used in a wrong way. An islamic fundamentalist is a person who holds to the basis of Islam, but that is NOT the same as accepting violence or going against "Europe's liberal values".

Well I use the word extremist. But I find it funny about "going against Europe's liberal values" - wouldn't having liberal values mean that people can be who they are? I don't think the headscarf ban is a good demostration of liberal values. I was not at all aware of Sweden's thing. That's really sad I think. People should have a freedom to worship and dress the way they wish (outside of going around naked). If they want to wear a headscarf - is that really the governments business or anyone elses? Here - students freely wear headscarfs in schools, women can ask to see only a woman doctor.

[Artanis]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

of course they never make the news - just like the many many good things in the US which don't get reported by the international media. I hope people will remember that.

Yes, I think we all need to remember that as well.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Also - I have a question - what is "integrated" to you mean? Does it mean that they dress and act like Europeans? We have indians and muslims throughout Plainsboro - and I don't think anythign about it - even though many do wear native dress. It seems to be less of a deal in America how people dress - whereas in Europe, such as france - it's either you are like us - or you're not welcome.

You reply too fast for me JD , I edited my post while you were typing. I realised that "integrated" was not the correct term to express my opinion, because it may be read as "assimilated", which was not my intent. Instead I said "There are many of us who believe that Islamic values and culture can live well within Europe." Was that more clear?

I cannot speak for other countries than Norway really, but I do think France is somewhat special within Europe, in that they so totally dismiss every form of religious expression in public fora and places, from the state level down to each individual. This is so different from my country as it can be, we have a state church here!

I agree with you in this: Why should we care about how people dress. That is really not important. There are far more serious matters we have to deal with, which are more bound to culture and habits than religion, I think. Such as the practise with circumcise (is that spelled correctly? Is it the right word?) of women, as an example.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

European culture seems to be much more narrowly defined than American culture and hence much harder to be accepted when one is not a native.

I think there is some truth in this, even though we are not so homogenous in Europe as it may seem from outside. But it IS hard for non-Western immigrants to be accepted here, that is to be looked upon as a person, and not as a representative of some obscure minority. It takes several years, even generations maybe.