The News Thread

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

why the continent's rebirth is the Bush Administration's greatest achievement

Considering that he is an utter failure in almost every other aspect of the presidency, I'd have to agree.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Actually, I know they are the most correct, to me, in the same way that everyone else formulates opinions. If there is any standard, it's purely my own. In short, a relative point of view.

Is that the absolute truth?


About the Muslim Netherlands Film thing...the very fact that the gov't has to take a stance in order to prevent possibly violent actions by Muslims...isn't that the point of the movie? Sortof of like the reaction to the Pope's speech: "we'll teach you we aren't violent! Kill the Pope!"

The Netherlands is tolerating too much intolerance for its safety, and it's going to bite them in the buttocks. The very fact that a violent backlash is expected speaks volumes.

And I'll just add this question to ponder: is the world willing to be intimidated and cowed into a forced respect by a segment of people in Islam who violently erupt every time their religion is insulted?

It's one thing to stir the hornet's nest unnecessarily. It's another to placate and spoil and give special rules to these types of folks just because they threaten violence everytime they are insulted. Like two year olds who cry everytime they're called crybabies by fellow two year olds. (I have experience in this area).

[Mari]

You're right in that we shouldn't not do things because it may upset people with a tendency to do violent things, but insulting religion or the connecting of a religion with terrorism is not done in my opinion. Many things that Wilders used in his debate when he said the Koran was equal to Mein Kampf by Hitler where examples that can also be found in the Bible and Christianity. Fact is that for almost every quote that preaches peace in the Bible there is another one saying the "bad people" should be punished. And it is the same with the Koran.
Making a film knowing that people will feel attacked or insulted and that it could lead to a schism in Dutch society, deliberately setting up one half of the populace against the other half is not right and has nothing to do with listening to the demands of Afghanistan or wherever.
I'm just glad with the wisdom the Muslim community has shown sofar by staying calm. All the commotion has also lead to the gap between Dutch society and the Muslim community becoming less big, in my view. Or at least: it has caused many people to take side with the Dutch Muslim community. Perhaps all this will have some positive effects.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The Netherlands is tolerating too much intolerance for its safety, and it's going to bite them in the buttocks. The very fact that a violent backlash is expected speaks volumes.

And I'll just add this question to ponder: is the world willing to be intimidated and cowed into a forced respect by a segment of people in Islam who violently erupt every time their religion is insulted?

It's one thing to stir the hornet's nest unnecessarily. It's another to placate and spoil and give special rules to these types of folks just because they threaten violence everytime they are insulted. Like two year olds who cry everytime they're called crybabies by fellow two year olds. (I have experience in this area).

Hector, it'a a lot easier to see the difficulty with these things when you're on the peaceful side. But, in this country, there are a lot of people who would say the same things about policies that favor certain types of Christian.

I had the opportunity to be acquainted with Dr. Bernard Slepian. Last summer I visited the Oklahoma City Memorial. And I wrestle almost daily with policy issues regarding education that involve pressure from people with a POV that involves special treatment for Christians (narrowly defined by themselves).

It's probably just human nature that makes it easier to see "the mote in your neighbor's eye rather than the beam in your own."

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Is that the absolute truth?

Only for me. I'm quite sure Inked's absolute truth is different.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It's one thing to stir the hornet's nest unnecessarily. It's another to placate and spoil and give special rules to these types of folks just because they threaten violence everytime they are insulted. Like two year olds who cry everytime they're called crybabies by fellow two year olds. (I have experience in this area).

In general, fears of muslim violence are way overblown. Total up all the muslim terrorist acts over the last 100 years and it's miniscule. More often than not, you get a lot of bark and no bite.

So, I agree. I think complete freedom of speech is the best course of action for longterm societal health.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In general, fears of muslim violence are way overblown. Total up all the muslim terrorist acts over the last 100 years and it's miniscule. More often than not, you get a lot of bark and no bite.

So, I agree. I think complete freedom of speech is the best course of action for longterm societal health.

The barking tends to be quite...well, let's just say that they always promise to kill someone, etc.

Over the past 100 years, yes miniscule...but in recent times on the rising. It's not just the famous examples in The Netherlands (Von Gogh), London, Spain...there have also been cases in Texas ("honor killing" of two girls by their father, who was upset they had American boyfriends and used Facebook), Australia, and the Philippines.

Of course plenty of people die and are murdered from various other reasons: in TN a police officer killed her brother over a tub of butter (thats how it started)...but we can slice up excuses all day long.

My view is that when strict followers of Islam decided to migrate to the United States from their country, they consider long and hard that they cannot perform "honor killings", and female circumcision.

Sis, I certainly see your point, but I have to ask; why pile up more misery? We can't speak out because we have motes in our eyes? We have to start somewhere. We can't sit around waiting for all our motes to go away.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Only for me.

That is so selfish

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The barking tends to be quite...well, let's just say that they always promise to kill someone, etc.

Over the past 100 years, yes miniscule...but in recent times on the rising. It's not just the famous examples in The Netherlands (Von Gogh), London, Spain...there have also been cases in Texas ("honor killing" of two girls by their father, who was upset they had American boyfriends and used Facebook), Australia, and the Philippines.

Of course plenty of people die and are murdered from various other reasons: in TN a police officer killed her brother over a tub of butter (thats how it started)...but we can slice up excuses all day long.

My view is that when strict followers of Islam decided to migrate to the United States from their country, they consider long and hard that they cannot perform "honor killings", and female circumcision.

Sis, I certainly see your point, but I have to ask; why pile up more misery? We can't speak out because we have motes in our eyes? We have to start somewhere. We can't sit around waiting for all our motes to go away.

We can say "Violent and criminal behavior is bad" and leave the religious identity out of it.

Look, you're concerned about violence, right? You don't want people murdered? How about this?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI)system data for calendar year 2003, homicides were the second leading cause of death of the job for women, and 15% of the 119 workplace homicides of women in that year were attributed to a current or former husband or boyfriend. (There were a total of 444 workplace deaths of women in 2003 -- 31% were the result of highway incidents, 27% were homicides, and 9% were falls.)

If Muslim fanatics were murdering 100 people at work in the US every year, you'd be upset. Why would you be upset about that and you aren't upset about this? Why are you talking about "strict followers of Islam" and not about "people who shoot people at work"? It's your selection of issue that is troubling.

[brownjenkins]

It's herd mentality. It's always much easier to blame those who are different than to look inside one's own herd.

It's why, ultimately, social dividers like nationality and religion are a bad thing. But, it'll take a long time for them to disappear from the human social landscape.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's herd mentality. It's always much easier to blame those who are different than to look inside one's own herd.

It's why, ultimately, social dividers like nationality and religion are a bad thing. But, it'll take a long time for them to disappear from the human social landscape.

And of course, my friend, I disagree with you, here. I'm not looking forward to a generally tan world, where no history is worth remembering, and no cultural expression is more than generic. Art springs from deep wells.

[Mari]

I don't think that differences will ever disappear, just maybe the way we handle them. Besides, the people who making a problem out of differences are usually those who least understand the other. So rather then taking away the differences, taking away the ignorance would be best IMHO.
(I knew that course on the supposed globalization would come in handy some day! )

[brownjenkins]

[QUOTE=Mari;605381]I don't think that differences will ever disappear, just maybe the way we handle them.[QUOTE]

I agree.

It's not so much having differences, as how seriously one takes those differences. People are getting better at looking past the physical ones that they found almost impossible to look past historically. The mental ones will be a bit tougher, especially the ones people have a hard time looking at objectively (i.e. religion, national identity). But I think that time and a more globally-connected populace will help.

We'll never all be the same, we'll just learn to first tolerate and maybe even eventually embrace all the differences we have, while moving a bit closer together in our beliefs along the way.

[Mari]

Not sure about the last part of your last sentence, but on the rest I think we see eye to eye. (Always wanted to use that in a sentence )

[inked]

BJ: "We'll never all be the same, we'll just learn to first tolerate and maybe even eventually embrace all the differences we have, while moving a bit closer together in our beliefs along the way."

Except for William F. Buckley and the 20-30% of the population like him, right, BJ? And you admit that YOU are ABSOLUTELY SURE about that. I knew your relativism was only for other people all along....

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

We can say "Violent and criminal behavior is bad" and leave the religious identity out of it.

Look, you're concerned about violence, right? You don't want people murdered? How about this? If Muslim fanatics were murdering 100 people at work in the US every year, you'd be upset. Why would you be upset about that and you aren't upset about this? Why are you talking about "strict followers of Islam" and not about "people who shoot people at work"? It's your selection of issue that is troubling.

That's not quite how it works.

First of all, homicides are unpredictable. We don't know when or where they will happen. Those kind of things are caused by all sorts of things.

But things like "honor killings" are connected to an ideology. We know this...it's regular enough in Saudi Arabia. But The Netherlands is such a tolertant place that they'll allow it. England is such a tolerant place that Bishop Rowan Williams says Sharia Law should be okayed for Muslims. Essentially giving up sovereignty and law...and letting little boomlet mini countries blossom.

This is not about murder, it's about allowing it in the name of diversity.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

And of course, my friend, I disagree with you, here. I'm not looking forward to a generally tan world, where no history is worth remembering, and no cultural expression is more than generic. Art springs from deep wells.

Hear, hear.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

That's not quite how it works.

First of all, homicides are unpredictable. We don't know when or where they will happen. Those kind of things are caused by all sorts of things.

But things like "honor killings" are connected to an ideology. We know this...it's regular enough in Saudi Arabia. But The Netherlands is such a tolertant place that they'll allow it. England is such a tolerant place that Bishop Rowan Williams says Sharia Law should be okayed for Muslims. Essentially giving up sovereignty and law...and letting little boomlet mini countries blossom.

This is not about murder, it's about allowing it in the name of diversity.

As usual hector, you are not reading carefully. *tch tch* The murder of women by husbands and brothers is very much 'connected to an ideology". The difference is, that ideology is the dominent one, here.

And that is the ONLY difference.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

First of all, homicides are unpredictable. We don't know when or where they will happen. Those kind of things are caused by all sorts of things.

But things like "honor killings" are connected to an ideology. We know this...it's regular enough in Saudi Arabia. But The Netherlands is such a tolertant place that they'll allow it. England is such a tolerant place that Bishop Rowan Williams says Sharia Law should be okayed for Muslims. Essentially giving up sovereignty and law...and letting little boomlet mini countries blossom.

This is not about murder, it's about allowing it in the name of diversity.

'Scuse me?! Are you seriously stating that we are allowing murder out of tolerance? You've got to be kidding right?
True, tolerance is an important part of Dutch culture (officially, in reality you don't often see much of it) but within the limits of Dutch law and society. Muslims are required to adapt nowadays to Dutch society. True, when the first Muslims came to the Netherlands in the 1960's they were expected to go back after a few years, so no one expected them to integrate.
We have freedom of religion and as much as people seem to be forgetting it these days, the Islam is a religion like others.
Being tolerant doesn't mean accepting everything in the name of diversity.

Just wanted to have that said.

[GrayMouser]

I'm an absolutist for tolerance.

Sorry, but Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs and Christians and anybody else are going to have to learn to accept the values of Enlightenment liberalism.

Despite the existence of groups of loonies like the Texas Republican Party, who believe that faggots should be thrown in jail, most Western societies are a little more tolerant.

For example, Catholics who protested against "The Last Temptation of Christ" or the elephant-dung Madonna (even though most of them simply swallowed whatever they were told about it) didn't threaten to kill the artists involved.

If Muslims want to peaceably demonstrate against this film, more power to them.

Threatening violence? No.

As a wild-eyed leftist, I get extremely angry when I hear about some right-wing speaker being silenced on a campus.

Freedom of speech, baby- Yeah!