Increased Islamic Influence in European Nations

[inked]

IR, that last was statement to expose relativism for its true nature! "What capital can I make out of this?" Gotta luv the narcissism!

JD, I must admit your report on the French incapacity for response was mind-boggling. But as the eloquent Tom Lehrer noted (sing along now), in regard to the Germans - "We taught them a lesson in 1918...and they've hardly bothered us since then!" Remember my note earlier about the asymptotic learning curve? I rest my case.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by inked

Let's see if I have you correctly, any religion will do in a pinch and should be sacrosanct because it is a religion. Except Christianity because it is the root cause of all failure to live up to ideals in the world, ergo, all religions are created equal except Christianity. Right?.

No. My point is more along the lines of "he who is without sin cast the first stone".

But really it's about social and historical context.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Someone who does not know the Bible well

You've got me bang to rights, guv'nor. My views are based on observing behaviour, not studying scripture.

BTW, I hope you didn't think I was devaluing the work you described, and I totally agree that, in times when our leaders show less compassion than we do, that we still do what we can as individuals and groups.

There are lots of good points in your post and I will think about them. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Jerseydevil

Let me remind you that he murder millions AFTER 1991

So that justifies our killing 100,000+ Iraqis?

Originally Posted by Jerseydevil

It's funny though how the world forgets history and likes to blame Bush '41 for not "finishing" it off.

[Flamebait deleted].

Originally Posted by inked

You are living in a fantasy world, man.
The history of Turkey is particularly salient in regard to culture and Islam and Christianity and Islam and freedom and Islam and societal status and Islam, but they are so busy (if I may pardoned a Biblical quotation) straining at gnats and swallowing camels that they shall have depleted Islam of emigrants and given it Europe while blithely denigrating their saviours temporal and eternal!

Sheer poetry man. I have no idea what it means though

Originally Posted by Jerseydevil

You should see the french news

[Flamebait deleted]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the point is that, short of roman catholicism, most religions do not have an "authority figure" like the pope... here on earth, at least

muslims share a basic belief system, but that is all... they comprise a huge variety of people, lifestyles, morals, etc... just like catholics

Although they don't have one Pope-like figure, many branches of Islam, particularly Shi'ites, have clerics in similar (though more lowly) positions of authority.

Taking that a bit further, we can see how these figures have mobilised their religion in a political context, thus transposing their religious authority into a political one.

While I thoroughly disapprove of this, I can see how such things act as an antidote to political apathy: because politics incorporates religion, it's more understandable and accessible to the general populace. That's something that is pretty rare in Christendom, and is particularly alien here in the UK, though it seems to be gaining ground in the US.

To get back to the comparative morality question, the concept of freedom that inked refers to is, IMO, largely a result of the Reformation and Enlightenment, which were mostly Western movements. "Freedom of expression" is a value which does have the same value and meaning in other cultures as it does in our own.

So, again, we have to be careful when we transpose our values in judgment upon other value systems. Taking such care is not the same as saying that "all religions are the same" nor does it mean that we have to voice approval of any acts or beliefs those other cultures engage in. To argue that it does is, IMO, either infantile or shows a reluctance to engage seriously with the issue.


Last edited by Sister Golden Hair

[jerseydevil]

[Response to flamebait deleted]
And to respond to this question - "So that justifies our killing 100,000+ Iraqis?"

We aren't responsible for all those 100,000 deaths. Those are the total Iraqi civilians killed. But hey - I know it servers your purpose to make it seem like those were all caused by Americans - instead of the insurgents and caused by Saddam Hussein during the war.

Was it justifiably to kill millions of Frencman and Germans in the liberation of France and the overthrow of Germany? You seem to pick and choose your history, as well as erroneously use statistics to back up your points. It's what people do all the time with Hirosama and Nagosaki - ignoring the fact that there were many cities in Europe and Japan that suffered far more civilian casualties during air raids - then those two citiess suffered becasue of the atomic bomb. But if you have to twist numbers to make your point - you don't have much to stand on.


Last edited by Sister Golden Hair

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Yeah what a great argument against staying a virgin eh? "If you dont have sex with me youll have to have sex with millions of icky muslim suicide bombers!"

Except I think that each suicide bomber is supposed to have EXCLUSIVE rights to each of his eternal virgins. It's not as much fun to share the goods, right?

(perhaps I shouldn't start you guys thinking about this topic ... )

(but as a rabbit trail, I wonder if the women are supposed to think it's an honor to be one of those virgins, and/or if any do think it's an honor? I know that I would not like sharing my husband with 71 other women! I like my exclusive rights )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gaffer

Nor in Christendom. At least these "Muslims" of which you speak are being honest, instead of going to Church on Sunday giving it "love thy neighbour" then bombing the crap out of thy neighbour on Monday.

I just noticed something interesting. You just made a wholesale generalization about Muslims, and ... no one noticed! (until now)

Interesting.

My views are based on observing behaviour, not studying scripture.

Wow, is that truly what you've observed? (That is a totally sincere question) If so, that's really tragic.

See, that's why I think it's good to study the doctrine of various beliefs. You can now challenge someone that calls themselves a Christian, and has that terrible attitude you've observed, with the Bible verses I gave you, and say, "Are you justified in calling yourself a Christian, when your own doctrine says the following things about helping the poor?" and then show the verses I mentioned. (and if you do this, please do it in love, not defiance.)

And let me inform you that at least here in the US, I know of many Christians that do NOT have that horrible attitude.

BTW, I hope you didn't think I was devaluing the work you described, and I totally agree that, in times when our leaders show less compassion than we do, that we still do what we can as individuals and groups.

No, I didn't, and I agree that it comes down to individual behavior and choices.

There are lots of good points in your post and I will think about them. Thanks.

Thank you, and you're welcome! *sends a hug across the pond*

PS - how's the little ankle-biter?

[The Gaffer]

Heh. He's sitting on my lap right now, fascinated by my one-handed typing.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I just noticed something interesting. You just made a wholesale generalization about Muslims, and ... no one noticed! (until now)

Interesting.

Generalise? Moi? . I think I was attempting a rhetorical point.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Wow, is that truly what you've observed? (That is a totally sincere question) If so, that's really tragic.


See, that's why I think it's good to study the doctrine of various beliefs. You can now challenge someone that calls themselves a Christian, and has that terrible attitude you've observed, with the Bible verses I gave you, and say, "Are you justified in calling yourself a Christian, when your own doctrine says the following things about helping the poor?" and then show the verses I mentioned. (and if you do this, please do it in love, not defiance.)

And let me inform you that at least here in the US, I know of many Christians that do NOT have that horrible attitude.

It's difficult to criticise a person's or a group's religion because it's so complex and personal. As you pointed out, there always comes a point when we're making generalisations from a position of imperfect knowledge of a person's beliefs. Things can easily get personalised.

However, I'll take that as an invitation to comment in general terms about the "Christian" societies most of us live in. Just so folks know that I'm not directing this tirade against anyone here.

The "bottom line" message that I got from being brought up as a Christian was "love thy neighbour". There also seems to be rather a lot in the Bible about modesty and meekness as well as a strong anti-materialist message.

The "bottom line" message that I get from observing our societies is that the meek get shat on, modesty is for the birds and let's all amass as large a personal fortune as possible, "de'il tak the hindmost".

When you look further into how we organise and govern ourselves, we see that "Christian" principles are largely absent from politics. How could we tolerate starvation, poverty, injustice, preventable disease and the degradation of the environment, yet still proclaim Christian values?

The answer is simple: be selective. If those more vocal Christian groups spent half as much energy pushing for decent conditions, justice and opportunity for all as they currently do campaigning against gays, then the world might well be a different place. However, they don't. They mostly seem to sell the Biblical ideas that people are willing to buy into, which includes the denigration of certain minorities, but doesn't include the "camel and the eye of the needle". I find that both depressing and undignified.

It's true that certain Christians, and Christian groups, have achieved many good things over the years, and there's no reason why they should not continue to do so. My own feeling is that more can be and has been achieved by secular groups.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Thank you, and you're welcome! *sends a hug across the pond*

PS - how's the little ankle-biter?

Right back at you.

He's a cutie; will PM you an update so as to spare others the appalling sentimentality.

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by Artanis

You know, this angered me when I first read it, and it was partly the reason why I dropped the discussion.

Well, I apologise if I offended you, that wasn’t my intention, and I was only partly being serious - (hence the smiley " ") - But there was a point in it too, a serious point, that I’ll explain now:
I was hinting there, (or trying to), was that we often rationalize our behaviour. We do sometimes have reasons we don’t acknowledge ourselves for our actions, and we rationalize some of our behaviour with different, more comfortable to us, or more socially acceptable reasons that the ones that truly lead to a particular behaviour.

Originally Posted by Artanis

You are of course entitled to think what you think, but I strongly believe that you and I or anyone else do not have any right to define other people to be repressed when they do not think so themselves. If we do so we are suggesting that we have some kind of moral superiority over them, that our culture is of more value than theirs, which imho is totally wrong.

First I’ll remember that I didn’t define anything in an absolute way there, except the obvious: “she neither feels or believe herself repressed.�

Now, I obviously believe she may very well be repressed, and you know it, but, and it is a big but, that is my opinion, based on the facts and my interpretation of the facts, (as given earlier, and later), to that particular part of the post.

I do not believe we should deny our own values and perceptions, nor do I believe we need to. What we must remember is that we, not being omniscient, are not necessarily right, and be able to explain our perceptions and positions based in facts and in the interpretation of these facts, and not being clode to the position of others. This I attempt to do.

Then you are saying that no human being has a true freedom of choice? For we are all living under the restriction of Law and culture. I don't agree with this view, I think everyone has freedom to choose, but of course some choices are harder to take than others because of their implications and consequences.

What do you call “true freedom of choice?�
We certainly cannot make a decision that is 100% free of our cultural and social conditioning, but that is not the problem.
Some cultures are obvious more limiting than others in what is acceptable individual conduct. Certainly, our Western Culture, highly individualist as it is, (some would say far too individualistic) allows a much greater degree of freedom of choice that that of the Near East countries. Now, not all individuals deal well with this freedom existing in our society, (specially if raised in a different culture, or if belonging to a semi-integrated culture with conflicting values with the dominant culture).

That's why I think your examples were far fetched in this context, to stop wearing the scarf in an open society as Europe is not a hard decision to take compared to rebellion against laws that support burning of widows, or the practise of genital mutilation in African countries. It is an altogether different context.

Your assumption is that, (I believe), because we live in a rather free and individualistic society such behaviours like self-immolation are out of context, and the use of scarf too small an issue for free will not be able to act.


Yet, I deliberately choose extreme cases to make a point; that Culture can be a very powerful factor limiting freedom. Just think, if Culture is a strong enough force to drive a mother to mutilate her child, or a wife to choose to immolate herself by fire, then much more easily can lead others to much more innocuous behaviours, even in our own free society.

By the way; as a note, the burning of widows is not supported by Law, rather the opposite, and despite this, it still occasionally happens; such is the (negative in this case) power of Culture.

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by inked

The EU would have had its aegis 6 decades ago under Hitler save for GB and the US, and later, yes, Stalin (to give the Devil his due). But most likely the hegemony of the USSR would have annilhilated the third Reich for the establishment of the EU.

Mr. Inked, what exactly do you mean by this?

[inked]

The current voluntary formation of the EU would have had its involuntary and violent formation in the Third Reich if GB, the USA, and USSR had not stopped him. I think they were going to refer to it as greater Germany or maybe just lebensraum?

[Nurvingiel]

I don't think that's what the EU really had in mind...

[inked]

You are correct, Nurv. I merely point out that the entity is political and could have been established politically in another mode - doubtless with different goals!

[sun-star]

inked is right. Hitler wanted to control continental Europe, which would have involved uniting it, but obviously without the democracy and shared decision-making we have today. It doesn't mean there any similarities between the EU and the Third Reich; in fact it's a nice historical irony that what Hitler failed to do with bad intentions began to be done with good intentions less than ten years later.

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by inked

The current voluntary formation of the EU would have had its involuntary and violent formation in the Third Reich if GB, the USA, and USSR had not stopped him. I think they were going to refer to it as greater Germany or maybe just lebensraum?

Germany wanted to make a German empire, controlled by the Nazis with everybody else submitted, enslaved or dead, not a voluntary union of nation-states were each state and each individual are equal and free. They are not comparable, they are not the same entity, they occupy part of the same territory, nothing more. Comparing the two is of very poor taste and even offensive, besides being completely inaccurate.

[inked]

Thank you, Sun-star!

Evellon, politics make strange bedfellows. That Hitler and Stalin had a pact to divide Europe between them did not dissaude the Third Reich from making the attempt. That the USSR and GB and the USA prevented that establishment by force of arms is an historical fact, as is the goal of Hitler. And his plans did not end at the seashores he thus planned to encounter. And yet Stalin would have done the same and did attempt it. The consequence was NATO. And it accomplished the same goal of prevention by threat of arms.

That the peaceful accomplishment of these goals was made 6 decades later a reality of co-operation is a fitting accolade to the sacrifices of those who fought to free Europe in WWII and the Cold War which followed. The comparison is apt, in excellent taste, and accurate.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

The comparison is apt, in excellent taste, and accurate.

i guess you can compare anything... say, a raven to a writing desk

but that one is of somewhat dubious quality

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i guess you can compare anything... say, a raven to a writing desk

but that one is of somewhat dubious quality

It's actually not that dubious if you consider what France and Germany have been trying to do - which is to centralize the power structure of the EU into their countries (wth Belgium as their lapdog puppy).

[Fenir_LacDanan]

[edited by moderator - content of post did not contribute to discussion but was merely inflamatory] - Fenir - take that as a warning

[jerseydevil]

Edited because Fenirs flame was edited out by moderator.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

[Post deleted as defying moderator decision]

Last edited by Sister Golden Hair