Increased Islamic Influence in European Nations

[inked]

Thucydides, guys! Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it. Not necessarily in precisely the same ways, mind you. Which is the glory of the current process as compared to a less than glorious past.

[The Gaffer]

I think there's an important difference between military conquest and a system of power sharing and harmonisation between sovereign states.

So what about Turkey joining the EU then? They've abolished the death penalty, tried to crack down on torture and similar Midnight Expressness, even recognised Cyprus (who told them to f-off!).

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I think there's an important difference between military conquest and a system of power sharing and harmonisation between sovereign states.

I think that would depend on whether the soveriegn states have equal rights as it is in the US - or if France and Germany will be able to control things. Both countries have been given leeway in things that other countries have not been allowed to do - namely when it comes to their deficit. Also - if France and Germany are able to wrest control of the EU - it's not exactly made up of power sharing and the harmonization of soverign states any longer.

Anyway - there is the EU thread and I think this discussion would be better off in that thread than this one.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I think that would depend on whether the soveriegn states have equal rights as it is in the US - or if France and Germany will be able to control things. Both countries have been given leeway in things that other countries have not been allowed to do - namely when it comes to their deficit. Also - if France and Germany are able to wrest control of the EU - it's not exactly made up of power sharing and the harmonization of soverign states any longer.

and quite different from a facist autocracy based upon the whims of one individual

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Thucydides, guys! Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it. Not necessarily in precisely the same ways, mind you. Which is the glory of the current process as compared to a less than glorious past.

actually, one could argue that we are bound to repeat it whether we know history or not... it's all in the interpretation

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and quite different from a facist autocracy based upon the whims of one individual

HOW SO and BY WHAT CRITERIA, brownjenkins? I should very much like to know.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

HOW SO and BY WHAT CRITERIA, brownjenkins? I should very much like to know.

there is a world of difference between an autocracy and a government ruled by even a small group of people

the EU is ruled by a pretty big group of people... sure, it's not a true "equal representation"... but show me any country/organization that is... the US certainly is not, and i doubt the UK is either

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by 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.

No. it Is of extremely poor taste and totally inaccurate.
Hitler did not wanted to unite Europe, he wanted to create a Germanic Empire, and that makes all the difference. It was not about Europe, it was not about Europeans, it was about Nazi Germany, period . It is a simple, clear deference, if you can’t see it, then maybe you just don’t want too.

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by inked

Thucydides, guys! Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it. Not necessarily in precisely the same ways, mind you. Which is the glory of the current process as compared to a less than glorious past.

Find a better quote. One that actually applies. The EU and Nazi Germany have only one thing in common; geography. If you need a place to look where this kind of mistakes may actually be repeated, look elsewhere; there are plenty of warmongering countries out there.

[Nurvingiel]

This is a general comment but I thought of it because of Inked's comparison.

I think there are too many comparisons to Hitler in general. Just because there's a policy you don't like, or because two or more countries made an economic alliance, or something else, does not necessarily mean the given scenario is comparable to Hitler and/or Nazi Germany.

Given the general flammable nature of this thread, maybe we should not compare the EU with Nazi Germany, however loosely.

In Germany, a clearcutting (which are defined as larger than 0.5ha) is banned, and white spruce, beech, pine, and oak are the four main tree species. Germany also has roughly 10.8 million hectares of forest land (IIRC). See? There's more to Germany than WWII.


Inked, I'm afraid I'm going to make the same historical mistake as Thucydides, because I have no idea who that is.


Erm... yes... sometimes I'm not sure what this thread is about. I can tell you about forestry in France too. There's more to them than the headscarf ban.

EDIT: Cross-post with Inked.

[inked]

Perhaps, Elvellon, we could have brownjenkins arbitrate this difference of valuation since his opinion is an acknowledged absolute, if undefined !

[inked]

Nurv, Nurv! Let us avoid all reference to trees as it makes the allergic very nervous (pardon the pun) what with allergens and pollens and all!

[Nurvingiel]

I feel your pain buddy, I have allergies too (though not to trees, happily).

However, you're right about my tree comments in this thread. Know why? Like Nazi Germany, they have nothing to do with the real subject of the thread.

Unless you want me to point out what I should hope was obvious...
Elvellon already mentioned that "Hitler did not wanted to unite Europe, he wanted to create a Germanic Empire, and that makes all the difference."

This is completely true. The EU is an economic alliance. It's not about crushing minority groups under a boot heel. No offence inked, but duuuh

[inked]

Nurv, I was talking about political entities - not whether they were chosen or not. Did the Assyrians ask permission of the Hittites? Who had the biggest economic structure? Does that make you feel better or allow clearer thinking?

[Artanis]

Originally Posted by Elvellon

Well, I apologise if I offended you, that wasn’t my intention, and I was only partly being serious - (hence the smiley)

Obrigada , and I am sorry that I misinterpreted your statement, at that time it did remind me too much of the all too common paternical attitude among 'us' against 'them'.

I have no time now to respond, other than that I do see your point about the cultural forces and their influence of our choices, but to me that is not an argument for the headscarf ban.

inked, even if you do think your comparison is valid, you should also see that it is offensive.

Turkey and EU, people?

[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.

[inked]

Of general interest perhaps!

Mohammed wouldn't have approved

Analysis

By Uwe Siemon-Netto
UPI Religious Affairs Editor

PARIS, Jan. 18 (UPI) -- The prophet Mohammed's admiration for the Christian monks of his time may have indirectly caused the quick release Tuesday of Mosul's Archbishop Georges Casmoussa by his radical Muslim abductors.

"According to (Islamic) tradition, Mohammed instructed the faithful not to harm monks," said Christine Schirrmacher, president of the Bonn-based Islamic Affairs Institute.

Casmoussa heads the Syrian Catholic Church in northern Iraq. Its bishops are monks, like those of all Eastern-rite denominations, many of whose parish priests are married.

Early in his ministry, Mohammed had a high regard for Christians, possibly due to the influence of one of his wives, Mary, Heidelberg University's renowned New Testament scholar, Klaus Berger, wrote in his latest volume, "Jesus."

Perhaps, Berger added, Mohammed had himself started out as a Christian.

Close to the beginning of the Koran, this esteem was expressed in Mohammed's advice to believers, "You will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those ... who say: We are Christians; there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly." (5:82).

Later in Islam's holy book, though, monks are accused of turning men "from Allah's way" (9:34).

Casmoussa's kidnapping occurred Monday at the most embarrassing moment for the world's Muslim community - just as 1.2 million faithful from all continents converged on Mecca to fulfill their most sacred obligation -- the Hajj, or pilgrimage, to their religion's holiest site.

"I guess 95 percent of all Muslims would consider the kidnapping of a senior Christian cleric a heinous crime," commented Schirrmacher, one of Europe's most prominent experts on Islam.

Asked whether this crime would be condemned from Mecca's pulpit during the Hajj, Schirrmacher was less certain: "The preachers might call for peaceful relations (with Christians), but it is not customary to condemn acts of other groups of Muslims on such an occasion."

The kidnapping had a curious side effect, however. It drew the world's attention to the continued existence on one of the most ancient Christian bodies, which came into being almost immediately after Christ's crucifixion.

The Syrian Catholics are a Vatican-related offshoot of the Church of Antioch, founded by some of Jesus' apostles in 34 A.D. Ten years later, Saints Peter and Paul both preached in Antioch, See of the Christian Church's original five patriarchates; the others were Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome.

While the present-day Syrian Catholics split from the Church of Antioch and entered communion with the Vatican in the 17th century, both denominations have retained the "Liturgy of Saint James," the world's oldest. It has traditionally been attributed to Jesus' brother James the Just, first bishop of Jerusalem.

Northern Iraq, Casmoussa's province, is one of the few regions of the world where this liturgy is still celebrated in Aramaic (Syriac), Christ's language.

There are only about 150,000 Syrian Catholics left. They are part of a family of Middle Eastern "uniate" churches (linked to Rome) that include Maronites, Melkites, Vatican-related Copts, Armenians and Chaldeans. The latter is the largest Christian body in today's Iraq.

On the other hand, the original Syrian-Orthodox Church of Antioch, which is independent from Rome but ritually closest to the Syrian Catholics, is faring quite well, especially in India, where most of its 3.5 million members live.

It maintains some of the world's oldest monasteries, including one in Mosul and another in Tur Abdin in Turkey; both date back to the 4th century. Another convent belonging to this venerable denomination is in Jerusalem and owns the spot said to have been the "upper room" where Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, or Eucharist.

While Bishop Casmoussa's Syrian Catholics retain a relatively stable, though small, membership, their Orthodox sister, the Syrian-Orthodox Church of Antioch, is making inroads in surprising quarters.

Like other Eastern Orthodox denominations, it is attracting converts from Protestant churches, including evangelical groups, especially in the United States.

Antioch mission churches, often led by former Episcopal priests or Lutheran pastors, are springing up in many parts the country.

When asked why they switched, these clerics cite not only the crisis of faith and morals plaguing their old denominations but also the authenticity of the church of Antioch that traces its lineage back to a time when Mohammed's appearance was still 600 years off - and the follies of the today's sex-obsessed denominations almost two millennia in the future.

END

****************


Paris and Bonn, how much more European can one get? If the countries of France and Germany really are contending for "more equal" among "equals" in the political sense, as has been alleged.

So, should Turkey have to stop the 2nd class treatment of Christians as an institutional and legal status before being admitted to the EU?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Perhaps, Elvellon, we could have brownjenkins arbitrate this difference of valuation since his opinion is an acknowledged absolute, if undefined !

actually... a good arbitrater knows that there are no absolutes... all is relative to one's perspective

that said, while anything can be compared, your comparison has vastly more differences than similarities... so i'd have to say it is not particularly accurate or useful

5 points to Elvellon

2 points to inked for his impressively dogged persistence to validate an absurd comparision

[Nurvingiel]

Maybe that would be a condition of entrance. I don't imagine that changing social, political and legal norms can happen overnight. I have to admit I don't know very much about Turkey though.

IIRC the EU is an economic alliance. There have been other organizations which offer economic incentives in exchange for countries improving human rights, environmental policies, etc.
EDIT: Such as the World Bank.

Do you think the EU might become one such organization?

I was going to bump the European Union thread, but it seems to not exist. (Searching all open forums for "European Union" turned up nothing.)

Also, there is a thread on Muslims so is this thread not redundant anyway?

The subject is quite specific, no wonder we keep straying from it.

[The Gaffer]

Membership of the EU is contingent upon the applicant state adopting the principles of the EU, which include human rights and equal opportunities as well as economic harmonisation, the removal of tariffs etc and freedom of movement.

I don't know to what extent Christians are "second-class citizens" in Turkey. It's a nominally secular state, but if there is widespread oppression then I would say that would preclude their membership.

As ever with the EU, principle is likely to take third place behind economic and political imperatives.

Given its comparative poverty, I'd say that almost all existing EU states would be against Turkey's membership, especially the new members. On the plus side, if we're talking about an entry date of 2010, we should have paid off the costs of German reunification by then and may be in a better place to afford it.

But it's increasingly getting like the Eurovision Song Contest: Israel next??