Maura Durante amd AlQuida

grubber

bonkey wrote:

And if you've travelled extensively in the middle east, you should presumably also be aware of the relative prevalence of "ex-pat" communities, where English, Irish, Americans etc. live in little Western enclaves to that they can maintain their own way of life whilst living amongst Muslims. Y'know...not doing what the Romans do.

I cannot believe you don't see the difference. In the case of a group of ex-pats who might for example risk breaking strict laws on alcohol by setting up their own private brewing facility for their own use. These "western ways" are most definitely not foisted on the local people.
On the other hand you argue it is reasonable that we should allow intolerant cultures from backward countries to alter our centuries old social etiquette such as offering the hand of friendship in caser it might cause offence.

bonkey wrote:

I'm petty certain that without much effort I can give you a number of situations where not only are they not equal, but where you will in all probability agree that it is simply impractical to ignore gender.

Women priests would be an ideal starting place. When's the last time you've seen one of those in the dominant, non-discriminatory church in Ireland?

Whereas when they live in a nation such as Ireland, which grants them not just equality but freedom of religion, you have an issue that they choose one over the other? Bit like those Catholics and their female priests.

Put succinctly, your problem appears to be that we grant them freedom and you don't like what they're doing with it.

Interesting that the example of Ireland's gender discrimination you should choose is from the Catholic Church. Again I think the difference is considerable. The issue of women priests forms part of the belief system, derived from and influenced by scripture and history. As I see it you are saying that the belief system of the predominant population can now be vilified in our rush to adapt to blow-in cultures of which we know nothing. Nor do we know what else we might end up having to change so as not to "offend" them.

therecklessone

grubber wrote:

intolerant cultures from backward countries

<snip>

blow-in cultures of which we know nothing.

Speaking of intolerance...:rolleyes:

Where do you draw the line grubber? Where do you stop expecting other cultures to abandon deeply held religious beliefs to fit in with your idea of whats acceptable?

GuanYin

grubber wrote:

I cannot believe you don't see the difference. In the case of a group of ex-pats who might for example risk breaking strict laws on alcohol by setting up their own private brewing facility for their own use. These "western ways" are most definitely not foisted on the local people.
On the other hand you argue it is reasonable that we should allow intolerant cultures from backward countries to alter our centuries old social etiquette such as offering the hand of friendship in caser it might cause offence.

So it doesn't matter that they're breaking the law?
To my mind thats worse than not observing local customs.
Of course, you sort of set the stall out on what you
Really think when you say "Intolerant cultures".
Much worse they're from "backward countries".
For goodness sake!
Really, did you not consider that their beliefs are as old or
Older than ours?
Not only do you seem to think our social norms have precident over
Their laws, but also that our social etiquette preceeds their customs?
!

grubber wrote:

Interesting that the example of Ireland's gender discrimination you should choose is from the Catholic Church. Again I think the difference is considerable. The issue of women priests forms part of the belief system, derived from and influenced by scripture and history. As I see it you are saying that the belief system of the predominant population can now be vilified in our rush to adapt to blow-in cultures of which we know nothing. Nor do we know what else we might end up having to change so as not to "offend" them.

Much like they allow our ex-pat communities to break their strict alcohol laws? Double standards much? At the end of the day, their belief system may, in our culture, be belittling to women. But then the main Irish religion is just as bad (unless you have some acceptable scales for which its ok to belittle women, I'd be of the "all or nothing" camp myself).

Its a different culture, they exist, get over it. If you invite a guest over you can't expect them to overlook their life belief system for you.

If you were a naturist, would you expect everyone visiting your home to strip off?

dathi1

Whereas when they live in a nation such as Ireland, which grants them not just equality but freedom of religion, you have an issue that they choose one over the other? Bit like those Catholics and their female priests.

I have an issue of treating women as somehow inferior of receiving the same gesture of friendship to that of a man. The logic you express above about female priests doesn't add up. 1400 years of repression by one middle eastern religion means we bring in more people like Choudry + co to show how equal and free we all are. As a matter of fact all the posts above referring to Christian repression and genocide doesn't excuse more imported repression because its "Gods will".

ps great prog on BBC2 last night by Jonathan Miller on the same subject.

Wibbs

Right on the money dathi1. Just because we were idiots for so long when it came to the church and some of its dodgy ways, doesn't mean we can't criticise dodgy ways in the faiths of others(not just Islam BTW, there are some well dodgy practices among other faiths too). Put it this way, how tolerant of intolerance do we have to be to get the balance right? Actually that's a genuine question.

therecklessone

dathi1 wrote:

I have an issue of treating women as somehow inferior of receiving the same gesture of friendship to that of a man.

Yet that's got little to do with the issue of the ban on contact between unrelated men and women in Islam.

This is not an equality issue. Men can "touch" unrelated men. Women can "touch" unrelated women. Men cannot "touch" unrelated women, nor can women "touch" unrelated men. The issue is a question of modesty, not equality. I tend to disagree with what passes for the protection of modesty in Islam, but I value religious freedom over social etiquette.

Want to follow through on your argument for equality? Argue for the abolition of single-sex public toilets. Why should we protect the modesty of women and men by affording them the right to p*ss in the company of their own sex? How about changing facilites in gyms and sports facilites? Why not argue for unisex changing rooms?

bonkey

grubber wrote:

intolerant cultures from backward countries

I was halfway through writing a reply when this statement hit me and I realised...

Discussing the point with someone starting from this position is a waste of my time.

So I won't bother.

dathi1 wrote:

I have an issue of treating women as somehow inferior of receiving the same gesture of friendship to that of a man.

In a lot of mainland Europe, the two genders are often greeted differently as well. In Ireland (at least amongst the people I know), its still considered good behaviour to hold open a door for a woman. Hell, we don't even bother to distinguish between married and unmarried men in terms of how we greet them, but its still considered good etiquette to address women as miss/mrs/ms.

Its your choice to interpret difference as inferiority, but its interesting that you see that you don't seem to be applying this reasoning to all gender-differentiated treatments...especially those a bit closer to home.

The logic you express above about female priests doesn't add up.

You said we have equality, yes?

So either we have female priests, we don't have equality, or - as I suggested - you are accepting of the inequalities that are so ingrained into our cultural background that we don't notice them, whilst intolerant of inequalities that you see amongst others.

Thats the logic, and it does hold unless you can show me a third option.

And please...don't make the mistake of assuming I picked the only issue where there is inequality. There's no shortage of them. Did you know that the law doesn't recognise male rape, for example? Would you prefer if we used that as an indication of inequality?

Wibbs wrote:

Put it this way, how tolerant of intolerance do we have to be to get the balance right?

Intolerance? Where, exactly, is the intolerance in refusing to commit an act which your religious beliefs tell you is a serious no-no? I can't see it at all.

Conversely, I can easily see the intolerance in suggesting that someone should just abandon their beliefs if and when they jar with local custom, which is what you and dathi1 are apparently supporting.

So how much of your intolerance should I tolerate? All of it, until such points as you break the law because of the exercising of such intolerance. Similarly, how much of what you see as their intolerance should you tolerate? All of it, until such points as their intolerance results in the breaking of a law.

What next? We'll start being offended that certain religions won't eat our Pork (won't someone think of the farmers!)? Or maybe we'll be complaining about the unreasonableness of Hindu's insisting that when MxDonalds sell fries suitable for vegetarians that they have not used beef fat in their cooking oil?

After all, we eat pork, and beef, so they should just shut up and chow down, right?

jc

HelterSkelter

therecklessone wrote:

Yet that's got little to do with the issue of the ban on contact between unrelated men and women in Islam.

This is not an equality issue. Men can "touch" unrelated men. Women can "touch" unrelated women. Men cannot "touch" unrelated women, nor can women "touch" unrelated men. The issue is a question of modesty, not equality. I tend to disagree with what passes for the protection of modesty in Islam, but I value religious freedom over social etiquette.

At last, someone who knows what they are talking about. Most of the posters in this thread don't seem to know anything about Islam.

grubber

HelterSkelter wrote:

At last, someone who knows what they are talking about. Most of the posters in this thread don't seem to know anything about Islam.

Well HelterSkelter,
Perhaps yourself and therecklessone should get together and form a welcoming committee for our Islamic guests. All that is required is a fawning personality combined with a healthy contempt for your own culture. A suitable mantra to chant as you wait at the Airport would be "If you're foreign you MUST be better than us". Oh and don't forget to give them a warm handshake, except the women that is. Their husbands might worry that you have impure thoughts.

As regards posters not knowing anything about Islam. How much do we need to know, in your opinion, before daring to form an opinion? Do we need to demonstrate a knowledge of the 1400 years of Islamic history? Or maybe just little facts like the Prophet's wife being 8 years old? Should we be familiar with Sharia Law which in some countries carries a penaly of death by stoning for women who commit "adultery"? or maybe just 100 lashes if a young woman has sex with her fiance?
Well sorry but it is sufficient for me to keep my eyes and ears open to draw my own conclusions

I quote from Dath1
"She was surprised that former Al Mahajorun spokesperson due to give an AlQuida gig at the philosophical society in TCD would not shake her hand because he was a Muslim."

"Pity she doesn't visit some of the outer suburburbs not too far from the TV3 studios where Algerian "asylum seekers" seeking asylum because their their version of Islam is too extreme for Algeria.
I leant a lawn mower to one a couple of months ago and he was abhorred when I offered the hand of friendship to his wife."

HelterSkelter

grubber wrote:

Well HelterSkelter,
Perhaps yourself and therecklessone should get together and form a welcoming committee for our Islamic guests. All that is required is a fawning personality combined with a healthy contempt for your own culture. A suitable mantra to chant as you wait at the Airport would be "If you're foreign you MUST be better than us". Oh and don't forget to give them a warm handshake, except the women that is. Their husbands might worry that you have impure thoughts.

I said nothing of the sort, I am Irish and proud of it. I can however respect other people's religious beliefs. If someone's religion tells them that it is forbidden to touch a member of the opposite sex whom they are not related to or not married to then fair enough. I don't see any problem with that and I can't understand why Irish people would have a problem with that. The thing that bugs me here is people are trying to make out that it is some kind of equality issue when it has nothing to do with that at all.

therecklessone's point about having unisex toilets and changing rooms is a very good one. To some strict muslims, expecting them to touch a member of the opposite sex they are not related to would be the same as expecting us to have unisex changing rooms.

Wibbs

bonkey wrote:

Conversely, I can easily see the intolerance in suggesting that someone should just abandon their beliefs if and when they jar with local custom, which is what you and dathi1 are apparently supporting.

While I can't speak for dathi1, that's not my angle at all.

So how much of your intolerance should I tolerate? All of it, until such points as you break the law because of the exercising of such intolerance. Similarly, how much of what you see as their intolerance should you tolerate? All of it, until such points as their intolerance results in the breaking of a law.

Agreed, but there can be a large gap between everyday behaviour and the law. Many things are downright ignorant on both sides that won't get near any law being broken. Simple manners on both sides wouldn't go amiss. If someone explains to somebody why such a handshake is considered odd or against their faith, fair enough. Most don't know the reason. I've met a few Muslim women and I didn't offer to shake their hand out of respect for their customs.

Respect goes both ways and is fostered by knowledge on both sides. Actually that may be the problem in Ireland at least. Muslims and non Muslims are less likely to socialise together because we socialise in different ways. The drinking culture here wouldn't exactly be welcoming for most Muslims(fair enough as well. When I didn't drink it was a pain for me too). Most of the Muslims I've known(and know) were more family/home oriented. I had this very discussion with a Yemeni bloke I know and he reckoned more involvement on both sides with each other would help. The more we can socialise/meet outside work the better the future will be for both of us.

fly_agaric

bonkey wrote:

You don't? So what's your theory about how the Japenese have adopted hand-shaking? They thought it was a neato idea they saw on the TV, and decided to dump their own cultures?

Eh...that may not be too far from the truth given the worldwide dominance of the products of the US entertainment industry, (especially if it is a trend among the yoof) like, ya know certain habits and customs which have become very common in Ireland over the past while. As an example - assuming you are a certain age, how does the celebration of Holloween compare to when you were a child? Maybe you said "Help the Holloween party"? - now the kiddies have ditched that age-old custom and they say "Trick or Treat" because the gogglebox told them to. Also the massive business relationship between Japan and the US could have had something to do with it - which I admit would have been a result of the Japanese fitting in with the ways of the other rather than the opposite occuring. What's your pet theory - that they were goaded into handshaking by loutish and ignorant Westerners in Japan ignoring the local culture?

bonkey wrote:

And if you've travelled extensively in the middle east, you should presumably also be aware of the relative prevalence of "ex-pat" communities, where English, Irish, Americans etc. live in little Western enclaves to that they can maintain their own way of life whilst living amongst Muslims. Y'know...not doing what the Romans do.

The main reason they are holed up in compounds in countries like Saudi is because the governments didn't want Westerners/foriegners polluting their culture so they set up nice comfy compounds for them to live in where they could indulge their vices (vices within the law, such a wimmin parading around half nekkid) if they wanted. Everyone was happy with that I suppose. If one side is stonewalling out of fear and loathing you aren't going to get much of an exchange of cultures going on. In latter days of course, many of the locals are somewhat angry with the West and the ex-pats that leave to socialise or interact with the locals may be taking their lives into their hands...but again, if you'd rather blame those ignorant Westerners..

As for the rest of your most excellent post - I know - lets do a little experiment. Ask one of your female relatives to go on a few years sabbatical in Pakistan - she can tell us about how its our choice to interpret difference (between the genders) as inferiority!

Hobbes wrote:

Then they better take a ticket then because a lot of religons are based on the fact your going to hell unless you join them.

I just hope I can win the lottery and choose the right one.

Zombrex

grubber wrote:

Nor do we know what else we might end up having to change so as not to "offend" them.

Its seems to me you are expecting them to change so they don't offend us

Its funny that if this man actually didn't like Durante no one would bat an eyelid that he didn't shake her hand. In fact shaking someones hand is often seen as offensive and hypocritical if you aren't supposed to like someone

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4425385.stm

But if you simply refuse on the grounds of personal beliefs, without stating a preference one way or the other towards the person, then people are up in arms. Funny old world.

grubber

Wicknight wrote:

Its seems to me you are expecting them to change so they don't offend us

So you are confirming that we are the ones who have to change our ways. Well that's consistent with other host countries which have been given the "benefit" of large scale muslim immigration.

Wicknight wrote:

Its funny that if this man actually didn't like Durante no one would bat an eyelid that he didn't shake her hand. In fact shaking someones hand is often seen as offensive and hypocritical if you aren't supposed to like someone

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4425385.stm

But if you simply refuse on the grounds of personal beliefs, without stating a preference one way or the other towards the person, then people are up in arms. Funny old world.

Your link to the Mugabe handshake doesn't strengthen your argument. How can you compare a handshake offered by a female reporter to one from President Mugabe? I'll give you a clue, Mugabe was fully aware of the embarrassment this would have caused, whether accepted or declined.

HelterSkelter

Grubber, let's make this very simple. This guy is of the belief that it is a sin for him to shake the hand of a female he is not related to. Do you expect him to go ahead and go against his religion in order to be politicially correct?

bonkey

fly_agaric wrote:

What's your pet theory - that they were goaded into handshaking by loutish and ignorant Westerners in Japan ignoring the local culture?

No. My theory is that they have accepted the fact that Westerners shake hands, and that this is the appropriate way to greet Westerners. The Japanese put a massive store behind politeness, so its unsurprising that they see it as the right thing to do - to accomodate the customs of the other person. (Aside: So do the Swiss, to a lesser degree. Over here, its considered polite to speak the language of the other person...which often leads to the humourous situation where I greet someone in German and they reply to me in English.)

Thats a lesson many could learn: Acceptance that other people have different customs, and that there's nothing to be gained (except a reputation for - as you so eloquently put it - being loutish and ignorant) on insisting that our customs have some form of primacy.

If you want to talk about which customs should "reign" when immigrants move in, then my answer is that none should. Second- and third- generation immigrants will find the balance over time.

The main reason they are holed up in compounds in countries like Saudi is because the governments didn't want Westerners/foriegners polluting their culture so they set up nice comfy compounds for them to live in where they could indulge their vices (vices within the law, such a wimmin parading around half nekkid) if they wanted. Everyone was happy with that I suppose.

Yup. Everyone was happy. The ex-pats were happy to be allowed to maintain their Western way of life, rather than be expected to / forced to adhere to local customs which they would have found incompatible with their existing way of life.

So how come that when we reverse the positions, its all of a sudden unacceptable for foreigners to form these little foreign-culture-preserving communities, and its practically unthinkable that we should suggest that they be allowed to continue to preserve their way of life, by their own choice, in these little communities, equally within the law.

Indeed, I believe you'll find that in some ME countries, the ex-pats have had exceptions made for them - that although X, Y and Z is illegal elsewhere, it is legalised within their little compounds.

So we bring our ways to their lands, get exemption from laws so we can live our lives our way in their countries, speak our language, and do everything possible to be in a "litte West".

When they bring their ways to our lands....they should give everything up, and live like us, and abandon any part of their culture which causes us discomfort. As for making exceptions to our laws to accomodate these people....thats unreasonable.

Why is it ok for us to expect provisions to be made so we don't have to sacrifice our way of life in order to fit with the indigenous cultures & laws, but when its foreigners in our country, such accomodation is portrayed as anathema (and often as little short of some sort of a betrayal of who we are).

Now, while I'm not saying that individuals are so hypocritical, the simple truth is that at a collective level, this is exactly the hypocracy that we can see at work. When we go there, they should make allowances for us. When they come here, they should make allowances for us.

As for the rest of your most excellent post - I know - lets do a little experiment. Ask one of your female relatives to go on a few years sabbatical in Pakistan - she can tell us about how its our choice to interpret difference (between the genders) as inferiority!

When you have to resort to redefining the argument from the strictures placed by a religion to the laws implemented in a country which is based upon those strictures....you've already implicitly conceded the point I was making.

If you can't show me this inferiority with Muslims somewhere like Ireland, but can point to it somewhere like Pakistan, then its clearly not the religion which you're using as the distinguishing feature.....which then begs the question as to how the religion can be to blame.

If I were to say that abortion is legal in the UK, so clearly all Christian nations allow abortion, and thus its the Christian religion which permits abortion, and/or that anyone from the UK must be a supporter of abortion....well....do I really need to point out how hopelessly flawed the logic would be?

jc



jc

grubber

HelterSkelter wrote:

Grubber, let's make this very simple. This guy is of the belief that it is a sin for him to shake the hand of a female he is not related to. Do you expect him to go ahead and go against his religion in order to be politicially correct?

Helterskelter,
I couldn't give a monkey's about the dilemma facing him. I'm amazed that you and some others on this Board are so concerned about his feelings.

bonkey

grubber wrote:

amazed that you and some others on this Board are so concerned about his feelings.

Yeah...insisting that all people be treated equally is a real pain.

Only caring about some is much easier....

...as long as you make sure you're in the some that is cared for.

dathi1

When they bring their ways to our lands....they should give everything up, and live like us, and abandon any part of their culture which causes us discomfort. As for making exceptions to our laws to accomodate these people....thats unreasonable.

No like the male rape quote we're clutching at straws here. I would imagine most people here would like normal relations between immigrants and natives alike. The first step is too adhere to the normal channels of communication between humans. Most Muslims living here: Turks, some Malaysians and others would I presume accept this. There are however an increasing number of Muslim immigrants from Algeria and northern Nigeria who bring the sharia law mentality with them to Ireland. This is unacceptable. I think everybody will remember a few weeks ago during a "Multicultural" promotional soccer gig in the phoenix park the Muslim team pulled out because of Girls playing in some of the opposite teams. We can go off on tangents and pull all types of inequalities from all countries including our own but this by-product of uncontrolled immigration over the past few years just exacerbates divisions. Tolerance goes both ways. I post here specifically to see how far posters will go to excuse any form of non national intolerance towards natives for the sake of this Multicultural myth. I'm never disappointed.

grubber

bonkey wrote:

Yup. Everyone was happy. The ex-pats were happy to be allowed to maintain their Western way of life, rather than be expected to / forced to adhere to local customs which they would have found incompatible with their existing way of life.

So how come that when we reverse the positions, its all of a sudden unacceptable for foreigners to form these little foreign-culture-preserving communities, and its practically unthinkable that we should suggest that they be allowed to continue to preserve their way of life, by their own choice, in these little communities, equally within the law.

Indeed, I believe you'll find that in some ME countries, the ex-pats have had exceptions made for them - that although X, Y and Z is illegal elsewhere, it is legalised within their little compounds.

So we bring our ways to their lands, get exemption from laws so we can live our lives our way in their countries, speak our language, and do everything possible to be in a "litte West".

When they bring their ways to our lands....they should give everything up, and live like us, and abandon any part of their culture which causes us discomfort. As for making exceptions to our laws to accomodate these people....thats unreasonable.

Why is it ok for us to expect provisions to be made so we don't have to sacrifice our way of life in order to fit with the indigenous cultures & laws, but when its foreigners in our country, such accomodation is portrayed as anathema (and often as little short of some sort of a betrayal of who we are).


jc

Bonkey,
Is this an example of what you mean of what life is like in a "little west" enclave?
There have always been restrictions for foreigners. Saudi Arabia's conservative interpretation of Islam bans women from driving and jails people found with Bibles, alcohol or pork. Shops close five times a day for prayers. The kingdom does not have a single cinema.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/28/wbush128.xml - 30k -

grubber

Zombrex

grubber wrote:

So you are confirming that we are the ones who have to change our ways. Well that's consistent with other host countries which have been given the "benefit" of large scale muslim immigration.

No one is asking any Irish person to change our ways. I am saying you shouldn't take it as offensive if the rest of the world choose not to participate in our particular form of social interaction. Think about that the next time a big fat Russian man with food spilling out of his mouth introduces himself to you and tries to kiss you on the lips (yes this happened to me ... shudder).

grubber wrote:

How can you compare a handshake offered by a female reporter to one from President Mugabe?

I am not, in fact I am saying it is the exact opposite.

If this man was actually offended by Durante personally it (ironically) wouldn't be seen as at all culturally strange to not shake her hand. As I said, no one would have batted an eyelid. People have been not shaking hands with other people they have just met for thousands of years. Look at what a big deal it was when Clinton eventually did shake Adams' hand in the 90s.

It is only stange to you because he doesn't have a problem with her personally, it is just his religious beliefs. This fuss is being created precisely because this man has no personal objects to Ms. Durante. But in our culture you have to have a really good reason not to shake someones hand, and aparently we don't view personal religious belief as a really good reason, which is all very silly in my mind.

If we are offended by this we are the ones with the problem, not the Muslim guy who is just doing what he believes is right.

bonkey

dathi1 wrote:

No like the male rape quote we're clutching at straws here.

I would imagine most people here would like normal relations between immigrants and natives alike.

IO'd even drop the "here" from that sentence, as I believe most immigrants will want such normal relations as well.

The first step is too adhere to the normal channels of communication between humans.

I would have said that the first step is to understand what "normal channels of communication" means, and whether or not it includes respecting the differences between various peoples in this regard.

It seems to me that you've unilaterally decided that only what is our way is a "normal channel", and that you're presenting this argument as a rewording of "they should act like us".

Most Muslims living here: Turks, some Malaysians and others would I presume accept this.

You stuill haven't established what the "this" is.

Is it hand-shaking? Kissing women on the cheek(s) while shaking hands with men? A friendly nod, perhaps? Bowing?

There are however an increasing number of Muslim immigrants from Algeria and northern Nigeria who bring the sharia law mentality with them to Ireland. This is unacceptable.

Are we changing subject here, or are you broadly equating the hand-shaking "issue" with Sharia law?

but this by-product of uncontrolled immigration over the past few years just exacerbates divisions. Tolerance goes both ways.

Exactly.

What tolerance are you showing by suggesting that a cultural difference in how greetings are offered is just plain wrong?

I post here specifically to see how far posters will go to excuse any form of non national intolerance towards natives for the sake of this Multicultural myth.

And here was me thinking you did it to provide a textbook counterpart of intolerance towards non-nationals by natives.

My mistake.

jc

Zombrex

dathi1 wrote:

The first step is too adhere to the normal channels of communication between humans.

You seem to be defining "humans" as western europeans and "normal channels of communication" as our methods of communication. That hardly seems like a good starting point for intergrating other cultures.

There is a (big) difference between intergration and simply making everyone else act and behave like us.

fly_agaric

bonkey wrote:

No. My theory is that they have accepted the fact that Westerners shake hands, and that this is the appropriate way to greet Westerners. The Japanese put a massive store behind politeness, so its unsurprising that they see it as the right thing to do - to accomodate the customs of the other person. (Aside: So do the Swiss, to a lesser degree. Over here, its considered polite to speak the language of the other person...which often leads to the humourous situation where I greet someone in German and they reply to me in English.)

I agree. I was thinking of the Japanese politeness being a factor also - but I do think US TV, films, music etc is a big driver for the creeping Westernisation of the whole world.

bonkey wrote:

So how come that when we reverse the positions, its all of a sudden unacceptable for foreigners to form these little foreign-culture-preserving communities, and its practically unthinkable that we should suggest that they be allowed to continue to preserve their way of life, by their own choice, in these little communities, equally within the law.

I don't think I said it was a good thing at any point. If people (any kind of people) move to a new country they obey the laws, and they should make an effort to learn the language and history of their new country, experience and try to understand its culture. All of which doesn't mean that the immigrants have to abandon their own customs completely.

bonkey wrote:

Thats a lesson many could learn: Acceptance that other people have different customs, and that there's nothing to be gained (except a reputation for - as you so eloquently put it - being loutish and ignorant) on insisting that our customs have some form of primacy.

If you want to talk about which customs should "reign" when immigrants move in, then my answer is that none should. Second- and third- generation immigrants will find the balance over time.

I agree with you on acceptance - but it cuts both ways. In my opinion, there is a culture that generally takes primacy in these situations and that is the main culture of the state you find yourself living in.
The starting point for this discussion was a pretty trivial matter about a conflict between our custom of shaking a new aquaintances hand and the strictures of Islam. It doesn't really matter whether he decides to follow his religion in this instance. I personally am not bothered. It's a token that I think people here are (me maybe:) ) taking as representative of a bigger issue. It matters when the conflict between the two cultures is over more fundamental issues, for example issues which may involve the basic laws of the new country being in opposition to religious or cultural practices of the immigrant. I'm not talking about things like illegal hooch for parties in a compound or smuggled xmas trees here (see below).

bonkey wrote:

Yup. Everyone was happy. The ex-pats were happy to be allowed to maintain their Western way of life, rather than be expected to / forced to adhere to local customs which they would have found incompatible with their existing way of life.

My point was that the locals (or their dictators/monarchs anyway) didn't want the Westerners mixing in. The policy of these states was to create the compounds - which I admitted, probably suited alot of the Westerners going to live there. Probably it encouraged people to go who would never have done so if they had had to make the effort to adapt to living in an alien culture. IMO, the English ghettos on the coast of Spain provide a better example of an immigrant population deliberately insistng on hanging onto all their own customs, their language, keeping themselves to themselves.

bonkey wrote:

Indeed, I believe you'll find that in some ME countries, the ex-pats have had exceptions made for them - that although X, Y and Z is illegal elsewhere, it is legalised within their little compounds.

I don't know much about these compounds. I had heard people break the rules and try to get drink, Christmas trees, illicit books etc smuggled in. I didn't know exceptions were made apart from in the area of clothing, playing Western music and films, that kind of stuff. The fact that you need such exceptions for this only goes to show the intolerant atmosphere of the host country and its defensiveness about its own culture.

bonkey wrote:

When you have to resort to redefining the argument from the strictures placed by a religion to the laws implemented in a country which is based upon those strictures....you've already implicitly conceded the point I was making.

If you can't show me this inferiority with Muslims somewhere like Ireland, but can point to it somewhere like Pakistan, then its clearly not the religion which you're using as the distinguishing feature.....which then begs the question as to how the religion can be to blame.

You make my head spin. You really do.
It's an easy thing to show you this "inferiority" (maybe you'd prefer "superiority":) , ) in the muslim enclaves of Western countries which have had masssive immigration from the poorest parts of countries like Pakistan for years before we got enough dosh and jobs to make Ireland an attractive country to emigrate to.
I hope you aren't going to ask me to go through the bother of hunting for links to stories about muslim "elders" (all men:D ) in the West asking for Shariah law, honour killings, forced marriages, etc. We haven't had enough immigration from muslim countries yet for it to happen here but give it 5 years or so and it will. It is inevitable.

bonkey wrote:

If I were to say that abortion is legal in the UK, so clearly all Christian nations allow abortion, and thus its the Christian religion which permits abortion, and/or that anyone from the UK must be a supporter of abortion....well....do I really need to point out how hopelessly flawed the logic would be?

holds head to make the spinning stop...
No - but it's not my logic now, is it? It's just a caricature of it. You already said the laws in places like Pakistan derive partly from their religious strictures - I don't think there are any Christian commandments/religious laws etc promoting abortion-on-demand.

grubber

fly_agaric wrote:

I hope you aren't going to ask me to go through the bother of hunting for links to stories about muslim "elders" (all men:D ) in the West asking for Shariah law, honour killings, forced marriages, etc. We haven't had enough immigration from muslim countries yet for it to happen here but give it 5 years or so and it will. It is inevitable.

Yes FG
INEVITABLE. As certain as night follows day. All the indicators are out there. In fact it will happen more quickly in Ireland as soon as word gets around Islamabad and Lahore that the Irish are sooooo welcoming and understanding!

Wibbs

bonkey wrote:

If you want to talk about which customs should "reign" when immigrants move in, then my answer is that none should. Second- and third- generation immigrants will find the balance over time.

Maybe in the Kingdom of Happyland, or some place where both sides come to a mutual understanding, but a cursory browse through both current affairs and history in general makes for more disquieting reading. Anywhere two cultures with radically different views come together, one of them has got to give. In fact, generally it's the second and third generations who find the balance the hardest to strike.

Yup. Everyone was happy. The ex-pats were happy to be allowed to maintain their Western way of life, rather than be expected to / forced to adhere to local customs which they would have found incompatible with their existing way of life...../.....So how come that when we reverse the positions, its all of a sudden unacceptable for foreigners to form these little foreign-culture-preserving communities, and its practically unthinkable that we should suggest that they be allowed to continue to preserve their way of life, by their own choice, in these little communities, equally within the law.../..Indeed, I believe you'll find that in some ME countries, the ex-pats have had exceptions made for them - that although X, Y and Z is illegal elsewhere, it is legalised within their little compounds.

So you would be happy with government/religiously sanctioned Muslim enclaves where people were free to live under Sharia law(for example), but outside they had to hide, by law, practically all outward appearance and expression of their culture? You're on a road to nowhere in taking Saudi Arabia et al as examples. They make "allowances" for us specifically for the preservation of their culture and to exclude those things they feel may threaten it. Maybe we should insist on handshakes for all outside defined "cultural zones".

If you can't show me this inferiority with Muslims somewhere like Ireland, but can point to it somewhere like Pakistan, then its clearly not the religion which you're using as the distinguishing feature.....which then begs the question as to how the religion can be to blame.

If I were to say that abortion is legal in the UK, so clearly all Christian nations allow abortion, and thus its the Christian religion which permits abortion, and/or that anyone from the UK must be a supporter of abortion....well....do I really need to point out how hopelessly flawed the logic would be?

jc

Logic? Anyone who tries to compare Christianity(or any other religion) to Islam in this is woefully misinformed on the religion.

Separation of church and state in Christianity, while long in coming in many places actually has a theological basis(render all that is Caesars to Caesar, etc). Evolution in the political system is possible. As fly_agaric correctly points out, Sharia law is entirely bound up with Islam as a religion and adherance to such laws is encumbent on all Muslims. There exists no gap between church and state. To consider seperating the two in Islam would be unthinkable and practically unworkable in many Muslim eyes.

Pakistan is a good example. It was formed as a secular state, but is now, in all practical ways under Sharia law. It's not the only example. While the trend in the non Muslim world has been towards increasing secularisation, Muslim nations have increased the links between church and state. Where Muslim nations have tried to secularise, the religious right in such places are loud in their protests(Turkey would be a good example, as would Jordan).

HelterSkelter

Wibbs wrote:

Maybe in the Kingdom of Happyland, or some place where both sides come to a mutual understanding, but a cursory browse through both current affairs and history in general makes for more disquieting reading. Anywhere two cultures with radically different views come together, one of them has got to give. In fact, generally it's the second and third generations who find the balance the hardest to strike.

Not from my experience. I know several second generation Muslims in the UK. They are a completely different kettle of fish from their parents. They have no problems shaking hands, the girls will hug & kiss you when you meet just like (some) Irish girls do, they go to pubs & nightclubs (but don't drink alcohol). In fact they do most of the things we do.

Wibbs

True enough HelterSkelter, I've seen and known similar myself. The problem seems to be a polarisation in the Muslim world(esp. among those in western nations), between the secular and the religious Muslim view. As I've said the problem with Islam in that respect is that there exists very little leeway from a religious POV to accomodate the secular. In the eyes of the religious/good muslim, such activities as you've described would hardly be condoned or tolerated at all. While in Christianity/Buddhism/etc such things may be considered dodgy, the penalties would be more ephemeral(hellfire/non enlightenment) than the more practical stance of Islam. Practicality and rules for all aspects of life have served Islam well in the past(very well if you compare Islam with Christianity in the middle ages), but the future and the accomodation of differing viewpoints to itself may will be the test.

bonkey

fly_agaric wrote:

but I do think US TV, films, music etc is a big driver for the creeping Westernisation of the whole world

So I take it that grubber and your good self will be amongst those I can expect to see lining up to decry the US eroding our Irish culture which i sbeing caused by it forcing its culture on us?

It matters when the conflict between the two cultures is over more fundamental issues, for example issues which may involve the basic laws of the new country being in opposition to religious or cultural practices of the immigrant.

Exactly. Thats when it most definitely should matter. But time and time again we see people getting up on their high horses about trivial matters like hand-shaking. And then some get all indgnant (because this is "our" country, dammit) when claims are levelled that integrationa and acceptance should be a two-way street. And when the serious issues do arise....well....its the boy who cried wolf all over again, isn't it?

I'm not talking about things like illegal hooch for parties in a compound or smuggled xmas trees here (see below)

No, you're not. You're talking about the far, far more serious and threatening issue of how people greet each other. Or have we abandoned that topic in favour of a general Islam-bash? If we have, its past time for me to bow out.

IMO, the English ghettos on the coast of Spain provide a better example of an immigrant population deliberately insistng on hanging onto all their own customs, their language, keeping themselves to themselves.

I think they're a fabulous example. They stick to themselves, and the Spanish generally leave them alone, and everyone generally gets on fine. Spain hasn't turned into England, and the world as we know it hasn't ended.

I didn't know exceptions were made apart from ...

So you accept that exceptions are made. Doesn't matter what they are. Its a case where Westerners are being told "sure...we're willing to cede this flexibility to you" rather than being told "live according to our rules, as you make us do in your country".

The fact that you need such exceptions for this only goes to show the intolerant atmosphere of the host country and its defensiveness about its own culture.

You don't need such exceptions at all if the incoming visitors aren't intolerant enough of the incumbent culture to be willing to live under its strictures.

As for defensiveness about culture....this whole thread has been sparked by people wanting to "protect" our culture from some sort of dilution or change by these danged foreigners who won't adapt our ways. What does that say about us, if we have people outraged that these immigrants can refuse to shake hands and nothing is done about it?

It's an easy thing to show you this "inferiority" (maybe you'd prefer "superiority":) , ) in the muslim enclaves of Western countries which have had masssive immigration from the poorest parts of countries like Pakistan for years before we got enough dosh and jobs to make Ireland an attractive country to emigrate to.

So what you're saying is if we take people frmo a country with inequality, they don't automatically get rid of their social structure upon entering our country?

I would have taken that as given. You're still tying the intolerance to the country of origin.

I hope you aren't going to ask me to go through the bother of hunting for links to stories about muslim "elders" (all men:D ) in the West asking for Shariah law, honour killings, forced marriages, etc.

Woah there. Hold up.

Sharia Law? Honour Killings?

What relevance do these have to my claim that the distinction between methods of greeting women is not one of trying to establish a superiority/inferiority?

You already said the laws in places like Pakistan derive partly from their religious strictures

Yes. I did. The keyword being partly.

When you find something in Pakistani law that you can point as being unacceptable, that doesn't automatically mean that Islam is to blame. When you find something in Pakistani culture you find unacceptable, that doesn't automatically mean Islam is to blame.

But thats all you've done. You've pointed at people in Pakistan who are doing things you find unacceptable, and you're deciding that Islam is at fault, and that we need to protect ourselves against Islam, even though - by your own admission - there's plenty of Muslims here already and they're not engaging in these practices.

It would seem that you're actually admitting that it is not Islam which is the problem whilst insisting that Islam is what needs to be dealt with.

I don't think there are any Christian commandments/religious laws etc promoting abortion-on-demand.

You recognise that its a caricature and yet try and analyse it as though it wasn't.....

Never mind. Pretend I never said anything. I'd only make your head spin more if I tried to clear that one up.

grubber wrote:

Yes FG
INEVITABLE. As certain as night follows day. All the indicators are out there

It probably is inevitable that they ask, yes.

Personally, I can't see how complaining about traditions of greeting will change that in any way, except to undermine the ability to mount a reasonable defence, given that one will already have shown that there's no shortage of people intolerant of any difference.

And you know what else is inevitable? That the culture we want to "protect" will change almost beyond recognition within our lifetimes anyway.

As your parents and grandparents about the cultural norms of Ireland in their day if you don't believe me.

Cultures change. You can accept or refuse this as much as you like, but it won't change the reality. Your children will not have the same culture as you. Go three or four generations, and the differences will be even more severe.

So whats the difference? What, exactly, are we "protecting"? Cultural norms that have only existed within out own lifetimesa and which will die with us one way or another?

Cue the responses from those who can't understand that this is not a cry for an "anything goes", and probably someone sarcastically asking why I don't move to some fundamentalist location if I'm so in love with sharia law.

Change is not the problem. Never was, never will be.

jc

bonkey

Wibbs wrote:

They make "allowances" for us specifically for the preservation of their culture and to exclude those things they feel may threaten it.

Which you're saynig is a bad idea....

So you're saying that taking steps specifically to preserve a culture is a bad idea.

Exactly what I was driving at.

Maybe we should insist on handshakes for all outside defined "cultural zones".

We should insist on nothing. That was my point.

Anyone who tries to compare Christianity(or any other religion) to Islam in this is woefully misinformed on the religion.

And I would have said that anyone making such a comment is woefully misinformed about what a comparison is.

Separation of church and state in Christianity, while long in coming in many places actually has a theological basis

Seperation of church and state is not a Christian notion. Its a secular notion.

As fly_agaric correctly points out, Sharia law is entirely bound up with Islam as a religion and adherance to such laws is encumbent on all Muslims.

Adherance to Catholic "law" is equally as encumbent on all Catholics, regardless of whether or not they live in a nation where such laws are also the laws of the State.

Or do you think its not a sin for a Catholic to have an abortion in England? That its not a problem for the Church if a Catholic gets a divorce in a nation which supports it?

There exists no gap between church and state. To consider seperating the two in Islam would be unthinkable

So you're saying that every single Muslim nation on the planet currently has a legal system run entirely by Sharia law? And that

and practically unworkable in many Muslim eyes.
[/quote[
Of the billion-plus Muslims in the world, roughly how many is "many" in this context? Will it have any relation to the number of Muslims living under such legal systems? Will it have any basis in establishable fact?

Pakistan is a good example.

Sure it is.

Being a long-established democracy in a modern wealthy nation, it is a fine example to show how the long-established democracies in the modern wealthy Western nations will fall prey to the same fate.

Where Muslim nations have tried to secularise, the religious right in such places are loud in their protests(Turkey would be a good example, as would Jordan).

They can be as loud in their protests as they want. You're glibly ignoring the fact that they're protesting because they are losing. They might be able to slow the rate of transition, but they are losing ground steadily.

jc