It's Islamofascist rear end kissing season in Canterbury ....

Playboy

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Ireland was one of the first countries within the EU to introduce a smoking ban. Now several years later other EU countries are starting to follow our lead. What happens in one country within the EU can happen in another. Especially when the religious amongst us see it functioning in another country.

Scaremongering. Are you really afraid that Sharia Law is going take over in europe and damage your rights? Do you have that little faith in the powers that be?

Playboy

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

So we imposed our culture on others? But you use different language when it others imposing their culture on us? I certainly see it as imposing one culture on another when they talk about resisting assimilation into the West. I would also call it "bad" when the other culture is inferior.

You're Irish American example is stupid. American culture allows for a person to be an American first and foremost and Irish/Mexican/whatever second.

Your fascist comment is just plain wrong. I have no time for Nazis/Fascists/White power groups etc.

Lets just put the rhetoric aside shall we? There is nothing wrong with maintaining and enjoying your own culture in another country. Problems occur when there is a lack of respect on both sides for their respective cultures. We live in a free society and people should be allowed to live whatever lives they like within the confines of the law. There is a large amount of fear and distrust generated by the media towards the muslim community which is unfair and unwarrented. The Irish suffered in similar circumstances in Britain when the IRA where operating. If people such as yourself would take the time to find out more about the muslim community by speaking to muslims you would see that there is very little to be afraid of. The media and the attitudes of people in western society are partially responsible for the radicalisation of muslims. Discrimination and hate breeds more of the same and its not going to get better till stop believing the crap they read in the sun or see on sky news.

RedPlanet

Why do some people presume Britian to be a Secular Democracy?
It's no such thing.
The Prime Minister makes appointments to the Church of England and Catholics are barred by law from holding certain positions.
That's NOT secularism.

Fratton Fred

RedPlanet wrote: »

Why do some people presume Britian to be a Secular Democracy?
It's no such thing.
The Prime Minister makes appointments to the Church of England and Catholics are barred by law from holding certain positions.
That's NOT secularism.

Name one position, with the exception of Monarch, that Catholics cannot hold?

Britain is not secular though and it makes no claim to be. It is however more secular than some secular countries and the Church has a lot less influence than certain other countries I can think of.

I don't really see what the problems are with what the Dr Williams has said, but there is a lot of anti Islamic feeling so it gets blown out of all proportion. That doesn't mean I support it, I don't think faith should have influence on, or be above any laws....Are you listening Cardinal??

LaVidaLoca

I would like to see all religion and the legal system as far apart from each other as possible.

Secondly, many people (particularly liberals like myself) like to ascribe to a beleif that what would be abbhorent in someone of our own culture, it's not so abhorrent when it's somebody from a different culture doing it.

Sharia Law has been ruled by the European Court of Human Rights as being incompatible with democracy (and for good reason).

Thirdly, re being Islamophobic. Whats wrong with being Islamophobic? I happen to be pretty anti-religious in many ways (precisely because I am more interested in human rights than in divine ones), but I recognise that all religions are not equally bad. Of the mainstream ones, Islam is far and away the most regressive, conservative, hateful of women, and generally prone to outbursts of violent irrationality.

The Tibetans have been treated like dirt by the Chinese for more than half a century. Seen any Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers?

Thought not.

djpbarry

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Whats wrong with being Islamophobic?

Seriously? You don't think irrational fear and/or hatred of a large group of people is a bad thing?

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

I happen to be pretty anti-religious in many ways...

Big difference between being anti- something and having a phobia of something.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Of the mainstream ones, Islam is far and away the most regressive, conservative, hateful of women, and generally prone to outbursts of violent irrationality.

Based on what exactly? Sky News?

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

The Tibetans have been treated like dirt by the Chinese for more than half a century. Seen any Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers?

Thought not.

Pointless argument. The tactic of suicide bombing using concealed vests was actually pioneered by a predominantly Hindu organisation; The Tamil Tigers. Ironically, many of their victims were Muslim.

SeanW

RedPlanet wrote: »

Why do some people presume Britian to be a Secular Democracy?
It's no such thing.
The Prime Minister makes appointments to the Church of England and Catholics are barred by law from holding certain positions.
That's NOT secularism.

It's a hell of a lot more secular than 90% of Middle Eastern, North African or Central Asian countries.

And I'd like to make sure our countries stay that way.

Like Sand, I have no problem with two disputing parties resolving those disagreements in whatever way they see fit - but I have a serious problem when religious law is recognised as valid civil law over select sections of the population, for the reasons that it supports continued ghetto-isation of various immigrant communities and sets a precedent for other countries as well.

It really is quite simple in my book - either you support the universal civil code of the country you live in, or go somewhere else.

Lemming

Passent.Habek wrote: »

Some extreme forms of Sharia do exist in countries such as Saudia Arabia but Saudi dors not represent the 1.8 billion people in the Islamic world.

Wahhabism, whilst by no means a representative entity of so many Muslims around the world, is unfortunately also the one being most aggressively expanded and also the one gaining all of the bad press for Islamic society as a whole on account of some fairly extreme views that it supports.

The revenues generated from oil has allowed Wahhabism be exported on a much more aggressive scale than might have happened otherwise. Many maddrassa & clerics around the globe are funded from Saudi wealth. In a sense, it has become the "new face" (if you will pardon the term) that is being presented to non-muslims by way of incidents carried in its name that find their way into the news.

With that in mind, one can see where some of the phobia towards Islam currently stems from and why people might feel need for concern.

FTA69

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Thirdly, re being Islamophobic. Whats wrong with being Islamophobic?

Disliking people because of their religion generally isn't nice.

I happen to be pretty anti-religious in many ways (precisely because I am more interested in human rights than in divine ones), but I recognise that all religions are not equally bad. Of the mainstream ones, Islam is far and away the most regressive, conservative, hateful of women, and generally prone to outbursts of violent irrationality.

Really? Because Christianity and Catholicism especially simply love gays and were never trying to keep women chained to the kitchen sink... :rolleyes:

The Tibetans have been treated like dirt by the Chinese for more than half a century. Seen any Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers?

No. You just saw a peasantry having their backs broke to support some stupid auld fella claiming he was a reincarnation of another auld fella. Buddhism is b*llocks, along with all other religions.

RedPlanet

SeanW wrote: »

It's a hell of a lot more secular than 90% of Middle Eastern, North African or Central Asian countries.

What the hell does that have to do with the current discussion?
Aren't we talking about some Church of Englanders public comments about Britain's laws?

LordSutch

Time for Rowan Williams to step down (or be sacked) me thinks.

Playboy

ArthurF wrote: »

Time for Rowan Williams to step down (or be sacked) me thinks.

Why? Are people not allowed to speak their minds in a free society without having to resign or be sacked?

Dinter

Passent.Habek wrote: »

Grow up would you? Do you live in the UK? Do you know many muslim people? Do you know the first thing about Sharia law apart from the sensationalist crap you see on sky news and read in the Tabloids?

Being qualified,as you see it, to join in a debate is not a prerequisite to joining a debate especially on this website.

The whole point of making a sweeping statement here is that someone who is better informed will correct it and thus one can learn.

On topic, people go to civil arbitration regularly to seek redress. Whether or not that arbitration is taking place in an ashram or under a wickan standing stone it lessens the strain on the secular civil courts.

This is a move I would welcome.

irishconvert

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

There should only be one law for all people. Once Sharia law is introduced for civil matters a precedent will be set. Muslims will start demanding Sharia law in others areas. Then you'll have other religious groups demanding to be governed by their own retarded "holy book". The current secular system has served us well so far. I see no reason to entertain these stupid ideas.

Would you be against pre-nuptial agreements as well?

SeanW

Pre-nup agreements are backed by civil law, AFAIK. So no.

LaVidaLoca

"Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
Whats wrong with being Islamophobic?

Seriously? You don't think irrational fear and/or hatred of a large group of people is a bad thing?"

Who said anything about it being irrational? and who said anything about me hating people? I dont like Islam. At all. (Im not fond of Christianity either). That doesnt mean I hate the people that beleive in it.

I think it is hypocritical to be a liberal (as I am) and then pretend that you think Islam is a 'religion of peace', when it quite patently is not. Just because it's unkind to say this does not mean it isnt true. I dont like people who treat women badly, whatever culture or religion they come from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
I happen to be pretty anti-religious in many ways...

Big difference between being anti- something and having a phobia of something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
Of the mainstream ones, Islam is far and away the most regressive, conservative, hateful of women, and generally prone to outbursts of violent irrationality.

Based on what exactly? Sky News?

Oh based on , um, reading, thinking, travelling and talking to people. everything. Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Taliban, The Janjaweed, Somalia, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Hamas, c'mon, you dont really need somebody to tell you this. There has been a colossal regression into medievalism in the Islamic World in the past 40 odd years. I dont think its for the good of anybody to simply deny it. Its a question of what are they/we going to do about it?

One of the major centres of world civilisation (a **** lot more advanced than us a few hundred years ago) has gone screaming headlong back into the dark ages. And people like you dont want to acknowledge this, cause it's impolite.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
The Tibetans have been treated like dirt by the Chinese for more than half a century. Seen any Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers?

Thought not.

Pointless argument. The tactic of suicide bombing using concealed vests was actually pioneered by a predominantly Hindu organisation; The Tamil Tigers. Ironically, many of their victims were Muslim."

Yes Im aware of that.

However it illustrates the point that it is not merely poverty and oppression that turns people into suicide bombers is it? Otherwise the Tibetans would have been blowing themselves up daily.

We need to be unafraid to ask why the Islamic world is in the state it's in, not just pretending that all is A-OK.

irish_bob

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

"Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
Whats wrong with being Islamophobic?

Seriously? You don't think irrational fear and/or hatred of a large group of people is a bad thing?"

Who said anything about it being irrational? and who said anything about me hating people? I dont like Islam. At all. (Im not fond of Christianity either). That doesnt mean I hate the people that beleive in it.

I think it is hypocritical to be a liberal (as I am) and then pretend that you think Islam is a 'religion of peace', when it quite patently is not. Just because it's unkind to say this does not mean it isnt true. I dont like people who treat women badly, whatever culture or religion they come from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
I happen to be pretty anti-religious in many ways...

Big difference between being anti- something and having a phobia of something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
Of the mainstream ones, Islam is far and away the most regressive, conservative, hateful of women, and generally prone to outbursts of violent irrationality.

Based on what exactly? Sky News?

Oh based on , um, reading, thinking, travelling and talking to people. everything. Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Taliban, The Janjaweed, Somalia, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Hamas, c'mon, you dont really need somebody to tell you this. There has been a colossal regression into medievalism in the Islamic World in the past 40 odd years. I dont think its for the good of anybody to simply deny it. Its a question of what are they/we going to do about it?

One of the major centres of world civilisation (a **** lot more advanced than us a few hundred years ago) has gone screaming headlong back into the dark ages. And people like you dont want to acknowledge this, cause it's impolite.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
The Tibetans have been treated like dirt by the Chinese for more than half a century. Seen any Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers?

Thought not.

Pointless argument. The tactic of suicide bombing using concealed vests was actually pioneered by a predominantly Hindu organisation; The Tamil Tigers. Ironically, many of their victims were Muslim."

Yes Im aware of that.

However it illustrates the point that it is not merely poverty and oppression that turns people into suicide bombers is it? Otherwise the Tibetans would have been blowing themselves up daily.

We need to be unafraid to ask why the Islamic world is in the state it's in, not just pretending that all is A-OK.

islam and everything associated with it is a liberal sacred cow, therefore you wont get away with any kind of criticism towards it on the likes of BOARDS

its that simple really

djpbarry

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Who said anything about it being irrational? and who said anything about me hating people?

I didn't say YOU did, but you asked what was wrong with Islamophobia, which is, by definition, the irrational fear and/or hatred of Muslims.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

I think it is hypocritical to be a liberal (as I am) and then pretend that you think Islam is a 'religion of peace', when it quite patently is not.

With respect, your views do not appear to be terribly liberal.

I'm not sure what you mean "religion of peace"; it's a religion. And, just like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. it's not going anywhere any time soon. With that in mind, I think tolerance is a much better policy than phobia.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

I dont like people who treat women badly, whatever culture or religion they come from.

I don't like people who treat ANYONE badly, but this is hardly something that is either exclusive to Islamic cultures, or, something that is the norm in ALL Islamic cultures.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Taliban, The Janjaweed, Somalia, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Hamas, c'mon, you dont really need somebody to tell you this. There has been a colossal regression into medievalism in the Islamic World in the past 40 odd years.

There exist some medieval-style regimes in certain Islamic countries (such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia), yes. But that does not mean that ALL Muslims support these regimes.

You cannot tar every Islamic culture with the same brush. For example, there is a world of difference between Saudi Arabia and Turkey, or between Afghanistan and Indonesia.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

One of the major centres of world civilisation (a **** lot more advanced than us a few hundred years ago) has gone screaming headlong back into the dark ages.

Iraq?

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

However it illustrates the point that it is not merely poverty and oppression that turns people into suicide bombers is it?

It's not just Islam either.

LaVidaLoca

others. But none are liberal in any sense that we would recognise.

"With respect, your views do not appear to be terribly liberal."

Why not? They're more liberal than saying that an ultra-conservative way of viewing the world is A-Ok.

Im am a classic left of centre liberal. I beleive in women's rights, gay rights, universal health care, social welfare, the equality of all human beings/ethnic groups before the law, Im suspicious of untrammled free-market capitalism, and religiously Im an atheist and very anti-church. I opposed the Iraq war and I hate George Bush. All your classic Guardian-reader stuff. I am a bearded lefty and proud of it.

It is precisely because of this that I dont think it's OK to watch the Islamic world dissappear into a retrogressive netherworld.

In the words of Hassaan Ali (the Somali Ex-muslim women who made the film "Submission" with the murdered Theo Van Gogh):

"To recognise that radical Islam is going to undermine the rule of law, especially for liberals it is very important, to stay far away from theories like multiculturalism that say that all cultures are alike, all religions are alike, because that leads to the creation of ethnic and religious enclaves and it's there that radical Islam thrives."

We have to understand that it is not "liberal" or "progressive" to say that everything is A-OK with Islam at the moment. Its not. And its not just a couple of loonies in caves in Afghanistan either.

I simply apply the same criteria to foreign cultures that I do to my own. I dont like Legion of Mary idiots in Ireland either, so Im not gonna start saying that kind of pious ****wittery is OK when its wearing different clothes and speaking a different language.

djpbarry

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

But none are liberal in any sense that we would recognise.

Well, that depends on what you define as a liberal culture. Some Muslim cultures are more conservative than others, in the same way that some Christian cultures are more conservative than others.

You, however, are comparing Muslim countries with "the West", which is not really a fair comparison, as most Muslim countries are in the developing world. Ireland may be more liberal than, say, Pakistan, but Ireland is also more liberal than India or China. Remember that Ireland was a far more conservative, religious country prior to the Celtic Tiger.

There are of course despotic regimes in Islamic countries, Saudi Arabia probably being the most infamous. But would the House of Saud be exerting the same control over the population without the income it receives from the West for its oil? Remember, we are all helping to keep that regime in power through our dependence on their oil.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

They're more liberal than saying that an ultra-conservative way of viewing the world is A-Ok.

But only a minority of Muslims (or a minority of Christians) could be described as "ultra-conservative".

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

It is precisely because of this that I dont think it's OK to watch the Islamic world dissappear into a retrogressive netherworld.

There you go again - "The Islamic World". As if it was one large homogenous nation.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

We have to understand that it is not "liberal" or "progressive" to say that everything is A-OK with Islam at the moment.

Neither is it correct to say that all Muslims and all Muslim countries are backward. How about we just judge people based on who they are and their own personal views, rather than judging them on what religion they happen to be?

If someone wants to be a Muslim or Christian or whatever, that's fine with me - it's none of my business really. If, however, that same person decides that homosexuals are evil and they become quite vocal about it, well that's a different story and I'm not going to want to spend too much time around that person, regardless of their religion.

jonny72

People don't seem to mind peaceful religions, I mean look at mormonism, its utterly ridiculous, but despite what they believe in, they are peaceful, friendly, tolerant.

Islam is not tolerant. That is why it is at odds with the West. Christianity has generally been through its whole holy war/witch burning phase, Islam is currently going through it. I am a lefty liberal and I just don't give a damn about defending them anymore.

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

How about we just judge people based on who they are and their own personal views, rather than judging them on what religion they happen to be?

Great, so how should we judge the ones who figure there isn't enough Sharia law in Saudi Arabia, parts of Nigeria etc and want to import it into the U.K?

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Great, so how should we judge the ones who figure there isn't enough Sharia law in Saudi Arabia, parts of Nigeria etc and want to import it into the U.K?

They can wish for it all they want - it's not going to happen. The overwhelming majority of people in the UK do not want to ruled on the basis of any religion, so why would the UK become an Islamic state?

Moriarty

irish_bob wrote: »

islam and everything associated with it is a liberal sacred cow, therefore you wont get away with any kind of criticism towards it on the likes of BOARDS

its that simple really

You've confused "having a moronic opinion" with "having a controversial opinion".

Moronic opinions are not welcome here. We have no problem with controversial opinions as long as you're prepared to debate their value when you're challenged.

irish_bob

Moriarty wrote: »

You've confused "having a moronic opinion" with "having a controversial opinion".

Moronic opinions are not welcome here. We have no problem with controversial opinions as long as you're prepared to debate their value when you're challenged.

THATS YOUR OPINION

LaVidaLoca

Well, that depends on what you define as a liberal culture. Some Muslim cultures are more conservative than others, in the same way that some Christian cultures are more conservative than others.

Thats of course true. But all Muslim cultures are far to the right of even the most right wing Western culture. And then some are far, far beyond evn that.

You, however, are comparing Muslim countries with "the West", which is not really a fair comparison, as most Muslim countries are in the developing world. Ireland may be more liberal than, say, Pakistan, but Ireland is also more liberal than India or China. Remember that Ireland was a far more conservative, religious country prior to the Celtic Tiger.

There are of course despotic regimes in Islamic countries, Saudi Arabia probably being the most infamous. But would the House of Saud be exerting the same control over the population without the income it receives from the West for its oil? Remember, we are all helping to keep that regime in power through our dependence on their oil.

That's all true, but I dont see the relevance to the debate at hand.

But only a minority of Muslims (or a minority of Christians) could be described as "ultra-conservative".

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca

Neither is it correct to say that all Muslims and all Muslim countries are backward. How about we just judge people based on who they are and their own personal views, rather than judging them on what religion they happen to be?

Certainly. But it would also be foolish to ignore the huge regression that has taken place. I wouldnt of course judge any individual Muslim on this basis. But talking about politics or history in any meaningful way, requires that we look for trends and make generalisations about them. Otherwsie ther'e nothing to talk about.


If

someone wants to be a Muslim or Christian or whatever, that's fine with me - it's none of my business really. If, however, that same person decides that homosexuals are evil and they become quite vocal about it, well that's a different story and I'm not going to want to spend too much time around that person, regardless of their religion.

I agree. And the reason Im worried is that that opinion re homesexuals you cited above is mainstream in Islam today, it is not a fringe beleif. Now, what do we DO about this? I dunno, though I suspect bombing the Middle East back to the Stone Age is not much of a solution.

djpbarry

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

But all Muslim cultures are far to the right of even the most right wing Western culture.

Hardly. Liberalism is difficult to quantify, but I'm going to stick with the example of homosexuality as a sort of barometer.

Let's take the example of the so-called Leader of the Free World. Gay rights are still in their infancy in many parts of the US; for example, anti-sodomy laws were only lifted in Texas in 2003, and only by order of The Supreme Court. Compare this to the Far East, where many Muslims live (e.g. Indonesia), yet homosexuality is a part of everyday life. That's not to say that there are not Muslims in the Far East that do not approve of homosexuality; the point is that to say that ALL Muslims, or even the majority, are far less accepting of homosexuality than Christians is a very broad (and inaccurate) generalisation.

LaVidaLoca

Generalisation is the basis of all conversation about politics.

If we dont generalise, i.e. discuss trends, tendencies, general moods among communities etc, then there's nothing to talk about, the very subject of politics dissappears.

Without 'generalising' there is no meaningful debate about any reality that involves more than a handful of people. THats why we do it.

Now of course it would be absurd to say that every Muslim on the planet is to the right of every Christian on the planet, or something similar. Nobody would argue otherwise.

THe point Im trying to make, is that, as a general trend, there has been a major reactionary swing to the right in the "Islamic World" (yes I know thats a generalisation but it saves me having to list the countries one by one) in the past 40 odd-years.

Lets admit this and start talking about what could be done about it. Not just close our eyes and say it's just generalising.

Without 'generalising' there is no meaningful debate about any reality that involves more than a handful of people. Thats why we do it.

meathstevie

My opinion on this one is very straightforward. If someone wants to live by a code of conduct that's not the law of the land, be that the UK or Ireland or anywhere else that has it's law established through democratic proces and in a way that respects human rights, fine work away.

I couldn't care less if that particular code of conduct is sharia or canon law or the constitution of the IRFU if that code of conduct comes with an organisation administrating that code of conduct fine as well. Where I definitly draw the line is where that code of conduct conflicts with the law of the land. There's no room for interpretation here : the law has primacy without any exception. If needs be I have no problem at all with legitimate democratic government resorting to legaly accepted repressive means to assert the rule of law.

djpbarry

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Generalisation is the basis of all conversation about politics.

I disagree. That sounds like the American approach to foreign policy, i.e. these guys are good, these guys are evil. It's far too simplistic.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

THe point Im trying to make, is that, as a general trend, there has been a major reactionary swing to the right in the "Islamic World" (yes I know thats a generalisation but it saves me having to list the countries one by one) in the past 40 odd-years.

So what you're saying is that, over the last 40 years or so, the majority of predominantly Muslim nations in the world have become extremely right-wing. Again, I disagree; it's far too general (and inaccurate) a statement.