Mr Myers sets a poser....again.

OhNoYouDidn't

Choccy,

If I'm reading this right, you are arguing that you have a fundamental right to criticise Islam and this right is being eroded. You are inferring that arrests for incitement or hate crime is censorship is a sop to overtly sensitive Muslims.

Yet you are simultaniously saying that Muslims criticism of the west is threatening and offensive and should be clamped down on.

Something is wrong with that picture.

ChocolateSauce

Nodin wrote: »

Then you acknowledge that Islam contains a very wide set of views and is not a monolith?

I acknowledge that Muslims have a wide range of views and that there are many interpretations of the Quran and the Hadiths.

So when muslims condemn what you denounce as a form of terrorism, they're still wrong....

When they condemn their right to protest, yes, although I appreciate that they were opposed to violence in this instance.

You criticised the police for allegedly threatening a van driver with arrest, but not arresting the leader of the protest for "hate speech".
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70023428&postcount=102

Let me make a blanket statement for you to refer to in future: I am opposed to all hate speech laws, whomever they are applied to. If you ever though otherwise, you misread me.

Well for one thing its far from taken that Wilders concept of what constitutes Islam is fact.

Irrelevant.

According to Dutch prosecutors view of law he was essentially launching a diatribe that would lead to violence and discrimination against muslims,

Violence committed by whom? Punish those who commit violence, punish those who discriminate. If I told you to go murder someone and you did it, why should I be punished? More importantly, if I told you I thought Islam was "a threat", and you attacked a Muslim, in what universe would I be responsible for that crime?

You still haven't listed any examples of the civil liberties that have been removed because of "Islam"

Once more, in the Netherlands you cannot harshly criticise Islam in public. I don't see anyone on trial for criticising Christianity there.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Yet you are simultaniously saying that Muslims criticism of the west is threatening and offensive and should be clamped down on.
.

Regarding the highlighted part, please find where I said that. No really, I'd be impressed. I think you'll find I did not, and would never and have never claimed in any post in any thread on any website that speech from any quarter should be "clamped down on."

I have only ever said that efforts to clamp down on it should be strongly rejected, and I have argued that religion in general should not be given special privileges. I have always upheld the belief that all opinions, even disgusting views, should be protected from censorship. I have also always believed that abhorrent views should be attacked from an intellectual, and not a legal, standpoint, and not left uncriticised.

Nodin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I acknowledge that Muslims have a wide range of views and that there are many interpretations of the Quran and the Hadiths..

A rather silly evasion. There is no "Islam" save that observed by its believers, in its various forms, thus there is no monoltithic Islam. Therefore your initial assertion about "Islam ....making aggressive inroads into the west" is at best so simplistic as to be utterly incorrect.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

When they condemn their right to protest, yes, ..

...but you condemn them for protesting.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Irrelevant.

Really? Your objection to the conservative muslim world view is predicated on it bearing little or no relation to reality and it essentially being 'wrong'.

And I'd say that whether or not the idea that muslims in the majority are a present danger to all around them is correct or not is rather relevant in determining whether something is a valid criticism or bigotry designed to inflame...

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Violence committed by whom? Punish those who commit violence, punish those who discriminate. If I told you to go murder someone and you did it, why should I be punished? More importantly, if I told you I thought Islam was "a threat", and you attacked a Muslim, in what universe would I be responsible for that crime?.

Your failure to recognise the principle doesn't make a difference. Its the law in most of Europe and the US.

Its rather odd that you don't think a direct order to kill can be blamed on the person who gave it, but are perfectly happy to condemn the Quran for peoples extreme readings of it.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Once more, in the Netherlands you cannot harshly criticise Islam in public. I don't see anyone on trial for criticising Christianity there. .

Utterly untrue. Free speech and criticism is permitted but not when its baseless and aimed at generating hatred and discrimination. Either back up your claim or drop it.

Again - where are the examples of the civil liberties that have been removed because of "Islam" ? From mainstream media please.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

They already are getting their way, I see it all the time. .

How? Examples please.

ChocolateSauce

Nodin wrote: »

A rather silly evasion. There is no "Islam" save that observed by its believers, in its various forms, thus there is no monoltithic Islam. Therefore your initial assertion about "Islam ....making aggressive inroads into the west" is at best so simplistic as to be utterly incorrect.

Well, again matter of opinion. I won't go on as we've both made our views clear.

...but you condemn them for protesting.

I condemn their message, which is that their religion shouldn't be carictured, and I despair that they felt the need to protest.

Really? Your objection to the conservative muslim world view is predicated on it bearing little or no relation to reality and it essentially being 'wrong'.

And I'd say that whether or not the idea that muslims in the majority are a present danger to all around them is correct or not is rather relevant in determining whether something is a valid criticism or bigotry designed to inflame...

Irrelevant in the used context because his trial didn't even allow for the consideration that his views were justified. I feel they are, you feel they are not. It doesn't change the fact that the issue was not considered, all that mattered was that he said it.

Your failure to recognise the principle doesn't make a difference. Its the law in most of Europe and the US.

And it is a bad law which has already been used a number of times to suppress free speech.

Its rather odd that you don't think a direct order to kill can be blamed on the person who gave it, but are perfectly happy to condemn the Quran for peoples extreme readings of it.

We're not talking about ordering people around, we're talking about trying to convince people about a point of view. I see them as fundamentally different.


Utterly untrue. Free speech and criticism is permitted but not when its baseless and aimed at generating hatred and discrimination. Either back up your claim or drop it.[/quote] It's either free speech or it isn't. You obviously don't hold it in high regard.

Nodin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well, again matter of opinion..

No, it is not. It is a fact that there is no monolithic "Islam" just as there is no monolithic Christianity.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Irrelevant in the used context because his trial didn't even allow for the consideration that his views were justified. I feel they are, you feel they are not. It doesn't change the fact that the issue was not considered, all that mattered was that he said it.
..

That what the trial will be about, presumably.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

We're not talking about ordering people around, we're talking about trying to convince people about a point of view. I see them as fundamentally different.

Your attitude is mind bendingly hypocritical. You blame the Quran for some minority extremist readings of it, yet believe that somebody who gives orders or directives to kill can't be held responsible if those are carried out.

ChocolateSauce

Nodin wrote: »

It is a fact that there is no monolithic "Islam" just as there is no monolithic Christianity.

That has never been in dispute.

Your attitude is mind bendingly hypocritical. You blame the Quran for some minority extremist readings of it, .

I simply disagree. I think you are blaming all the problems associated with Islam on a tiny minority when in fact a much larger proportion of Muslims should share some of the blame. In your stand to protect a minority at risk of being pre-judged, you fail to pass fair judgement where it is due.


Say, if you're so against hate speech and incitement to hatred, why aren't you calling for the Quran to be banned? Or the Bible for that matter. Virtually every hateful thing I've seen from Christianity and Islam can be justified by passages from their books. The answer would be freedom of religion; every bit as important as (but not more important than) free speech.

yet believe that somebody who gives orders or directives to kill can't be held responsible if those are carried out

Specifically I've defended the right to attempt to convince people of a point of view, even if it is hateful or untrue. Ordering a charge to commit a crime is a different matter, and is itself different from trying to convince someone to do it.

Anyway, I will get back to you with a list of news items which have given me cause for concern; I really need one. I can't assume that people will know what I'm talking about or even believe me when I say something happened. It will take time, hours indeed, and I'm very busy with upcoming exams and my thesis (part of which is due in 8 days) so it'll have to wait at least a week. I'll post it here when it's done.

T runner

AlekSmart wrote: »

Is Kevin Myers OTT in this piece from Today`s Indo..?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-muslim-girls-are-covertly-prepared-for-forced-marriage-yet-the-feminists-stay-silent-2485661.html


In the course of this piece Kevin Myers makes the following point....




A little further on he makes another point....




As a reader,but not necessarily an admirer of Mr Myers,I do find myself somewhat challenged by many of his points and I`d suggest they do merit some reasoned consideration.......

That Hindu-Muslim comparison is not one we see being made with any great regularity round these parts ?

Worth discussing ?....or is it just his accent that provokes such opprobrium amongst the Gael...?

And western powers have been raping poorer Arab, African and Asian states for centuries. Myers has an agenda. He can barely conceal his racist and mysogonistic tendencies at the best of times. His "posers" fall apart with any scrutiny.

Nodin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

That has never been in dispute.
.

It has, primarily by you.

Lets not be so disingeneous as to actually pretend that Islam isn't making aggressive inroads into the west, demanding special privileges for itself, demanding our rights be surrendered, and trying as hard as possible to be offended, and to bully, harass and terrorise us into being guilty for offending its adherents by merely pointing out its very real and very dangerous teachings for what they are.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69977520&postcount=61

Certainly, although I think it's fair to refer to it in the singular. If the religion is based on the teachings of Muhammad and the Quran, it's Islam

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69995714&postcount=76

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Say, if you're so against hate speech and incitement to hatred, why aren't you calling for the Quran to be banned? Or the Bible for that matter. Virtually every hateful thing I've seen from Christianity and Islam can be justified by passages from their books. The answer would be freedom of religion; every bit as important as (but not more important than) free speech..

"Can be". Given the 'poetic' nature of the text and the multiple readings of it, one could safely say the problem lay with the readers and not the text.

ChocolateSauce

Nodin wrote: »

It has, primarily by you.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69977520&postcount=61



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69995714&postcount=76



"Can be". Given the 'poetic' nature of the text and the multiple readings of it, one could safely say the problem lay with the readers and not the text.

Perhaps your reading of my posts is the problem, and not what I've said? I've never believed Islam is monolithic, so I don't see why I would say it. Semantics seem to be playing a part here- I've referred to all interpretations of Islam as Islam, but that in itself isn't a declaration that different interpretations don't exist.

I don't believe the fundamental problem is with the interpretations, the fundamental problem is with the text. I can safely say that.

ISAW

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Perhaps your reading of my posts is the problem, and not what I've said? I've never believed Islam is monolithic, so I don't see why I would say it. Semantics seem to be playing a part here- I've referred to all interpretations of Islam as Islam, but that in itself isn't a declaration that different interpretations don't exist.

I don't believe the fundamental problem is with the interpretations, the fundamental problem is with the text. I can safely say that.

But that is saying that there is one fundamental interpretation of the text and Islam is monolithic i.e. all based on the one immutable thing - the text.

ChocolateSauce

ISAW wrote: »

But that is saying that there is one fundamental interpretation of the text and Islam is monolithic i.e. all based on the one immutable thing - the text.

No it isn't.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

A rather silly evasion. There is no "Islam" save that observed by its believers, in its various forms, thus there is no monoltithic Islam. Therefore your initial assertion about "Islam ....making aggressive inroads into the west" is at best so simplistic as to be utterly incorrect.

Just want to pull you up on this idea that you can't criticise Islam as it is 'all things to all men' and each one different. Islam, like any belief system is by no means a monolith but it does exist, otherwise who are 'its' believers? If my belief system involved a belief that god loved being parodied in cartoons, or at least he wasn't so petty as to care either way, I couldn't call that Islam, so obviously all the variant strands of Islam are in some fundamental ways related. So although there are alevi and wahabi, their similarities are enough to group them under Islam unlike how alevi and Anglicans couldn't be grouped as Islam but can be grouped as religious, with subsections possibly being fundamentalists. Islam isn't the etherial moving target you try and paint it as.

Nodin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Perhaps your reading of my posts is the problem, and not what I've said? I've never believed Islam is monolithic, so I don't see why I would say it. Semantics seem to be playing a part here- I've referred to all interpretations of Islam as Islam, but that in itself isn't a declaration that different interpretations don't exist.

I don't believe the fundamental problem is with the interpretations, the fundamental problem is with the text. I can safely say that.

Seeing as you've never bothered to differentiate, why should anyone presume that you do differentiate...? We can only go on whats posted.

Secondly, as some readings lead to innocous behaviour, clearly the text is not the centre of the problem.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Just want to pull you up on this idea that you can't criticise Islam as it is 'all things to all men' and each one different. Islam, like any belief system is by no means a monolith but it does exist, otherwise who are 'its' believers? If my belief system involved a belief that god loved being parodied in cartoons, or at least he wasn't so petty as to care either way, I couldn't call that Islam, so obviously all the variant strands of Islam are in some fundamental ways related. So although there are alevi and wahabi, their similarities are enough to group them under Islam unlike how alevi and Anglicans couldn't be grouped as Islam but can be grouped as religious, with subsections possibly being fundamentalists. Islam isn't the etherial moving target you try and paint it as.

So its ok to criticise "christianity" for the doings of - for instance - RC abusing priests...?

conorhal

Laminations wrote: »

Just want to pull you up on this idea that you can't criticise Islam as it is 'all things to all men' and each one different. Islam, like any belief system is by no means a monolith but it does exist, otherwise who are 'its' believers? If my belief system involved a belief that god loved being parodied in cartoons, or at least he wasn't so petty as to care either way, I couldn't call that Islam, so obviously all the variant strands of Islam are in some fundamental ways related. So although there are alevi and wahabi, their similarities are enough to group them under Islam unlike how alevi and Anglicans couldn't be grouped as Islam but can be grouped as religious, with subsections possibly being fundamentalists. Islam isn't the etherial moving target you try and paint it as.

It's pointless arguing with the Nodin, he takes a relativist stance on every argument, ignores common sense and then buries an argument in obscurantism and minutiae to the point of meaninglessness.

Doug Tennanpel wrote a good blog there recently about the relativists, and Francis Wheen's book 'How mumbo jumbo conquered the world' is well worth a read, particular it's chapter on The Demolition Merchants of Reality'.

I'll repost Tennapel's blog because it's short-ish:


Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger coined a phrase in 2005 that I’ve thought about almost every day since he gave his address in Rome, just before he became The Pope. He said that we were moving toward a “dictatorship of relativism.”
The reason why that phrase struck the gong of my mind is because something wasn’t adding up in all of the soft goo talk of relativism by our culture. You see, there’s this idea that if you stand for nothing, then you are the open minded person on the block. You’re the harmless one, because you don’t take a stand on anything (other than the stand of not taking a stand on anything.)
To claim that all morals are relative to the individual sounds innocent enough. Who can deny the curb appeal of platitudes like “It may be true for you but not for me.” I have to live by my truth, but I can’t be considered a good boy if I project my personal, local truth onto you, your situation or your culture. That would imply not only that there are objective truths, but that I can know them…and we can’t have that. Knowing the truth is bad… and we know this to be true.
But it wasn’t the “relativism” part of Ratzinger’s statement that struck me, it was the “dictatorship” part. It’s not a word we associate with the free, minimal ethic of relativism. The relativists are the good guys, they are the opposite of moral objectivists like me. Obi-Wan said, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” It’s probably a bad idea to mix logic and Lucas, but his writing would make me a Sith. The bigger problem is that if Obi-Wan was speaking with absolute certainty then he would be a Sith too.
Relativism can’t leave everyone else alone, because it is just another absolute claim. It demands that everything be relative to the individual, and is no less vulnerable to the trappings of dogmas as any other philosophy. Man is the problem, and relativists are made of the same fallen stuff that makes an absolutist dictatorial. Man’s nature has a dictatorial streak, so that relativism can be rammed down your throat by culture with the same gusto as Sharia Law but with even more self-righteous certitude.
Relativism isn’t relativistic about itself, it’s absolutist. Openness isn’t open to closed systems of thought, syncretism and other relativist buzz-words are self refuting to a point of absurdity. The self proclaimed tolerant are among the most intolerant people. Scratch a pluralist and a mean absolute statement against absolutes gushes out.
America is a pluralist culture, and that should give us the first clue about what kind of totalitarian we’re likely to create. The man who believes in nothing the loudest is the winner.
My favorite Relativist parable is about the three blind men feeling different parts of an elephant who describe what it’s like. One man feels the face says, “An elephant has a long nose.” Another feels the leg and says, “No! An elephant is like a tree trunk!” The last blind man pulls bags of money out of the elephant’s bottom and says, “This elephant ate Deepak Chopra!”
The Dictatorship of Relativism always seems to know that everyone else is blind, but that his own vision about their blindness is above reproach.

Nodin

conorhal wrote: »

It's pointless arguing with the Nodin, he takes a relativist stance on every argument, ignores common sense and then buries an argument in obscurantism and minutiae to the point of meaninglessness.

........

He loves his paragraphs too.

ChocolateSauce

Nodin wrote: »

Secondly, as some readings lead to innocous behaviour, clearly the text does not lie at the root of the problem.

Clearly. All those passages which could be interpreted as being violent are just being read wrong. There is no way a book inspired by a conqueror in peaceful and civilised 7th century Arabia could ever have intended its passages to be violent. Words like "slay" didn't actually mean kill.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

So its ok to criticise "christianity" for the doings of - for instance - RC abusing priests...?

Well i didnt hear any christian trying to use the bible to justify child abuse but it is ok to blame the church and its power hierarchies and isular self protecting nature for the abuse. Even if you want to blame christianity it may be inaccurate but yes it's ok. That's the point. It's ok to criticise Christianity from any angle. Jesus loves boys, I can say that with no fear. Also criticising the elements of the religion or institution that enabled abuse does not equal full on attack of christianity whereas its apparent some people believe that any criticism of islam or practises associated with islam (stoning women, death for apostacy etc) IS an attack on islam as a whole. How many films have come out openly criticising the churh? And doing it crassly too (Jerry Springer play). Christians can object and debate the merits of the criticism but they cannot and do not condemn the right to criticise. Muslims, even moderates deny people the right to criticise or say anything they deem inappropriate about their religion. If you think there is no difference between islam and other religions on how they view free speech, then say something derogatory about Allah....

wes

Laminations wrote: »

And doing it crassly too (Jerry Springer play). Christians can object and debate the merits of the criticism but they cannot and do not condemn the right to criticise.

There were death threats made over that btw:

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4507636.stm

--SNIP--
When BBC Two screened the show earlier this year, the atmosphere was fraught, with arguments over how many swear words were in the programme (estimates ranged from 105 to a cheekier 1.7 billion), and reports of death threats against TV execs and an email campaign which opened with the line "The Sikhs have made a stand - but will Christians?" - a reference to the Behzti riots.
--SNIP--

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Well i didnt hear any christian trying to use the bible to justify child abuse but it is ok to blame the church and its power hierarchies and isular self protecting nature for the abuse.....

The church specifically. Yes.

Laminations wrote: »

Even if you want to blame christianity it may be inaccurate ....

Yes. Which is my point.

Nodin

wes wrote: »

There were death threats made over that btw:

50,000 complaints as a result of a campaign by a man who wants the offence of rape within marriage removed....last time an imam came out with something similar I think we had a daily mail frenzy on the issue...