More demands from Islam
 

This is a rather interesting video from what seems to be a British version of Youtube.
Kind of what you could see at the end of 60 Minutes.
http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredema...etting=en_1618

First, the title. As if the religion is demanding anything.

Secondly I laughed when there was a comment about pharmacists refusing to sell birth control. I guess each country has its own religious conservatives who think that their version of God's law should be the country's law. The guy's clearly anti-Muslim. But really, who cares if there was a mosque, even a large one, in the same vicinity as the Olympics. The extremist issue doesn't seem to be a problem for him since he seems to think all Muslims fit into that category.

His points of freedom over faith and very legitimate criticisms of the Saudis are lost in the shuffle.

I'm sorry, I'm confused as to why its such a big problem for everyone else if Muslim clerks don't want to handle alcohol? That dude needs to take a chill pill.

I do semi-agree with his idea of Saudi Arabia and the royal family. But the idea of Islam=terrorism is soooo tired. Seriously, get over it.

Islam doesn't necessarily mean someone is a terrorist, but it is a reliable indicator as to whether someone supports or participates in terrorism compared to individuals in other cultures/religions.

Also, the gentleman in the above linked video seems to be protesting a certain form of extremist Islam which is almost exclusively the breeding ground for terrorist ideology.

The idea is repeated so often because it has a kernel of truth.

Really is it now? :rolleyes:

Me thinks the Brits have had a long experience with terrorism that isn't from just one ideology... just because this "special person" echos you're a not-so-closet bigotry when it comes to Islam doesn't make it so.

This guy just polishes up his xenophobia and underlying bigotry so that it doesn't come off so bad - doesn't change the fact that the underlying motivation for the message is still shit.

The idea is often repeated by xenophobes and bigots, that doesn't make it true - especially given the same social issues (birth control, booze, women's rights, etc.) can be pointed to in parts of America and Canada that are very "Christian" or Mormon.

You call it xenophobia.

I call it a reasonable response when a host culture exhibits hostility to an immigrant group which demands special accommodations which involve the host culture changing the way they live/behave.

You think he's a xenophobe for not agreeing that the British extremist Muslims should be allowed to set up their own religious courts?

There are Beth Dins in the United States as well as England. Just saying...

Perfectly stated. What happened to common sense. You should certainly permit immigrants to come into the country but allowing them to change everything to be like the country that they EMIGRATED FROM is absolutely ridiculous. If you want traditional muslim law then go to Saudi Arabia, if you want western style government then you can live in America or the UK.

They don't have the legal authority to impose criminal punishments. If they do so, then the Beth Dins are criminal themselves.

I am as much against Sharia courts as I am Jewish, Christian or Zoroastrian courts.

Call it what you will but it's still xenophobia fueled I suspect by a fair amount of bigotry. Culture and society evolves as the components within it change, to assume that change doesn't or shouldn't happen is about as ignorant as demanding that the culture should completely change - society is about accommodation and respect as well as adaptation, both parties need to learn this lest both fall prey to their particular bigotries.

They shouldn't no - any more than the there should be religious courts for Orthodox Jews or Fundamentalist Christians, and yet I don't see the subject in this film commenting on those demands that have also been made repeatedly (well again - English tried the Fundie route under Cromwell before tossing them out) so I have to wonder why he is singling out the Muslims.

Ah yes.. desiring to preserve one's culture makes one a "bigot." No, it's just the hyper-liberalized European way of thinking that is willing to seemingly set aside thousands of years worth of culture for a brand-spanking new immigrant group -- an immigrant group which as been known to harbor and protect individuals who have conspired to kill one's countrymen, treats its women like cattle, etc. I'm not talking about all Muslims, of course. The gentleman in the video makes the distinction as well. Fundamentalist Islam, however, is apparently quite popular in Europe. Like any fundamentalist belief, it is something to be resisted. As far as I know, the Greek Orthodox fundies are being left alone because they more-less keep to themselves. Islamic fundies? Not so much.

Behaving as they do, it's just a matter of time before the Europeans allow themselves to be steamrolled by a vocal minority.

So you must be a bigot for being against the Sharia courts then? You seem to want it both ways. What right do you have to say that the English courts are superior to the Sharia courts? At least try to be consistent in your position.

No, it's everything around the legitimate points that he makes that makes him a xenophobe.

I think that there is a lot that we can do and should do to accommodate other belief systems and most of it is pretty reasonable most of the time. However... I do think there are limits and the alcohol/birth control thing crosses one of them.

I just don't think that anyone whose employment duties partially include selling alcohol and/or birth control can ask for an accommodation not to do so. Either work at a place that doesn't sell those things or suck it up and pray for the people who you're selling it to. Most people's paychecks are set salaries and aren't based on the actual things that you sell or do not sell. So if these people think that abstaining from selling alcohol but receiving the partial profits from that employer's spoils in the form of a paycheck is less hypocritical, I have a hard time thinking they're either idiots or else have an ulterior motive in wanting to impose their own religious beliefs on others.

Whenever I think about these situations (mainly the pharmacist/Plan B situation that Target and Walmart pharmacies condone) I can't help but wonder whether a McDonalds could be required to allow an kosher jewish employee to refuse to sell cheeseburgers. How would that go over at a McD's? "Oh I'm sorry, I'll have to get my gentile friend over here to ring up the cash register because -- no judgment -- but I think its a sin." Yeah, right.

So, who represent Islam?

Really? So, by your logic, if someone is Muslim they automatically support terrorism? I think that is such a skewed way of viewing people.

Muslims aren't the only terrorists in the world.

By my logic? You are reading into things a bit too much.

I know lots of Muslims who are great folks. They are not psychotic fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are the problem, not regular Islamic folks. There are Muslims who support terrorism and those who don't.

As for those who do, I hope the government finds them and kills or imprisons them. As for 'tolerating' them, no, they have declared war on the west, and for that, they should die.

There are, however, a lot of fundamentalists out there who think terrorism is A-OK. Eff them. I wouldn't mind seeing them hanged in the public square for their beliefs.

He explicitly stated that being Muslim does not mean that you support terrorism. To say that a majority of terrorists, especially international, are not Muslim would be a lie though. Nobody is trying to say that all Muslims are terrorists but everyone involved in the 9/11 attacks, the Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole were. There are crazy middle aged white guys who like to send people mailbombs and blow up federal buildings in Oklahoma but once again, we're talking about a majority of terrorists.

The PC police will lynch you for that.
Oops.

Same could be said for any religion or ideology really...

Does that mean by your logic that those here in the West that have declared war on Islam, Arabs, whatever also should die?

Heh... I feel the same way about a lot of Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals too - I worry about any crazed group that views the end of the world as a good thing, or wants a return to the horrors of the Puritan theocracy <shudder> (those guys made the Taliban look like laid back party animals by comparison).

Except there is no other religion or ideology (except perhaps Communism) that exists in such great numbers and poses a substantial threat. Last I checked, there is only one minority group that kills people for drawing politically incorrect cartoons. An argument might be made that Scientology is really, really bad, but then again, they don't operate in such numbers.

There isn't another group of religious zealots that wants to do things like return Spain to a hyper-Islamic Caliphate.

Unless you're going to argue that George Bush blew up the WTC, I just don't see how you could possibly believe that these folks aren't a threat.

I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. I have no problem with Islam. I have a problem with people who want to kill me because of my way of life. Generally, yes, I prefer they die instead of me.

Nowhere today do Christian fundamentalists or any other sort of fundamentalists exist in such numbers and employ such tactics as extremist Muslims you'll find in Europe, the Middle East, and to a lesser extent in the U.S. When the radical Christianists blow up a major building or commit a really bad act in the name of Jesus, I might change my opinion.

Some might argue Capitalism as well...

Yet - although watching the news I do wonder about some of the more ardent "Christian" groups in the US and Africa

The prefer non-direct vectors of attack, lawsuits and the establishment of funds/museums/schools to promote their views... and they did inflect "Battlefield Earth" on us ;)

Of course only Islamic groups want that - the irony of course being that the Spanish Caliphate was remarkably liberal and enlightened, the loss of Iberia sparked the fundamentalist bent we see still fueling segments of Islam.

Of course I could easily point to many "Christian" congregations/denominations that would like to see America (and others) turned into a "Christian Nation" which is just as terrifying as a fundamentalist Islamic Caliphate to me.

Christian fundamentalist exist in huge numbers, hell they account for 1/3 of American "Christians" and many do and have happily killed and terrorized "non-Christians" in the name of God - Christian Identity, the Ku Klux Klan, the Christian Patriots, the 'Concerned Christians', etc. from the US - the Iron Guard in Romania, the "Christian" paramilitaries in the Former Yugoslavia, the Indonesian "Christian" death squads and terror-cells, etc.

Hell there are breeding grounds for Christian extremism turning out more adherents every year like BJU, or groups like Answers in Genesis promoting their own twisted propaganda, or folks like Warren Jeffs or Fred Phelps out there who if given any measure of political power or a less stable society would happily act on their sick version of "faith".

I don't kid myself into believe that there aren't just as equally sick and twist ideologies lurking in the great Christian community that mirror those of the extremists of any ideology - particularly looking at the history of my faith, I know that violence can easily be justified in the name of Jesus by those looking for an excuse to express their hate, intolerance, or anger. So I just happen to look objectively at other faiths and ideologies and understand that they to will have elements within them just as repugnant and hateful as those still infecting Christianity.

Not religious, but there has been governments, in the name of fighting terrorism, squashing rights. Killing indiscriminately, arresting people left and right for their religious believe and holding people for being in the wrong place and the wrong time, while exporting them to nations where they can be tortured. Find that as wrong, even more wrong then what Al-Qaeda have done. Whereas Al-Qaeda can and will be destroyed, these governments and their allies will only create another Al-Qaeda in the future.

Man, that Westboro Baptist Church, always killing folks and such...They're disgusting, but they don't walk into crowded places and detonate bombs.

The idea that we should avoid labeling the terrorism we face "islamic extremism" is ridiculous. That is precisely where the threat comes from. Acknowledging a threat isn't prejudiced.

Exalt

Some people are acting like Christians never blow things up in the name of their religion.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

You find it more wrong that Al-Quada? or just as wrong and worse because you imagine it to be less easy to destroy?

If, as I suspect you do, you mean the US, I think you're claims are somewhat exaggerated and misrepresented. (I'm afraid that being at war does sometimes result in less discriminate killing than would be ideal, but while the actions of the US have been deeply flawed in individual cases, a perfect fight against terrorism is going to be tough to pull off.) I'd like the US to be more cautious and I'd like the US always to be making the case for a better way of life and doing things by not stooping to the methods used by our opponents. I'm pretty disgusted by some of our actions, and yet, I don't think that we'd be better off not doing anything at all. We've just got to be really careful about what we do.

I have conflicted attitudes about how much "tolerance" we should show to any religious believers. I don't think state funds should generally be spent on promoting the interest on one faith, and yet, I think our tradition of religious tolerance is a good one. I think we should try to honor matters of conscious as much as we can.

I think that a pharmacy chain that is willing to advertise that they will not carry certain forms of birth control or a taxi cab company that is willing to advertise that they won't accept passengers who are carrying alcohol are fine in the general marketplace. But I don't think that they should be able to seek state contracts that involve service to all customers (like an airport taxi line). I'm still working out what I think about catholic charity hospitals receiving state funds for some services like ER services but refusing to provide birth control or abortion services. (remember some of the charges against Joe Lieberman being "rape gurney Joe?")

I think we may lately be getting kind of confused about having "rights" to things simply because they aren't illegal. Should you have a legal expectation that you can get birth control at any pharmacy or can people who don't believe in certain forms of birth control have a legal expectation of working at and supporting business who share their values?

All that said, I think that it's going to be imperative that we resist any efforts to have separate legal systems or to allow certain churches to limit the civil rights of non-members generally out of a goofy effort to be "sensitive" to beliefs.

Not really speculation though is it? - Christianity HAS done terrible and horrifying things, Capitalism HAS done terrible and horrifying things - it's all a matter of keeping perspective and looking objectively at a larger picture that takes in the whole of an ideology or belief system. So while Christianity, Islam, Communism, Capitalism, etc. have all done horrible and terrible things (and continue to do so) they have also contributed positively to the greater whole of humanity either directly or indirectly, so it's silly or indicative of a personal bias to single one out as overtly evil because of the actions of a minority.

Umm... sure but only if you do it in the middle of the highway.

I think for myself, and consider more than one perspective?

Sorry but opinion doesn't equal fact.

Not directly no, but the tone and ignorance displayed by some all but spell it out...

Well at least you qualified it with the important term radical, others haven't bothered to use that which to is again indicative of at the very least an anti-Muslim attitude or bias - you on the other hand have at least realized that there are differences in the ideologies of Muslims, with some being radical or extremists.

Again opinion doesn't equal fact, or the truth - and as you pointed out it's the radicals not the whole, something that many posters here seem to forget... I guess many of them equate Muslim and radical as the same thing unfortunately.

Calling me a liberal is a personal insult actually - I'm a old school Red Tory, which I know must be confusing since it's a conservative tradition pro-intellectual and pro-pluralism so I don't tend to spout the "required" conservative dogma of the new conservatives and republicans (small 'r' for a reason).

Nobody is acting like that.

I just cannot comprehend why people go to such lengths to avoid saying who is responsible for the the threats we face. Unbelievable.

Fair enough, but I won't associate a whole religion with terrorism because of it. Every Catholic does not support child molestors, AND it's not what the religion stands for. Same with Islam, not only does every Muslim not support terrorism, but it's NOT what Islam stands for and that's the problem I have when people try to pinpoint terror.

You're right, but Islamic fundamentalism is the the biggest source of terrorism with regard to the United States. The huge majority of people acknowledge that most Muslims are the same as the rest of us, but certain entities still refuse to acknowledge the threat.

I agree. My only complaint is titles like "More demands from Islam" and the idea that we're in a war on Islam. And we have to understand that to Joe Muslim in the Middle East when we say "War on Islamic Terrorism" that sounds like a "War on Islam." Those are the situations when "political correctness" is actually warranted because we have political allies who we can ostracize if we're not careful.

I agree that the government and government officials should work to be precise in the terms they use to describe the overall effort for the reason that you mean.

But in any cases in which theology is tied to the aims of a group that engages in terrorism or a group that opposed the US generally or even freedom generally, then I don't think that members of the public or the press are obligated to ignore the religion of the members of the group.

And to be honest, even in cases where the behavior of the group, like Danish or French "youths" who rioted in the last few years, may not be directly tied to their religious views, it's still probably worth reporting the religion of the group so that when people try to address the long term causes of problems, they don't neglect an aspect fundamental to the problem. (If your religion contributed to your failure to assimilate into the culture fully and you face economic problems as a result of this, we're not going to get any place without addressing religion one way or another, even if it's just to address the failure of truly multicultural thinking to take hold with employers.)

Full disclosure: I didn't even watch the original linked video. Just like it embarrasses me when I run into conservatives who think Obama is a Muslim, it embarrasses me when people fail to appreciate the complexity of religion in public life. The desire to practice your religion freely may not best be described as a "demand" in most cases.

People who are working to be sensitive to the interests of Muslims but have no problem with suppressing the desires of members of other faiths to publicly declare or practice their faith drive me nuts too.

(I know people who would feel like a Christian wearing a cross or having a religious calendar on her desk would be pressing her faith on others in an unconstitutional way if she happened to work for the government, but that a similarly employed women who wanted to wear a full burqa should be accommodated. )

Sure there can be discussion, since as long as people continue going off that "itz teh muzlimz!!!" they are oversimplifying the issue and/or exercising a bit of self delusion in thinking that it's only the fanatics of one ideology that are a threat. One, it means your missing out on other threats, and two by simplifying so you turn it into the "Muslims are a threat" not "fanatical extremists are a threat".

Really now? I'd beg to differ there given the murder-by-neglect of tens of thousands of Americans each year because of a health service and industry devoted fanatically to capitalism... but hey why quibble when there's a handy different looking and thinking person to play the only threat to American lives ;)

Ironically created scads more willing recruits in the process... self delusion and over simplification of a threat can be a dangerous thing because it can create a bigger mess - but again that's just my opinion.

Well McCain is the lesser of the conservative "evils" in the running for the US prez - I think most Red Tories would support him happily over Huckabee (social conservative and evangelical) or Ron Paul (bat crazy Libertarian - pretty much the opposite of Red Tory)... but in the end most Red Tories would rather see Obama elected I think since he'd be easier to deal with given his distance from certain lobby groups, and it'd hopefully mean a crash and burn for the Republican party - the ripple effect of which my purge the republican, neo-con, and libertarian taints infesting the Conservative party up here.

RACooper,

You really thing the US health care system equals murder by neglect rather than suicide by fried food and ignorance?

At best I think it's that - at worst I'd argue willful murder for a profit really when you look at the whole drug and insurance debacle you've all got going on down there.

For what it's worth, I think it's a real hard argument to actually make well. How loosely do you have to define murder to even start making it?

Of course I have no idea what you are basing your conclusions on, but I think your perception of the actual effects of our "whole drug and insurance debacle" might be a little overblown if you are going to equate it with willful murder.