|
I think it's fine if someone wants to keep halal, personally
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The confederate flag* was literally created in the context of trying to perpetuate slavery, there is pretty much nothing good about it. Islam on the other hand is a religion that has existed for over a thousand years and has many good and bad aspects to it. These two things are not comparable. Moving from totally secular to fundamentalist on a continuum of religious belief, do you expect the person's political views to become more progressive or more regressive? What about from disengaged centrist to right wing authoritarian? Would I be remiss in being suspicious of a Randian who pines for a Libertarian president while pulling the lever for the GOP because Objectivism has some good aspects to it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
There is no legitimate expression that the confederate flag could reasonably be used for, other than supporting or endorsing the ideals of the confederate states of America, it being the widely recognized national symbol of that former state. The same is true for literally any other flag, and their respective states/nations. But unless you believe that it is unreasonable that there could be a mature, balanced islamic belief structure, then you are absolutely being unfair here, in a very anti-social way. Moreover, using that flimsy pretext to justify harassment and employment discrimination, which is what caps on says they experience, as the 'price you pay for dogma' or whatever, is incredibly malicious, rude & victim blaming. In your example, whatever preconception I have is irrelevant - it would not justify me not treating them with some fairly basic respect, giving them a fair go, and generally being polite. Because that is how society functions, or is supposed to function. I may assume they have whatever belief they have, but I would also assume that they're generally 'sociable' and willing to act within social norms, so it doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Moving from totally secular to fundamentalist on a continuum of religious belief, do you expect the person's political views to become more progressive or more regressive? What about from disengaged centrist to right wing authoritarian? Would I be remiss in being suspicious of a Randian who pines for a Libertarian president while pulling the lever for the GOP because Objectivism has some good aspects to it? Yes because nobody who says "no" to this is prepared for the implications of that statement. That the society that countenances such wacky poo poo in its body politic has not fallen into the sun is a big deal. I think an unspoken predicate of this thread is how european societies (apparently) crumple under the weight of 1/100th of the diversity the USA works under--or does not work, as the case may be--incidentally. Now "incidentally" is a term that includes the prominence and digestion and excretion of Donald Trump's candidacy for President of the United States, so I don't wanna put us on a pedestal here. I nontheless find it interesting our rednecked uncouth nation can process a preponderance of folk what ain't white and The Right Kinda Christian where the european body shits itself at the immediate pressure of the slightest resistance. What's going on there? Can anyone tell me what's going on here, as he asks a leading question? I don't like threads that make everything about america, but if there's any thread about a nonamerican country/continental mass that could use the usa as a counterpoint it's this one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
e; rudatron and i agree. homie you need to work on saying what you think instead of generally outlining what you don't think. Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Yes because nobody who says "no" to this is prepared for the implications of that statement. That the society that countenances such wacky poo poo in its body politic has not fallen into the sun is a big deal. I think a big part of it is simply the current european zeitgeist being very hostile to muslims. Majority of European muslims has been around for a number of decades, but they've only really started facing serious (at least religiously rather than racially based, but that's it's own can of worms) discrimination in the frothy violently nationalistic environment of the last few years. Certainly I've known a number of muslims which that could apply to, and I'd guess even caps on caps can provide his own anecdotes about that. Then there is the larger point of Europe still being very, very white. The concept of entire (white-founded) cities/places/towns becoming non-majority white (or even non-majority ethnically 'native') is met with equal parts of derision and fear. To some extent it is a conversation that the United States had (and continues to have) which Europe will have to come to terms with still. The main thing I'm afraid of is the extremes to which the inevitable counterpush is prepared to go. We're seeing it now with brexit, burqa bans, front national, afd, true finns, jobbik etc., etc. If we look at the history of similar struggles (the United States being a handy example with post-reconstruction, 60's segregation, even the anti-federalists of the early years [who are eerily similar to what eurosceptics put forth, and show how long the road really is]) the 'popular' sides always come on top at first, and only after some time and many regressive actions the actual reform comes about. So TL;DR yes, I'd agree with you that the US has dealt with a number of issues still facing European countries (even if still having some issues of it's own, chiefly healthcare and prisons). e: oh and I basically get called a blood traitor in the Europol thread for holding these views Private Speech fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Then there is the other thing. The actual racism here. As it stands, Muslims have a bad image. My fiancee is also an Arab Muslim and she has never heard anything, ever, although she is ambiguous enough looking without seeing her name that she can pass for a local in MENA or in Europe (I look like a stereotypical Scandinavian). The only place either of us have ever had an overt problem is at the Dome of the Rock, with the dickwad Palestinian who wouldn't let us without reciting a prayer of his choosing in Arabic. Whichever one he chose, neither of us knew it—not that I speak Arabic, so I was out as soon as he stopped us. To be honest, there are a lot of hasidic jews where I live now, and I feel uncomfortable looking at them with their 1850s fur hats and their hairstyle, as I assume they at least tacitly support extremists who go and firebomb Palestinian orphanages and block the escape routes (even if most of them would never participate in such a thing). I also get freaked out by extremists Christians, although I don't know that they dress in any particularly uniform way, so they are much harder to profile. I agree that's a geographical thing. In Marseilles or Saint-Denis, it's another story from where I am.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
What I really mean though is it's not just about religion. For people who come and spend years in a country and never learn the language? I think that's also an extremely offensive thing to do. There are lots of cultural faux pas. I guess since you're a born-and-raised German it's a more difficult story, but I think that immigrants are obliged to adapt to the cultural norms of their host country if they plan on living out their lives there. If 99% of the local people think or act a way in public, and you're an immigrant? Then you should adapt yourself to that or move away and not try to force your foreign customs on them. I am saying this as an immigrant myself. If I moved to the UAE I wouldn't demand to set up a pork and alcohol shop either, nor would I eat/drink it in public, nor should anyone eat in public during Ramadan in any Muslim country, even if they are Christian. Just like wearing a niqab in France, it doesn't matter that "you're not hurting anyone", and I agree it should not be illegal, but it's still a cultural offense and I would think worse of myself, a friend, or a stranger for doing it. Saladman fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
Regarding the US as a more diverse society, I'd remind that a huge part of the US population is treating a much, much smaller muslim population than most western european countries have as an existential threat, so let's tone down the backpatting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Moving from totally secular to fundamentalist on a continuum of religious belief, do you expect the person's political views to become more progressive or more regressive? And without the radical abolitionists there would never have been the moderate abolitionists. So yes, you're right in that the religious fundies of the time were doing things that were extremely distasteful to the civil progressives of the time, they were shouting a lot and using guns and force to steal people's private property (which just happened to be other human beings) which made the liberals very upset. It's obvious why this is the case, a bunch of people fired up about a code of laws they see as higher than that of their society will obviously be more willing to transgress social norms than a bunch of comfortable middle class people, but there's nothing saying that this has to be for bad reasons, as seen with abolitionism, indigenous peoples' rights, liberation theology, etc. It just so seems that nowadays you're more likely to see religious radicalism in the form of throwing gay people off of buildings or bombing abortion clinics. I'm not sure whether that's the case overall for the current era or just the case as presented.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
What if I told you there was a recent mission from the real Kingdom of Heaven to update human understanding? All religions are less than truth, and now that Ti & Do have left Earth what is left is a fading afterimage so you can make up your own mind. The picture they illustrated reconciles Eastern and Western philosophies, Christianity and Islam. Being 'born again' has multiple meanings much like the Trinity. Modesty and overcoming sensual desire is an important virtue when applying to The Evolutionary Level Above Human. 'Mysticism and Logic' by Bertrand Russell seems to be a good stepping stone toward knowing the Next Level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Mc Do Well posted:What if I told you there was a recent mission from the real Kingdom of Heaven to update human understanding? All religions are less than truth, and now that Ti & Do have left Earth what is left is a fading afterimage so you can make up your own mind. The picture they illustrated reconciles Eastern and Western philosophies, Christianity and Islam. Being 'born again' has multiple meanings much like the Trinity. Modesty and overcoming sensual desire is an important virtue when applying to The Evolutionary Level Above Human. Forums poster Mc Do Well, I have to ask: is that you, McDowell? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:05
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Forums poster Mc Do Well, I have to ask: is that you, McDowell? of course. You know the story of Muhammad's night flight with Buraq seems like one of the flying saucer abduction stories from 1950's America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Saladman posted:If 99% of the local people think or act a way in public, and you're an immigrant? Then you should adapt yourself to that or move away and not try to force your foreign customs on them. I am saying this as an immigrant myself. If I moved to the UAE I wouldn't demand to set up a pork and alcohol shop either There are "pork shops" in the UAE and several other countries in the gulf. This is absolutely a ridiculous standard to hold for what amounts to small differences.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:There are "pork shops" in the UAE and several other countries in the gulf. This is absolutely a ridiculous standard to hold for what amounts to small differences. The point is not about whether something is/should be legal, it's about culture and integration. If you're from the tiny indigenous Christian population of these countries, that's one thing (e.g. Iran -> Alcohol), but if you're an immigrant I personally find it something that reflects poorly on one's character and their long-term intentions for integration. Yes it's a small thing, and there are a lot of small things. It's also a small thing to swap a niqab for a mainstream veil. (With that in mind, I find the burkini controversy retarded, since it's identical to a traditional European swimsuit + a hair veil.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Integration must be international - All-one or none!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Saladman posted:What I really mean though is it's not just about religion. For people who come and spend years in a country and never learn the language? I think that's also an extremely offensive thing to do. There are lots of cultural faux pas. I guess since you're a born-and-raised German it's a more difficult story, but I think that immigrants are obliged to adapt to the cultural norms of their host country if they plan on living out their lives there. If 99% of the local people think or act a way in public, and you're an immigrant? Then you should adapt yourself to that or move away and not try to force your foreign customs on them. I am saying this as an immigrant myself. If I moved to the UAE I wouldn't demand to set up a pork and alcohol shop either, nor would I eat/drink it in public, nor should anyone eat in public during Ramadan in any Muslim country, even if they are Christian. By "adapt to the cultural norms", it sounds like you mean "shed their previous culture entirely". Someone can be observant of both German culture and Muslim culture, blending the two where necessary - just like someone can be observant of both German culture and Jewish culture. Someone can wear a niqab in France while still also being a giant snob about bad wine or whatever the gently caress French culture does. Integration doesn't mean completely shunning your old cultural identity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Idk if I were to go with a made up religion about stuff I would def go with Mormonism, you get to retain the cushy gender roles while having a lot of effort be made for eventual space exploration. Islam is about submission, which to me sounds lame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Idk if I were to go with a made up religion about stuff I would def go with Mormonism, you get to retain the cushy gender roles while having a lot of effort be made for eventual space exploration. Islam is about submission, which to me sounds lame. I might be wrong but those beliefs could be stepping stones and you see all their aspects in the information coming from Ti & Do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoVa4KsXT-Q The creator of the universe is a cosmic being - it seems to me many humans are constrained by the astral. There are all kinds of interesting 'counterfeits' out there - like the Raelians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
^^^ I'm honestly kind of confused about why you post about your cult so often. Even if you believe it's true, surely you realize that everyone else perceives what you're saying as being kinda crazy?Main Paineframe posted:By "adapt to the cultural norms", it sounds like you mean "shed their previous culture entirely". Someone can be observant of both German culture and Muslim culture, blending the two where necessary - just like someone can be observant of both German culture and Jewish culture. Someone can wear a niqab in France while still also being a giant snob about bad wine or whatever the gently caress French culture does. Integration doesn't mean completely shunning your old cultural identity. Also, why would anyone care in the first place? Why in the world should someone who moves to a new country feel obligated to throw away their old culture? It's one thing to be antisocial and refuse to learn about your new country's culture*, but that's a separate issue entirely and applies regardless of whether you're an immigrant (and people in the country you immigrated to should also be willing to learn about your culture). The same goes for any objectively harmful cultural practices, which can be judged on their own merits rather than in the general scope of "should immigrants shun their native culture." I can't think of a single reason why anyone should have to throw away their culture when they move to a new country other than "appeasing bigots." *And honestly, a big component of this is determined by a country's policies and how easy they make it for immigrants to integrate. We know that government policy makes a big difference in this respect, so it's ridiculous (and ultimately counterproductive and harmful) to just blame immigrants for failing to fully integrate. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:^^^ I'm honestly kind of confused about why you post about your cult so often. Even if you believe it's true, surely you realize that everyone else perceives what you're saying as being kinda crazy? In this case what Ti & Do had to say seems pertinent to the thread and has been something churning in this brain since at least 9/11 if not earlier - all religions have some aspect of truth - and there is a puzzle to put together. It is not unlike the Star Trek episode where all the different rubber-faces and the humans are looking for information in DNA and it is just a little sweet message from the original humanoids who engineered life on all the planets. There's some Next Level influences in the Battlestar Galactica remake as well. Why not start telling ourselves KPAX really happened? It makes sense on a planet where Evangelical Christians vote for Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Saladman posted:. If 99% of the local people think or act a way in public, and you're an immigrant? Then you should adapt yourself to that or move away and not try to force your foreign customs on them. This rings of "You're forcing gay marriage on me by being married while gay".
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Dude, so anyone who doesn't eat pork, drink beer and schnapps and goes to Church is culturally offensive and he&his religion/family/race is _rightfully_ discriminated against...? This is literally an "okay" opinion to have in Europe. I am just surprised so many would find a real alternative like a moderate Islam unappealing and prefer instead full out cultural confrontation. Anyway, good to know. What I find really horrible in Germany (Switzerland/Austria/Denmark etc.) is this firm belief that racism or discrimination is not an issue. And even more, that it was in fact destroyed by the virtuous post-war Germans with their superior education. This is an extremely common opinion among educated Germans (which I btw shared). WW2 guilt is more like a badge of honor we wear allowing us to never think again about discrimination or racism in our society because, after all, we are healed. The success of the AFD was so loving surprising for everyone, but they only speak out plainly what the cultural untertone "Leitkultur" in Germany has been for a long time. In the USA problems with racism are at least addressed. Here, part of the cultural ethos is that these things are single cases, not to be seen systematic. Germans are extremely good at ignoring these instances. Another point is that Germans do not acknowledge that they, themselves, hosed up integration of Turks back in the day. As seen clearly itt, they do not understand the concept of alienation and segregation as a response to something. What this means of course that there is little real discussion about what could be done differently in the future. There is a big paradox between the need for skilled immigration and the hate of these people. The only thing which might get acceptance is a complete metamorphosis to a German stereotype. But paradoxically at the same time Germans need to believe that their society is fair, open and tolerant, so diversity posters still include brown and black people even though, you know, this should only be true for kebaps and taxy companies. It is not a surprise that qualified immigration happens almost exclusively to North America. The cultural hostility towards outsiders is less accepted, and it exists less in educated circles than here. I remember how just recently people were searching for a reason why we can not attract top class scientists here (or get them back from the US), and at the same time an article was running in Spiegel about an Indian guest researcher in Dresden who said he would leave again because of racism. The general public was oblivious to any connection between the stories. Almost 3/4 of the graduates of my PhD program, which bears the "elite" level by Exzellenzinitiative, went away from Germany afterwards. Don't forget these are people (also brown people) the German state invests like hundreds of thousands of Euros in. We can not afford to do this forever. With declining population, we need educated people. Yet this hostility above, which is arguably even more against moderates than extremists, we will lose a lot of people who, despite generally liking Germany, feel uncomfortable here and who do have outside options (aka USA or Canada). Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:What I find really horrible in Germany (Switzerland/Austria/Denmark etc.) is this firm belief that racism or discrimination is not an issue. And even more, that it was in fact destroyed by the virtuous post-war Germans with their superior education. This is an extremely common opinion among educated Germans (which I btw shared). WW2 guilt is more like a badge of honor we wear allowing us to never think again about discrimination or racism in our society because, after all, we are healed. Part of it is that Europe hasn't really had to confront the consequences of its racism the same way the Americas have. Sure, obviously there were the Nazis, but they were so over the top about it that it seems like many Europeans have to stop and think for a minute to come up with other examples of persecution of minorities. For example, when someone asserts that people should have to entirely abandon their old culture and totally integrate into the majority culture, my mind jumps right to the Canadian treatment of First Nations peoples, where the state attempted to destroy their cultural identity via forced assimilation by putting their children into religious boarding schools which banned native languages and practices and sought to indoctrinate students with Christian beliefs and Canadian culture. The US did essentially the same thing in some areas. After a bit more thought, I also remember the Australian policy toward Aborigines, which went even further by outright removing children (particularly mixed-race children) from their parents and putting them in missionary schools or fostering them out to white families - again, with the objective of eliminating their native identity and forcibly assimilating them. Both of these practices are widely regarded today as essentially ethnic cleansing, attempting to destroy a people by using state power to separate their children from their cultural identity, but I can see why it might take some explaining for someone in Europe to make that connection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Part of it is that Europe hasn't really had to confront the consequences of its racism the same way the Americas have. Sure, obviously there were the Nazis, but they were so over the top about it that it seems like many Europeans have to stop and think for a minute to come up with other examples of persecution of minorities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The difference is that this was/is perpetrated against natives, while the demand to integrate is leveled against immigrants, to integrate like the people that came before. (Which admittedly, is going to be easier said than done, given the environment many immigrants will end up in.) What is discussed in this thread, and I only care because I do believe this opinion is shared by many Europeans, is that non-Christianity in itself is incompatible. Now you might say "it's our country" but the issue I still have is that this betrays the implicit promise most countries a) make by their constitution and b) is implied by their own opinion of justice. For example, in Germany freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution. Anyone would therefore expect that, consistent with this, the institutional framework allows free practice of religion (since non-factual rights are not intended by at least this constitution). However, as we heard in this thread, open and constitutional practice of religion invites real negative consequences which, according to many, are even justifyable. Even though these act of discrimination should go against article 1 on equality and dignity (or whatever the equivalent in your constitution is), the article of freedom of religion and here also the article against discrimination, these acts are still considered just/right by people otherwise supporting the constitution (and even heralding its virtue). And remember that in general the executive power is tasked with creating and mediating the factuality of these articles. Yes, the discussion is reframed with respect to integration, but integration does not require more than respecting the institutional framework of the country, in which the constitution and its articles trump any non-material institutions. This paradox can only be resolved if the practice of religion is seen as direct attack on the country and the discrimination as just defense. Again, this does not relate to the legislature, but to the actual understanding of it by the majority of the population. Consequentially, this country would not enjoy freedom of religion and would be, on the scale, far behind countries like the USA. Here, discrimination is present, but it is not justified systematically and especially not officially by parties (such as AFD in Germany) or states (such as Bavaria). I think the hypocracy of it irks me more than the actual fact. The AfD annoys me less than people who are able to view themselves in all sorts of positive light, while simultaneously denying basic rights. The thought of chosing religion freely is an implicit promise that children still grow up with in this country. If Germany agrees that it does not want Islam, it must go back and make all Christianity state religion again and forbid all other religions. So. The issue is not with integration. Integration with the factual constitutional and institutional elements of Europe is best achieved by having a non-political, moderate Islam. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Someone can wear a niqab in France while still also being a giant snob about bad wine or whatever the gently caress French culture does. Integration doesn't mean completely shunning your old cultural identity. Absolutely, I never said anything about "completely shunning." There are a million small things, wearing a niqab is just a more visible thing, like a djellaba or growing a Sahaba beard (not sure what they're actually called). Keep in mind that many Europeans do not want their to be the a"melting pot" like most North and South American countries. This is not a "anti Islam" thing it's a general cultural "anti-everyone" thing, you see it all the time everywhere, with particularly notable examples being like the French's "we have too many English words, we need to make French ones". Say a Qatari family moved to France, with a man and three of his wives (two living in 'secret'), lived there for 15 years, and that after all that time, none of them learned French, the kids were all sent to private Arabic school, they had no French friends, did not participate whatsoever in any common notable aspects of French culture, taught their children to not interact with members of the opposite sex, and so on and so forth. Then they apply for citizenship. Would you give it to them? Maybe an American would say yes, but few Europeans would, and it's not about racism so much as culture-ism, which is a pretty commonly practiced thing all over the world whether or not you agree with it (good luck getting citizenship in any Asian country, even as a white person! It can happen, but you have to be pretty drat dedicated.). Obviously these are extreme examples, but there's a huge spectrum between "doesn't eat pork or drink but otherwise is indistinguishably integrated" and example at the start of this paragraph. Hell, I have an in-law who was refused citizenship for a reason between the two extremes written here, and fully support his being refused as does my partner. Some level of integration is mandatory, but then you can argue all about where those goal posts should be, or whether there even should be any, but the opinion I voice here is a pretty mainstream and moderate one. Also the comparison to First Nations people is ridiculous — they are indigenous. If someone moves to Norway and integrates completely with the Sami and never learns Norwegian (however improbable) then they should be able to get citizenship eventually too. Yes both countries did terrible things to their indigenous peoples and are finally addressing it, except for the Roma. It's not always about racism, but rather culture-ism: see (a) basques, (b) sami, (c) any other historically mistreated minority ethnic group in any european country—i.e. most of the minority ethnic groups. Saladman fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Saladman posted:culture-ism this is a very good point, and one that Americans simplistically calling everything in Europe racist do not get
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This rings of "You're forcing gay marriage on me by being married while gay". The point is not that "culture is immutable and unchangeable", the point is that cultural directions should be determined by the people living there, and not forced by outside influences (e: or by mass influxes of immigrants from a particular cultural background). If you believe that, maybe you're OK with it while America and Europe on top, but what will you think when it's China? Or Saudi Arabia?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Saladman posted:
We ARE arguing about the goal posts, which you are moving now. Having secret wifes and not educating children is non-integration. It has nothing to do with the institutions of the country. This is a strawman argument. Having freedom of religion is also an insitution in both our countries. You can not continue to demand to stop practicing religion, either by law or by threat of discrimination, and still pretend it's a debate about integration. You can not deny basic constitutional rights and pretend to be moderate, albeit you can be mainstream. Segregated regressives thrive under religious discrimination. Nothing is better for Islamists than the situation advocated in this thread. In the hypothetical case of modernist or moderate Muslims who "doesn't eat pork or drink but otherwise is indistinguishably integrated", we would need a moderate institutional Islam in Europe. The simple test for hypocracy is therefore to check this thread. If people were truly okay with intergrated Muslims, they would also want a moderate Islam. People itt who prefer the current state of discrimination and segregation do so because they know it breeds easily distinguishable enemies and they do not truly want integrated brown people in their country. And that is the connection to racism. So when we talk about goal posts, I think the approach is pretty clear. All institutions are to be respected by the people moving there, and by the people living there. That includes the practice of religion as constitutional right (and other constitutional rights such as non-discrimination at work, in school etc.) but it also includes equal treatment of men and women, tolerance towards others, cultural integration, language etc. The Islam which is compatible with this is the moderate Islam. Both religion and political views incompatible with these facts, both cultural integration and freedom of religion, should not be accepted by the citizens of the country. Let me be clear: Someone who suggests to kill homosexuals or people who draw Mohammed does not belong to Europe. Someone who suggests actively discriminating against Muslims for no other reason that they are Muslims and remind him of Anders Breivik or whatever, also do not belong to Europe. But the latter IS accepted and even promoted by many. Therefore, hypocracy is something you can not deny. Culturism is no defense at all. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Saladman posted:Also the comparison to First Nations people is ridiculous — they are indigenous. If someone moves to Norway and integrates completely with the Sami and never learns Norwegian (however improbable) then they should be able to get citizenship eventually too. Yes both countries did terrible things to their indigenous peoples and are finally addressing it, except for the Roma. It's not always about racism, but rather culture-ism: see (a) basques, (b) sami, (c) any other historically mistreated minority ethnic group in any european country—i.e. most of the minority ethnic groups. If it's the responsibility of immigrants to integrate into the culture of the country they enter, then why aren't all Norwegians culturally Sami? Shouldn't they have integrated into the dominant culture, rather than turning it into a melting pot by retaining their own separate, alien culture? Let's not even talk about the legacy of colonialism, where Europeans seemed more interested in exploiting cultures all over the world than in integrating with them. To suddenly discover a previously-nonexistent love for integration when they're the "natives" facing an inflow of outsiders rings hollow as all hell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If it's the responsibility of immigrants to integrate into the culture of the country they enter, then why aren't all Norwegians culturally Sami? Because pre-historic societies work differently from modern ones, for one. Not only were the Sami not a coherent state, they remained semi-nomadic hunters while the newcomers from the south were agriculturalists since at least the beginning of the Bronze Age (around 1800 BC). quote:Let's not even talk about the legacy of colonialism, where Europeans seemed more interested in exploiting cultures all over the world than in integrating with them. Colonialism is hardly exclusive to Europeans. For example, why is the Coptic language no longer the vernacular in Egypt?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If it's the responsibility of immigrants to integrate into the culture of the country they enter, then why aren't all Norwegians culturally Sami? Shouldn't they have integrated into the dominant culture, rather than turning it into a melting pot by retaining their own separate, alien culture? Let's not even talk about the legacy of colonialism, where Europeans seemed more interested in exploiting cultures all over the world than in integrating with them. To suddenly discover a previously-nonexistent love for integration when they're the "natives" facing an inflow of outsiders rings hollow as all hell. caps on caps on caps posted:Having freedom of religion is also an insitution in both our countries. You can not continue to demand to stop practicing religion, either by law or by threat of discrimination, and still pretend it's a debate about integration. You can not deny basic constitutional rights and pretend to be moderate, albeit you can be mainstream.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
I'm going to do something really uncomfortable and try to be honest here and not soft peddle my lefty-white-North-American anxieties about Islam and Muslims. I apologize if this offends you but I hope it will in some way be useful to you to hear my perspective, and I want to emphasize I respect you as an individual for broaching this topic, and I do not consciously wish to attack you or the religion with which you identify.... But that having been said, I do fear that secularism and Islam are not compatible, or at least don't fit together easily under current world-historical conditions. Anyway, with that having been said, here are my own thoughts. caps on caps on caps posted:
Suppose the desire was for interrogated people who are no longer Muslim, or who are "culturally Muslim" in the same superficial sense that an atheist who still celebrates (a bastardized, watered down, pop culture version of) Christmas or Easter is "culturally Christian"? I hesitate to wade into this debate because it's undeniably true that concerns about Muslims and integration is a trope used by racists to advance their own goals. However, if I'm being candid here I really have no enthusiasm for encouraging a "moderate" but sincere version of a religion that I view as inherently sexist. I hasten to add that I feel similarly about Judaism and Christianity. The Abrahamic religions, when practiced sincerely, seem frighteningly sectarian, anti-modern and regressive to me. I'm all for people holding onto little bits of their heritage as ornamental decorations, but I don't think sincerely religious individuals are a great fit for a modern society, and perhaps the most painful and drawn out battle of modernity in Europe and North America was the slow and partial removal of religion and religious differences from public life. I want that to continue: I want sincere religiosity to fade away and be replaced by a basically atheistic secularism, possibly attended by some skin-deep and ultimately inconsequential spiritualist beliefs, but fundamentally devoid of the faith-driven religion that you most likely view as central to your own life. So I have to ask, what does a "moderate Islam" mean to you? Does it mean an unambiguous commitment to allowing one's children to leave the religion or marry outside it? Does it entail an open acknowledgement of the fact that Mohammed performed many actions that would be condemned today, such as taking multiple wives, one of them thought to be only 10 years old, was a bad thing? Or that basing one's life and most important decisions on the belief in an all powerful supernatural entity is irrational? Because I suspect that's the standard many people may want to hold you to, and it seems like such a standard would likely remove everything about your religion that you hold dear. When Israel was founded all kinds of institutional privileges were granted to the most religious Jewish sects, on the assumption that these groups were harmless and would dissapear in time. But these more extremist groups actually multiplied and have become a major demographic within the state, and have (along with all kinds of historical circumstances that I admit are unique to Israel) helped to push the entire society in a much more frightening and fundamentalist direction. Likewise, Christian fundamentalism played a much less prominent role in American public life up to the 1980s, when it experienced a major revival that is only now receding. As someone generally committed to secularism I find these religious intrusions into modernity disturbing and I don't want to encourage them. I anticipate that you may argue that a state sponsored moderate Islam would prevent my concerns from reaching fruition but I confess that I'm skeptical. Quite possibly this skepticism comes at least in part from my subconscious and racialized fears of the 'Other' which Muslims represent to me. I'm not saying that's the case but I have to assume here that my own ability to know my own motivations is limited, as it is for anyone. So I won't claim to be totally above racism, that would be foolhardy, one cannot be entirely free or racism in today's society. But I do believe racial equality to be an important goal and I'm not speaking from a position of explicit racism when I say that I fear Islam as a religion is, for complex historical reasons, going to be hard to integrate. I would add that my concerns extend to certain forms of Christianity (Mormonism comes to mind as a particularly scary contemporary example) and Judaism. Believe it or not but I despise Nu-Atheism of the Dawkins or Harris variety and I'm not trying to claim religion is the inherent cause of all society's problems. But I do generally think that the receding influence of religion during the 20th century, and the seemingly increasing tendency to consign religiousness to the dustbin of history was, to me, a positive looking development. The return of religious extremism since roughly 1979 is disturbing to me and Muslims perhaps stand out in this because it seems like Islam, for various reasons, is a particularly effective religion at cultivating sincere adherents (this may just be reflective of who I know personally). The constant prayer, the particular historical circumstances we're currently in, the strongly knit communities, they all suggest to me that a subsidized Islam isn't going to melt away into the broader cultural fabric and I guess if I'm being honest that's what I would want to happen -- I certainly don't want the government, by supporting any variety of a religion, to extend its lifespan. So I fear that while we might share the short-term goal of disarming extremist Islam, you're asking for secularists to accept a permanent existence of an actual Islamic religion, subsidized by the government, and I don't know if I'm comfortable with that goal. ... I write all that and immediately a part of me wonders if all my high-fallutin thoughts on the importance of secularism just make me a stalking horse for racists. I hate to be caught in this position, mistrusting religion but not wanting to be co-opted by regressive right-wing nationalist forces that seek to exploit anxieties like my own to advance their larger agenda. Maybe I'm making the perfect the enemy of the good, and writing off a viable and practical solution to a tricky problem. But I thought that this topic was interesting enough, and that your own post seemed genuine enough, that I might as well write a detailed reply and not hold back too much on my own feelings on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Helsing posted:But that having been said, I do fear that secularism and Islam are not compatible, or at least don't fit together easily under current world-historical conditions. Anyway, with that having been said, here are my own thoughts. Helsing posted:Suppose the desire was for interrogated people who are no longer Muslim, or who are "culturally Muslim" in the same superficial sense that an atheist who still celebrates (a bastardized, watered down, pop culture version of) Christmas or Easter is "culturally Christian"? This seems to be more a total antithesis to the mainstream of this thread but yeah I get it. Helsing posted:I hesitate to wade into this debate because it's undeniably true that concerns about Muslims and integration is a trope used by racists to advance their own goals. However, if I'm being candid here I really have no enthusiasm for encouraging a "moderate" but sincere version of a religion that I view as inherently sexist. I hasten to add that I feel similarly about Judaism and Christianity. The Abrahamic religions, when practiced sincerely, seem frighteningly sectarian, anti-modern and regressive to me. I'm all for people holding onto little bits of their heritage as ornamental decorations, but I don't think sincerely religious individuals are a great fit for a modern society, and perhaps the most painful and drawn out battle of modernity in Europe and North America was the slow and partial removal of religion and religious differences from public life. I want that to continue: I want sincere religiosity to fade away and be replaced by a basically atheistic secularism, possibly attended by some skin-deep and ultimately inconsequential spiritualist beliefs, but fundamentally devoid of the faith-driven religion that you most likely view as central to your own life. Coming ultimately from your ideal and moving away from it, I believe that this path is wrong. The failure of organized religion is nothing but the failure of human society, and the truth of the message is found in many sources both clear and unclear. I understand your opinion though, and I agreed (check the first posts) that the current establishment, even if better than two hundred years ago, is bad because it is not based on free choice. Helsing posted:So I have to ask, what does a "moderate Islam" mean to you? Does it mean an unambiguous commitment to allowing one's children to leave the religion or marry outside it? Does it entail an open acknowledgement of the fact that Mohammed performed many actions that would be condemned today, such as taking multiple wives, one of them thought to be only 10 years old, was a bad thing? As for the Prophet, he said himself that he is nothing but a human who gives the message. His customs are not more good or bad than those of anybody else of the time. The development of our society is a blessing we have fought hard for, many of its achievements have been gained or preserved in Islamic countries. Helsing posted:Or that basing one's life and most important decisions on the belief in an all powerful supernatural entity is irrational? Helsing posted:Because I suspect that's the standard many people may want to hold you to, and it seems like such a standard would likely remove everything about your religion that you hold dear. Helsing posted:When Israel was founded all kinds of institutional privileges were granted to the most religious Jewish sects, on the assumption that these groups were harmless and would dissapear in time. But these more extremist groups actually multiplied and have become a major demographic within the state, and have (along with all kinds of historical circumstances that I admit are unique to Israel) helped to push the entire society in a much more frightening and fundamentalist direction. Likewise, Christian fundamentalism played a much less prominent role in American public life up to the 1980s, when it experienced a major revival that is only now receding. As someone generally committed to secularism I find these religious intrusions into modernity disturbing and I don't want to encourage them. So do I man, so do I. You do know, however, that Islamic extremism (which should go on your list) was arguably a reaction to repression, right? Would you agree that segregation and division, in whatever form, breeds hostility and extremism? Helsing posted:I anticipate that you may argue that a state sponsored moderate Islam would prevent my concerns from reaching fruition but I confess that I'm skeptical. Quite possibly this skepticism comes at least in part from my subconscious and racialized fears of the 'Other' which Muslims represent to me. I'm not saying that's the case but I have to assume here that my own ability to know my own motivations is limited, as it is for anyone. So I won't claim to be totally above racism, that would be foolhardy, one cannot be entirely free or racism in today's society. But I do believe racial equality to be an important goal and I'm not speaking from a position of explicit racism when I say that I fear Islam as a religion is, for complex historical reasons, going to be hard to integrate. I would add that my concerns extend to certain forms of Christianity (Mormonism comes to mind as a particularly scary contemporary example) and Judaism. That's fine, I also do not believe it to be an easy task. Helsing posted:Believe it or not but I despise Nu-Atheism of the Dawkins or Harris variety and I'm not trying to claim religion is the inherent cause of all society's problems. But I do generally think that the receding influence of religion during the 20th century, and the seemingly increasing tendency to consign religiousness to the dustbin of history was, to me, a positive looking development. The return of religious extremism since roughly 1979 is disturbing to me and Muslims perhaps stand out in this because it seems like Islam, for various reasons, is a particularly effective religion at cultivating sincere adherents (this may just be reflective of who I know personally). The constant prayer, the particular historical circumstances we're currently in, the strongly knit communities, they all suggest to me that a subsidized Islam isn't going to melt away into the broader cultural fabric and I guess if I'm being honest that's what I would want to happen -- I certainly don't want the government, by supporting any variety of a religion, to extend its lifespan. So I fear that while we might share the short-term goal of disarming extremist Islam, you're asking for secularists to accept a permanent existence of an actual Islamic religion, subsidized by the government, and I don't know if I'm comfortable with that goal. The thing you have to realize is that us Muslism fear, in the same manner as you, the rise of extremism in our own religion, and the rise of extremism in the religions which arguably dominate us. What I want, ideally, is that everyone can choose freely to practice or not practice their religion. I believe, for instance, that you will never find to God if the choice is not entirely your own. I believe that as long as there is fear in you, you will not feel that moment of love which turns you around. I believe the decline in freedom for these things will go hand in hand with the decline of society. This goes for both directions. It's basically written in the Quoran as well but besides this it is quite straightforward. What furthers true believe, true submission which is choice out of love, is a healthy and free society. ... Helsing posted:I write all that and immediately a part of me wonders if all my high-fallutin thoughts on the importance of secularism just make me a stalking horse for racists. I hate to be caught in this position, mistrusting religion but not wanting to be co-opted by regressive right-wing nationalist forces that seek to exploit anxieties like my own to advance their larger agenda. Maybe I'm making the perfect the enemy of the good, and writing off a viable and practical solution to a tricky problem. But I thought that this topic was interesting enough, and that your own post seemed genuine enough, that I might as well write a detailed reply and not hold back too much on my own feelings on the matter. I would say this, without implying any bad intentions. People who are not in fact the minority are almost by necessity blind to the true extend of racism or "culturalism" and the difficulties it has for live of the discriminated. I am aware now not even through my religion but because I now know and support many people who are in this situation in Germany. If you are well spoken and intelligent, there ten people for you who do not mean badly but are less willing to reflect on themselves. My own family, for example, consists of these people. As we have seen in this thread, hypocracy is easy, fast and convenient, because dismissing solution and compromise is quick from a position of power. I do believe that what you want is not in conflict with what I want. I do believe that if we would talk person to person, we would get along well. But I believe that the issues that I see and that I hinted at with extremism and conservative Islam, are more complex and consequential than you see right now. Extremism will not be stopped by segregation. And the extremism you are facing now is a cult based on a distortion of a very, very powerful message. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Free McDowell. Dude's obviously not crazy, he's just bored with pedestrian posting. A Buttery Pastry posted:The difference is that this was/is perpetrated against natives, while the demand to integrate is leveled against immigrants, to integrate like the people that came before. (Which admittedly, is going to be easier said than done, given the environment many immigrants will end up in.) You don't have to make immigrants assimilate, see Ultra-Orthodox jews, various anabaptists in the United States. The vast majority of Americans have probably never met or even thought of these guys. blowfish posted:this is a very good point, and one that Americans simplistically calling everything in Europe racist do not get As race is not a biological concept there is no way to meaningfully distinguish racism from culturism. Nation, ethnicity and race are not distinct categories, see for example black nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Saladman posted:The point is not that "culture is immutable and unchangeable", the point is that cultural directions should be determined by the people living there, and not forced by outside influences (e: or by mass influxes of immigrants from a particular cultural background). If you believe that, maybe you're OK with it while America and Europe on top, but what will you think when it's China? Or Saudi Arabia? There is nothing inherently bad in Chinese or Saudi culture. The systems of government are bad, but those cultures have (and in the case of Taiwan, still do) had many different forms of government. You seem to be implying that immigrants are sent from their home nations as a form of cultural conquest. computer parts fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Culture should be free from foreign influences! - person speaking a language born out of Norman conquest of Anglo-Saxon England
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Squalid posted:You don't have to make immigrants assimilate, see Ultra-Orthodox jews, various anabaptists in the United States. The vast majority of Americans have probably never met or even thought of these guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
Helsing posted:Believe it or not but I despise Nu-Atheism of the Dawkins or Harris variety and I'm not trying to claim religion is the inherent cause of all society's problems. But I do generally think that the receding influence of religion during the 20th century, and the seemingly increasing tendency to consign religiousness to the dustbin of history was, to me, a positive looking development. The return of religious extremism since roughly 1979 is disturbing to me and Muslims perhaps stand out in this because it seems like Islam, for various reasons, is a particularly effective religion at cultivating sincere adherents (this may just be reflective of who I know personally). The constant prayer, the particular historical circumstances we're currently in, the strongly knit communities, they all suggest to me that a subsidized Islam isn't going to melt away into the broader cultural fabric and I guess if I'm being honest that's what I would want to happen -- I certainly don't want the government, by supporting any variety of a religion, to extend its lifespan. So I fear that while we might share the short-term goal of disarming extremist Islam, you're asking for secularists to accept a permanent existence of an actual Islamic religion, subsidized by the government, and I don't know if I'm comfortable with that goal. I've discussed Islam / Islamophobia with you before, and I know that the first thing you say here is true. Because of that, I wouldn't really worry about being a stalking horse for racists - "I worry that government subsidizing religion would cement sincere adherence into the fabric of society" is a criticism that exists in an entirely different reality than, say, right-wing panic-ing about Sharia. From what you've posted in the thread, you might be interested in Shadi Hamid's "Islamic Exceptionalism." I think he's off-course in a couple of ways, but he is a Muslim dealing with the same anxiety you express - He's an American and worried that the historical realities of Islam make it hard to integrate, and that it's propensity to produce sincere believers is because it highlights certain failings of liberalism that he is concerned we cannot fix. Of course, he identifies as both a liberal and a Muslim, so this tension makes him very nervous. Helsing posted:So I have to ask, what does a "moderate Islam" mean to you? Does it mean an unambiguous commitment to allowing one's children to leave the religion or marry outside it? Does it entail an open acknowledgement of the fact that Mohammed performed many actions that would be condemned today, such as taking multiple wives, one of them thought to be only 10 years old, was a bad thing? Or that basing one's life and most important decisions on the belief in an all powerful supernatural entity is irrational? Because I suspect that's the standard many people may want to hold you to, and it seems like such a standard would likely remove everything about your religion that you hold dear. I am also very skeptical of the European model of "reformation" or liberalization. Not for the same reason as you - as a Muslim, I would be very happy for an increase in sincere believers in Islam (although I do sympathize with your concerns, which are very reasonable for a western atheist / leftist) - but because I think it's counterproductive. Attempts at creating a "state Islam" or "national Islam" tend to be obvious attempts to change the religion from the outside - whether that outside is from a secular government or from reformers that identify as Muslims but argue that Islam is broken and needs to be fixed. As soon as they hear that, a lot of Muslims are going to be turned off - outside of cultural Muslims, we aren't Muslims because we think that Islam is broken, we are Muslims because we think Islam is true or, if not true, at least a good ideal. So starting with "the ideal of Islam is bad and you need us to fix it for you" is a quick way to get most everyday Muslims to ignore whatever message you are giving. It paints whatever attempts someone is making to change the culture seem manipulative. To a lot of Europeans, this model makes a lot of sense - they managed to, as you say, make Christianity mostly cultural through similar processes - but Islam isn't Christianity, and if Islam really is an exceptional religion that operates differently than Christianity, then people need to start realizing that the model of integration that works for one religion may not work for another and if integration into accepting liberalism is a goal, you may need another model. I think your idea that Islam creates many "sincere believers" plays a role, here - although I think it's not so much that Islam creates them as it is excellent at attracting them. Many of the reverts I know were extremely pious in their former religion before embracing Islam. If you want Muslims in your country to embrace liberal ideals, it's not going to come from trying to make them insincere believers, but rather by engaging with sincere believers in a way that they see is legitimate. In America, our Muslim community is becoming more comfortable with liberalism over time due to a variety of circumstances, but one reason there isn't as much pushback is because American Muslims, having many sincere believers on the forefront of this sort of thing, are embracing traditional modes of practicing the religion that point out that liberal opinions are not something that puts you outside the community. Islamic morality not only accepts that moral standards can change over time, but that moral progress is something that can happen. Islamic tradition points out that besides essentials, almost everything can be disagreed on - we don't even agree on the halal status of food like shrimp! But the important thing is that there is room to disagree about things while still being a sincere Muslim. Trying to impose one interpretation of Islam undermines that, and importantly, it's the same type of undermining we see coming from ultra-conservative Muslims. It's reverse-salafism and most people are going to see it as that and reject it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 10:15
|
|