Etiquette on forums.

Chance3290 said:

...But those who say they represent the teachings of Mohammad do have a duty to defend their beliefs and condemn actions that go against the Koran.
Silence speaks volumes.

We must have been following different news channels, because I did see Muslim clergy speaking out against the actions. They have not been silent, and nor have Muslim laypeople. What else do you require of them?

Chance3290 said:

If I am murdering in the name of my GOD, and you are a man who claims to represent the teachings of that GOD, (ie priest, mullah, etc) and you are not denoucing my actions, people tend to think, rightly or wrongly, that you condone my murderous actions.
I agree with you completely that Muslim people, in general, have no responsiblity or requirements to say anything about the terrorists. But those who say they represent the teachings of Mohammad do have a duty to defend their beliefs and condemn actions that go against the Koran.
Silence speaks volumes.

Your posting has got more holes in it than a tramps vest.

FredC said:

Your posting has got more holes in it than a tramps vest.

I almost choked on my brie ("liberal's" food-cheese) :eek: 😄 😉

It's true that moslems condemned the London bombings e.t.c. Even so, somebody pointed out that the condemnations bore little similarity with the rage and intolerance moslems expressed towards Salmon Rushdi - when he wrote a book criticizing Islam.
If I recall Rushdi essentially feared for his life.
Evidently Islamic society feels more outraged by attacks against Islamic doctrine than over attacks against secular society and this is part of the problem. Probably the Chinese have understood this from the beginning which is why they don't allow mosques and Imans to become established within Bejing.

EoinC said:

We must have been following different news channels, because I did see Muslim clergy speaking out against the actions. They have not been silent, and nor have Muslim laypeople. What else do you require of them?

To answer that question, seems top me that, Muhammad Ali was both a moslem and an American. He opposed certain fundamental tenets of the U.S. government (i.e. war in Vietnam) but that never stopped him being loyal to his country and the sense of shared American values.
Ali was kind of unique in how he went about changing things within the U.S. Essentially he worked within the system in order to try and improve the situation of black Americans and he condemned violence outright. He wouldn't even associate with some of the militant Black Panthers and his Nation Of Islam Church, at the time, was peaceful.
When people saw Ali giving money to Jewish causes, hugging black and white children and speaking out against war and violence, it promoted a positive message for his religion which is what makes Ali such a good role-model for black and Asian people to follow.

EoinC said:

We must have been following different news channels, because I did see Muslim clergy speaking out against the actions. They have not been silent, and nor have Muslim laypeople. What else do you require of them?

Carrera said:

...which is what makes Ali such a good role-model for black and Asian people to follow.

Throw me a bone here, Carrera. How do I distinguish between someone being a good role model for "black and Asian people to follow" and someone just being a good role model for Caucasians to follow? My wife is Asian and I need to be able to tell her not to follow good role models that are intended for White Folk, but that she needs to be looking to Ali for something more suitable. My Daughters are 1/2 Asian / 1/2 Caucasian - do you have a seperate group of role models intended to fit the bill for them?
I have a problem with these distinctions you keep laying down on the table, intended or otherwise. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned(?), but I've kind of grown used to seeing people as...people.

Carrera said:

It's true that moslems condemned the London bombings e.t.c. Even so, somebody pointed out that the condemnations bore little similarity with the rage and intolerance moslems expressed towards Salmon Rushdi - when he wrote a book criticizing Islam...

Please confirm that it was the same individuals who both condemned the London bombings and expressed outrage at Salman Rashdie. If they are not the same people, then you are making a generalisation based upon a very small sampling group.
If the queen was to make a speech condemning the London bombings and a football hooligan was to scream into a camera that he wants to beat up Dutch people on the next Football tour to Europe, it would be a fallacy to argue that the 'English People' on the one hand quietly condemn the bombings whilst, on the other hand, want to cause death and destruction to the Netherlands.
There are people (the vast majority, I would assume) who abhor the bombings. There are, presumably (since the bombings did happen), people who are thrilled with the bombings. Instead of pushing so hard to make people prove to your satisfaction that they abhor the bombings, why not just focus on dealing with those who are definitely on the side of the bombers.
During WW2, in many of our Countries, people of German, Italian or Japanese descent were automatically assumed to be against the Allies and were generally incarcerated for the term of the War. You are laying down a path whereby you require one portion of your Nation to prove that they abhor the bombings, but you are changing the goalpost position on what it takes for that proof to be acceptable. It started out that they had to state that they were horrified by the bombings. Now, apparently, unless they are "screaming into the television cameras" (Chance3290), their display is inadequate and they should be regarded as abetting the crime.
Can I apply the same to you, Carrera & Chance? Unless I see you screaming into a television camera, I am not to believe that your abhorrence of the bombing is real?
It is very easy to segregate society, human nature seeks scapegoats and readily apportions blame, but it takes a continued effort to conjoin it. Your easy generalisations serve to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Still, it's your Country, so do with it what you will.

I didn't intend to give the impression that moslems haven't condemned the bombings. But let's be honest here. We haven't seen any major manifestations of public anger from the Islamic communities. I mean, not so long ago we were seeing violent demonstrations outside schools and theatres as moslem communities protested over the right to wear extreme Islamic dress within schools or protested over a play that criticized Islam.
O.K. I do take your point. It's never been my intention to blame groups of people in one sweep. The truth is I blame the politicians far more for the current state of affairs.
At the end of the day, though, the real point I've been trying to get across is we are supposed to be a secular country. If an artist can't stage a play, a comedian can't tell a joke or an author can't criticize a religion, where are we heading? I definitely admire the French for sticking to their guns and clamping down on religious extremism and making it clear they are a secular, democratic, free-speaking nation.
If moslems don't like secularism and liberalism, as many a Dutch politician has stated, they should leave. This is my view, although I know it's a monority one.

EoinC said:

Please confirm that it was the same individuals who both condemned the London bombings and expressed outrage at Salman Rashdie. If they are not the same people, then you are making a generalisation based upon a very small sampling group.
If the queen was to make a speech condemning the London bombings and a football hooligan was to scream into a camera that he wants to beat up Dutch people on the next Football tour to Europe, it would be a fallacy to argue that the 'English People' on the one hand quietly condemn the bombings whilst, on the other hand, want to cause death and destruction to the Netherlands.
There are people (the vast majority, I would assume) who abhor the bombings. There are, presumably (since the bombings did happen), people who are thrilled with the bombings. Instead of pushing so hard to make people prove to your satisfaction that they abhor the bombings, why not just focus on dealing with those who are definitely on the side of the bombers.
During WW2, in many of our Countries, people of German, Italian or Japanese descent were automatically assumed to be against the Allies and were generally incarcerated for the term of the War. You are laying down a path whereby you require one portion of your Nation to prove that they abhor the bombings, but you are changing the goalpost position on what it takes for that proof to be acceptable. It started out that they had to state that they were horrified by the bombings. Now, apparently, unless they are "screaming into the television cameras" (Chance3290), their display is inadequate and they should be regarded as abetting the crime.
Can I apply the same to you, Carrera & Chance? Unless I see you screaming into a television camera, I am not to believe that your abhorrence of the bombing is real?
It is very easy to segregate society, human nature seeks scapegoats and readily apportions blame, but it takes a continued effort to conjoin it. Your easy generalisations serve to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Still, it's your Country, so do with it what you will.

Carrera said:

If moslems don't like secularism and liberalism, as many a Dutch politician has stated, they should leave. This is my view, although I know it's a monority one.

I'm w/ you on this one Carerra 😉 That goes for any immigrant. Don't move to a country THEN question its policies. Do the research first, before you immigrate. I get the feeling that alot of these people were well aware of the societies standards that they emigrated to but, just feigned ignorance to further their goals of an Islamic expansion 😠 The Christians have a similar manifesto of world transformation. See my Sig. Religion sure does complicate things. It is worth noting that Muslims think Jesus was a 1st rate prophet. My religion is "science", brought about by "human understanding". I guess that would make me a dumb ass 😕

Well, I guess my point is that Ali suffered genuine racism on account of his colour and his beliefs. He was working within a white mans system with many people dragging their heels over civil rights for black people.
But Ali was a patriotic American who loved his country while he opposed certain issues such as Vietnam e.t.c. He proved you can work within the system by not resorting to violence and change things that way. He could have skipped to Canada but he chose to remain at home and fight his case.
This is what moslems need to do in the west if they wish to be integrated. They have to accept certain responsibilities when living in a democracy and they have to work within the system. It's O.K. to have any belief you want within a democracy but that also means respecting secular beliefs, Jewish beliefs and any other point of view.
I guess I blame the white politicians more for encouraging all this separatism. At least in the U.S. black people feel a part of the system and have a distinct American identity and a flag they feel they can relate to. This is something we can maybe learn from.

EoinC said:

Throw me a bone here, Carrera. How do I distinguish between someone being a good role model for "black and Asian people to follow" and someone just being a good role model for Caucasians to follow? My wife is Asian and I need to be able to tell her not to follow good role models that are intended for White Folk, but that she needs to be looking to Ali for something more suitable. My Daughters are 1/2 Asian / 1/2 Caucasian - do you have a seperate group of role models intended to fit the bill for them?
I have a problem with these distinctions you keep laying down on the table, intended or otherwise. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned(?), but I've kind of grown used to seeing people as...people.

This is why the French seem to have a point. In France you can adhere to any religion you wish and express any point of view you may hold. If you want to promote the Jewish, Christian or Moslem faith, this is perfectly O.K.
But the French believe you can only enjoy these freedoms in a secular society where government and politics must follow republican ideals.
Now, what would happen if I travelled to Iran, stood up on a soapbox and began to critizice Islam? You guessed it, I'd be stoned and called an infidel and that would be the end of Carrera. 🙁
However, technically speaking, you should be able to make such open criticisms in Europe, specifically in France. Yet Blair is selling out (as is always the case). Blair is so worried about upsetting religious sentiment, he seeks to ban free criticism of religion and make it a criminal offence. In fact, Blair has stated his dream is to create a Christian/Islamic society.
So, where does that leave rational people and free expression?

davidmc said:

I'm w/ you on this one Carerra 😉 That goes for any immigrant. Don't move to a country THEN question its policies. Do the research first, before you immigrate. I get the feeling that alot of these people were well aware of the societies standards that they emigrated to but, just feigned ignorance to further their goals of an Islamic expansion 😠 The Christians have a similar manifesto of world transformation. See my Sig. Religion sure does complicate things. It is worth noting that Muslims think Jesus was a 1st rate prophet. My religion is "science", brought about by "human understanding". I guess that would make me a dumb ass 😕

actualy, in france muslim headgear is prohibited at public schools yet crucifixes (as long as they are "small in size"😉 are permitted.
this a recent development, and explained away by reason of preventing a public expression of faith that would lead to inciting a unified "extremism" of this target group.

Carrera said:

This is why the French seem to have a point. In France you can adhere to any religion you wish and express any point of view you may hold. If you want to promote the Jewish, Christian or Moslem faith, this is perfectly O.K.
But the French believe you can only enjoy these freedoms in a secular society where government and politics must follow republican ideals.
Now, what would happen if I travelled to Iran, stood up on a soapbox and began to critizice Islam? You guessed it, I'd be stoned and called an infidel and that would be the end of Carrera. 🙁
However, technically speaking, you should be able to make such open criticisms in Europe, specifically in France. Yet Blair is selling out (as is always the case). Blair is so worried about upsetting religious sentiment, he seeks to ban free criticism of religion and make it a criminal offence. In fact, Blair has stated his dream is to create a Christian/Islamic society.
So, where does that leave rational people and free expression?

Hypnospin said:

actualy, in france muslim headgear is prohibited at public schools yet crucifixes (as long as they are "small in size"😉 are permitted.
this a recent development, and explained away by reason of preventing a public expression of faith that would lead to inciting a unified "extremism" of this target group.

something to ponder.

Hypnospin said:

actualy, in france muslim headgear is prohibited at public schools yet crucifixes (as long as they are "small in size"😉 are permitted.
this a recent development, and explained away by reason of preventing a public expression of faith that would lead to inciting a unified "extremism" of this target group.

Hmmm. I guess that there is secularism and secularism. I, personally, don't have any problem with people wearing Headgear / Crucifixes / Buddha's / Stars of David / Mushy Banana's or anything else that they feel is important to them.
It seems to me that the French Government is trying to make its own brand of secularism into a religion. Since the French Government has decided that it will not allow a certain group of the community to wear the adornments specified by their religion, are they also going to start telling them what food they have to eat in order to show that they adhere to the tenets of secular society? I'm a vegetariarian atheist [censored] living in a predominantly Muslim Country and I'm allowed to wear a Mushy Banana (in obiesance to my strong belief in nothing in particular) if I want. How advanced and free-thinking is a secular Country which won't allow schoolgirls to wear headscarves in accordance with their belief? Sounds more like a case of the Brownshirts to me. All secular societies are equal, but some are more equal than others? You will be secular and show that you are secular, or we shall cut you up and offer you to the God of Secularity?

Hypnospin said:

actualy, in france muslim headgear is prohibited at public schools yet crucifixes (as long as they are "small in size"😉 are permitted.
this a recent development, and explained away by reason of preventing a public expression of faith that would lead to inciting a unified "extremism" of this target group.

The other weird thing about this is that, by banning Muslim Headgear from Public Schools, they are more or less forcing Muslim females to attend seperate schools, otherwise known as the 'dreaded' Madrassah. Kind of self-defeating, I would have thought.

Basically, I support what the French are trying to do but I agree they have a strange way of defending secularism. Seems to me like it makes far more sense to inititate citizenship classes for everybody within schools and let girls wear a basic shawl if that's what they want to do. It's no big deal.
The citizenship classes would be there to teach the whole idea of democracy and tolerance of different points of view. I suppose the idea of a free society is to express what you believe openly but not to intimidate, demonise or threaten other people who don'[t happen to share the same view.
The problem we have with moslems in this country has been caused by weak-willed politicians or lawyers such as Cherie Blair. It was Mrs Blair who insisted that human rights laws allowed one particular girl to cover herself from head to toe at school, rather than simply wear the basic veil. She was essentially lining her pockets with the proceeds of the case and siding with an extreme radical Islamic group that had supported the girl's protest. Obviously, action such as this undermines secular values and drives rifts between people. Heavens knows why the Yanks were paying 1000 dollars a seat in Washington to watch the wicked witch (Cherie Blair) give one of her speeches.

EoinC said:

The other weird thing about this is that, by banning Muslim Headgear from Public Schools, they are more or less forcing Muslim females to attend seperate schools, otherwise known as the 'dreaded' Madrassah. Kind of self-defeating, I would have thought.

One thing to bear in mind, though is this: Would you be able to stand up on a platform in the streets and openly criticize Islam in a moslem country? I doubt it. Would you be able to criticize George W Bush standing on a platform in New York? Sure, thing. Many people would even applaud you.
Would you be able to criticize secularism openly on the streets of Paris? Absolutely.
Will you be able to criticize Islam six months from now in the streets of London? I seriously doubt it as it will soon be against the law.
Which option is the more tolerant: secularism or religious rule?

EoinC said:

Hmmm. I guess that there is secularism and secularism. I, personally, don't have any problem with people wearing Headgear / Crucifixes / Buddha's / Stars of David / Mushy Banana's or anything else that they feel is important to them.
It seems to me that the French Government is trying to make its own brand of secularism into a religion. Since the French Government has decided that it will not allow a certain group of the community to wear the adornments specified by their religion, are they also going to start telling them what food they have to eat in order to show that they adhere to the tenets of secular society? I'm a vegetariarian atheist [censored] living in a predominantly Muslim Country and I'm allowed to wear a Mushy Banana (in obiesance to my strong belief in nothing in particular) if I want. How advanced and free-thinking is a secular Country which won't allow schoolgirls to wear headscarves in accordance with their belief? Sounds more like a case of the Brownshirts to me. All secular societies are equal, but some are more equal than others? You will be secular and show that you are secular, or we shall cut you up and offer you to the God of Secularity?

Carrera said:

One thing to bear in mind, though is this: Would you be able to stand up on a platform in the streets and openly criticize Islam in a moslem country? I doubt it. Would you be able to criticize George W Bush standing on a platform in New York? Sure, thing. Many people would even applaud you.
Would you be able to criticize secularism openly on the streets of Paris? Absolutely.
Will you be able to criticize Islam six months from now in the streets of London? I seriously doubt it as it will soon be against the law.
Which option is the more tolerant: secularism or religious rule?

Carrera, don't get me wrong. I'm all for the secular State. As an atheist, why would I be otherwise? It appears, however, that one person's view of what it takes to make a State secular is not necessarily that of another. My view of a secular state is one where people are free to believe what they want and no part of the Government apparatus will take an active part in promoting a belief, other than a tenet of tolerance. The 'right' to criticise a religion or group within a society has to be tempered as it opens the way for incitment of hatred (ask Jewish people how they feel about anti-semitism).
GWB is a politician and, in a 'free' Nation, I would expect the citizens to be able to publically criticize their politicians. This is not always the case in 'secular' Nations (ie. being secular does not always imply being free).

Carrera said:

Basically, I support what the French are trying to do but I agree they have a strange way of defending secularism. Seems to me like it makes far more sense to inititate citizenship classes for everybody within schools and let girls wear a basic shawl if that's what they want to do. It's no big deal.
The citizenship classes would be there to teach the whole idea of democracy and tolerance of different points of view. I suppose the idea of a free society is to express what you believe openly but not to intimidate, demonise or threaten other people who don'[t happen to share the same view...

I agree, Carrera. Tolerance does not come naturally. It has to be taught and promoted in order for it to become and remain a central pillar of a free society.

Agreed. You know, I have no objection to any group of people who promote a belief system. If Christians believe atheists will go to hell and moslems believe non moslems are infidels, that's fine by me. If Jehovas Witnesses, Krishna devotees or whoever wishes to debate with me, I'll hear these people out. I'm open to everything. But what incenses me basically is when somebody in high office or a politician decides we secular people have to change our way of life to accommodate religious ideas. Or if, for example, some artist decides to stage a play and you get people rioting or making threats to the producers and inciting violence.
David Soul has been a victim of this since he starred in the Jerry Springer production that admittedly offended Christians and moslems. O.K. it may be offensive or disrespectful but we're supposed to be a democracy. Free speech is part of democracy so long as the said free speech doesn't incite others to direct violence or anarchy.
So, sure, I think we agree on that point.

EoinC said:

Carrera, don't get me wrong. I'm all for the secular State. As an atheist, why would I be otherwise? It appears, however, that one person's view of what it takes to make a State secular is not necessarily that of another. My view of a secular state is one where people are free to believe what they want and no part of the Government apparatus will take an active part in promoting a belief, other than a tenet of tolerance. The 'right' to criticise a religion or group within a society has to be tempered as it opens the way for incitment of hatred (ask Jewish people how they feel about anti-semitism).
GWB is a politician and, in a 'free' Nation, I would expect the citizens to be able to publically criticize their politicians. This is not always the case in 'secular' Nations (ie. being secular does not always imply being free).