So lowing, why hasn't Dearborn been overrun with mosques and terrorists and sharia law? Why hasn't any of that ever been an issue here? Why haven't we had city meetings where muslims show up in burkas to tell us the wonders of islam?
Because of the anti-terrorizers Bush hired. And the War in Iraq. That's what's keeping 'em out of your town hall.
It's because he's scared (not that he'd ever admit it). He's terrified of Muslims and terrorists (which he seems to believe are one and the same thing). He doesn't seem to comprehend the mindset that terrorism is extremely rare and not something for your average person to concern themselves with in the slightest bit. Nor does he understand that Muslims have every right for their concerns to be addressed by the government of the nation they are resident in.Vilham wrote:
Sorry but since when did Muslim = terrorist. Damn arent you in you late 30s, I didnt expect this kind of ignorance from you.
It's quite a warped and frightening perspective really. The sort of viewpoint held by the supporters of the Nazi party in regards to Jews, rather than Muslims. It's scared xenophobic nationalists who had the same perspective as lowing that allowed Hitler to rise to power.
Sounds extreme, but it's true.
There are no problems in Dearborn with Muslims because the Muslims OWN it now, what in the world are you talking about??? Dearborn has has already been converted. It is what Miami is to Cubans.jonsimon wrote:
So lowing, why hasn't Dearborn been overrun with mosques and terrorists and sharia law? Why hasn't any of that ever been an issue here? Why haven't we had city meetings where muslims show up in burkas to tell us the wonders of islam?
I think you need to be somewhat more eloquent, instead of typing one thing and meaning a completely different thing. If you kept doing that, one might think that you were actually backpedaling.lowing wrote:
YOur ramblings have missed itsa mark:mikkel wrote:
What the hell? You've posted one single quotation from some deranged lunatic, claiming him to represent the opinions of all muslims. That's like saying that the opinions of politicians are the opinions of their party members. It's a logical fallacy, and if that's all you have to offer, I don't get why you even started in the first place.lowing wrote:
The leader of the biggest pro- Islamic group in this hemisphere and you dismiss him. Sorry but as the leader of his group he speaks for them.
Funny how you will dismiss every single quote posted against Islamic fundamentalism as scaremongering but you will hang your hat on every quote Bush says in order to undermine US policy. Cool double standard.
One single quotation from one muslim fundamentalist is turned into "every single quotation", and.. George Bush quotations? What dark orifice are you pulling this from? I'm used to people making up things to support their cause, but this is just hilarious. You're not just making up things to support your argument, you're making up things to make ad logicam arguments to discredit my opinion on a topic. Grasping at straws is one thing, but grasping at straws to grasp at straws is just very, very sad.It must be awfully uninspiring to live in a world as black and white as yours. You're saying that muslims are either fully in sync with Western ideals, or fundamental extremists.lowing wrote:
Ummmm correct me if I am wrong, but you guys said the vast majority of muslims in your countries are normal and moderate and content. Sooooooooo, why would you feel like you were obliged to appease anyone that is normal moderate or content. Sounds like they already are appeased. I can only assume you are worried about precisely those that are extreme in their beliefs.
you will no doubt dismiss every quote I or anyone else will post to support our opinions. I then said you will quote a single man ( in this case I used Bush) to prove a point. I used Bush as an example nothing more, so put away your cry rag and your pitty, because it isn't needed.
No doubt I will dismiss anything anyone posts, because.. uh.. what exactly is it that leads you to believe that? I'd respond in depth to this if it was based even on a failed assumption, but it being pulled out of absolutely nowhere with no substantiating evidence, I really do not know where to begin.
If it's very hard for you to quote anything except the subjective opinions of a single muslim when discussing muslims in general, I don't think you're quite ready to debate this topic yet. If all you can think of to substantiate that opinion as commonly held amongst muslims is posting more subjective opinions from muslim individials, I don't think you really know how to argue your case. I could find 20 people in the US who believe that they could eat the moon, was it close enough, and post their testimonies. That does not mean that all Americans believe that they could eat the moon.lowing wrote:
It is very hard to quote anything except a single man. SO the now the question will then be, how many quotes from how many different people are needed before you will not dismiss the argument before you?
Until you can provide anything that substantiates the alleged ubiquity of this sentiment, you shouldn't be surprised that people dismiss what you say as being irrelevant and insubstantial, because anything less than that is both.
We aren't trying to appease any group that threatens to "blow out shit up". We jail those people. Who we -are- trying to work things out with are regular, moderate muslims who face racial and religious discrimination and social stigma. The world isn't black and white. People like you who think that are dangerously ignorant.lowing wrote:
Can you please tell me about any other groups of people in your country you are trying to appease so they don't blow your shit up? Surely in the world, their are more than just Muslims who go unappreciated by us that need attention before they kill our women and children.
Last edited by mikkel (2007-08-04 09:33:11)
Wow, nice speech:Bertster7 wrote:
It's because he's scared (not that he'd ever admit it). He's terrified of Muslims and terrorists (which he seems to believe are one and the same thing). He doesn't seem to comprehend the mindset that terrorism is extremely rare and not something for your average person to concern themselves with in the slightest bit. Nor does he understand that Muslims have every right for their concerns to be addressed by the government of the nation they are resident in.Vilham wrote:
Sorry but since when did Muslim = terrorist. Damn arent you in you late 30s, I didnt expect this kind of ignorance from you.
It's quite a warped and frightening perspective really. The sort of viewpoint held by the supporters of the Nazi party in regards to Jews, rather than Muslims. It's scared xenophobic nationalists who had the same perspective as lowing that allowed Hitler to rise to power.
Sounds extreme, but it's true.
You will never find where I said all Muslims are terrorists, but it seems to be true that today all international terrorists ARE Muslims.
I am not the one who is running around begging the Muslims to tell us what we can do so they don't go extreme on us and commit terrorism. YOU are. SO that would make you afraid, not me.
I don't think comparing me to Hitler is gunna wash either, since I am not gathering a flock of sheep to change my govt. or slaughter a group of people. I will not stand for the Islamic fundamentalist movement threatening to terrorize us if we do not appease them. I am standing up for myself, I am not trying to change anyone. I never endorsed killing Muslims or committing genocide. So, my little drama queen, you can see how it doesn't fly.
SO which other groups of people are you giving special attention, to reason with, understand, and accommodate?
Those that aren't government sponsored, that is.lowing wrote:
but it seems to be true that today all international terrorists ARE Muslims.
I didn't compare you to Hitler. I compared you to the average man on the street in Nazi Germany - there's an enormous difference and this is yet another example of you completely misreading someones statements.lowing wrote:
I don't think comparing me to Hitler is gunna wash either, since I am not gathering a flock of sheep to change my govt. or slaughter a group of people. I will not stand for the Islamic fundamentalist movement threatening to terrorize us if we do not appease them. I am standing up for myself, I am not trying to change anyone. I never endorsed killing Muslims or committing genocide. So, my little drama queen, you can see how it doesn't fly.
The people of Nazi Germany didn't endorse genocide against the Jews. They just wanted them gone. The 'final solution' was kept very hushed up.
I compared you to the type of person that allowed Hitler to do what he did. I am absolutely right in that statement, it flys very well indeed.
"Somebody's gotta say it..." Neal Boortz is usually full of shit.lowing wrote:
"European socialists have devised their brilliant plan to combat "Islamophobia" ... "LISTEN" to the 20 million European Muslims, try to UNDERSTAND their problems, and provide solutions to ALLEVIATE their grievances."
"In other words ... find out just what they want, and then give it to them." http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html under reading assignments.
taken from
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detay … ;bolum=102
Pretty much what I have been saying all along. Appeasement is the Liberal/Socialist answer. How about that.
Don't get me wrong, I think Europe needs to take a stronger stand against certain Islamic groups, but don't assume every socialist-leaning person is an appeaser. Plenty of left-leaning people like myself and Pat Condell aren't interested in appeasing nutjobs anymore than the conservatives are.
AHAHAHAHAHA! Wow, lowing, wow. MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRY LIVING HERE FOR 18 YEARS. Dearborn has not been 'converted'. This is a genuine demonstration of the basis of your argument. Fiction. Fiction is the basis of your argument. You have no experience or observations of the condition of life here, and yet you will make a broad sweeping generalization. At this point it does not seem unreasonable to assume ALL your assertions are nothing but broad sweeping FICTIONAL generalizations.lowing wrote:
There are no problems in Dearborn with Muslims because the Muslims OWN it now, what in the world are you talking about??? Dearborn has has already been converted. It is what Miami is to Cubans.jonsimon wrote:
So lowing, why hasn't Dearborn been overrun with mosques and terrorists and sharia law? Why hasn't any of that ever been an issue here? Why haven't we had city meetings where muslims show up in burkas to tell us the wonders of islam?
Edit: Oh, and the correct answer to my question was money. The muslims that immigrated here were refugees that escaped their countries because they could afford to. They have money, friends, family, and freedoms. Because they are not deprived of these things they are not prone to crime. It is when you have large amounts of culturally linked poor immigrants that you have a community ripe for manipulation by a single extremist.
Last edited by jonsimon (2007-08-04 09:58:06)
Nice debate tactic, spend a page NOT debating anything, just dismiss your opponant as not worth debating or too ignorant for you to be bothered with. I will try that next time I can not come up with an argument. I will also bombard them with condensending insult after insult.mikkel wrote:
I think you need to be somewhat more eloquent, instead of typing one thing and meaning a completely different thing. If you kept doing that, one might think that you were actually backpedaling.lowing wrote:
YOur ramblings have missed itsa mark:mikkel wrote:
What the hell? You've posted one single quotation from some deranged lunatic, claiming him to represent the opinions of all muslims. That's like saying that the opinions of politicians are the opinions of their party members. It's a logical fallacy, and if that's all you have to offer, I don't get why you even started in the first place.lowing wrote:
The leader of the biggest pro- Islamic group in this hemisphere and you dismiss him. Sorry but as the leader of his group he speaks for them.
Funny how you will dismiss every single quote posted against Islamic fundamentalism as scaremongering but you will hang your hat on every quote Bush says in order to undermine US policy. Cool double standard.
One single quotation from one muslim fundamentalist is turned into "every single quotation", and.. George Bush quotations? What dark orifice are you pulling this from? I'm used to people making up things to support their cause, but this is just hilarious. You're not just making up things to support your argument, you're making up things to make ad logicam arguments to discredit my opinion on a topic. Grasping at straws is one thing, but grasping at straws to grasp at straws is just very, very sad.
It must be awfully uninspiring to live in a world as black and white as yours. You're saying that muslims are either fully in sync with Western ideals, or fundamental extremists.
you will no doubt dismiss every quote I or anyone else will post to support our opinions. I then said you will quote a single man ( in this case I used Bush) to prove a point. I used Bush as an example nothing more, so put away your cry rag and your pitty, because it isn't needed.
No doubt I will dismiss anything anyone posts, because.. uh.. what exactly is it that leads you to believe that? I'd respond in depth to this if it was based even on a failed assumption, but it being pulled out of absolutely nowhere with no substantiating evidence, I really do not know where to begin.If it's very hard for you to quote anything except the subjective opinions of a single muslim when discussing muslims in general, I don't think you're quite ready to debate this topic yet. If all you can think of to substantiate that opinion as commonly held amongst muslims is posting more subjective opinions from muslim individials, I don't think you really know how to argue your case. I could find 20 people in the US who believe that they could eat the moon, was it close enough, and post their testimonies. That does not mean that all Americans believe that they could eat the moon.lowing wrote:
It is very hard to quote anything except a single man. SO the now the question will then be, how many quotes from how many different people are needed before you will not dismiss the argument before you?
Until you can provide anything that substantiates the alleged ubiquity of this sentiment, you shouldn't be surprised that people dismiss what you say as being irrelevant and insubstantial, because anything less than that is both.We aren't trying to appease any group that threatens to "blow out shit up". We jail those people. Who we -are- trying to work things out with are regular, moderate muslims who face racial and religious discrimination and social stigma. The world isn't black and white. People like you who think that are dangerously ignorant.lowing wrote:
Can you please tell me about any other groups of people in your country you are trying to appease so they don't blow your shit up? Surely in the world, their are more than just Muslims who go unappreciated by us that need attention before they kill our women and children.
It has been argued by people form "your side" that you are attempting to listen to, and appease, the Muslim community to keep them from turning into extremists. You guys said that not me. I will go back and find the posts if I gotta Islamic extremists I am sorry to say, blow up shit. So again, and again I ask, what other groups of people are you appeasing for fear that they will go extreme on you and blow up your shit??
Sorry, no it doesn't I do not want "anyone gone". I have never endorsed any such thing. Any chance I could be taken for the guy that doesn't want to be the one who gets "gone"?Bertster7 wrote:
I didn't compare you to Hitler. I compared you to the average man on the street in Nazi Germany - there's an enormous difference and this is yet another example of you completely misreading someones statements.lowing wrote:
I don't think comparing me to Hitler is gunna wash either, since I am not gathering a flock of sheep to change my govt. or slaughter a group of people. I will not stand for the Islamic fundamentalist movement threatening to terrorize us if we do not appease them. I am standing up for myself, I am not trying to change anyone. I never endorsed killing Muslims or committing genocide. So, my little drama queen, you can see how it doesn't fly.
The people of Nazi Germany didn't endorse genocide against the Jews. They just wanted them gone. The 'final solution' was kept very hushed up.
I compared you to the type of person that allowed Hitler to do what he did. I am absolutely right in that statement, it flys very well indeed.
I am not endorsing one master race over another, or mobilizing for ethnic cleansing. Once again, your comparison is wayyyy outta line.
It's apt I tell you - APT!lowing wrote:
Sorry, no it doesn't I do not want "anyone gone". I have never endorsed any such thing. Any chance I could be taken for the guy that doesn't want to be the one who gets "gone"?Bertster7 wrote:
I didn't compare you to Hitler. I compared you to the average man on the street in Nazi Germany - there's an enormous difference and this is yet another example of you completely misreading someones statements.lowing wrote:
I don't think comparing me to Hitler is gunna wash either, since I am not gathering a flock of sheep to change my govt. or slaughter a group of people. I will not stand for the Islamic fundamentalist movement threatening to terrorize us if we do not appease them. I am standing up for myself, I am not trying to change anyone. I never endorsed killing Muslims or committing genocide. So, my little drama queen, you can see how it doesn't fly.
The people of Nazi Germany didn't endorse genocide against the Jews. They just wanted them gone. The 'final solution' was kept very hushed up.
I compared you to the type of person that allowed Hitler to do what he did. I am absolutely right in that statement, it flys very well indeed.
I am not endorsing one master race over another, or mobilizing for ethnic cleansing. Once again, your comparison is wayyyy outta line.
"Dearborn's population includes 30,000 Arab-Americans, [2] [3] [4], the second largest, and the densest Arab population of any community outside the Middle East. (New York City has nearly 70,000, out of a total population of over 8 million.) Arabs first settled here to work in the automotive industry. In January 2005, a new Arab American National Museum opened as a result of this large concentrated population. The city is also home to the Islamic Center of America, the largest mosque in North America and the Dearborn Mosque, as well as a mosque in the South End that is one of the few places in the US where one can hear the call to prayer over a loudspeaker. Because of the Arab cultural influence on the east side of Dearborn, store signs and billboards written in Arabic are common sights."jonsimon wrote:
AHAHAHAHAHA! Wow, lowing, wow. MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRY LIVING HERE FOR 18 YEARS. Dearborn has not been 'converted'. This is a genuine demonstration of the basis of your argument. Fiction. Fiction is the basis of your argument. You have no experience or observations of the condition of life here, and yet you will make a broad sweeping generalization. At this point it does not seem unreasonable to assume ALL your assertions are nothing but broad sweeping FICTIONAL generalizations.lowing wrote:
There are no problems in Dearborn with Muslims because the Muslims OWN it now, what in the world are you talking about??? Dearborn has has already been converted. It is what Miami is to Cubans.jonsimon wrote:
So lowing, why hasn't Dearborn been overrun with mosques and terrorists and sharia law? Why hasn't any of that ever been an issue here? Why haven't we had city meetings where muslims show up in burkas to tell us the wonders of islam?
Edit: Oh, and the correct answer to my question was money. The muslims that immigrated here were refugees that escaped their countries because they could afford to. They have money, friends, family, and freedoms. Because they are not deprived of these things they are not prone to crime. It is when you have large amounts of culturally linked poor immigrants that you have a community ripe for manipulation by a single extremist.
Sorry buudy, tell it to someone who has never been there, oh and if you are still there, good luck selling yer house.
Last edited by lowing (2007-08-04 10:08:56)
Then you have run out of reasonable arguments if you are left with comparing me to this.Bertster7 wrote:
It's apt I tell you - APT!lowing wrote:
Sorry, no it doesn't I do not want "anyone gone". I have never endorsed any such thing. Any chance I could be taken for the guy that doesn't want to be the one who gets "gone"?Bertster7 wrote:
I didn't compare you to Hitler. I compared you to the average man on the street in Nazi Germany - there's an enormous difference and this is yet another example of you completely misreading someones statements.
The people of Nazi Germany didn't endorse genocide against the Jews. They just wanted them gone. The 'final solution' was kept very hushed up.
I compared you to the type of person that allowed Hitler to do what he did. I am absolutely right in that statement, it flys very well indeed.
I am not endorsing one master race over another, or mobilizing for ethnic cleansing. Once again, your comparison is wayyyy outta line.
Hey sergeriver, where is that thread where I clearly pointed out that, as a liberal, when cornered it is perfectly acceptable to call your opponent racist, or a bigot. Well here is another example.
Last edited by lowing (2007-08-04 10:18:27)
I'm not exactly sure what lowing's actual take on all this is, but personally, I just prefer to run society in a way that doesn't give special privileges to any specific group other than handicapped people and the poor. When I say special privileges for the poor, I'm just talking about helping them along when they are down on their luck. ....but that's another discussion altogether.
The point I'm trying to make is that some Islamic groups seem to want special accommodations for their culture, of which doing so would be unfair to all other cultural groups.
While refraining from giving such special privileges is often considered a conservative view, there are plenty of liberals that would agree that equal treatment for all groups means no special privileges given to any cultural group.
The point I'm trying to make is that some Islamic groups seem to want special accommodations for their culture, of which doing so would be unfair to all other cultural groups.
While refraining from giving such special privileges is often considered a conservative view, there are plenty of liberals that would agree that equal treatment for all groups means no special privileges given to any cultural group.
Well there ya go, don't bother proving him wrong on any issue, just say he is fulla shit and move on.Turquoise wrote:
"Somebody's gotta say it..." Neal Boortz is usually full of shit.lowing wrote:
"European socialists have devised their brilliant plan to combat "Islamophobia" ... "LISTEN" to the 20 million European Muslims, try to UNDERSTAND their problems, and provide solutions to ALLEVIATE their grievances."
"In other words ... find out just what they want, and then give it to them." http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html under reading assignments.
taken from
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detay … ;bolum=102
Pretty much what I have been saying all along. Appeasement is the Liberal/Socialist answer. How about that.
Don't get me wrong, I think Europe needs to take a stronger stand against certain Islamic groups, but don't assume every socialist-leaning person is an appeaser. Plenty of left-leaning people like myself and Pat Condell aren't interested in appeasing nutjobs anymore than the conservatives are.
He makes a lot of blanket statements about socialists and liberals, which is a bullshit thing to do, wouldn't you agree?lowing wrote:
Well there ya go, don't bother proving him wrong on any issue, just say he is fulla shit and move on.
I criticize a lot of people, but I usually try to refrain from saying things like "all conservatives are warmongering idiots." That would be no better than saying "all liberals/socialists are terrorist appeasers."
They're talking about combating Islamophobia:Turquoise wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what lowing's actual take on all this is, but personally, I just prefer to run society in a way that doesn't give special privileges to any specific group other than handicapped people and the poor. When I say special privileges for the poor, I'm just talking about helping them along when they are down on their luck. ....but that's another discussion altogether.
The point I'm trying to make is that some Islamic groups seem to want special accommodations for their culture, of which doing so would be unfair to all other cultural groups.
While refraining from giving such special privileges is often considered a conservative view, there are plenty of liberals that would agree that equal treatment for all groups means no special privileges given to any cultural group.
How's that a special accomodation? Objecting to this is like objecting to a programme to combat anti-semetism.OP wrote:
European socialists have devised their brilliant plan to combat "Islamophobia"
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-08-04 10:23:50)
This I agree with 100%. thank you.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what lowing's actual take on all this is, but personally, I just prefer to run society in a way that doesn't give special privileges to any specific group other than handicapped people and the poor. When I say special privileges for the poor, I'm just talking about helping them along when they are down on their luck. ....but that's another discussion altogether.
The point I'm trying to make is that some Islamic groups seem to want special accommodations for their culture, of which doing so would be unfair to all other cultural groups.
While refraining from giving such special privileges is often considered a conservative view, there are plenty of liberals that would agree that equal treatment for all groups means no special privileges given to any cultural group.
Now back to the orginal OP, why all the special attention given to the Muslims to find out just what we all can do to make sure they don't turn extreme??
Not at all.lowing wrote:
Then you have run out of reasonable arguments if you are left with comparing me to this.Bertster7 wrote:
It's apt I tell you - APT!lowing wrote:
Sorry, no it doesn't I do not want "anyone gone". I have never endorsed any such thing. Any chance I could be taken for the guy that doesn't want to be the one who gets "gone"?
I am not endorsing one master race over another, or mobilizing for ethnic cleansing. Once again, your comparison is wayyyy outta line.
I'm making the comparison because it is obvious that you don't see it. I would've been shocked if you had. But it is perfectly apt. I'm not saying you're evil - just delusional and misguided.
I'll go through point by point showing how apt it is, after I've had something to eat.
Well, I'm all for promoting equality and fighting prejudice, but the problem I have with groups like CAIR is that they usually turn a blind eye to the hate being preached by their own community.Bertster7 wrote:
They're talking about combating Islamophobia, how's that a special accomodation? Objecting to this is like objecting to a programme to combat anti-semetism.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what lowing's actual take on all this is, but personally, I just prefer to run society in a way that doesn't give special privileges to any specific group other than handicapped people and the poor. When I say special privileges for the poor, I'm just talking about helping them along when they are down on their luck. ....but that's another discussion altogether.
The point I'm trying to make is that some Islamic groups seem to want special accommodations for their culture, of which doing so would be unfair to all other cultural groups.
While refraining from giving such special privileges is often considered a conservative view, there are plenty of liberals that would agree that equal treatment for all groups means no special privileges given to any cultural group.
I would bet that there are an equal number of hateful fundamentalist Muslims to the number of paranoid Islamophobic people. To censor one group's hate without doing the same to another is counterproductive and biased.
I think the most effective way for Islamophobia to be eliminated is for the Muslims to silence their own extremists in a consistent manner.
Once no more hate is being preached by Muslims themselves, you'll see less and less being preached against them.
The extremist Muslims preaching hate are censored. Preaching racial or religious hatred has been made a crime in the UK and a number of extreme Muslim clerics have been arrested for it.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I'm all for promoting equality and fighting prejudice, but the problem I have with groups like CAIR is that they usually turn a blind eye to the hate being preached by their own community.Bertster7 wrote:
They're talking about combating Islamophobia, how's that a special accomodation? Objecting to this is like objecting to a programme to combat anti-semetism.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what lowing's actual take on all this is, but personally, I just prefer to run society in a way that doesn't give special privileges to any specific group other than handicapped people and the poor. When I say special privileges for the poor, I'm just talking about helping them along when they are down on their luck. ....but that's another discussion altogether.
The point I'm trying to make is that some Islamic groups seem to want special accommodations for their culture, of which doing so would be unfair to all other cultural groups.
While refraining from giving such special privileges is often considered a conservative view, there are plenty of liberals that would agree that equal treatment for all groups means no special privileges given to any cultural group.
I would bet that there are an equal number of hateful fundamentalist Muslims to the number of paranoid Islamophobic people. To censor one group's hate without doing the same to another is counterproductive and biased.
I think the most effective way for Islamophobia to be eliminated is for the Muslims to silence their own extremists in a consistent manner.
Once no more hate is being preached by Muslims themselves, you'll see less and less being preached against them.
It's not one sided.
Not true, to combat "Islamophobia" you pay attention to the people who have "Islamaphobia". What the original post is addressing is the appeasing of the Muslims, not the curing the "Islamaphobes".Bertster7 wrote:
They're talking about combating Islamophobia, how's that a special accomodation? Objecting to this is like objecting to a programme to combat anti-semetism.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what lowing's actual take on all this is, but personally, I just prefer to run society in a way that doesn't give special privileges to any specific group other than handicapped people and the poor. When I say special privileges for the poor, I'm just talking about helping them along when they are down on their luck. ....but that's another discussion altogether.
The point I'm trying to make is that some Islamic groups seem to want special accommodations for their culture, of which doing so would be unfair to all other cultural groups.
While refraining from giving such special privileges is often considered a conservative view, there are plenty of liberals that would agree that equal treatment for all groups means no special privileges given to any cultural group.
Have they been cracking down on the hateful protests I keep seeing videos of lately? If someone holds up a sign that says "death to those who insult Islam", I consider that to be "hate-speech."Bertster7 wrote:
The extremist Muslims preaching hate are censored. Preaching racial or religious hatred has been made a crime in the UK and a number of extreme Muslim clerics have been arrested for it.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I'm all for promoting equality and fighting prejudice, but the problem I have with groups like CAIR is that they usually turn a blind eye to the hate being preached by their own community.Bertster7 wrote:
They're talking about combating Islamophobia, how's that a special accomodation? Objecting to this is like objecting to a programme to combat anti-semetism.
I would bet that there are an equal number of hateful fundamentalist Muslims to the number of paranoid Islamophobic people. To censor one group's hate without doing the same to another is counterproductive and biased.
I think the most effective way for Islamophobia to be eliminated is for the Muslims to silence their own extremists in a consistent manner.
Once no more hate is being preached by Muslims themselves, you'll see less and less being preached against them.
It's not one sided.
Nevertheless, it's good to know that the laws sound like they're starting to adapt to the extremism that Europe faces. I do have to wonder about some of the things that I recently found out about the U.K. though. You guys actually have publicly funded religious schools? I think that's a horrible idea myself. Granted, some Americans seem keen on pushing this kind of thing over here....