|
Post by What Hat on Feb 18, 2015 17:55:15 GMT -5
If Muslims are inherently violent because of their religion then we should find very high murder rates in Muslim countries not at war, shouldn't we? Using the duck theory, that is. Is there a Muslim-majority country that defines murder properly and keeps reliable statistics? Are "honor killings" murder? What about when a woman kills herself knowing that if she doesn't she will be killed anyway? Is there a Muslim-majority country that implements the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Even if murder rates were better in Muslim-majority countries, it's a high price to pay when women can't leave the house without their husband's permission and need a male chaperone everywhere they go. Your thesis, I think, is that adherents to Islam are inherently violent, or at least more violent than those of other religions. To me there is nothing inherent in the religion, more than any other religion or ideology to make people violent. You would think that if Muslims were inherently violent they would exhibit a higher murder rate even in peaceful countries, but they don't. In fact, the murder rates in places like Oman and Saudi Arabia are extremely low, and unlike rape statistics which are suspect, you can't account for the difference because of under-reporting. Why would murders go unreported in Saudi Arabia? There are many things wrong with the Arab countries. They are highly factional and confrontational. They aren't generally pleasant societies in which to live. But I don't blame the religion for that. Their societal institutions and organisation are generally a century or two behind ours. Before the emergence of the bourgeoisie in the early 19th century life in our countries also was pretty desperate for all but the aristocracy. And for working stiffs life didn't become tolerable until the 20th century. So I think they need time and space to sort things out, but we haven't given them that. You would think that the West could show the way forward to the Near East but we haven't done that either. For the most part, we should just leave them alone to sort out their affairs, but we meddle, make a mess of things, and make enemies of the poor and oppressed, and friends of tyrants. Commercial interests and stability always seem to trump human rights and compassion in our dealings. When Hussein attacked Kuwait I think George H. handled affairs quite well. Clinton went hands off in spite of trying situations in Somalia and Kenya. But since 9/11 US foreign policy has been a disaster. Six months after the Iraq invasion, Bush proudly stood with the troops. "Mission Accomplished" the sign read. Now here we are. Are you aware that radical extremist Islam or Jihadism is a relatively recent phenomenon. I've started to read this report - it might be of value. www.americansecurityproject.org/the-causes-of-violent-jihadism/
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 18, 2015 18:48:53 GMT -5
Is there a Muslim-majority country that defines murder properly and keeps reliable statistics? Are "honor killings" murder? What about when a woman kills herself knowing that if she doesn't she will be killed anyway? Is there a Muslim-majority country that implements the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Even if murder rates were better in Muslim-majority countries, it's a high price to pay when women can't leave the house without their husband's permission and need a male chaperone everywhere they go. Your thesis, I think, is that adherents to Islam are inherently violent, or at least more violent than those of other religions. To me there is nothing inherent in the religion, more than any other religion or ideology to make people violent. You would think that if Muslims were inherently violent they would exhibit a higher murder rate even in peaceful countries, but they don't. In fact, the murder rates in places like Oman and Saudi Arabia are extremely low, and unlike rape statistics which are suspect, you can't account for the difference because of under-reporting. Why would murders go unreported in Saudi Arabia? There are many things wrong with the Arab countries. They are highly factional and confrontational. They aren't generally pleasant societies in which to live. But I don't blame the religion for that. Their societal institutions and organisation are generally a century or two behind ours. Before the emergence of the bourgeoisie in the early 19th century life in our countries also was pretty desperate for all but the aristocracy. And for working stiffs life didn't become tolerable until the 20th century. So I think they need time and space to sort things out, but we haven't given them that. You would think that the West could show the way forward to the Near East but we haven't done that either. For the most part, we should just leave them alone to sort out their affairs, but we meddle, make a mess of things, and make enemies of the poor and oppressed, and friends of tyrants. Commercial interests and stability always seem to trump human rights and compassion in our dealings. When Hussein attacked Kuwait I think George H. handled affairs quite well. Clinton went hands off in spite of trying situations in Somalia and Kenya. But since 9/11 US foreign policy has been a disaster. Six months after the Iraq invasion, Bush proudly stood with the troops. "Mission Accomplished" the sign read. Now here we are. Are you aware that radical extremist Islam or Jihadism is a relatively recent phenomenon. I've started to read this report - it might be of value. www.americansecurityproject.org/the-causes-of-violent-jihadism/If murder (especially honor-killing) goes under-reported even in Muslim Britain, why should we expect it to be reported properly in Muslim-majority countries? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541635/Murders-rapes-going-unreported-no-zones-police-minority-communities-launch-justice-systems.htmlOne problem I have with Islam is that it's more than a religion - it's a political movement as well. Between 622 when Mohammad became ruler of Medina until the Caliphate was abolished in 1924 Islam ruled territory. When you give Muslims the chance to vote they typically choose to be ruled by cleric-controlled religious parties. Do you know many Muslims who believe in separation of Mosque and State?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 18, 2015 19:32:07 GMT -5
I agree with What hat. They are lagging behind. They are acting like the Christians did when their religion was not just a religion but a political movement and no one chose separation of church and State. There are so many similarities it's almost too obvious where they are at in their religions evolution.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 18, 2015 19:45:21 GMT -5
There are many things wrong with the Arab countries. They are highly factional and confrontational. They aren't generally pleasant societies in which to live. When they're not fighting the West they are fighting themselves. Of the more than 60 nations in the coalition against ISIL, two countries are backing one side in Libya and two other coalition members are backing the other side. How crazy is that? I agree with you that Saudi Arabia is a most unsavoury regime, but there's not one Muslim-majority country that implements the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the freedoms that we enjoy in the Free World. I think it would be unwise to disengage entirely from the Islamic world so we're left with having to work with these governments as best we can.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 18, 2015 19:59:41 GMT -5
Brings back memories when the RCC ordered wholesale slaughter of the Cathars. The killing and infighting right now is because the Shiites are not worshiping Allah the right way. The reason why the Cathars were exterminated was because they were not worship the Christian God the right way. The difference between that and now is exactly like What hat points out. They are doing it, trying to figure it all out in a time and place where the rest of the world has progressed far beyond them in their morality evolution. So the rest of the world looks on and if horrified, justifiably, but really it seems to be what powerful religions go through as growing pains. They are in their own 'dark ages' at the moment while we have moved on into the Enlightenment. They are still bound up in the same mindset that the Christians were in when superstitions and religious fervor were the sign of the times. They still believe in witches for example. Christians burned many thousands of witches until they finally got to the place where they decided it was no longer moral. What helped that along was science proving that it wasn't witches that made the crops fail, or the brew to go flat etc. Now just because we understand where they are at in their evolution, doesn't mean it's right. It does mean however, that it will really clash with the morality of a far more moral world that they exist in at the moment. How do we deal with it? Hopefully in a way that won't make more join the ranks of ISIS.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 18, 2015 20:02:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 18, 2015 20:05:28 GMT -5
Thank you for that report.
Just one excerpt: Violent jihadism has three core causes:
1. a crisis of legitimacy in the Muslim world brought on by economic stagnation, population pressures, failures of political institutions and disputes over the interpretation of religious texts;
2. the foreign policies of the United States and other Western countries toward the Arab and Muslim worlds;
3. pathological dynamics within the Muslim world which promote beliefs in conspiracy theories, unsubstantiated rumors and anti-Semitism.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 18, 2015 20:14:58 GMT -5
Sorry I did not understand your question. I thought you were asking me to explain what I meant by the metaphorical term "iceberg" and substantiate the existence of anti-Muslim sentiment. I wasn't trying to misdirect your request, I just didn't understand what you wanted. What you actually wanted to know is how the Chapel Hill shootings were related to anti-Muslim sentiment. Honestly, I just took it for granted that this nutjob killed the girls because he hated Muslims, based on reports I had read. Here are some of the reports that link the two events. america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/17/threats-to-muslim-american-community-intensifies-after-chapel-hill-shooting.htmltime.com/3711437/chapel-hill-muslim-lives-matter-north-carolina-craig-hicks-deah-shaddy-barakat-yusor-mohammad-abu-salha/Here is a report of a prior altercation between the accused and the young woman as reported by the victim's father. Hate crime?
Abu-Salha says he thinks his loved ones' killing was a hate crime. When Barakat lived in the condo by himself, there were no problems with the neighbor. They inflamed after his daughter, who wears a hijab, moved in with her husband, he said.
It was a visible sign that they were Muslims.
"Daddy, I think he hates us for who we are and how we look," Abu-Salha said his daughter told him.
He believes that people prejudge Muslims in their communities because of the constant news they hear about extremist terrorists and the association with Islam.
There are people who say it was a 'hate crime' and people who say it wasn't. I do accept your input that there are questions about his actual motives. We'll likely never know what was going on in the perp's head. But, since this post, the research I've done affirms my opinion that anti-Muslim bigotry is widespread and growing, which is what the trend of discussion was until you popped in. Even our Prime Minister, never one to act out of principle when popular opinion gets in the way, is getting in on the bigotry act with a story today. www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/02/12/stephen-harper-says-ottawa-to-appeal-ruling-allowing-veil-during-citizenship-oath.htmlThe courts disagree with him. I personally don't like the full face veil, but unless it's a security or testimony issue, people should be able to dress according to their cultural identity. That's the way our country has operated since Confederation, and multi-culturalism is not new here. It's been our way of life throughout our history. I will forgo the opportunity to apologize for the fact that I “popped in” to a discussion that was trending in a direction that you wished. I have deep respect for your erudition, introspection and capacity for analysis of complex questions. I have been disappointed by the lassitude that led you to “take for granted” claims that appear consistent with foregone conclusions. It turns out that the perpetrator (you refer to him as “nutjob”) actually shot three vibrant young students, a man and his wife and the man’s sister. Some material has been retrieved from his social media sites that may be of interest to you. There are also a few published interviews with folks who knew him (including his current wife) that could also provide additional insight. Might the evidence eventually point toward religious intolerance? Perhaps. I feel reasonably confident that if the case does begin to move in that direction that the media will wring every possible ounce of political capital out of the story that they can and you will be able to glean much more reliable evidence from reliable sources for your notions from that coverage. With respect to misunderstanding my post, I would like to reiterate my long held position that I am always delighted by the opportunity to clarify any aspect of any post that I write. The simple courtesy of asking about the interpretation or intent of my post is usually adequate to stimulate a sincere effort to clarify meaning.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 18, 2015 20:52:54 GMT -5
"If ISIS is Islam then the KKK are Christianity" read this quote this morning. Kareem Abdul Jabber. When we see horrific things happening it is so easy to react with fear and start broad brushing the whole group instead of realizing that terrorists don't just terrorize their targets, but also the moderates and liberals in the groups they say they are speaking for. If we let fear rule our judgement on Islam we may do things that are equally horrific. I am sure that Christians do not want to be defined by the KKK, but many Christians are defining Islam by ISIS. It's important as we go forward and figure out what to do, to remember that not all of Islam is ISIS. It seems that the response to terrorism in so many cases is to restrict our own freedoms under the guise of protection. We have given up so many freedoms since 911 all because of our fears and in imo, our erroneous thinking that it will somehow protect us. If terrorism takes away our freedoms that we have always enjoyed, such as free speech, then once again we are letting the terrorists win, dictate what 'we' can or cannot do. All under the belief it will somehow protect us. Snow, I agree with your assessment that the response to terrorism (worldwide) has been to restrict freedoms, presumably in exchange for "protection". I do not perceive this a a positive development. But even more to the point was your comment in the first paragraph; "It's important as we go forward and figure out what to do . . . . ." So much of the content of this thread so far has dealt with the sins of the past, the moral transgressions of one culture or another, the evil perpetuated one toward another, one by another and one against another, a debate that could continue indefinitely without progress. Making the assumption that we have had our consciousness adequately raised to acknowledge our sins, the sins of our fathers and the sins of our father's fathers (ad infinitum) by those who specialize in such rhetoric; where stand we now? To your point, how do we move forward from this time and place? The thing that frightens me the most is the absence of any credible leadership, anywhere. To the extent that this fear is rational, my sense is that the first thing we must do to "figure out what to do" is turn inward and reflect on what we know, what we feel and what we are willing to actually stand for in the public square. I have lost faith in the strategy of pointing fingers at neighbors or looking askance at those we identify as other. To my thinking there is no evidence either on this thread or in the world at large that this approach yields nurturing fruit. Everybody has an agenda and that agenda is seldom quiescence. My tendency is not to think about what the "arab world" has to do. My natural instinct is to conclude that the continued evolution of their culture is and should remain beyond our control. Rather, I suggest that our individual and collective effort must be directed toward stemming the tide of further Balkanization of our own culture. I submit, we have lost our traditional, cultural, and philosophical footing. The rationalism of the Enlightenment no longer informs behavior or policy. The obsessive fixation of governing bodies on the interplay of capitalism and utopian Marxist dialectics is destroying all meaningful expressions of empathy and compassion toward the huddled masses. I am not a doom-sayer but without wise, strong and effective leadership soon, the path forward will be through revolution and not continued cultural evolution. It is my sincere hope that someone's fantasy is for a brighter path forward than the one I suggest.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 18, 2015 21:06:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 18, 2015 22:08:49 GMT -5
"If ISIS is Islam then the KKK are Christianity" read this quote this morning. Kareem Abdul Jabber. When we see horrific things happening it is so easy to react with fear and start broad brushing the whole group instead of realizing that terrorists don't just terrorize their targets, but also the moderates and liberals in the groups they say they are speaking for. If we let fear rule our judgement on Islam we may do things that are equally horrific. I am sure that Christians do not want to be defined by the KKK, but many Christians are defining Islam by ISIS. It's important as we go forward and figure out what to do, to remember that not all of Islam is ISIS. It seems that the response to terrorism in so many cases is to restrict our own freedoms under the guise of protection. We have given up so many freedoms since 911 all because of our fears and in imo, our erroneous thinking that it will somehow protect us. If terrorism takes away our freedoms that we have always enjoyed, such as free speech, then once again we are letting the terrorists win, dictate what 'we' can or cannot do. All under the belief it will somehow protect us. The concern here in Canada is Bill C-51 which ostensibly provides greater powers to CSIS (our CIA) to control terrorism but those powers can also be used on environmentalists, protesters, radicals and anyone else who gets in the way of government and business interests. The police have powers already to deal with terrorism and criminal elements in the protest movement, if there even are any. The Globe and Mail has editorialised against Bill C-51. We don't need it, but I see that even Justin Trudeau has said that he will support the bill, out of political expediency no doubt. If he opposes the bill he will be tarred as pro-Muslim. The right wing may even allege that he is a closet Muslim, Justin Hussein Trudeau. He doesn't need that so principle goes out the window. I'm becoming quite disaffected with the son of PET and may have to vote Green once again.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 18, 2015 22:17:23 GMT -5
Your thesis, I think, is that adherents to Islam are inherently violent, or at least more violent than those of other religions. To me there is nothing inherent in the religion, more than any other religion or ideology to make people violent. You would think that if Muslims were inherently violent they would exhibit a higher murder rate even in peaceful countries, but they don't. In fact, the murder rates in places like Oman and Saudi Arabia are extremely low, and unlike rape statistics which are suspect, you can't account for the difference because of under-reporting. Why would murders go unreported in Saudi Arabia? There are many things wrong with the Arab countries. They are highly factional and confrontational. They aren't generally pleasant societies in which to live. But I don't blame the religion for that. Their societal institutions and organisation are generally a century or two behind ours. Before the emergence of the bourgeoisie in the early 19th century life in our countries also was pretty desperate for all but the aristocracy. And for working stiffs life didn't become tolerable until the 20th century. So I think they need time and space to sort things out, but we haven't given them that. You would think that the West could show the way forward to the Near East but we haven't done that either. For the most part, we should just leave them alone to sort out their affairs, but we meddle, make a mess of things, and make enemies of the poor and oppressed, and friends of tyrants. Commercial interests and stability always seem to trump human rights and compassion in our dealings. When Hussein attacked Kuwait I think George H. handled affairs quite well. Clinton went hands off in spite of trying situations in Somalia and Kenya. But since 9/11 US foreign policy has been a disaster. Six months after the Iraq invasion, Bush proudly stood with the troops. "Mission Accomplished" the sign read. Now here we are. Are you aware that radical extremist Islam or Jihadism is a relatively recent phenomenon. I've started to read this report - it might be of value. www.americansecurityproject.org/the-causes-of-violent-jihadism/If murder (especially honor-killing) goes under-reported even in Muslim Britain, why should we expect it to be reported properly in Muslim-majority countries? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541635/Murders-rapes-going-unreported-no-zones-police-minority-communities-launch-justice-systems.htmlOne problem I have with Islam is that it's more than a religion - it's a political movement as well. Between 622 when Mohammad became ruler of Medina until the Caliphate was abolished in 1924 Islam ruled territory. When you give Muslims the chance to vote they typically choose to be ruled by cleric-controlled religious parties. Do you know many Muslims who believe in separation of Mosque and State? Many Muslims wish a return to a sixth century theocracy and clearly that's not going to work. Saudi Arabia has sharia law, I believe, and it's a primitive system, although they are not a theocracy. But not all Arabs wish to stake their country's system on an Islamic style theocracy. Most Arabs do not. Our study group has been taking a close look at Syria, and the principles of the ruling Ba'ath party were to institute a modern Arab state which asserted nationhood over the various Muslim and Christian factions. That didn't really work out, and we know the Assads are tyrants. But they are not Muslim tyrants; they may well be tyrants who happen to be Muslims. I think your concerns of a reversion to Muslim theocracy are overstated. Where do you think that has a realistic chance of happening, other than Iran and possibly ISIL?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 18, 2015 22:27:35 GMT -5
There are many things wrong with the Arab countries. They are highly factional and confrontational. They aren't generally pleasant societies in which to live. When they're not fighting the West they are fighting themselves. Of the more than 60 nations in the coalition against ISIL, two countries are backing one side in Libya and two other coalition members are backing the other side. How crazy is that? I agree with you that Saudi Arabia is a most unsavoury regime, but there's not one Muslim-majority country that implements the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the freedoms that we enjoy in the Free World. I think it would be unwise to disengage entirely from the Islamic world so we're left with having to work with these governments as best we can. Given the manner in which we have engaged with them in the last decade, I can't see disengaging would make things worse. I do believe ISIL has to be dealt with now, but Afghanistan and Iraq have been futile wastes for both sides.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 18, 2015 22:43:03 GMT -5
Sorry I did not understand your question. I thought you were asking me to explain what I meant by the metaphorical term "iceberg" and substantiate the existence of anti-Muslim sentiment. I wasn't trying to misdirect your request, I just didn't understand what you wanted. What you actually wanted to know is how the Chapel Hill shootings were related to anti-Muslim sentiment. Honestly, I just took it for granted that this nutjob killed the girls because he hated Muslims, based on reports I had read. Here are some of the reports that link the two events. america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/17/threats-to-muslim-american-community-intensifies-after-chapel-hill-shooting.htmltime.com/3711437/chapel-hill-muslim-lives-matter-north-carolina-craig-hicks-deah-shaddy-barakat-yusor-mohammad-abu-salha/Here is a report of a prior altercation between the accused and the young woman as reported by the victim's father. Hate crime?
Abu-Salha says he thinks his loved ones' killing was a hate crime. When Barakat lived in the condo by himself, there were no problems with the neighbor. They inflamed after his daughter, who wears a hijab, moved in with her husband, he said.
It was a visible sign that they were Muslims.
"Daddy, I think he hates us for who we are and how we look," Abu-Salha said his daughter told him.
He believes that people prejudge Muslims in their communities because of the constant news they hear about extremist terrorists and the association with Islam.
There are people who say it was a 'hate crime' and people who say it wasn't. I do accept your input that there are questions about his actual motives. We'll likely never know what was going on in the perp's head. But, since this post, the research I've done affirms my opinion that anti-Muslim bigotry is widespread and growing, which is what the trend of discussion was until you popped in. Even our Prime Minister, never one to act out of principle when popular opinion gets in the way, is getting in on the bigotry act with a story today. www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/02/12/stephen-harper-says-ottawa-to-appeal-ruling-allowing-veil-during-citizenship-oath.htmlThe courts disagree with him. I personally don't like the full face veil, but unless it's a security or testimony issue, people should be able to dress according to their cultural identity. That's the way our country has operated since Confederation, and multi-culturalism is not new here. It's been our way of life throughout our history. I will forgo the opportunity to apologize for the fact that I “popped in” to a discussion that was trending in a direction that you wished. There was no implication that I wanted an apology for anything you've written. You did "pop in" after a prolonged absence. It appears I got that case wrong. I revise my opinion to one of not knowing what his actual motive was. The fact that this incident has frightened many American Muslims is significant because it indicates there were or rather, are, conditions pre-existing this murder that frighten them. I don't know if there will be any political capital in the story unless new facts come to light. Had a Muslim man killed three of his neighbours, do you think there would be political capital in that? What if he had beheaded them, which is how Muslims typically kill their foes? Would there be political capital in that, against the Muslim religion? At the time I had no doubt whatsoever that my misunderstanding was the correct one. Now, if I had detected some ambiguity in your post I certainly would have requested clarification. Your implication is that I ran with one out of two possible meanings. But I only perceived one meaning until I read your second post. It was a totally honest mistake.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 18, 2015 22:53:00 GMT -5
"If ISIS is Islam then the KKK are Christianity" read this quote this morning. Kareem Abdul Jabber. When we see horrific things happening it is so easy to react with fear and start broad brushing the whole group instead of realizing that terrorists don't just terrorize their targets, but also the moderates and liberals in the groups they say they are speaking for. If we let fear rule our judgement on Islam we may do things that are equally horrific. I am sure that Christians do not want to be defined by the KKK, but many Christians are defining Islam by ISIS. It's important as we go forward and figure out what to do, to remember that not all of Islam is ISIS. It seems that the response to terrorism in so many cases is to restrict our own freedoms under the guise of protection. We have given up so many freedoms since 911 all because of our fears and in imo, our erroneous thinking that it will somehow protect us. If terrorism takes away our freedoms that we have always enjoyed, such as free speech, then once again we are letting the terrorists win, dictate what 'we' can or cannot do. All under the belief it will somehow protect us. Snow, I agree with your assessment that the response to terrorism (worldwide) has been to restrict freedoms, presumably in exchange for "protection". I do not perceive this a a positive development. But even more to the point was your comment in the first paragraph; "It's important as we go forward and figure out what to do . . . . ." So much of the content of this thread so far has dealt with the sins of the past, the moral transgressions of one culture or another, the evil perpetuated one toward another, one by another and one against another, a debate that could continue indefinitely without progress. Making the assumption that we have had our consciousness adequately raised to acknowledge our sins, the sins of our fathers and the sins of our father's fathers (ad infinitum) by those who specialize in such rhetoric; where stand we now? To your point, how do we move forward from this time and place? The thing that frightens me the most is the absence of any credible leadership, anywhere. To the extent that this fear is rational, my sense is that the first thing we must do to "figure out what to do" is turn inward and reflect on what we know, what we feel and what we are willing to actually stand for in the public square. I have lost faith in the strategy of pointing fingers at neighbors or looking askance at those we identify as other. To my thinking there is no evidence either on this thread or in the world at large that this approach yields nurturing fruit. Everybody has an agenda and that agenda is seldom quiescence. My tendency is not to think about what the "arab world" has to do. My natural instinct is to conclude that the continued evolution of their culture is and should remain beyond our control. Rather, I suggest that our individual and collective effort must be directed toward stemming the tide of further Balkanization of our own culture. I submit, we have lost our traditional, cultural, and philosophical footing. The rationalism of the Enlightenment no longer informs behavior or policy. The obsessive fixation of governing bodies on the interplay of capitalism and utopian Marxist dialectics is destroying all meaningful expressions of empathy and compassion toward the huddled masses. I am not a doom-sayer but without wise, strong and effective leadership soon, the path forward will be through revolution and not continued cultural evolution. It is my sincere hope that someone's fantasy is for a brighter path forward than the one I suggest. I know you addressed this question to Snow, but I believe that multi-culturalism still offers the only way forward in our country. And that simply means that each person has the right to live as they best see fit, according to their beliefs and background, as long as they do not harm any other. We have always been a multi-cultural country and the policies of multi-culturalism have not failed, but at times we have failed to be as tolerant and inclusive as we should be. Do you think that there is anything inherent in multi-cultural policies that should cause them to fail? I'm perfectly okay with the idea that some of my neighbours are Sudanese, Old Order Mennonites, German, Portuguese, Jamaican, West African, American or WASPs, and to some extent they all have their social enclaves. The only one that ever causes problems are the WASPs who sometimes think everyone should be like them. Not all of them, but some.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 18, 2015 23:51:21 GMT -5
"If ISIS is Islam then the KKK are Christianity" read this quote this morning. Kareem Abdul Jabber. When we see horrific things happening it is so easy to react with fear and start broad brushing the whole group instead of realizing that terrorists don't just terrorize their targets, but also the moderates and liberals in the groups they say they are speaking for. If we let fear rule our judgement on Islam we may do things that are equally horrific. I am sure that Christians do not want to be defined by the KKK, but many Christians are defining Islam by ISIS. It's important as we go forward and figure out what to do, to remember that not all of Islam is ISIS. It seems that the response to terrorism in so many cases is to restrict our own freedoms under the guise of protection. We have given up so many freedoms since 911 all because of our fears and in imo, our erroneous thinking that it will somehow protect us. If terrorism takes away our freedoms that we have always enjoyed, such as free speech, then once again we are letting the terrorists win, dictate what 'we' can or cannot do. All under the belief it will somehow protect us. The concern here in Canada is Bill C-51 which ostensibly provides greater powers to CSIS (our CIA) to control terrorism but those powers can also be used on environmentalists, protesters, radicals and anyone else who gets in the way of government and business interests. The police have powers already to deal with terrorism and criminal elements in the protest movement, if there even are any. The Globe and Mail has editorialised against Bill C-51. We don't need it, but I see that even Justin Trudeau has said that he will support the bill, out of political expediency no doubt. If he opposes the bill he will be tarred as pro-Muslim. The right wing may even allege that he is a closet Muslim, Justin Hussein Trudeau. He doesn't need that so principle goes out the window. I'm becoming quite disaffected with the son of PET and may have to vote Green once again. Yes, I agree, Bill C-51 is not needed here. I am not happy that the guy who most likely has the best chance of ousting Harper agrees with the bill! I was thinking liberal this time around, but not anymore. I see NDP and Green are against it. I just can't agree that giving up our freedoms and allowing for more government power is the answer. This bill would cover something as innocent as a protest against something the government wants. When Justin was in our city he was saying he would support the bill but wanted a few changes to it. Who knows. All terrorists seem to do is give governments more power in the guise of protection. None of it will protect us and if they take more freedoms away, the terrorists have won anyway imo.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 19, 2015 0:01:35 GMT -5
"If ISIS is Islam then the KKK are Christianity" read this quote this morning. Kareem Abdul Jabber. When we see horrific things happening it is so easy to react with fear and start broad brushing the whole group instead of realizing that terrorists don't just terrorize their targets, but also the moderates and liberals in the groups they say they are speaking for. If we let fear rule our judgement on Islam we may do things that are equally horrific. I am sure that Christians do not want to be defined by the KKK, but many Christians are defining Islam by ISIS. It's important as we go forward and figure out what to do, to remember that not all of Islam is ISIS. It seems that the response to terrorism in so many cases is to restrict our own freedoms under the guise of protection. We have given up so many freedoms since 911 all because of our fears and in imo, our erroneous thinking that it will somehow protect us. If terrorism takes away our freedoms that we have always enjoyed, such as free speech, then once again we are letting the terrorists win, dictate what 'we' can or cannot do. All under the belief it will somehow protect us. Snow, I agree with your assessment that the response to terrorism (worldwide) has been to restrict freedoms, presumably in exchange for "protection". I do not perceive this a a positive development. But even more to the point was your comment in the first paragraph; "It's important as we go forward and figure out what to do . . . . ." So much of the content of this thread so far has dealt with the sins of the past, the moral transgressions of one culture or another, the evil perpetuated one toward another, one by another and one against another, a debate that could continue indefinitely without progress. Making the assumption that we have had our consciousness adequately raised to acknowledge our sins, the sins of our fathers and the sins of our father's fathers (ad infinitum) by those who specialize in such rhetoric; where stand we now? To your point, how do we move forward from this time and place? The thing that frightens me the most is the absence of any credible leadership, anywhere. To the extent that this fear is rational, my sense is that the first thing we must do to "figure out what to do" is turn inward and reflect on what we know, what we feel and what we are willing to actually stand for in the public square. I have lost faith in the strategy of pointing fingers at neighbors or looking askance at those we identify as other. To my thinking there is no evidence either on this thread or in the world at large that this approach yields nurturing fruit. Everybody has an agenda and that agenda is seldom quiescence. My tendency is not to think about what the "arab world" has to do. My natural instinct is to conclude that the continued evolution of their culture is and should remain beyond our control. Rather, I suggest that our individual and collective effort must be directed toward stemming the tide of further Balkanization of our own culture. I submit, we have lost our traditional, cultural, and philosophical footing. The rationalism of the Enlightenment no longer informs behavior or policy. The obsessive fixation of governing bodies on the interplay of capitalism and utopian Marxist dialectics is destroying all meaningful expressions of empathy and compassion toward the huddled masses. I am not a doom-sayer but without wise, strong and effective leadership soon, the path forward will be through revolution and not continued cultural evolution. It is my sincere hope that someone's fantasy is for a brighter path forward than the one I suggest. I obviously don't have any solution and I don't see our current leaders coming up with one. In Canada our leader just wants to take away more rights, all to protect us of course. It's hard to know anymore where to step back and where to step in. It's going to take a wiser person than me to figure it all out. I do think it's important though that we don't paint all of Islam as monsters. It would be very unfortunate if that happens and also untrue.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Feb 19, 2015 0:02:26 GMT -5
Yknot I live in a city that is multicultural. Building bridges at grass roots. We cant trust politicians. Thats a proven. To mark a revolution of change? It still must begin with number one. The individual. How we treat and speak to one another. We spend so much time critisising other religions/beliefs. In most societies there is good and bad. How can we/I promote the good. How can change be instituted? Laws are changing daily without our knowledge. Is forgiveness the key to change? Is sharing and caring the key? Merciless killing triggers anger and sometimes violence in retaliation which can be justified. D Is shutting the doors to the many the answer of escaping the risk of I jihad. I dont know. Its possibly too late. Sorry for butting in. There are bikie gangs here that will only put up with so much dictatorship from immigrants insisting on certain things they refuse to change.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 19, 2015 0:05:37 GMT -5
What would be a list of some of the freedoms we have already lost, and what freedoms about to lose in the new bill, that affects law abiding people negatively? Alvin
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 19, 2015 0:28:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 19, 2015 1:17:11 GMT -5
Yknot I live in a city that is multicultural. Building bridges at grass roots. We cant trust politicians. Thats a proven. To mark a revolution of change? It still must begin with number one. The individual. How we treat and speak to one another. We spend so much time critisising other religions/beliefs. In most societies there is good and bad. How can we/I promote the good. How can change be instituted? Laws are changing daily without our knowledge. Is forgiveness the key to change? Is sharing and caring the key? Merciless killing triggers anger and sometimes violence in retaliation which can be justified. D Is shutting the doors to the many the answer of escaping the risk of I jihad. I dont know. Its possibly too late. Sorry for butting in. There are bikie gangs here that will only put up with so much dictatorship from immigrants insisting on certain things they refuse to change. What does that last statement mean?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 19, 2015 3:36:37 GMT -5
What would be a list of some of the freedoms we have already lost, and what freedoms about to lose in the new bill, that affects law abiding people negatively? Alvin I remember fondly the relaxed atmosphere at American air terminals in the 1990s. Friends able to go all the way to the air bridge when seeing me off. Last time I travelled millions had to take their shoes off because some Islamic nut-job tried to blow a plane up with his shoes. Likewise liquids are restricted in cabin baggage to no more than 100ml, for the same reason.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 19, 2015 5:04:31 GMT -5
The more Westerners are persecuted the more they will hate Muslims. No doubt you will sleep in a warm bed tonight, be well fed and likely have little concern about your personal or financial security. While ISIS beheadings are a horrible thing to consider for what reason should you or anyone like you hate Muslims? This assessment of my attitude towards Muslims is a concern What Hat. I don't hate Muslims at all - I only hate the way they behave. Not all of them. The couple who run our local corner dairy seem nice enough.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 19, 2015 5:18:54 GMT -5
Yknot I live in a city that is multicultural. Building bridges at grass roots. We cant trust politicians. Thats a proven. To mark a revolution of change? It still must begin with number one. The individual. How we treat and speak to one another. We spend so much time critisising other religions/beliefs. In most societies there is good and bad. How can we/I promote the good. How can change be instituted? Laws are changing daily without our knowledge. Is forgiveness the key to change? Is sharing and caring the key? Merciless killing triggers anger and sometimes violence in retaliation which can be justified. D Is shutting the doors to the many the answer of escaping the risk of I jihad. I dont know. Its possibly too late. Sorry for butting in. There are bikie gangs here that will only put up with so much dictatorship from immigrants insisting on certain things they refuse to change. What does that last statement mean?
There is a backlash. Muslim leaders insist that banning terrorism will outlaw their legitimate right to kill Jews and promote the murder of non-Muslims for “legitimate” reasons. People in modern free democratic countries don't want these Islamic nut-jobs bringing seventh century violence into peaceful 21st century countries. www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/01/honest-australian-islamic-leaders-cant-ban-terrorism-without-banning-islam/
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 19, 2015 5:33:08 GMT -5
"If ISIS is Islam then the KKK are Christianity" read this quote this morning. Kareem Abdul Jabber. That's a rather disingenuous statement I think.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 19, 2015 9:51:06 GMT -5
The concern here in Canada is Bill C-51 which ostensibly provides greater powers to CSIS (our CIA) to control terrorism but those powers can also be used on environmentalists, protesters, radicals and anyone else who gets in the way of government and business interests. The police have powers already to deal with terrorism and criminal elements in the protest movement, if there even are any. The Globe and Mail has editorialised against Bill C-51. We don't need it, but I see that even Justin Trudeau has said that he will support the bill, out of political expediency no doubt. If he opposes the bill he will be tarred as pro-Muslim. The right wing may even allege that he is a closet Muslim, Justin Hussein Trudeau. He doesn't need that so principle goes out the window. I'm becoming quite disaffected with the son of PET and may have to vote Green once again. Yes, I agree, Bill C-51 is not needed here. I am not happy that the guy who most likely has the best chance of ousting Harper agrees with the bill! I was thinking liberal this time around, but not anymore. I see NDP and Green are against it. I just can't agree that giving up our freedoms and allowing for more government power is the answer. This bill would cover something as innocent as a protest against something the government wants. When Justin was in our city he was saying he would support the bill but wanted a few changes to it. Who knows. All terrorists seem to do is give governments more power in the guise of protection. None of it will protect us and if they take more freedoms away, the terrorists have won anyway imo. So the Globe published a poll this morning that 82% favour the bill. Yet those commenting on the Globe site are 75% or more against the bill. What does that tell you? Yes, a lot of people pay no attention to the implications of a bill like this, and as long as the beheadings continue they'll back whatever the government recommends. At least I've softened my view on Justin's stance. He has obviously seen the numbers and realizes he's not going to be able to ride his opposition to any success. Congratulations to Mulcair for sticking to principle.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 19, 2015 10:07:24 GMT -5
What would be a list of some of the freedoms we have already lost, and what freedoms about to lose in the new bill, that affects law abiding people negatively? Alvin The main issue is that the bill gives additional powers to CSIS they currently don't have. They are allowed to "spy" but can not enforce the law. Enforcement is left to the RCMP. The reason for this is that the RCMP is subject to controls by the courts whereas CSIS is not. And there are other checks and balances on the RCMP that do not exist for CSIS. In effect, the bill creates a separate police force, and some worry it could become a "secret" government controlled police force similar to those found in South American and Eastern European countries. To be fair, CSIS police actions will be subject to court oversight - there will be checks and balances. The other concern is that CSIS will arrest and question non-terrorists, especially environmental activists and other "unsavoury" types. Here is more: www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/csis-is-about-to-become-more-kinetic-bad-idea/article22997008/
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 19, 2015 10:18:00 GMT -5
No doubt you will sleep in a warm bed tonight, be well fed and likely have little concern about your personal or financial security. While ISIS beheadings are a horrible thing to consider for what reason should you or anyone like you hate Muslims? This assessment of my attitude towards Muslims is a concern What Hat. I don't hate Muslims at all - I only hate the way they behave. Not all of them. The couple who run our local corner dairy seem nice enough. Basically you said, "The more Westerners are persecuted the more they will hate Muslims." My answer is a hypothetical. Perhaps you don't hate Muslims, but you certainly don't like them very much. But the point remains, the situation of Muslims and their hate for the West, where it is found, is entirely different than that of Westerners. I have some empathy for their hate and their situation, but none for those who hate them. It's not as "tit for tat" as your statement makes out.
|
|