|
Post by placid-void on Feb 19, 2015 21:25:03 GMT -5
A lot of Americans don't want their military to intervene in foreign wars. Sure, Samantha Powers will have influence but she can't single-handedly direct foreign policy. Her role is to articulate the Administration's position. Understood.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 19, 2015 21:38:19 GMT -5
Has what we've been doing been working? If yes, carry on. If not, then lets look at new solutions.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 19, 2015 21:47:57 GMT -5
What Hat, that was a superb summary in response to all the the questions I posed regarding your views on multi-culturalism. Question 5) was poorly written, sorry about that. The origin of the question in my mind is the apparently disproportionate growth of different ethic groups in their homeland and as immigrants to new homes particularly in Europe. My impression is that the social nets in Europe are being put under increasing strain over time as the immigrant population competes for limited resources in the host countries. I struggle with understanding how this phenomena (if true) comports with compassionate humanitarian goals. Within the confines of any geopolitical entity the availability of resources is limited (I don't think that premise is questioned). If a native population and an immigrant population subscribe to different cultural ideals regarding birth rates, one population (native or immigrant) will ultimately dominate. The consequence will require a smaller share of common resources for all, how will this eventuality be rationalized from the perspective of fairness, justice, compassion? If I am not mistaken this is one of the demographic issues that Israel is wrestling with relative to the Jewish and Palestinian populations in the State of Israel. Yes question 7) is very obtusely phrased, but beleive me, not intentionally so. I actually wonder about these kind of questions. I imagine you are familiar with Rawls social contract theory. I am looking for a variation on this theory in which strong advocates of multi-culturalism stand behind a veil and provide their arguments for each culture they advocate as part of the whole knowing that at the end of the exercise they will be randomly assigned to live out the balance of their lives in that culture. To me it is a challenging question. It is easiest to advocate for a position for which I ultimately will experience no consequences. But if I were a women or a homosexual, for example, would I advocate for the sanctity of Muslim culture knowing that I might be consigned to live by the dictates of that culture? Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for example, probably would not so advocate. The question is not limited to the Muslim culture, it could just as well be the Amish culture, U.S. culture, Zimbabwe culture. Again, thank you for your thoughtful responses. The strange thing is I have difficulty discerning great differences between the social norms of your country and mine. (Hope that doesn't reopen the wound so that you feel compelled to recite again how misguided my country is )
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 19, 2015 22:04:34 GMT -5
There are several aspects of multi-culturalism that interest me: 1) Globally, what locations offer a superior example of multi-culturalism effectively working in practice? 2) How is "rule of law" defined/redefined in a multi-cultural society where legal precedents may differ significantly? 3) As an operational social norm, does multi-culturalism emerge from the governed or is it imposed by those who govern? 4) How does multi-culturalism address questions of language and education? 5) Noting significant variation in birth-control attitudes and practices between cultures, how does a multi-cultural society anticipate equitable resource allocation over the long term (25, 50, 75 years)? 6) How does a multi-cultural society manage/balance group-centric issues vis-a-vis the welfare of the whole society? 7) Among the strong proponents of multi-culturalism are there any statistics on those who would be willing to participate in a Rawlsian contract arrangement and choose from behind a veil to become a member of any of the cultures for which they advocate? This would be a very interesting study if available. Have to run, I will be interested in the response of all. I see that What Hat has responded in a point-by-point very reasonable and rational way. I am going to respond in somewhat more emotional way. At the same time I want to be very clear that (unlike some posters here) I do not see emotion as being opposed to reason. Rather, to my mind, emotions assign value to our experiences and it could be argued that emotions are the very foundation to reason. I am Canadian, through and through. Proudly B&R. And though I have reached a point in my life where I could seek at least part time residence in a much better climate, I choose to experience the best that I think Canada has to offer. I love this country. Every time I have travelled elsewhere, no matter how enjoyable the experience, on returning I have had a moment where I have wanted to pause and kiss the ground of my (home) country. Multiculturalism has been a buzz word in my life since I was 8 - 10 years old. Even before I had any real understanding of what it meant. I grew up in a very waspy community, but have, through the years, and different places of residence, gained more and more exposure to people with infinitely different backgrounds. I now have friends from a number of different cultural backgrounds, and from almost every religious persuasion I know. Last weekend we were invited over to visit the new home of some Sikh neighbors. This weekend we are going out to a local restaurant with some Bahai friends. I have Buddhist friends, Hindu friends, Muslim(Ismaili) friends. Also Christian friends, including 2X2’s. And friends with no particular religious persuasion. I have no problem that my country is also their country. (Interestingly – just reflecting on this now - I do not think I have a single militantly atheist friend, nor do I have any fundamentalist friends of any other religious stripe.) I would have to say that for every person that I count as a friend, that we have had a moment in the relationship where we have looked into each other’s eyes and recognized something very deep there that has really answered all the questions we might have about each other. There’s maybe a lot we don’t understand about each other, but we do have “that” moment of recognition as a basis for our relationship.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 19, 2015 23:28:43 GMT -5
I see that What Hat has responded in a point-by-point very reasonable and rational way. I am going to respond in somewhat more emotional way. At the same time I want to be very clear that (unlike some posters here) I do not see emotion as being opposed to reason. Rather, to my mind, emotions assign value to our experiences and it could be argued that emotions are the very foundation to reason.
I don't beleive that some of our better thinkers of all time would agree with you The power of emotions to influence judgment, including political attitudes, has been recognized since classical antiquity.
Aristotle, in his treatise Rhetorica described emotional arousal as critical to persuasion: “The orator persuades by means of his hearers, when they are roused to emotion by his speech; for the judgments we deliver are not the same when we are influenced by joy or sorrow, love or hate”.[6][7]
Aristotle accordingly warned that emotions may give rise to beliefs where none existed, or change existing beliefs, and may enhance or decrease the strength with which a belief is held.[8] Seneca similarly warned that “Reason herself, to whom the reins of power have been entrusted, remains mistress only so long as she is kept apart from the passions.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 19, 2015 23:56:51 GMT -5
I don't beleive that some of our better thinkers of all time would agree with you What???!!! You don't consider me one of the better thinkers of our time? (I'm so hurt.) Plus, I am rather attached to the way I think. (Or, perhaps, don't think.)
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 19, 2015 23:59:28 GMT -5
If it's any consolation, I think you're one of the better thinkers of our time Sharon.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 20, 2015 0:47:10 GMT -5
In summary, multi-culturalism in Canada never has been a case of multiple integral ethnic enclaves co-existing. A critique of multi-culturalism on the basis of that view is mainly a false critique. There is a base set of values that are embodied in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. These values are supra-cultural and govern every person of every culture. We cannot import or allow cultural values that do not defer to those base values. But beyond those values, in the areas of language, food, music, but also personal moral choices, association and religion, people should be free to live as they see fit. Assimilation around a common set of preferred values will happen over time if left alone; that is there are majority values that take care of themselves, it's minority values that require protection. Down here we use to call it the melting pot.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 20, 2015 1:26:32 GMT -5
I don't beleive that some of our better thinkers of all time would agree with you What???!!! You don't consider me one of the better thinkers of our time? (I'm so hurt.) Plus, I am rather attached to the way I think. (Or, perhaps, don't think.) Well, you know something, Sharon? I was rather "hurt" to find I wasn't listed either!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 20, 2015 4:53:22 GMT -5
WH, they hate us for the freedoms we stand for - not for anything we've done to them. For a start, they hate religious freedom. Fixit, you are sounding like W. Bush!
That is a load of crock!
If it's all about how "we treated them" why did ISIL behead Egyptian Christians this week? Why did ISIL commit genocide against Azidis? Why does ISIL kill more Muslims than all their other victims put together? It's nothing to do with how we treated them - it's simply a bunch of zealous Muslims following the Quran. How else can you interpret this verse? Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 20, 2015 6:07:47 GMT -5
Fixit, you are sounding like W. Bush!
That is a load of crock!
If it's all about how "we treated them" why did ISIL behead Egyptian Christians this week? Why did ISIL commit genocide against Azidis? Why does ISIL kill more Muslims than all their other victims put together? It's nothing to do with how we treated them - it's simply a bunch of zealous Muslims following the Quran. How else can you interpret this verse? Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" Khaleel Muhammad, professor of religious studies at San Diego State University, states, regarding his discussion with the critic Robert Spencer, that "when I am told ... that Jihad only means war, or that I have to accept interpretations of the Quran that non-Muslims (with no good intentions or knowledge of Islam) seek to force upon me, I see a certain agendum developing: one that is based on hate, and I refuse to be part of such an intellectual crime."
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 20, 2015 7:51:00 GMT -5
Someone who is anti terrorism lives in a dark and depressing world? I do not believe that is what I said. It is not the anti-terrorism that is the problem but paranoia. For the most part we live in a safe place. Terrorism is not high on the list of things that harm people. It borders on xenophobia. Do you have references that say this? Other than the historical aspect that was against the 5 tribes (‘Banu Khuza’ah, Banu Mudlij, Banu Bakr, Banu Damrah, and Banu Sulaiim) is there some support for your statement? Remember that the OT also calls for the killing of many different groups of people. Even Jesus stated " He who is not with me is against me . . ." and then went on to teach by telling a parable that says " But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 20, 2015 8:06:25 GMT -5
I don't beleive that some of our better thinkers of all time would agree with you What???!!! You don't consider me one of the better thinkers of our time? (I'm so hurt.) :D Plus, I am rather attached to the way I think. (Or, perhaps, don't think.) :) Most people are aware that emotions can cloud decision making. Many times when making a point regarding emotional subjects other will question "What would you do it it was your child/wife/mother/etc. as if the thought process should be different because of emotional ties to the situation. If you believe that someone who abuses children should be reported to the authorities it does not mean that if it was your child that the criminal should, in that case, be beaten first and the reported to the authorities. You spend a short time with a person and in the euphoria of the beginning of the relationship you decide to sell your house and move with them to Siberia.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 20, 2015 10:32:04 GMT -5
Is 'peace' a dirty word? Are people who want to try all the alternatives they can do take care of problem peacefully, wrong and therefore held in disdain and called 'peaceniks' like it is also a dirty word? I am not ashamed of wanting to try and find peaceful solutions to problems. What good are we and what kind of role model would we be if we just responded in the same fashion as the ones we are trying to deal with and find a solution to their behavior with? Resorting to their level of response is sometimes necessary as a last resort, but all other more peaceful ways should be explored first imo. We gain nothing by making martyrs out of them. I'd rather be a peacenik than a warnik, Yes I would, if I only could, I surely would.
The Daily Beast
Nobel Peaceniks
With his win, Obama follows in the footsteps of Elie Wiesel, Kissinger, Martin Luther King, Carter—and Woodrow Wilson after WWI. View our gallery of other Americans who've won. View our gallery of Americans who've won the Nobel Peace Prize and read the full list of winners below.
Gallery of American Winners of the Nobel Peace Prize
2009—Barack Obama 2008—Martti Ahtisaari 2007—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore 2006—Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank 2005—International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei 2004—Wangari Maathai 2003—Shirin Ebadi 2002—Jimmy Carter 2001—United Nations, Kofi Annan 2000—Kim Dae-jung 1999—Médecins Sans Frontières 1998—John Hume, David Trimble 1997—International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams 1996—Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta 1995—Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs 1994—Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin 1993—Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk 1992—Rigoberta Menchú Tum 1991—Aung San Suu Kyi 1990—Mikhail Gorbachev 1989—The 14th Dalai Lama 1988—United Nations Peacekeeping Forces 1987—Oscar Arias Sánchez 1986—Elie Wiesel 1985—International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War 1984—Desmond Tutu 1983—Lech Walesa 1982—Alva Myrdal, Alfonso García Robles 1981—Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 1980—Adolfo Pérez Esquivel 1979—Mother Teresa 1978—Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin 1977—Amnesty International 1976—Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan 1975—Andrei Sakharov 1974—Seán MacBride, Eisaku Sato 1973—Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho 1972—The prize money for 1972 was allocated to the Main Fund 1971—Willy Brandt 1970—Norman Borlaug 1969—International Labour Organization 1968—René Cassin 1967—The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section 1966—The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section 1965—United Nations Children's Fund 1964—Martin Luther King Jr. 1963—International Committee of the Red Cross, League of Red Cross Societies 1962—Linus Pauling 1961—Dag Hammarskjöld 1960—Albert Lutuli 1959—Philip Noel-Baker 1958—Georges Pire 1957—Lester Bowles Pearson 1956—The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section 1955—The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section 1954—Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 1953—George C. Marshall 1952—Albert Schweitzer 1951—Léon Jouhaux 1950—Ralph Bunche 1949—Lord Boyd Orr 1948—The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section 1947—Friends Service Council, American Friends Service Committee 1946—Emily Greene Balch, John R. Mott 1945—Cordell Hull 1944—International Committee of the Red Cross 1939-‘43—The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section 1938—Nansen International Office for Refugees 1937—Robert Cecil 1936—Carlos Saavedra Lamas 1935—Carl von Ossietzky 1934—Arthur Henderson 1933—Sir Norman Angell 1932—The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section 1931—Jane Addams, Nicholas Murray Butler 1930—Nathan Söderblom 1929—Frank B. Kellogg 1928—The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section 1927—Ferdinand Buisson, Ludwig Quidde 1926—Aristide Briand, Gustav Stresemann 1925—Sir Austen Chamberlain, Charles G. Dawes 1923-‘24—The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section 1922—Fridtjof Nansen 1921—Hjalmar Branting, Christian Lange 1920—Léon Bourgeois 1919—Woodrow Wilson 1918—The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section 1917—International Committee of the Red Cross 1914-‘16—The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section 1913—Henri La Fontaine 1912—Elihu Root 1911—Tobias Asser, Alfred Fried 1910—Permanent International Peace Bureau 1909—Auguste Beernaert, Paul Henri d'Estournelles de Constant 1908—Klas Pontus Arnoldson, Fredrik Bajer 1907—Ernesto Teodoro Moneta, Louis Renault 1906—Theodore Roosevelt 1905—Bertha von Suttner 1904—Institute of International Law 1903—Randal Cremer 1902—Élie Ducommun, Albert Gobat 1901—Henry Dunant, Frédéric Passy
40 years of reading the Koran and still a peacenik! How is it possible?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 20, 2015 10:42:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 20, 2015 11:11:34 GMT -5
Deuteronomy 20:10-18New International Version (NIV) 10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. 16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.
Footnotes:
Deuteronomy 20:17 The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord, often by totally destroying them.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 20, 2015 14:53:55 GMT -5
Feb 20, 2015 9:32:04 GMT -6 What Hat said:
"40 years of reading the Koran and still a peacenik! How is it possible?"
40 years of reading the Bible and still a peacenik! How is it possible?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 20, 2015 15:01:20 GMT -5
If it's all about how "we treated them" why did ISIL behead Egyptian Christians this week? Why did ISIL commit genocide against Azidis? Why does ISIL kill more Muslims than all their other victims put together? It's nothing to do with how we treated them - it's simply a bunch of zealous Muslims following the Quran. How else can you interpret this verse? Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" Khaleel Muhammad, professor of religious studies at San Diego State University, states, regarding his discussion with the critic Robert Spencer, that "when I am told ... that Jihad only means war, or that I have to accept interpretations of the Quran that non-Muslims (with no good intentions or knowledge of Islam) seek to force upon me, I see a certain agendum developing: one that is based on hate, and I refuse to be part of such an intellectual crime." So who should take responsibility for explaining to Muslim extremists that the Quran doesn't really mean what they think it does?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 20, 2015 17:45:20 GMT -5
In summary, multi-culturalism in Canada never has been a case of multiple integral ethnic enclaves co-existing. A critique of multi-culturalism on the basis of that view is mainly a false critique. There is a base set of values that are embodied in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. These values are supra-cultural and govern every person of every culture. We cannot import or allow cultural values that do not defer to those base values. But beyond those values, in the areas of language, food, music, but also personal moral choices, association and religion, people should be free to live as they see fit. Assimilation around a common set of preferred values will happen over time if left alone; that is there are majority values that take care of themselves, it's minority values that require protection. Down here we use to call it the melting pot. Even back in the 1960s we were taught in school that the USA was a "melting pot" for immigrants, and Canada was a "cultural mosaic". The story was that at Ellis Island they crossed out your Polish or Italian name and gave you a new one. In Canada you kept your foreign name.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 20, 2015 17:53:49 GMT -5
Khaleel Muhammad, professor of religious studies at San Diego State University, states, regarding his discussion with the critic Robert Spencer, that "when I am told ... that Jihad only means war, or that I have to accept interpretations of the Quran that non-Muslims (with no good intentions or knowledge of Islam) seek to force upon me, I see a certain agendum developing: one that is based on hate, and I refuse to be part of such an intellectual crime." So who should take responsibility for explaining to Muslim extremists that the Quran doesn't really mean what they think it does? Who has the responsibility for explaining to white supremacists that the Koran does not mean what they think it does. Since you copy and paste this stuff and seem to know where to get it, can you let them know, please? Mr. Whale Blubber Blogger from NZ might be a good one to start with. Seriously though, moderate Muslims are concerned here in Canada with the radicalization of Muslim youth. A panel on CBC radio this morning indicated that although there are radical Imams, most radicalization is youth to youth and occurs on the Internet. The Imams are concerned that these young people are getting a wrong understanding of the Koran. Hope they don't read your post! Here is one Imam who is doing what he can. www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/isis-betraying-muslims-says-calgary-imam-before-hunger-strike-1.2744182
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 20, 2015 17:58:35 GMT -5
Feb 20, 2015 9:32:04 GMT -6 What Hat said:
"40 years of reading the Koran and still a peacenik! How is it possible?"40 years of reading the Bible and still a peacenik! How is it possible? Y'all know I'm being ironic I hope! I love Cat Stevens. I saw him sing those songs to a hushed university crowd of 10,000 packed into our local gymn back in the early 70s; the capacity was half that. I understand why he converted to Islam and left the music scene. Now 40 years later he's back and singing those same great songs not having quite the same voice, but poignant as ever. Hope you enjoyed the clip. (And my kids quite like those records too).
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 20, 2015 18:06:36 GMT -5
So who should take responsibility for explaining to Muslim extremists that the Quran doesn't really mean what they think it does? Who has the responsibility for explaining to white supremacists that the Koran does not mean what they think it does. Since you copy and paste this stuff and seem to know where to get it, can you let them know, please? Mr. Whale Blubber Blogger from NZ might be a good one to start with. Seriously though, moderate Muslims are concerned here in Canada with the radicalization of Muslim youth. A panel on CBC radio this morning indicated that although there are radical Imams, most radicalization is youth to youth and occurs on the Internet. The Imams are concerned that these young people are getting a wrong understanding of the Koran. Hope they don't read your post! Here is one Imam who is doing what he can. www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/isis-betraying-muslims-says-calgary-imam-before-hunger-strike-1.2744182He is actually a really great guy. Back a few years ago when atheist bill boards were stating There is not God, or words to that effect, we got a panel together and had a debate. He was the imam that represented Islam. We had a humanist, atheist, Muslim and I believe a Baptist. We invited the Catholics to the panel, but they declined. They had an hour debate between the 4 of them led by someone from the Unitarian Church. Then they all took questions from the audience. It was quite interesting.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 20, 2015 19:49:46 GMT -5
You have to admire this guy. He is willing to speak out, and he has often been the go-to person for the media looking for a quote. I think he has been becoming more outspoken through the years. It takes a lot of courage. Whenever I hear “Islam is a religion of peace”, I usually have the thought “Prove it! We're waiting.” He is one individual who IS proving it. I met him several years ago at a Rumi conference in Calgary. He was one of the organizers. I believe he writes poetry himself. I was chatting to him, along with a couple of other people. We were all getting along quite well. Then, in the course of the conversation, he mentioned that he was one of the more socially progressive Muslims in his community because he allowed his wife to drive. This briefly brought the conversation to a halt - just a little reminder - that for all our similarities, there are differences too. At the end of the conference, they were audibly praying for peace in the world. Country after country was mentioned by name. Though I was listening very carefully, I did not hear them mention Israel. I could have missed it, but I don't think so. That was probably too much to expect. As I've said before, it's complicated.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 20, 2015 20:28:04 GMT -5
So who should take responsibility for explaining to Muslim extremists that the Quran doesn't really mean what they think it does? Who has the responsibility for explaining to white supremacists that the Koran does not mean what they think it does. Since you copy and paste this stuff and seem to know where to get it, can you let them know, please? Mr. Whale Blubber Blogger from NZ might be a good one to start with. Seriously though, moderate Muslims are concerned here in Canada with the radicalization of Muslim youth. A panel on CBC radio this morning indicated that although there are radical Imams, most radicalization is youth to youth and occurs on the Internet. The Imams are concerned that these young people are getting a wrong understanding of the Koran. Hope they don't read your post! Here is one Imam who is doing what he can. www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/isis-betraying-muslims-says-calgary-imam-before-hunger-strike-1.2744182This guy probably means well but reforming such a dangerous cult would be extremely difficult. I agree with him in one thing at least: www.torontosun.com/2013/09/26/calgary-imam-to-muslims-go-homeI also agree with him that wife beating and the murder of women is a bad thing. It's sad that it required a fatwa to set the record straight but at least he was willing to stand out against the nut-job preachers in his religion who condone abuse against women: news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/03/canadian-imam-syed-soharwardy-to-issue-fatwa-against-honour-killings/He has made some outrageous statements: If he's the most moderate Imam you can find it doesn't bode well: www.ezralevant.com/bnai_brith_exposes_syed_soharw/
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 20, 2015 22:50:35 GMT -5
Down here we use to call it the melting pot. Even back in the 1960s we were taught in school that the USA was a "melting pot" for immigrants, and Canada was a "cultural mosaic". The story was that at Ellis Island they crossed out your Polish or Italian name and gave you a new one. In Canada you kept your foreign name. We have snobs down here as well.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 20, 2015 23:01:57 GMT -5
If you want to know what Muslim youth in Toronto are taught, take a look at this...
This guy is an influential Imam in Toronto:
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 20, 2015 23:53:17 GMT -5
What kind of warped theology equates changing religion with treason - punishable by death? This guy has won awards for his work, including 'Islamic Personality of the Year Award' presented by the Ruler of Dubai: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_NaikHe is the founder and president of Peace TV broadcasting globally: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_TVHe also owns a registered charity The Islamic Research Foundation: www.irf.net/Its presentation of Islam reaches millions of people worldwide through international satellite T.V. channels, cable T.V. networks, internet and the print media.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 21, 2015 0:07:40 GMT -5
Where do you find this stuff? As almost all Canadians know, Ezra Levant is nuts. I wouldn't trust anything that guy writes. Did you just Google this stuff, or is this another part of your information network. Seriously, you worry me. www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ezra-levant-loses-80-000-defamation-lawsuit-1.2123314The Koran stuff you posted is really bad. 1) It wasn't written by a Muslim. It's a strawman. 2) It's not a balanced view of what is in the Koran; it takes select verses out of context. It's not even good theology. 3) It attempts to associate all Muslims with violent behaviour. 4) It discriminates against, and promotes bigotry against ordinary Muslims by arguing that Muslims are inherently violent, and that they are a threat to us. 5) It increases the alienation of western Muslims within western society. If you provided an analysis of ISIS' theology, using their statements, I would not have an issue with it. As it is, it's quite reprehensible. It upsets me not because I disagree but because of the very real and negative impact that literature has on ordinary Muslims in the West. So when I state that today's Muslims are like the Jews in the 1920s that analysis proves the case. This hate material does have implications, you realize. Basically, the literature you post is being used in an attempt to smear the new Muslims in our country, who are ordinary folks for the most part.
|
|