Defending western values against the attack of Islam

Great Debates
141

[QUOTE=Plan B]
One of the themes that keeps coming up in this thread is that there are just a very few Muslims who are dickheads and the vast majority are really neat open-minded people.

OK, let’s assume this is true. Then help me understand what’s going on in Saudi Arabia, for example. A woman goes out for a walk by herself, she’s in big trouble. If she tries to wear western clothing or has sex outside of marriage, it’s pretty much off to the chopping block. Same if two boys over the age of four are caught holding hands. Or if anyone has a Christian or Jewish Bible in their possession. And so on.

So, if you have a country of millions ruled by these neanderthal, sexist, tyrannical laws, how can you say it’s just a couple of jerks? How did they manage to gain control, not just in Saudi Arabia, but in several other Muslim nations? Or is it too scary to admit that we’re dealing with more than just a tiny lunatic fringe?
[/QUOTE]

Because there are over a billion Muslims in the world, and only about 22 million native Saudi Arabians. Assuming every single Saudi Arabian supports these sorts of misogynistic laws, that’s about 2% of the world-wide Muslim population.

Of course, it’s ridiculous to say that every single Saudi Arabian supports those laws. It’s probably safe to say that most of them support them to some degree, but even that’s not a certainty. Look at South Africa under apartheid. The vast majority of South Africans wanted to end it. But the minority who wanted to keep it had all the money, all the guns, and all the power. Saudi Arabia is ruled by a coalition between the House of Saud and the Wahabbist clerics. The laws of that nation are dictated by that coalition, not by the popular will of the people.

142

[QUOTE=P;an B]
One of the themes that keeps coming up in this thread is that there are just a very few Muslims who are dickheads and the vast majority are really neat open-minded people.

OK, let’s assume this is true. Then help me understand what’s going on in Saudi Arabia, for example.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if we use Saudi Arabia (27 million people) as the gauge for Muslims (using the conservative one billion people figure), we find that the Saudis comprise **.**27% of the population. That does not look much like a majority. If translated to terms of the U.S. population, it would mean that the people who concern you could replace the population of Youngstown, OH and no one else in the country would be in the group that concerns you. There would be 313 cities with more people, hundreds of cities with fewer people, and then all the folks who do not live in cities.

The fact that the largest collection of the people who are intolerant are in one country (that happens to sit over oil deposits we covet) still does not make the entire religion intolerant.

143

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Well, if we use Saudi Arabia (27 million people) as the gauge for Muslims (using the conservative one billion people figure), we find that the Saudis comprise **.**27% of the population. That does not look much like a majority. If translated to terms of the U.S. population, it would mean that the people who concern you could replace the population of Youngstown, OH and no one else in the country would be in the group that concerns you. There would be 313 cities with more people, hundreds of cities with fewer people, and then all the folks who do not live in cities.

The fact that the largest collection of the people who are intolerant are in one country (that happens to sit over oil deposits we covet) still does not make the entire religion intolerant.
[/QUOTE]

No, that would be 2.7%

I said “Saudi Arabia, for example” meaning that I could have chosen any of a number of other examples. Saudi Arabia probably is the worst, but there are several other good examples. How about pre-invasion Afgghanistan? Or Somalia?In fact, can anyone name two Muslim dominated countries in which the freedoms the citizens have are equal to what we have in the US?

144

[QUOTE=Plan B]
… can anyone name two Muslim dominated countries in which the freedoms the citizens have are equal to what we have in the US?
[/QUOTE]
How 'bout just naming countries in which the freedoms the citizens have are equal to what we have in the US, period?
Not a real long list is it?

CMC fnord!

145

[QUOTE=crowmanyclouds]
How 'bout just naming countries in which the freedoms the citizens have are equal to what we have in the US, period?
Not a real long list is it?

[/QUOTE]

Nah. Canada doesn’t count. Then there’s that whole Europe thing - can’t count them. And a goodly chunk of South America is doing ok.

146

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
This is not about religion. This is about groups who happened to self-identify along religious lines worrying about discrimination from one another. They could have been from different tribes. The point is that it is not that either Hinduism or Islam per se were the issue; it’s not about religion. It’s about how people identify as groups. And if it’s not religion, then it’s something else.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, so it is not about religion even when it is about religion. Got it. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Neither Islam in particular nor religion in general is going anywhere any time in the foreseeable future, so is there really any point in complaining about the very existence of either of them? If we care about defending modern values of secularism and tolerance from the attacks of religious zealots, Muslim or otherwise, shouldn’t we be focusing on the specific subsets of Islamic/religious thought that are actually launching those attacks? And figuring out how to neutralize their threat to secular civil society in a realistic way that doesn’t require the (currently impossible) eradication of the entire belief system from which they spring?
[/QUOTE]

Complaining about the existence of any religion is pointless granted, but ignoring the fact that much of the violence in this current conflict is the direct result of one parties religion is a good way to miss opportunities to solve the problem. Should we not be asking ourselves how do we act in such a way as to not offend their religious beliefs while still supporting our secular beliefs? I live this every day where I have to walk the line between two cultures that may look at things entirely differently. Does that mean I don’t accomplish the company’s goals? No, it means that I accomplish those goals in another manner that works in this environment. There are many roads to accomplishing the things you want to accomplish, but it would be impossible to do so if we ignore facts just because we’d prefer them not to be as they are.

147

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
And here is where I part company with Sam’s rather absolutist position. I’m all in favor of defending our cherished modern Western values of individual freedom, secularism in civil society, religious pluralism, and so on. And I have no intention of relinquishing those important parts of our culture just because some immigrants who adhere to certain fundamentalist traditions have difficulty adapting to them.
[/quote]

I probably sounded more absolutist than I meant to. There are many things that I think reasonable people can negotiate. Dietary rules for pubic cafeterias? I could agree to that. However, I disagree about the Mounted Police. The Mountie uniform is a symbol of Canada, every bit as much as the big hats on the Royal Guard are a symbol of Britain. It’s one of those little pieces of glue that hold a nation together and give it a shared identity. In fact, it’s one of the very few symbols of Canada recognized world wide.

And note my opinion is not ‘anti-Muslim’, since in Canada the issue came up over Sikhs wanting to wear their headgear. I’ve got nothing against Sikhs whatsoever. Nor Muslims, for that matter. I also think it’s inappropriate to wear a crucifix, a yarmulke, or any other non-standard markings or headgear.

But where I draw the line is in our core values of secular government, equal rights for all, and an even-handed judicial system that does not give a flying fig what religion you are. Attempts to bring Sharia Law into Canada fly in the face of that. (Yes, I know it would be ‘voluntary’, and I don’t care. In a culture which heavily subjugates women, I would consider a woman’s acceptance of the law to potentially be under duress.

And if we spot problems rampant in the Muslim community, such as spousal abuse or theatening behaviour to the free press, then we should take measures as a society to correct them. Set up the Muslim Women’s shelter network if need be. Put undercover officers in mosques suspected of teaching terror. That sort of thing.

Also, where religious requirements conflict with civil requirements, I’m afraid the religious requirements lose. You can’t wear your veil for your driver’s license photo, because the purpose of the photo is to identify you, and we as a society have decided that we want our drivers identifiable. If you want to play Ice Hockey, the turban has to go, because we have helmet rules.

Yes, I know Canada prides itself in being a ‘cultural mosaic’ rather than a melting pot like the U.S. I don’t necessarily think that’s a good thing. Canadians tend to lack a sense of their own identity, other than being not-American. I don’t think that is healthy for a country.

148

Sam,

You’re aware, are you not, that Muslim women who are Saudi Arabian citizens must show their unveiled face for their Saudi Arabian passport photos?

149

[QUOTE=Monty]
Where in the US have teachers been prohibited from merely reading any religious books at their desks? Reading the tome out loud could certainly be seen as a form of proselytizing, but silent reading is obviously perfectly fine, unless, of course, the teacher is supposed to be actively engaged in another task at the time.
[/quote]
I can not find a cite, but there was a case where a teacher was reprimanded for reading from her bible (not out loud) during study hall.

[QUOTE=Monty]
In what manner did the essay for which a student was punished refer to Jesus and how was the student punished? If I were to submit a paper for, say, an Environmental Science or a Geology class asserting that Jesus created everything, I would certainly expect to recieve a 0% grade on the thing. That’s not punishment, it’s competent grading.
[/QUOTE]

cite

150

Yes, I was aware of that. There have also been several lawsuits in the U.S. brought by Muslim women who demanded that they be photographed for their Driver’s licenses with faces veiled. The courts refused, which is a good thing. But the women certainly had their supporters. In another case, a transit authority had to officially change their policy about not allowing people on the bus with their faces covered when it ran afoul of Muslim women. Now, I’ll grant that this one is a closer decision, but the root of the transit rule was public safety, as the area had gang-related problems and didn’t want masked gang members entering the bus.

And ‘honor killings’ should be considered hate crimes, if you’re going to have a hate crime law at all. I can think of nothing more hateful than murdering people because they are ‘apostates’ or killing young women because they choose to live by themselves and date whom they choose.

151

[QUOTE=Uzi]
Ah, so it is not about religion even when it is about religion. Got it. :rolleyes:

[/quote]

Sigh. It’s not ‘about religion’. It’s about ‘you’re different somehow’. The ‘somehow’ in this case is religion but they’d find other reasons to differentiate and discriminate. In other countries, it’s based on nationality or language or something else.

So we are ready to quit extrapolating from a specific case to the whole world? Excellent. Yes, Al-Qaeda is an extremist Muslim group and many of the terrorists are as well. And yes, some of them want to wage a ‘religious’ war, which is entirely different from ‘all Muslims are evil and want to kill us’ as well as ‘all wars are based on religion’.

If people would only restrain themselves and stick with the particular, these debates might be much more interesting.

152

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Yes, I was aware of that.
[/quote]

Ah, then you must be cherry-picking stuff.

That they didn’t understand the issue doesn’t mean the rulers of Muslim countries doesn’t understand it. How many of those predominantly Muslim countries had governments that supported those women in the US who brought the suits?

The courts refused because they based their decision, as they should, on the law.

I’m sure they did. How many of those supporters were the governments of predominantly Muslim countries? How many of those supporters were well-versed in Sharia Law?

How did they handle mourners wearing veils? I’ll grant you that’s not such a common thing anymore, but you can still see it here and there.

Is it Islam that’s the root of that or is that steeped in the area’s culture? “Honor killings” and FGM are both abhorrent practices and, for both, I’ve heard Muslim leaders condemn them.

153

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Sigh. It’s not ‘about religion’. It’s about ‘you’re different somehow’. The ‘somehow’ in this case is religion but they’d find other reasons to differentiate and discriminate. In other countries, it’s based on nationality or language or something else.
[/QUOTE]

How do you know that in this case if religion was not involved that there would be any conflict? You are only guessing that it would be so. India is made up of a number of different sub-groups. Are the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh any different than any other of those sub-groups? Are they, in fact, a sub-group at all?

The difference between between the Sunni and Shia factions in Iraq is what exactly other than their religion? Sure there may be splits based upon differing tribes that could potentially still be the cause of conflict, but why do you assume that it would be when the obvious right in your face answer is that Sunni’s and Shia’s are killing each other because one is a Sunni and the other is a Shia? Why are you arguing against this completely obvious cause? Remove the religion and you have two guys who look exactly the same as each other standing there with rifles in their hands wondering why they have them pointed at each other. Now that doesn’t mean they won’t find another reason for killing each after otherwards, they well might.

154

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
And yes, some of them want to wage a ‘religious’ war, which is entirely different from ‘all Muslims are evil and want to kill us’ as well as ‘all wars are based on religion’.
[/QUOTE]

If you got that from anything I’ve posted then either you mistakenly interpreted it, or I’ve written something I didn’t mean to write. I do think the religion is a core motivator for many people who subscribe to it and as such would be a major contributor to how that person acts. Certainly as much, and in many cases more so, than tribal affiliation, family association, or nationalistic feelings.

155

[QUOTE=Uzi]
If you got that from anything I’ve posted then either you mistakenly interpreted it, or I’ve written something I didn’t mean to write. I do think the religion is a core motivator for many people who subscribe to it and as such would be a major contributor to how that person acts. Certainly as much, and in many cases more so, than tribal affiliation, family association, or nationalistic feelings.
[/QUOTE]

The ‘all Muslims want to kill’ is the OP’s argument. You, however, stated this:

And I am saying that your claims, which I have bolded, are without merit and without supporting evidence.

156

[QUOTE=Uzi]
How do you know that in this case if religion was not involved that there would be any conflict?
[/quote]

Because in the history of the world, people have fought other people for many reasons and in nex to zero cases was religion the actual cause of the war.

Did you read that link?

And in fact there are. Iraq and the Middle East are much, much more complex than just ‘Sunni and Shia’.
Have a read of this for starters.
Then have a look at this
And you can follow up with a boo at this and you’ll maybe start to get at least a hint of why the pop media simplistic description of the conflict in Iraq doesn’t even begin to capture exactly what’s going on there.

157

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Because in the history of the world, people have fought other people for many reasons and in nex to zero cases was religion the actual cause of the war.
[/QUOTE]

There have been people on this board who have explained how much religion means to them and any criticism strikes at the core of their being. We have seen how even a simple cartoon of a religious figure can cause major riots and people being killed because of it, yet there is no way, or next to zero, that religion itself* is the cause of the conflicts.
Maybe someone else who is better at this than I am can take a crack at it if they like. There is no point in even discussing this with you anymore.

*or more specifically, the belief in the religion. Obviously, an idea can’t bash you on the head. It takes a person willing to do it based upon that idea.

158

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
I don’t see what’s so hard about this. If you move to a country, you are expected to follow its laws. It doesn’t matter if it’s 10 extreme muslims, or 100,000. Or whether it’s Christians, or any other group. You live within the law.

Don’t want to take a driver’s license test with a woman? Fine. You can walk. Don’t want to hire women in your business? You’ll run afoul of anti-discrimination laws and be prosecuted for it. Don’t want to wear the standard issue police uniform? Fine. Find another job. Don’t want to fill out your forms in one of the official languages? Tough noogies. You want to weir a veil for your driver’s license picture? Guess you’re not going to drive.

If there is evidence of widespread abuse of women in muslim households, set up special womens’ shelters and advertise to muslim women that they have options in our country other than be subjugated by their men.

And if Christian children are not allowed to pray in public school, neither are Muslim children. Sorry. You have all kinds of special religious dietary needs? Fine. Pack a lunch.
We have every bit as much right to defend our culture as muslims do. If you emigrate to American or Canada or any other country, you live by their laws. Period.

We should just even-handedly enforce our laws. We’re a secular society. If you move here, don’t expect a lot of religious accomodation, but you CAN expect that you will not be discriminated against because of your religion, so long as you keep it out of the public sphere. You don’t get special favors, but you also don’t get any discrimination.

What’s wrong with that?
[/QUOTE]

Nothing. As long as all groups are afforded the same rights.

159

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
That’s a pretty sad case you make. It’s along the lines of ‘a man beat me. Therefore all men are evil’. It is illogical and unreasonable to condemn all religion because some members of some religions act badly. I could, following that kind of reasoning, decide to conclude all women are illogical and unreasonable because of the statement you just made. But that would be ludicrous, as is your argument.
[/QUOTE]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. The issues we’re facing today are based in religion. Do you not see that? :rolleyes: Who’s to say which god and which interpretation of scripture is the right one? Cherry-picking may make you feel better, but it doesn’t prove that that interpretation is any more valid than the radical’s interpretation. If religion disappeared, our current state of chaos would too. It may transform into a political or geographical conflict, but at least we’d be arguing about something real.

160

Quiddity, the argument you’re making is almost like saying that white supremacy isn’t about racism, it’s about some people being “different,” and if racism disappeared overnight people would still find a reason to discriminate against all non-caucasians, so obviously getting rid of racism would avail us nothing.