I agree the two approaches I listed aren’t all of them, nor are the responses all of them, but both the approaches and the consequences are readily recognizable and very common in discussions of these issues.
And I wouldn’t necessarily think of somebody as a bigot for thinking that Catholics believe contraception is immoral, but I wouldn’t hesitate to point out that Catholics and the Catholic clergy vary in their acceptance of that teaching. If this somebody ignored these facts and continued to criticize Catholics and question their suitability for the UK, then I would rightly think of them as a person with prejudice/discrimination issues. And maybe you agree with this good sir?
Some were not. My point Gyrate, which you can not disagree with is Islam has more violence in that any other major religion out there. Sorry if the data is uncomfortable for you to read.
I’m talking about jihad like terrorism against a state, not anyone’s murder rate. They are separate issues.
That is because until recently Islamic immigration was rather minor so your point is rather mute.
That has changed today, and there is a clear correlation between large numbers of Islamic immigration to terrorism. You can argue 1% become radicalized if you must. 1% of just 10,000 is 100 radicals.
My argument is let’s be truthful here. No other major group is causing this type of terrorist problems today in the world, and as such Nations have the right to limit of ban such immigration until a time where it becomes a rarity in the news.
As for Sharia law, if you for these values, please say so. Most in the Western World that are non-Islamic view such laws and customs as sexists, barbaric, and disenfranchising towards anyone who does not follow them.
So, is your argument that there isn’t discrimination against South Asians in the UK; that discrimination doesn’t lead to social segregation; or something else?
unfortunately yes, and you don’t help the possibility of discussion by perpetuating the myth that the only non-bigoted approach involves not directly challenging problematic religious beliefs.
good, because according to the teachings of catholicism it very definitely is.
quite right. The point needs to be made again and again that no single religious group is an homogeneous mass of a single mind or view.
If they continue to criticise only those that hold those beliefs then that is not a problem at all
Well, that is a different kettle of fish entirely and not a course of action that I’ve called for. I don’t think anyone should be punished merely for the beliefs they hold, that’s thought crime and we’ve all read or Orwell have we not? However, nor should they be immune from criticism.
I merely reserve the right to criticise any problematic belief where I come across it. I don’t care what religious, political or ideological base it springs from, everything must be fair game otherwise we are all off to hell in a handcart and lets not kid ourselves, there are groups out there more than happy to help.
So what’s the problem then? Left leaning people everywhere croticize these sorts of religious or cultural values that foster inequality or cruelty. It doesn’t matter whether it is religious doctrine.
I am not the one jumping. I am aware that EC is not EU. However, how many members of the European Union are NOT subscribers to the EC? Given that those nations have found ways to place blocks on the purchase of homes by non-citizens, an appeal to EC does nothing to support a claim that Britain has no bar to such purchases.
I will accept the Britain has no such bar, but your argument was baseless.
I was indeed aware of the EC and also of the ways in which subscribing nations have found methods to avoid complying with it–a point of which you appear to be ignorant.
Why you wish to drag poor Pakistani cabbies into this discussion, I have no idea.
This is a bit hard to parse, although it does not appear to actually reflect anything I have said. However, if you think that Europe or Britain is free of racism, then you have pretty well established that your views are separate from reality.
First let’s agree that the fight against intolerance is not just the preserve of us “left-leaning” people. Nothing good comes from assuming that all people of a given ideology are a hive mind correct? plus, in the UK it was a conservative government that pushed through the gay marriage legislation, but that’s a side point.
I get the feeling you are saying that as long as you are criticising intolerance in general then you have no need of focusing in on particular communities, cultures, ideologies or religions where such intolerance is more prevalent.
Would you extend the same courtesy to a community that harbours and promotes far-right thinking? Would you OK with continuing to criticise in general without paying special attention to that community?
I disagree completely, you need to do both and can do both without it necessarily being bigoted or discriminatory. If I have misunderstood your position and you actually agree with my last statement there then indeed, we have no conflict in our basic positions but maybe one of style.
It does, right now, although there are also violent pograms being carried out in Africa by Christians (and The Lord’s Resistance Army is still going as well). The point, which you continue to miss, is that the problem isn’t the entirety of Islam, it’s a tiny minority which concentrates the majority of its efforts on other Muslims.
Of course you are. By defining your scope narrowly you get to avoid data you find uncomfortable to read. Do you think it’s clever to point out that only Muslims are carrying out jihad?
Secondly, a major reason Islamic immigration had grown significantly is that there are a lot of normal, reasonable, innocent Muslim families fleeing war and extremist terrorism in the Middle East.
By lumping the victims and persecutors together, you are actually carrying out the exact agenda the terrorists want, which is to create a divide between Islam and the West. They want Westerners to reject moderate Muslims, which will then facilitate radicalization. How does it feel to be helping ISIS achieve their goals?
Firstly, the correlation is explained above - the immigrants are trying to get away from the terrorists.
Secondly, wow. You made up a statistic, and then used that hypothetical statistic to support your point. Meanwhile, the actual, real, not-made-up number of terrorist attacks by radical Islamist immigrants is…?
Yes, let’s be truthful here. The problem is your grouping of all Muslims together. Islam is not a monolithic culture, as I and others have pointed out many times to you before. Why do you keep ignoring this?
Sigh. I’m not for those values, and if your takeaway from what I’ve written is that I am, I’m not sure how much more I can say to someone who draws such wildly inaccurate conclusions from what they read.
There are a lot of people in the Western Word who are perfectly fine with sexist, barbaric and disenfranchising laws and customs…as long as they’re done in the name of Christianity. Go have a read of the SRIOTD thread. Have a look at all the laws proposed by Republicans that are sexist, barbaric and disenfranchising. Have a look at their statements about rape. Gay conversion therapy is supported by the Republican Party (potentially including our current Vice President, although his spokespeople say otherwise).
Ah, who am I kidding. You ignored all this the first several times it was posted; I don’t know why I expect you to pay attention to it now.
In the USA, conservatives act as the obstacle toward greater acceptance and equality of many different groups of people. Liberals far less so.
If I criticize intolerant practices or abusive behavior or whatever ideas I find incompatible with my view of what my society should be like, then there is no need to speak of specific communities, cultures, ideologies, or religions unless my goal is to ostracize those groups of people.
In practice, it depends. If I want that community to be ostracized, then sure, I will criticize them as a group. They’ll be defensive and mistrust me and I will mistrust them and say mean things about them without understanding.
On the other hand, if I don’t want them to be ostracized but want them to begin to change or feel welcome so that they may be open, then I would criticize the values I oppose without tying the idea to a specific community. Instead, I would try to learn about their culture, learn about them as individuals, and volunteer my time to help with their needs.
I regularly call various conservative groups of Americans “savages”. It’s unfair and completely negates them as people. I do it because I don’t give a shit if they think well of me and I have ceased to care about what concerns them. Call it the Trump effect if you will. If I am aware a person is a member of these groups I will be discriminatory toward them and my ideas aren’t going to change anytime soon about them so you can fairly call me a bigot. Behaving this way is easier because I have labeled them as a group as “savages” and I don’t bother to learn about them as individuals.
Criticizing a community in this way leads to the behavior I exhibit. If you consciously want to do that, then go ahead and do it, and admit to it. It’s what you are doing. If you want to fight gender inequality, then I strongly recommend against this group criticism because it will only lead to mistrust, defensiveness, and dehumanization.
Hindu and Muslim immigrants to the UK were drawn from entirely different economic, cultural and ethnic groups. If you placed a million Hindu Bihari villagers in northern England instead of a million Kashmiri villagers I don’t think the outcomes would be much better. (I say this as someone who is extremely critical both of mass immigration to Europe and the UK, and also someone who’s theologically opposed to Islam: I don’t think religion per se is that central to the problem here).
Also there’s no such thing as Indian or Pakistani ‘culture’. (Bangladesh is a different case as they’re essentially one ethnic group who also lives in India). Both india and Pakistan are multiethnic and multicultural societies.
I think this tells me all I need to know about how you see and treat the “others”. The unwillingness to directly challenge views in certain religious groups smacks of over-compensation for your prejudiced views of conservative groups. i.e. you project your behavior towards conservative groups onto others and their criticism of religious groups, you think that others must have that similar intent…well, thankfully not all of us do.
While I generally do not support religious dogma in general, Islam is not a religion. It’s an ideology. It’s not an ideology that is compatible with Western Liberal values. The Muslims’ stubborn refusal to assimilate, and their attempt to bend the mainstream culture to themselves, rather than assimilate, is also not compatible. The only area I agree with Trump is on his ban - and I wish we could kick out the rest already here too.
There are obviously Muslims who find no contradiction in the practice of their religion and so-called western liberal values. There are large populations, in fact, that have no problem with that.
What do you mean by “stubborn refusal to assimilate”? There are non-Muslims in western democracies whose families have lived there for generations and, yet, they are still treated as foreigners. What about the bigots who refuse to treat certain minorities as though they are both welcome and belong in the country?
What large group of Muslim immigrants have “attempted to bend mainstream culture to their will”? Be specific.
So, you’re admitting that Trump is lying to the judiciary to sneak an unconstitutional ban into place?
There’s a reason why it’s unconstitutional to ban someone on the basis of religion. Your, and Trump’s, bigoted nonsense make it quite clear what that reason is.
Very few of the major religious ideologies are fully compatible with modern western liberal values when taken literally. Thankfully the vast majority of muslims do not take it literally and they bend their interpretation accordingly. (I’ve worked quite a bit in Turkey, what a living contradiction that country is!) They can have a live and let live approach which means they treat religion as a private matter and don’t seek to impose it beyond their own adherence.
So the talk of “kicking out” people based on their nominal religion is a nonsense and has the whiff of fascism just as much as extremist Islamism itself.
Important distinction to make here, “I’m free to criticise Islam, and muslims are free to think I’m a dick”.
And really, that is kind of the whole point. Free criticism, free speech, challenge the beliefs and the ideas where you find them without fear or favour.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Whether I say, “Conservatism is a savage ideology” or “Conservatives are savages”, I am pretty sure it will be taken the same way.
I don’t even know how you criticize “Islam”. Give me an example of some criticism you would like to make of Islam but aren’t able to do it for fear of being called a bigot or something.
That’s fine, but as I’ve said repeatedly in this thread, one approach leads to mistrust and mutual isolation. The other approach leads to combatting actual problems. You feel the need to criticize Islam. Have fun with it. Nobody has ever said you couldn’t.