Well, can you name a single Muslim government or prominent religious leader that advocates tolerance for homosexuality?
And as far as I can tell (based mainly on what I’ve read in this thread), Fortuyn didn’t “hate” Muslims but expressed concern that their values weren’t in alignment with Dutch society. Was he incorrect to express such a concern?
As for one: show us all the prominent Christian leaders that do…why don’t you start with the pope?
As for two: Yes he was.
Sparc
Regarding point one: you’re dodging the question–we’re talking about the influx of Muslims into Dutch society–where Christians (AFAIK) already have a strong presence and who seem to pose no problem in getting along with the community values prevalent in the Netherlands. Can the same be said of recent Muslim immigrants? (I don’t know, having never been there, but apparently a large proportion of Dutch voters do think this is a problem.)
And correct me if I’m wrong, but not even the Pope advocates that homosexuals be executed or flogged, no? And aren’t there various sects of Christianity that do indeed have a more tolerant position on this question? Again, please name a single prominent Muslim cleric who does not advocate that homosexuals be punished in this world.
Regarding point two: merely in your own opinion? Or do you have something to back up that flat assertion?
And as a corollary two point two: am I understanding you correctly in that you assert that Pim Fortuyn should not have even had the right to voice such a concern? And if he was so incorrect in taking this position, why was (is?) his party doing so well in the Netherlands–in the US, at least, we tend to believe that the voters’ choices ipso facto represent legitimate political expressions. Or do you disagree?
** this is a very belated post. SDMB wouldn’t let me in.
vinryk** did you even * read * the link I posted?
What culture?
You mean the 4 nice blond Dutch guys who * kicked * a man to death? Or the ones who killed Joes Koppenburg who spoke out to racists and died for it?
The culture of raising our kids -yes, Dutch kids- with “me first, me first”?
It’s so easy to blame another culture for our crimes. This has happened before you know.
There will be killings in * all * cultures. Fortuyn just picked on the one he didn’t like.
and .
How can you misquote : Holland is full?
The one responsible for his death is the loony that shot him.
And **Sparc ** I agree it’s a pity he’s murdered. People deserved 4 years of Pim Fortuyn as Prime Minister.
I’d live in Greenland for that period.
Well, as I don’t believe many of us here are learned enough to do so, or above all know enough of the Soufi leaders which would be most relevant to the Maghrebine immigrants religious views, this is something of an empty request, is it not?
I for example, can’t name any (ultra) Orthodox Jewish leaders who accept homosexuality.
As for not advocating present world punishment, I do believe that Sheikh al-Azhar has condemned violence against homosexuals, although he seems to be for punishing deeds within the legal system.
oh, here we go again; GAY.
this is not an issue here and has * nothing * to do with Fortuyn being shot.
grow up.
A coupla things I don’t understand:
In that Guardian link, Fortuyn says:
Correct but then muslims who move to Holland (or indeed the UK or the US) have to accept this and abide by Dutch national law. Dutch national law is not subject to the Koran or any other holy book.
So what’s the problem?
Muslims here in the UK fully accept that they are subject to UK law. They know that the UK will not be adopting Sharia law any time soon. In fact, a lot of them come here specifically to escape from Sharia law.
Also Vinryk said:
I would be very surprised if judges give out lenient sentences because the perps come from a culture where that kind of thing is common.
In law, it doesn’t matter what culture people come from. All that matters legally is the culture they are now in ie (in this case) Western European Dutch culture. Murder is murder. And this will be reflected in the sentence handed down by the judge.
Well, think of it this way: if you want to find examples of imams condemning homosexuality, of Islamic-oriented states flogging or beheading homosexuals, or of Muslim religious leaders within Holland itself blasting homosexual behavior, just do a Google search and you’ll come up with hundreds of pages of such horror stories.
If you want to come up with any examples of Muslim religious leaders tolerating homosexuality, then (by your argument) you gotta be some kinda highfalutin’ Islamic scholar to come up with even one such instance. Does that tell you anything?
Which is why they are called “(ultra) Orthodox”–by definition, they are outside of the mainstream. But such positions, which are outliers in the Judeo-Christian community, appear to be common currency in the Islamic world.
Not to mock your point, but isn’t this equivalent to saying: hey guys, don’t beat up gays–let the gubmmint do it!
Mr. Cheese:
Isn’t a gay-friendly atmosphere part of Holland’s progressive claim to fame? And if so, and if Muslim immigrants can’t get in line with that, how can you say that the issue isn’t relevant?
And by the way–how do you know the reasons that Fortuyn was shot? Unless . . . :eek:
It tells me that media and English language internet reporting picks up the worst of the worst. I know from my on the ground experience that actual practice and less-media oriented ‘clerical discourse’ can and does, in re other touchy subjects, cover a wider ground. I would not deny that in terms of the general tenor of Islamic religious discussion there is precious little acceptance. I, however, am familiar enough with North African social practices to know not to lump it in the Gulfie or Mashreq practices. They are different worlds.
However, all that aside,
Well, the Orthodox/ultra-Orthodox are a significant component of the non-American Jewish community, if not the absolute majority.
Further, I would hazard the opinion that outside of the richest Western nations --that is US, EU, Canada, Aussieland, there is precious little Xtian acceptance of homosexuality, and indeed even within western Xtianity acceptance is new and tenuous. So, it strikes me as a piece of wonderous hypocrisy to suddenly claim Judeo-Xtian tolerance on this issue. Western secular tolerance, yes, Judeo-Xtian, bullshit.
Well, that all depends on the context. The issue of integration is indeed relevant. However, insofar as it is hardly exclusive to Muslim immigrants, and insofar as there appears to be a hint of scapegoating of Islam in this vein, I am suspicious.
As I mentioned in the december thread, there is doubtless some reasons, good reasons, for the Dutch government to think about immigrant integration policies and how to bridge the gaps between Dutch culture and new immigrants coming from more conservative cultures --whatever their religion.
?? This comment is directed at who?
But aren’t we bantering about two different definitions of “acceptance” and “tolerance” here? As far as I could tell, you might condemn a western Christian nation as being “intolerant” because it doesn’t codify gay marriage. You might equally praise a Muslim nation as “tolerant” in many (but granted, not all) parts of the world for allowing homosexuals to live in the shadows without the fear of being beheaded or having a freakin’ stone wall pushed over on them. With the exception of the Nazis, how long has it been since Western governments have actually executed gays?
Mr. Cheese, or, in his native tongue, käse. He claims to have inside knowledge on why Fortuyn was shot.
Oh dear, I can only deplore the deterioration of this thread as it proceeds. I am in no way going to attempt a defense of any religious leaders view on homosexuality, be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Jewish. The fact remains that Fortuyn was an intolerant xenophobic politician with religious judgmental views that would put Pius X to shame. If you care to defend him, I request (like I have in previous three posts) that you defend his stand and not hide behind what we all agree is an abominable fact, i.e. his assassination.
Sparc
But that goes to the very heart of the issue: the West has embraced secularism for the past two hundred years at least, whereas many (most? nearly all?) Muslim states live in varying degrees of medieval theocracy. (The only exceptions that come to mind are Turkey and, uh . . . Iraq :rolleyes:.) Sure, we’ve got jerks like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, but do we need to worry about them issuing fatwas any time soon?
If, in our own history, we can regard secularism as progressive and theocracy as “backward”, why can’t we apply the same standard to the Muslim world?
And if you reply that you can’t apply Western standards of liberalism to the Muslim world, then you’ve fallen into a trap–by validating the very same view that Western and Muslim thought are irreconcilible, and therefore members of one can’t be integrated into another.
Sparc:
I can only shrug and ask you once again: why was Fortuyn’s party so popular with voters if his stand was so indefensible? Do you condemn Fortuyn for saying what he did, or the Dutch voters for listening?
Since you mention it… didn’t both Falwell and Robertson issue the Christian equivalents of fatwas regarding all this at some point?
Sparc
Just tell me when Collounsbury and I’ll be pitting this horde back to the Kingdom of Gog and Magog.
Since you mention it… didn’t both Falwell and Robertson issue the Christian equivalents of fatwas regarding all this at some point?
Sparc
Just tell me when Collounsbury and I’ll be pitting this horde back to the Kingdom of Gog and Magog.
Indeed… and no matter how much I hate to have to do this; how did 43% of the German electorate find that NSDAP was a good idea? Democracy is not flawless, because we as individuals are not flawless. Your argument is moot from start in as much as that it asks me to not criticize the majority only because it is the majority. Your demand is undemocratic in itself. BTW it isn’t the majority, but that is academic.
Sparc
You are floundering, Sparc . . . so much so, that not only are you still refusing to address my question, but you aren’t even trying to answer your own questions.
OK, then, let’s take your NSDAP analogy. The Nazis didn’t just spring from nowhere. Are you implying that the present Dutch government is as weak, decadent, and corrupt as the Weimar republic, giving Dutch voters no choice but to turn to a strongman to solve their problems? And what are those problems (a question that I have asked repeatedly, and that you have evaded each time) that–according to your analogy–are on par with the desparate hyperinflation of the 1920s? Hmm?
If I read you right, and the Dutch citizenry is as disaffected as the Germans were between the world wars, then it seems that there’s a lot going on underneath the surface, a lot of ugly undercurrents flowing beneath the happy whitewashed facade of nonviolent, tolerant liberalism in the Netherlands.
Are things really that bad? Or if they are not, then what could explain Fortuyn’s popularity? Simply throwing out false historical parallels is not an answer.
And as for the last three sentences of your post, I am afraid that I really cannot understand what you are trying to say. Would you care to restate?
No, they did not, nor were they capable of doing so. Which, of course, is the whole point.
my native tongue would be ‘kaas’.
I claim that this whole homosexual thing might be exciting for you, but the killer was a Dutch white male ** not ** a muslim.
Dutch white males have no problem whatsoever with homosexuals.
Dutch white males probably ** do ** have problems with mr. Fortuyn’s populistic politics.
I heard this morning that the murderer was essentially an activist advocating animal rights. Is it confirmed? And can this shed any light, however dim, on this assasination? I’m somewhat puzzled…