** Doghouse Reilly** No. Things aren’t really that bad. The popularity of Fortuyn came from his populist announcements.
He said what the people liked to hear. **Without ** any attempt on his side to actually solve the “problems”.
The problems being: A society that is rich, spoiled and egoistic. And very afraid to share.
Yes, clairobscur an animal rights and environmental activist.
I haven’t the faintest why he shot Fortuyn. You’d think he would * protect * pigs.
and drat this slow board
käse:
I don’t know why Fortuyn’s assassin acted as he did, and I never implied that I thought that Fortuyn was shot because he was gay. If you’ll go back and read the discussion, you’ll see that the issue of Muslims and homosexuality centered on Fortuyn’s motivations–that is, as a homosexual, he was in a position to appreciate the alleged backwardness of the various Muslim cultures on this particular issue. And maybe . . . just maybe . . . he was right in this assessment?
As for your characterization of Dutch voters as “rich, spoiled and egoistic . . . and very afraid to share”, this leaves me skeptical; I feel that you are still dodging the issue. Maybe the voters don’t conform to your social vision, but do you really condemn people for voting in their own interests? If you forbid them from doing that, maybe they shouldn’t be given the right to vote in the first place.
Imagine that a candidate did what you recommended and squarely addressed what you see as the “problem”. Say that he went in front of the TV cameras and said, “People of the Netherlands: if elected, I will carry out a series of concrete measures to make you realize and repent your own status as a bunch of spoiled brats; I will make you get off your lazy asses*; and I will force you to share even more with increasing numbers of our newly-arrived Muslim bretheren!”
Is this what you think a Dutch politician should say to the voters, käse? How do you think such a candidate would do at the polls?
*Although I would be mightily impressed if any European politician implied that European workers ought to try working as hard as American and Asian workers do.
I imagine you are being slightly facetious here to prove a point, but I will take mild issue with your “claim” :). First of all IMHO the entrenchment of secularism in the West is not quite so hard core as you seem to imply. It varies widely - Certainly the Netherlands is a heck of a lot more secular than “Middle America”. And if you’re including Latin America ( certainly it is Christian ), then secularism takes another big hit.
As to the Muslim World - In my book only Iran is a real theocracy. Saudi Arabia comes close to one. But otherwise I think your comments are exaggerated just a bit. Not denying that the Muslim world in general needs some serious work, but much of the non-Muslim world does as well. The below is a summary of this U.S. State Dept report from 2001:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2001/
I excerpted only the majority Muslim countries ( may have missed a few, though ) with comments based on a quick skim of individual entries. All the details is in the link above, You can quibble with the report ( feel free, I have no stake in it ) or my bare bones interpretation, but in general I think this list is sufficient to debunk the idea that “…many (most? nearly all?) Muslim states live in varying degrees of medieval theocracy.” Not unless you really stretch those definitions.
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA:
Burkina Faso - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected.
Chad - Constituition provides for religious freedom, abridged in practice as regards some activist Muslim groups.
Comoros - No religious freedoms guaranteed. Anti-Christian discrimination widespread ( but 99% of population is Sunni Muslim ).
Cote d’Ivoire - Muslims are less than half of populace, but still single largest group. Constituition provides for religious freedom, but abridged in practice. Anti-Muslim discrimination by ruling elite ( Baoule ethnic minority, who are Catholic ).
Djibouti - Constituition provides for religious freedom. However Islam is the state religion and proselytizing is illegal.
Eritrea - Constituition provides for religious freedom. Jehovah’s Witness are persecuted.
The Gambia - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected.
Guinea - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected. Some subtle discrimination against non-Muslims.
Mali - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected.
Mauritania - Official Islamic State, religious freedoms limited.
Niger - Constituition provides for religious freedom with some equivocation. Mostly respected, with a few communal anti-Christian incidents.
Nigeria - Constituition provides for religious freedom, but not always respected in practice.
Senegal - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected.
Sierra Leone - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected.
Somalia - NO coherent state, no coherent protections. Religious freedom varies from area to area, with Shari’a implemented in some, but not others.
Sudan - Constituition provides for religious freedom, but mostly ignored.
Tanzania - Constituition provides for religious freedom, with equivocation, but generally unrestricted freedom. ( This country might not be majority Muslim, it’s pretty evenly divided ).
EAST ASIA:
Brunei - Official Islamic State. Some constituitional protection, but also some real restrictions.
Indonesia - Constituition recognizes monotheistic religions generally and Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism and Hinduism specifically. Bans lifted on Confuscianism ( since 1967 ) and Jehovah’s Witness ( since 2000 ). Other faiths are not banned, though they aren’t “recognized”. Incidenses of sectarian Muslim/Christian violence on the rise, with the government often reacting sluggishly, if at all.
Malaysia - Official Islamic state. Constituition provides for religious freedom, with some restrictions. In practice only Sunni Islam is not discouraged.
EUROPE/EURASIA:
Albania - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected.
Azerbaijan - Constituition provides for religious freedom, but some abuse and restrictions exist.
**Bosnia-Herzegovina - Constituition provides for religious freedom, but often abridged in practice when any particular group is a minority in any particular area.
Kazakhstan - Constituition provides for religious freedom, however “non-traditional” groups, both Christian and Muslim, which are deemed a domestic threat face restrictions. Religious harmony is otherwise pretty solid.
Kyrgyzstan - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected, except for radical Islamists that are deemed a threat.
Tajikistan - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected, but with some tensions. Islamists regarded warily and restricted.
Turkey - Constituition provides for religious freedom, mostly respected. However there is some discrimination in regards to government posts, some low-level harassment of minority groups ( Christian and Baha’i ), considerable suspicion by secular authorities in regards to political Islam.
Turkmenistan - Constituition provides for religious freedom, but in practice state severely limits all practioners that are not either Sunni Muslim or Russian Orthodox ( the two “registered” religions ).
Uzbekistan - Constituition provides for religious freedom, but in practice it is limited. Islamists are harshly cracked down on and although most groups can worship freely, proselytizing of any sort is severely limited.
South Asia:
Afghanistan - I’ll skip this one for obvious reasons ;).
Bangladesh - Official Islamic state, but constituition provides for religious freedom and is generally respected.
Pakistan - Official Islamic state. Constituition provides for religious freedom, but is limited in practice. Intolerance is widespread ( including against minority Muslim offshoots like Ahmadis and Zikris ).
Near East/North Africa:
Algeria - Official Islamic state. Religious discrimination technically forbidden, but limits are placed on non-Muslim faiths ( however the government practices de facto tolerance of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” school ).
Bahrain - Official Islamic state. Freedom of religion provided for, but with restrictions. Some discrimination against Shi’ites.
Egypt - Official Islamic state. Restricted religious freedom. Laws that conflict with Shari’a forbidden ( but Christianity and Judaism are not considered a conflict ). Continuing societal tension with Coptic minority in particular, but some intercommunal dialogue has been implemented.
Iran - Imami ( Ja’fari, Twelver ) Shi’a theocracy. Discrimination particularly marked in case of Baha’i.
Iraq - Limited constituitional protection, but severe repression in practice, particularly of Shi’a community ( but also of Assyrian and Chaldean Christian community ).
Jordan - Official Islamic state. Constituition provides for religious freedom, but with some restrictions.
Kuwait - Official Islamic state, Shari’a is basis of law. Constituition provides for religious freedom, but government limits that right.
Lebanon - Constituition provides for religious freedom, generally respected. However regional restrictions due to Warlordism continue.
Libya - Official Islamic state. Significant restrictions, particularly on “non-approved” Islamic groups.
Morocco - Official Islamic state. Constituition provides for religious freedom, but with restrictions ( Christian proselytizing, political Islam ).
Oman - Official Islamic state, Shari’a is basis of law. Non-Muslim worship permitted, but groups must register with government and proselytizing is illegal ( so is converting ).
Qatar - Official Islamic state ( Wahabi ). NO explicit religious protections. “People of the Book” may worship privately, but not publically. Numerous other restrictions.
Saudi Arabia - Official Islamic State ( Wahabi ). NO explicit religious protections. Even more restrictive than Qatar above.
Syria - Constituition provides for religious freedom, somewhat respected, but with de facto limitations and abuse. Some interfaith friction and Jehovah’s Witness has been banned as a “Zionist” organization. Jews ( unsurprisingly, I guess :rolleyes: ) are banned from the government and military. Alawites are a favored class in some respects. Proselytizing is legal, but occasionally discouraged.
Tunisia - Official Islamic state. Constituition provides for religious freedom, but with equivocation, some restrictions, and occasional abuse.
United Arab Emirates - Official Islamic state. Shari’a in force for Muslim populace. Constituition provides for religious freedom, but with equivocation and restrictions.
Yemen - Offical Islamic state. Shari’a is source of all legislation. Constituition provides for religious freedom, but with restrictions.
So, lessee, I think I listed 48 states. Of those 19 or 20 designate Islam as the official state religion and only 4 or 5 are completely deviod of any religious freedom clauses in their constituition. Of course a most do place some limits, either legal or de facto, on those freedoms. Not an overwhelimigly enlightened bunch as a whole. But then most of the world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, isn’t.
Just for kicks, here’s a partial summary of that report’s Executive Summary, which singled out a number of abusive countries and categorized them ( bolded countries are majority Muslim ):
NEGATIVE
Totalitarian or Authoritarian Attempts to Control Religious Belief or Practice:
Afghanistan ( pre-Taliban ouster, obviously )
Burma
China
Cuba
Laos
North Korea
Vietnam
State Hostility Toward Minority or Nonapproved Religion:
Iran
Iraq
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
State Neglect of the Problem of Discrimination Against, or Persecution of, Minority or Nonapproved Religion:
Egypt
Indonesia
Nigeria
India
Discriminatory Legislation or Policies Disadvantaging Certain Religion:
Brunei
Eritrea
Jordan
Malaysia
Turkey
Belarus
Bulgaria
Georgia
Israel and the Occupied Territories
Roumania
Russia
Yugoslavia
Stigmatization of Certain Religions by Wrongfully Associating them with Dangerous “Cults” or “Sects”:
Austria
Belgium
France
Germany
POSITIVE
Significant Positive Developments in Respect for Religious Freedom
Mexico
Positive Steps in Respect for Religious Freedom
Azerbaijan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Eritrea
Indonesia
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Nigeria
Argentina
Czech Republic
Equatorial Guinea
Hungary
Kenya
Mozambique
Peru
Poland
Russia
Rwanda
Now as to Fortuyn - He appears from my limited reading to have been a pure populist demagogue, as others here have stated. Does the Netherlands have a stake in preserving their concept of a liberal democracy? Well, sure. But Fortuyn’s ranting on the subject that I’ve seen ( and they do appear to be rants more than substantive critiques ) do indeed strike me as having been extremist and borderline racist. Why do many people go for that sort of thing? Because many are closet racists themselves and/or are looking for an “easy” solution out. That’s why demagoguery is such a formidable platform. You don’t always or even usually win ( Le Pen, David Duke, Pat Buchanan ), but you’re sure to get a certain base of votes. Lots of idiots in any electorate ( popularity does not indicate good ideas ).
and
I am not implying any such thing. As re the crisis in Weimar of 1932 and 1933 your statement is not quite accurate. To say that the Germans felt the need to call in a strongman to clean up the situation is wildly oversimplifying the events. The NSDAP went to election under the slogan ‘Germany Awake’ the cult that Adolf Hitler built around his person definitely added to the effect, but was at first not the main reason for success.
While the faith in the Weimar republic had suffered so badly due to multiple collapses before 32 and the rampant inflation set off by the depression, it collapsed on itself. Hitler and NSDAP stepped in and used the vacuum created to seize power. That they were in a position to do this was largely thanks to the protest votes they collected in 1932 under the banner of populist blanket statements such as ‘A Stronger Germany’, ‘Less Corruption’, ‘Less Politics - More Solutions’ and ‘Germany Awake’. Note that they came out of this poll with 43% and no absolute majority, the Conservative-Socialist coalition could have had absolute majority, but as stated earlier collapsed when the Socialists more or less walked away from government.
My point in making this analogy is not to liken Holland to Germany in the early 30s. It is thankfully not that way. My point was that you can’t just say - that because the people wanted it, it was the best solution. Democracy is not flawless. An open debate without the kind of copout the Socialists did in Germany 1932 is a fundament in maintaining democracy. My point is and remains that the populist program of Fortuyn and his likes damages this process since it attacks the principles of open debate by taking the level of debate to a simplified level that does not do justice to the real issues.
As for your q. re who I condemn, I condemn neither the voters for listening nor Fortuyn for speaking although I disagree vehemently due to above viewpoint and the content of his message. I do condemn the murder of Fortuyn as murder and terror of any kind must not be part of any democratic process.
Obviously you are not fully informed of the immigration situation in Europe. This issue; the continued immigration is altogether other matter. In the case of Fortuyn and many other populist European whack-jobs the issue is the existent immigrant population and their rights and freedoms. I perceive between the lines that you and I do not share quite the same view on the value of multiculturalism and heterogeneous culture. Leaving that aside I’ll point out that the Muslim portion of Dutch population are already in the country, they have been accepted as immigrants and are accordingly protected under the constitutional rights of the Netherlands and EU, granting them amongst other things freedom of religion, speech and opinion.
Whether Fortuyn, his holiness Pat Robertson or anyone else think that their choice of religion and their culture is inferior or backwards or whatever, is academic. As long as they do not oppress anyone with it they are entitled to it and for that matter, even as an atheist in the centrist-right section of politics, I believe that Europe is a better place with our Muslim population and that we should rather motivate more to come. You see we’re running out of qualified workers around here and 30 years from now I have no idea who’s going to be paying my pensions, but the birthrates in the Union aren’t too uplifting in that respect. That a portion of our electorate are more concerned with their great grandchildren’s Christian cultural purity than what they’ll live from seems to me like – what was it you said…backwards secularism.
As for the qualities of Islam and the Muslim cultures I might only add to Tamerlane’s very well fleshed out post that the Islamic world is no more culturally homogenous than the Christian world is and that if we shall ever get over the differences that we now suffer we should embrace the moderates on both sides of the Quran/Bible divide and not let the intolerants in both camps inflame the situation. Our differences are not irreconcilable. I live that proof every day as a Scandinavian in the Turkish/Arab quarters of Munich.
Sparc
[hijack]
I take it that you by this mean the differences in the weekly work hours and the disproportions in vacation allocation. I might point out that this is rather facile as a way of counting efficiency and effort. The work mentality and work environments here compared are quite different. While American workers definitely work more hours, the European workday is far more devoid of non-work related social aspects more frequent in the American workplace. I do not know anything first hand about the situation in Asia, but I suspect that they outdo both the dry focus of Europe and the hours put in, in America.
Sparc
[/hijack]
.
** Sparc; thank you. **
I read a lot more between the lines of mr. Doghouse Reilly
Thank you Sparc and Tamerlane for wording my thoughts.
My English isn’t sufficient, but I can read.
I have nothing more to say to Mr.Doghouse.
Well Tamerlane has largely addressed this, but I thought I might expand.
200 years at least? Not hardly my dear doggy. Not hardly. Secularism emerged in the past 200 years with the glimmerings of separation of Church and State, but in the West (if we count that as the wealthiest W. European nations plus North America) it was the exception rather than the rule. We have what, in the 19th century? France, intolerantly secular to the point of suppressing the Church (with some reason, but…), GD — secular? Well, it was working its way towards secular society, but to suggest Xtian rules did not govern GB would have been something of on offense. Indeed full excercise of political rights by Catholic citizens was something of a touch and go matter throughout the century and arguably into this century. America, well more or less, although again this is a bit of a stretch at times in the 19th century. Depends on how we want to frame the idea, so I’ll grant it. Canada… I guess more or less the same, driven by the compact with Quebec, but still anti-RC discrimination prevalent. Germany post-1871? Not sure how to make that call, but I would say religiously driven law-making remains the rule. Spain – well it’s in the depths of obscurantist rule of the worst sort. A-H Empire – hmmm hardly secular I’d say, but on the other hand fairly pluralistic to my understanding. Never have read enough about A-H attitudes in re its Muslim and non RC citizens.
No, real secularism in the sense we are talking about in re modern Dutch culture is brand-spaking new and remains in many places, even in the West, something of a touch and go matter in my opinion. (e.g. look at US fundies) I grant it depends on how one wants to frame this.
Of course for at least part of this 200 year period you want to claim for secularism, much of the Islamic world is mired in quasi-medieval obscurantism. But then so is much of the Xtian world. And so the point is?
Certainly, so long as one does not make un-factual and a-historical assumptions about the time and space depth of secularism.
And so long as one approaches the actual state of law and society in the Muslim world – which is not synonymous with Arab – with some degree of information.
What I would argue is that to simplistically focus on Muslims and problems of integration with Dutch society, without acknowledging that a majority of Xtian society ex-Netherlands would find Netherlandish liberalism a odd pill to swallow-- is to engage in either ignorant spouting or prejudice.
Now, I do believe I made it clear that I believe there is legit. issue here with integrating Muslims into a Netherlandish culture, one which the government could deal more … honestly with. There is a problem, for example, with the exporting of obscurantist theology to the Muslim diaspora. Muslim Guy wrote intelligently about this.
I am, however, unclear as to what policy responses are appropriate. I do believe that France, the Low Countries and England need to think about how to promote a native, and culturally adjusted Islamic learning for their minority if they want to avoid a poisoned or alienated minority.
However, this is not an easy task to respond to, above all when uninformed anti-Muslim prejudice remains an honest problem which helps feed into the nasty anti-Western bigotry that certain Wahhabite Islamic ‘scholars’ try to promote.
I know a large number of North African origin Euro-Muslims and I have a sense of the cultural and identity divide that they try to bridge. Of course, obvsiously I tend to know the best educated of the society, but I think that it is fair to say that a absolute majority of the pop would like to integrate. However, finding the proper path is an issue.
I recall a train ride in a certain North Africa country with a female friend of mine a bit back. We shared the compartment with an older, well-to-do looking woman, but who wore the hijab (head covering) and a modest traditional jellaba. As I was speaking in French to my female friend – who being quite Westernized was wearing typical French style women’s clothes of the latest fashion-- the woman did not know I speak Arabic, and even their dialect. At some point she asked my friend if we were married. Of course she asked in dialect, to preserve modesty in front of me. What surprised me in what followed – but it was hardly the first time I heard this – was the old woman’s (a) positive follow-up to the negative answer, (b) her affirmation that she thought Euro and Maghrebine society should come closer © that her own daughter had married a French woman, and she thought that was super, even though his ‘conversion’ was nominal and the whole family knew it (d) that my friend and I were super together. Now this was all in dialect, which she did not at the time know I understood. (I did get my enjoyment out of speaking to her later on, causing her much khajal, if only in a nice way.)
An anectdote, to be sure, but my sense from more than decade of experience is that to claim that Muslims alone are a problem is … well problematic, esp. in re the North Africans whose society is really (to the irritation of the Islamists) quite different from that of the Mashreq.
[quote]
Originally posted by Collounsbury
Never have read enough about A-H attitudes in re its Muslim and non RC citizens.
[quote]
For reasons obvious (Ottoman Empire as the main enemy) the Austro-Hungarian Empire had a less than tolerant view on Muslims, the base of which we are still suffering through the Balkan conflict.
For reasons almost as obvious (Habsburgs vs. Protestantism and a deliberate desire to alienate from Greece and the ‘purely’ Slavic eastern states) the view of Protestantism and Orthodoxy was pretty non-forgiving.
For reasons less obvious this was the cultural base for the anti-Semitism that eventually gave rise to Hitler’s views on Judaism.
Sparc