You honestly believe gay-bashers hanging around areas where there are gay bars on a summer evening cannot find victims without some sort of manual, even though they occasionally beat up a slightly-built straight guy who just happened to be walking by?
You don’t know SHIT about the gay world, man!
Ibn, Miller ADMITS he called me an asshole. Do you have reading problems or something?
I certainly didn’t know that being slightly built meant one was gay. My wife is going to be very upset.
Ah, that explains why the first act in the mess of conflicts in former Yugoslavia was between the Serbs and the Croats. Then the Serbs and the Slovenians. Then finally a year later Bosnia. All those Muslims in Bosnia are why the Serbs and the Croats went at it, not a thousand years of ethnic tensions between everyone and their mother in the Balkans.
Eh, she can always lift weights.
No, in fact, the Imam I spoke to in Canada (he was appearing at an evening hosted by the Humanist Association alongside a Catholic Priest, a Protestant Evangelical and an atheist) had already answered a couple of questions from me and from others about the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie.
He kept explaining that Fatwas are issued only after long and mature deliberation by Islamic scholars. At some point or other some people asked him if long deliberation excuses murdering someone for writing a book you don’t like. He insisted again on answering that Fatwas are the result of careful consideration, which of course was evading the question.
That is when I asked him what he, as a Canadian citizen, would do if he knew Rushdie were somewhere in our city and a Muslim gunman asked him where he was.
Now of course, the ONLY right answer for a law-abiding Canadian is that they would refuse to tell the gunman and call the police at the first possible opportunity.
What this Imam did is refuse to answer my question on the grounds that it was hypothetical. Several people in the audience kept pressing him to answer and he continued to refuse.
Since when is it impossible to answer a hypothethical question according to your moral standards.
Here is a hypothetical question: If you look out the window of your house in the middle of the night and you see someone with a crowbar and a flashlight prying open a back window in the home of your neighbour who is away on vacation, and then handing out computers and other valuables to his associate, what would you do?
That IS, to be sure, a hypothetical question. I cannoty even see the back window of my neighbour, for starters. But I have NOOOOO problem answering that question according to my moral standards.
Why did this Imam have that problem?
I said a slightly-built GUY! Is your wife a guy? And yes, many gay-bashers assume that a slightly-built MAN must be gay. I did not say that makes them gay, just that gay bashers would jump to that conclusion. By the way, I like your handle. Very descriptive.
I don’t know. Suppose you tell us your opinion, as I’m sure you have one.
Once you have expressed your opinion, maybe then you could say what, if anything, you think should be done about this Imam’s refusal to answer your question in the manner you believe he should have, and then, finally, something resembling a debate could begin.
Or you could just continue to pose an endless series of anti-muslim rants and loaded questions posing as debate premises, in which case posters will most likely continue to take the piss out of you.
I was talking about myself, Vinyl Turnip’s rather witty observation notwithstanding.
Frankly I believe the Imam showed politeness and restraint in engaging in a conversation with you at all. I am sure that he was able to pick up on your bad vibes, and your hatred must be very obvious in person, if the on line ravings are any indication. Maybe that Imam was a witness to hatred that must be oozing from every part of your being.
If I, as a Mexican feel straight up hatred and racism being directed toward me by a person who is asking me a question, I tend to back off from any interaction with that person.
Hypothetical questions from a racist usually do not turn out well.
He wasn’t offering his “information” as evidence for any kind of sociological trend, as you were trying to do, so there’s no unwarranted assertion there to “shoot down”. He was merely noting that claims about gay-bashing being primarily a Muslim problem don’t jibe with his own experience.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
Secondly, I have looked at the FBI Stats on hate crimes at the site you mentioned. Here is what they say about stats on offenders: […]
First of all, these stats are for the USA, where Muslims are still a small percentage. They are not for areas like the gay districts of Amsterdam or Berlin.
[/quote]
Yes, I know those stats are for the USA. That’s why I described them as “statistics about hate crimes in the US”, if you recall.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
Secondly, the stats illustrate my point. They are by race. Islam is not a race. Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East could fit into pretty much any racial category.
[/QUOTE]
No, the stats don’t illustrate your point. It’s certainly true that not all crime statistics contain information about the religious affiliation of offenders. (In fact, I can’t recall ever seeing modern crime statistics that did record religious affiliation of offenders, at any time either before or during the current wave of popular anxiety about Muslim criminals).
But what you were (or are) trying to claim was that police are somehow afraid to collect stats on religious affiliation of hate-crime offenders: a claim about which most people here are rightfully skeptical.
Alternatively, of course, the Imam in question might well have been a militant radical-extremist-Islamist dick who would gladly murder or help to murder Rushdie if he could but would be too canny to say so in public.
Of course, the two possibilities are by no means mutually exclusive. The Imam might have been a militant radical-extremist-Islamist dick who was also bright enough to spot Valteron as an Islamophobic bigot.
Given the reported sponsorship of the event by a local Humanist Association, and the fact that the other panelists reportedly included a Catholic priest, an evangelical Protestant, and an atheist, my baseless hypothetical speculation leans toward the latter interpretation(s). Ideological groups of whatever stripe that sponsor public ecumenical “exchanges” seem to have a tendency to select contemptible and/or extremist dicks to represent the ideological viewpoint(s) that they don’t happen to agree with. Makes the guy representing their own team look smarter, don’cha know.
Right, it is just too bad that a “Humanist Association” with it’s so called “public ecumenical exchange” is not sincerely interested in building bridges between ideological viewpoints that would favor an end to hatred and violence.
In answer to the requests of my many fans, and to bring this discussion to a close, once you have pulled your heads out of your asses:
Realize that the situation in Europe is different from the situation in the US, where Muslim communities are still a very small proportion of the population.
Realize that Muslims are for the most part good, decent people who are no worse or better than other people.
But also realize that the rapidly-growing Muslim minorities in the west, with high birth rates and continuing immigration, and especially those in Europe, are rapidly becoming a state-within-a-state.
Realize that many Imams and preachers in western Mosques preach contempt for western values. Realize that the overall conquest of the world for Islam is part of the general view of millions of Muslims.
Realize that Islamic culture does not recognize the separation of Church and State, and consider a “secular” state to be an evil and godless state.
Realize that the supremacy of secular law over religious law is generally viewed by them as a blasphemous declaration that the law of man is superior to the law of God.
Many of these people come directly from countries where Islam has always imposed its medeival sexual morality by terrifying its citizens with a system of execution, stoning, whipping and other torture. The concept of consenting adults having sexual freedom over their sex acts is seen by them as part of western decadence.
THE ABOVE POINTS ARE NOT DESCRIPTIVE OF EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM IN THE WEST. THERE, I HAVE SAID IT. I AM TALKING ABOUT THE CULTURE AND WORLD-VIEW OF RAPIDLY-GROWING MUSLIM COMMUNITIES IN MOST OF THE WEST’S MAJOR CITIES.
As Geert Wilders says, the problem is really that Islam is “at right angles” to our western values.
Let us be ready to push back when growing Muslim communities begin to demand that their values replace ours.
Some examples of pushing back:
Let us tell our political leaders that they can feel free to defend those values without being accused of bigotry.
Sharia law courts. NOOOOOOOO! You come here, you live under our laws!
Sexually segregated swimming hours at public pools? Sorry, that is not our value. Adapt to our values. We are not going to tell western men and women that they cannot swim at certain hours because of their gender, just to suit Islamic values.
Keeping dogs out of parks where many Muslims go because they consider them unclean? Protesting when Customs officers at the border use sniffer dogs on their luggage or in their cars? Sorry, but dogs are not “unclean” in our value system. Don’t cross the border and don’t go into those parks. Same goes for Muslim condo owners who tell me I cannot keep a dog in the building because it offends them. (Dog owners picking up dogshit is a separate issue here. . .no red herrings please).
Demanding that women and men not wear bikinis and swim trunks to sun themselves in parks near Muslim neighbourhoods? Sorry, but OUR values allow that. Close your blinds.
A woman can wear a veil if she wants, yes. But some exceptions apply. Parents of young children in the west have the right to demand that young children not be taught by a creepy fantom in a black veil whose face they can’t see. Professors have the right to see the faces of people taking exams, especially when the person in the burqa suddenly seems to have grown and gotten fatter than the person they taught at the course. Parents have the right to see the face of the woman who is teaching their child, to recognize her. Why? Because that is part of our normal values in the west.
As a taxpayer, I demand to be able to see the face and know at least the first name of the public servant or policewoman who deals with me at a government public service counter. I will NOT deal with a faceless ghost. The Hijab (scarf over the hair) does not bother me one bit.
Persons receiving benefits and services from the state may need to show their face. A Customs officer may need to see your face to compare it with the passport photo. And NO, you may not demand a female Customs Officer in a closed room. The male Customs Officer sees the faces of millions of women and he does not leap across the counter and attack them in a fit of uncontrollable lust. It is not YOUR culture to show your face to a man? Tough! That is our culture. Show the male Customs Officer your face or get out of our country.
Taxi drivers who refuse to pick up people at airports if they are carrying duty-free booze should have their taxi licences taken away. I believe this has already happened at one US airport, and it is a very good example of pushback. Congratulations!
My feeling about Muslim immigrants is this: IF WE CAN HOLD THE LINE IN DEFENSE OF OUR WESTERN VALUES AND TELL THOSE WHO WANT TO RECREATE AN ISLAMIC STATE IN OUR WESTERN COUNTRIES TO FIT IN OR SHIP OUT, the rest of the Muslim community will probably eventually fit nicely into our countries and become the valuable and respected citizens we would be proud to call friends and neighbours.
But this will only happen if the knee-jerk bleeding hearts get their heads out of their asses and realize that the rapid growth of Islamic immigrant communities in the west poses a problem and danger to our secular, democratic and free way of life that we have never dealt with before.
A Muslim man dating a female relative of mine once said (in his accented English)something I will never forget: “Why is I like Canada? Because here, all religions are equal, but law is above all religions.”
I laughed and replied “What about me, I am an atheist!”
“That religion too!” he said,
I loved that guy because he gave me hope.
(PS, you can post all the childish name-calling you want after my message. I will no longer be reading them. We have said it all and this has become a dialogue of the deaf).
Valteron - That last post made a lot of sense, and I can’t see anything controversial in it.
So, no debate was ever intended, just more haranguing then, right?
Except for the facts on the ground. In actuality, there might be a lot of that going on where he’s from, but most of it is just weird and unthinkable and smacks of hyperventilating based on willfully misconstruing a situation to make political hay out of it.
Of course there should be pushback against a lot of the points on his list. Is it a main obsession with the majority of Westerners? No, because it doesn’t happen very often.
I think these sorts of theocratic incursions happen a lot more often in Europe than they do in the USA. Also, as a strategy for combatting extremism, I’m not sure how prudent it is to postpone any necessary pushback until 51% of the public are sufficiently “obsessed”.
Nice try, but nothing doing. You can bail out on the discussion whenever you like, but you don’t get to dictate when other people stop talking about it.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
[/quote]
Everybody already realizes that European and US situations differ in a number of ways. However, I don’t think the issue of percentage of Muslim population is as drastically divergent as you’re trying to make out. After all, the US has slightly under 1% Muslim population (as do Ireland and Finland), while the percentage for the UK, Sweden, Luxembourg, Greece, Spain, Denmark, Italy and Norway (as well as for Canada) is between 1% and 5%. Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland have between 5% and 6% Muslim population, while France tops the ranking in Western Europe with 7.5% and Iceland and most Eastern European countries have almost zero Muslim population.
And, of course, due to differences in population size, the absolute number of Muslims in the US is greater than that in most Western European countries. I recognize that every country’s situation is different, but I’m not buying the “help we’re being overrun and you’re not” hysteria in general.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
[/quote]
Check.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
[/quote]
Says who? What does that mean? Here’s where you need to make specific factual claims and back them up with evidence, rather than just indulging in this kind of vague fearmongering “help we’re being overrun” rhetoric.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
[/quote]
Check on the “many Imams preach contempt for western values”. Check on agreement that this is a bad thing from the standpoint of democratic pluralistic tolerance.
Request for cite on the quantitative meaning of “many” and on the allegations that “millions of Muslims” literally desire the conquest of the world “for Islam”.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
[/quote]
True for certain Islamic cultures and totally bullshit in the case of others (e.g., Turkey).
[QUOTE=Valteron]
[/quote]
Ah, here come the vague unspecified “them” again: I thought we’d be seeing “them” at some point, despite the pious asseveration in point 2 that “for the most part” Muslims are good and decent.
Request for cite on who exactly is meant by “them” and the general relationship implied between “them” and the sum total of Muslim cultures and individuals worldwide.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
[/quote]
Check on agreement that some Muslims hold such views, that some Islamic states implement such views in law, and that this is a bad thing for freedom and human rights.
Request for cite on the quantitative and qualitative implications of “many of these people” and on the reductionist attribution of a single universal “sexual morality” to an alleged monolithic “Islam” as an undifferentiated culture.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
[/quote]
Check on agreement that a few mosques have had connections with terrorists and radical Islamists. Check on agreement that this is a bad thing.
Request for clarification on what is meant by “keeping an eye on them” and on whether this is to be taken to imply scrutiny of all mosques as opposed to other places of worship, and if so, what sort of scrutiny. Request for suggestions on how to reconcile any such policy of extraordinary scrutiny based solely on religious denomination with the principles of religious equality that free democratic societies claim to espouse.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
THE ABOVE POINTS ARE NOT DESCRIPTIVE OF EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM IN THE WEST. THERE, I HAVE SAID IT. I AM TALKING ABOUT THE CULTURE AND WORLD-VIEW OF RAPIDLY-GROWING MUSLIM COMMUNITIES IN MOST OF THE WEST’S MAJOR CITIES.
[/quote]
Check on agreement that such criticisms are not descriptive of every single Muslim in the West (to say the least).
[QUOTE=Valteron]
As Geert Wilders says, the problem is really that Islam is “at right angles” to our western values.
[/quote]
Request for clarification on the continued insistence on reductionist use of “Islam” as though it described a single worldview or set of values. Strongly expressed preference for relocation of that reductionist terminology to a place inaccessible to solar radiation.
Stolen! Mine! Everybody else back off, I got here first! Mine, mine, mine!