http://www.jr.co.il/articles/politics/realconflict.txt
Check out this article about - I hope you you guessed it before opening this thread, Saudi Arabia.
Hi akohl and welcome to the boards.
I should probably advise you that the administrators of the boards don’t allow users to post entire copyrighted articles here. A simple like with a summary will do. Just so that you know for the next time.
Zev Steinhardt
I do believe that if you visit the
[Quotes that should unite the world against fundamentalist islam, but alas…will not.]
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118820) thread, you will find a great deal of useful information based on facts rather than on Ms. Ragen’s wildly distorted (and deliberately hateful) view of the world.
In fact, it might be a good idea to come back an re-post your version of the high points before the mods come in and remove the entire text.
akohl, you misapprehend the meaning of the word “racist.” Without regard to the accuracy of Ms. Ragen’s article, as both Christians and Jews can be of any race, discrimination on the basis of religion isn’t racism.
Sua
I, for one, found the article enlightening and interesting. I did not know all of these things.
So, with this clear inflammatory article are you trying to say that Saudi Arabia or Israel is "The most rasist society on the planet "?
There is no separation between religion and state in the Islamic religion, so government practices must be viewed in that light. There is no religious liberty because people are presumed to be of one religion. This isn’t really “racist” just conceited.
RexDart, I am afraid that you have managed a clean sweep. Every statement you posted is in error.
You really might want to look at the information in the link I posted earlier to discover just how varied Islamic societies can be (and how few are anywhere near theocracies).
Of course it would be helpful if there was a greater % of fact in the article, as opposed to blatent falsifications, half-truths and pure hatred.
Moderators’ Note: As has already been pointed out, we ask that members not post entire copyrighted articles on the SDMB. Just post a link, with a brief quotation or a summary in your own words. Since the original post included a link to the text of the article, I just deleted the article text and left the link for those who wish to participate in the thread to follow.
I read all of the associated links and find that the article still has a considerable ring of truth to it. Islamic society, no matter how varied, is predominately hostile towards any other religion, though small pockets may practice tolerance. Saudi Arabia is openly hostile even towards the US, just tolerating us because of our great amount of money and needed technology, not to mention our vast bulk foods. It has been mentioned before that if Arabia could wipe out non-Muslim nations that it would and we have been playing pretty-patty with them because of financial reasons for decades.
The average Muslim might not seem to care, but they will when their clerics tell them to, which is why so many cheered and celebrated when the twin towers fell. I’ve not forgotten the news reports of that!
Actually, I thought the Koreans were the most racist society on Earth, because, from what I have heard, they dislike anyone not Korean, including other Asians but I have no real facts to go on. Just talk.
Oh bloody fucking wonderful, another one. I guess I shall have my hands full with the depths of ignorance on this.
Theyism, the worst disease to inflict the human mind.
Christian society, no matter how varied, is predominately hostile towards any other religion, though small pockets may practice tolerance. The U.S. is openly hostile even towards Saudi Arabia, just tolerating us because of our great amount of oil and needed bases for their Mideast aircraft deployment. It has been mentioned before that if America could wipe out non-Christian nations that it would and we have been playing pretty-patty with them because of financial reasons for decades.
The average Christian might not seem to care, but they will when their pastors tell them to, which is why so many cheered and celebrated when the Taleban was toppled from power in Afghanistan. I’ve not forgotten the news reports of that!
:rolleyes:
This statement seems to explain your views quite well.
Omnivore, would you please take the time to read the posts by people such as Tamerlane who have spent the time and energy to explain the actual differences between your perceptions and reality?
Got a news flash for some people in this thread–racism is everywhere.
Arguably the most racist society on Earth was the former government of South Africa, with “apartheid”.
More recently, somebody in the UK thinks when it comes to non-white refugees, the UK is the most racist society.
Somebody in Ecuador thinks Ecuador is the “most racist society”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/worldcup2002/hi/team_pages/ecuador/newsid_1935000/1935943.stm
Somebody in Canada thinks Canada is a racist society.
http://www.tao.ca/~colours/whitestudents.html
Somebody in Australia thinks Oz is a racist society.
http://www.arts.uwa.edu.au/MotsPluriels/MP297cl.html
And, of course, somebody in America thinks America is a racist society.
http://www.coh.arizona.edu/aas/AFAS_Website/racism1.htm
And then there’s always Bermuda.
http://www.bermudaonion.com/opinion/2001/082401racism.htm
And lo and behold, here’s Eric, who thinks Korea is a racist society. He bases this on the 18 months he lived in Seoul, during which time evidently some Koreans were mean to him.
A more rational explanation for his Bad Experience In Seoul.
http://www.asia-pacific-connections.com/teaching_and_living_in_korea2.htm
Thanks for your comments.
My response,
I have no problem just posting links
some posters have written that the article I posted includes false or misleading statements. Examples? Is it not true that SAr does not allow Jews into the country, and that practicing other religions like Christianity is against the law, ect…
I use the term racism in the wider sense in which it is used to include unfair discrimination of all types. Its not literally correct. But then again Israel has been accused of racism and this is generally accepted to be the correct term, even for those who defend Israel, even though Israel’s discrimination in terms of the Law of return is based on a distiction between the Jew (by birth or conversion) who is automatically entittled to citizenship, and the non-Jew who is not.
Well, I’d like to argue that statement! It seems to me that the country which institutionalized slavery based on colour would qualify as most racist. That would be America. I’ve never heard of race based slavery existing in South Africa.
With regard to the OP, I’d wish anyone who takes issue with the article cited , would at least challenge the “facts” presented rather than just provide a blanket negative characterization. Exactly which “facts” are “blatent falsifications” and which facts are half truths? This is GD after all, and I haven’t seen a serious or effective response to the allegations presented by the article. If I just wanted opinions, I’d be in IMHO !
Furthermore, one poster has described the author of the cited article as hateful. All I can read is fearful.
And with regard to the Koreans, I’m reminded of an article I read several years ago about racism in Japan. Apparently third generation Korean-Japanese (sounds odd doesn’t it) were still not eligible for citizenship in Japan.
sigh I suppose I’ll take stab at it.
Hopefully the following excerpts fall under fair use. If the moderators deem it otherwise, feel free to delete my post.
Incorrect. A number of Palestinians, including some members of the PLO, are Christian. It is a conflict over land that in recent years has taken on a veneer of a sectarian struggle as radical Islamists in groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad have become more prominent in Palestinian society. Much to the discomfort of secular nationalists like Yasser Arafat, I might add, who correctly sees them as a threat to his dictatorial power. But this is a recent ( since the late 1980’s ) phenomena. The roots of the conflict are territorial and perhaps in a limited sense, tribal.
Nonsense. The Palestinian issue is a cause celebre in the Arab world ( a little less so in the wider Muslim world, though still a concern ) and so the Islamists give it lip service. But outside of the Palestinians themselves, most Islamists have different primary concerns, mostly centering on their own corrupt governments. A partial exception can be made for the Lebanese Hezbollah whose issues with Israel have, again, been largely territorial.
At any rate though some Islamists would indeed like to see a worldwide Dar al-Islam, they are a minority. Indeed possibly a minority within a minority, as some intellectual Islamists, particularly in the devout middle-class, seem less interested in exporting Islam than in establishing Islamic utopias ( or a single unified ‘Caliphate’ ) in their own countries.
But most Muslims are not radical Islamists. Ask the average pious Muslim if he believes the world would be better off if everyone is Muslim and he might agree with you. It is an article of faith after all. Many pious Christians would make a similar answer. But that doesn’t mean they are looking to conquer the world or that they automatically abhor religious feeedom.
“fanatical” - Value judgement. Applicable to some Muslims ( and Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. ), not all.
“intolerant” - Value judgement. Applicable to some Muslims ( and Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. ), not all.
“ignorant” - Value judgement. Applicable to some Muslims ( and Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. ), not all.
“hordes” - Clearly perjorative in this usage, implying throngs of savage barbarians.
The above words used in the sweeping, unqualified manner the author does are messages of hate and, indeed, intolerance. Also ignorance.
Islam is a proselytizing religion, no different that Christianity. A criticism can be made of this facet. I’m not crazy about being proselytized to myself ( by Christians, Muslims, or anyone else ). However the Qur’an specifically abjures forced conversion. Muslims do ( mostly, some liberal sects may disagree ) regard Islam as the one true faith. But ask even the most rabid, fundamentalist, anti-American Ayatollah in Iran and he will tell you that forced conversion is unIslamic. He may spout all sorts of other types of intolerant bullshit regarding apostates and what not - But he will agree on that point ( ironically so, really, but I won’t get into that historical footnote ). Despite historical anomalies ( and they do indeed exist ) most conversions to Islam were not “by the sword”. And no prominent Muslim leader I know of ( the possible exception of a scattered few nutbars aside ) advocates such a thing. Even assuming it were possible.
A major error. One that has been repeated on this board repeatedly ( and recently ). Why? The information is mostly correct, yes. But Saudi Arabia is not representative of the Muslim world - It is not even representative of the Arab world.
Is it a fucked up, religiously intolerant country? Hell, yes.
But it is a medieval throwback. It’s is the only country on Earth ( well plus tiny neighboring Qatar and perhaps a chunk of the UAE ) that follows the Wahabi subsect of Sunni Islam, a fundamentalist, deliberately reactionary faith that originated in the 18th century and is universally regarded as backward by just about every other Muslim on the planet. The Saudis are so conservative they regard many other Muslims as heretics, including every single Sufi. Using Saudi Arabia, with a native population of under 20 million ( compared to well over one billion Muslims worldwide ) as an exemplar of Islam, is like using South Africa during the Apartheid era ( and specifically the Dutch Reformed Church of the Afrikaaners ) as an exemplar of Christianity. It is a strawman.
Condemn Saudi Arabia all you like. I do. But don’t make the serious error of extrapolating from the policies of Saudi Arabia to the thought processes of Muslims everywhere.
It has three reasons, with an overlapping forth. Islamic intolerance probably among a few. Rabid breast-beating nationalism among many Palestinians, hardened into their positions after a generation of conflict. And genuine piety among most Muslims, all overlapping together with a distrust of the Israelis ( this last fourth reason is probably ignorance, but it is understandable at least, given the situation ).
Situational as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Still abhorrent, though, I agree.
Crap. Or more charitably, simplistic and ill-informed. I won’t get into a debate about every conflict on the globe in one thread, but suffice it to say that many of these disputes are complex and generally have local triggers that are not the result of some universal Holy War.
Hyperbole. Insultingly bigoted hyperbole at that. Where is the proof of this erosion of religious freedom? How is a country with a lower GNP than the Netherlands going to finance this worldwide takeover? Every Muslim immigrant is some programmed soldier of intolerance out to pull down the bastions of freedom and establish a New World Theocracy ( Order )?
Anti-Semitism has a long and ignoble history in Europe that long predates any Muslim immigration. That radicalized punk kids are burning synagogues is pretty disgusting. Thre is plenty of hate and intolerance and more than a little anti-Semitism in the Muslim world. The Israel/Palestinian issue feeds it. But there’s plenty in the West as well ( just witness this essay ) and like all ignorance it is neither universal nor impossible to overcome.
I don’t know the details of this. If true in even the broad outlines ( and I admit to being suspicious in that regard ) it is pretty reprehensible. And? Again, how does this translate to all Muslims, any more than the Saudi situation? And what about the Palestinian Christians in Bethlehem who support the intifida?
It is reasonable to debate whether trading “peace for land” ( probably not exactly that ) is terrorist appeasement or not. For the record my stance is in agreement with tomndeb’s as stated elsewhere, but that is neither here nor there. But again this is NOT “Muslim vs. Jew”.
Gah. More reckless hyperbole. There are arguments, again legitimate arguments, that some posters have brought up about double standards in journalism or on these message boards as regards the protrayals of Palestinian vs. Israeli actions. I respect those arguments, even if I disagree that such a dichotomy is always real ( though apologists for both sides are certainly around ).
But how we get from that ( if it exists ) bias to all of us converting to Wahabi Islam kind of baffles me.
There is no vision. This is not at base a Muslim vs. Jew conflict.
Philosophies don’t have anthropomorphic mental attributes. But if they did Islam is no more megalomaniacal than any other prosyletizing faith ( which may still be too much for some, granted ).
Yep, they’re ALL in on it. They ALL want to turn Des Moines into Riyadh. Wait - Tell me again why would this be a bad thing :D?
I don’t know one way or another, but Israel is not going to cease to exist. Unless they eventually fail to secure peace.
First Israel, then Lichenstein, then the WORLD!!
I’ll do that.
- Tamerlane
p.s. - I actually think Des Moines is a fine place - Well other than the landing strips for gay martians :p.
p.p.s. - First person to get the reference above gets a virtual brownie ;).
Oh, what the heck, I’ll give it a shot.
Disclaimer: I have not studied Islam in great depth in over a decade, and I haven’t had close contact with any Saudi citizens since the mid-90s.
But even a cursory glance through the article shows lots of mistakes, half-truths, and flat-out bald-faced assertions.
“Moreover, it is only a tiny part of a much wider conflict between Muslim and all other religions”
Naomi offers no evidence here, and I have no idea what she’s trying to refer to. Sure, Islam preaches converting non-believers into the religion, but in this regard it’s no different than Christianity, Buddhism, and most other religions.
“Did you know that it is a crime to own a Bible in Saudi Arabia, and that people have been jailed for it? Did you know that no one is allowed to celebrate Christmas or Easter there, and that no churches or any denomination can be built there (let us not even talk about synagogues…)? Did you know that Jews are not allowed into Saudi Arabia, and that all things Jewish are a crime?”
Again, no citations from Naomi; you’d think she could quote from a lawbook or something. In any event, I find all of these claims highly dubious, given that (a) Islam is a religious continuation of Christianity and Judiasm, and (b) Islam reveres Moses and Jesus as fellow prophets of God. I can’t imagine a devout Muslem objecting to celebrating the birth of Jesus, any more than he would object to celebrating the birth of Mohammed.
“The desire of the Islamic world to take over Jerusalem has one reason and only one. Islamic intolerance.”
Again, Naomi offers no evidence to support her claims (sensing a theme here?). On the other hand, given my earlier points above, I could believe that the Islamic world would want to control Jerusalem for the same reason the Christians and the Jews do – because it’s got historical and religious importance to them.
“In Israel, the turnover of Christian Bethlehem to Muslims, led directly to the destruction of the Christian Community and the desecration of one of the holiest shrines, the Church of the Nativity which was defiled by the Palestinians gunmen, raped of precious artifacts and then trashed.”
I don’t recall reading a single news article anywhere that said the Palestinians who were residing in the Church of the Nativity “defiled” anything or stole any precious artifacts – and given how many Christians are in the United States, I believe that if such acts were committed, the western press would have plastered it as page-one headline material. True, the Church was a mess by the time the siege was lifted, but given that it was under armed assault from the Israeli army and that you had seveeral dozen folks trying to live there for a month without food or supplies, I wouldn’t have expected it to have stayed spotlessly clean.
“The Israelis murdered my brother”
Okay, so Naomi is finally admitting she’s probably not the most impartial person to talk to about the middle east bruhaha.
I could go on, but I’m sure other dopers will do a far better job than my meager efforts. Suffice to say, I wouldn’t trust Naomi Ragan to present a fair and objective analysis of the Palestine-Israel conflict – and I’m not even sure I would trust her with sharp objects or kitchen utensils after reading her venom-spewing diatribe…