I just wanted to add, however, in the wider picture of Islam and Europe, that I don't think we are making enough efforts to teach immigrants that Europe is a secular place and that's the way it's going to remain. Widespread secularism is unique to Europe, and one of our greatest qualities. Open criticism - even ridicule - of religion should not only be tolerated but encouraged. It ensures the health of the 'market place of ideas.'
Immigrants ought to be told that while Europe will defend their right to practise their religion, it is a private matter and they should not expect governments to protect or promote their dogmatic sensibilities. We aren't like many of their home countries, where religion and government are intertwined. Government isn't responsible for what private citizens in private publications or private places say about religion, and if people do have a problem with them it isn't the duty of the government to intervene.
Frankly, the whole situation really highlights the lack of understanding of many Muslims about how Europe operates. For example, the boycott of Danish goods because of the actions of a private Danish newspaper - to most Europeans, this seems ridiculous. The storming of the Danish embassy. Really, what on earth do they have to do with what was published in a newspaper? Granted, there's a sense of anger and people want to strike out at something, but it's the very idea that they feel they can demand the Danish government halt publication or take punitive action against the newspaper that just doesn't make any sense to someone who understands how Western society works.
To me, this entire incident has been a bit of a wake-up call. Islam - not as a theoretical concept or as an intellectual position, but in reality for the majority of the immigrant community - is very, very hostile to those values which Europeans hold most dear: gender equality, freedom of expression, separation between religion and state, sexual freedom and so on. In many ways it's similar to the religion of white, poor, fundamentalist American Christians on evolution, homosexuality, etc. It has a similarly aggressive political edge: as you can see in the riots.
For me, the tipping point came when I saw news coverage of protesters in Britain - where I live - protesting outside the Danish embassy. Amongst such lovely placards as 'Butcher those who insult Islam' and 'Islam will conquer Europe' was the song 'Denmark Denmark, you must pray, 7/7 is on its way.' I was disgusted, and enraged. Of course they're far more radical than the vast majority of the Muslim community, but they represent the same kind of underlying aggression towards people who simply wish to practise the rights to which they are entitled in Europe.
As it is practised amongst the majority of Muslim immigrants(again, not as a theoretical concept - I don't hold that Islam is an inherently violent religion) Islam is simply incompatible with European values and how the majority of Europeans wish to live their lives. Of course, so is the same kind of fundamentalist Christianity I mentioned earlier.
What's the solution? Well, it isn't going to come from endless 'cultural awareness' programmes. It's going to come from either the elimination of Islam in its current state and replacement with a more reformed, enlightened version - or the elimination of European values. What's it to be?
Religion except as a moderate, private matter has no place in Europe - be it Christian or Islamic (the more one thinks about it, the more clear it is that these two are different sides of the same coin). We need to make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR to new immigrants to Europe, while at the same time aggressively drilling it into the minds of the existing population that as long as they're here, they leave their fundamentalism and religious violence at the door. If they don't like what Europeans publish in newspaper, or say on the television - then write a letter to the editor, organise a boycott of that particular company's products, or initiate legal action if they think an actual incitement to racial/religious hatred/violence has been committed. Otherwise shut up and go somewhere else. Same goes for those fundie Christian idiots who thought they had a right to threaten the BBC and producers of The Jerry Springer Opera with violence, you can fuck off to Oklahoma or Kansas or some other backwards shithole.
The point was that Europe is largely secular, and that is the way it ought to remain. It has no duty to compromise its values in order to not offend religious peoples sensibilities - be they Christian or Muslim.
To accuse me of racism or religious hatred is a clear distortion of my post. I made clear that Europe must defend the rights of people to freely practise their religion, while at the same time telling them that it wont be allowed to dominate government or be expected to adopt its views.
The same is true for Christians who want to push evolution in schools, or force prayer, or censor television, or outlaw abortion: Muslims who feel that 'Butcher those who mock Islam' and 'Denmark, Denmark, you must pray, 7/7 is on the way' - or violence and damage directed against people and property - is an acceptable reaction, clearly don't understand how things work in the West. It's not acceptable to attack European embassies and their staff regardless of their connection - indirect or nonexistent - to the actual cartoons. They simply aren't responsible for what is published in private newspapers.
I can understand Muslims being offended by the cartoons - depictions of Allah are, after all, prohibited and all the moreso with negative ones. The question is one of reaction: the response is to complain or organise a boycott of that company's products, a peaceful protest against the newspaper, or make a police complaint if a law has been broken, not to resort to incitements to violence and actual rioting that has already claimed lives.
These protests are widespread - in almost every Muslim country. Many are violent. But it's more than that - it's just the fundamental misunderstanding about where blame should be apportioned and not actually seeing the difference between a country and its people and the actions of a private newspaper.
I don't feel as though I have to defend myself to you, but I'll add that I think your accusation of racism was disgusting, ignorant and lazy - if not most of all untrue.
Islam - not as a theoretical concept or as an intellectual position, but in reality for the majority of the immigrant community - is very, very hostile to those values which Europeans hold most dear: gender equality, freedom of expression, separation between religion and state, sexual freedom and so on.
I was thinking of some whitty remark to come back with but to be honest if you can't see the racism in the remark above then it's pointless talking to you. I don't believe I called you a racist, but what you wrote above did for me a European and British Asian have the kind of rhetoric and language most closely associated with the British Natioinal Party rather than a left leaning poliitical forum.
That would be most useful, I think, to fight prejudice and ignorance. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
You seemed to be saying that there was some ignorance or prejudice about the teachings of Islam on the above topics (if any), and I was wondering if you could provide us with better information on these, because I certainly can't (in that I am genuinely ignorant of these and curious to know more). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I am actually quite envious of people that have the faith - and the peace of mind that comes with it - to believe that there is more than a big empty nothing after we die. (Of course, you can replace "faith" by "ability to suspend rational judgement" and make it offensive).
But it's true that I am an equal opportunity religious basher. The catholic church is just as bad as islam ;-) In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I do not know anything about you but you make the case very clear that you are not a racist.
But your narative is clearly racists. I do not have time to deconstruct it..but the implications, the things you suppose, the things that you stablih as true and so on and so on. give a clear narrative as Colman said.
This does not mean you are racist.. but in this post, at least, you used a racist narrative...you know: "we" have to teach "them", "our" ideas, "their" ideas, mixing mainstream muslims with radical and making a huge mix of other stuff. I would really love to deconstruct it.. a pity I do not have time.
By the way, on a side note... According to your vision Spain is not really european. Here Catholic Church is payed with taxes, teaching of the Catholic religion is compulsory in public schools, teachers are paid by the state, there are special tratments for the church in all fields of life.. from taxes to media....
Spain is clearly not Eruope since there is no complete (there is some kind of separation..more or less like Lebanon) separation of church and state...Migeru can explin it better, Spain is laic but confessional...or something to this effect (in the Constitution) go figure
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
16.3 No religion shall have a state character. The public authorities shall take into account the religious beliefs of Spanish society and shall consequently maintain appropriate cooperation relations with the Catholic Church and other confessions.
Better to simply reply and flag the issues. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
0 is only available to Trusted Users (see [here] to know what that is); the other four are available to all users. 0 and 1 are used to rate a comment "trollish", i.e. disruptive of dialogue, or insulting, or really inappropriate. Such ratings should not be used to indicate that you disagree with the comment. 2 should be used for comments that are borderline, or ambiguous, or unnecessarily aggressive in their tone even if they make valid points. 3 should typically be used for a comment which is interesting, but not so good as to deserve a 4. 4 are used to reward informative or smart or otherwise useful comments.
0 and 1 are used to rate a comment "trollish", i.e. disruptive of dialogue, or insulting, or really inappropriate. Such ratings should not be used to indicate that you disagree with the comment.
2 should be used for comments that are borderline, or ambiguous, or unnecessarily aggressive in their tone even if they make valid points.
3 should typically be used for a comment which is interesting, but not so good as to deserve a 4.
4 are used to reward informative or smart or otherwise useful comments.
I guess a 1 could be warranted if you felt this was really a racist comment. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
A knee-jerk, idiotic reaction. Did you even bother to read my post?
I hear you on this, but I don't think it's quite so clear-cut, honestly. I don't think it needs to be such a choice. What we should be concerned with, as private citizens, is seeking more enlightenment on both sides, not because newspaper don't have the right to print this sort of thing -- everyone knows my opinion on that by now, and Jerome and I have certainly done our fair share of swearing over the past few days -- but because we should hold ourselves to higher standards than this (again, as private citizens rather than through the government).
Going after the Catholic church because of the pedophilia scandal is the sort of situation in which I would wholly support a cartoon, because I do think the church needs to clean itself up, though I'm not a Catholic and the structure of the church is none of my business. Colman's points about the attitude of "because I can" being childish is correct, in my opinion. And the newspapers deserve to be ridiculed for that -- perhaps even with a cartoon in the Guardian or something.
That said, I agree with you that the Muslim community needs to take into consideration our values, because -- and this is based solely on my own experience -- we in the West tend to hold these sorts of freedoms up to a status near, and even surpassing, our own religions (as we should). Freedom of the press should warrant no less respect than freedom of religion. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
