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?
