Feeble Democratic Secularism | 274 comments (274 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: As a first approach (none / 1)

The predominant culture in europe is Christian, irrespective of the level of observance. Meanwhile, muslims and those of Islamic culture, for all the frothing of both the right wing and centrist press, represent less than 1% of europe's population.

The barbarians at the gates are far more likely to be those who bend a knee to a cross than those who bow to Mecca. Fred Phelps and his band of miserabilists may be extreme but there is no discontinuity between them and their fellow x-tians, they are simply at one end of a grey scale. They are all united in their belief in the Man Who Isn't There and that the voice in their head or that of their leaders is far more real than that of any actual tangible individual.

We only have to look at the USA to see where the anti-knowledge, anti-rationality crowd can take us. They are well funded and have made frightening inroads into the UK conservative party and the British education system.

Terrorists who claim christian religious justification have been loose in N Ireland for decades.

All in all, I don't think muslims are a problem. In the UK the biggest problem is the genuflection our elites pay to x-tians.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 at 10:36:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a first approach (none / 1)

All in all, I don't think muslims are a problem.

Nor do I! Muslims are not a problem at all. (who do you think you are arguing against?)

Even Islam, as such, cannot be a problem unless we let the extremist activists redefine the public space. Then it will be a problem we have created.

In order to have freedom of religion, you need to create and defend a public space where people can be free from religion. The extremist Muslim activists wish to re-Islamise and ghettoise their target populations, separating them from mainstream society. If you think I'm exaggerating, you haven't been around.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 at 11:06:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a first approach (4.00 / 4)

eurogreen:

Even Islam, as such, cannot be a problem unless we let the extremist activists redefine the public space. Then it will be a problem we have created.

But we already have. We have let extremist activist conservative newspaper owners define publishing pictures of Muhammed as free speach and opposition to publishing pictures of Muhammed as support of violent oppression of free speach. They did so by creating a controversy in Denmark, and then ignoring to report on non-violent protests against that controversy. When economic measures won fare and square, they used their power to over-rule the outcome by republishing in so many newspapers that the protesters economic measures could not win. Then they defined the conflict as violent by giving ample room to any threat or physical violence used.

Before 2006, depictions of Muhammed was in general not used in history books and such. There was not and is no particular need to create a picture of a man if no one knows what he looks like and the people who think he is important thinks it is wrong to depict him. This was ratehr uncontroversial and if mentioned at all used as a way to introduce the reader to religions, icons and iconoclasm.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 at 12:46:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think there's a false analogy (none / 1)

implicit here. I know nothing of the history of Islam in Denmark, but I have the impression that it's largely a matter of first-generation immigrants, who come from countries where Islam is the established religion, and can not be publicly criticised. It is therefore unsurprising that they are surprised and shocked at public satire. The Danish papers know this, and it is no accident that it was a right-wing paper that published the original cartoons.

Publishing the same cartoons in France, though provocative, does not have the same context. Most adults in France who are of Muslim heritage are grandchildren of immigrants from Muslim-majority countries. They know the rules (which are different from those in Denmark, which as far as I know has a less anti-clerical culture). Practising (as opposed to nominal or cultural) Muslims are undoubtedly hurt by caricatures of Mahomed, just as the small minority of practising Christians are hurt by caricatures of Jesus. But they understand that they are a legitimate part of public discourse. Those who have tried, and failed, to remove it from public discourse are a well-identified evangelical fringe.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 04:05:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think there's a false analogy (4.00 / 2)

I know nothing of the history of Islam in Denmark, but I have the impression that it's largely a matter of first-generation immigrants, who come from countries where Islam is the established religion, and can not be publicly criticised. It is therefore unsurprising that they are surprised and shocked at public satire.

That is an unkind characterization of the reaction.

Danish Muslims overwhelmingly did not react to the cartoons. They did react when they were later subjected to book burnings and other racist attacks "justified" by the boycott that a handful of fundamentalist nutcases had ginned up with a doctored portfolio of cartoons (including, amusingly, an image of a Breton wearing a plastic pig nose at a pig faire).

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 07:10:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think there's a false analogy (4.00 / 2)

I can't pass on the concept that a country where expression of disbelief in ANY religion is banned is an acceptable, respectable, good thing.

Banning of so-called blasphemy is like coughing blood. Always a bad thing.

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sat Jan 12th, 2013 at 09:47:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think there's a false analogy (none / 1)

Funny.

I would make that precise argument re: book-burning.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Jan 13th, 2013 at 08:50:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a first approach (4.00 / 2)

"Meanwhile, muslims and those of Islamic culture, for all the frothing of both the right wing and centrist press, represent less than 1% of europe's population."

Muslims in France alone represent 1% of the entire EU population.
Muslims are actually 8% of the EU population, and 7% of Europe's (of which 5.7 million are in the European part of Turkey, and 25 million in Russia).

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_en_Europe

Hard to say how many more you'd get by adding "those of Islamic culture", especially since this kind of categorisation always adds up to more than 100% -they lead to non-exclusive categories.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Tue Jan 8th, 2013 at 08:56:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a first approach (none / 1)

Muslims in France alone represent 1% of the entire EU population.

You can't actually know this, of course, because France doesn't do statistics on religion. It would be interesting to know how many inhabitants of France would declare themselves Muslim, if the question was asked in the census (which it isn't), and how that would compare with the number of "those of Islamic culture", which I suppose approximates to those descended from north African ancestry.

And you're right about non-exclusive categories. I arrived in France as an atheist Protestant. By assimilation, I'm now pretty much also an atheist Catholic; and most likely I'll end up an atheist Muslim.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Tue Jan 8th, 2013 at 09:18:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a first approach (none / 0)

France doesn't do statistics on religion

France doesn't do censuses, but it does do surveys.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2013 at 09:27:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a first approach (none / 0)

Yes.
Indeed, that would be the reason why the figure for France is given as an interval, while it's given a specific value for other countries.

Whichever way you look at it, 1% is not remotely close to the truth.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Tue Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:08:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a first approach (none / 0)

"a specific value for other countries"

Nope. There are no exact figures. For Germany there are several specific values. In other words no reliable data, because we don't know how the question of the survey was framed. 3% "feel" they are Muslims. How many members of Muslim communities is that? And what do people mean when they say they are religious? I remember a poll of immigrants who had just arrived (and which I can no longer find). Almost all Poles and Iranians answered they were "very religious". Additional questions and their answers showed that the "very religious" Poles don't necessarily attend a Mass every year, let alone several times, while the "very religious" Iranians didn't necessarily have a prejudice against eating pork.

The only thing we know is that Muslims are a tiny minority in Europe (even if your 5% are accurate, which we can't know).

by Katrin on Tue Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:37:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a first approach (none / 0)

Islam en France - Wikipédia		Islam in France - Wikipedia
En 2012, Michèle Tribalat a estimé, à partir de l'enquête Trajectoires et origines réalisée par l'INED et l'INSEE en 2008, à 4 millions le nombre de musulmans déclarés (soit 6,8 % de la population de France métropolitaine) et à 4,8 millions le nombre de personnes dont au moins un parent est musulman, soit respectivement 34 % et 41 % de l'ensemble de la population d'origine étrangère (sur deux générations uniquement). Quant aux naissances, toujours d'après l'enquête Trajectoires et origines, pour les enfants nés en 2006-2008, un peu moins de 20 % d'entre eux auraient au moins un parent musulman^[93].		In 2012, Michele Tribalat was estimated from the survey Trajectories and origins conducted by INED and INSEE in 2008, 4 million the number of Muslims reported (6.8% of the population of metropolitan France ) and 4.8 million the number of people with at least one parent is a Muslim, or 34% and 41% of the total foreign-born population (over two generations only). As for births, still according to the survey Trajectories and origins, a little less than 20% of children born in 2006-2008 have at least one Muslim parent ^{[ 93]}.
Les musulmans sont en moyenne plus jeunes et environ la moitié des musulmans de France ont moins de 24 ans. Selon Justin Vaïsse, à Paris, les musulmans représentent un tiers des jeunes de moins de 24 ans. Les villes françaises ou vivent le plus grand nombre de musulmans sont Roubaix, dans la banlieue de Lille (50 % de la population), Marseille (25 %), Besançon (13 %)^[94], Paris (10 à 15 %) et Lyon (8 à 12 %)^[95]. Ces jeunes d'ascendance musulmane se déclaraient en 1992, à 30 % sans religion (si les deux parents étaient Algériens), voire à 60 % (si un parent seulement était Algérien)^[96].		Muslims are on average younger and about half of Muslims in France are less than 24 years. According Justin Vaïsse , in Paris, Muslims represent a third of young people under 24 years old. French cities which are home to the largest number of Muslims are Roubaix, in the suburbs of Lille (50% of the population), Marseille (25%), Besançon (13%) ^{[ 94]}, Paris (10 to 15%) and Lyon (8 to 12%) ^{[ 95 ]}. Young people of Muslim ancestry reported themselves in 1992, 30% no religion (if both parents were Algerians) or 60% (if only one parent was Algerian) ^{[ 96]} .

If your point is that the number of Muslims in France, or in Europe, is negligible, that's clearly not the case. They are a significant group, and a growing one, because of differential demographics. That's not a bad thing, but it's a fact. Depending on where one lives, their presence may be invisible, or not. The idea of a separate-but-equal social status, which seems to be the thrust of your argument, hasn't worked out well anywhere, as far as I know. We need to sort out common standards for living together.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Tue Jan 8th, 2013 at 10:50:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How do you get that idea? (none / 0)

eurogreen:

They are a significant group, and a growing one, because of differential demographics.

They are definitely a significant group. Definitely not a group with a lot of influence or power though. This means that Muslims are not the danger that Islamophobes claim they are. They are not even able to defend themselves against the many harassments the majority invents.

Conclusions from demographics, not socioeconomics, to religious membership are bullshit. It is possible that the proportion of Muslims in the population grows, but by no means sure.

by Katrin on Tue Jan 8th, 2013 at 11:20:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How do you get that idea? (none / 1)

And here is what was meant to be the first part of my post:

eurogreen:

The idea of a separate-but-equal social status, which seems to be the thrust of your argument

It is not my argument, not even remotely! Have you read my posts at all?

by Katrin on Tue Jan 8th, 2013 at 11:22:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How do you get that idea? (none / 0)

eurogreen:

We need to sort out common standards for living together

Yes. Agree completely. That's why I am arguing against a one-sided diktat that bans all personal freedom that is somehow related to the exercise of religion.

by Katrin on Tue Jan 8th, 2013 at 11:36:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How do you get that idea? (none / 0)

You have said :Katrin:

Laws force the women among them to go naked according to their perception, or else they won't be allowed even to learn.

The law in France forbids religious dress in public schools (this is also the case in Turkey and in Indonesia). Dress codes in school are different in various countries; many impose uniforms; the right to impose a dress code is not generally disputed. Completely covering one's hair is apparently sanctioned by the Koran (just as wearing a veil is prescribed for Christian women by the Bible) but is applied in various interpretations, or not at all, by Muslim women in various parts of the world, in accordance with the laws and customs of the countries they live in.

Should children of Muslim families be allowed to choose whether or not to respect French law or custom on this point? Is the notion of choice actually operative here? Is it indeed a matter of personal freedom? In individual cases, that's possible. But sociologically, it's clear that the desire of Muslim families to send their daughters to school with distinctive dress is a question of marking them out as inaccessible, in order to favour endogamy within a community of Muslims (cf the work of demographer Emmanuel Todd on this subject).

I don't think that a cultural tendency towards endogamy actually favours personal freedom.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Tue Jan 8th, 2013 at 12:04:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How do you get that idea? (none / 0)

The law in France, as in all European countries, shows real creativity in finding new ways to discriminate against Muslims. Giving the prevention of endogamy as a justification for a ban on the headscarf is hilarious (and perfidious). I note that your theory only speaks of the intentions of parents, not of the freedom of the girls.

I don't believe we can hash out the headscarf debate in less than 300 posts, Eurogreen. Do we start or not?

by Katrin on Tue Jan 8th, 2013 at 12:23:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mercy! (none / 1)

Not in this thread, please.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2013 at 12:39:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mercy! (none / 1)

LOL

by Katrin on Tue Jan 8th, 2013 at 12:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mercy! (none / 1)

The initial misstep is Eurogreen's, since whether to wear a headscarf is rarely the woman's, but patriarch's choice.

Peculiar to hear katrin advocating patriarchal values, but since she's taken a losing position, any port in a storm.

The immigrant minority always faces a choice of getting along or not.

This particular one seems to want self-segregation without adopting any values of the welcoming society. Seems like a misreading of human nature. And I'm not talking about France, or Europe, or the West at all, but the idea of religious freedom, including especially the freedom FROM religions that limit choice.

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sat Jan 12th, 2013 at 10:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a first approach (none / 0)

The point about self-reported "religiosity" is well taken.

The USA tends to show "higher than real" levels of religiosity on this question because "religious" is interpreted as "a good person."
Likely the same holds for more "conservative" parts of the population (which should be mostly anyone immigrating to Central/Western Europe.)

by Number 6 on Tue Jan 8th, 2013 at 11:45:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Numbers (none / 1)

Either: