1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

General News Attack in Nice, France

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by AlamoCity, Jul 14, 2016.

  1. jaska

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2014
    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    new zealand
    Gender:
    Male (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    really really sad... The world is in a dark time.
     
  2. Reciprocal

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,002
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    East Anglia
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    We must take action against terrorism. I don't know what exactly, but we can't let things keep on happening.
     
  3. Michael

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2014
    Messages:
    2,563
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Europe
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Also I can't tell the difference between a Hendrix solo and this... You were the one who hit the nail.

    There are some basic rules when it comes to deal (effectively) with terrorism. One of them is quite simple : Do not help the terrorists to create new martyrs...

    Nowadays everyone is connected to everyone, and they should consider this before they rush to raid and push and violate civil rights. Doesn't need anyomore a bunch of well connected journalists (and the rest) to create a martyr. Anyone can take a pic, put it on tweeter, launch a blog... Anyone has the tools to be a journalist nowadays.

    They should be very careful right now... But I doubt they will. These times (considering the actual political climate and the bunch of greedy bastards on charge) don't seem to valuate diplomacy.

    To be honest I'm worried about the refugees and muslims living in Europe. Such attacks are giving cheap fuel to racism and islamophobia. Most of the refugees came here to live without fear, they do have a right as human beings to have a normal life. I don't care if they are muslims, or what they believe, and even if I am not one of them, I'll defend their right to live in peace when they came here in peace. We can't imagine how it must feel being one of them, and being stared at after an attack. Or the islamophobic remarks. The daily pressure. Not a good life... And not a good deal : They ran from bombs, now they must endure other kinds of violence, or to give up their identity and their religion in exchange of acceptance... Which perhaps sounds familiar to some LGBT people... 'If you change to be accepted, we will accept you'. If it is not fair for sexual orientation or gender, why should it be fair for religion or culture? As long as they respect the law and make a contribution, why do you think you do have a right to point at them? What makes a true nation after all?

    The condolences are neccesary, but I wish we also could remember the effects of islamophobia, fear and random police raids.

    And no, I'm not interested on a random flame war, I'm expressing my opinion. Lately all posts after terrorist attacks sound the same to me, as if people were afraid to write anything different, and I'm sick of it...
     
    #23 Michael, Jul 15, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 15, 2016
  4. YuriBunny

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    I'm an introvert; I live in my head.
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Oh my! Good thing you're okay. (*hug*)
     
  5. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Because sexual orientation and gender are innate and immutable and harm no one. By contrast religion and culture are changeable and voluntary adoptions that can cause serious harm. You cannot compare that, not even slightly.

    You could say slavery in the 18th century was a big part of the culture and "respected the law" at the time so "why should people ask for that to change"? Well, because it was evil and damaging.

    People can "respect the law" and yet still cause immeasurable harm to populations. We have LGBT people, apostates, and women living in fear and suffering prejudice in the UK due to the presence of religions (not just Islam here) that continue to legally propagate ideas and values that demonize and ostracise them.


    I think you are talking from the perspective that these are only extremist actions, that have no reflection on wider Islam. I refute that claim personally.

    We have clear evidence that the same underlying beliefs are present in a majority in the wider communities (only the end actions are different). Studies point to widespread complacency, widespread belief that criticics of religion "deserves" violence as a consequence, widespread intolerance of other minority groups and "kafirs". At the end of the day you cannot spread intolerance and demand unadulterated tolerance and freedom of speech without challenge back from the same communities you damage.

    Now I absolutely abhor the racially motivated "Islamophobic" abuse that is present in society before and after these attacks (and its incredibly illogical given not every "brown" person is Muslim or even religious!), and I abhor violence and abuse against Muslims. HOWEVER, I think criticism of the religion is wholly justified.

    I'm an ex-religious person myself, and feel yes, when atrocities happen linked to such a powerful institution it needs challenging. Its pathetic (certainly of those most influential in the religions) saying "well it wasn't me", "nothing to do with me" etc when you preach from the "same hymn book", believe the same fundamental principles, and spread the religion. Instead I think it is the ethical thing to do to say "those individuals were wrong, they completely misunderstood the religion, here's what it means". I find it frustrating this semi-distancing we see, say post Orlando having Muslims say "well yes, gay people are sinners, but I wouldn't kill them" - those people are part of the problem (in continuing to plant the seed of intolerance) yet completely fail to see their role in the same picture.

    The big problem here is the Koran. I think self-proclaimed "moderate" or "modern" Muslims are either lying or fighting against the Koran. The Koran is quite clear in it's instruction, and actually yes, the terrorists are spot-on in their interpretations of the book (they are in a sense "getting Islam right"). It is a book that preaches violence, there is no denying that.

    I think is Islam is to ever live up to the "religion of peace" claim Muslims have to:
    a. Denounce the Koran and work from a new framework, or
    b. use more intelligent analysis of the book based on historical context

    Now I know I'll get the old "The Bible is just as violent". Not a comparison. The majority of Christians follow the New Testament which is much less violent. Those radicals and evangelists who follow the Old Testament typically follow discriminatory, but not violent passages (even they show some ability to selectively interpret their source material in line with social modernity). Likewise, Jewish populations, whilst still often practising discrimination in line with the Torah, vastly shun the more violent passages - ask yourselves - when was the last time Jewish populations stoned someone?

    You see they are following option "b" in my above example. There is still work to do, as there are still obviously irrational anti-LGBT beliefs based on ancient ideas rather than modern day knowledge BUT these religions have come some way and I think they are liberal enough to allow gradual growth in the right direction.

    By contrast I think there are big barriers in Islam preventing integration. Most music being haram for example (when music is a uniting and cross-cultural activity for most groups), or many believing it is actually haram to own a dog/pet when this is normal practice. I think if minor "offences" like this still cause a problem, it is understandable why something as "big" as homosexuality is still outlawed.
     
    #25 741852963, Jul 16, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2016
  6. Invidia

    Invidia Guest

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2015
    Messages:
    2,802
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Far above the clouds, gazing deep below the Earth
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Nah, the fair thing is obviously to be a racist and blame all Muslims.
     
  7. DemiNic

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2016
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    $Small loan of a million racists$ Haha

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I respectfully disagree and think that you've merely rejected, rather than actually refuting, that such violence is inherent to Islam.

    To take one academic view on why this violence is so prevalent, just have a look at this:

    *This link is also in French, I'm afraid.

    The problem doesn't seem to be so much one of perverted scriptural interpretation. Instead, it seems like the desire for violence from the socially alienated latching itself onto a politically and socially convenient vehicle - Islam - in order to unleash anger and attempt to rise above the listlessness caused by disaffection.

    Again, I'm going to be frank and say I'm not particularly convinced that this is enough. Not only do I see precious little theological criticism (if we are criticising Islam and not Muslims for being Muslim, then we need to rely on the language of religious scholars and not of sociologists and political scientists) but I think it's actively alienating to hold Islam up as a special mischief to be solved. It makes Western Muslims feel like their value as members of society is in question, waiting for approval from secularists and Christians in superior social positions. Whether you believe you have the right to be that arbiter of faith or not, few would disagree that it's not particularly conducive to integration when it's perceived like that.

    I think it's that attitude which causes the lack of integration, rather than a problem inherent to Islam itself. And there's academic evidence to back that up:

    So, we can see that to regard Islam distrustfully leads to negative social outcomes, in which Christian and secular Westerners both consciously and unconsciously disadvantage Muslims who wish to integrate. Being wary of Muslims as colleagues, as social equals, as prominent, influential or wealthy members of the community results in those Muslims having little faith in the social, legal and political institutions which make life good for us. We have to make them accommodating to give Muslims a stake in society and a desire to protect it; integration of Muslims is just as much on us (Christians and secularists of Christian backgrounds) as it is on Muslims.

    The attitude you have, while understandable, is what I fear to be a mild form of that distrust which causes alienation. I think the result you desire and the approach you take are not sufficiently aligned.

    I think a good comparative is Australia or Canada compared to France. All three countries have relatively prominent Muslim communities (though France is the most heavily Muslim out of the three). Australia and Canada are relatively accommodating and have culturally and religiously pluralist rather than integrative social policies. That is, Canadian and Australian Muslims are encouraged to practice Islam, wear Islamic dress, socialise with other Muslims and engage in Islamic traditions, to whatever extent they wish, subject to the laws and broad social mores of the two countries. Mosques are integral parts of prosperous communities in prominent areas (the trendy areas of inner-West Melbourne or central Montréal, for example). These all lead to Islam being embraced as an accepted element of those communities' lives.

    The French model, however, tends towards trying to impress a secular cultural unity on French Muslims. From school canteens to public dress ordinances and begrudgingly approving the building of mosques, Islam is to a certain extent discouraged from the public sphere. Now this isn't necessarily unique to Islam; the French state has a troubled relationship with religion, though the institutional power and historical preeminence of the Catholic Church has kept its influence and public presence up, as opposed to the less institutionally powerful Islamic community.

    Regardless of whether it is deliberately Islamophobic or not, France's social and public policy response makes Muslims feel unwelcome, leading to the sort of distrust and discrimination in the article I linked.

    It is of course false to pretend that this isn't a problem with a particular link to Islam, or that the Muslim community has no onus to address the cultural issues which feed into radicalisation. But I certainly can't agree that your approach is correct.

    A is clearly impossible. It requires either a massive schism that goes far beyond the Shi'ite-Sunni split or even the Reformation. But I think B is actually what most Muslims do, anyway, especially in the West. The Hadith also offer many Muslims leeway when it comes to the strictness of the text of the Koran itself, which is a totally valid way to moderate the harsher language of the holy text even in the most conservative strains of Islam.

    For me, at any rate, I think I'd rather encourage the changes to public policy and corporate practice I brought up earlier and which Adida's article details before asking Muslims to take lessons in scriptural interpretation from me (an atheist from a Lutheran background) and people like me. That seems both more effective at keeping Muslims onside as well as, to put it colloquially, 'staying in my lane' and focusing the debate on areas of policy any non-Muslim can valuably contribute to rather than stumbling ineptly through the world of Islamic Koranic interpretation.

    I think integration is largely a socio-economic and political issue that touches on religion, rather than being a problem borne by scripture.
     
    #28 Aussie792, Jul 16, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2016
  9. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I think scripture provides a much bigger part that you are suggesting, it provides the direction and intent.

    Plenty of minority groups are ostracised, economically disadvantaged, or discriminated against. They do not all turn to radical beliefs and practices. We don't have (to my knowledge) many gay on straight terrorists for instance, despite widespread oppression globally.

    And what of the wealthy and influential Muslim leaders who still harbour the same beliefs despite not being at the same social disadvantage?

    It's cause and effect though. As highlighted by Adida's post, there are numerous other factors at play here: gender equality, tolerance of other groups. When you have a diverse staff and customer base, I'm guessing employers are taking the easy way out to avoid extra drama.

    Well what employer is going to voluntarily dive into that prospect? Extra cost, and a HR minefield to implement. Now perhaps there could be government subsidising to provide this?

    Now I definitely agree we have to tackle employment discrimination, but with everything above I definitely don't think this will be a seamless transition. It's going to take time, hard work and money. And I don't think the blame for what has already happened can be placed squarely on employer racism, not when we have large numbers of a group making their group appear unemployable in the first place (i.e. the employers aren't "imagining" or "making up" these intolerant beliefs and practices, they do exist in the real world).

    But why if Australia does have much more integration do the same extremist ideals still exist and to the same degree amongst those most powerful (and influential) in the community?

    Nocookies | The Australian

    Nocookies | The Australian

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/06/a...uncil-confirms-punishment-homsexuality-death/

    That to me suggests integration alone is not sufficient to tackle this root problem.

    In the UK we have the Muslim Council of Britain who routinely spout anti-LGBT and misogynistic commentary. You have the Trojan Horse schools. So the problem comes from the top-down. It is not a matter of disenfranchised individuals going down a different path and misinterpreting religion. It is of influential religious leaders spreading these beliefs.

    Just to focus on the highlighted point, a lot of the tension caused from the building of mosques is not having places for religious worship being built, instead the (perfectly legitimate) raising of the unfairness of them bypassing local planning laws (particularly in relation to building height and sympathy to local architecture)

    In the UK you have cities and towns where the mosques completely stand out - built in different materials to local architecture, in completely different style, in gharish colours, high enough to be visible across the skyline. And that is without any challenge from planning committees due to the religious aspect. Now if I wanted to build a 50foot pagoda (and boy would I!) in my backyard, I'd quite rightly be told to do one - it would not fit with the local community. If I was a millionaire could I go to China, Dubai, Japan etc and build a 100foot thatched Anglican church without expecting to face any planning restrictions or public resistance? Of course not, yet that is what the public sees with mosques in countries like the UK.

    Much as she was attacked for this view, I think Baroness Warsi has some valid points:
    Baroness Warsi: UK Mosques could be designed without minarets to look like English places of worship - Telegraph

    Minarets are not essential to Islamic faith, they are purely symbolic. And if they are not going to fit in with local architecture, then yes they should be excluded.

    Going on to the religious dress aspect, I think banning the hijab (outside of certain public roles where they form a hazard) isn't helpful. I'm personally critical of the garment when it is clear parents have pushed it on their young girls, but it does not hinder communication. I think the only concern would be that schools treat pupils equally in terms of dress code to prevent discussion of preferential treatment (either requiring plain hijabs in line with uniform or relaxing policies on hair, makeup and jewellery for non-wearers). I believe the burqa ban is absolutely right though, I don't believe this garment has any place in public life. It is intimidating, hinders all communication, completely challenges any possible integration, is born out of sexism, and poses significant security threats.

    Again cause and effect.

    Have Muslims only created these intolerant beliefs and values due to employment discrimination and problems with social integration?

    Or were these beliefs present before in their religion, and are they causing the problems with employment discrimination and integration?

    I think the discussion on scripture has to happen at some point.

    Lets say we magically end employment discrimination overnight, fully integrate schools and communities (where there is a massive problem of integration in the UK).

    Something has to give eventually.

    You cannot have a population who are widely intolerant of gay people, women and apostates fully integrate into a society where gay rights, equal rights for women, and freedom of choice of religion are social norms.

    If we want complete integration we have two options:
    1. For Muslims to end these beliefs
    2. For the country to scale down/reverse its protection of aforementioned minority rights out of respect for Islamic belief.

    Its like putting a Neo-Nazi and a black rights campaigner together - there isn't a "middle ground" or "mutual understanding" that can be reached there. One must relinquish there beliefs or rights as they are contradicting. I mean sure, they can "agree to disagree" and cooperate superficially - but can this really be said to be full integration when there isn't the mutual trust you mentioned earlier?
     
    #29 741852963, Jul 17, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2016
  10. Invidia

    Invidia Guest

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2015
    Messages:
    2,802
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Far above the clouds, gazing deep below the Earth
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Number guy, I've lived about half my life in an area in Sweden where I can say that probably at least one third were and are Muslim. The common denominator of everyone living there was that it's a low income area. Integration was rarely a problem there. Sure, some of the elderly whites living there were racist, but clashing etc. because of ideology was basically non-existent. In other words, this multicultural sphere functioned very well, with one part secular and one part Muslim, give or take. I had many Muslim friends, who I of course only thought of as my friends rather than outlandish Muslims who need to change their behavior or get out. The adults, having only lived in Sweden for some years, were polite and friendly. A neighbor and father of a friend of mine stood out to me as the man most devoted to our little community, and he was a Muslim.
    Again, I repeat to summarize the illustration: multiculturalism worked just fine.
    Now, does it always work fine? No. Does anything always work fine? No. But the solution is not to launch an attack on Islam. That's just reactionary and apologetic of recent actions taken by the rising tide of fascists in Europe.
    What you are doing is taking the actions of a few and saying that this is something endemic to a certain group of people - which is basically the definition of bigotry.
    I will continue to believe in multiculture. Hell, this country would be very dull without it. Other solutions are to be found than reactionary ones. Integration - that is, inclusion while respecting the individual - must be prioritized, and prejudice counteracted.
     
    #30 Invidia, Jul 17, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2016
  11. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Two main issues that have come through in this response to my response. The first is the conflation of conservative values and radicalism, which I'll seek to further distinguish and the second is what I see as the unnecessary 'exceptionalisation' of Islam.

    It's entirely down to the stake, or the perception of a stake, a person has in the survival of institutions. I think it's easy to see that a gay person generally has a desire to see law upheld for the purposes of protection and because being gay generally doesn't totally disenfranchise a person who stays relatively successfully in the closet in homophobic societies.

    But you will be able to find examples of gay riots and other forms of resistance to law and institutions, as well as the typically edgy gay scenes in which drugs and political radicalism (albeit minus the violence) which existed in places like the UK, US and Australia prior to decriminalisation.

    When it comes to direction and intent, I am entirely happy to concede that. But even if Islam were inherently problematic in that regard, it still takes the poor social conditions for it to flare up into violence. I think a position that vilifies Islam leads to poor social conditions.

    But even looking only a few decades back, a relatively secular Algerian terrorist movement terrorised France in a similar manner. Even white French 'converts' to the Algerian cause engaged in the discontent. I'm not sure I'm happy to say that Islam is a unique cause of such violence given political terrorism was France's scourge until this century.

    Here the issue of conflation has come up, I think. The religious leaders tend to be rather unpleasantly conservative, yes, but also have a tendency to criticise terrorism. Few French imams call for this sort of violence, with most explicitly condemning it, even if they preach homophobia and misogyny. Those few who do take radical stances on violence are zealots along the same lines as revolution-mongering communists, merely with the benefit (to them) of a more fertile audience.

    And those who are wealthy and influential outside of the religious sphere are those with high stakes in the security of French society and therefore oppose the destabilising violence the socially disaffected are more inclined to support. I doubt you will find many a Muslim parliamentarian, member of the Bar, business owner, banker or doctor who believes in domestic terrorism.

    This feels like a rationalisation after the fact, rather than a particularly good analysis of employers' incentives. Not only does this hold true among non-Muslim French conservatives who are not significantly different in core beliefs (say, a deeply Catholic business in Marseilles with horribly outmodish beliefs regarding women and gays) but Adida's study also explicitly compares two deeply socially conservative groups; Senegalese-French Catholics and Senegalese-French Muslims. Both are likely to have similar positions on gay rights and the like.

    I'm not convinced at all by that analysis.

    I don't think it's a particularly challenging concept, to include religious concerns among the enormous areas HR already must cover. In any case, I'm rarely convinced by the sort of argument that new private social programmes will never come about, especially with the incentive of legislation to oblige companies to follow new HR standards. HR also once never had to deal with sexism and racism as explicit areas of focus; now they're mainstays of the role of HR and forced an expansion. Minefield or not, it's a critical social problem that companies might need to address.

    It might even be true that increased integration is a long-term labour market incentive for employers but I don't have any actual evidence for that in the context of Muslims in the French labour market, so I'll only tentatively suggest that as a possibility.

    Again, given we see that Muslims are targeted more than comparably conservative social groups and that there are socially conservative employers who target Muslims, I don't accept this cause and effect argument.

    I readily concede that it takes money and time. I'm just saying we should start spending now and treat it as a serious public policy and social issue which must be addressed earnestly.

    A word of warning: The Australian is a notoriously ultra-conservative paper with a heavy 'Australia is a white Christian country' lean. Not that you necessarily knew that.

    But even taking it at its best argument, I think we can also look at what was happening at the time the imams in Australia released their condemnation. The Catholic Church and the more regressive Protestant churches were united with the imams in a fairly aggressive campaign to oppose same-sex marriage and the 'safe schools coalition' (a former Commonwealth government programme to combat LBGT bullying that was recently defunded and taken up by a number of states and territories instead).

    The exact same sort of homophobic rhetoric was coming out of the mouths of the priests in the churches as it was from the mouths of the clerics in the mosques.

    And indisputably, the Catholic, Evangelical and Islamic communities are all far more moderate than their leaders' rhetoric might lead one to think. Admittedly, Muslims are more homophobic than Catholics (though only marginally more homophobic than Evangelicals in Australia).

    So I think you've made an exception of Islam where it's really not that terrifyingly different from other religions.

    That might be true in the UK. It isn't in Australia or France, where I have every reason to believe that planning regulations must be followed.

    Also 'sympathy to local architecture' is often a concern, but it's as relevant to the building of skyscrapers on Melbourne's Collins Street (a beautiful Victorian-era row which has been transformed since the '50s with a great deal of aesthetic change) as it is to a mosque in Salisbury or Rennes.

    Again, why is this a particularly Islamic problem? Some beautiful art-deco, faux-Georgian and neoclassical houses in my rather quiet suburb are next to glossy apartment blocks 40 metres high. There are some '70s churches which offend my aesthetic preferences, an architectural monstrosity of a Holocaust museum and a rather pleasingly elegant mosque.

    To state that such problems are the result of unwelcome Muslim interference is rather unfair. They just happen to be Muslims who want a different development from other people, just as there are developments I like which others don't and which I hate but others love.

    Ostentatious churches and depictions of the Virgin Mary are not essential to the Christian faith, they are purely symbolic. Why can't I demand my city's Catholic cathedral follow the simplicity of the design I find more congruous with the area?

    I'm honestly not committed on a position regarding the burqa ban. On the one hand, the connotations of sexism and communicative hindrance it poses (I'm not willing to give into alarmist fears about burqa-wearing robbers and murderers) concern me. On the other, I think there's only a stage to which the state can intervene before it becomes the inappropriately intrusive arbiter of social customs and the risk that any such forceful attempts to make integration work will be counterproductive.

    I think I addressed this with my points about conflating violence with conservative social norms and why this isn't uniquely Islamic.

    There is clearly something beyond such enlightened, liberal concerns when conservative African Christians are prioritised over conservative African Muslims in France.

    Each group's beliefs, given they are remarkably similar in the areas you've raised concerned about, are clearly not the reason.

    Great, but you're now responding to general social concerns about conservative social beliefs rather than the particular lack of integration which leads to Islamic terror.

    Ultimately in these matters I'm sure we agree on the socially liberal principles and outcomes you're expressing.

    It's just that it has to be a discussion and can't come at the expense of allowing Western Muslims to feel welcome in Western societies with their religion intact. It goes back to the idea of making sure Muslims are invested in the societies they live in, in order not to turn to violence and terror.

    I'm also more than happy for us to whip out our Korans and address which aspects we find less than perfect and consult religious scholars' interpretations to aid us. But so far you haven't really talked about scripture even when you reference it. So it's stayed entirely at the level of criticising Muslims for being Muslims rather than Islam for particular scriptural tenants.

    I don't want complete integration. That's never desirable; it's to say that coexistence is not possible, demanding a shared identity and culture.

    But I think you've set up a false dichotomy. The options are for Muslims to change their beliefs or accept that maintaining such beliefs must always be subject to the law. Conservative French Catholics have had to accept that without necessarily abandoning their beliefs. Muslims can too. And I think the best way to do that is to make sure that Muslims have enough of an economic, political and social stake in France that they're willing to accept the supremacy of the French state regarding social regulations and minority protections. The changes to employment practices and improving attitudes to Muslims are the ways I propose to do that.

    You haven't set up a mechanism for how they would abandon such beliefs anyway. To say they would do so by argumentative fiat just doesn't cut it and is designed to create an unwinnable scenario for me to respond to. I won't buy that.

    An agreement to exist in mutual peace and respect is not to share all beliefs and all customs. Rejecting your extreme analogy, I am more than happy for superficial cooperation to exist. If in a workplace I'm not allowed to call a Muslim colleague a primitive barbarian and he's not allowed to call me a heretical faggot despite how strongly we both believe that while we both earn money and perform social roles, that's certainly better than us being at direct loggerheads with incompatible stakes in society. But such positions in the former case would naturally mellow anyway; proximity and cooperation would eventually extend beyond the superficial simply because we made the effort to engage rather than object to one another's right to exist as we please.

    I think you're also failing to look at what the Muslim perspective of this is, too. If you as a gay man ask a Muslim to more or less abandon Islam in every meaningful way, they're going to take that just as well as you take a Muslim demanding you change your sexual habits.

    Now I know that you can respond with the correct argument that sexuality is innate whereas religion isn't. But that something isn't innate is not to say that it can be dumped at the drop of a hat. To criticise Islam in the manner you have done and making the demands you have is ultimately alienating and unrealistic. We're not going to get an immediate renunciation of Islamic sexism and homophobia, just as we sure as hell haven't stopped many Christians in our countries from holding beliefs we find unpleasant.

    Now, tying this back on track, I have one last point to make. You can see how this discussion has gone from a question of what causes Islamic terror to whether Muslims should be accepted in the West with the ability to exercise their faith. To me, I think that's exactly what this debate must not descend to; two white men of Christian backgrounds debating the right of Muslims to practice Islam in the West. That's how alienation comes into being. That's how social and legal institutions end up seeming so unsympathetic, alien and even hostile that Muslims don't want to partake of them. I don't want to contribute to that.

    You have laid out a litany of grievances, some only loosely related to Islam itself, while claiming to be criticising certain religious concepts. But really, if a crazed man in a truck can bring every element of Islamic religious practice and Muslim lifestyle into question, dissected and analysed coldly from afar with little sympathy or humanity, with the ongoing implication that Muslims are a threat, you can see why many a Muslim feels displaced, unwelcome and only every highly conditionally able to be a member of Western society.

    And you can see why, even if he died in doing so and even if it was fundamentally irrational, he would abandon that society which never truly embraced him, just so he could belong to something for once.
     
    #31 Aussie792, Jul 17, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2016
  12. Brandiac

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Central Europe
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Islam needs to be reformed just like Christianity, otherwise it will never grow up and stop being the most toxic cult on the Face of the Earth. I've seen comments from a girl who lost her boyfriend in the attack... it's just terrifying. How many more people have to die for the EU leadership to realize that Islam must be dealt with? They need to tackle it from all sides at once: Better education for these people to show why some of their beliefs, or things written in their book are toxic and some way to deter others from following this path as well as actually killing the root couse in Syria.
     
    #32 Brandiac, Jul 17, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 17, 2016
  13. radicalmuffins

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2014
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mithlond
    Gender:
    Male
    Out Status:
    A few people
    They've been given the chance to adapt. They were given the opportunity to coexist with people from the west. If they cannot adopt a respectful view towards the ideals of a western country, then they should go back to where they come from and stay there. It's better if they stay there and not come back to terrorise the people who they think betrayed them.

    Christianity isn't a very "nice" religion either but it has learnt to become tolerant with the ideals of modern western society. I think there were things in the bible that suggested that a woman who isn't a virgin on the day of her marriage could be stoned to death by her own family. Obviously, that is no longer the case today and it would be unthinkable for Christians to do that kind of act now. However, in some Muslim countries - maybe it's their culture not necessarily their religion - it's alright to kill women if they've had sex before marriage... It still is in practice today. Religion or not, they have a very different version of this world and often times it is in conflict with how the west operates.

    People with different backgrounds have moved all over the world but the incidents of a Buddhist shooting people at a cafe or a Hindu on a suicide bombing mission are far lower (if existent at all) statistically than a muslim committing such heinous acts on western soil. A buddhist and a hindu can be minorities in any given western population but they don't kill innocent people just because they feel ostracised and dissatisfied.

    I don't consider muslims to be inherently dangerous (even if I've encountered very hostile ones with the kind of job I do) but to say that they cannot be a threat is plainly ignorant. With rising levels of radicalisation amongst muslim people, they are a possible threat.
     
  14. Michael

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2014
    Messages:
    2,563
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Europe
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    As a migrant, and being in contact with many other migrants, I have to disagree. Your religion is part of your culture, which is at the end part of your identity.

    Then have fun with the ones who are willing to open a debate with you about the subject...
    I won't for very good reasons, including the fact it would get this thread out of topic.

    ... That sounds like radical christians to me...

    Now a book is responsible for the attacks? Are you suggesting to burn it in order to protect everyone?

    Which direction is right? Anyone willing to live here should respect the laws, period. To demand more from then is not only unfair, but also against the very own values of our society : Freedom of speech, of beliefs, freedom to be who you are and express it as long as you respect the civil law.

    Besides, you could ask yourself if the west would be half as valuable if we forced them to give up their culture and become 'westernized'. The first chinese migrants would have never dared to open a chinese restaurant, so you would have never ever had the chance to taste the dishes, or to hear the music, or to question your own culture because cultural exchange would have never taken place.
    Some have taken voluntarily the clothes, religions and all western culture, some have taken more, others less, others none at all... And why? Not because they had 'failed to adapt', but because their cultural identity, their personal core, had been always in tune with the chinese or muslim culture, that is why I tell you that you can't change your culture : It is part of who you are.

    We could debate about the consequences of forcing some people to speak, think and behave in a way, but I think our posts were off topic enough...

    And one of them is the people who try to force them to give up who they are, instead of accepting them for what they are. I've said accept them, not tolerate them.

    I'm aware you are not against everything, but as I've said we've gone way too off topic and I don't want to piss off the mods. Besides this is not a politics forum...
     
  15. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male

    I think certainly historically it can be said to disenfranchising. We had a society where gay people were criminalised, they were forced to either go into hiding or live in false marriages where they essentially had to endure "rape" to keep up the pretence for decades. That is pretty disenfranchising. Yet we didn't see the same violence.

    By contrast, if you view some of our recent Islamic terrorist converts.

    Some were from lower income backgrounds (although they cannot really be said to be that economically disadvantaged, no worse than most in my school endured), some are even quite middle class.

    I'm not doubting they probably endured some racist bullying for being different, but how is that really any different than the homophobic bullying many of us have endured.

    So yes, I've also come from a poor background, experienced disenfranchisement from society, suffered in my career for being gay (experiencing homophobia from management which completely stalled my career and nearly forced me to leave). Yet I'm not a terrorist.

    To me that shows there is a big factor missing here, and I'm certain that is a cultural thing, in this case religion providing the next step and "a weapon" to the disenfranchised. Just like in America you have gun culture contributing to school shootings. I think it takes more than mere disenfranchisement.

    I think poor social conditions are a contributor sure, but I think violent and discriminatory sentiment in passages preached since childhood has an equal if not larger role.

    I think that is part of the problem - the schizophrenic teachings. On one hand publically condemning terrorism, then advocating violence through the backdoor by spreading discrimination.

    I'm fairly clued up on Catholism. To me it is damaging however its never scared me. Catholics label gay people as "sinners", as "disgusting" based on the Bible. Likewise they do the same with sexually promiscuous people and those who have pre-marital sex.

    By contrast within Islam the sentiment is much more violent. Calls for the death penalty, the actual death penalty, stonings, honor killings. The latter not entirely unique to Islam (present in Hinduism also), but largely occuring within this community.

    I agree its something that can be worked on.

    It might just be a UK problem then, although the issue of minarets in Switzerland feels vaguely familiar.

    I don't think this is solely an Islamic problem, but one that does occur a lot with the religion.

    I think with mosques, externally they cannot really be said to be subtle, not with the embellishments. When surrounded by the fairly plain architectural styles of the UK (largely involving very straight walls) it does stand out a hell of a lot.

    Yes obviously anglican and catholic churches have been ostentatious too, but I think the key difference there is the public has willingly allowed that ostentation due to them being the domestic religion of the time. By contrast, Islam is still pretty new to the UK, and it has essentially gone "plonk, we'll have a mosque here" without first gaining that social trust if you like.

    Going back to a garden analogy. If I make best friends with my neighbour, he's more likely to turn a blind eye to me building a folly in the garden. If I just build it and say "What are you moaning about? It's my freedom of expression!" you think he will be as accomodating?

    I think another aspect of what causes contention is the religious aspect. People can freely criticise and object to an eyesore of a building normally, but doing so with a mosque really is taboo.
     
    #35 741852963, Jul 18, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2016