Sunday Independent article

Tim Robbins

Hi,
On the front page on the Sunday Independent (13/08/06), Brendan O'Connor states:

'this religion, (Islam) whose fundamental principles
will only be satisfied when its followers have wiped
out Western Civilisation'.

What a disgraceful, ignorant and bigoted statement.

is_that_so

It is and tbh you would do yourself a favour by not reading the Sunday Independent.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

Moved to humanities. This is already posted in Humanities. Islam forum is not for these kinds of posts.

Wibbs

While I might agree with you re. homosexuality and Islam(and the other abrahamic faiths) the womens equality aspect is more complex. They would argue that they have equality(different but equal kind of thing). We have a different concept of equality between the sexes. Personally I lean towards "ours" more, but there is much in some of their ideas than is immediately obvious. Certainly historically Islam has a better record on the subject. For today? That may be another argument.

TBH my main issue with Islam if applied to a nation would be the relative lack of seperation of church, law and state.This would naturally vary with the application of same. In much the same way with any religion, though the ties in Islam would be higher as it's more built in than others. Like all theocracies, this brings many issues.

I agree with is_that_so. The indo is hardly a good source for balanced reporting. While I can see what the writer is getting at, it's too wide a statement applied to such a disparate group as "Muslims" to have any worthwhile value in informing the situation.

exiztone

I read it last night in work. I was shocked. Considering there are 1000+ civilian deaths in Lebanon added to the fact that nothing happened last week in London, it was an alleged bomb scare... not a terrorist attack. Yet Brendan likes to think we're picking on 'The Jews'. ****ing eejit.

Also, front page news? That's not even news. Stupid Sunday Independent.

InFront

Ive just been down to the shop and bought it. Okay, maybe this guy is more intelligent than Im giving him credit, but what is the Independent doing by putting such a writer - essentially an opinion writer in this context - on the front page?

I recognise him from:
-an old TV show mimicking the UK's Have I Got News For You (c.1998?)
-The singing Priest music single
-A celebrity talent show
-Him being a food critic.

Now, we're all entitled to air our opinions, thats one reason why Boards.ie is so great. But why is a supposedly respectable newspaper hiring this guy to put garbage like "where are all the moderate muslims" on the front page, he seems to be completely deaf or ignorant to the criticism that comes from oridnary Muslims towards this sort of attack.
I suppose the guy is just giving his opinion after all, nobody is wrapping this up as fact... But doesnt this have to pass some sort of editorial standards first? Have they no integrity in what they print? What is this article supposed to achieve?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

InFront

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

really? where did you read that?

mike65

Is this the article? Off unison.ie

Why terrorism still won . . .

THANK God for the media and for the artistic community. Because if it weren't for them you might imagine that Islam is in the dock this weekend and not Israel.

However, thanks to them, we know that this religion, whose fundamental principles will only be satisfied when its followers have wiped out Western civilisation, is not the problem this weekend; the problem is, in fact, the Jews and the only real democracy in the Middle East.

Richard Crowley and Aoife Kavanagh continued their Bob Fisk and Lara Marlowe routine on RTE last week about Israel, and further, before I started taking my news from the BBC midweek, I was nearly starting to believe that the real issue in Britain last week was the worry that the security forces might have been wrong about the 'alleged' terrorist plot they uncovered. It seems that some sections of the media would rather we risked another 9/11 rather than risk wrongfully locking up some mad Muslim fundamentalists.

And have we heard the so-called moderate Muslims weighing in to condemn their brethren? More likely you heard them blaming George Bush's and Tony Blair's foreign policy for Muslim atrocities. More likely you heard Muslims whingeing about being the real victims last week.

The shameful response of the Muslim community at large to last week's events would almost make you think the Festival of World Cultures in Dun Laoghaire should cancel the event it has organised around the Irish Muslim Cultural Centre, in case of protests by right-thinking Irish people. But that would be against the free-speech ethos of the arts, and also cowardly, wouldn't it?

So instead it was busy cancelling sponsorship of two Israeli musicians by the Israeli embassy in case that might lead to a disturbance or protests.

Hundreds of deaths may have been averted last week in Britain but terrorism still won. As foreign travel increasingly becomes more trouble than it's worth, as mothers with babies find they cannot bring milk for their baby on planes, as people on long-haul flights find they cannot bring a book to read, as many people become too scared to travel on planes, as the progress and the benefits of the modern world are wiped out in all sorts of small ways by these lunatics, remember what the artists, the media and the intellectuals told you: that somehow all of this is not the fault of suicidal medieval nutters but of the forces of freedom, modernity, democracy and progress. Madness.

Mike.

Hobbes

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I wouldn't call that a condition at all. It would be pointing out the obvious that these attacks aren't because people are muslim or "hate our freedoms" but because of clear actions taken out by certain countries.

You can't start a war in one country and never expect it to come back to your own.

lostexpectation

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

lets play which religion is more discrimnatory game shall we?

western democracy and freedon are illusions, I always ask is there arab/islamic version of true democracy?

Jackie laughlin

Religions and their leaders tend to have simplistic views and want to impose themselves by denying democratic freedoms. We've only very recently and partially seen off Catholic power in this country. Muslims in Ireland generally want to recognise that they live in a western democracy but they would prefer if we converted to Islam and had a theocratic state with Sharia law. It is as simple as it ever was, they have to be beaten by persuasive argument and democratic structures. This will include an absolute refusal to accept nonsensical attempts to redefine equality as is attempted above.

The survaval of the liberal western state means seeing off its enemies but only democratic means can be used or we've already lost our raison d'etre.

Schuhart

Hobbes wrote:

It would be pointing out the obvious that these attacks aren't because people are muslim or "hate our freedoms"

That much is right. Irish people should have a particular understanding that terrorism is the political equivalent of stalking, and of the way that terrorists broadcast a cartoon book version of a community's outlook.

Hobbes wrote:

You can't start a war in one country and never expect it to come back to your own.

I don't think this captures anything like the full reality of whatever motivates a UK citizen of Pakistani descent to become a suicide bomber while claiming Iraq as a motivation.

Húrin

lostexpectation wrote:

western democracy and freedon are illusions

How are they?

No, there aren't any Middle Eastern democracies, other than Israel and Turkey.

AngryBadger

H&#250 wrote: »

How are they?

No, there aren't any Middle Eastern democracies, other than Israel and Turkey.

Which are backed by America, and Europe respectively

lostexpectation

H&#250 wrote: »

How are they?

No, there aren't any Middle Eastern democracies, other than Israel and Turkey.

wow both great exmaples of 'democracies'


where is there own version of it? not ours

Tim Robbins

Tim Robbins wrote:

Hi,
On the front page on the Sunday Independent (13/08/06), Brendan O'Connor states:

'this religion, (Islam) whose fundamental principles
will only be satisfied when its followers have wiped
out Western Civilisation'.

What a disgraceful, ignorant and bigoted statement.

Actually I don't see how its either Ignorant or bigoted.

The religion of Islam has on many occasions implemented holy war against peoples that it considered unbelievers, and that anyone not of their faith were enemies. Two major invasions of Europe we started with the belief of spreading the world of the true faith to the unfaithful. That would pretty much include Western Civilisation, since for the most part we either resist religion entirely or lean towards other religions rather than Islam.

As for bigoted, I can't see it as being any different to the cartoons following the Lebanon crisis, which regularly showed Israel and Nazi symbols. There seems to be a double face to this. Islam can't be criticised, but other religions including catholicism can. We had a huge uproar about some cartoons about Islam or Muhammad but we regularly see such cartoons about other religions.

Simply put, I'd actually agree with him on this. History has shown an intention to forcibly spread its religion, and its own priests within the M.east have repeatedly spoken in extreme fashion regarding the west. We also have Islamic Terrorists who believe they're doing Allah's/God's will by attacking the west, without any condemnation from their church.

Nah. Actually I consider your quote quite tame in comparison to some of the quotes I've seen coming out of Iran and other muslim factions.

the_new_mr

I am completely AMAZED that people like Brendan O'Connor actually find an audience but I guess it's down to ignorance mainly.

klaz, I have no intention of starting a full debate on the subject but may I just say that you have a few things quite badly misunderstood. The idea that Islam was spread by the sword is completely false. Indeed, it completely goes against the Quran.

Al-Baqara:256
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things."

So nobody could ever be forced to be Muslim.

The idea that Islam will "only be when its followers have wiped out Western Civilisation" is complete and utter nonsense and has absolutely no grounds whatsoever in any religious text in Islam.

To try and help eradicate this ignorance, some links on the subject:
Misconceptions on Islam: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html

General information on Islam:
http://islamonline.net/English/Discover_Islam/index.shtml

Jackie laughlin

The nit picking of interpretation is tiresome at this stage. The PR woman from the Clonskeagh mosque said that sharia law should apply where there is a muslim majority. Such thoughts are beyond the pale of civilisation. The Channel 4 survey of last week found extraordinary levels of support for 9/11 and the London attacks among ordinary muslims. Apart from views on terrorism, it is now apparent that Muslims no longer integrate in the west as did the previous generations. Many of their attitudes resemble Catholicism in the 50s: the position of women ("equal but differen"!!) homosexuality, time off to pray etc. All this must be defeated by the open society. This nonsense about respect for religion and not insulting the prophet is just trying to re-introduce blasphemy laws. Like Christians who hold such values, Muslims should be told where to get off!

InFront

Earlier posted by Deleted User
Its easy to understand really. Look at Irish people for instance. Many Irish people after a few drinks, along with a conversation about Britain occupying ireland, will get quite aggressive about it. The North hasn't settled its anger/hatred, but what about people here in the South? What reason have the people that go loopy about Ireland being a colony for 700 years?

It amounts to the same, except that the Arabs have had more countries dip into their territory. The crusades, later colonial progess into their own nations, trade disputes etc. The "west" (a phrase I think is what curses us as being the same boat) has done all of things, and now that they're over we expect them to move on.

Its not reasonable to expect them to forget the influence that Western Nations have had on their past economically, military or otherwise.

This isn't an excuse for terrorism. However, you can understand that there would be some bad feeling especially considering the UN ineffectual handling of the area, US meddling, Israel's existance, and the amount of western companies that have gone in over the decades.

Vs

Deleted User wrote:

The religion of Islam has on many occasions implemented holy war against peoples that it considered unbelievers, and that anyone not of their faith were enemies. Two major invasions of Europe we started with the belief of spreading the world of the true faith to the unfaithful. That would pretty much include Western Civilisation, since for the most part we either resist religion entirely or lean towards other religions rather than Islam.

As for bigoted, I can't see it as being any different to the cartoons following the Lebanon crisis, which regularly showed Israel and Nazi symbols. There seems to be a double face to this. Islam can't be criticised, but other religions including catholicism can. We had a huge uproar about some cartoons about Islam or Muhammad but we regularly see such cartoons about other religions.

Simply put, I'd actually agree with him on this. History has shown an intention to forcibly spread its religion, and its own priests within the M.east have repeatedly spoken in extreme fashion regarding the west. We also have Islamic Terrorists who believe they're doing Allah's/God's will by attacking the west, without any condemnation from their church.

It's quite funny to think both posts were written within 25 minutes of one another. You seem to have posted in politics referring to all of this being caused by an understandable reactionism to western foreign policy, and then came in here and put terrorism down to a violent crusade of Islam due to all its inherent evils.
You did the same later in that politics thread.

Klaz, if the contrast wasnt so laughable it would be very annoying. Were you watching FOX news in the interval or something?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

The religion of Islam has on many occasions implemented holy war against peoples that it considered unbelievers, and that anyone not of their faith were enemies.

Er, so has Christianity, a lot more times.

Yet we live in a Catholic country and we have rights for homosexuals and women. How does that work?

Does that mean Catholicism is causing a liberal secular shift? Hell no, catholicism has fought such a shift every step of the way. Yet it happened anyway, despite cries of "we are all doomed" from the Catholic right (remember the abortion referendum).

The truth is that there is nothing more fundamentalist in Islam that there is in Christianity. The liberal secular movements have happened despite of Christianity, not because of it.

And the same thing can happen with Islam.

Instead of attacking Islam and galvanising fundamentalist feeling people should continue to focus on the goal, a secular liberal society and legal system.

Deleted User wrote:

Islam can't be criticised, but other religions including catholicism can.

If someone stood up and said "those jews are all the same, mass murders the lot!" you can bet your bottom dollar their would be a lot of objections. No one would be saying "ah he has a right to call the Jewish religion one of violence and destructution, sure didn't they kill Jesus."

Equally criticising the entire Muslim faith for the actions of a tiny tiny minority is just as distastful and ignorant. The Israeli government does not speak for all Jews, and the Muslim terrorists do not speak for all Muslims.

Deleted User wrote:

We also have Islamic Terrorists who believe they're doing Allah's/God's will by attacking the west, without any condemnation from their church.

The 9/11 attacks were condemned by every major Muslim church and political wing in America, Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Austrialia.

In Iran people took to the streets with candles and olive branches on the 18th September. The main Iranian soccer stadium observed a 1 minute silence for those killed in the attacks.

The Ayatollah of Iran called on all Muslims to condemn the 9/11 attacks, stating they were acts against God.

In Palestine two vigiles where held, on the 12th and 14th. 1 million Palestinian students held a 5 minute silence for the children killed or orphaned by the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm
http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm

Jackie laughlin

Of course Muslims are not terrorists. However Islam will have to be defeated just like Catholicism was beaten. The goal of a tolerant, liberal, secular society means conflict with Islam. There's no nice, easy polite way to do this.

pretty*monster

Wicknight wrote:

Yet we live in a Catholic country and we have rights for homosexuals and women. How does that work?

Ordinary people fought tooth and nail against the influence of the Catholic church and rejected outright it's long guarded power to interfere with the lives of believers and non-believers a like.

I have no problem with whatever Muslims want to believe in, but like the Catholic Church of yore (and tbh, the Catholic Church of today) a worrying amount of Muslims think that what is right for them is what's right for everyone. A third of British Muslims would rather live under Sharia law than under British law. That's a terrifying statistic, and one we should be mindful.

If we value democracy, freedom etc., we need to be aware that religion, any religion, can be a threat to it, when a group feels that it has the monopoly on what is right it needs to be clear that that group cannot decide for the rest of us (rationally of course, there's no need for hysteria and scare mongering). And we absolutely need to be free to criticise Islam.

Schuhart

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Of course Muslims are not terrorists. However Islam will have to be defeated just like Catholicism was beaten. The goal of a tolerant, liberal, secular society means conflict with Islam. There's no nice, easy polite way to do this.

I think you are largely correct here, and the parallels with our experience with Catholicism are relevant. It is important to be mindful that Islam is not some virus from outer space, and its subscribers are not martyr bound fanatics. Its just another religion that believes itself to be the one true faith.

IT Loser

Deleted User wrote:

Actually I don't see how its either Ignorant or bigoted.

The religion of Islam has on many occasions implemented holy war against peoples that it considered unbelievers, and that anyone not of their faith were enemies. Two major invasions of Europe we started with the belief of spreading the world of the true faith to the unfaithful. That would pretty much include Western Civilisation, since for the most part we either resist religion entirely or lean towards other religions rather than Islam.

As for bigoted, I can't see it as being any different to the cartoons following the Lebanon crisis, which regularly showed Israel and Nazi symbols. There seems to be a double face to this. Islam can't be criticised, but other religions including catholicism can. We had a huge uproar about some cartoons about Islam or Muhammad but we regularly see such cartoons about other religions.

Simply put, I'd actually agree with him on this. History has shown an intention to forcibly spread its religion, and its own priests within the M.east have repeatedly spoken in extreme fashion regarding the west. We also have Islamic Terrorists who believe they're doing Allah's/God's will by attacking the west, without any condemnation from their church.

Nah. Actually I consider your quote quite tame in comparison to some of the quotes I've seen coming out of Iran and other muslim factions.

Islam tried to bring fledgling Christian Europe under its control as early as 732 AD, but its armies were smashed by the disciplined infantry of Charles Martel {Karl Martel} at Tours, in France. The Muslims limped back over the Pyrenees and into Spain, where the Christian Kingdom of Asturias began to expand against Islam, south to Toledo, before the decisive battle of Las Novas De Tolosa, in 1215 AD, where Islamic power in the Iberian Peninsula was broken once and for all.

GreenDoor

Tim Robbins wrote:

Hi,
On the front page on the Sunday Independent (13/08/06), Brendan O'Connor states:

'this religion, (Islam) whose fundamental principles
will only be satisfied when its followers have wiped
out Western Civilisation'.

What a disgraceful, ignorant and bigoted statement.

Here we go again. Whenever somebody has a different view they are labeled as bigoted, nazi, homophobe etc etc.

Zombrex

GreenDoor wrote:

Here we go again. Whenever somebody has a different view they are labeled as bigoted, nazi, homophobe etc etc.

It was labelled disgraceful and ignorant, because thats what it is

You think just because the idea is "different" is it some how automatically a worthy idea? Does that hold for fundamentalist Islam too?

exiztone

GreenDoor wrote:

Here we go again. Whenever somebody has a different view they are labeled as bigoted, nazi, homophobe etc etc.

Stereotyping is ignorant. Generalising an entire peoples negatively is bigoted. Brendan O'Connor may have a different view, but he's still those two things.

sceptre

GreenDoor wrote:

Here we go again. Whenever somebody has a different view they are labeled as bigoted, nazi, homophobe etc etc.

I'm not the greatest fan of Islam or any other religion but Brendan O'Connor obviously isn't aware of the fundamental principles of Islam if he managed to throw that comment into that tawdry little rag. Either that or he's become a Kharijite himself and believes in their view of a sixth pillar of Islam. In which case he'd be part of the jihad himself. Circular reasoning but it's more than he came up with as it's at least based on logic.

IT Loser

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Of course Muslims are not terrorists. However Islam will have to be defeated just like Catholicism was beaten. The goal of a tolerant, liberal, secular society means conflict with Islam. There's no nice, easy polite way to do this.

We can make it easy, but it won't be polite. Also, Catholicism was never beaten. At best a certain aspect of its Church was rendered {rightly so} less important. It is Roman Catholics who will form the Vanguard of the Armies {military, jurisprudential, journalistic, etc} that will Ultimately beat militant Islam and her Christian whore mercenaries.

And thou shalt come from thy place out of the uttermost parts of the north, thou, and many peoples with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company and a mighty army;



Ezekiel 38:15

Sand

We can make it easy, but it won't be polite. Also, Catholicism was never beaten. At best a certain aspect of its Church was rendered {rightly so} less important. It is Roman Catholics who will form the Vanguard of the Armies {military, jurisprudential, journalistic, etc} that will Ultimately beat militant Islam and her Christian whore mercenaries.

And thou shalt come from thy place out of the uttermost parts of the north, thou, and many peoples with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company and a mighty army;



Ezekiel 38:15

That might imply some sort of competition between Roman Catholicism and Islam for title of undisputed free speech strangling moral oppressor in Ireland. Most people would settle for neither.

The only difference between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism is that weve had 1700 or so years of Christian fundamentalism and are heartily sick of it. Weve not had 1700 years of Islamic fundamentalism. Yet. Mind you, neither have Muslims. 1300 or so at most. Eventually, every religious leadership overplays it hand and gets burnt.

Sgt. Sensible

Sand wrote:

The only difference between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism is that weve had 1700 or so years of Christian fundamentalism and are heartily sick of it.

Over 90% of Irish schools are run by the catholic church and there is no apparent public demand to change this situation so that suggests to me that you're sadly mistaken.

Brendan O'Connor is the Sindo's newish Mary Ellen Synon and muslims strike me as being the new jews, a handy religious minority to demonise. dehumanise and accuse of plotting world domination; the difference being that they were the good guys until very recently.

Nevyn

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Over 90% of Irish schools are run by the catholic church and there is no apparent public demand to change this situation so that suggests to me that you're sadly mistaken..

Really ?
is that why the number of multidenominational educate together schools in on the rise ?
making them currently the first preference for new primary schools anywhere in the country.
http://www.educatetogether.ie/5_schools/listofschools.html

RedPlanet

I am disgusted by these constant attacks on Islam.
There seems to be an agenda of certain folks, powers-that-be and media whores to criminalize an entire religion.
Personally i think there are racist undertones and motives to this.

It is obviously ludicrious to claim that one religion seeks to destroy all "non-believers" without even providing a passage from that religion to even make the argument.

The reason that some muslims are seen to be reacting to things in excess is because we are in the midst of very aggravating times. ONe in which they feel their religion is under attack, their co-religionists marginalised, criminalised and killed, their countries invaded.

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

Er, so has Christianity, a lot more times.

Any evidence for that claim?

MM

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote:

Any evidence for that claim?

MM

Yeah, a history book ...

Take for example the religious wars in Europe from 1525 until 1648. That is nearly a 100 year period of pretty much sustained sectarian war thoughout most of Europe.

Sand

Over 90% of Irish schools are run by the catholic church and there is no apparent public demand to change this situation so that suggests to me that you're sadly mistaken.

Thats merely the existing situtation, a relic of the once practically unchallenged power of the Catholic heirarchy in this country. As Thaed noted, its not the way the tide is flowing. Either way, who cares? Catholic fundamentalism is on the retreat and is beaten, regardless of some school stats. Very few would trust their kid with a priest out of their sight these days, and thats a damning indictment of the position of the church. How the mighty have fallen.

Irish governments assumed the submissive position to the Catholic fundamentalists for too long. The same mistake does not need to be made with Islamic fundamentalism.

It is obviously ludicrious to claim that one religion seeks to destroy all "non-believers" without even providing a passage from that religion to even make the argument.

What difference would it make to find a passage from a 8th century document which was written in a time of rapid, expansionary wars against "non-believers"? It wouldnt be excessively difficult but you could just as easily find as bad, if not worse in Christian, Jewish or a whole host of other religious texts. Its a non-issue.

The reason that some muslims are seen to be reacting to things in excess is because we are in the midst of very aggravating times. ONe in which they feel their religion is under attack, their co-religionists marginalised, criminalised and killed, their countries invaded.

Right, so those muslims that "are seen to be reacting to things in excess" are victims, free from responsibility for their actions? They are not in fact, individuals with their own views and philosophies? Simply shadows of western ideas and actions?

Schuhart

RedPlanet wrote:

Personally i think there are racist undertones and motives to this.

have no doubt that the main interest of some people in this agenda is racially based. That said, Islam is a religion, not a race and I think it is features of the religion that interest a number of us.

There are really two stories mixed up here. One is the simple fact that there are extremists out there who use Islam as their ideological basis. The equivalence to the Irish experience would be relevant here – there simply are militant Republicans who have no problem in using violence, and people around them who enjoy basking in the light of that glamour. The case of Robert McCartney suggests that part of our life is not over. But clearly it doesn’t mean that each and every Irish person is a terrorist or fellow traveller.

Similarly, the fact that some terrorists choose to use a comic book view of their religion’s place in the world as their inspiration does not suggest that the wider community has any interest. However, undoubtedly some will find the violence and sense of power attractive and others will even allow some of the comic book view of the world to enter their thinking to an extent. None of this process should be strange to Irish people, and we should have a ready picture at the same time of how many European Muslims probably just don’t give a damn whether, say, Pakistan dismantles its religiously inspired laws any more than Italian Catholics would fundamentally give a damn over how we regulate abortion.

The other aspect is simply Islam as a religion, and its place within our own society – which relates to, on the one hand, some Muslims suggesting that their faith needs special treatment and, on the other hand, some of us responding that Islam just needs to get used to the idea that the provenance of religion is the area of personal morality, and they cannot expect the state to venerate their beliefs any more than it venerates any other religion.

There is some overlap between the two issues, but, as I see it, the second issue is really the crucial one. Islam will and is finding its interaction with Western society raises questions about its doctrines and beliefs that simply cannot be ignored. This can only provoke alarm among its religious establishment, as ‘Westernisation’ is very much a challenge to their status and position in the community as it allows discussion of issues that they would not wish to be explored. In this agenda, calls made for censorship on grounds of respect may actually be nothing more than a self-defence mechanism to protect the faithful from any ideas that might lead them astray. Again, the parallels would be to the heavy censorship imposed in Ireland to keep people clinging to their Catholic faith out of fear and ignorance.

There is an agenda relating to Islam that deserves attention and debate with Muslims. Any attempt by some to use this as an opportunity to have a go at people with a darker skin tone should be revealed for what it is.

RedPlanet

Sand wrote:

What difference would it make to find a passage from a 8th century document which was written in a time of rapid, expansionary wars against "non-believers"?

It would at a minimum, provide the basis for an argument.

Sand wrote:

Right, so those muslims that "are seen to be reacting to things in excess" are victims, free from responsibility for their actions?

Puleeze:rolleyes:

Schuhart wrote:

Any attempt by some to use this as an opportunity to have a go at people with a darker skin tone should be revealed for what it is.

Absolutely. But it's usually more covert than that. For example, it seems rather commonplace that folks in "the Western World" believe they know what's best for people in Iraq, how Iraq should be governed, if a sovereign nation should practise Sharia law, that a sovereign nation should always be a "western-styled secular democracy" etc, etc. And i personally believe there is a tinge of racism in there, if not racism than some kind of "my culture is superior" attitude that i find off-putting. And i suspect, muslims in far away countries find intolerable.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

RedPlanet

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I'm not surprised by your views tbh.
It's exactly the sort of arrogance i was talking about.
BTW which countries do you feel have superior cultures to our/yours?
And, out of curiosity: which way would you rather the US execute people?

I don't understand why you would have it (apparently) that peoples in far flung regions of the world cannot exericise self determination particularly in leiu of their internal affairs.
I would rather countries were not exporters of their doctrines, whether that be exporting Sharia Law or "Democracy". Unfortunately certain international personalities don't agree thus they wage war, ratchet-up tensions between peoples in different countries/cultures/religions and make life uneasy for the rest of us.

Your Thailand and Child Prostitution question is a straw-man.
The Convention of the Rights of the Child has been signed and ratified by just about every member nation of the UN, bar Somalia and the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_rights_of_the_child

I think, if you substitute the United States for Thailand in your sentence, you'd find the answer.
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000021.asp

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

Yeah, a history book ...

Take for example the religious wars in Europe from 1525 until 1648. That is nearly a 100 year period of pretty much sustained sectarian war thoughout most of Europe.

There was pretty much sustained intra islamic warfare at that time as well. I suggest you buy a new book.

MM

mountainyman

RedPlanet wrote:

I don't understand why you would have it (apparently) that peoples in far flung regions of the world cannot exericise self determination particularly in leiu of their internal affairs.

There is no 'self determination' under sharia or Chinese Communism. The phrase 'in leiu of their internal affairs' is baffling.

RedPlanet wrote:

I would rather countries were not exporters of their doctrines, whether that be exporting Sharia Law or "Democracy". Unfortunately certain international personalities don't agree thus they wage war, ratchet-up tensions between peoples in different countries/cultures/religions and make life uneasy for the rest of us.

Oh now I see it is all about how you can be protected from unease.

RedPlanet wrote:

The Convention of the Rights of the Child has been signed and ratified by just about every member nation of the UN, bar Somalia and the United States[/B

It costs elites nothing to sign treaties that go unenforced.

MM

RedPlanet

mountainyman wrote:

There is no 'self determination' under sharia or Chinese Communism. The phrase 'in leiu of their internal affairs' is baffling.

You seem to interpret "self determination" as western-styled freedom or even "democracy". When in fact the phrase is predicated on neither.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_determination
I particularly opt for John Stuart Mill's definition from "On Liberty" in which he states that: "political communities are entitled collectively to determine their own affairs. In his work he argues that states should be seen as self-determining communities even if their internal political arrangements are not free, self-determination and political freedom are not equivalent terms."

RedPlanet

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You said:

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

So i thought you were talking about the WAY they execute people in the US.
I thought you might have meant that you were against the death penalty but that wasn't clear and so i chose not to assume that.

daveirl wrote:

Because I believe plenty of things are wrong. -snip- Why do you believe I have to ignore it.

Because i believe in Non-Intervention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Intervention
You don't have to ignore it, but be prepared then the opposites' reaction against your intervention. (ie: Going to war to remove an "evil dictator" thereby attracting a warlike response from those opposed to that move)
Ireland as we all know, has a despicable alcohol problem. It's evident everywhere you look, it is institutionalised. Ireland isn't dealing with this problem but it nevertheless effects everyone of us, even children.
Some islamic countries don't have this problem, are you prepared to accept their intervention?
Are they allowed protect us from Sin and self-harm?

daveirl wrote:

Saying they are against it because they signed a UN Convention isn't enough.

Agreed. By signing up to internation conventions they've given international institutions a say. I suspect the correct way to address these shortcomings lies with those very international institutions, or would you prefer [insert country/coalition of choice] to sort it out?

Sand

It would at a minimum, provide the basis for an argument.

The wrong argument. Its not an issue that religions can and have been used to justify violence. Its more a concern whether theyre being used to justify violence today and whether that justification is being challenged.

Puleeze

Glad you cleared that up, the litany of excuses for the excessive reactions -which some might simply call terrorism - gave me the wrong impression clearly.

BTW which countries do you feel have superior cultures to our/yours?

Defend this if you like. Even in the worst days of the magdalene launderies 16 year old girls were not hung from construction cranes in town squares. Really, is freedom "just the same" or "just as bad" as no freedom?

"political communities are entitled collectively to determine their own affairs. In his work he argues that states should be seen as self-determining communities even if their internal political arrangements are not free, self-determination and political freedom are not equivalent terms."

Given the approving tone Red, Im guessing you feel the rights of governments, elites and the status quo should come before the rights of the individual? Consistent with collectivist thought Id imagine.

Because i believe in Non-Intervention.

We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

Are they allowed protect us from Sin and self-harm?

Ireland as we all know, has a despicable alcohol problem. It's evident everywhere you look, it is institutionalised. Ireland isn't dealing with this problem but it nevertheless effects everyone of us, even children.
Some islamic countries don't have this problem, are you prepared to accept their intervention?
Are they allowed protect us from Sin and self-harm?

Our government actually does deal with this problem, as directed by their politically free electorate. Note, OUR government. The Kurds and Shias of Saddams Iraq could never claim his government was THEIR government. But as you noted, self determination isnt the same a political freedom to determine your government.

Agreed. By signing up to internation conventions they've given international institutions a say. I suspect the correct way to address these shortcomings lies with those very international institutions, or would you prefer [insert country/coalition of choice] to sort it out?

And if the international institutions are run and influenced by the worst offenders? Would you entrust Zimbabwes government with the responsibility for ensuring governments do not repress political freedoms?

Would you class Sudan as being a better place for a child to grow up than the US as Sudan has signed a Convention on child rights and the US hasnt?

RedPlanet

Sand wrote:

Im guessing you feel the rights of governments, elites and the status quo should come before the rights of the individual?

tbh i can't think of a single form of government that doesn't.

Sand wrote:

Our government actually does deal with this problem, as directed by their politically free electorate. Note, OUR government. The Kurds and Shias of Saddams Iraq could never claim his government was THEIR government. But as you noted, self determination isnt the same a political freedom to determine your government.

I disagree with your first sentence.
Your second sentence seems uninformed.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/religion-shia-sunni.htm
Insofar as the Kurds however, i think they've had varying levels of representation in Iraq. They i think, got the short-end of the stick when Britain drew up boundaries. A sovereign nation has the right make war to maintain it's territorial integrity however. Fair play to the Kurds for trying to assert themselves via insurrection.

Sand wrote:

And if the international institutions are run and influenced by the worst offenders?

Well, if a nation signs onto such an arrangement then yes, they should see it through.

Sand wrote:

Would you class Sudan as being a better place for a child to grow up than the US as Sudan has signed a Convention on child rights and the US hasnt?

No, but then again i'm from "the Western World", i speak English and have been influenced by Western ideologies. I suspect that if I were born and raised in Pakistan and held Islamic beliefs, i might take Sudan.
Go figure.

Sand

tbh i can't think of a single form of government that doesn't.

Answer the question, or dont. Dont waste time with silly distractions.

I disagree with your first sentence.

Given you go on to argue that Iraqs shia population were free, then Im at a loss to understand how you would have a basis to believe Irelands population is not free. Bin charges getting you down?

Your second sentence seems uninformed.

I guess I imagined the Shia revolt in 1991 that was put down with customary savagery by Saddam? The Shias miscalculated that Saddam was now weak enough to be overthrown, and that the US would help them. They were wrong on both counts.

Its probably just a coincidence as well that the Shias and Kurds were protected by No Fly Zones from "their" own government. Or that Shia religious celebrations and pilgrimages were forbidden.

Well, if a nation signs onto such an arrangement then yes, they should see it through.

So if Burma is deciding human rights requirements, then Sweden should adopt the resulting human rights requirements? Far better to adopt Burmas human rights standards than engage in dangerous unilateralism...

No, but then again i'm from "the Western World", i speak English and have been influenced by Western ideologies. I suspect that if I were born and raised in Pakistan and held Islamic beliefs, i might take Sudan.
Go figure.

Glad youve reversed your view that signing a piece of paper with some aspirational target is better than actually having achieved concrete advances in childrens rights and welfare.

And its nothing to do with culture. As immigration to the US demonstrates, and emmigration from Sudan demonstrates.Sudan has a literacy level of 59% [US is 99.9% literate], 63 Children out of every 1,000 die before age 1 [Only 7 in the US], 91 out of every 1000 die before age 5 [Only 8 in the US]. Primary education attendance is 53% [92% in the US]. Thats only the highlights. Children do worse in every single way in Sudan than they do in the US. And theyre even average figures, without highlighting the sort of disadvantage a female child faces in Sudan as compared to a female child in the US where the differences in quality of life would be even starker.

This is even before we mention that children in Darfur are being murdered by their own government in a deliberately organised pogrom. Yep, I guess because Sudan signed some Convention on the childrens rights it must be a much better place to be a kid...

RedPlanet

Sand wrote:

Given you go on to argue that Iraqs shia population were free..

Whatever ARE you talking about Sand. I never said that Shia, Kurd nor indeed Sunni were "free".
You claimed that the Shias in Iraq couldn't claim Iraq under Saddam as "their" government, but infact i've provided a link that demonstrates the representation the Shia's enjoyed under Saddam. In fact "representative" is the very word globalsecurity used in describing Sunni/Shia relations.

Shias were represented at all levels of the party roughly in proportion to government estimates of their numbers in the population. For example, of the eight top Iraqi leaders who in early 1988 sat with Husayn on the Revolutionary Command Council--Iraq's highest governing body-- three were Arab Shias (of whom one had served as Minister of Interior), three were Arab Sunnis, one was an Arab Christian, and one a Kurd.

Now it's possible there were antagonisms present, that ultimately led to the (USA-incited) revolt after Gulfwar1, however by and large i would say that Shia's then and now identify with Iraq, as a nation-state regardless of whom governs it.
I don't see Shia's agitating for independence.
People can revolt, a government has the right to put down the revolt.
It's happened time and time again throughout history.
C'mon Sand, there are loads of American's that hate GWB. That doesn't mean America is not "their government". Half of American's don't vote, does that mean the US government is not "their government"? Of course it doesn't.
Remember, a nation does not have to be a "democracy" to have validity, to be a member of the UN.
Cuba is a good example. Cuba is not considered "a democracy"; however i don't believe anybody can legitimately claim that Fidel Castro does not have the consent of the Cuban people to govern. Consent isn't something requiring ballots, it is hearts and minds.

There are those that govern, there are those that consent to be governed.

Sand wrote:

So if Burma is deciding human rights requirements, then Sweden..

What i was trying to say, that if a country takes membership with the UN, signs onto such and such treaties, then they should see it through. They should honor those treaty's they've agreed to. If the UN General Assembly elects Burma to head the Human Rights Commission, then so be it. Are you arguing that USA should have the right to exclude itself from the agreements they've signed because they don't approve of whom the UN has elected?
I say, eject that country from the UN in that case.
That would like the Democrats in USA refusing to take part in governing because they don't like the result of the last election.
I have no idea what you're onabout with that Burma/Sweden scenario, it's baffling.

Sand wrote:

Glad youve reversed your view that signing a piece of paper with some aspirational target is better than actually having achieved concrete advances in childrens rights and welfare.
And its nothing to do with culture. As immigration to the US demonstrates, and emmigration from Sudan demonstrates..

Who's providing silly distractions?
I've done nothing of the sort.
I am making a point of the relativty of virtues.
(Edited for spelling)