Denmark warns of new cartoon crisis with Muslims

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Pretty much all of them. A minority actively undermining, the bigger rest silently cheering. If the majority would openly disagree and side up with our constitution and values of freedom, we wouldn't have such problems.

I don't know how the cartoon crisis was in Germany, but it created almost no anti-democratic behaviour in France.
Over here, the Muslim organizations expressed their outrage in the press, on their websites and in the mosques, in a fashion very similar to the catholics' when they're mocked.

IIRC, in Europe, the only virulent protests occured in the UK, and they had only a few hundreds of people.

OTOH, there were embassies under attack in the Middle East, where people don't care for our constitution, and where the illegitimate governments were only too happy to use this excuse against the big bad crusaders.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Clearly. All of them.

Yes . All of them . Those who don't , aren't .

[Harovan]

It's not only the cartoons. Remember the pope's unfortunate cite. Same thing. The process of undermining of our freedoms is underway on a lower level. And our idiot politicians do nothing.

I don't know if you are familiar with the cancelling of the Mozart opera "Idomeneo" in the Deutsche Oper in Berlin. The intendant cancelled the opera not because it was bad, but fearing muslim outrage. Appeasement? Oui. Even though you can't really blame the intendant. If there had been really a terror attack, she would have been deemed guilty. Understandable in the light of daily news (it was during the outrage over the pope's cite).

Or are you familiar with the decision of one town in Germany (forgot the name, I'm at work) to put a German flag and a picture of president Köhler in a kindergarten, along with introducing German language as mandantory for all children. The latter had the purpose to grant these children equal chances in school, and hence was only for their best. Now I am not exactly a fan of flag waving, but I don't see how this would harm anyone. Of course some, mainly with immigrant background (not only muslim, but mainly), complained vehemently. Now I got to ask... You don't want to speak our language. You don't recognize our president and our flag. Why the hell did you come here?

These are only 2 of many news of the past weeks.

Our freedoms are melting, step by step, drop by drop. If we are not wary. If we try to be overly political correct.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Yes . All of them . Those who don't , aren't .

It's good to see someone who finally manages to universally define what a Muslim should be. It's been around 1400 years since the last successful attempt

[Cort Haus]

I heard about that opera. We're already at the stage where the authorities are doing the work of the radicals for them.

[Az]

Sir Ralph is a bigot and a racist for not wanting to live in a 3rd world ****hole. Why are you so close-minded, Sir Ralph?

[Kuciwalker]

Muslims can go **** themselves if they want to act like little children.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Az
Sir Ralph is a bigot and a racist for not wanting to live in a 3rd world ****hole. Why are you so close-minded, Sir Ralph?

I'm ashamed of myself.

Germanistan!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
It's not only the cartoons. Remember the pope's unfortunate cite. Same thing. The process of undermining of our freedoms is underway on a lower level. And our idiot politicians do nothing.

I agree with that statement. And actually, there's much truth to VJ's statement: a significant amount of Muslims want to curb our freedom of speech when it comes to Islam. Many of them also want to have laws that mirror their religion, such as "women's days" in the swimming pool. For the time being, it is impossible to evaluate how numerous these people are, and their influence varies from country to country.

To me, however, this is not an "us versus them" situation. Among western Muslims, there is a debate about the relationship between earthly law and religion. Just like there was a debate in the 19th and 20th century among Christians, back when the separation of Church and State was a hot topic*.

The separation of Church and State is a political issue. It currently only concerns the European Muslims, but that's because they're most numerous among our permanent immigrants, and they come from a culture where this separation doesn't exist.

I'm not saying the problem isn't real. It is real: the secularization of society was a tough and tedious issue, that we hoped was dealt with. And we have to deal with it once again, we have to face religious bigotry and calls for theocracy once again

However, I insist that this is not an "us vs them" problem. Muslims are individuals too, who can have different political views, who can have differences in religious doctrine (actually, there's more variation within Islam than within Catholicism). If we want our freedoms to be victorious, we should make people love them. We should NOT antagonize all Muslims, by believing (and expressing) that they're all inherently anti-freedom.


*I'd say that the topic is becoming hot again in the US, yet both sides are overwhelmingly made of Christians.

[SpencerH]

The irony is that "The Passion of the Christ" was banned in many/most moslem countries for exactly the same reasons as they are opposed to the cartoons. Something that the christian zealots (at least here) seem to have overlooked.

I'm not trying to be condescending but what's interesting to me about the responses on this thread is what appears to be the beginnings of a change in (lefty) european sentiments with respect to Islamic totalitarianism.

[Az]

However, I insist that this is not an "us vs them" problem. Muslims are individuals too, who can have different political views, who can have differences in religious doctrine (actually, there's more variation within Islam than within Catholicism). If we want our freedoms to be victorious, we should make people love them. We should NOT antagonize all Muslims, by believing (and expressing) that they're all inherently anti-freedom.

nobody is inherently anything. What is rather obvious is that a debate isn't a thing that will stop the significant number of fundamentalists ( per definition ), and that the average person teaches their children values that are not simply "anti-western", but are anti-humanist. What is clear is that there is no obligation on the west to accept such people, and to "make them love these values", especially since the people of power in these cultures have no objective reasons to love these values: They are strive to eliminate natural points of didcate in society.

[Cort Haus]

The sooner genuine secular Islamic leaderships emerge in western countries, the better. At the moment we keep hearing from groups described as 'moderate', whose utterances sound anything but.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Az
Sir Ralph is a bigot and a racist for not wanting to live in a 3rd world ****hole. Why are you so close-minded, Sir Ralph?

Frater Ralphus

That's a CivIII PTWDGI reference, for all you OT-only folks.

-Arrian

[Az]

the sooner genuine secular Islamic leaderships

oxymoron?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Az
nobody is inherently anything. What is rather obvious is that a debate isn't a thing that will stop the significant number of fundamentalists ( per definition ), and that the average person teaches their children values that are not simply "anti-western", but are anti-humanist.

Parents may teach their children their traditional Muslim values. However, in a European society, these children don't live only in a parental bubble. There's TV, there's school, there are the friends and colleagues... Many children of immigrants are actually at a loss because they are equally influenced by their parents' traditional culture, and by their country's western culture.

Also, at least in France, young people barely recognized themselves in Islam (Islam was barely an identity bearing) until a few years ago. Identitarian Islam is making progresses among our youth of immigrant origin because it gives more of a sense of purpose than 1/ our western values, and 2/ the limbo that is ghetto culture.
These progresses are recent, I cannot stress it enough. This means that there's nothing inherent with them (we had been having many young Muslims for the past 30 years here), and as such we're not doomed to see it progressing further. If we do something about it, that is. If we are content with taking it up the ass while the Muslim bigots continue their demands, we won't succeed in anything.

What is clear is that there is no obligation on the west to accept such people, and to "make them love these values", especially since the people of power in these cultures have no objective reasons to love these values: They are strive to eliminate natural points of didcate in society.

We have an obligation to accept our citizens, you know. Among our citizens, we have criminals, that we have to put up with.
We have political extremists, that we have to put up with.
We have chronically ill people, that we have to put up with.
We have the elderly, that we have to put up with.
We have radical Muslims, that we have to put up with.
etc.

In all cases, these people require that our society makes an effort about them. Be it an effort to offer them a life in dignity (the elderly, the chronically ill). Or be it an effort to have them not doing harm (criminals, extremists). We are forced to accept them, because they're our citizens. Duh.