Increased Islamic Influence in European Nations

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It's not the lack of nativity plays at Christmas that's undermining Christianity in the UK, it's the fact that hardly anyone goes to church.

The fact is that, behaviourally, the UK is a largely secular culture.

Personally, I think the Church itself should shoulder much of the blame, as it's failed to make itself relevant to people.

But a far greater threat to our cultural cohesion is the fact that no-one talks to their neighbours any more.

great points... many fail to see these days that there is a huge difference between stated beliefs and how people actually conduct their lives

the US is also largely secular from a day-to-day pov

[inked]

brownjenkins,

Does that mean that the individuals known to you are inadequate exemplars of their beliefs and therefore evidence against those beliefs whilst you abjure the interposition of belief into the political process? Methinks me smelleth inconsistencies more than one!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

brownjenkins,

Does that mean that the individuals known to you are inadequate exemplars of their beliefs and therefore evidence against those beliefs whilst you abjure the interposition of belief into the political process? Methinks me smelleth inconsistencies more than one!

nothing nearly so condeming

it simple means that most people live their lives day-to-day, judging each decision on it's own merits (or lack of ) as opposed to consulting scripture or the weekly sermon... even if they might express their thoughts in such a way when given time to reflect on someplace like a messageboard... justifying actions by principle, as opposed to acting upon principle... i'm the same way, and joyfully embrace the hypocracy of it all

it's the difference between idealism and pragmatism... most like to express ideals, most (if not all) conduct their lives much more pragmatically

[inked]

But, mayn't one actually be so grounded in the on-going process that one's CHARACTER has been molded to proper action without prayer and fasting for a week over the decision to buy a newspaper ? I for one get awfully busy and find the prayer (I regret I cannot give proper attribution at the moment) helpful:
O Lord, You know how much business there is in my day today, while I do not yet. Grant that I may not be so busy as to be forgetful of Thee, but if I do, forget Thou not me! Guide me in all I say or do to the glory of Thy holy name; through Jesus Christ, who reigns with You and the Holy Spirit now and forever. AMEN.

Now, I still may choose wrongly or be in error out of self-will. I may yet have cultural bondages unknown or unrecognized which have not yert come under The Mercy. And I probably won't smack anyone upside the head with a Bible or a pamphlet either and coerce them into a "penny-baptist" confession of faith on a street corner! Sorry to be so disappointing!

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Israel/Palestine

That said, I do disagree with Jerseydevil and Gaffer very strongly about the Israel-Palestinian issue. There have been Muslim preachers that have called for the destruction of all the Jews. What the Palestinians as a whole are more interested in is where tomorrow's bread is going to come from. There is immense suffering in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere. The UN made a resolution that the Israelis had to let the Palestinians back to their homes, at the same time as they acknowledged Israel's right to exist. Israel ignored the UN resolution and never allowed the Palestinians back. Many Palestinians were not simply scared out of their homes by what they heard of the Jews, but were actually forced out. But whether some were expelled or all were scared off their land, it is clear that the Israeli government never allowed them back, in spite of the UN Resolution. In fact, the Israelis bulldozed hundreds of Palestinian villages so that the Palestinians could not return. The same active policy of pushing Palestinians out is visible today. America and European countries spent a lot of money building up Palestinian infrastructure, but the Jews blasted many of those things when they went into various places in recent years, like Jenin. In Jenin they blasted schools, banks, businesses- "terrorist infrastructure" that had costed the US and Europe vast amounts of money to construct. It's an awful situation out there. In my opinion, the Palestinian terrorists that go against Israel are usually driven to do so by desperation. If you look at history, such as the Irish terrorism and such, you'll see that economic oppression is another common reason for terrorism to occur. It's not all about religion. That's why I disagree with President Bush classifying the Palestinian suicide bomber as a "homicide bomber". Not all terrorism is the same, and I don't like at all how Israel compares its own actions against hungry, demoralized people that have seen their families split and their homes destroyed to America's retaliation against Al Qaeda.

First, I must say I wasn't sure what you meant in many cases.. seemed like you jumped freely from 1948 to 2001 without mentioning it.

But.. let's see: no, we will not, at any price, give them their 'right' to come back to Israel - which would make the destruction of Israel IMO, as there will be an Arab majority. Now... it's not their lands anyway, they lost it in the war. It doesn't matter, if you want, that they've started it. Fine. but the conquered areas are Israeli now, as the areas would be if they have conquered them, I suppose. Perhaps the UN resolution wasn't indeed fair (and I did make a 'research': 55% was meant to be jewish, although the jews were the minority).. yet you must remember it was decided by 10 neutral nations. Not Arabic nor one of the empires. They probably had reasons.. you don't know everything about what happened and was there at the time.

See, now this is a jump to these days... I cantell you that (1) bulldosing buildings is not legal anymore, unless they have permission from the court, and that (2) there are reasons for it. Terrorists use these houses to hide. Now, either many soldiers will be killed, or many people will be without homes... it's indeed a hard decision - but I think lives of people are still more important, you can disagree.
We did not do it so that they won't return. Where did you read/heard that? or do you mean in 1949? I don't think they had bulldozers then.

Well, that could well be, that they explode themselves in buses of financial needs... but our economical situation at the moment isn't much better, and still we supply them electricity, water, jobs... Would you think how much harm we can do to them, if we wanted? Without using 'weapons'. You see, we don't want to kill them, we want peace. Personally, if they want to be a country soon, I'd suggest they'll start taking care of their own people.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, in my opinion the Palestinian situation is the cause of many of their anti-semite feelings, rather then the crutch. Remember that in modern Israel, before the Zionist movement Palestinians and Jews lived extremely peacefully together in the land. They lived as neighbors in harmony. I learned this from a Zionist, extremely pro-Israel Jew some time ago, by the way. And as I said before, anti-semitism certainly is not readily to be found in the Koran.

I don't think anti-semitism was involved in the thinking of the Arab nations that attacked Israel in 1948 either. They attacked for a number of reasons, some of them religious and some of them humanitarian. Their kinsmen in Palestine were being expelled from their homes by Jewish soldiers. The Arabs of course made a terrible mistake when they lied about Israeli atrocities, hoping to cause an uprising among Palestinians but instead instigating a massive panic that caused vast numbers of people to flee. Weizman described this to be "a miraculous simplification of Israel's tasks." Anyhow, I've already written about all this earlier. I read that many Palestinians were furious at the Arab nations for not coming more swiftly to help them.

You're talking about harmony between jews and arabs before the Zionists.... well, that's not really possible I'm afraid, there were barely any jews here at the time. We lear nabout it now in history, actually. The relations with the arabs were never very good.

I've read a history book now, just because of you, and can tell you they didn't attack because we expelled Arabs... Arabs and jews faught before they started the war. The Arabs faught and were as equal until we won on April 1948 IIRC.

The Palestinians have at times endured second class citizenship in Israel. This was a terrible oppression. I can get out my sources and describe it to you, but I'd rather do it later. But I don't agree that Palestinians have always been able to live in peace in Israel. I don't know what their current situation within Israel is fully, but you cannot forget that the Gaza Strip and West Bank are areas legally owned by Israel. The people living in those refugee camps endure appalling living conditions. So the statement, "Palestinians have been able to live in peace in Israel," is rather weak to me. It's like saying, "the Jews in the 1940s and 50s could have lived in peace in Germany." They just had to endure, that's all. Forget about the expulsions, the destruction of villages, the splitting of families, the land grabs, the poverty and the hunger. They could have lived at peace with Israel if they just ignored all that

They are an autonomy, as in they govern themselves. They're not citizens of Israel, no. (The Israeli arabs are.) They're citizens of this autonomy.
Before the autonomy i'm not sure how things were, but I suppose they were citizens too. As said, I'm not sure.

[Radagast The Brown]

The public approval rating in Israel for Israeli leaders has consistently risen, the more of a hardliner the Prime Minister is. Polls have shown that most of the people are fully in support of their government's actions. I do realize that there are some Jews in there that do not support what has happened to the Palestinians. I've seen pictures from a recent article that showed both Arabs and Israelis fighting the government for the Bedhoines living in a region to be allowed to keep their native lands. So I do know there are people like that. The polls have shown the Israeli people to be overwhelmingly in support of their government, though. So when I refer to "the Israelis" when speaking of the Israeli government, I don't think I'm making a huge error. The people are with the government, on this matter.

Sharon is not hardliner, not at all. He's from the right, that made a twist this term as PM and went left. He's rather in the center, to the right.

The Bedhoines don't legally own this land, and therefore shouldn't get it without paying for it - and have agreements with the government. Many of them are criminals - taking money from people, with threats that they're burn their houses, etc., the police can't do anything about it apparently. (not enough forces). It givesthem a bad name in general.

I don't have time! I'll reply more later maybe.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

I don't have time! I'll reply more later maybe.

Europe, RtB... EUROPE!!

Please use the OTHER thread for this line of posting!!

[inked]

They are really nice people who want things their way? or what? Remove Dante from Where?

Keeping Christ in Christmas

by Diana West

December 20, 2004

I would like to open today's sermon, I mean column, with a newsflash out of Vatican City, courtesy Reuters: "Pope John Paul, battling to keep Christ in Christmas, has defended nativity scenes that are being stripped from holiday celebrations in some Italian schools to avoid offending non-Christians."

This could be a farcical joke, but the trite wire copy is pathetically true. For starters, it seems that a school in Como has edited out the name "Gesu" (Jesus) and replaced it with the word "virtu" (virtue) in its choir's renditions of Christmas hymns. Which rhymes and everything, but falls flat. Also, the province of Vicenza has canceled its annual contest for the best nativity scene in the schools of the province. Then there's the elementary school in the northern Italian city of Treviso that has decided to nix its traditional Christmas pageant depicting the birth of Christ in order to present a dramatic, um, Virtumas presentation of the adventures of Little Red Riding Hood.


Substituting Li'l Red's fairy-tale trip to Grandma's house for Mary and Joseph's biblical trip to Bethlehem may sound like something that happens down the rabbit hole, but Reuters reports that things are on the level: "The teachers said the famous tale was a fitting representation of good and evil and would not offend Muslim children." And Muslim children, it turns out, are the only "non-Christians" in the Reuters story. Not Jews, not atheists, not whatever other minorities are content to live in a historically Roman Catholic country and just walk on by the old creche without "taking offense," that traumatic postmodern condition more damaging and contagious than any plague or pestilence.

But why does a seasonal depiction marking the anniversary of the single-most significant religious, historic and cultural event in the Western world -- of which Italy remains a part -- offend anyone in the first place?

I don't get it -- and I'm Jewish. If "taking offense" is the issue, isn't eradicating the commemoration of Christ's birth -- and the universal ideal of peace on earth -- equally as likely to make Italian Catholics take offense? Of course, ruffled feelings, either on the part of Italy's 1 million-plus Muslims or 50 million-plus Catholics, are not the issue. Power is.

I recently came across something Eric Hoffer, the man known as the "longshoreman-philosopher," wrote 30 years ago about dissent and power:

It is maintained that a society is free only when dissenting minorities have room to throw their weight around ... As a matter of fact, a dissenting minority feels free only when it can impose its will on the majority: what it abominates most is the dissent of the majority.

I don't know if the Muslims in Italy's nativity-cleansed zones feel qualitatively more "free" for having thrown their weight around, but as a minority they have certainly imposed their will on the majority.

But is it really the will of Italian Muslims? Certainly, Italian-Muslim activist Abdel Smith has called for the removal of crucifixes and Dante in Italian classrooms, and even a Giovanni di Modena fresco from the 15th-century Bologna cathedral that "offensively" depicts a Dante-inspired image of Mohammed in hell. He's likened the annual Christmas pageant to "forced indoctrination."

But Reuters did find an Islamic leader of a Milanese cultural institute who said it was "senseless" to change the words of Christmas songs. (No word on what he thought about nativity plays.) The main point is it was the local Italian schools and councils that made the decision to remove the Christ from Christmas in the first place.

Maybe they were attempting to circumvent local "non-Christian" (read: Muslim) protest, and therefore canceled their traditional celebrations out of a basic kind of fear. Or maybe they were acting out of a desire to curtail or de-emphasize their own religious and cultural expression, which is also a kind of fear. Either way, it hardly reflects a robust sense of what could be called self-esteem.

"It is the perfect example of how not to respect the presence of different people, in this case our Muslim brothers, by annihilating our own identity," said Bishop Agostino Marchetto, head of the Vatican's department for migrants. "Are we losing our minds?" asked government Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli. "Do we want to erase our identity for the love of Allah?"

Annihilating identity. Erasing identity. When the pope has to remind his Catholics that celebrating the birth of Christ is "an element of our culture and of art, but above all a sign of faith in God," isn't it pretty much gone?

END
***********************

This ties up with the Christmas thread but I think it really belongs more here!
Hey, Valandil, did you ever recover the article about when the population of Islamics reaches ~30% the goverments change? Italy only needs 1/50, it seems!

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by inked

...Hey, Valandil, did you ever recover the article about when the population of Islamics reaches ~30% the goverments change? Italy only needs 1/50, it seems!

It wasn't really an article. I heard that by word of mouth a few years ago (I think even before 9/11) from an evangelist who serves part-time as a military chaplain... he got it from some military intelligence guys.

I exchanged emails with him after you questioned me about it. He recommended a couple books on the subject. Would you like me to loop you into that?

[inked]

Yes, please. Since my earlier encounter with the political realities of the ME in the form of a fellow from Iran, if you recall, the subject has interest. And from what I know of the various African countries embroiled in such situations, I should like to be better informed. I have spent most of my career in association with many Islamic MDs from various countries and I can recall off-hand comments that now seem significant, but which I did not get the import of at the time. Thanks!

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Europe, RtB... EUROPE!!

Please use the OTHER thread for this line of posting!!

I didn't notice till after I've posted.. and was thinking you'd move if it were in the wrong place... can you move specific posts?

[Artanis]

I'm picking up again this discussion, if Elvellon is still around, and interested ... or other people ...

Originally Posted by Elvellon

Why do you think, they choose to wear it in the first place? What is the need for it?
If my sources are correct, it is not even a demand of the Koran, despite what we sometimes are told.

I do not claim to know all the reasons behind the habit (or what we may call it) of wearing a scarf, but I think it is much more complicated than a simple 'belonging to a group' sign. Before all this fuzz about a cultural war started, the reason some women gave themselves was that they felt their freedom suppressed when they were forced to NOT wear the burqa, or the scarf. Why? Because they wanted to walk freely on the streets and on public places and yet be free from the sexually loaded glances from men. That is a reason I can understand, being a woman and living in a culture where Lolita is an ideal and where we are forced to watch half-naked female bodies on huge ads all over the city in the name of liberalism, or worse, 'freedom of speech'.

Originally Posted by Elvellon

I would agree that she neither feels or believe herself repressed.

You know, this angered me when I first read it, and it was partly the reason why I dropped the discussion. You are of course entitled to think what you think, but I strongly believe that you and I or anyone else do not have any right to define other people to be repressed when they do not think so themselves. If we do so we are suggesting that we have some kind of moral superiority over them, that our culture is of more value than theirs, which imho is totally wrong.

Originally Posted by Elvellon

You were implying they were free to take a decision. I was giving you extreme examples of how not only Law and force, but culture also, can limit true freedom of choice, as the rest of my message tried to clarify.

Then you are saying that no human being has a true freedom of choice? For we are all living under the restriction of Law and culture. I don't agree with this view, I think everyone has freedom to choose, but of course some choices are harder to take than others because of their implications and consequences. That's why I think your examples were far fetched in this context, to stop wearing the scarf in an open society as Europe is not a hard decision to take compared to rebellion against laws that support burning of widows, or the practise of genital mutilation in African countries. It is an altogether different context.

[Artanis]

Originally Posted by Draken

Indeed. One wishes he would take the hint and stop trying. We ain't interested.

Hmm. I think it is unwise not to be interested. Whether we like it or not, Islam is a part of Europe now. Don't you want to know the people you are living with, in your own country? Are you not at least curious?

Turkey will soon become a part of the EU. I know that they must be accepted first, but if not this time then the next ... with their 67 million people they will probably soon become the largest country within EU with respect to population. I'd very much like to hear people's thoughts on this, both Europeans and non-Europeans.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

... can you move specific posts?

I imagine I could just split it off of one thread and merge it into the other... but for one post, that's a bit of a hassle. We could spend a LOT of time doing that for all the misplaced posts around here!

[inked]

datelined from Paris, France (not the more famous Paris, Texas ):

of interest, perhaps...

Are there Muslim Samaritans?

Commentary

By Uwe Siemon-Netto
UPI Religious Affairs Editor

PARIS, Jan. 4 (UPI) -- As the world is focused on the victims of the tsunami disaster in Southeast Asia, a debate is raging among Muslim scholars about an ancient topic: Who is your neighbor?

"Some insist it's the fellow Muslim," says the Rev. Hans Voecking, one of the Roman Catholic Church's leading experts on Islam. "Others feel charity should be extended to any human being."

One Muslim Internet blogger accused his coreligionists of "racism" because their aid is chiefly directed at Islamic nations.



Well, racism is clearly the wrong term, for racism is one evil Muslims cannot be accused of. More likely, many - though definitely not all - Muslim thinkers have a deficient view of man, meaning that only those who share their faith deserve maximum charity.

"The problem is that the Good Samaritan and Christ's commandment to love your enemy are not concepts you will find in the Koran," explains Christine Schirrmacher, president of the Bonn-based Islamic Affairs institute.

Hence, Muslim concern is reserved for the Umma, or Islamic community. Wander through Muslim Web sites, and you will find ample confirmation for this insight.

Of course some Muslims find this embarrassing. One blogger pillories the stinginess of the Saudi Arabian government, which offered only a $10 million contribution to tsunami relief operations. "Contrast this with $155 million raised a year ago in a Saudi telethon to support the families of Palestinian suicide bombers," the blogger writes.

This debate is particularly fascinating as it points to signs of an emerging Western Islam that has come under some influence of Christian views on charity, which reject the idea of discriminating against needy people based on their religious persuasion.

It would be unthinkable, for example, for huge charitable Christian organizations such as the Catholic Relief Services or the Lutheran World Relief to give preference to Catholic or Lutheran - or even just Christian - recipients.

But then Christian theology rules out statements such as this one by the prophet Mohammed: "Whoever relieves a believer (sic) in this world, Allah will relieve him of some of his distress on the Day of Judgment."

The example for a Christian to follow is the one given by Jesus in his parable of the Samaritan who looked after an anonymous victim of robbery not knowing anything about his identity (Luke 10:25-37). The gist of this story is that he who shows mercy will inherit eternal life.

This is precisely, says Schirrmacher, the topic of a controversy raging between Christians and Muslims - and Muslims and Muslims - in their current dialogues.

At issue here is the difference between, say, Seventh Day Adventist hospitals healing Buddhists, Hindus, pagans or even atheists, and Saudi-sponsored hospitals in some parts of Africa treating patients for free only if they convert to Islam.

The controversy may well be drawing to a close in countries such as the United States, where a Western form of Islam is emerging, an Islam working closely with Christians and Jews in such charitable endeavors as the present tsunami relief operations.

But similar turns seem to occur in some Middle Eastern states, such as Qatar, on whose Web site, Islam Online, the sheikh on duty issued this hopeful fatwah (religious expertise) on the question of what kind of disaster victims Muslims should help:

"Islam is a universal call for mercy to all human beings. It urges Muslims to rush to the help of their fellow afflicted humans, especially at times of distress. "

END

[The Gaffer]

And the point is... Muslims aren't as good as Christians, or what?

[Insidious Rex]

pretty much. there seems to be a theme of that building in the tsunami thread too.

[inked]

The Gaffer and IR,

The point is that there are differences between Christianity and Islam. Your value judgments are your own to make.

It is a direct consequence of the worldview espoused by differing religions as to how they interact with the surrounding world, both human and nonhuman aspects.

To note a difference is not to make a value judgment, but it may enable the observer rationale to be buttressed by facts. Depending on one's values, discrimination between aspects of religious belief will be accorded various weights. After a series of informed discriminations, I think most persons do end up making judgments of some sort.

[Insidious Rex]

Translation: "Muslims aren't as good as Christians."

[inked]

Is that your final answer, IR?