Whatever happened in Cologne never never happened

[Marblehead]

Yeah, as an Anarchist I demand being allowed to live my life as I wish.  But then, catch 22; I must demand the same for everyone else as long as they are not violating any of our society's laws. 

 

Yes, in my opinion a lot of people conduct them self in an unacceptable manner.   Those need be dealt with.  But I can't ask someone to change their religion or skin color.  All I can ask is that they act responsibly.  And if they are already doing so then I would have nothing to say.

[Karl]

Of course. Nobody has to be friends with anybody they don´t care to be friends with. But suppose you own a restaurant and you don´t like blacks. I believe Karl thinks (and correct me if I´m wrong here Karl) that a person ought not be "forced" to serve black people. That being forced to serve black people is actually a form of discrimination against him.This is where we differ. I think that everybody should be free to think whatever they want about whoever they want, to choose their friendships and so on as they like. But here´s the kicker -- you should not be free to discriminate against people as a business owner or government entity in a way that interferes with the essential freedoms of that other person. Black people should be free to eat at whatever restaurants they like. Gay people should be free to marry. Women should be free to pursue employment, at wages commensurate with their abilities, anywhere they choose.Nobody is forcing anyone to like blacks or gays or women. Feel free to hate as much as you like. But you can´t make anybody sit at the back of the bus when offering a public service, etc.Liminal

 

As to your first-absolutely. If someone runs a private business it is no different to running ones own home. You may serve whoever you like. For instance, to make it more personal let's take a sex worker. Should a sex worker not be allowed to discriminate against a certain man, woman, group ? The sex worker runs a business so there is no difference.

 

A Government entity is a different thing completely. I don't think the Government should have any involvement in anything but keeping the peace, upholding the law, administering justice and protecting the country. Governments run monopoly public services which give no choice to anyone to use an alternative. This is different to private businesses where competition means that discrimination could result in a Loss of profit.

 

Gays should be free to marry if someone is prepared to marry them. It's not for the state to force churches to marry Gay people. The state should be entirely neutral in all respects and if a church wishes to set up its own gay marriage business then it should be absolutely free to do so, just as any church happy to marry gay people should do so unfettered.

 

Women are free to pursue employment at whatever wage they can get. Employers should not be forced to employ women, or to pay them any particular rate. It's up to the woman to negotiate.

 

The 'sitting on the back of the bus' rule was instituted by the Government and not private owners. It is always the Government that is involved in this form of force. Private companies were forced to seperate blacks from whites by the state. It wasn't the people who decreed this.

 

Here actually is the problem. Once a person goes to a judge, politician or lawmaker and wants their version of the perfect world to become law, then the result is automatically to oppress the freedom of others. What is done can be undone by the same method. One day it is gay people forcing the issue, then tomorrow it will be homophobic maniacs that take the reins. That's the danger in this attitude. Force begets force. If you agree to use the sword today, so shall ye be cut down tomorrow.

 

If you really do support tolerance, then you must accept that businesses have the right to refuse to serve you, then you are practising what you preach. If you take unearned values there is no place to hide from yourself.

[liminal_luke]

Karl,

 

I think I at least understand your position.

 

By the way, I don´t believe churches ought to be forced to support gay marriage. As far as I´m aware, they aren´t. I´m sure some of the more liberal adherents of various faiths are pushing for their leaders to recognize gay marriage but I don´t believe the government is trying to legislate acceptance within religious groups. Is this not the case in Europe?

 

But marriage isn´t solely a religious concept these days. It´s also a civil contract with myriad ramifications in everything from taxes to inheritance to whether or not someone can visit a sick loved one in the hospital. As such, I think governments ought not to stand in the way of gay people who want to marry. There ought to be a way that gay people can get married civilly, through the state. If the Pope doesn´t want to perform the ceremony, well, that is his business.

 

Liminal

Edited January 16, 2016 by liminal_luke

[Karl]

Karl,I think I at least understand your position.By the way, I don´t believe churches ought to be forced to support gay marriage. As far as I´m aware, they aren´t. I´m sure some of the more liberal adherents of various faiths are pushing for their leaders to recognize gay marriage but I don´t believe the government is trying to legislate acceptance within religious groups. Is this not the case in Europe?But marriage isn´t solely a religious concept these days. It´s also a civil contract with myriad ramifications in everything from taxes to inheritance to whether or not someone can visit a sick loved one in the hospital. As such, I think governments ought not to stand in the way of gay people who want to marry. There ought to be a way that gay people can get married civilly, through the state. If the Pope doesn´t want to perform the ceremony, well, that is his business.Liminal

 

In the UK its the law-as far as I know-that churches have to comply.

 

Religion is just mysticism to me as you probably realise by now, but they should still be able to discriminate.

 

In the UK civil marriage for same sex couples has been a right for some time-exactly as it should have always been.

 

 

 

 

[dust]

You are picking and choosing what you think these words mean. If these words simply mean anything anyone thinks they mean, then they have no value at all. Murder might as well be mercy, stealing is charity, violence is love. If we cannot establish a fixed definition we shouldn't use the words at all. This is Orwellian double think.

 

We both decided what these words meant to help further our own cases. What really matters is what the person originally using the words, i.e. Luke, meant. I think it was obvious that Luke did not mean those words as you interpreted them. I might be wrong.

 

 

To be open does not mean to be infinitely flexible of every idea.

 

It might. But that's not what I'm advocating. There's a balance between being completely open and completely closed, and the UK is more open than Saudi Arabia (KSA), for example. This is part of what makes the UK culturally superior, isn't it? I think so.

 

The UK is secular, the KSA is Islamic.

The UK is tolerant and open, the KSA is intolerant and closed.

In the UK we value privacy, in KSA...well, actually, apparently Sharia law places a lot of importance on privacy. They probably get more right to it than we do...

 

 

In effect openness and tolerance are in complete contradiction. If someone is open about their own disagreement with the ideas of another, then they are considered 'intolerant' of those ideas.

 

Balance!

 

If we're defining 'openness' as being open about opinions (which I would call 'honesty', not 'openness'), we must find a balance between being open/honest and tolerant. Not easy.

 

 

To be open minded does not imply one should throw away ones own values, rationality, principles and ethics and accept anything at all. Disagreement is a part of life. That's what needs embracing. Tolerance is to allow disagreement without coming to blows. Justice is that which is applied to those who initiates force against another because they peacefully, but vehemently disagree.

 

So you are for tolerance?

I thought so, couldn't really understand how you wouldn't be, though you seemed to be saying that 'justice' was its opposite.

[Marblehead]

Balance!

 

If we're defining 'openness' as being open about opinions (which I would call 'honesty', not 'openness'), we must find a balance between being open/honest and tolerant. Not easy.

In my opinion, if one cannot speak honestly then one should keep their mouth shut.

[Karl]

We both decided what these words meant to help further our own cases. What really matters is what the person originally using the words, i.e. Luke, meant. I think it was obvious that Luke did not mean those words as you interpreted them. I might be wrong.

 

 

 

 

It might. But that's not what I'm advocating. There's a balance between being completely open and completely closed, and the UK is more open than Saudi Arabia (KSA), for example. This is part of what makes the UK culturally superior, isn't it? I think so.

 

The UK is secular, the KSA is Islamic.

The UK is tolerant and open, the KSA is intolerant and closed.

In the UK we value privacy, in KSA...well, actually, apparently Sharia law places a lot of importance on privacy. They probably get more right to it than we do...

 

 

 

 

Balance!

 

If we're defining 'openness' as being open about opinions (which I would call 'honesty', not 'openness'), we must find a balance between being open/honest and tolerant. Not easy.

 

 

 

 

So you are for tolerance?

I thought so, couldn't really understand how you wouldn't be, though you seemed to be saying that 'justice' was its opposite.

 

I already made the point that tolerance is needed due to disagreement. Tolerance as presented by people as 'values' common to some particular culture are using the word in a very different way.

 

Tolerance-I am tolerant of someone's right to hold an opposing opinion and not of the opinion they hold. (Does that help to define the subtle difference ?)

 

That is not how this is used by people who regard it as a value. Tolerance in our society is actually intolerance. If you run to an official and have your opinion pasted into law as your idea of the perfect society. This isn't 'tolerance'. To say that you, must by law, respect my ideas, is to be intolerant of others right to hold those ideas.

 

I am tolerant of a homophobic's right to be homophobic, but I am not tolerant of homophobia.

 

If I wish to air my ideas in public then I must accept that others will air opposing positions. If I wish to practice these ideas then I must accept that others might reject them. If those ideas are backed by force-as is the case with Government edict-then we have something entirely different. It means we accept that physical violence is acceptable for the support of ones ideas, then we have junked truth entirely. We have stopped disagreeing and arguing in order to discover error and have made 'might as right'. Accept that homosexuality/homophobia is right, because the law says it is and should you attempt to oppose that you will be punished.

 

 

 

 

[liminal_luke]

I am tolerant of a homophobic's right to be homophobic, but I am not tolerant of homophobia.

I am tolerant of both a homophobic´s right to be homophobic and homophobia itself, though I dislike both. People are free to believe as they choose in all circumstances; people are not free, however, to act as they choose in all circumstances. Refuse us employment on that basis or service in a restaurant or a government marriage license then I will absolutely use the power of law (where it exists) to enforce my right to equal treatment.

 

The law has nothing to say about someone who merely wants to kill --nor should it--but police start to take notice when that someone gets out his ax.

 

Is this kind of force ideal? Of course not. Ideally it wouldn´t be necessary but we don´t yet live in that kind of world.

Edited January 17, 2016 by liminal_luke

[Karl]

I am tolerant of both a homophobic´s right to be homophobic and homophobia itself, though I dislike both. People are free to believe as they choose in all circumstances; people are not free, however, to act as they choose in all circumstances. Refuse us employment on that basis or service in a restaurant or to grant us a government marriage license then I will absolutely use the power of law (where it exists) to enforce my right to equal treatment.The law has nothing to say about someone who merely wants to kill --nor should it--but police take notice when you get out your ax.Is this kind of force ideal? Of course not. Ideally it wouldn´t be necessary but we don´t yet live in that kind of world.

If you were tolerant of homophobia then you would have no disagreement with it and therefore no requirement to be tolerant of it.

 

You have already said you believe you have a 'right' to be served by a business and would bring down the force of the law on any business who refused to serve you. Therefore you are not tolerant of homophobia. Quite the opposite. You are intolerant when you expect others to be tolerant of you.

 

Edit: aha you changed your post you little tinker ;-) A Government agency granting Government marriage licences under a Government law is not a liberty to refuse what it has made lawful. That would be pretty stupid for any of its agents to go against its own laws. That's a matter for the Government to sort out.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Karl

[dust]

To say that you, must by law, respect my ideas, is to be intolerant of others right to hold those ideas.

 

Yeah. I agree.

 

We are a tolerant society, respecting the 'right' of others to have different belief systems, etc, to think as we think and speak openly about it if we choose to. Not to speak openly without fear of being disagreed with, but without fear of being (for example) murdered for our beliefs.

 

Where we become (rightly) intolerant is when another's belief system, for example, limits our freedom to speak openly, or makes us fear that we might be murdered for our beliefs. This is why we don't like Islam. Strictly implemented, it necessarily conflicts with freedom of thought, speech, and action, and might require adherents to commit violent acts. We can't tolerate it in any strict form.

 

But we can still be open and tolerant, valuing equality and freedom.

 

The thing is, the majority of Muslims in this country (and others) are quite happy with not shoving Sharia law down our throats. The near-constant media attention claiming that basically all Muslims agree with ISIL is fear-mongering. There are problems with Islam in this country, especially concerning sexual violence and general mistreatment of females. These kinds of problem are certainly not going to be solved by accepting the Islamic way of belief (that men are superior to women, etc), but also not by constantly demonizing Muslims and pretending that our entire way of life is under attack because of a bit of immigration. The reaction to the refugee crisis so far has been, from some people, absolutely bizarre. "They're all coming here to kill us and rape our women", "They're all coming for the benefits, to live off our hard work", "None of them are really refugees", "They're all ungrateful pieces of shit", etc etc...these are the kind of headlines I object to, the kind of sensationalist nonsense that began this thread. The kind of posts that Shanlung was making.

 

We're not letting that many in, and the ones we let in are probably going to be fine. Germany is letting a lot in, and the majority of them are lining up waiting to begin a new life. It won't happen overnight.

 

When immigrants want to come here, it's often because they see the UK as a better and safer place to be alive. If foreign terrorists get in and commit atrocities, we must blame (among other things, including Islam and the place they came from, etc) UK border control. If British nationals grow up here and commit atrocities in the name of Islam, we must blame (among other things, including Islam, etc) the way they were educated and the kind of atmosphere they grew up in that would lead them to hate this country so much that they were willing to forsake everything -- common sense, compassion, family -- to blow themselves up.

 

I dunno. I'm not trying to place a load of blame on the UK itself, because it is indeed a relatively open, tolerant, free place. It's a good place to be. But some UK citizens want to murder the rest of us, and I just think that if we are doing something wrong -- and it would be silly to think that we are perfect -- it is not that we allow people from other countries to come and live here, but that we enable people born and raised here to hate us so much. Constant 'Muslimophobia' does nothing but fuel the fire.

[Karl]

Are you trying to figure it out ?

 

Firstly: we, as individuals have absolutely no say in who comes into our country or, who settles as our neighbours. If everything was privatised then we could choose our neighbours, but as it is we cannot.

 

Second: the government has been given the duty of keeping us safe and we are paying them to do that. This means not letting people into our country who have ideologies that do not compliment our own and therefore present a potential threat.

 

Muslims are a religious sect. It's important to distinguish between pure racial intolerance and religious intolerance. Islam is a religious/political ideology high is based on the Muslim religion. Even those Muslims who don't support an Islamic state are tacitly supporting it by continuing to support the religion. This is unavoidable. Very few Germans were pure Nazi, but most philosophically supported them.

 

Should we allow into our home country people who have this ideology ? My answer is to say No and to say that regardless of them being refugees or having skills we desperately require.

 

The Muslims that currently reside here should be in no doubt that their religion is the key to jihadist violence. In no other religion is there a political element which, if the opportunity presented itself, would implement Islam across our country. That they refuse to believe this reality and that non Muslims refuse to accept it, is dangerous. It's naive. It's all this talk of tolerance, openess and diversity that has stripped us of the opportunity to object strenuously. Anyone attempting to air their ideas is shot down as 'racist' 'intolerant' ''small minded bigots'.

 

The reason we have ended up this way is because subjectivism is dominant. We no longer have a politico Christian church-it has also slipped into the same relativism that everybody else has-but a few hundred years ago it would have been extremely vocal, maybe even violently so.

 

We have fallen into error and we don't realise it. These days we have become tolerant of virtually everything, that is because we have thrown away the belief that individuals are able to think rationally, to be ethical and maintain moral values. Instead we are making excuses that things are not really anyone's fault. Apparently no one can help what they do. It's all down to genes, cultural background, environment, peer pressure, upbringing and every other excuse possible under the sun. It says we can't help ourselves and so we must tolerate acts and ideologies without end.

 

We don't blame Muslims for the actions of ISIS because it isn't all Muslims that are acting violently, but, Muslims are men and men can think. They can rationally assess what they are supporting and make the choice to stop doing so. They are in a country which got rid of religious politics and have chosen to settle here. Yet they still insist on wearing the costumes and having sharia law courts here.That isn't acceptance of our countries values. It's the establishment of their own culture right here. Going back to my first point, had we a fully privatised country, we would be able to make the choice for ourselves. As it is we depend on the Government to discriminate and it has failed spectacularly in doing so.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Karl

[redcairo]

Gee, so many controversies in one thread. :-)

 

I'll take Homophobia for 500, Alex...

 

I simply cannot re-define the word 'tolerance' to mean 'agreement' because to me tolerance just means "lack of concern about that point" or "lack of willingness to insert myself into someone else's business on that point." It isn't about mental agreement in favor of a behavior, it's about physical inaction regarding my disagreement with the behavior, if that's what I feel.

 

Tolerance is "up to the point of my doorstep." I don't care what people do or think on their own. If it 'interferes' with me in some fashion, that's when it would change, but most things don't, why should they.

 

I don't care if someone for example is gay. I have no reason to care. It literally has no impact on my life whatever. If they are my coworker, or my waiter, or my mailman, or my landlord, it still has no impact on my life whatever. I adore typically-testosterone-males, and I get along better with males than females usually, so I'm likely to socially align myself with them first, but so what.

 

I personally do not see any significant difference between choices in sexual gender vs. choices in sexual partners of quantity or sexual behaviors of quality or style (e.g. BDSM). Maybe I like having multiple men (or people), or being whipped with a wet noodle, or prefer women, or god forbid like folk music, but who could possibly have reason to care about this besides me and the people I'm engaged with? That's how I feel about people who may be gay-or-whatever. It's their life, their business, not my business, and I would say the same for anybody else's hobbies, religion, philosophy, and so on, with one big caveat:

 

That is, right up to the point where it's a "known" that a given "idea-set" is destructive to people other than that individual and those who as adults willingly participate with them. At that point they become a "potential risk." It's only potential so I can't and won't act on it, but my brain still categorizes them as a potential threat, directly or indirectly.

 

So, there are cults that I consider the ideologies of damaging "outside their sphere" -- if not "always by everyone" at least at high risk for showing up in some % of their adherents' population. This includes religions which are pretty much just very, very large cults (I consider Islam inherently seditious to literally "every" government and culture).

 

Note that there are other religions that are also 'manipulative' in some respects -- for example, Mormonism is determined to "breed out" others, gain political influence through numbers, and bring a degree of their own culture 'with' them, but it so happens that their own culture nests comfortably within the culture of my country (frankly it vastly improves it IMO, despite I don't want the dogma) so I don't have a problem with it in that case.

 

If I know of a religion with a high probability of killing children over even simple illnesses as they refuse medical care, because it's a child not an adult I consider that a larger social issue (even though I consider things like school and vaccination etc. very much a family not government issue). I consider some political ideologies an issue (e.g. I consider Marxism inherently seditious to a democratic republic such as the USA where I live).

 

But there are such thing as laws, and morality, and freedom of speech I totally support, not to mention many of these people are lovely people and some are friends or could be, then it would be inappropriate on several levels to say, "Some percentage of these people probably are dangerous to my people or country, or will be someday, or will shelter those who are, so let's just deport (or shoot) them all as a preventative measure." Or even harrass them. That would be "intolerance."

 

But that doesn't mean that my brain does not categorize them as a potential "other" (like a tribalism separation, but subtle), it simply doesn't act on it, because "tolerance" means "as long as you are not interfering with my life or actively working against my people or government, I let it be."

 

That doesn't mean I agree with it. Sometimes I vehemently disagree with it. Tolerance merely means that I will not act upon my personal biases because stepping over my own doorstep (so to speak) and getting in their face, is as inappropriate as them stepping over theirs and interfering with me.

Edited January 17, 2016 by redcairo

[liminal_luke]

I like your definition of tolerance, Redcairo. It´s a pretty low bar. When I say I tolerate homophobia I don´t mean I agree with it or think it´s a good thing. I don´t. I mean that I wouldn´t take action against it (other than to voice a contrary opinion), or encourage others to, the way I would if something was intolerable.

Edited January 17, 2016 by liminal_luke

[redcairo]

Even those Muslims who don't support an Islamic state are tacitly supporting it by continuing to support the religion. This is unavoidable. Very few Germans were pure Nazi, but most philosophically supported them.

I have to agree with that. By not specifically calling out clear disagreement with the "enslave and kill and undermine the world" parts of the doctrine inherent to Islam, all members are inherently in agreement with it and hence at least a potential direct or (more likely) indirect threat to everyone and everything around them who is not Sharia.

 

To be fair, most of the old Testament is the same kind of utter cultural dreg, but the Christians escape because most of them think Jesus changed all that (technically wrong but socially accepted), and the Jews escape because they are not cutting off hands and heads and selling people into slavery anymore so it's fair to say that neither group is "acting on" that stuff to any appreciable degree worth worrying about. However the ongoing issues and violence associated with Islam is impossible to ignore, so some actual "that-stuff-is-really-not-what-I-believe" is necessary. And doesn't happen because it's so dangerous for anyone to say so. It's probably easier to leave the religion altogether than openly state disagreement with even a few elements of Sharia. So, sad as it is, for the most part anyone part of it is at least passively supportive.

 

I sometimes think one of the inherent problems with people recognizing the danger of certain philosophies is that they are too broad. When you hate everyone equally it's hard for people to take seriously. If we just added in some tidbit that made all those plans specific -- such as being against only Polish people for example, or only against people with blue eyes -- it would be far more glaringly obviously how profoundly inappropriate, murderous and horrifying it all is, and how anybody who would even be part of a group bearing that doctrine should be questioned as appropriate to live anywhere with a different government or cultural structure.

 

One of the ironic but amusing things is that the former leader of Iran used to come speak at universities and would complain that no matter what he and others said, no matter how clearly, or loudly, or repeatedly, that literally we "did not take them seriously." It's akin to someone saying, "Damn it, I am going to kill you, and here is how" and everyone goes, "Oh how cute! And we totally get that those headscarves are your fashion!" No amount of being-utterly-clear makes the West, particularly the media, take it seriously.

 

Media has an interview and it never occurs to the media person that the guy sitting across the table from them, under any other condition, would rape-enslave-kill them and everyone they know. Gee but the guy seems so normal drinking Starbucks and talking about "cultural differences" and how mean the warmongers are. It's really surreal from start to finish. Tell you what, let's send the media home with these people, and if they survive to come out again after a year, then they can have an opinion on the need for multiculturalism or how the only problem is that the West has been mean for a few decades and that's the reason for all the dispute.

 

> Should we allow into our home country people who have this ideology ? My answer is to say No and to say that regardless of them being refugees or having skills we desperately require.

 

I actually do think anybody coming in the door should basically have to say/write/sign somewhere that they will not attempt sedition against the country or harm to its people, and should they be found to be participating in anything like that may be deported. It should be pointed out that any religious establishment doctrinizing *politics* which threatens a government or the constitutional/amendment rights of its people is potentially that kind of threat and should be avoided. Mosque leaders will still obsess on Sharia and undermining everything but at least make them do it more privately and quietly.

 

I don't know that it's practical or possible to just flat-line prohibit anybody of a given religion (though it doesn't stop several countries from acting against Scientology I notice).

 

But I do think we have no obligation to take 'more' people from any given area or background. And that if we want to obsess on taking more middle eastern folks, let's take the interpreters and people who fought for us and often have suffered horribly (and are literally dying while waiting in many cases) -- if we have to hedge a bet on which people are least likely to do us harm, the ones helping us even when it meant potential great harm to themselves for so long seem like a better place to start.

[zerostao]

http://news.yahoo.com/end-europe-berlin-brussels-shock-tactic-migrants-104113981--business.html

 

there are certainly higher level political debates about this situation than taking place here.

the future is uncertain ( as it always is) things change

[Marblehead]

Yeah, we plan for "X" and then "Y" happens and we are totally unprepared.

[redcairo]

Yeah, we plan for "X" and then "Y" happens and we are totally unprepared.

 

What is that saying -- "Life is what happens while we are making other plans."

[Chang]

As Shanlung appears to have gone into, a hopefully short, self imposed exile from the forum I shall post this to keep his spirit alive.

 

It concerns efforts by the U.K. Government to protect children from the'spell of twisted ideologies'

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-drive-to-protect-children-from-spell-of-twisted-ideologies

[Karl]

As Shanlung appears to have gone into, a hopefully short, self imposed exile from the forum I shall post this to keep his spirit alive.

 

It concerns efforts by the U.K. Government to protect children from the'spell of twisted ideologies'

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-drive-to-protect-children-from-spell-of-twisted-ideologies

 

"...Strong ethos and values based education..."

 

"Today in the UK, there are numerous active extreme right-wing groups, sharing an ideology centring on an intense hostility to minorities and a belief that violence between ethnic and religious groups is inevitable. Alongside antisemitism and racism, hostility to Islam has now become a common element of extreme right ideology."

 

 

This is the ethos and values the state wants children to be indoctrinated with. It's as if they believe children are empty vessels in which they can pour in values and ethos like programming a computer. It's a complete denial of reason or self education. It's ever more authoritarian. They even have the audacity to suggest "critical thinking" when it is clear that the children are to be steered towards excepting what they are being told. They can debate it by all means, but the debates will be led and informed by the teacher who just happens to be a Government licensed employee.

[Apech]

I think there is a great deal of confusion over this issue.

 

First of all it is incredibly naive to initially ignore the migrant/refugee crisis and then just open the door to let everyone in.  Especially when knowing there are many people from Syria etc. who wish us ill.  Doing that and then not expecting problems is stupid and shows that our leaders (all of Europe) are incompetent.  So this crisis has been deposited on our laps by people who have failed to take effective action both in Europe and in the Middle East.

 

Then there is the overlay of the reaction to regressive left/liberal ideas which have been dominating our culture for a while - which seemed to have had the effect of outlawing criticism of Islam and some of it's practices.  So we have not been standing up for our values of individual liberty and the rule of law (which treats everyone equally). Then we have the narrative which argues against the 'Islam is a religion of peace - and what we are dealing with is fringe extremists' - by critiquing the Quran and showing that there is much in there which is not at all peaceful.  So perhaps we are drawn to the conclusion that Islam is an especially bad religion - the worst of a bad bunch.

 

All this is going on because we fail to do two things.  We fail to stand for our hard won values and we fail to clearly identify the causes and conditions which have brought about ISIS and so on.

 

Do all Muslims tacitly support ISIS and the like?  Do we know this?  Is not some of this 'support' because if they don't they will be beheaded?  We don't know.  Did all Germans - or many Germans - support the Nazis without actually being Nazis?  What about all the communists and liberals who ended up in concentration camps?  

 

It is a bit ridiculous to throw around generalisations when what we need is calm, clear heads and proper analysis.

[Apech]

"...Strong ethos and values based education..." "Today in the UK, there are numerous active extreme right-wing groups, sharing an ideology centring on an intense hostility to minorities and a belief that violence between ethnic and religious groups is inevitable. Alongside antisemitism and racism, hostility to Islam has now become a common element of extreme right ideology." This is the ethos and values the state wants children to be indoctrinated with. It's as if they believe children are empty vessels in which they can pour in values and ethos like programming a computer. It's a complete denial of reason or self education. It's ever more authoritarian. They even have the audacity to suggest "critical thinking" when it is clear that the children are to be steered towards excepting what they are being told. They can debate it by all means, but the debates will be led and informed by the teacher who just happens to be a Government licensed employee.

 

 

I agree that this government initiative is daft.

 

Schools should be teaching English/other languages, Sciences, Maths, Literature and so on.  Indoctrination should not be part of the curriculum.

[Chang]

"...Strong ethos and values based education..." "Today in the UK, there are numerous active extreme right-wing groups, sharing an ideology centring on an intense hostility to minorities and a belief that violence between ethnic and religious groups is inevitable. Alongside antisemitism and racism, hostility to Islam has now become a common element of extreme right ideology." This is the ethos and values the state wants children to be indoctrinated with. It's as if they believe children are empty vessels in which they can pour in values and ethos like programming a computer. It's a complete denial of reason or self education. It's ever more authoritarian. They even have the audacity to suggest "critical thinking" when it is clear that the children are to be steered towards excepting what they are being told. They can debate it by all means, but the debates will be led and informed by the teacher who just happens to be a Government licensed employee.

 

My own view, for what it is worth, is that the Governments efforts in schools to prevent radicalisation will have little or no effect.

 

It is very much a case of their being seen, attempting to do something; the same thing is happening in France and presumably elsewhere in Europe. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/21/france-overhaul-secularism-teaching-anti-radicalisation-paris-attacks

 

It is an unfortunate trait in Liberal Democracies that instead of positive action that will have an effect on the problem they make a few wishy washy changes that skirt around the issue. They will not even use the term  "Islamic radicalisation" but give the impression that Islam is just one small aspect of a larger problem of radicalisation in general. There will come a time when our Politicions come to the realisation that to rectify a problem you will have to upset the people who are causing it. That point appears to be still far off.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Chang

[Marblehead]

Here in the USA the first attempt to stop the mass immigration sometimes soon has failed.  I would think there would be another attempt very soon.  But then, if all of them are sent to Texas and Arizona the bad ones will be weeded out rather quickly and there will be many disappearances.

[Karl]

I think there is a great deal of confusion over this issue.

 

First of all it is incredibly naive to initially ignore the migrant/refugee crisis and then just open the door to let everyone in.  Especially when knowing there are many people from Syria etc. who wish us ill.  Doing that and then not expecting problems is stupid and shows that our leaders (all of Europe) are incompetent.  So this crisis has been deposited on our laps by people who have failed to take effective action both in Europe and in the Middle East.

 

Then there is the overlay of the reaction to regressive left/liberal ideas which have been dominating our culture for a while - which seemed to have had the effect of outlawing criticism of Islam and some of it's practices.  So we have not been standing up for our values of individual liberty and the rule of law (which treats everyone equally). Then we have the narrative which argues against the 'Islam is a religion of peace - and what we are dealing with is fringe extremists' - by critiquing the Quran and showing that there is much in there which is not at all peaceful.  So perhaps we are drawn to the conclusion that Islam is an especially bad religion - the worst of a bad bunch.

 

All this is going on because we fail to do two things.  We fail to stand for our hard won values and we fail to clearly identify the causes and conditions which have brought about ISIS and so on.

 

Do all Muslims tacitly support ISIS and the like?  Do we know this?  Is not some of this 'support' because if they don't they will be beheaded?  We don't know.  Did all Germans - or many Germans - support the Nazis without actually being Nazis?  What about all the communists and liberals who ended up in concentration camps?  

 

It is a bit ridiculous to throw around generalisations when what we need is calm, clear heads and proper analysis.

 

It's unclear what our 'hard won values' are and it makes even less sense when you consider that we don't adopt a basket of values, or even earn the values we purportedly have as individuals. It's just another authoritarian belief in the power of social programming and if you don't accept the social programming then expect there to be ostracised.

 

David Cameron: "a belief in freedom, tolerance of others, accepting personal and social responsibility, respecting and upholding the rule of law"

 

These are the values Cameron believes should be instituted amongst the population.

 

"A 'belief' in freedom" -only says 'belief' because freedom is whatever the state tells us it is. If that's the freedom not to worry about about personal freedom but to let the state be the arbiter of that, as it was in Nazi Germany/Soviet Russia then it isn't freedom at all.

 

"Tolerance of others" no definition of tolerance, are we supposed to be tolerant of everybody no matter what they do or say ? No, of course the state has that sown up. We are to be tolerant of whatever the state decrees we should be tolerant of and intolerant of everything else.

 

"Accepting personal AND social responsibility" these are in opposition with each other deliberately. This is the kind of doublespeak INGSOC would have been proud of. It points once again to the 'responsibilities' that a person should have towards the state-and more concretely the Government.

 

"Respecting and upholding the rule of law" it's a truism. It's no longer a simple set of laws, but an entire library full of legalism which is added to daily in order that our freedoms are further restricted.

 

Cameron's values are bunkum. He believes in nothing more than authoritarian rule 'might makes right' and 'do what I say or else'.

 

It appears the only people giving freedom are the people to whom freedom is being gradually denied. We have given the state the freedom to take away our freedom.

[Chang]

. It appears the only people giving freedom are the people to whom freedom is being gradually denied. We have given the state the freedom to take away our freedom.

 

Another quote worthy of note!