I've been reconsidering some of my more reflexive political positions of the past few years. This essay is the result of one of them. It is something I rushed off quickly, so there may be some typos and errors I missed - however, all the statistics reported are correct, and taking either from reputable polling companies (UK Polling) or news organisations (Channel 4).
A lot of stupid shit has been said about Islam and Muslims in the past decade or so. In fact, if all the ink spilled on asserting ridiculous conspiracy theories with Muslims as the main characters were gathered up in one place, it would probably be enough to drown a small city in. At the very least.
Such stupid shit has, of course, provoked a backlash. In the UK, the political left has divided fairly neatly into pro-and-anti Muslim factions –usually the pro-Muslim factions are critical of our interventionist foreign policy, the erosion of civil liberties and of American counter-terrorism generally, while their opposites argue for the necessity of such measures. As the shine has worn off interventionism, asserting the natural superiority of Enlightenment values, puffing up a civilizational war etc the left in the UK has generally gone to the pro-Muslim position, at least in the mainstream. Most recently, the maverick politician George Galloway secured victory in the Bradford by-election through shameless pandering to the Muslim community there – especially on the topics of Palestine and Iraq.
The problem with that is this: in protecting Muslims (quite rightly too) from unwarranted attacks, vicious smearing and complete stitch-up jobs by Special Branch, the left over here has overlooked the obvious problem with a large number of Muslims in this country: that they are odious shits, with 14th century views on the place of women, homosexuals and apostates/atheists, and that their political influence is only to set to grow over the next two decades, and that they are providing political cover for them by refusing to discuss these issues.
According to the most standard projections, the UK will have a 10% or so Muslim population by 2030 – well below what the "Eurabia" conspiracy theorists suggest, but a not insignificant figure. Furthermore, the distribution of the Muslim population will not be equally spread out through the country. Instead, it will be concentrated in places like Bradford, Leeds, Birmingham and my own dear North London (the infamous Finsbury Park Mosque is only a short stroll from my apartment). Areas where numbers can plausibly be turned into political representation at a national level, in other words.
Islamist terrorism has long been considered the major risk to the UK. This view suggests that small cells of poorly coordinated plotters, often supported by training camps in Pakistan or Yemen or occasionally Somalia, and their bombs, represent the pre-eminent risk to the British state as we understand it. This view is clearly flawed. While nations like Pakistan, Iraq and Syria may fall to Islamist fundamentalism and terrorism, the UK is not so weak, nor so defenceless. With a surveillance state that would be the envy of Stalin, the world's third biggest military budget, a mostly homogenous nation with long-entrenched political institutions (and a powerful, if mostly unseen, secret security apparatus) is not going to fall because of a fraction of 3% of the population have been reading updated versions of the Anarchist's Cookbook.
Instead of the Middle Eastern scenarios mentioned above, I would like to consider the model presented to us by the United States. In the post-war years up until the early 1970s, organized religion had little say in the political affairs of the nation. Sure, Catholics and Evangelicals might organize competing "get the vote out" contests in this or that race, but by and large, on a national level, religion did not have a say. However, the collapse of support for Democrats in the South, followed by Nixon's Southern Strategy meant one particular political party had to suck up heavily to the religious sensibilities of the Southern States, especially in its more ugly and racist forms, to secure electoral victory. This opened the door to large-scale infiltration of the right by religious, fundamentalist elements who had no respect for the more pluralistic, secular strands of US political history and thinking, and who violently opposed social liberalism and freedom on a number of grounds.
While Americans panicked about the far left and the far right carrying out assassinations and bombing plots, it was the non-violent extremists who managed an electoral coup, seizing control of much of the machinery of the Republican Party, leading it to its current sorry state. And helping to lay the groundwork for the destruction of more than a few countries, the environment, civil liberties and health issues along the way. A sign of how far they have gone in framing the debate is how many Republicans have signed up on the current war on women's reproductive rights.
My fear is that while everyone in the UK focuses on the terrorist threat, and attempting to tar every Muslim with the "terrorist brush", organised groups seeking greater political power will increasingly have the power and resources to set the agenda, or at least force concessions on government in line with their fundamentalist views, in return for some kind of support or another.
This is no idle fear. One third of British Muslims seem to think killing apostates is acceptable. Getting a divorce under Sharia Law is almost impossible for a woman (legal divorce is still an option, but for many devout Muslim women, Imams will outright ignore their concerns or issues in favour of the husband, regardless of the situation, making an Islamic divorce all but impossible). Over a third want Sharia Law implemented fully in the UK. Over 60% think insulting Islam or the Prophet Mohammed should be a criminal offence. In Pakistan, where the majority of Muslim immigration to the UK originates from, support for sanctions such as stoning adulterers to death or chopping hands off of criminals are in the high seventies, or even higher.
While many older Muslims are more moderate in their views, and indeed there is almost no support for Islamist terrorism among the British UK population (below 10%), these are still disturbingly high numbers. More worryingly, much of the Islamic community in the UK seems to prefer to pander to these extremists instead of the more moderate population. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, for example, one of the most influential Muslim scholars in the UK, agrees that apostates should be executed. Saudi Arabia furnishes Muslim schools and learning centres with anti-Semitic texts. The chairman of the Muslim Association of Schools agrees with killing apostates.
While this is a minority of troublemakers right now, their numbers are set to increase. Some would point to the BNP as a similar fringe group, but the BNP's support is at about 2% of the UK – they do not even have seats in Parliament, and their accounts are in a shambles. By contrast, support for these kind of views among Muslims is in the double digits. Furthermore, on certain issues, they will almost certainly be able to build alliances with existing political blocs – one can easily imagine Muslim MPs of a fundamentalist bent agreeing to cooperate with Nadine Dorries and other Tory backbenchers to launch an assault on abortion, as just one example.
As I say, it is the US model which worries me. There is a clear precedent for a fundamentalist, non-violent minority seizing a major slice of power in a democratic, secular state, and using it to advance their deeply illiberal agenda. So long as the UK left continues to wear rose-tinted glasses when it comes to Muslim illiberalism in the UK, a similar scenario could be played out here.
I don't know exactly what the answer is. The solutions I was schooled in tend to be of a more permanent kind than are normally allowed in contemporary European politics (and make a terrible mess, too). If I had to hazard a guess though, I would say it would be something like this: stop protecting these people from the consequences of their own nasty worldview. Push back, and hard. Don't support hate speech legislation, especially where the possibility exists that it can be used to squelch legitimate criticism. Don't allow yourself to be intimidated into silence by religious bullies and thugs. Apart from that, I'm open to suggestions.
Well I learned how the religious right got to where it is in America, and seeing how Muslim fundamentalists could end up in the same position in the UK, and likely the US, is rather frightening.
Food for thought there.
Most of the Muslims I've interacted with tend to be more moderate...kind of like lapsed Catholics. But that's the ones who talk to me. :lol:
I've always thought of it as fundamentalism being the problem, Christian or Muslim no matter. Have to mull over this for awhile.
Well, that's just it. Most Muslims I know are perfectly decent people as well. But the opinion polls, projected trends and UK political culture suggests, unless something changes, that we're going to see greater representation given to these kind of views. And I'm not comfortable with that at all.
OK, I see. Kind of like wingnut holyrollers got to be a political force here. :x
The only thing i can think of is an outright ban on religious speech from politicians and official state atheism with the freedom for the citizen to practice their religion. That and revoking tax exempt status for religious organizations who try their hand at influencing races or influence their congregations on political matters. Matter of fact unlikely that the latter would happen i imagine it would be quite effectful for that.
An outright ban on religious speech is essentially banning free speech for public officials. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Also official state atheism hasn't really helped in the USA, has it? In fact, John Gray has made the case that it has made things worse. Also, tax-exempt status doesn't matter for groups who are getting bankrolled by Saudi Arabia.
The problem isn't going to be solved by political reform. It's only going to be solved by changing the minds of the majority of British Muslims.
Well, we're still trying to figure out what to do about chilling out our christians.
Also the hypocrisy is sometimes beyond their understanding. Its ok to bang someone elses wife and go to lesbian shows and people would never have figured you for a staunch christian until you start bellowing about how this is a christian country that atheists are trying to ruin. (i am thinking of a specific christian i know irl). I imagine its the same with muslim fundamentalists.
Setting up a centrist party that describes itself as centrist because no one wants to listen to extremist assholes?
Said party doesnt even have to win anything. It just has to provide a sense that a lot of people are not intersted in extremism- which may or may not cause other parties to avoid pandering to the religious.
The UK has three parties - the Tories, who are somewhere between the Democrats and the Republicans, Labour, who are to the left of the Democrats (but not by much) and the Lib Dems - who span the spectrum but wont matter after next election because they screwed their voter base. None of our parties are especially extreme, but all of them are willing to do stupid shit if it benefits their electoral chances.
As a rule, Labour get more Muslim votes, but the more Christian Tories get some support too. Baron Warsi for example, was quite vehement in supporting the idea of Europe as a "Christian continent". Between those two parties, there is almost a complete stranglehold on UK politics, and both of them will find reasons to appease Muslim extremists if it gives them more voters, especially after Bradford.
One measure that might work is rolling back the faith schools and academies which allow Islamic orthodoxy to go unquestioned. Another might be a greater insistence on teaching English to immigrants and the children of immigrants, to further integration and allow them access to media with alternative viewpoints to religious propaganda. Also confronting these people, debating them and showing them to be wrong.
A couple of thoughts.
The first being is there a reliable breakdown on extremist views by age? Most younger Muslims I've dealt with have been relatively progressive. While this isn't particularly helpful now, it gives an idea of a future trend that may be quite indicative of how the problems may escalate (or not?)
Secondly is the idea of king making/breaking. The UK has already had some experience with this with Northern Ireland being influential beyond expectations, and I can see a similar situation arising. The abortion example is a prominent one, but what about Sharia ideas/ideals being adopted in other areas? Banking springs to mind.
I really need to think more about this. I have a tendency to equate "fundamentalist XXX" to "Idiot XXX" without really examining what the core ideas are that they're trying to preserve. In a lot of power structures convictions are convincing. Taking a line and sticking to it regardless gets a lot of respect. Those who change their beliefs noticeably tend not to hang on to power for long as they become perceived as easily swayed or weak willed.
Going to shut up and think more before I just keep vomiting words.
Confronting people often doesnt work though. Teabaggers taught me that with their reactions (ive only ever communicated with one who understood the definition of communism). But the idea of exposing them to differing view points would work. The problem is that as a liberal american the idea of yer gert ter learn englirsh! Makes me itch a little. Though the yo cain thread was partly inspired my ruminating about having a global conlang that everyone speaks while listening to loud music. Problem is that esperanto is for dorks and everyone knows that and no one wants to be a dork. Plus iran hates esperanto because bahai endorses it.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2012, 07:23:53 PM
A couple of thoughts.
The first being is there a reliable breakdown on extremist views by age? Most younger Muslims I've dealt with have been relatively progressive. While this isn't particularly helpful now, it gives an idea of a future trend that may be quite indicative of how the problems may escalate (or not?)
Not precisely, but it seems younger Muslims are more extreme than their elders, the 18-25 set in particular. They tend to score higher on percentages agreeing with the introduction of Sharia Law, killing apostates, stoning adulterers etc.
It also depends by what metrics you're measuring progressive. For instance, Malaysia is often cited as an example of a modern, progressive and moderate Muslim country - lots of internet surfing, music listening, TV show pirating kids with iPhones - but at the same time, 92% of them think you should be whipped for drinking alcohol, 95% think sex before marriage should be a criminal offence and 72% think a thief should have their hand chopped off.
While there are a lot of signifiers of a potentially progressive nature, it doesn't always hold up on examination.
QuoteSecondly is the idea of king making/breaking. The UK has already had some experience with this with Northern Ireland being influential beyond expectations, and I can see a similar situation arising. The abortion example is a prominent one, but what about Sharia ideas/ideals being adopted in other areas? Banking springs to mind.
I can see that being something that would go down very badly. In fact, baiting them and the financial sector to get in a fight could be amusing for all.
My main worry is the convergence on things like freedom of speech with Labour, and women's rights/reproductive rights with the Tories.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 07, 2012, 07:28:32 PM
Confronting people often doesnt work though. Teabaggers taught me that with their reactions (ive only ever communicated with one who understood the definition of communism). But the idea of exposing them to differing view points would work. The problem is that as a liberal american the idea of yer gert ter learn englirsh! Makes me itch a little. Though the yo cain thread was partly inspired my ruminating about having a global conlang that everyone speaks while listening to loud music. Problem is that esperanto is for dorks and everyone knows that and no one wants to be a dork. Plus iran hates esperanto because bahai endorses it.
It depends how you confront them. Hostile confrontations, with mockery, are not going to change anyone's minds, no. But they're not meant to. They're meant to shame the person in question, and are done for the benefit of the crowd. Other approaches can and do work, though.
Well, America is exceptional, in that it is an immigrant nation, founded equally by non-English and non-Europeans as it was by a bunch of English wannabe aristocrats. Proficiency in English is already required for UK citizenship, but the current government has cut programs for people to learn English on, which does not help anything. Realistically, if we just have a state/private school system like we used to, the language thing would not be an issue anyway, since the kids at the very least would be using it every day in class. But with the introduction of religious schools and academies, you can have schools where speaking Urdu, or Hindi, or Latin, or Yiddish, are written into the rules. And if they live their entire lives in a community that speaks only that language, then yes, there are going to be a host of problems associated with that. The govenment has made large strides in accomodating people who speak foreign languages (Most government forms are available in a language of your choice, the police employ interpreters etc) but, at the same time, they're going to be missing out on a lot if they cannot converse with the majority of people in the country.
If they don't want to converse with those people, then fair enough, it is their choice, but bringing them up in such a community, sending them to such schools is denying them that choice in the first place.
Gotcha. That makes a more sense for not america. It was a bit of a knee jerk feeling i admit.
Not to threadjack but uk allows you to get citizenship if you learn scots gaelic, welsh and or irish in lieu of english right? I know they did at one point and i think the idea is ridiculous even though i am an obvious proponent of preserving and expanding celtic languages.
The 18-25 group concerns me, but I think we probably need a comparison to other religious/ethnic groups to get an idea of how severe the problem is. My reasoning is that there are several other pressures on this age range such as employment that historically tend to push people towards views they may not hold when times are good.
Progressive is a fuzzy word and I should clarify that. My experiences have been fairly broad. Some drink, some smoke, some do both. Many are open to casual/alternative relationships although Homosexuality has been a point of stigma among several. This leads me to think that education is key and faith schools(ANY faith) are probably a serious issue that needs addressing.
The nature of a faith school is that you will never really be taught in detail about other faiths, and certainly never put those on an equal footing to your own. A push for more of them will be worrying. How to tackle this without offending all faiths is a problem I've really got no idea how to address. I would imagine this would be an area where religions would unite to protect each other.
Mandatory teaching of Atheism and examples of prominent/historical atheists could help but I doubt it. This would probably end with "and they're in hell now so remember to praise (deity)"
I think that largely depends on local population. I went to a catholic school until i was 12 and even though i was young got the sense that it was fairly liberal and egalitarian with other beliefs. We had a few protestant and a rare jewish students and it was an open secret that our religious principal was also gay.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 07, 2012, 07:48:13 PM
Gotcha. That makes a more sense for not america. It was a bit of a knee jerk feeling i admit.
Not to threadjack but uk allows you to get citizenship if you learn scots gaelic, welsh and or irish in lieu of english right? I know they did at one point and i think the idea is ridiculous even though i am an obvious proponent of preserving and expanding celtic languages.
No, I understand, I'm not entirely comfortable with the proposition either.
Not that I'm aware of, though my personal opinion is that they should be given a bonus point for effort.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2012, 07:51:50 PM
The nature of a faith school is that you will never really be taught in detail about other faiths, and certainly never put those on an equal footing to your own. A push for more of them will be worrying. How to tackle this without offending all faiths is a problem I've really got no idea how to address. I would imagine this would be an area where religions would unite to protect each other.
Indeed, and it will only get worse as time goes by. That's why ideally they should be scrapped as soon as possible. Education is too important to be left to religious fundamentalists. It's really too important to be left to government, but unfortunately it has to be left to someone, and at least the teachers seem to want to hold government somewhat accountable for what is being taught.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 07, 2012, 08:02:07 PM
I think that largely depends on local population. I went to a catholic school until i was 12 and even though i was young got the sense that it was fairly liberal and egalitarian with other beliefs. We had a few protestant and a rare jewish students and it was an open secret that our religious principal was also gay.
Oh, indeed, it can be (also, gay principial at a Catholic school? The jokes just write themselves).
However, those with most interest in teaching extreme views will want to use faith schools, as it allows students to be isolated from other views (faith schools do not have to admit anyone they do not want to, including staff, on religious grounds) and so the propaganda can be fed to them uncritically.
Dead on, Cain. It's frustrating. Your solution of pushing back hard with verbal dissent and social pressure is theoretically great for Britain. The problem here (and also rightly so) is that we have proven zero capacity for common sense, appropriate application or...uh...what's that stuff? Oh yeah, sanity.
In the way ideas are presented here, a lot of the subtle flavors are dumbed-down and shit tonnes of salt and sugar thrown in. It's created a perpetuation of the all-or-nothing polarized thinking that would make people miss the point entirely of saying "we can not allow these non-democratic ideas to fester freely." Democrats are programmed to see that statement as hypocrisy. Neocons are self-indulgent enough to believe that means we should stand the National Guard inside of Masjids.
@Junkenstein I sort of have to disagree with the younger = more progressive idea. At least here, it seems like the younger population of Islamic people (and I've been intimtely exposed to their society for several reasons) seem to have something to prove whereas the elders seem to be more at peace with the environment. Or, at least, if they aren't, they're keeping their mouths shut about subjects like public whippings and blurting out scary stuff like "They will suffer for ____, in sh'allah!" Yes, this happens. A lot. And if it's happening in front of me with only the women (I'm only allowed to socialize in the women's tent at their barbeques and events), I have to wonder what goes on among the men in private.
Don't get me wrong, they've been wonderful people to me--very gracious inviting me to their tables (or floors. Carpet picnic!) even inside the Masjid after sundown at Ramadan--but there are many things they are very comfortable saying in front of me that are cause for alarm and one of them happens to be that there is a clear agenda that is tailored for life in this country to which Muslim women are obligated to adhere. That includes:
1. Not wasting an opportunity to get a muslim man abroad a greencard through marriage.
2. Having and raising three children in Islam and teaching the virtues of sharia law.
3. Agreeing to settle all civil and domestic matters between each other through the Imam before trying other avenues.
4. Understanding that the point (regardless of beliefs about violent uprising or otherwise) is to turn the tide of political power through numbers and through manipulating our very own weak, flawed and "corrupt" values against us to do so.
You can not use descriminatory practices in granting legal status in this country.
You can not control reproductive practices or legislate forced eugenics.
You can not forbid anyone the right to home or pivately school their children in faith-based teaching...even if that teaching is to prime children to the "evils of democracy."
I suspect these US born women are but tools: mere hosts. I get the impession that the elders don't like or trust or respect them very much. US converts here in the south are STRONGLY advised to send the children to Muslim private school because they are not "high in their Imam" (whatever that means) and are "like children themselves."
I don't know about you, but that sounds a lot like the desired level of their contribution to the community is limited to the role of immigration and baby mill.
And I wrote that whole thing on a smartphone before the last 7 posts so if I repeated anything, oh well.
Hi Navkat, the younger/progressive idea is pretty much just my perception. Given your experiences I'm quite open to this not being anywhere close to fact. I've mainly dealt with younger males so the female perspective is something i'm pretty ignorant on.
Your list of obligations is a little startling for a couple of reasons. Firstly in that i've had a few flyers from right wing organisations with some of them on in much more forceful language. Secondly in how self perpetuating, especially among women, that these ideas seem to be. Have you encountered any dissenting voices to them? How strong is this obligation? I've got a fair few questions along these kind of lines, I guess what i'm trying to get at is how open in general is the group you're dealing with open to change and new ways of thinking?
Jumping over to this
QuoteYou can not forbid anyone the right to home or pivately school their children in faith-based teaching...even if that teaching is to prime children to the "evils of democracy."
Again, very limited knowledge here. While you can't deprive people of the right, surely there is some kind of check to make sure the teaching covers certain subjects and is of a minimum quality? I think I know the answer but I live in hope.
Finally this is concerning me
QuoteI don't know about you, but that sounds a lot like the desired level of their contribution to the community is limited to the role of immigration and baby mill.
That's a pretty damning statement. Are the women you talk to happy/comfortable with that level of contribution? I would guess not, but given the willingness to perpetuate the problem I really don't know.
Apologies for the somewhat inquisitorial nature of the post, I've just got far more questions than answers.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 07, 2012, 07:48:13 PM
Gotcha. That makes a more sense for not america. It was a bit of a knee jerk feeling i admit.
Not to threadjack but uk allows you to get citizenship if you learn scots gaelic, welsh and or irish in lieu of english right? I know they did at one point and i think the idea is ridiculous even though i am an obvious proponent of preserving and expanding celtic languages.
Actually (as in most civilized countries) they
strip you of your citizenship if you learn Wwwyllllsccch.
@junkenstein
There was a thread in which I'd posted a link to a yt that was part of a documentary on a familiy who converted to islam here in the Mobile Bay area. The theme of the piece, I suspect, was intended to be one highlighting heartwarming ethnic diversity in the face of sociopolitical obstacles. What it did an inadvertent fine job of depicting was just how fannatical mainstream society is here about christianity and how, in absense of the christian fervor with which he was indoctrinated (due to feeling cast out for his own myriad reasons), this young man found Islam and has since found it to fill that void and has become as fannatical about it.
Disenfranchised and rebelious christians leaving that faith (possibly due to disillusionment and cognitive dissonance about the trend of hateful behavior on behalf of the religious right) seem prfect candidates to apply the same level of fannaticism to Islam. Seeing what they want to see and in spite of and blind to their own deeds and attitudes of hipocrisy, I think the mechanism is still "our god is the one true loving, peaceful god and we do his work, in sh'allah." The point being the same end: spreading his "word" and establishing his rule of law on earth (as it is in heaven).
How different is that, really from the neocons saying stupid shit like "it's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion" and unabashedly promoting legislation that has its justification in religion based logic? How many times have you heard the phrase "the framers based the constitution on Judeo-christian values?"
Changing hearts and minds through the multiply and be fruitful tenet doesn't sound so weird in that context anymore, does it?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on April 08, 2012, 02:33:25 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 07, 2012, 07:48:13 PM
Gotcha. That makes a more sense for not america. It was a bit of a knee jerk feeling i admit.
Not to threadjack but uk allows you to get citizenship if you learn scots gaelic, welsh and or irish in lieu of english right? I know they did at one point and i think the idea is ridiculous even though i am an obvious proponent of preserving and expanding celtic languages.
Actually (as in most civilized countries) they strip you of your citizenship if you learn Wwwyllllsccch.
It's spelled "Cymraeg", duh.
:lulz:
Quote from: Cain on April 07, 2012, 08:27:11 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2012, 07:51:50 PM
The nature of a faith school is that you will never really be taught in detail about other faiths, and certainly never put those on an equal footing to your own. A push for more of them will be worrying. How to tackle this without offending all faiths is a problem I've really got no idea how to address. I would imagine this would be an area where religions would unite to protect each other.
Indeed, and it will only get worse as time goes by. That's why ideally they should be scrapped as soon as possible. Education is too important to be left to religious fundamentalists. It's really too important to be left to government, but unfortunately it has to be left to someone, and at least the teachers seem to want to hold government somewhat accountable for what is being taught.
Wouldn't the ideal way to ensure this to be mainly a focus on quality, pay and conditions in government schools.
In Aus at least if you scrapped faith schools the whole government system would collapse with the influx.
You really can't lure zealots hell bent on religious indoctrinization into public schools by promising an olympic-sized swimming pool on the roof.
Quote from: navkat on April 10, 2012, 12:42:13 PM
You really can't lure zealots hell bent on religious indoctrinization into public schools by promising an olympic-sized swimming pool on the roof.
I think though most parents just want the best schools.
Make government education as competitive as possible on that line. Also, I should imagine there are limits on what can be taught in a non-government school.
You're missing the point of why parents send their kids to non-secular private schools in the first place. To them, their mumbo-jumbo is a good education.
Quote from: navkat on April 10, 2012, 01:00:28 PM
You're missing the point of why parents send their kids to non-secular private schools in the first place. To them, their mumbo-jumbo is a good education.
Well I just learned a lot about my parents then, and where my long love of mumbo-jumbo comes from.
To put it with less snark;
I feel, and am willing to entertain evidence to the contrary, that generally parents will look for a best option availible.
The numbers are a bit more uplifting in Norway (but still, everything is not all roses). 14% say they want Sharia law in Norway, 15% say Norwegian society is 2immoral". 18% attend religious services on a weekly basis. The amount of Muslims who support terrorism seems to be less than 2-3%.
I think this is because
a) We don't have any Islamic private schools (and if one is ever founded, it'll have to follow the national curriculum with a few exceptions), and good public schools in immigrant-heavy areas.
b) There are a number of moderate Muslims who are vocal in the public sphere.
c) We also don't have as many Muslims as the UK, leading to a greater pressure on Muslims to integrate.
d) And probably some more reasons.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on April 10, 2012, 01:05:14 PM
Quote from: navkat on April 10, 2012, 01:00:28 PM
You're missing the point of why parents send their kids to non-secular private schools in the first place. To them, their mumbo-jumbo is a good education.
Well I just learned a lot about my parents then, and where my long love of mumbo-jumbo comes from.
To put it with less snark;
I feel, and am willing to entertain evidence to the contrary, that generally parents will look for a best option availible.
Okay, I see where you're coming from.
Yes, I will put MY kid into a catholic school if the public system's suckin'...and I HAVE.
Difference is, he comes home and does homework and plays video games like a regular kid. He's taught to focus on scientific fact and defer worrying about shit like god for later. The choice is his but mommy doesn't go to church.
Kids being indoctrinated get jesus 24/7. They get home from school and it's jesus jesus jesus. Jesus died for that candy you're eating. Jesus' daddy built America. Jesus wanted daddy to have th job so you can have nice things, that's why the black lady who went to college instead of church didn't get it.
See the difference?
So if you fix the schools, yeah, I'm gonna put my kid in there but the Jesus people will not. We should fix them ANYWAY bc wtf am I paying for TWO schools for?!?
Yep. I do see.
I'm not suggesting it would attract Zealots. Even if you burned the faith schools down zealots would home school. But if you can engineer things so that a school has be goddamn good to attract choosy parents (as non-choosy default to public system regardless) then extreme religious schools have a much much harder time getting the patronage they need to survive.
I would never send my kid to an extreme religious school. Those schools do just fine without my dollars. There's a difference between St. Vincent and "Jesus all Day" school. My kid would fit in there just about as much as I'd fit in at a Westboro rally. He'd be asked to leave.
Just like if I tried to send him to an Islamic school. We'd get the "we don't think this is a good fit" talk.
Why are you being so obtuse about this? You really don't understand how this works?
I was in Portugal early in the year, and in a Southern town called Silves I stumbled across an education centre whose aim was to convey the Moorish history of the Iberian peninsula. I've got more details at home, and I can't remember the name of the organisation off-hand. But it was jointly funded by the governments of Portugal, Spain, and Morocco which seems like a diplomatic achievement in and of itself.
It's focus was on how the Muslims of that time (700 to late 1400's) influenced Iberia over time, with architecture and food being the most obvious legacies. But pressing that history, they paint a picture of a time of enlightenment in Islam, which seemed to extol virtues of tolerance, science and rationality. An example they cite is that Jewish communities on the peninsula at the time preferred to live in the Moorish Caliphates then the Christian Kingdoms, due to Christian persecution that was absent from the Moorish lands.
Bit of a poor summary, I know, but this initiative was a damn good idea, and it's something that probably needs to target Muslims at least as much as it should non-Muslims. Sorry for a Lennon moment, but wouldn't it be good if Islam as an institution traded on this history, of alleged tolerance and enlightenment values?
I know harking back centureies to an aledged golden age has it's own issues of accuracy and living in a past, but it's start.
Also visited the Paris Mosque on the same trip, impressive building. It seemed as though Islam has had more time to integrate into French society, the French having colonised most of North Africa. Tunisian cafe's are a mainstream institution, for example. So many Parisians "look" like they have Arabic features and descent. Yet, the Nationalists of Le Pen seem to do well there. Yet, in the cities I visited (Paris, Montpellier, Grenoble), Islamic/Arabic culture seemed strong, and the French didn;t seem at all stressed about it, on an overt level. The French seem to be doing something right. I haven't worked out exactly what though.
Nav. My point is there are no schools called Jesus all day. Just schools called St Vincents which over time, or by design, become extreme in their school culture.
I suspect there are zealots who will take the most extreme option, but just as firmly suspect that they alone will not keep a school in business. That's why I'm saying the aim should be to make non faith options as competitive as possible.
DC I thought France would be a lot more Islam intolerant based on the hijab laws.
I think you're part right about the hijab law, in that it's a law that pleases bigots, as well as pleasing those believing in the French tradition of secularism as well. As I pointed out, the relative success of Le Pen's party is also a sign of relative intolerance.
Stats are difficult to collect in France, as the Census can't be used there to ask people's religion's or ethnicity. But the stats used earlier in this thread are illuminating when looking at attitudes of French Muslims.
From http://pewresearch.org/pubs/50/the-french-muslim-connection
French Muslims are evenly split on the question of the effect of the victory by the radical group Hamas in this year's Palestinian election, with 44% saying it was good for Palestinians and 46% judging it bad. By comparison, British Muslims weighed in lopsidedly on the positive side (56% 'good' vs. 18% 'bad') as did Spanish Muslims (57% vs. 22%).
the French are heavily opposed (71%) to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran. British Muslims, in contrast, are evenly split on the subject.
With regard to...confidence in Osama bin Laden, French Muslims are virtually unanimous (93%) in their disdain. (By comparison, 68% of British Muslims submit a vote of no confidence in the Al Qaeda leader.
Most striking, however, is the difference between the views that French Muslims hold about people of other faiths and the views held by Muslims elsewhere in Europe and in predominantly Muslim countries. French Muslims even top the general publics in the United States and France in favorable ratings of Christians (91% of French Muslims vs. 88% of Americans and 87% of the French take that view).
Fully 71% of French Muslims express a positive view of people of the Jewish faith, compared with only 38% of German Muslims, 32% of British Muslims, 28% of Spanish Muslims and still lower numbers in the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed. In this, Muslims reflect the view of the larger French public among whom fully 86% express a favorable opinion of Jews, a higher proportion than even than among the American public.
More French Muslims consider themselves French before Muslim -
(http://pewresearch.org/assets/obdeck/50-7.gif)
Few Muslims living in France see a natural conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society. Seven-in-ten French Muslims (72%) perceive no such conflict, a view shared by a virtually identical 74%-share of the French general public. In Great Britain, however, Muslims split evenly (47% see a conflict, 49% do not) while only 35% of the British general public see no inherent conflict between devotion to Islam and adaptation to a modern society.
Nearly eight-in-ten French Muslims (78%) say they want to adopt French customs. Those under age 35 are equally as likely to say this as are their elders. This high preference for assimilation compares with that expressed by 53% of Muslims in Spain, 41% in Britain and 30% in Germany.
One big difference between the Muslim populations of UK and France is country of origin. The vast majority of French muslims are of North African descent (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia), while British Muslims mostly come from the sub-continent. Whether this makes a difference in the "radical-ness" of said groups, I don't know.
France does seem to have pursued a more inegrationist strategy, rather than a "multi-cultural" one, though France looks incredibly multi-cultural.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on April 13, 2012, 04:02:23 AM
Nav. My point is there are no schools called Jesus all day. Just schools called St Vincents which over time, or by design, become extreme in their school culture.
I suspect there are zealots who will take the most extreme option, but just as firmly suspect that they alone will not keep a school in business. That's why I'm saying the aim should be to make non faith options as competitive as possible.
Are you srs? Like srsly srs?
No, they're not Jesus all day. They're called like, Mobile Biblical Baptist Academy or some shit and
christ, have you
not seen these kids in HS and college talking about how it's their fucking
duty to "witness" to the
youth of this "lost generation" of "misguided" teens? Please. Tell me you're not so naive that you believe that Friday mass in your dress-uniform is where this stops.
I mean no disrespect but here, in the South, it's real. I did not
send Lex to Mobile Baptist Academy because of the "line" he'd be expected to toe. We'd both be expected in Church every Sunday and to show up for field trips to "spread the Great, Good News." It exists, baby.
I sent him to St. Vincent dePaul because the fifth grade reading pass rates were superior to poor, black, underfunded public school and he wasn't expected to show his face for Ash Wednesday or Easter unless the day after
Mardi Gras he came to
me and said "Mommy, I wanna go get dust on my head and eat fish-fry with Carter and Lee."
The choice has always been his there. He is not excluded from Spring Festival, he is not asked to leave if he opts not to go through confirmation. He still gets his little reindeer shirt at the Christmas assembly. They don't tell him silly shit like "Santa is "Satan" spelled sideways."
I had his ass signed up for the Magnate school every January. I chose SVS because the secular prep school was fucking $10k a year.
Not true of the Baptist shit which was $3k but the Baptist
shit wanted to turn him into a Jesus-and-the-5000-hungry-believers-coloring, dancin in the aisles, tambourine-shaking
robot.
While you're right about my decision to pay for a good education, you're slathering vanilla frosting over the whole argument and calling it cake. There are nuances here.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on April 13, 2012, 04:02:23 AM
Nav. My point is there are no schools called Jesus all day.
Dingo, you have no idea. For real.
It's hard to explain to an outsider what the American religious right is like. You see bits and pieces of it on the news, but the reality IS that "First Baptist Middle School" IS "All Jesus All Day".
Quote from: navkat on April 07, 2012, 08:28:55 PM
Dead on, Cain. It's frustrating. Your solution of pushing back hard with verbal dissent and social pressure is theoretically great for Britain. The problem here (and also rightly so) is that we have proven zero capacity for common sense, appropriate application or...uh...what's that stuff? Oh yeah, sanity.
In the way ideas are presented here, a lot of the subtle flavors are dumbed-down and shit tonnes of salt and sugar thrown in. It's created a perpetuation of the all-or-nothing polarized thinking that would make people miss the point entirely of saying "we can not allow these non-democratic ideas to fester freely." Democrats are programmed to see that statement as hypocrisy. Neocons are self-indulgent enough to believe that means we should stand the National Guard inside of Masjids.
Well, that's just the problem. While non-democratic ideas should be allowed to be spoken freely, there is no reason why we should debase our education system to help propagate such ideas. If they're that great, then they can withstand public scrutiny and being debate in public - not being hidden behind private schools and taught in secret.
And the conflation of Islamist extremism and Islamist terrorism and the military response to the latter is probably one of the worst aspects of this. Extremism is not countered by armies.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on April 10, 2012, 12:34:59 PM
Wouldn't the ideal way to ensure this to be mainly a focus on quality, pay and conditions in government schools.
In Aus at least if you scrapped faith schools the whole government system would collapse with the influx.
No constituency for it. Teachers are seen as overpaid, left-wing slackers with far too many holidays. The Conservative government at the moment knows it can attack teachers freely, because they're almost universally Labour, Green or Lib Dem voters anyway, and so their opinions don't matter. Government here has launched an all out assault on the education sector, and about the most ideologically rigid MP is Secretary for Education (Michael Gove...admirer of George W Bush, Tony Blair and peddler of insane conspiracy theories about Muslims).
Quote from: Placid Dingo on April 10, 2012, 12:53:14 PM
Quote from: navkat on April 10, 2012, 12:42:13 PM
You really can't lure zealots hell bent on religious indoctrinization into public schools by promising an olympic-sized swimming pool on the roof.
I think though most parents just want the best schools.
Make government education as competitive as possible on that line. Also, I should imagine there are limits on what can be taught in a non-government school.
Unfortunately, no. Textbooks describing evolution as a lie and Jews as sub-human have been found in religious schools in the UK before now.
Among their crimes is the music genre family friendly christian rap. So, there's that.
Quote from: Chairman Risus on April 13, 2012, 07:45:33 PM
Among their crimes is the music genre family friendly christian rap. So, there's that.
Well, Run DMC was that way.
But I assume the artists you're talking about aren't Run DMC.
Quote from: Cain on April 13, 2012, 03:09:45 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on April 10, 2012, 12:34:59 PM
Wouldn't the ideal way to ensure this to be mainly a focus on quality, pay and conditions in government schools.
In Aus at least if you scrapped faith schools the whole government system would collapse with the influx.
No constituency for it. Teachers are seen as overpaid, left-wing slackers with far too many holidays. The Conservative government at the moment knows it can attack teachers freely, because they're almost universally Labour, Green or Lib Dem voters anyway, and so their opinions don't matter. Government here has launched an all out assault on the education sector, and about the most ideologically rigid MP is Secretary for Education (Michael Gove...admirer of George W Bush, Tony Blair and peddler of insane conspiracy theories about Muslims).
Yeah. Hence the 'ideal'. :(
Quote from: Cain on April 13, 2012, 03:11:28 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on April 10, 2012, 12:53:14 PM
Quote from: navkat on April 10, 2012, 12:42:13 PM
You really can't lure zealots hell bent on religious indoctrinization into public schools by promising an olympic-sized swimming pool on the roof.
I think though most parents just want the best schools.
Make government education as competitive as possible on that line. Also, I should imagine there are limits on what can be taught in a non-government school.
Unfortunately, no. Textbooks describing evolution as a lie and Jews as sub-human have been found in religious schools in the UK before now.
Is that within the confines of law though? I know in Aus you need to be following the standards, public or private, or you don't get to be a school any more.
QuoteNo, they're not Jesus all day. They're called like, Mobile Biblical Baptist Academy or some shit and christ, have you not seen these kids in HS and college talking about how it's their fucking duty to "witness" to the youth of this "lost generation" of "misguided" teens? Please. Tell me you're not so naive that you believe that Friday mass in your dress-uniform is where this stops.
No I haven't Nav, I'm an Australian in a small mining town, so I'm not so familiar with what's going on day to day in the US.
Anyway, it seems a bit of a stalemate; if application of rigorious curriculum standards to all schools, and additional support to public schools doesn't solve anything, then I'm running on empty. Because 'getting rid of' faith schools would overload and basically fuck up the public system.
Also, i dont think it's inherently problematic to put kids in a faith based environment (though I think were agreed there).
My apologies for my US-centrism. I had a hard time understanding why you couldn't grok my meaning and I thought you were pulling my leg.
It's for real. It's like we're aliens and shit.
Quote from: navkat on April 14, 2012, 01:51:27 AM
My apologies for my US-centrism. I had a hard time understanding why you couldn't grok my meaning and I thought you were pulling my leg.
It's for real. It's like we're aliens and shit.
Until someone has visited, it's hard to comprehend the horror of the 21st century American experience.
In my experience, the local Catholic schools tend to be pretty good, in terms of curriculum and not forcing Jesus down everyones throats, HOWEVER, that is nowhere near 100%, and some of them are as bad as those Baptist loony bins, and in general, I don't necessarily think religious schools are the right way to go.
Also, I consistently read the title of this thread as "My Problem With Islands". :lol:
Quote from: Doktor M. Phox0 on April 14, 2012, 02:13:20 AM
Also, I consistently read the title of this thread as "My Problem With Islands". :lol:
Methinks you had a sip from my glass of crazy.
0 oopsi 4got the GReen
.1 WHEN IN? '96 i ran my computer write in for US senate from this "OR" state
i was sure running against just the Republican up for reelection i did run my
campPAIN against both{2) they both Resigned rather than respond to my Letter
{that "LEGAL" one that the government insisted THAT i provide to them )
at my cost. More Stupid stuff.
2: The Last time i voted was in the 60's | the then governer from AL. was
running a 3rd party bid to end the BS . & in my opinion was sucsfull. However
when it was seen that he was, the IOway vote was changed elimanating
his effort. So Boo . Boo to the next post & the one after that and the next
100K2. Stupid Stupid Stupid $'nominated
3? i 4get | What was this about? IsLamb on the Island for the Icon E-Ran
not so funny . Anyway the ONE above {in my opinion2 ) was he who provided
all the US$ to give the Econ type the NoShun that Yen.isle was worth Sum, thins
boo boo boo. Worth Less. & as for sending 4 to the Sand pile to pile tanks on
the banks of dryed out sisterns boo booo booooo boooooooo Boo More goMint
Go.Mint F4U2
yeah in 69 when A swallow / could kill aN elephant Herd
VaLLy funny U
Quote from: navkat on April 14, 2012, 03:39:30 AM
Quote from: Doktor M. Phox0 on April 14, 2012, 02:13:20 AM
Also, I consistently read the title of this thread as "My Problem With Islands". :lol:
the islands name is Hardtack, if it matters, although it is called Ross, for 1 near by
Methinks you had a sip from my glass of crazy.
Problem is religion itself. Problem is Islam. Problem is christianity. Problem is Hindu, voodoo, joojoo and anything else that involves completely reliqushing your grip on reality. It's easy to forget, especially when confronted with apologist statistics about 99.99% of them not being fundamentalists and/or dangerous, but these are people who base important real-life decisions on some utterly retarded cock and bull fairy story or other. A lot of them may appear to be rational human beings but there's a fundamental part of their mind that doesn't work properly and, with a glitch of that magnitude, on the scale it's still manifest in global society, of course that means a whole lot of window licking - that's what religion is all about after all.
Unfortunately there's no solution. The memes are ferociously resilient to logic, critical reasoning and education and there's just too many believers to gas to death (moral issues aside)
We're pretty much fucked because an embarrassingly high percentage of our human brethern are batshit fucking insane :lulz:
They look like big, strong hands, don't they?
/
(http://www.digital-polyphony.com/pdvd_022.jpg)