Islamophobia

[England my lionheart]

Is it real?

Yes,but not as widespread as its made out to be IMO

Is it wrong?

If by Islamophobia you mean "prejudice against Muslims" then yes.

Is it dangerous?

Yes,but depends how far people are willing to take the prejudice.

 

[Father Heathen]

The idea that there is a single Islamic culture seems rather myopic.

On the topic of culture it does seem like a veil at times for blatantly xenophobic opinions. Sure, it's not nice to hate people for who they are, but if you just hate their culture and you can say what you want. Blacks are lazy, Roma are thieves, and the Jews greedy. It's cool, cause you don't mean the people - its their culture.

When a culture embodies oppression, violence, homophobia, misogyny, injustice, savagery, superstition and willful ignorance, then it is unworthy of my respect. It's garbage. Period.

 

[Yerda]

When a culture embodies oppression, violence, homophobia, misogyny, injustice, savagery, superstition and willful ignorance, then it is unworthy of my respect. It's garbage. Period.

Which culture embodies these things?

 

[Invisible Pink Unicorn]

Racism against people from predominantly Muslim countries because they look different is real. Europe has a long way to go until they learn to be multicultural and accept people regardless of race.

That being said "Islamophobia" referring to being against the religion is about as real as the "War on Christmas" that American conservatives dreamt up in the 80's. In my opinion it is just as important to confront the sexism, homophobia, racism and superstition within Islam as it is to confront racists who beat people up for looking different than they do.

 

[Yerda]

REurope has a long way to go until they learn to be multicultural and accept people regardless of race.

Multiculturalism is the problem. Though I'm none too sure what multiculturalism is.

In my opinion it is just as important to confront the sexism, homophobia, racism and superstition within Islam as it is to confront racists who beat people up for looking different than they do.

Well said.

 

[Invisible Pink Unicorn]

Multiculturalism is the problem.

Actually I disagree. Multiculturalism implies a sort of compromise between diverse individuals. It only works if everyone involved is willing to participate. The problem is that the Islamists don't want to be a part of the Multicultural society, and insist that Islam is superior. In that way Islam is actually monocultural and is seeking to take over what we value most - diversity, tolerance, and acceptance.

 

[Yerda]

Actually I disagree. Multiculturalism implies a sort of compromise between diverse individuals. It only works if everyone involved is willing to participate. The problem is that the Islamists don't want to be a part of the Multicultural society, and insist that Islam is superior. In that way Islam is actually monocultural and is seeking to take over what we value most - diversity, tolerance, and acceptance.

Everyculturebutislamism?

 

[Invisible Pink Unicorn]

Everyculturebutislamism?

Not necessarily "every" culture. There are plenty of things wrong with European culture as well, which, to be honest, we should have gotten past by now, in the 21st century.

 

[YmirGF]

Right. Just slightly under a decade ago. This is important to get straight.

Agreed, but given your laxness on this minor point makes me skeptical about the veracity of your other comments. How inflated are they?

You are the one who needs to take a breath. First of all, there is a very simple reason why more threats come from extremist Christian groups than extremist Muslim groups. The population of Christians in Western countries is vastly larger than the population of Muslims. Hence, the minority of Christians who are motivated to commit mayhem is a larger segment of the population, especially in the US. And Muslim citizens are under much heavier surveillance than Christian groups. The only reason that you have the impression of there being more Muslim terrorist attacks is that those tend to be sensationalized more because of the hysteria surrounding them.

Oh, I get it. This far larger problem is not reported. Yes, that makes sense. :areyoucra I'm sensing a form of FundyChristianophobia at play here. Should I be checking under the rocks in my driveway?

The Hutaree terrorists in the US were pretty scary, but their story didn't have "legs" in the media.

Probably because they didn't actually commit any terrorist acts... close, but no cigar. Their situation does bear watching however. Strange looking lot, I'll give you that, lol.

We are still talking about the failed underwear bomber and making everyone go through ridiculously ineffective X-ray scanners at airports so that their underwear can be scanned. Not to mention the shoes. Look at all the threats that have been prevented by meticulous scanning of everybody's shoes.

And this targeting of everyone by the TSA is related to Muslim terrorists how? But thanks, now I understand why they made that 95 granny take off her adult diaper. She might have been a FundyChristian Bomber. :flirt: They are quite a problem, you know. It just that no one is reporting them in the news. I smell a conspiracy.

Are you unaware of the fact that the French and Dutch governments have banned them in schools? (Well, I think that the Dutch have just upheld the right of Catholic schools to ban them.)

No, I had not heard that, but what the heck, they were banned in Turkey, which is a 99.9% Muslim country until a year or two ago. Maybe they knew something we have yet to learn.

Face coverings are another matter, but such restrictions need to be against any type of face covering in situations where identity is essential for public safety. There is no reason to ban religious clothing at all in any school, and the French have not made their nation any safer than their neighbors by going to that extreme.

Evidently the French and other countries do not agree. Sue them.

What makes you think that the law is about what you are interested in? It is about what the rights of other people are and ought to be regardless of your personal feelings.

That is correct, but at the same time it is also a bit misleading, Copernicus. You see, I am a voter. I vote for people who reflect my thinking (more or less). Those elected officials write laws, as I expect them to - sometimes not - but again, more or less, as I want. (For what it is worth, I have had the great luck, for the most part, of voting for the parties that won elections in my areas for several decades.) The thing is, due to my vote for a particular candidate or party, my interests are taken care of by my voting choices, and do have a direct impact on the laws that are enacted.

If people don't think their views matter then I suppose they don't. It's not likely such people will effect much in the way of changes in any event. Besides they probably don't believe in much of any great consequence anyway.

If there is a public safety issue, then that is how any restrictions on clothing should be rationalized. That means that you have a situation where it would be a danger if someone were to cover his or her face with a muffler, not just a burqa or niqab.

The problem here is that if someone was asked to remove a muffler, ski mask, balaclava or clown mask, it is not likely that they would begin screaming about religious persecution. That would probably generate headlines though.

Face coverings are not usually the issue when these laws are passed. Usually, what is at issue is that a large number of angry people want to send a message to citizens and visitors who happen to be Muslim. They are an embarrassment to any government that passes them.

Oddly, the Turks didn't seem to feel too embarrassed by their no veils laws and they are a predominantly Muslim country. I do agree that the government was sending a message to the populace however. Frankly speaking, they didn't want to encourage what they saw as being religious extremism. Go figure.

 

[lunakilo]

Not necessarily "every" culture. There are plenty of things wrong with European culture as well, which, to be honest, we should have gotten past by now, in the 21st century.

In Narnia

 

[Copernicus]

No, I had not heard that, but what the heck, they were banned in Turkey, which is a 99.9% Muslim country until a year or two ago. Maybe they knew something we have yet to learn.

The Turkish ban had nothing to do with discrimination against a minority, but with Ataturk's take on how to implement secularism. Today, such unnecessary restrictions are being used to promote an anti-secular backlash. The bans in Europe have no other purpose than discrimination against a religious minority.

That is correct, but at the same time it is also a bit misleading, Copernicus. You see, I am a voter...

So am I. Luckily for us, our Constitution restricts the rights of voters to pass laws that discriminate against ethnic and religious minorities. For now, at least. There are a lot of voters who would like to see that change.

The problem here is that if someone was asked to remove a muffler, ski mask, balaclava or clown mask, it is not likely that they would begin screaming about religious persecution. That would probably generate headlines though.

That's the point here. These laws aren't against clothing that obscures identities. They are against clothing that represents a symbol of a religious minority. It is just lame to try to rationalize such discrimination as if it had some practical purpose other than to send a message to Muslims that they are second-class citizens.

 

[Flankerl]

These laws aren't against clothing that obscures identities. They are against clothing that represents a symbol of a religious minority.

So thats why no one is allowed to hide his or her face in public. Because its just targeted against a minority.

Makes sense. :shout

 

[sandandfoam]

So thats why no one is allowed to hide his or her face in public. Because its just targeted against a minority.

Makes sense. :shout

No helmets, buff's or ski-masks?

 

[Flankerl]

No helmets, buff's or ski-masks?

I can only speak for germany.
Depends. If you have a valid reason to wear a helmet riding your motorbike for example its allowed. But if you'd enter a shop wearing a helmet you'd be asked to remove it. And if the police sees you walking through the city with a helmet you will have to explain yourself. And if you'd enter a bank wearing a helmet the police would show up. Perhaps with quite a few officers.

Also when do people wear a ski mask? The middle of europe is not siberia or antarctica.
So yes ski mask are also not allowed if you dont have a valid reason to wear it. Same for buffs if they cover your face.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

These laws aren't against clothing that obscures identities. They are against clothing that represents a symbol of a religious minority. It is just lame to try to rationalize such discrimination as if it had some practical purpose other than to send a message to Muslims that they are second-class citizens.

I'm not comfortable with laws prohibiting burqas and niqabs. But let's be honest here, these aren't trucker caps or concert T-shirts. Women are regularly attacked, some even killed, for refusing to submit to this ritual concealment.

And as long as we're talking about rationalization here, let's just admit that the fact that women are the victims of these attacks, as well as the victims of honor killings, is a major factor in the way these practices are dismissed as no big deal by nice fair-minded men in the West.

-Nato

 

[Copernicus]

I'm not comfortable with laws prohibiting burqas and niqabs. But let's be honest here, these aren't trucker caps or concert T-shirts. Women are regularly attacked, some even killed, for refusing to submit to this ritual concealment.

And as long as we're talking about rationalization here, let's just admit that the fact that women are the victims of these attacks, as well as the victims of honor killings, is a major factor in the way these practices are dismissed as no big deal by nice fair-minded men in the West.

I do not dismiss these misogynistic practices as "no big deal", but I do insist that governments have no business in trying to interfere with the religious conscience of citizens. If Muslims are ever to rid themselves of such practices, they must do it themselves. It is not the business of others to interfere with community behavior that does not really have an impact on the rest of society. Honor killings fall into the category of those religious practices that violate civil rights of citizens, and the government does need to step in to protect such rights. If a woman does not wish to wear a burqa, then she should have the right not to. If that results in her family ostracizing her, then that is a tragedy that she must somehow come to terms with on her own. If she is physically threatened, then she should have the full protection of her government.

 

[lunakilo]

I would say there is a big difference between laws that prohibit covering your face in public (like the German laws Flamkerl describe) and laws which prohibits the use of a specific type of religious clothing (like the french burka ban)

The German law described effectivly bans the use of burkas, but it does not descriminate against muslims.

This discussuins reminds me of the discussion about banning burkas which we had in Denmark a few years ago.
In Denmark there is generally no ban on covering your face in public, except for during demonstrations or for the purpose of identification. If you are just walking down the street on a normal day, you are free to wear what you want (or to not wear what you want )

The Danish People's Party (that is the right wing xenophobes that hate immigrants) wanted a ban on burkas like in france.
People debated this a lot, and sombody had the idea of counting how many people the ban would affect.
It turned out that they could find 4 people in the entire country whoe wore a burka every day, and between 20 and 30 who occasionally wore one.

After that the ban was dropped

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I do not dismiss these misogynistic practices as "no big deal", but I do insist that governments have no business in trying to interfere with the religious conscience of citizens. If Muslims are ever to rid themselves of such practices, they must do it themselves. It is not the business of others to interfere with community behavior that does not really have an impact on the rest of society.

Right. We nice Westerners try to remain neutral by paying lip service both to religious freedom and to the rights of women in the Muslim community. But something rings very hollow about the way we bend over backwards to avoid characterizing Muslim communities as oppressive to women. It's all about choice, we say, so we can ignore the tradition of coercion, dehumanization, and repression of women by making them conceal themselves in ritual garb. The situation, I submit, would be vastly different if it were men who were being attacked or killed for not submitting to these cultural norms. But we can keep patting ourselves on the back for our commitment to neutrality in these matters, because we're afraid to impose our mores upon a minority community. It's all good.

Welcome to the fascism of complete freedom.

-Nato

 

[Flankerl]

I would say there is a big difference between laws that prohibit covering your face in public (like the German laws Flamkerl describe) and laws which prohibits the use of a specific type of religious clothing (like the french burka ban)

The German law described effectivly bans the use of burkas, but it does not descriminate against muslims.

The french law isnt that different from the german.


Its always about the face. No one is persecuted for covering the hair, ankles, hands or what ever. But the face is needed for identification.

Yet many people act like the french government wants the muslim women naked on the street.

 

[Absolute Zero]

Humans are trully stupid.Understanding and none discrmination would take us far but ignorance and stupidity just f it all up