 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sixpoints
Joined: 27 Sep 2010
Location: Lulie Street
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| 1061 wrote: | | sixpoints wrote: | | My apologies. |
Accepted and Merry Christmas to you and yours. |
Straight back at ya!
Have a great day. |
|
|
|
 |
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | sixpoints wrote: | | 1061 wrote: | | sixpoints wrote: |
Last time I checked Islam is a religion not a 'culture'. So following that logic
|
BIOYA
http://www.missionislam.com/family/culture.htm
| Quote: |
While there are numerous cultures and subcultures present in the world, of primary concern to us in this discussion are the two main opposing cultures in present-day society. One is the culture of Islam — the “complete way of life” set forth in the Qur’an and Sunnah. On the other opposing end is the Western culture. Both cultures present a “complete way of life.” However, both ways of life differ drastically. |
|
Good grief, quoting from a whack job fringe fundamentalist website!
"One culture of Islam, and opposing it is Christianity!". Lazy, inflamatory, reductionist rubbish.
If there truly is only one culture of Islam, who then are ISIL fighting? Last time I checked it was the Alawite's, Kurds & Shia. How can one homogeneous culture kick the living crap out of each other if not due to their irrevocable differences. |
Northern Ireland says hello...... |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxpYW_w5pgo
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough†Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | Ah, Mugwump is here, to tell us that the left which has been dominated by feminist left thought for two decades now and has fought for women's rights for decades more is no longer feminist; black and white folk are allowed to riot and shape a country for good or bad, but Muslims (including black Muslims) aren't; the EU is to blame for Putin, but not Anglo-America; Blair's Iraq and Afghanistan death cults and torture programs were of a different sort to those of fanatics elsewhere; secularism is at risk because the left is disinterested, even though it was the only group seriously interested in the massive, religio-fanatical anti-democratic violence and destruction of the Iraq War, GFC, and idiotic response to the GFC, and despite it fighting tooth and nail to stop successive, highly-organised routings of organised labour by Big capital, and despite being repeatedly de-funded at its intellectual source, the university; the re-emergence of the looney Euro Bigot right is to be blamed on the left, not on capital smashing real wage growth and Europe's seedy, ever-simmering, ever-ready pool of racist sentiments and delusions; and, well, anything else which has gone wrong just throw that on Muslims, too!
You should publish that in The Journal of Everyone Else is to Blame for Conservative Anglo-Americans No Longer Ruling the World with Gay Abandon, Mugwump! |
Ah, Ptid is here, with his usual preference for histrionic caricature and Vyshinsky show-trial abuse, rather than serious engagement with an alternative point of view...
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | | At the same time, the abdication of the left from its traditional role as advocate for women's rights and secularism has, alas, left that domain to the more unpleasant creatures of the Right, who are in turn coming to be seen by the populace at large as the defenders of their values, right across Europe. It's an increasingly serious situation, and you're right to decry it. |
That's an interesting point about progressives ceding discourse and inadvertently empowering extremists, and you could probably mount an interesting discussion on the way political correctness feeds into this phenomenon. But on this issue, really? Do you think we're just taking our eyes off the ball by not getting sucked into moral panics about Halal, Sharia Law and burqas? Are those the "discussions" we urgently need to be having? Or is our primary responsibility to inject some reality into this paranoid discourse and point out that 2% of the population (most of whom are mainstream and already inclined towards peaceful co-existence) do not pose an existential threat to our way of life? |
The word "progressive" is a difficult one ; only two generations ago it embraced an enthusiasm for eugenics and Sovietism. It's really not a matter of ceding discourse, but rather of failing in consistency. Salafist Islam is a profoundly reactionary ("anti-progressive") force in the world today, and its values and beliefs run counter to the traditions of the Western Left. Why the Left, with its proud tradition of upholding sexual equality and free speech, and its distrust of imperialism, should be implicitly excusing the paraphernalia of Islam is almost a mystery. Orwell was good on this (My country Right or Left), and I think his analysis is still broadly correct.
Sharia, burqas and halal, IS, Al Qaeda et al are really just symptoms of a reactionary religion in dire need of reformation, albeit one unlikely to see such in our lifetime as the more moderate forms (eg Sufism) retreat.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | Why the Left, with its proud tradition of upholding sexual equality and free speech, and its distrust of imperialism, should be implicitly excusing the paraphernalia of Islam is almost a mystery. |
For goodness' sake, Mugwump, do a Google Scholar search. I studied this in second year development geography in 1993. It has been the central theme of poststructuralist feminism, the most influential leftist movement over the last two-plus decades. Apparently, you're unfamiliar with discussions of the "intersection of social cleavages", most notably but not limited to gender, class, sexuality and culture.
How you missed that discussion and get the whole thing so wrong would be beyond anyone who actually understands the left/progressivism. It's a basic, I repeat a basic topic in any social science outside narrowly-focused disciplines such as economics which are disinterested in it. Even psychology, which has been late to pick up the matter, has been all over it for a decade now through social psychology and group-level intercultural psychology.
The onus is on you to tell us what contemporary sociology, human geography, social psychology, urban studies, cultural studies, social theory, feminist studies, film studies, queer studies, communications, cybernetics or conflict resolution, or any group on the left arising from the dominant intellectual milieu of the last twenty years, has missed on this topic.
For some inexplicable reason this wasn't in a Murdoch tabloid, but just in case you missed this, too:
| Mainstream-leftist-commentator-with-too-sane-a-view-for-Mugwump-to-notice-presenting-two-decade-old-left/progressive-views-for-the-dumb-masses wrote: | Burqa ban a political excuse for persecution
Waleed Aly
Even before the embarrassing back-down there were problems. For starters, it's not a burqa. A burqa is that particularly Afghan garment, usually blue, with the mesh covering the eyes. The one you've seen on the news (or perhaps on Jacqui Lambie's Facebook page), but almost certainly never in Australia. We're talking about the niqab, common in the Gulf and worn by – my guess – a couple of hundred Australians. I have to guess, because we don't even bother with such basic research before we consider banning such things.
It says everything that we can't even get the name right; that merely to be understood in the argument, you must get it wrong.
Of itself, it's not a big deal, but it symbolises the calibre of the public conversation. It's as if we're demanding a pernicious, industrial-scale ignorance. As if we're proud of it. We'll tell these women what their clothing signifies. We'll tell them why they wear it. We'll even rename it for them if we want. These women will be deconstructed and reconstructed at our will, and without their involvement. These are the terms of the debate and the most influential voices will be the most ignorant.
But ignorance is no barrier precisely because this debate really has nothing to do with the women being recast as some kind of problem. Strip it all back and they've done nothing to invite this. They aren't the ones charged with plotting "demonstration killings". They aren't the ones being busted carrying weapons or attacking police officers.
They are, however, the ones most often assaulted or abused on the street or on public transport. They're the ones whose freedom we try most to restrict.
In short, they become the symbolic target for our rage; the avatar we choose to represent a generalised enemy, and the threat it poses. In this, we obey what seems a diabolically universal principle: that whatever the outrage, whatever the fear, and whatever the cause, it is women that must suffer first and most.
So perhaps you'll forgive these women if they don't come out in droves to thank Senator Cory Bernardi for rescuing them from what he regards a "shroud of oppression" that "represents the repressive domination of men over women".
Perhaps you'll understand they see something other than feminist concern in these words; that Bernardi might look to them a lot like Lord Cromer did to the Egyptian women he colonised in the 19th century.
Cromer similarly decided Egyptian women needed emancipation, and that that they should therefore remove their veils. Meanwhile, back in England, he was the president of the Men's League for Opposing Woman Suffrage.
Before the change of heart it was a burqa ban (see, even I'm doing it now) in Parliament House. The argument was about security, but it's a thin pretext. If you need to identify someone entering the building, it's dead easy to do: you take them aside to a private space and ask them to reveal their face for identification purposes. Then you subject them to the same screening as everyone else.
In fact, we already do this sort of thing in airports and secure buildings with no fuss at all. The only reason there's a fuss now is that we've dreamt one up, as Prime Minister Tony Abbott's "mountain over a molehill" response suggests. I can find only one isolated example of an Australian using the anonymity of a niqab to commit a crime. By a man.
This, of course, was enough for Bernardi to declare the niqab the emergent "preferred disguised of bandits and ne'er do wells", which must accordingly be banned. Not just in banks or Parliament, but everywhere. Very well then, let's get serious about this. I propose a ban on all disguises used by "bandits" anywhere, ever. Sorry kids, but Spider-Man's illegal now. Let's prosecute the CEO of K-Mart for providing material support to terrorism, or something. What are you, a weak-kneed apologist?
No, the security discourse is mere rhetorical camouflage. Abbott's chief of staff Peta Credlin advised her party's anti-burqa brigade to mount their case in security terms – not because it is their primary concern, but because it was most likely to succeed. If this looks like a solution in search of a problem, that's because the "solution" is the entire point.
For Bernardi and Liberal backbencher George Christensen, who pushed it, the real goal is the total ban of the niqab in public. All else is pretext. Feminism doesn't work? Try security: whatever quasi-respectable way might open the door. It's the kind of argument that allows Coalition MPs such as the Nationals Darren Chester to argue that "we're talking about national security; we're not talking about religion or what people wear". Maybe that's true for Chester, but it clearly isn't for the MPs driving the cause.
Now is when we find out what Team Australia really means. Now is when we discover if it's designed to unify a diverse nation or to demonise the socially unpopular.
Attorney-General George Brandis has planted his flag in impeccably liberal style: "I have no concerns with Muslims wearing the burqa and I don't have a preference either because frankly it's none of [my] business". Abbott, too, has these instincts within him.
It's often forgotten that back in 2006 when the Howard government was in the midst of an anti-veiling frenzy, it was he who wrote in the Liberal Party's journal that "ripping away Muslim girls' scarves is not going to make them more 'Australian'. If anything, it's almost certain to make them feel more vulnerable and 'different' ", and that "disparaging the religious symbols of Muslim Australians is at odds with our own best traditions".
But he's a leader now. Everything he says is for someone. The question now is: for whom is he speaking? Which team does he have in mind when he decided to share that he wishes niqabs "weren't worn"?
Given, on his own testimony, no niqabi has ever entered Parliament House, he knew that any ban would be symbolic. Before the back-down, it was merely a matter of which message he wanted to send.
The one that upholds "our own best traditions"? Or the one that tells a minority they aren't welcome in their own Parliament? |
Waleed Aly is a Fairfax columnist. He hosts Drive on ABC Radio National and is a lecturer in politics at Monash University.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/burqa-ban-a-political-excuse-for-persecution-20141002-10p0mc.html
Edits: Article added and formatted.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Last edited by pietillidie on Wed Dec 24, 2014 10:36 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Was this in second year development geography in 1993 very difficult to learn? |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So much obfuscation from the Left on this topic. They want to paint anyone against Islam as a racist, well Islam is an idea, not a race. It's a toxic, evil idea that has always been about conquest and conversion and always will be. Of course in Australia Islam is still benign, Muslims are only 2% of the population. But have a look at what's happening in France (8%), or Sweden (5%). There's a reason Europe has been at war with Islam for 1300 years, the battlefield has simply changed from a military to a demographic one.
Personally I'd be happy to see the end of all the Abrahamic religions, I wonder what Thor or Wōden are up to these days  |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | There's a reason Europe has been at war with Islam for 1300 years.... |
Yeah, because Christian Europeans have had thousands of years of blissful, heavenly coexistence
<snip - go easy, it's almost Christmas!> Conservatives might struggle to hold the two variables of gender and culture in their <ahem> brains at the same time, but mainstream leftist theory has been juggling class, gender, sexuality and culture for over two decades now.
Put up and demonstrate otherwise—or just keep repeating outright zombie conservative lies if it suits. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Still not one shred of evidence for this slander. Ante up with some credible examples - and I don't mean loudmouth nut-bags, I mean respected figures from the left - and maybe someone will start taking you seriously.
Edit: I was replying to Wokko, obviously, not PTID.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
[See David's very slightly justified modding of my insult of conservatives  ]
See what having children is doing to you, David 
BTW, anything special planned for Ingmar's first Xmas?
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | So much obfuscation from the Left on this topic. They want to paint anyone against Islam as a racist, well Islam is an idea, not a race. It's a toxic, evil idea that has always been about conquest and conversion and always will be. Of course in Australia Islam is still benign, Muslims are only 2% of the population. But have a look at what's happening in France (8%), or Sweden (5%). There's a reason Europe has been at war with Islam for 1300 years, the battlefield has simply changed from a military to a demographic one.
Personally I'd be happy to see the end of all the Abrahamic religions, I wonder what Thor or Wōden are up to these days |
For someone who decries Christianity you're sounding an awful lot like a Christian fundamentalist here. Islam is a "toxic, evil" idea? For Zarathustra's sake, it's just a garden variety monotheistic religion with all the contradictions, general "how to run a functional society" stuff and blind faith with a few nasty bits thrown in. Do you really think the average Muslim wants to kill you or convert you?
It's not that fundamentalism doesn't bother me. Don't get me wrong, it's a serious problem. But to pretend that it's somehow an inalienable part of the Muslim faith is an act of terrible slander against the regular people going about their daily lives from Morocco to Indonesia (and Australia, and France and Sweden).
And "there's a reason why Islam has been at war with Christianity for 1300 years"? *facepalm*
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | For someone who decries Christianity you're sounding an awful lot like a Christian fundamentalist here. Islam is a "toxic, evil" idea? For Zarathustra's sake, it's just a garden variety monotheistic religion with all the contradictions, general "how to run a functional society" stuff and blind faith with a few nasty bits thrown in. |
Or, in other words, a toxic, evil idea.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | [See David's very slightly justified modding of my insult of conservatives ]
See what having children is doing to you, David
BTW, anything special planned for Ingmar's first Xmas? |
Talking about taking threads off topic ..... |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^Oi, he rightly reminded me it was Xmas Eve in his modding. Or was the Xmas Truce of 1914 an old wive's tale?
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sixpoints wrote: |
Good grief, quoting from a whack job fringe fundamentalist website!
"One culture of Islam, and opposing it is Christianity!". Lazy, inflamatory, reductionist rubbish.
If there truly is only one culture of Islam, who then are ISIL fighting? Last time I checked it was the Alawite's, Kurds & Shia. How can one homogeneous culture kick the living crap out of each other if not due to their irrevocable differences. |
ISIS is fighting anyone who doesn't conform to their version of Sunni Islam! The ethnic cleansing of Shias, Kurds, Yazidis and Christians have truly been frightening for those people in these regions.
However the irony of all of this and I'm glad you pointed this out is that the likes extreme British political activist Anjem Choudary say that the West is to be 100% blamed for the destruction and killing of Muslims in this area of the world and yet ISIS, Al-Nusra Front and other radical Sunni Islamist groups that he sympathises with are targeting Muslims who they do not identify with their twisted ideology and religion.
Also Islam is a religion as you pointed out, but Islamism goes beyond just being a religion and that's the issue that's being protested about in Germany. It's an ideology that governs the citizens of a particular area and is based on the Islamic teachings of the Quran and the Hadith. Islamic State (ISIS), Iran and Saudi Arabia are examples of countries or unrecognised states who have imposed Islamism onto their citizens. You just have to read the stories of the Prophet Muhammad (the messenger of Allah) to gain an understanding of the violent man he was yet he's revered by so many people who follow and practice this religion in the first place.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
