You can assume that - but as ass-u-me makes an ass out of you and me that would also be rather pointless. It may happen and I hope it does (except for the X-Factor bit) but there is no historical precedent for it. Devout, religious people's views don't change, particularly if they think their faith is threatened - even if one can hope that the expression of those views is muted by a new-found desire to integrate. If you have evidence of that desire to integrate among the devout section of the Muslim community please expose it to public gaze. Certainly the Muslim community displays a greater cohesion and homogeneity than our own as things stand. It doesn't make me a dangerous racist because I say that I like our secular, pluralist democracy and don't want things to change - not least because Muslims aren't a race, any more than are Catholics or Protestants. And a dangerous humanist? Really? Prove it. I will ask you a question. Would you prefer to live in a country dominated by the historical symbols of Britain's collective past - church spires and bells etc - or the modern symbols of Pakistan's or Iraq's past - minarets and the call to prayer etc? Change is coming whether we like it or not but we owe to ourselves to protect the good things about our country, such as the tolerance and fairness that has drawn immigrants to these shores for centuries - and that will be an enormous challenge as other cultures, for various reasons, have very different values and imperatives to those of our own.
I have no idea where you get that from. Would I be inviting Muslims into my house if I believed that? You infer the wrong thing from my words. My point is, for the hard of thinking, that extremists are always more dangerous when they are not confronted - and particularly when they are not confronted by their peers. Look what happened in Nazi Germany. The majority of Germans were cultured gentle people - so much so that the Jews felt safe there. But look what happened. Those who ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat its mistakes.
I found it informative because I had been previously unaware of any dissenting strands in Islam. And they're called heretics by mainstream Muslims, you say. Thanks, that is informative too. Always something to learn if you look hard enough. So it wasn't pointless for me to engage with them at all.
Pete1950 is already high priest of that particular movement. I don't think he and ST will be able to work together. There will be schism.
Coming to a head because of the media's focus on a few nutters? Would you prefer self-censorship? Would that make it go away. Perhaps it needs to come to a head. Perhaps if it had in Germany in the mid Thirties the world would have had reason to be glad.
Are you really sure about what you said there? I doubt very much that the Jewish people have ever felt safe, which is why they tend to be somewhat nomadic. However, I agree with your last sentence, Winston.
For the record, I am not assuming anything at all, merely pointing out that your own very strident statements were contradictory. No shit Sherlock... So you'll be off now to confront Islamic State then? Good on ya.
Au contraire. Intelligent humanists always find common cause. It's the fanatics and devout who find reason to hate: Shia/Sunni, Protestants/Catholics, Muslims/Anyone who isn't, the People's Front if Judea/People's Judea Front, Trots/Marxists/Leninists/Maoists/Stalinists.
I don't really agree. The German Jews interviewed on TV during the commemorations of the liberation of Auschwitz all said they felt German because they had integrated.
No. I'm talking about confronting fundamentalism - of every type - not merely the Muslim variety here, socially. That means not being "culturally sensitive" when Asian men groom young white girls, or when they marry their daughters to cousins here and abroad, or when they want to continue practices they belong in the Dark Ages, such as FGM, which has only just come on to the radar of the authorities. Has it really only just started happening or were we being culturally sensitive in the past?
I also think that you'll find that though the Jews were once, of necessity, nomadic - in the 21st-century they are no more nomadic than any other community as they, like everyone else (except perhaps nomadic desert tribes) need stability to lead fulfilling lives.
Unfortunately, or fortunately depending which was you look at it, Mrs A has spent years studying the Jews, their origins and their trials........It goes back way beyond 1939, as you are probably aware; however if you study where the Jews felt safe, it becomes evident that even the 1800s in the UK, they lived in ghettos and were effectively pariahs. In Germany, even the more prosperous ones tended to form their communities in such a way that they felt 'protected' rather than safe......that is evident from say, the shopkeepers, where a street of shops were Jewish owned, rather than an isolated shop in amongst German owned premises. Not dissimilar to the UK today.......although it is interesting to note that in the UK and no doubt elsewhere, they now have their own security force driving around in lookalike Plod cars. And yes, they were originally nomadic, but they still are, through anti-Semitism forcing them to leave a settled life to somewhere else (these days it seems to be Israel where they head for, regardless of the fact they may never have been there).
At first I thought you could have a point there but on reflection it's unlikely as most Muslims probably don't feel safe so will be wary.
Oh - sorry. I thought we were talking about your original post, and how it was some sort of wake-up call for us complacent types.... if it's just the usual rant about cultural differences then I think I'll go and do something else...
Yeah. They have to watch out for machete-wielding agnostics and Catholic suicide bombers all the time so can't blame them for that.
