Debate Why Don't Feminists Fight for Muslim Women ???

[bicicleur 2]

This is actually true, and not just for women, but for males as well - for both sexes.

The sole evolutionary purpose of humans, is to reproduce and perpetuate the species.

that is a big struggle, because space and capacity on planet earth is limited
if you want your offspring to survive you'll have to learn it to compete with the offspring of others
that is the reality since mankind, we tend to forget

 

[gyms]

I don't think you understand the liberal world view that well. Open-mindedness, tolerance and inclusivity are hallmarks of liberalism. And in order to be open-minded, one must be tolerant of views contrary to those he or she may hold. Unlike right-wing conservatives, liberals don't demand that everyone look, think, believe and behave as they do--because that would be antithetical to liberalism.

Also, liberals are willing to take risks and make sacrifices for the sake of "the greater good." And in this case, there are far more Muslims simply seeking peace and stability than there are opportunistic rapists, sadists, fanatics and terrorists. Liberals believe that it would be morally wrong and inhumane to deny the many (in need) for the sins of the few. Moreover, liberals ultimately believe that their tolerant and compassionate values will breed further tolerance and compassion, particularly in those who have benefited from it--being "open" encourages "openness" in others. Second and third generation Muslims living in secularized Western nations tend to be more secular and progressive than their forebears; culture is anything but immutable.

And though there will always be a few sociopaths in every bunch who take advantage of kindness/generosity and see it as a sign of weakness to exploit, liberalism is not concerned with stooping/pandering to the lowest common denominator; its ideals are much higher and more humanely broad in scope.

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/kim-holmes/rise-intolerant-liberals

A new study provides proof that liberals are more intolerant of different political ideologies than conservatives.
The right-wing has long complained that underneath the façade of “tolerance” and “diversity,” liberals are uniquely intolerant of different ideas – and the study of internet usage proves it.
44 percent with “consistently liberal” views would block or “unfriend” someone on a social network because of different political views. Only three in ten conservatives would do the same.

Pew Research did the study, which showed a massive bias in internet news sites. Of the 32 most used news sites, 25 are considered “left of center.”
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/study-proves-liberals-more-intolerant-than-conservatives

 

[bicicleur 2]

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/kim-holmes/rise-intolerant-liberals

A new study provides proof that liberals are more intolerant of different political ideologies than conservatives.
The right-wing has long complained that underneath the façade of “tolerance” and “diversity,” liberals are uniquely intolerant of different ideas – and the study of internet usage proves it.
44 percent with “consistently liberal” views would block or “unfriend” someone on a social network because of different political views. Only three in ten conservatives would do the same.

Pew Research did the study, which showed a massive bias in internet news sites. Of the 32 most used news sites, 25 are considered “left of center.”
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/study-proves-liberals-more-intolerant-than-conservatives

political correctness has created a new religion
the adepts think of themselves as open-minded and tolerant, while those who have a different opinion are not
you see, it is a dangerous religion, as it creates tunnelvision among the adepts
it makes them difficult to reason with

 

[Wanderlust]

Opinion polling carried out on representative samples of Muslims living in Europe tends to support your view expressed above, but only by the narrowest of margins. It seems that the proportion of peace-seeking Muslims to rapists, sadists, fanatics and terrorists is roughly like 60% to 40%. So, about 40% of Muslims in Europe are rapists, sadists, fanatics or terrorists, and about 60% are peace and stability seekers. Good luck with such "high quality manpower".

Lol Seriously? Who conducted this "opinion polling?" And where is your source for this information?

And again, irony of ironies, this rhetoric is coming from a Pole, the current ethnic scapegoat and "vermin" (according to some) now "overrunning" the UK! There are many who associate Poles with hyper-Catholicism, hyper-nationalism and hyper-anti-semitism and therefore find them to be incompatible with modern British/Western values. Sadly, your commentary only affirms this about some of your people. But despite the few that damage the prospects of Polish people, they should not be unfairly targeted and denied access to better lives. Do you see how tolerance works?

 

[Wanderlust]

A new study provides proof that liberals are more intolerant of different political ideologies than conservatives.
The right-wing has long complained that underneath the façade of “tolerance” and “diversity,” liberals are uniquely intolerant of different ideas – and the study of internet usage proves it. 44 percent with “consistently liberal” views would block or “unfriend” someone on a social network because of different political views. Only three in ten conservatives would do the same.”

I actually addressed this in a previous comment I've made up-thread. I'll just quote myself:

I totally agree that "tolerance" and "free speech" should apply to everyone and that is what TRUE liberals believe.

The American college campuses are dominated by fascistic minded, agenda driven leftists, who in practice, are not actual liberals. As a society, we tend to use leftist and liberal interchangeably and there is often overlap but the former is more of a dogmatic political affiliation and the latter a worldview and philosophy. Leftists, just like their right winged counterparts at the other end of spectrum, are primarily concerned with maintaining their agendas--unyielding tunnel vision, selective morality and double standards are de rigeur. Liberals are actually open to dissenting views and encourage a debate of ideas.

Cultish leftists are the narrowminded people you speak of, but liberals are anything but.

 

[gyms]

"There are many who associate Poles with hyper-Catholicism, hyper-nationalism and hyper-anti-semitism and therefore find them to be incompatible with modern British/Western values."

The "there are many" are the hyper intolerant NEOLIBERAL media (public service) ,cultur marxists and left wing politicians.Please enumerate the "modern Western values"!

(What's the definition of "hyper-Catholicism" ?)

 

[gyms]

I actually addressed this in a previous comment I've made up-thread. I'll just quote myself:



Cultish leftists are the narrowminded people you speak of, but liberals are anything but.

Most important of all, what does it mean to be a liberal today? In different contexts, the term can refer to polar opposites – champions of laissez-faire or supporters of a redistributive state – and it long served as a term of abuse on both left and right too, denoting a wishy-washy lack of conviction. But of course the word is derived from the Latin liber ‘free (man)’, and is still associated with an affirmation of free speech, movement, and independent thought, and a commitment to civil liberties. In this sense, a liberal society is free from narrow-minded prejudice and arbitrary or unnecessary constraints, and tolerant of divergent thinking. So shouldn’t we all be liberals?

http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/2010/session_detail/4272/

 

[Wanderlust]

The "there are many" are the hyper intolerant NEOLIBERAL media (public service) ,cultur marxists and left wing politicians. Please enumerate the "modern Western values"!

My point is that he ironically endorses the same biases and prejudices towards Muslims that others use to disenfranchise people like him. He sees Muslims as "vermin" just as Brits see Poles as "vermin" and yet I bet he'd take issue with their assessment of his people. Now, if I'm wrong and he believes that his people should be subject to the same discrimination as Muslims, then I have no qualms with his position because at the very least, it would be fair and not hypocritical.

(What's the definition of "hyper-Catholicism" ?)

Poles are more energetically and actively Catholic than their Western European and American counterparts. This is widely known. Though they have become increasingly more secular, they are still more devout than other groups.

 

[Wanderlust]

Most important of all, what does it mean to be a liberal today? In different contexts, the term can refer to polar opposites – champions of laissez-faire or supporters of a redistributive state – and it long served as a term of abuse on both left and right too, denoting a wishy-washy lack of conviction. But of course the word is derived from the Latin liber ‘free (man)’, and is still associated with an affirmation of free speech, movement, and independent thought, and a commitment to civil liberties. In this sense, a liberal society is free from narrow-minded prejudice and arbitrary or unnecessary constraints, and tolerant of divergent thinking. So shouldn’t we all be liberals?

Absolutely agreed. Just because I disagree with an idea, belief or position, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be said. Everyone deserves the right to have their say without fear of intimidation, coercion, censorship or retribution. Suppression always leads to resentment, uprisings and revolt.

 

[gyms]

My point is that he ironically endorses the same biases and prejudices towards Muslims that others use to disenfranchise people like him. He sees Muslims as "vermin" just as Brits see Poles as "vermin" and yet I bet he'd take issue with their assessment of his people. Now, if I'm wrong and he believes that his people should be subject to the same discrimination as Muslims, then I have no qualms with his position because at the very least, it would be fair and not hypocritical.

"Poles are more energetically and actively Catholic than their Western European and American counterparts. This is widely known. Though they have become increasingly more secular, they are still more devout than other groups."

One of the earliest proposals for a ‘united Europe’ dates back to the 15th Century. The Bohemian King George of Poděbrady proposed a treaty between all Christian nations – with its members pledging to settle disputes between themselves peacefully and concentrate military efforts against the Ottoman Empire. There were to be supranational institutions common to all Christian countries, with a common Christian parliament.

“Europe” was not mentioned once. This was to be a Christian entity – and it was envisioned as a union standing in opposition to the encroachment of “non-Christian” forces upon Christendom. At the time, people rarely used the Latin word ‘Europa’ (Europe) to discuss the geographical or cultural entity we now call Europe. Much more common, at least from the eleventh century onwards, was ‘Christianitas’ (Christendom).
At some point, Europe was defined (insofar as it was defined at all) as a Christian continent. But is this still the case today?



http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2015/06/22/christian-europe/#.V3pNCN_r1jo

 

[Wanderlust]

At some point, Europe was defined (insofar as it was defined at all) as a Christian continent. But is this still the case today?

The theory behind King George of Poděbrady's objective was flawed from the beginning and therefore, doomed to failure...which it did. Again, irony is seriously underrated and ignored around these parts. "Let's unite the various bloodthirsty Christian hordes to defeat the bloodthirsty Islamic horde." Fundamentally, THEY WERE ALL SELF-INTERESTED, BLOODTHIRSTY HORDES, christian or otherwise.

George failed because Roman Papal authority would not concede and consent. Even amongst Christians, the perceived differences proved to be insurmountable. Within that context, drawing a line between Christian and Muslim almost seemed arbitrary because they all behaved like fanatical, irrational, war obsessed savages. Even if Europe was at some point defined as a Christian continent, let's not pretend these Christians coexisted peacefully and as one. There were dozens of fractured denominations that subsequently caused centuries of bloodshed, war and strife.

And yes, Europe is still overwhelmingly Christian, albeit far more secularized Christianity in varying degrees depending on the nation. Secularization has helped us come together, though we still retain some of our individual Protestant/Lutheran/Catholic/Orthodox traditions and that's fine. Personally, I believe that Islam will follow suit. In Sweden, less than a quarter of the estimated %5 Muslim population are actually practicing Muslims. Times change, people change, cultures change and evolve--that's normal and follows human tradition. I don't understand why people on an anthropology forum have a hard time grasping this.

 

[gyms]

The theory behind King George of Poděbrady's objective was flawed from the beginning and therefore, doomed to failure...which it did. Again, irony is seriously underrated and ignored around these parts. "Let's unite the various bloodthirsty Christian hordes to defeat the bloodthirsty Islamic horde." Fundamentally, THEY WERE ALL SELF-INTERESTED, BLOODTHIRSTY HORDES, christian or otherwise.

George failed because Roman Papal authority would not concede and consent. Even amongst Christians, the perceived differences proved to be insurmountable. Within that context, drawing a line between Christian and Muslim almost seemed arbitrary because they all behaved like fanatical, irrational, war obsessed savages. Even if Europe was at some point defined as a Christian continent, let's not pretend these Christians coexisted peacefully and as one. There were dozens of fractured denominations that subsequently caused centuries of bloodshed, war and strife.

And yes, Europe is still overwhelmingly Christian, albeit far more secularized Christianity in varying degrees depending on the nation. Secularization has helped us come together, though we still retain some of our individual Protestant/Lutheran/Catholic/Orthodox traditions and that's fine. Personally, I believe that Islam will follow suit. In Sweden, less than a quarter of the estimated %5 Muslim population are actually practicing Muslims. Times change, people change, cultures change and evolve--that's normal and follows human tradition. I don't understand why people on an anthropology forum have a hard time grasping this.

"Personally, I believe that Islam will follow suit."

Surely.

https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/
The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10] . A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have:
60 million Christians.

!!!60 million Christians!!!

"This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad!"

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isi...m_compatible_with_democracy_and_human_rights/

" The Democratic system that is predominant in the world is not a suitable system for the peoples of our region... The system of free elections is not suitable to our country"
King Fahd of Saudi Arabia

Islamisation of European population centres

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EYhalarYNs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf_IaaCAdNs

 

[Wanderlust]

"Personally, I believe that Islam will follow suit."

Surely.

Christians had centuries to maim and kill Jews, Muslims and fellow Christians until various painstaking and bloody reformations brought about more (not definitive, just more) peace and harmony. Muslims never had the benefit of such reformations but now find themselves at a crossroads for such a thing to take place and surprise surprise, it's not pretty. But unlike the case with Christians, I don't think it will take centuries for this process to work itself out with Muslims--globalization has its perks and our learning curve isn't what it used to be. Personally, I'm agnostic and am put off by all of the Abrahamic religions, in particular, seeing as how historically, they seem to cause all of the trouble. In my opinion, you all deserve each other.

Having said that, I just find it utterly jarring that Christian Europeans conquer, dominate, colonize, crusade, enslave, destroy, pillage, and plunder virtually unimpeded for centuries upon centuries but when (according to some) "the chickens finally come home to roost," somehow Europe's shady, inhumane past vanishes into thin air and they suddenly become victims on the verge of being besieged by barbarian hordes. The unmitigated gall is astounding. To some, this is nothing but karma and I must say, you aren't taking it very well. And make no mistake, arguably, the Islamic Turks, Arabs, Persians, etc... are also getting their fair share of universal "karma." Maybe one day people will learn that regardless of our differences, we're similarly shit at the core and we should try to overcome that together.

 

[gyms]

Christians had centuries to maim and kill Jews, Muslims and fellow Christians until various painstaking and bloody reformations brought about more (not definitive, just more) peace and harmony. Muslims never had the benefit of such reformations but now find themselves at a crossroads for such a thing to take place and surprise surprise, it's not pretty. But unlike the case with Christians, I don't think it will take centuries for this process to work itself out with Muslims--globalization has its perks and our learning curve isn't what it used to be. Personally, I'm agnostic and am put off by all of the Abrahamic religions, in particular, seeing as how historically, they seem to cause all of the trouble. In my opinion, you all deserve each other.

Having said that, I just find it utterly jarring that Christian Europeans conquer, dominate, colonize, crusade, enslave, destroy, pillage, and plunder virtually unimpeded for centuries upon centuries but when (according to some) "the chickens finally come home to roost," somehow Europe's shady, inhumane past vanishes into thin air and they suddenly become victims on the verge of being besieged by barbarian hordes. The unmitigated gall is astounding. To some, this is nothing but karma and I must say, you aren't taking it very well. And make no mistake, arguably, the Islamic Turks, Arabs, Persians, etc... are also getting their fair share of universal "karma." Maybe one day people will learn that regardless of our differences, we're similarly shit at the core and we should try to overcome that together.[/QUOTE

Bill Maher gets into a debate with Charlie Rose on why Islam is more Violent than Christianity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jm3UWawqAc

Muslim Migrants warn Germans their days are numbered
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFb7cmFsPoc

 

[gyms]

"Muslims never had the benefit of such reformations but now find themselves at a crossroads ..."

What?

Islamic Reformation?

https://www.opendemocracy.net/arab-awakening/sami-zubaida/islamic-reformation

We keep hearing calls for an ‘Islamic Reformation’, assumed to be the remedy for a fundamentalist Islam behind the conservative Salafi brand as well as the Jihadist. Islam, under these assumptions, generates problems because it had not been ‘reformed’. The assumed model is the Christian Reformation of the sixteenth century, the Protestant reformers, Luther, Calvin and their followers. Informed writers on religion and history have pointed out the problematic nature of these suppositions, with regard to the histories of both Christianity and Islam. I argue here that Islam has undergone many reformations, in radically different directions: Wahhabism, much like Protestant reforms, urged a return to the scriptures and prophetic traditions and a rejection of ‘corrupt’ and heretical practices of saint worship and visitation of tombs, Sufi mysticism and ceremonies, and sectarian doctrines, principally Shi`ism. In contrast, a modernist and rationalist reformation was a powerful strand in public life, politics and culture from the nineteenth and throughout the twentieth centuries, in the Ottoman, Arab and Iranian worlds. These different kinds of ‘reform’ were institutionalised in various ways, recounted below. Liberal/ modernist reforms are now available in public space, but not attractive to most religious Muslims because they do not fit in with their social and psychological needs and outlooks.

 

[Garrick]

We have had our culture suppressed and our land ruled by a blood-thirsty Middle Eastern death cult. We have always hated everything about it. The Serbs tried to force multiculturalism on all of us, and guess what- they lost. The Mohammedans won. That's why we hate our current situation.

Serbian intellectual elite has dominantly multicultural views, what maybe is not good in environment where there is Serbia (and in Yugoslavia Serbs were mostly pro-federalists and many Serbs wanted to be Yugoslavians and not Serbs, but other nations saved their national identity and their religion). Today we live in the time when Neo-Ottoman and Islamic movements rise and they find a lot of allies in the Balkans, among others in the territories on the ex Yugoslavia.

 

[Garrick]

I don't think you understand the liberal world view that well. Open-mindedness, tolerance and inclusivity are hallmarks of liberalism. And in order to be open-minded, one must be tolerant of views contrary to those he or she may hold. Unlike right-wing conservatives, liberals don't demand that everyone look, think, believe and behave as they do--because that would be antithetical to liberalism.

Also, liberals are willing to take risks and make sacrifices for the sake of "the greater good." And in this case, there are far more Muslims simply seeking peace and stability than there are opportunistic rapists, sadists, fanatics and terrorists. Liberals believe that it would be morally wrong and inhumane to deny the many (in need) for the sins of the few. Moreover, liberals ultimately believe that their tolerant and compassionate values will breed further tolerance and compassion, particularly in those who have benefited from it--being "open" encourages "openness" in others. Second and third generation Muslims living in secularized Western nations tend to be more secular and progressive than their forebears; culture is anything but immutable.

And though there will always be a few sociopaths in every bunch who take advantage of kindness/generosity and see it as a sign of weakness to exploit, liberalism is not concerned with stooping/pandering to the lowest common denominator; its ideals are much higher and more humanely broad in scope.

This is a very well written, but questions remains. How it reflects reality. I appreciate thinkers as Huntington who stand in regard that civilizations differ as it reflects reality.

I am federalist. I appreciated Yugoslav federation and now I am for European federation. For me it is not much important if someone is liberal or conservative, more left or more right, if he or she embraces federal agenda.

But I don't like option that Balkan or Europe become Neo-Ottoman or Islamic ruled or part of Caliphate.

It seems to me that we are a bit away from thread.

In introductory post is the question about feminist unconcern for Muslim women. In post #21 is my opinion. Feminists cannot do more and nobody should blame feminists.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Muslims never had the benefit of such reformations

I'm not an expert in Islamic history, but

the 2 highlights in Islamic cultural life are the Abassid Caliphate in Bagdad and the Morish Umayyads
it has been said many times that these cultures were way ahead of the backward Christian kingdoms in Europe

haven't the Abassids been ousted by fundamentalist Islamist fractions who promoted strict Islamic rule again?
haven't the Umayyads been ousted by the fundamentalist Almohavides?

you say the Christians were conquerors and colonisers and Muslims never got to that
there are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide
do you think most of them were converted peacefully?
what do you think would have happened to Europe if Karel Martel didn't stop the Muslims in Poitiers?

I think your vision is very one-sided
if that is what all your optimism is based upon, allow me to have some doubts

 

[Tomenable]

Wanderlust,

And where is your source for this information?

It is all over the internet, nothing easier to find on your own. But check for example here:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx

There are many who associate Poles with hyper-Catholicism

And the English have a long tradition of hating Catholics. Look what they did in Ireland, including English-made "Great Famine" of 1840-1852 which killed or forced to emigrate so many Irishmen that even now Ireland has a smaller population than in 1840.

Some people consider that as a genocide perpetrated by the English on "Irish Catholic Apes":

https://www.google.pl/search?q=Iris...u9rNAhXoApoKHS2uAGMQ_AUICCgB&biw=1366&bih=658

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment

Ironically, Anglicanism is not really Protestantism. It is mostly Catholicism, but without a Pope.

It is the only religion ever that was established just to get a divorce, and for no other reason.

(What's the definition of "hyper-Catholicism"?)

Every Catholic is a hyper-Catholic. There is no middle ground.

 

[Tomenable]

Wanderlust,

He sees Muslims as "vermin" just as Brits see Poles as "vermin" and yet I bet he'd take issue with their assessment of his people.

I don't care, actually. IMO it will be better for Poland, if the English expel their Polish "vermin" back to Poland.

BTW - you say "Brits", but I never heard about Anti-Polish sentiment in Scotland. It applies to England only.

And one more thing - I did not call Muslims "vermin". You are the one using this word.

===================

Also it can be noted that reasons why Poles are hated and why Muslims are hated in England, are very different reasons. Muslims are hated because they do not work, collect welfare, and commit crimes. On the other hand, Poles are hated because: