Gimli actor is a white supremacist

Sheesh...

Let the actors act.

If Schvartzengroper can grab ass for 20 years and still be elected governor ... what's a little racism?

JRD is British, no?

Gimli kicks ass...

He's Welsh (unfortunately)

That rumor spread because of a bad translation of an interview in which he spoke of the rough neighborhood he grew up in. He said that, during his childhood, he had witnessed rapes there. Unfortunately, the French term for "witnessed" is "assister a" -- the translator wrongly read that as "assisted," and published a translation that essentially had Depardieu saying that he had participated in rapes. The controversy over that article is widely regarded as the reason that he lost out that year in an Oscar race in which he was favored.

I brought this matter up with Bartcop a few years ago after he had claimed Depardieu had admitted to being a rapist, and Bart wound up admitting that I was right.

Well I guess it's sort of fitting, since Tolkien was apparently somewhat of a fan of Fascism (I read in an article on Salon.com).

or at least he said in an interview that the Dwarves were Semitic.

I think I do recall the article saying he was not anti-Jewish (however, that does not mean he did not stereotype them to some degree), although he may have been racist/bigoted in other ways (I vaguely remember something about him possibly basing the orcs on the Chinese, or something like that). IIRC, he was mostly attracted to Fascism because of its emphasis on individual and national heroism.

I also recall the article talking about how you can see evidence of his anti-industrialist attitudes in LOTR, as well. I've noticed this myself, it's really not that subtle. Just watch the scene in the Two Towers where the Ents attack Saruman's tower, for example.

in the English sense, but that interview was pretty suspicious.

When he wrote the books race science etc were as common as DNA etc today.. he wasn't nessecerily racist if he believed in different races etc at that time.

of both right wing and left wing views.

...G.K. Chesterton is the place to look. To understand what Chesterton's "Distrubutist" views were all about, is to understand Tolkien's mix of liberal and conservative views. Chesterton is sometimes cited as a big influence on both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis.

Let's see if I can sum it up:

Conservative Catholic beliefs, and a social conservatism that follows from that.
On the other hand, liberal economic views, and distrustful of unregulated modern capitalism.
Opposed to both capitalism and communism, and advocating decentralized, small scale economics in their place (quite similar to the Greens, actually).
A love of the Middle Ages; not wanting to go back there necessarily, but seeing them as a big source of inspiration.
A distrust of modern technology and an agrarian, back to the land orientation.
Despite liberal economic views, the social conservatism and love of the Middle Ages often translate into conservative political views, such as strong support of the British monarchy.
An obsessive Anglophilia - which translated into a deep hatred of German Nazism which was seen as a barbaric threat to civilized England (on the other hand, Italian and Spanish Fascism regarded somewhat more favorably because of those countries being Roman Catholic.)
Possibly some latent anti-Semitism present, which was a product of its time and not conscious or overt.

By today's American definitions, Tolkien couldn't be considered either a liberal or a conservative. Probably more of the latter in the mix than the former. But there's a lot in his books for liberals to like.

One thing he definitely was not, was a fascist.

I read in his letters that he had great admiration for the Jewish people, and would be proud to be one himself (this was in answer to someone having mistakenly believed he was anti-semitic). He hated Hitler, and his son fought against the nazis in WWII.

I'll look for a link. It's on a BBC radio interview from the late sixties / early seventies.

Then, in a 1971 BBC radio interview two years before he died, he was asked
if the different races in The Lord of the Rings represent specific
character-istics, "the elves wisdom, the dwarves craftsman-ship, men
husbandry and battle, and so forth?"

"I didn¹t intend it, but when you¹ve got these people on your hands you¹ve got to make them different, haven¹t you?" he replied. "The dwarves of course are quite obviously ‹ wouldn¹t you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic, obviously, constructed to be Semitic. The Hobbits are just rustic English people."

I think he has several good points

When he said "G**dammit, I am for dead white male culture!" it seems to me that it was almost like he was putting it over the top to try and lighten the tone of an interview that had started a bit light hearted and then gotten rather heavy, and that he was trying to lighten the tone again. I really don't think that John Rhys Davis meant that he was really for Dead White male culture, I think he was trying to put a comic spin on the end of a rather heavy conversation.

The issues he brings up in the interview are serious issues that Europe is grappling with right now. The declining indigenous populations in most western european countries will translate into an inability to maintain the social safety net as the population ages and retires. One of the ways that some of these countries are dealing with these issues is to relax immigration policies and encouraging immigration. But this causes other problems in countries which, unlike America, where the culture is a mishmash of customs brought here by wave after wave of immigrants, have distinct customs and traditions that immigrant populations threaten.

This, it seems to me, is what Rhys-Davis was trying to address, albeit clumsily, and I will reserve my judgement until there is more corroborating evidence implicating him as a racist.

Personally, I like the culture of Shakespear, Rodin, Plato, Socrates, and Michealangelo. It's the culture of religious persecution, overbearing kings, and colonialism that needs to be left behind. The "Dead White Male" culture he seems to be supporting is the one that invented and perfected democracy, ensures religious freedom and secularism, and banished slavery, which is something that any of us here should agree with him on.

"Dead white men" done amazingly evil things througout history, but they have also accomplished some truly great things. Davies perfectly JUSTIFIABLE fear is that the good things that have been accomplished in Europe may be facing extinction.

Nobody who has spent any time in Europe can deny, with a straight face, that there is a problem assimilating Arab and North African immigrants into European society. They don't want to become French, German, or Dutch, they want to bring their own historical cultures, including intolerance of womens rights and religious disagreement, acceptance of slavery, and derision of democratic processes, with them. This isn't a problem today because these immigrants are a minority and we can use the weight of the law to keep them in line, but will that be the case in 30-50 years? Not if present birthrates hold.

Within 50 years the children of these immigrants will be the dominant majority within nearly all European countries, and will have near-total control over their political and civil institutions. If we haven't succeeded in "Europeanizing" them, if we haven't forced them to abandon their cultures in favor of European assimilation, then I fear that many of the advances of the last two centuries may be lost. Most North Africans in France today identify with fundamentalist strains of Islam. If we can't change that and allow them to become the majority, we will be powerless to stop them from taking over government institutions, using ballots rather than guns, and instituting laws that run counter to the ideals of freedom and liberty that France champions. Some of us could conceivably live to see the day when women are forced to wear their hajib when visiting the Louvre, or are prohibited from enjoying a fine Italian meal in Rome during December because it would violate the fast of Ramadan.

I could give a damn about the color of their skin, it's the culture that has to go.

I totally completely agree with you.. I visited europe and was told by my european friend to stay clear of "immigrant youth gangs" etc.. there is no way someone can say the integration is going well.


Btw i heard there's alot of fuzz about putting christianity in the EU constitution.. i think it should be placed there. Or the EU in 200 years could very well be Islamic by law

You two really need to know what it is that makes Muslim or Arab people "want to take over Europe."

Can someone say "Protocols of the Elders of Mecca?"

Jeeez....I really don't believe what I'm reading.

:shrug:

They don't want to become French, German, or Dutch, they want to bring their own historical cultures, including intolerance of womens rights and religious disagreement, acceptance of slavery, and derision of democratic processes, with them. This isn't a problem today because these immigrants are a minority and we can use the weight of the law to keep them in line, but will that be the case in 30-50 years? Not if present birthrates hold.

You are operating on the premise that all "Arabs" and "North Africans" are Muslims. Then you further make a false point indicating that Arabs and North Africans (even Muslim ones) are not accepting of democratic values. Your post is totally way off base. I for one have Arab in me. Some of my family (the ones who are Arab) lives in France and have adapted quite well. They are not religious fundamentalists (the are Christian but have Muslims friends who are equally accepting of French culture and democracy. You seem to believe that Arab or Muslim values run counter to democratic ones which is simply not the case.

Most North Africans in France today identify with fundamentalist strains of Islam.

I would love to see statistics on this outrageous lie. That is preposterous.

If we can't change that and allow them to become the majority, we will be powerless to stop them from taking over government institutions, using ballots rather than guns, and instituting laws that run counter to the ideals of freedom and liberty that France champions.

I see shades of exploiting invalid fears ala Hitler in Germany with that last statement. That is absolutely unbelievable that it is posted on a progressive board.

:eyes:

You know, I had a long retort written but IE bombed before I could post it. Here's the truncated version:

You are operating on the premise that all "Arabs" and "North Africans" are Muslims.
No, I'm not. You're the one who's wanting to turn this into a racial issue...I'm talking cultures. The fundamentalist Islamic culture, hell, ANY fundamentalist culture, is wholly incompatible with progressive society. It is important for a progressive society, when importing people from nations with fundamentalist religious underpinnings, to strip that religious fundamentalism from their new citizenry as a part of their assimilation. I didn't refer to all Arabs or North Africans are Muslims, but it's pretty undeniable that nearly all fundamentalist Muslims are immigrants. The argument isn't against immigrants, it's against fundamentalist Islam. Ignore that and you're simply guilty of distorting the issue to make it go away.

And my statement about the majority of North Africans supporting fundamentalism is 100% on the mark. There was a study, commissioned by the French government (IIRC), that queried recent immigrants and found that most Muslim immigrants took the Quran literally, and that they felt that the teachings of Muhammed were more important than the teachings of the secular state. That is the definition of fundamentalism, and it must not be tolerated or accepted.

As for my Naziesque "fearmongering", I'm simply repeating what every respected demographer from ANY political stripe has been saying for the last decade. Native Europeans aren't reproducing at a rate to maintain their population. That is an undeniable fact. Between high birthrates and high immigration rates, populations of non-Europeans in Europe are growing faster than the population of native Europeans. That is also an undisputable fact. When the current "baby boom" generation begins dying off over the next few decades, the population of native Europeans will actually fall. That's yet another undeniable fact.

If present trends hold, the descendants of North African and Arab immigrants will hold a majority in Europe before this century is half over. That's not fear-mongering, it's basic math. I also specifically said that this isn't neccesarily a bad thing IF these immigrants are properly Europeanized.

But, seriously, what do you think France (or Germany, or Italy for that matter) will look like in 2075, in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren, if 60% to 70% of the European population belongs to devout sects of Islam? Do you REALLY think that governments will remain secular when Islamic right wingers dominate the governments of Europe? Sorry, Europe has been there before, and we called it the Dark Ages for good reason.

Our goal should be to turn North Africans into Europeans, not to allow the North Africans to turn Europe into Arabia. That would be the most tragic setback progressivism has seen in human history.

I feel like a groupie :D

I have a fan!:evilgrin:

No, I'm not. You're the one who's wanting to turn this into a racial issue...I'm talking cultures. The fundamentalist Islamic culture, hell, ANY fundamentalist culture, is wholly incompatible with progressive society. It is important for a progressive society, when importing people from nations with fundamentalist religious underpinnings, to strip that religious fundamentalism from their new citizenry as a part of their assimilation. I didn't refer to all Arabs or North Africans are Muslims, but it's pretty undeniable that nearly all fundamentalist Muslims are immigrants. The argument isn't against immigrants, it's against fundamentalist Islam. Ignore that and you're simply guilty of distorting the issue to make it go away.

I agree that any fundamentalist culture is at odds with progressive ideas. This, however, doesn't make everyone of Muslim faith and idealogue.

It is not a question of importing people from nations with fundamentalist religious underpinnings. Many of the Muslims or Arabs for that matter are native born. They are not immigrants if the are born in the nation in which they live, am I correct?

Furthermore, you seem to be backpeddling a bit now. Initially you regarded that the Islamic culture would somehow change European culture for the worse. Now you've revised your statement to just fundamentalist Islam. You are also implying that fundamentalists are the majority of the religion which is simply not the case.

And my statement about the majority of North Africans supporting fundamentalism is 100% on the mark. There was a study, commissioned by the French government (IIRC), that queried recent immigrants and found that most Muslim immigrants took the Quran literally, and that they felt that the teachings of Muhammed were more important than the teachings of the secular state. That is the definition of fundamentalism, and it must not be tolerated or accepted.

First, not all of the "immigrants" are immigrants as they are native born. Second, I'd love to see the commission. I would love to see one about Christian fundamentalism and compare the two. It would be interesting to say the least.

As for my Naziesque "fearmongering", I'm simply repeating what every respected demographer from ANY political stripe has been saying for the last decade. Native Europeans aren't reproducing at a rate to maintain their population. That is an undeniable fact. Between high birthrates and high immigration rates, populations of non-Europeans in Europe are growing faster than the population of native Europeans. That is also an undisputable fact. When the current "baby boom" generation begins dying off over the next few decades, the population of native Europeans will actually fall. That's yet another undeniable fact.

Please define non-Eurpoeans. I will concede that there are immigrants of every type flowing into the European countries. However, Europe has a sizeable native Muslim population.

If present trends hold, the descendants of North African and Arab immigrants will hold a majority in Europe before this century is half over. That's not fear-mongering, it's basic math. I also specifically said that this isn't neccesarily a bad thing IF these immigrants are properly Europeanized.

Eurponeanized? Why? Do we have to make African Americans white? A certain amount of assimiliation is fine. There is no need to go out of the way to make anyone "European." If they were born there than that is what they are!

But, seriously, what do you think France (or Germany, or Italy for that matter) will look like in 2075, in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren, if 60% to 70% of the European population belongs to devout sects of Islam? Do you REALLY think that governments will remain secular when Islamic right wingers dominate the governments of Europe? Sorry, Europe has been there before, and we called it the Dark Ages for good reason.

You are really obsessed with this. You must not believe that there maybe Christian Arabs in this demographic or moderate Muslims who are pro-Democracy. Your statement could be applied to any rightwinger regardless of race or religion. For that, I will fight by your sided to defend progressive and liberal values. I will not, however, make a distinction as to what race or religion rightwingers are comprised of whether they be Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.


Our goal should be to turn North Africans into Europeans, not to allow the North Africans to turn Europe into Arabia. That would be the most tragic setback progressivism has seen in human history.

....sigh...

I don't see any evidence of this. Isolated incidents do not qualify as turning a whole continent into anything. To the contrary there have been fascist elements put in place to in some sort of twisted fantasy thwart "any Muslim invasion." Berlusconi comes to mind.

we have an islamic ghetto. Of course there are Muslim people who are happy to be away from the strict rules they had at home, especially the younger ones, but it is a serious problem.

case is that immigrants children, grandchildren etc are never integrated into the society. Unlike in the US, children born of immigrants in Germany don't get citizenship.

Right from the get-go Germany as a country is telling those children that they do not belong, that they are foreigners. These kids are then left in a state of "identity-limbo", they can't see themselves as Germans and struggle to identify with their parents or grandparents home country because they've never been there!

Of course, most of them can apply for German citizenship when they are 18, relinqueshing their previous citizenship. After 18 years of being told by the state that you don't really belong is it any wonder that so decendants of immigrants take up the offer?

N/T

I know we all are terribly PC here and all but I cant for the love see whats so wrong about what's he saying. I understand Europeans who are scared of the ethnical changes.. in 100-200 years Europe will look extremely different and we should worry too.

This is no different. The English are not the indigenous people of England, the Italians are not the indigenous people of Italy.

But in this case it's a whole cultural change.. you really think the world would have looked the same if the Muslims had managed to conquer europe?

As he said.. if it's just a switch of genetics it's nothing to worry about but when it's a total cultural change you should worry.

and the last of the barbarian hordes were rebuffed long before that. Europe and her inhabitants haven't experienced a major ethnocultural invasion in a long time. These cultures have developed over a matter of centuries, and are in danger of being overwhelmed in a matter of decades. It should be as much of a concern as preserving what is left of the Native American or Australian Aboriginal cultures.

I thought we were supposed to encourage diversity and tolerance. Apparantly not when it comes to those backward and downright undemocratic Muslims and Arabs.

I truly am astonished and bewildered. I hope I'm not alone.

:eyes:

By the way Muhammed Ali is Muslim. Is he prancing around telling women to wear face scarves? Is he making people fast during Ramadan?

This bears resemblence to racist southerners during the Jim Crow era suggesting that we should be weary of the blacks.

The tone of your posts are disconcerting to say the least.

Try digging up someone who didnt convert and comes from saudi arabia or UAE or something

There are many "Muslims" who do not prance around making people wear head scarves and make everyone fast during Ramadan. What's the difference between a convert and someone born of the faith anyway?

Does one seem to have a better way of "accepting democracy." If a convert can follow his/her religion and still be within bounds of democratic values then why can't someone who was born of the faith?

:shrug:

Muhammed Ali was raised with western values.

Oh and I'm not saying all muslims are bad etc etc you're desperatly trying to paint us into some racists..

not working very well

You seem to be digging your own hole here.

Here are a few Muslims who are a "threat to western culture."

Ali Daei:

Today Daei owns his own football jersey manufacturing company, making jerseys for Iranian Premiership clubs, 2nd Division clubs world-wide and for the national team. He has made very significant charitable donations and has made appearances in charitable football matches world-wide (featuring in the World vs. Bosnia match with Roberto Baggio and other football legends. Just recently he appeared in a UNICEF commercial with superstar David Beckham and Madeline Albright. Today Ali Daei has joined the exclusive circle of players with a Century of Caps. In a December 2, 2003 international friendly against Kuwait, he scored his 85th international goal, elevating him past Hungarian legend Ferenc Puskas to top the all-time list of scorers in international matches.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Daei

Laila Ali (yes the daughter of Muhammed Ali but she was born a Muslim!):

Laila Ali (born December 30, 1977), is the daughter of the boxer many consider to be the greatest fighter of all time, Muhammad Ali.

Laila, who is a personal trainer in Los Angeles, surprised the boxing world in 1999 by announcing she would try a hand at women's boxing.

Serj Tankjian:

Serj Tankian (born August 21, 1967) is a Armenian-American musician. Born in Beirut, Lebanon, Serj moved to Los Angeles, California at the age of eight. After attending college in 1985, he met System of a Down bandmate Daron Malakian at a rehearsing studio. In 1993, they formed the band Soil with drummer Andranik "Andy" Khatchadurian.

After Soil's split in 1995, Tankian and Malakian recruited Shavo Odadjian, former manager of Soil, and John Dolmayan to form System of a Down, a name inspired by a Malakian poem titled "Victims of a Down". In addition to his current singing duties with System of a Down, Serj has started his own record label, Serjical Strike, in an effort to release music otherwise ignored by the mainstream. The first act on this new label is a side-project dubbed "Serart" featuring Serj himself and famed world-musician Arto Tuncboyaciyan. His first poetry book Cool Gardens was published by MTV Books and features artwork by fellow Angeleno Sako Shahinian.

An outspoken musician, Serj has spoken out against violence and injustice abroad. On September 13, 2001, shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Serj penned an essay, which he posted on the official System of a Down website, titled "Understanding Oil". Promptly removed by Sony, the essay was seen by many, still shook by the attack, as justification for the terrorists' actions. However, the essay advocated peace and the research and development of alternate fuels. Shortly after his essay was removed, Serj appeared on the Howard Stern show via telephone to explain his position; unwilling to budge in their pro-war stance, however, the crew, and listeners who phoned, repeatedly interrupted him with their opinions on what should be done and their reasoning for retaliation.

More recently, Serj has partnered with Tom Morello of Audioslave to create Axis of Justice, an activist organization aimed at teenagers interested in politics. On January 3, 2003, Serj and Tom led a protest march in Santa Monica, California handing out bagged lunches to the homeless in violation of a city ordinance that requires charitable organizations, while handing out food in public, to follow restaurant code.

Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan:

Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan (October 13, 1948 to August 16, 1997) was a singer and performer of Qawaali, a style of Islamic religious singing developed by the Sufi denomination. In his native Pakistan, Nusrat did not become a singer until he was nearly thirty years old when, he said in various interviews, he received a call from Allah to become a singer. His powerful voice made him a superstar in the Islamic world, and he was the first Far Eastern singer to reach audiences in Western culture. In 1995, he collaborated with Eddie Vedder on the soundtrack to Dead Man Walking. His contribution to that and several other soundtracks and albums, as well as his friendship with Peter Gabriel, helped to increase his popularity in Europe and the United States.

Nusrat was responsible for the modern evolution of qawaali. Although probably not the first to do so, he popularized the blending of khyal singing and techniques with Qawaali. This in short took the form of improvised solos during the songs using the saregam technique which the performer sings the names of the notes he is singing (for example in western notation it would be "do re re mi".) He also attempted to blend Qawwaali music with more western styles such as techno.

According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan holds the world's record for the biggest recording output by a Qawaali artist (a total of 125 albums of recorded music).

His early career is the subject of a documentary film made in 1997 entitled Nusrat Has Left the Building...But When?

After Nusrat passed away in 1997, his nephew Rahat Fateh Ali Khan took up his torch and followed in his footsteps as a singer.

Hey, why don't you just visit the website for more of these people who "pose a threat to western values."

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslims#Entertainers

In belgium they arrested a pro soccer player because he was planning to ram a car with explosives in a embassy or something

You didn't even read it, because as soon as I posted it you had your reply already made out. Great!

:hi:

Ever try to discuss religious conversion with a practicing Muslim? How about womens rights? Prisoners rights? Gay rights? How about the possibility that Allah himself may be a fairy tale?

I have, and have found that very, very few Muslims are willing to even discuss such things, and that most will actually get infuriated with you for trying. To most, the Koran is fact, and anyone who says otherwise is fundamentally corrupt.

This is the same type of fundamentalism espoused by the Christian Coalition and other right wing religious groups here in the US, and we should tolerate it just as little. No tolerance for intolerance, whether it comes from Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or moon rock worshippers. The fact that such a large percentage of Muslim European immigrants qualify as intolerant right-wing religious fundamentalists should be alarming to anyone.

I have tolerance and promote diversity towards any religion and culture that reciprocates. But those that do not advocate basic civil rights and which threaten our progressive values should only be greeted with disdain and intolerance.

Let me ask, how tolerant are you of Freepers? In my book, there's no difference beween Freepers and Muslim fundies...they just worship different fairy tales.

You seem to be confusing someone who is simply believing in their faith as fundamentalist.

Have you tried to tell a Christian that there is no Jesus?

Same argument and it's utter rubbish.

Fundamentalism is anethema to progressive values regardless of religion

You seem dead set as placing anyone who practices Islam as a fundamentalist.

That is where your wires get crossed otherwise I'd have no problem with what you say.

muslim renaissance. It's real, and it's what makes fundamentalist islam much different--and yes, in some ways more dangerous--than religion practiced in societies who have gone through an enlightenment period.

I happen to agree. Where I have my qualms is that it's implied that Islam itself is fundamentalist. This is not true.

This scare that Islam is taking over Europe is completely ludicrous. Fundamentalists of any stripe must be defended against. Let people have their religion in a moderate way. I don't see how this will damage or threaten "western culture."

..and say fundamentalist islam. And even for those who haven't, I'd take them on good faith that they're not in mass hysteria against all of islam (this is DU, after all, not freakrepublic).

However, demographics on this issue are very telling. Should we panic? No, but it does deserve a careful eye. The vast majority of practicing muslims--your list of enlightened muslims notwithstanding--still belong to the fundamentalist sects (see: China, the middle east, etc.).

If you want to be intollerant of intollerance you might want to start with youself and not refer to people's religious beliefs as fairy tales.

"I thought we were supposed to encourage diversity and tolerance."

Supporting diversity and tolerance is well and good. But imagine if the Christian fundamentalists were able to breed to the point that they were able to take over the country at the ballot box. How much tolerance do you think a government controlled by such a group would show? Imagine what kind of country we'd live in if the "God hates Fags" guy controlled 75% of the political offices in this country. How well do you think that would go over? And whose necks do you think would be the very first he'd put on the chopping block?

Preaching tolerance and diversity is good, right up to the point that you enable extremists to take over the government and force their agenda down everybody's throats.

And face it. Fundamentalist religious groups, REGARDLESS of their ethnicity, are not known for their tolerance of people who believe differently than they do.

I like MOST of the political ideas put down by the Dead White Guys. The vast majority of you all do too, regardless of how much you say you don't. Some examples: The separation of church and state (can you name a country where the fundamentalist Mullahs basically rule?). The idea of equality under the law. (can you name a culture that basically says it's OK to murder people if they believe in a different God than you do?) The end of blood corruption. This isn't a racist term, BTW, it refers to punishing family members for the offenses committed by one of their kin. (Can you think of a country where they punish the families of a criminal, not just the criminal?) The right to freedom of speech, even if blasphemous. (Rushdie ring a bell?) Due process of law. (ever heard of a Fatwa ordering the execution of somebody, issued by a religious figure, without a trial?)

A LOT of the "Dead White Guy" culture NEEDS to be preserved. If it isn't, and there's a fundie religious government instituted, care to guess who will be the first people "up against the wall?" Hint: It's not the conservative fundie religious people....it's the blasphemerous Idolators like...well...US!!!!

There are quite a few. In fact, the religion in much of the world is having a reformation.

No one seems to understand my point of contention. Some people want to equate Islam as inherently fundamentalist and that this fundamentalism will ruin western values.

I'm not arguing for fundamentalism. I'm arguing that Islam itself is not fundamentalist from what I know.

but there are a lot more fundamentalist-controlled Islamic governments than there are liberal-controlled Islamic governments.

We are talking about native or immigrant Muslims in the countries of Europe. Your post is an excellent example of a strawman.

Strawmen don't belong here

It's not a strawman. Once the muslim immigrants reach 50.01% of the voting public, they'll be able to legally control of the government. Now look at countries that have Islamic governments already. How many of them can be described as "liberal" theocracies, and how many are fundamentalist theocracies? How many "islamic" nations actually have a secular government?

We've seen how a right wing group can take over the government in the US since 2000. They got in, and have been steadily eroding civil liberties. Through legislation and judicial nominations they've thrown the US far to the right, trampling constitutional protections held sacred by most Americans. And the right wingers here are ideological pikers compared to fundamentalist muslims.

if the Muslims reach a majority, they will automatically turn the countries of Europe into Muslim Theocracies.

Ok...gotchya.

No point in arguing. You have your mind made up.

:eyes: :shrug:

but given the history and examples out there, it's certainly a good possibility.

When someone is identifying the difference and demographics of a nation as a bad thing.

I mean so what if Denmark will be over 50% Muslim in 2020. How is this a bad thing? Does the fact that Muslims will make the majority a prelude to the demise of the nation? That is his implication.

This sort of analysis is considered mainstream in Israel.

Exactly what part of his speech was slanderous or accusatory towards another race? Of the problems that he cited, which are false and libelous?

I see nowhere any accusation that immigrants are inferior simply because of their skin color or nation of origin. I DO, however, see a list of very REAL issues that Europeans are grappling with right now.

So, if you're going to throw around an accusation as weighty and hateful as "racist", I'd like to hear your justification.

'If it just means the replacement of one genetic stock with another genetic stock, that doesn’t matter too much.'

It's the cultural change he's afraid of

and racist at worst.

Being afraid of culture is prejudice in the least and racist at worst.

Being afraid of a different culture is just silly.

I thinking this is more along the lines of recognizing superior cultures over inferior ones.

The man is basically saying that he's threatened by a group of people. He makes sweeping generalizations and you don't think that there maybe something suspiciously racist about it?

The man is basically saying that he's threatened by a group of people.

What he's saying is a wee bit more comlicated than that.

He makes sweeping generalizations and you don't think that there maybe something suspiciously racist about it?

Not in the least, but you can always find racism if you're sure it's there before you start looking.

We'll just have to leave at that.

And this is far too frequently the case.

While racism runs rampid through the world.

Jewish faith?

Let's say that that Europe was in danger of being Judaized. It's the same invalid fear based on the pretense that those of a different faith or culture is automatically tied to the demise of the nation or continent.

That, my friend, is racist.

The only jewish nation in the world is like a european country. Its a democracy and western values.

Are European nations colonizing and occupying territories?

I have to say we should quit this line of dialogue. I have read the rules and know that I/P issues are to be relegated to the I/P forum.

So I will not respond any further with regards to Israel in this thread.

Western Civilization and the Muslim religion are at odds. That is plain for anyone to see. There are values that are core to Western Civilzation and they are simply not extant in Muslim culture as it exists today.

Further, if this continues, there will come a point of conflict, most likely violent and bloody.

To call this 'racist' is to misuse the term and about as foolish a thing to do as it was to label the late Pim Fortuyn racist.

I'm still kicking myself for not saving this column when it was originally published in the Los Angeles Times' Sunday opinion section several months ago. However, I believe the author has also published a book on this, so perhaps another DUer will know who this is.

Rambling aside, the column posited that the reason Islam produces such violent fundamentalists is that they never experienced a renaissance the way western society did during the enlightenment period. In other words, at no point within that culture has it ever been suggested that their society is anything but theo-centric, that it could function without its relationship with Allah as its sole focus. Think for a moment about all the implications of that.

The western enlightenment period made it (more) okay for one to be an atheist or at least to see government in secular terms, quite separate from one's religion. It's a fascinating theory, and one that makes a great deal of sense to me.

I think it's the whole workers rights and industrialization to be honest.


The western world during about 150 years went thru the industrialization, capitalism, unions.. workers rights, womens rights etc etc etc to where we are now.



The muslim world were basicly nomads who over one night became super billionairs from oil.. they skipped everything.

It's like we would go back in time and give cars and real weapons to ppl in the dark ages.

I think that's a chicken-and-egg thing; I would argue that none of the major fights for individual rights would've happened without the idea of those inalienable rights first being introduced by the likes of Locke and company. It begins with thought and philosophy, and then moves to action.

following Martin Luther's revolt against the Catholic church.

The Protestant Reformation led to the Enlightenment which led to more liberal thinking in a lot of spheres. I know the French are not popular among our Freeper lurkers but without them the world would be in an even bigger mess.

I do think you are correct when you say that Islam has not gone through a similar thing. Judaism went through what is called the Haskalah (Jewish enlightenment which led to the founding of the Reform movement in Germany) and it happened during the 1800s (approx. 100 years following the European Enlightenment) when Jews were finally granted full citizenship in *some* but not all European countries.

When our (and I mean western european) ancestors were dying from the black death, and fighting off slavic invaders, the Islamic culture was experiencing its enlightenment. They had a tolerant form of Islam that encourage scientific and artistic discovery which formed the basis for the western Renaissance. While islamic cultures never created a democracy, there were secular atheists who pioneered in the areas of math, science, navigation, astronomy,in the middle aged Islamic cultures when the entire west was under the brutal grip of the popes and their inquisitors. We owe our Renaissance to interactions with the Islamic culture of the middle ages. All great cultures in the world experience cycles where their influence waxes then wanes

Even during that period when they were going through scientific and artistic growth/discovery, it was NEVER approached from a secular perspective. And until they go through that kind of philosophical shift, where their cultural universe isn't Allah-centric, then they're still stuck in the dark ages.

And most likely never will.

FYI, read your thread again, because it contains the seed of the Golden Age of Islam. You wrote "...there were secular atheists who pioneered...", and that secular atheism formed the foundation of the great things that they accomplished. The Abbasid Caliphate operated on the concept that philosophy and science could solve humanities problems, and that religion, while important for the soul, played little part in our daily lives.

In other words, the only reason the Muslims experienced a golden age was because they ABANDONED FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM.

With the rise of the Seljuk's, fundamentalism once again returned to the middle east and the golden age ended. al-Ghazali, a name unknown to most westerners but who is one of the most respected philosophers in Islam, put a final nail in the coffin of Islamic learning when he declared that reason and all its works are bankrupt, that experience and reason were not to be trusted because they could say nothing meaningful about the reality of Allah, and that only direct intuition of God led to worthwhile knowledge. Philosophy, he wrote, was a snare leading the unwary to the pits of Hell.

We could easily write him off as a religious crackpot if it weren't for the fact that ALL modern strains of Islam borrow heavily from his teachings. To some Muslims, his lessons are nearly as important as Muhammeds.

The only way to get the current wave of European immigrants to assimilate would be to show them the fallacy of al-Ghazali's teachings. Of course, to do that would be entering the state into a religious debate, so there may honestly be no reasonable solution.

The Islam that existed during their golden age would be welcome today in Europe. Sadly, that's not the Islam they're getting,

who refuted al-Ghazali's rejection of philosophy and science. Per my (admittedly limited) understanding, al-Ghazali radically changed his outlook several times in his life - he started out trying to reconcile Neoplatonism with Quranic Revelation, gave up, and then rejected philosophy altogether because it conflicted with his theology. At some point he rejected philosophy and scholasticism and turned inward to his sufism. His concept of "occasionalism", whereby the will God is the sole causal agent of all events, is ridiculous to most of us, and seems to me a rather restrictive and uninspired concept of God.

But in his defense, he did espouse personal spiritual experience over formal doctrine, which would probably be a good lesson for people of all religions to absorb...

The theologian,(Ghazali), accepted master in matters of outer religion, knew that the realization of what might be meant by the term "God" was something that could only be appreciated by inner means, not accessible through the framework of formal religion
-Idries Shah, "The Sufis"

To me, al-Ghazali's mistake was to reject the beneficial applications of science and philosophy for more secular applications just because they were insufficient to describe his spiritual experiences.

-SM

Islam is not the only culture to have failed to have capitalized on previous knowledge. In the 1300-1400s, China had exploring ships that got to the east coast of Africa. When the Imperial Court had a change of heart, the ships were never sent out after their return. China turned inward, convinced there was nothing good outside China.

Intellectual advancement has tended to go hand-in-hand with intellectual freedom and prosperity. The Caliphate years of a millennium past had these attributes in places like Eygpt and Bagdad. Later on, a similar golden age happened in Muslim Spain where the intellectual fevor was increased by the synbiosis of the Muslim, Christian and Jewish cultures.

When religion starts to trump intellectual freedom, as happened in both Islam and Renaissance Catholicism, the fertile ground becomes barren. Once the Holy Office of the Inquisition got started in the Roman Catholic countries, it was the Protestant societies that assumed the intellectual lead.

The Islamic countries, for whatever reason, never has re-developed a societal culture that encourages intellectual freedom. The defeat of the Islamic conquest in France and Austria, let Europe develop on its own. When King Adolphus of Sweden defeated the anti-Protestant Catholic League, the North Europe countries started their trans-world explorations and exploitations which has made the underpinning of our modern world.

Islam and China and many other countries / societies have had their opportunities and there may be some other one that will shape the future, but until then, it is the West of Europe & the Americas and the intellectually free democracies that lead in Science and Technology.

The culture and various sub-cultures of Islam are, by and large, not free intellectually, socially, politically nor on a gender basis.

It's suprising to me that so many people take such pains to avoid confronting this issue.

...the mistake of conflating culture with race. Muslims now come from many races, and it's not the color of their skin that should concern us. To continue that avoidance is perilous at best.

apart from the doomed part. There may yet be redemption for Islam, but it must come from within.

The reason Islam produces violent fundamentalists is because they percive their culture and religion as under attack. Whenever enyone feels their culture and/or religion under attack they embrace it that much more. Like Christian fundamentalists here, who feel their relgion is under attack, and look at how they act.

The Arab world *did* have a "renaissance"; it had its renaissance while our vaunted culture of the whitest and deadest of the dead white men were still squabbling around in the mud, arranging themselves in primitive feudalism, and considering what we would call (in contemporary argot) "fundamentalist Catholicism" to be the apotheosis of civilization.

The great Arab civilizations gave the (Western) world the zero, algebra, chemistry, astronomy, its first great treatises on medicine, metallurgy, and metaphysics, the Library at Alexandria, the numerals that you and I use every day... I could go on, but what's the point? As long as you persist in the belief that the Arab world never left what we think of as "the Middle Ages," it's hopeless. (In the real Middle Ages, though, the Arab world -- not then the Muslim world, per se -- was the most advanced society in the West!)

As to the question of this assimilationist problem in Europe and elsewhere, if you substitute any other ethnic, religious, or political group for "Muslim" in all these lines of argument, it quickly becomes obvious how misguided they are. People here (and in Europe) just happen to fear Muslims the way much of Europe feared Jews prior to WWII; the way white supremacists still fear people of colour (I swear I've heard the exact same argument phrased as "as soon as 50.1% of the population is non-white, white people will be doomed!"); the way religious bigots fear Catholics, Protestants, non-Christians, atheists, whatever. It's all the same.

I won't even get deeply into the sheer ridiculousness of the argument (for one, who says that all Arabs, or all Muslims *would* vote as a bloc, anyway?), because it's just too crazy.

Grow up. Get real. None of you are even going to be here in 2075 anyway...

Monolithic Muslims voting as a bloc to turn Europe into a Muslim theocracy....LMAO...

It's so funny it's sad...

Regardless of their scientific/mathematic accomplishments, muslim society has never undergone an enlightenment. They've never had a self-examination where they considered their world from a perspective of anything but an allah-centric universe. This is about the fifth time I've posted this detail, so perhaps you missed the previous mentions.

The great thing about western civilization isn't that we're western or european or anything to do with dead white males--it's that we underwent a major philosophical shift of which our constitution is one of the hallmarks, specifically with its separation of church and state.

I don't want ANY group pushing us back to the dark ages, whether it's fundamentalist islam or fundamentalist christianity. We're already seeing a frightening attempt to undo some of this in our own society now that the wingnuts have taken over our country (faith-based education, erroding of reproductive rights, aggressively working to undermine gay rights, etc.). So, not only do we need to watch closely the advent of any majority islam government, we need to continue to fight right here in our own backyard.

How anybody could post with a straight face that muslim society as a whole is some beneficent, forward-thinking movement is just plain wrong. Take a look at the countries where they DO have majority rule, and ask yourself if that's what you want for the US and Europe. Am I saying this will definitely happen? No. I am saying that it has potential, however.

And watch with the personal attacks--I assure you I'm quite "grown up," and very, very real.

I plan to atleast try an stick around til then, and also I'd like it that my children would have a nice future.

Western Civilization and the Muslim religion are at odds. That is plain for anyone to see. There are values that are core to Western Civilzation and they are simply not extant in Muslim culture as it exists today.


If you had stated that fundamentalist Islam and democracy are incompatible, your argument would hold more water. Mainstream Muslims do not fear democracy as the administration would have us believe. Any religion in its fundamentalist state is at odds with western values, not just Islam. These posts painting an entire religion and the people in that religion as some sort of barbaric monolithic group out to destroy "western values" is dispicable.

This is the sort of things Neocons spout off at. We are supposed to think before we react.

The line of reasoning that Muslims or Arabs are a threat to democracy is in and of itself a threat to democracy!!

Noone has said arabs.. the original post even said theres NO PROBLEM with another race.. its the culture

Most North Africans in France today identify with fundamentalist strains of Islam.

In case you didn't know, most North Africans are Arabs.

Mainstream Muslims do not fear democracy as the administration would have us believe.

I don't listen to this administration for input on practically any topic. In regards to this, I am basing it on a review of the historical record and personal experience.

Any religion in its fundamentalist state is at odds with western values, not just Islam.

No one is arguing to the contrary.

These posts painting an entire religion and the people in that religion as some sort of barbaric monolithic group out to destroy "western values" is dispicable.

Where are these posts?

This is the sort of things Neocons spout off at. We are supposed to think before we react.

I assure you I am quite contemplative and think quite a lot before I post.

The line of reasoning that Muslims or Arabs are a threat to democracy is in and of itself a threat to democracy!!

Of course they themselves are not a threat to democracy, per se. It is the nature of Islam itself as it has been practised for centuries, and how it has served as a fulcrum between cultural and political vectors that is the threat.

he supports the "West" in it's struggle with fundamentalist Islam. My understanding of what he means when he comments about the low birthrates in various European countries, is that the Muslim birthrate is greater and in HIS opinion this is a bad thing because of the struggle between the values of fundamentalist Islam and Greco Judeo Christian culture.

Someone commented that in Israel this train of thought is considered mainstream. Some Israelis worry not only about the Arab birthrates but also about the birthrates among the ultra orthodox Jewish community. Because they are fundamentalist and marry earlier than most Israeli Jews the orthodox tend to have A LOT of children. Israel provides a stipend for additional children (I don't know whether this stipend is available to Arab Israelis) and also many ultro orthodox men do not work but study in yeshivas so they are perceived as a drain on the economy.

I am uncomfortable when he talks of genetic stock, that's creepy but it's probably what he learned growing up in colonial Africa. For some it's hard to break away from things learned in childhood.

I think it's prescient that his father showed him slaves and claimed that the UN would not allow him to do anything about the problem. It shows that perhaps his father was aware of the problems of being a colonizer and wanted to pass those concerns on the Mr Rhys Davies. When I read his comments about his dad saying that the next big war would be between Islam and the West all I could say is wow.

If he's an American citizen, which I doubt but he may be, then he's probably a repuke.

There's always Viggo! We know he has good politics!

Jeez - talk about post and run. I was meaning to log in last night and see how this was doing but something came up IRL.

he supports the "West" in it's [sic] struggle with fundamentalist Islam

I don't remember him saying anything about "fundamentalist", and I disagree with the poster above who assumes that the "fundamentalist" is implied. It certainly isn't among other people I've debated on this issue - and not just Freepers.

My understanding of what he means when he comments about the low birthrates in various European countries, is that the Muslim birthrate is greater and in HIS opinion this is a bad thing because of the struggle between the values of fundamentalist Islam and Greco Judeo Christian culture.

No, he's afraid of "whities being overrun by darkies" (quoting a childhood neighbour). Any discussion of birthrate assumes that the characteristic in question of this birth is immutable and unchangable. Muslims do not necessarily breed life-long Muslims. We have plenty of examples of ex-Christian athiests on this board.

What he believes is that Muslims are incapable of integrated themselves into modern society. I beg to differ.

For some it's hard to break away from things learned in childhood.

My mother taught me that all "darkies" are disease-ridden perverts and thieves. Five years in a reggae band taught me different.

Maybe I'm spoiled living up here.

I've been having a life experience lately. My van is broken and I can't afford to get it fixed. I'm spending a lot of time on buses and standing around in bus shelters and taking buses and walking through rough sections of town I would normally drive through with my eyes glued on the road.

I'm a musician and December is concert season and it's difficult NOT to be aware of the audience.

Now you have to remember that I live in the most redneck Province in Canada. There's a fundie church on every street corner.

If you look at the "colour" makeup of any of these groups (bus riders, generic audiences, just plain people walkin' down the street), it tends towards 50% "white" or less. Some of those "white" people my mother would consider "ethnic" ie. non-"white". There's plenty of turbans and kerchiefs on heads. There's also plenty of crosses around necks.

People get along just fine. I take the bus to the west end (where I catch my out-of-town bus) with a bunch of high-school kids. If there was anyplace I'd expect a problem, it would be with them. They're noisy and rambunctuous and shout to each other across the bus, but it's not an enclave of one ethnic group in one section and another someplace else keeping to themselves. Everybody's socializing with everybody regardless of colour or creed.

Granted, I have no idea what goes on in the back halls or the school yard. I'm sure there's a fair share of Freeper-wannabes and "budding terrorists (I'm being facetious)". They certainly battle it out in the letters to the editor in the local tabloid. What I notice, however, is that the local Muslim population is the first to react when Muslim Fundamentalism raises its head.

I suspect is has something to do with our immigration policy.

Canada is officially "multi-cultural". Divergent cultures are accepted, encouraged and funded. It seems to work.
The United States is a "melting pot" where the attempt is made to turn everybody into Murikans. It's not working.
Mr Rhys-Davies appears to be describing an insular, single-culture society invaded by outsiders. One is reminded of Rome invaded by the Visi-goths. I think he is deluding himself about the reality of the situation and about the nature of immigration and modern immigrants.

People come to a country because they want to. In a small minority of cases they are refugees coming to whatever country will take them - but there's lots of countries taking refugees. People go someplace attractive to them, for whatever reason.

People are attracted to Western cultures because there's something about Western culture they want. Otherwise they'd stay home. Going someplace and then immediately wanting to change it to resemble the place you just finished leaving doesn't make a lot of sense.

Here's a dumb analogy. I vacation at a skiing lodge. I go there because there's no decent snow or hills here. By Mr Rhys-Davies' logic, I would immediately want to plow all the snow and bulldoze the hills.

Frankly, I think Mr Rhys-Davies is fighting the next Crusade. Isn't it strange how the Crusaders never found the Holy Grail?

:-)

No wonder the mods hate me.

It encouraged debate and maybe we all thought about it for a minute. You should be happy for that.

:-)

So much ignorance, so little time.

I feel stupider for just having read this thread.

I mean if you're going to criticize a whole group of people based on the based on the history of a religion you should at least know some basic high school level facts.

Say some arguments backing you up

"The muslim world were basicly nomads who over one night became super billionairs from oil.. they skipped everything."

This statement completely ignores the contributions the muslim world made that Thom already stated. It completely ignores the Ottoman Empire, the Moghul Empires, among other things.

The "ottoman" empire was turkey who is probably the one single muslim country that shaped up. And a neighbour to europe..

round the whole mediterrenian to Egypt and Iran.

And by the way: if the Muslims had not saved the knowledge of the ancient Greek and if they had done similar things to the Jews as did the Europeans, there would not be anything like the "Western civilisation" based upon Greek and Jewish roots.

Irish monks maintained ancient world texts during the dark ages, as Ireland was relatively peaceful during that period.

It saddens me to see anti-muslim, anti-arab stuff like this on DU.

Im just curious if you would be ok with europe looking like saudi arabia or worse

That's right, because I don't like anti muslim bigotry I think Europe is going to turn into Saudi Arabia.

Where the white women at?

'That's right, because I don't like anti muslim bigotry I think Europe is going to turn into Saudi Arabia.

Where the white women at?'




That post didnt make any sense

Although it's out of place.

The whole joke centers around the white supremacists ridiculous belief that a bunch of uncouth degenerate uppity minorities are after "the white women" and are going to out breed the good white christians and take over.

Of course it wasn't that long ago where we were very concerned about the "black population" in the US. And although we have a ways to go, African Americans with their "equal" rights weren't all that much of a threat now were there?

a man made it real big in Europe by exploiting fears of the "otherness" and incompatibility of another cultural group. He managed to perpetrate the myth that these people would "take over" and change the cultural, religious and physical make-up of the country. That they didn't come to assimilate or make a better life for themselves but to overrun the populace

it didn't turn out so well


when I was doing my history masters we surveyed attitudes about Islam and the Middle East and it's depressing that the same myths have only gained currency

Sorry, this is nothing even close to what he tried to do, what he did and the eventual consequences.

Tilt! Try again.

yet you made that connection - I didn't even mention a timeframe

But as YOU brought it up - please tell me why you think Hitler did'nt try to demonise the jewish population and propagate myths about them?

btw - how much time have you spent studying middle eastern culture/history Character Assasin? as Im just wondering what you're basing your claim about the polar opposites of Western and Islamic culture on - that's the kind of statement often uttered by people looking at highly superficial aspects of both

If so, I'd like to know what information you have that every reputable Eurpoean demographer has managed to overlook.

The fact that immigrants will achieve majority status in Europe, in my lifetime, in undeniable. As for what a Muslim majority Europe will look like, we can only base our assumptions on comparisons with modern Muslim majority countries, and on those cities and areas in Europe where they have already achieved a majority. In either case, it would be a step backwords for Europe.

I have never said in this entire thread that immigration is bad. We simply need to help these immigrants take a step forward societally to help them embrace concepts that are absent in their current cultures.

"help these immigrants take a step forward societally to help them embrace concepts that are absent in their current cultures."

or are we lacking in nothing?

There is a sizeable native Muslim population in Europe at present and has been for quite sometime.

But as YOU brought it up - please tell me why you think Hitler did'nt try to demonise the jewish population and propagate myths about them?

I never said that. I clearly indicated that any comparison between what Hitler actually did and what this actor said is completely transparent and untenable.

If I inferred Hitler incorrectly, then please indicate who you meant.

btw - how much time have you spent studying middle eastern culture/history Character Assasin?

Quite a bit, both at University (both the US and in Germany) and independently. I am a passionate student of history.

as Im just wondering what you're basing your claim about the polar opposites of Western and Islamic culture on - that's the kind of statement often uttered by people looking at highly superficial aspects of both.

Indeed it could be construed that way. In this case, however, it's not.

:toast:

The majority of them have come here to seek a better life, away from religous fundamentalism.

Why has the muslim women in France wearing headscarfs INCREASED instead of declined then?

There's a big difference between wanting to honor one's cultural and religious heritage and wanting to impose it on the rest of society and you, as a liberal Christian, should be aware of that fact.

I have to go to bed now but it's been nice talking to you.:hi:

I'm curious why you would think that it would turn out to be like Saudi Arabia (of course we help keep Saudi family in power).

Oh well....


:shrug:

Makes me want to go out and read Orientalism by the late Edward Said.

I know he had an idea or two about what's being said in this thread.

Population and exploration.

As long as the world population grows (nothing will stop it) and we have no new frontiers to explore the world will become a nastier place.

European civilization experienced it's greatest growth during centures of exploration.

I'll get a lot of flack from fellow liberals but what happen to space exploration? As a California I know that there is no longer anyway to go further West then we are right now.

There's a new wing about to join the fray, using their performence here as a springboard--Vote Buchanan/Pipes in '04!

Great news, Adolph:--you can come out of your bunker, eugenics & racist paranoia are cool again! But be warned, Mein Fuhrer, the popular scapegoat isn't the Jews anymore--that's just not in style anymore--, it's only socially acceptable to talk that way about Muslims.. so just alter all of those speeches slightly (a word or two altered), and you'll be in trendy again!

:eyes:

not.


Why don't you actually debate some views presented here instead of calling ppl nazis

I wouldn't tangle with Aidoneous, Kamika. I've seen his/her posts in other threads. Not a great idea.

:yourock:

Muslims come from many races, after all, and this discussion has been quite specifically about the cultural impact of fundamentalist islam.

let me say i hear the same comments about mexican immigrants made by such people as Michael Savage. I cant stand it when i hear people being affraid for the preservation of "their" culture.I hear the same bullshit about us brown folk breeding like rabbits draining the nation via welfare and soon there will be "english spoken here" signs on stores. It is so fucking sick i thought i stumbled into freak republic.Society and cultures are elastic they change and continue to evolve throughout time and are the better for it.SO SHUT UP XENOPHOBES

She had to call the police 2 or 3 times a day to pick up hispanic shoplifters. What do you think she thinks about hispanics in general ?

Ever since she moved to Germany I´ve been explaining to her that shit comes in all colours and that not all hispanic people are scum but it´s been hard to get to her. And she comes from a very progressive family from the north east...

Such experience (and many have made simpilar ones one way or another) is a burden we carry around for life. Yes, society is elastic but alot of people are happy with the way it was and do not want or outright fear change. I agree that the species as a whole benefits through evolution and development but you won´t get much applause from the species that´s going to be extinct...

did i mention that my great grand parents on my moms side were immigrants from ireland?

just last week the german police rooted out a club of several thousand turks who´s expressed goal was to turn Germany into a muslim Theocracy. Of course, right now there are only 6 million foreigners (including my own wife) among 82 million people here in Germany but when you look at demographics you´ll realize that these numbers will shift significantly during our lifetime. One had to be a fool not to be at least concerned.

Personally, we just got rid of christianity here more or less, I´d HATE to see that replaced by Islam...

...calling for a Christian state. Big hoopty doo.

These attempts at painting people by the action of a few is exactly what racism is about!

Turkey into theocracy and not Germany, I know that group very well. They are very notorious within the Turkish comunity in europe. The number of people associated with that group is not more then 5ooo, while there are some 3 million Turks in europe.

The fact that a fringe group (was unsuccessful btw) supports a Muslim Theocracy in Turkey.

I mean it would cause everyone's argument here that Europe will fall to fundamentalist Islam to fall straight into the toilet.

and balm to anger...

How can I convey to you that this time it really isn't about individuals, or inclusion, or exclusion.

I understand that the cultures of the world are changing. Change is inevitable. Everything that is, is either growing or rotting. Stasis is a fantasy.

What we are begining to discus here is whether or not some action should be taken to preserve the parts of those cultures that we find to be good. If action should be taken, then what parts are worty of perpetuation? If there are 'culture bits' (memes?) worthy of us working on their behalf, then what difficulties might we face in our effors to spread those idea?

If we as individuals are then imperfect in our execution of the ideals that we work to preserve, tell us. Most of us are willing to listen to things that we can learn from.

rlg

:yourock:


I don't believe however that they understand exactly what they are saying, which is sad really.

y'all are xenophobic and anti immigrant.MOst of you make broad generalizations and perpetuate the western stereotype of all muslims being freedom hating evildoers.Lumping all of Islam and and muslims into the crazy patriarchical terrorist type is like lumping all of christianity and christians into the KKK/gods army group (fine christian orgs)
most of you guys refer to muslims as if they were some some weird species in a textbook.Maybe thats the problem I have alot of muslim friends and they are just like my jewish christian buddhist and pagan friends.

We´re a bit worried about what´s to come and how our lives will be influenced by it. You judge to quickly methinks.

What makes you think anything will change if a few Muslims move in next door???

I can hear it now. There goes the neighborhood.

NEWSFLASH

Not all Muslims want a theocratic dictatorship wherever they go. Most want to live their lives just like any other human. Get that through your heads and we'll be all fine.

So far they didn´t make any more problems than anyone else and I don´t expect that to change. I will start worrying the day I see the first of their women veiled.

so far they didnt make any problems than anyone else i dont expect that to change i will star worrying the day i see the first of their men in hoods and robes
(thats how silly you sound)

Ridiculous arguments for ridiculous points.

Hehehe

:yourock:

...and to repeat an earlier point - if that kind of thing appealed to them, they wouldn't be here in the first place. That's where his argument falls apart.

I LOVE immigrants.. my parents are both from South Korea. I think everyone who wanted should be able to come to the US and work.

What I don't want is ppl coming here or anywhere else and expressively try to change the culture while not learning our culture. My parents became Americans in some ways and I'm totally American but I haven't forgotten my roots. I don't go around saying how better culture Korea is and how everyone here is an infidel.


I'm sure if the muslims coming to Europe were totally western, wanted to be europeans etc etc noone would complain but there IS a reason why Le Pen gets 30% of votes in French elections you know.. It's not because some arabs are brown, hell France abolished slavery LOONG before we did. It's that alot of these immigrants instead of learning the language and working, sits around doing nothing while preserving their old islamic ways (why move from opressing Iran when they still do the same thing in their new country btw??)

I read about tons of incidents in Europe where the father or brother killed the daughter because she dated a european guy. Or as a guy wrote above in this thread how there are big islamic cults planning to take over whole Europe. You can't ignore these sort of things.

I also read how when muslims came to France in the 70s noone would have a veil but now more and more starts to have them, and how more and more old muslim mullahs appearing in France telling muslim fathers to keep their daughters under more control, make them wear a veil etc etc..

Gawd I can't believe all you total mega PC ppl you are backstabbing the moderate muslims in the back when you even refuse to acnowledge a problem.

I bet if it was fundie christians you would all scream out how bad it is and how the countries must become more secular etc.

Thank you Kamika :-)

Case in point:

What I don't want is ppl coming here or anywhere else and expressively try to change the culture while not learning our culture. My parents became Americans in some ways and I'm totally American but I haven't forgotten my roots. I don't go around saying how better culture Korea is and how everyone here is an infidel.


Nice to hear your viewpoints coming out.

Keep digging that hole....you might wind up back in South Korea.

is there a point in that post?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When you run out of arguments you question her intelligence ? Weak blow...

She asked me the point of the post. I said maybe someday she would get it.

Where's the insult in that? She hasn't got it through the numerous posts back and forth. I'm simply stating maybe someday she will get my position.

No need for knee jerk responses, my friend.

My argument holds fine, especially on a progressive message board.

Maybe you should step out of your ideological cloud castle and start aknowleding reality as it is ?

Maybe you haven´t noticed yet but neither her nor I are painting an entire people by the actions of a few. We do however expect people who come here to integrate.

I really don´t mind Turks, I encountered them as friendly and courteous people (My wife sees things differently but as half armenian she has an excuse) but I don´t WANT to live in Turkey. If I would I´d move there. And I expect Germany to stay Germany. I like it the way it is. Everyone is welcome in my books as long as he´s going by our rules. Try changing them too swiftly and you have a problem.

I bet if it was fundie christians you would all scream out how bad it is and how the countries must become more secular etc.


She's basing her ideas that all Muslims are fundies. So since there is a sizeable Muslim population she believes there's a real threat to Europe's "culture."

I have a problem with that. Sorry if you don't want me to have a problem with it, but hey...this is a discussion board and I can express my opinions and I'm fully prepared to accept questions for my viewpoints.

Do you have evidence to point this out?

I'm sure if the muslims coming to Europe were totally western, wanted to be europeans etc etc noone would complain but there IS a reason why Le Pen gets 30% of votes in French elections you know.. It's not because some arabs are brown, hell France abolished slavery LOONG before we did. It's that alot of these immigrants instead of learning the language and working, sits around doing nothing while preserving their old islamic ways (why move from opressing Iran when they still do the same thing in their new country btw??)


And when I say evidence, I want 100% of the Muslims who so don't want to "westernize." Like westernizing is supposed to be superior anyway.

As long as they live by the law of the land they don't have to do anything.

We have the same pathetic arguments here in the US about immigrants from our neighbor to the south. It's pathetic.


Kamika, one question. Can you tell me about the native born ethnic Albanians who are Muslim and don't come from Iran? How have they tried to "change" Europe?

I'm defintely reading Orientalism by Dr. Said. He talks about some of the disgusting posts and views I've seen here.

I have no clue about albanians

They are native Muslim Europeans and they didn't immigrate from Iran.

They don't even see the err of their posts.

:shrug:

We don´t live in Utopia...

:shrug:

Ya know that?

The Moslems are coming! The Moslems are coming!

Everybody RUNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!

there are 600000 muslims in Holland out of a population of 17 million.
How in the world are the muslims gonna take over the world.


deanforamerica.com
clark04.com
kucinich.us
sharpton2004.org

Haven't you read the Protocols of the Elders of Mecca?

Everyone knows the Muslims will control the world and place a Muslim Theocracy. We will all have to fast during Ramadan and get a good look at your women now because soon they will be wearing habjas. It's no use. It's a forgone conclusion. If you are Muslim all you want is to convert us infidels. This is all in the Protocols so it must be true. It's coming. Muslim jihads and the like. Be prepared. If you don't convert, well, one may just blow himself up in your house. So just get ready. No use fighting the Muslim hordes.


For some that posted on this thread I want to qualify that the above was sarcasm. Judging from your posts I didn't think you might have gotten that.

:eyes:

well in america any way.OH what to do mexicans will take over america and muslims will take over europe.Brown people will take over the world aaaahhh!!!! ;)

I'm rubbing my hands together.

:evilgrin:

That´s a BIG difference.

I live in Holland, the number of is aproximately 600000. How much did you expect 2million, 3million?????



deanforamerica.com
clark04.com
kucinich.us
sharpton2004.org

:shrug:

If it bugs you, don't see it.

The guy has a right to his opinions, and you have a right to not see his flix.

Mel Gibson is a nutjob, but I still see his stuff now and then.

"Militant Islam" is one of those phrases that everyone uses to try to claim they don't hate Muslims, just radical, militant Muslims. I don't like the phrase because the militant part is not caused by Islam, but by the culture and history of the people who are fighting (and that is not a majority of Muslims, either). The fact that they are Muslim, and not Christian or something else, is irrelevant. What needs to be talked about is what makes them believe violence and oppression and misogyny is the answer, not what god they use to justify it. Christians, Jews, Sihks (sp?), even Buddhists, have used their religious beliefs to justify these same things, yet people rarely condemn the whole religions for it.

We need to figure out the problems, figure out how much we have caused by exploitation and war, figure out which problems are our business, and leave the rest to these cultures, with perhaps some guidance. I don't agree with Davies that our culture (I am white male) is inherently superior, but I see no reason that we shouldn't try to preserve white male culture (not that it is endangered yet), as long as we do not crush or stunt others because of our attempts. Shakespeare, Milton, and Elvis deserve preservation. But not to the point where that is all we teach or preserve, not to the point where (as is the case now) we teach this culture in such a way that other cultures are shown as inferior for not meeting the standards based on our culture.

Much of our culture would not exist if it weren't for Islamic influence on it, through the Middle Ages, the Rennaisance, and the Enlightenment. Our concept of romance comes from Islamic culture, most of our western philosophy that we trace through Athens and Rome came to us only through Muslim texts which preserved it, and often interpreted it for us. Our concepts of freedom and liberty come as much from other cultures, especially Native American cultures (who influenced Rousseau, Locke, and Marx more than we are taught in schools), as even much of our Christian theology comes from Christian contact with the more educated Muslims of Spain during the Middle Ages. Our culture is a mix of other cultures, and to claim that it should be saved against further alteration from other cultures is to completely misunderstand how we got here in the first place.

Cultures should mix. It is good for everyone.

This interview doesn't sound like Hitler, it sounds more like some blowhard at a barbershop.

Thanks for expressing my sentiments.

:yourock:

Egads...I would'nt know where to begin :puke:

Thanks in advance.

I want to know where the tolerance and acceptance went. Aren't these progressive values?

Ignorance and self-righteousness, on the other hand, are prime values on DU and on display in full form here - on both sides of the issue.

HTH, HAND, TTFN.

..but I'll hold out hope.

My position is, simply enough:

1) TrogL makes mountain out of molehill.
2) Every last one of you lot are aiding and abetting.

Remember, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.

Doesn't stop me from conceding that you may have a point.

:shrug:

He correctly points out Tolkien's main theme:

"I think that Tolkien says that some generations will be challenged. And if they do not rise to meet that challenge, they will lose their civilization. That does have a real resonance with me... "

And viggo claims the story is about bringing people together, eschewing violence, and promoting peace. He is totally wrong. Gimli is not being racist he is just expressing his admriation for all the achievements of the western world and also the threat he see to that western culture today. It is a totally valid considering the deep themes and symbolism in LotR. And in regard to his view of Europe, he does point out something very real and worth of discussion. It bothers me when any white person is branded a racist or white supremisist if they bring up issues of race.

a number of times I think Viggo has a valid take on it. And Tolkien seemed to me to be very focused on the the destruction of the beauty of the natural world, something which was brought about by European civilization.

what he was railing against was modern european society, the industrial revolution that cast kings and the like into the dustbin of history, and that moved people from the rural life to the urban one. He wanted a society that hadn't existed in 200 years, where everyone knew their place, and had part to play in the glory of the society, as embodied in the glory of the king. but that's not really relevant to this point.

What Rhys-Davies is pointing out is that historically imigration to a closed society inevitably changes that society. Ironic, isn't it, that, in the long run, societies cannot survive and flourish without immigration, and alternatively, cannot remain the same with mass immigration. Those that do last, with changes, do so because they welcome immigration, at a sustainable pace, and assimilate the cultures and traditions of most of the immigrants, in exchange for the immigrants also exchanging some traditions from home for their new ones. New York is not Dublin, but there's a huge St. PAtrick's Day parade. London is not New Dehli, but it's easier to find curry than fish and chips these days. And both cities are better off for it. contrary to the explanation presented above, assimilation is the only method, the Candian trick of keeping multiple independant communities doesn't work in the long run. If you can manage to combine the best parts of the incoming communities with the best parts of the local communities, everyone is stronger.

Th efear of immigration comes from the fear that the immigrants will not assimilate at all, and will force the local culture to assimilate to them. This can, in fact happen, but is usually the fault of the local community by doing one of two things: either not accepting the immigrants who do attempt to assimilate as equal members of the community, drving them back to the most desperate common denominator, or allowing immigration to happen to quickly (this latter is very hard to accomplish, and I don't believe it's happening in any European country right now.)

anyway, European culture will undeniably be affected by the masses of immigration from the middle east and North Africa. no doubt. THe question remains, can the old line culture welcome immigrants into their world enough to prevent them from falling prey to despots and fundamentalism? Keep people locked into ghettos, give them no investment in society, treat them as unwanted guests, rather than as neighbors and countrymen (and women) and you will encourage them to adopt a posture of anger towards you. Angry, desperate people are more likely to embrace the easy emotional answers found in fundamentalism. And it is that fundamentalism, fed on racism and hatred, that will destroy European culture as we know it, and Le Pen and his colleagues will have no one to blame but themselves. If Arabs moving to Europe are never allowed to become part of European culture and society, why would they ever bother to try and help preserve it?

the Candian [sic] trick of keeping multiple independant communities doesn't work in the long run

Seems to be working so far. I don't think it's as ghettoized as you imagine.

once I learn spell, I make much sense.

Canada has the space to put people, where immigrants and refugees aren't fighting for land with the established community. When there's plenty, everyone can share. when there's scarcity, everyone fights for their own community, and having seperate communities will come back to bite you in the ass.

can you tell me, by the way, how many immigrants from non-anglo countries serve in Parliament? how many represent majority white, 'native' Canadian districts? (I use the quotes because obviously whites aren't really the native community, but for the purposes of this discussion they are)

yours is probably the best-reasoned post in this entire thread. Wholehearted agreement from me, on all points.

Thanks for your post. It was very enlightening. No pun intended.

:toast:

"It bothers me when any white person is branded a racist or white supremisist if they bring up issues of race" that doesnt bother me what bothers me is when white people say that there are too many brown people coming to "their" land we are breeding like rabbits and soon there will be more of THEM then there are of US and it will be the end of western civilization

by a World War. A variety of countries and cultures had to band together (in some cases for the first time) to stop the big bad man.

Pity they couldn't keep it up after the shooting stopped.

I like birds.

I think your post is the most reasoned one!

:yourock:

Just wondering...

I'm ready to post something sexually explicit just to get it locked, as it's a non-issue.

What's your favorite type of butt plug? I'd bet that Chuck Heston likes a slimmer, deeper butt plug than the rest of you....

In other words; WHO GIVES A RAT'S ASS WHAT JOHN RHYS-DAVIES THINKS?!?! Does it have any effect on your politics? Does it make him a bad actor? I don't see a relevant connection. Good actor/bad guy vs. bad actor/good guy? I don't give a shit because I don't allow politics to interfere with art.

/much ado...

Obviously it mattered to most everyone here.

:shrug:

it has run it's course