Europe hostile to muslim world?

[Supreme]

Wait, what? A Catholic state would mean the rule of the Pope, not Jesus. And as history has shown, there's seldom anything special about the Pope, save selecting peadophiles as priests and ordering crusades.

 

[Skavau]

The Medieval was the time when people were closest so far to get know the Creator's plan of history, God's plan towards the human beings and the world. The man should get know the Creator's plan for the world, the man should not destroy divine order and law.

Babble

What does this have to do with the careless and inhumane destruction of the Medieval period? Oh wait, you're not interested in humanity. Just glorifying God.

God's law is put in natural law. Natural law is being created in tradition, in hundreds, thousands of years. Natural laws are - family, marriage(between man and woman), private posession, justice, religion (theocracy).

Hah, right. You're listing an arbitrary set of rules, or principles here and simply declaring them to be part of some 'natural law' (citation needed). Indeed Secular states accept some of these laws you declare anyway, and are much better at it than clerical rule would be. Private Property for example is much better defended by Libertarians than it is by theocratic rabble.

I note it ironic that you reference 'justice' by the way. 'Justice' appears to objectively mean the implementation of 'righteousness' into law. You have really not bothered in explaining to me what you understand to be justice. So far you have showed a total disregard or interest in the affairs of humanity in favour of the requirements of God. I'm not sure where 'justice' fits into this view at all.

Medieval is state of mind, so it has no time borders. As I said, in middle of XX century, till death of gen. Francisco Franco Bahamonde, Spain was ruled by Medieval spirit. Till the death of Antonio Salazar in the middle of XX century, Portugal was fullfilled with Medieval spirit. Austria and Hungary till 1919 were Medieval states, catholic monarchies.

Thankfully these times are over.

I think by 'Austria and Hungary' you mean Austro-Hungary, a war mongering expansionist state that played a noticeable role in getting World War One kick-started.

And, what? Francisco Franco, the leader of the Nationalist Spanish movement supported by both Mussolini and Adolph Hitler to other-throw the Spanish Republic? That Franco? The Franco that helped passively support the Axis forces in WW2? The Franco that began to prohibit (though not as harshly as other fascist states) dissenting points of view such as political parties and pressure groups?

Oh, nevermind that - since he made Catholicism the official religion of Spain.

Secular state is the final victory of heretics, sects, atheists and unbelievers over the cosmic and divine catholic order.

This is more paranoid speculation. I like Secularism for many reasons, none of them have anything to do with Catholicism specifically.

Catholic state means the reign of Christ, reign of truth, secular state means reign of people' desires, reign of mistakes. Secular state is the victory of the evil spirit, which now shows the effects - legalization of abortion, pornography, homo- relationships, euthanasia, the agreement of sects propaganda. The evil spirit is smiling. People are destroying themselves with smiles on faces and Lady Gaga's music in background.

I'm sorry that you don't like personal liberty. I'm sorry that after claiming that "natural law" had key concepts such as 'ownership, and justice' (terms that must be rooted in liberty) that you didn't really mean it.

 

[Amadeus85]

Wait, what? A Catholic state would mean the rule of the Pope, not Jesus. And as history has shown, there's seldom anything special about the Pope, save selecting peadophiles as priests and ordering crusades.

The reign of pope who represents Christ on Earth.
The crusades were just right.

 

[Amadeus85]

And, what? Francisco Franco, the leader of the Nationalist Spanish movement supported by both Mussolini and Adolph Hitler to other-throw the Spanish Republic? That Franco? The Franco that helped passively support the Axis forces in WW2? The Franco that began to prohibit (though not as harshly as other fascist states) dissenting points of view such as political parties and pressure groups?

Oh, nevermind that - since he made Catholicism the official religion of Spain.

All what I wanted to say in my answer to You I said in my previous large post. My attitude hasn't changed since then .

But I must explain some things that You said about gen Francisco Franco Bahamonde, the general of last Crusade so far in Europe.

Mussolini and Hitler helped Franco because of great influence that russian soviets had in Spain those times. Both german national-socialists and italian fascists got involved in Spain, because they were afraid that republican and pro-communistic Spain would be russian soviet ally (which I guess would be just fine according to You or maybe not?)

Franco's Spain did not take part in War World II, as it was a civil war between modern ideologies born from enlightment, communism, anglo-saxon democracy and national socialism. Franco's Spain had transcendental political and social system, which didn't belong to modern times of mass genocide.

Franco did eliminate political parties and liberal democracy, because he thought that only the Creator can be the source of law, not humans, like it was in nazi, communistic and demo-liberal states.

 

[Skavau]

But I must explain some things that You said about gen Francisco Franco Bahamonde, the general of last Crusade so far in Europe.

Mussolini and Hitler helped Franco because of great influence that russian soviets had in Spain those times. Both german national-socialists and italian fascists got involved in Spain, because they were afraid that republican and pro-communistic Spain would be russian soviet ally (which I guess would be just fine according to You or maybe not?)

I have no idea what would've happened if the Republicans won the Civil War. I don't think Spain would've within Russian geographic distance to effectively set up a puppet Communist state. Nor do I think the strong religious traditions of that state would've allowed a communistic setup that harassed religion.

I suspect it would've reverted to secular democracy far more quickly than it did with Franco.

Franco's Spain did not take part in War World II, as it was a civil war between modern ideologies born from enlightment, communism, anglo-saxon democracy and national socialism. Franco's Spain had transcendental political and social system, which didn't belong to modern times of mass genocide.

World War II was an affair almost exclusively centering on Germany's aggression and expansion and previous failed attempts on how to deal with it. If Germany wasn't there, or if the NSDAP wasn't in power then almost certainly it would have been about dealing with the USSR instead - and that would've been a harder prospect to handle.

Franco did eliminate political parties and liberal democracy, because he thought that only the Creator can be the source of law, not humans, like it was in nazi, communistic and demo-liberal states.

Yes, perhaps like you Franco didn't care about humanity.

 

[JoshuaD]

Franco's Spain did not take part in War World II, as it was a civil war between modern ideologies born from enlightment, communism, anglo-saxon democracy and national socialism. Franco's Spain had transcendental political and social system, which didn't belong to modern times of mass genocide.

The only reason Spain didn't join the war was because Germany and Italy wouldn't accept his demands for doing so, he wanted food, military equipment and for Spain to take control of Gibraltar and the French North Africa. However they did help Nazi Germany, he created the Blue Division and allowed the German navy to use Spanish facilities.

I find it amazing that you can admire a military dictator who authorised murders and torture to maintain power, just because he was Catholic.

 

[Amadeus85]

The only reason Spain didn't join the war was because Germany and Italy wouldn't accept his demands for doing so, he wanted food, military equipment and for Spain to take control of Gibraltar and the French North Africa. However they did help Nazi Germany, he created the Blue Division and allowed the German navy to use Spanish facilities.

I find it amazing that you can admire a military dictator who authorised murders and torture to maintain power, just because he was Catholic.

Note - The Blue Division was made of volunteers, just like for example Legion Valonia from Belgium. It was not a division sent by spanish state. However, my attitude towards them is neutral. They wanted to fight against communists (not Russians), but on the other hand they did help the barbarian national socialistic Germany.

Try to read more about Spanish Civil War, read what the spanish left did before and during the war (killing of thousands of priests, raping and killing thousands of nuns, destroying hundreds years old churches) and why actually the war began (the murder of Calvo Sotelo by the republican militias). It was a war between a civilization and anti-civilization, between the supporters of God and personal enemis of God (read about La Passionaria). When You fight against devil, You can't act like little girl. Try to read something more than just wikipedia or books wrote by anglo-saxon authors, who always support the republican side.

 

[Santoku]

I'll agree with that. Islam is completely orthodox, I've noticed some groups have tried to to take away 'violent' verses and meanings away like they've done with christianity to make it compatible, all lovey dovey and pacifist.

The thing is those parts of islam are never gonna be taken away and I don't see why it matters because it will never effect anyone in europe.

So there have been Salman Rushie was never threatened with death? Murders have not been perpetrated or threatened to cause non-muslims fear?
Strange I recall many demonstrations where the threat "Death to those who insult Islam" was issued in all sincerity.

Tell me would a man who preached against Islam and called for the overthrow by whatever means of the State be supported by the state so that he can live very comfortable off the very people he wants to subjugate?

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

I'll just give some general comments.

I’ll quote to two commentators on the prejudice directed towards Muslims in Euro-centric societies.

Shalom:

What are the significance and extent of Anti Arab racism?

Chomsky

In the United State, its really the last legitimate form of racism. You don’t have to try to cover it up. You may be racist towards other groups, but you have to pretend you aren’t. In the case of anti Arab racism there’s no pretence required. The things I mentioned before are a perfect example. Distinguished Harvard professors produce statements that regard as hideously racist if they were aimed at any other target – Jews: impossible; Blacks, Italians any of them, unacceptable – but if you say them about Arabs, its fine. Jack Shaheen is one scholar whos done a lot of research on images of Arabs in cinema. Its grotesque right up to the present day. There’s not even much to say about it; its open, its considered natural and normal that you should be an anti Arab racist. Nobody will use the term for it, but it’s the kind of attitude and discourse that we regard as hideously racists if it was directed at any other target. Its all over the place.

Achcar:

And anti Arab racism is probably the sharpest form of even something more general, Islamophobia

Chomsky

Well nobody makes that distinction – Arabs, Iranian, Islam its all the same thing

Achcar

Exactly try to put yourself in the shoes of a Muslim and monitor the mass media. Its appalling. You get the feeling of being assaulted permanently. I am not speaking of actual acts of racists aggression, the discrimination and all that. I am speaking just about the media. Edward Said touched upon that in Covering Islam. The situation has worsened a lot since that book was first published in 1981, and it reached a peak after 9/11. The sheer quantity of ant Islam insanities and racists categorisations being hurled by people who are in most cases totally ignorant is absolutely horrible. I cant measure the difference between Europe and United States but in any case, in Europe this Islamophobia is a huge and worrying phenomenon.

Perilous Power: The Middle East & U.S. Foreign Policy: Dialogues on Terror, Democracy, War, and Justice


Right after 9/11 this is a sample of some of the views expressed

Silvio Berlusconi

We should be conscious of the superiority of our civilisation, which consist of value system that has given widespread prosperity in those country to embrace it, and guarantees respect for human rights and religion. This respect does not exist in the Islamic countries.

Sir John Keegan

Orientals, by contrast, shrink from pitched battle, which they often deride as a sort of game, preferring ambush, surprise, treachery and deceit as the best way to overcome an enemy. . . this war (in Afghanistan) belongs within the much larger spectrum of far older conflict between settled, creative productive Westerners and predatory, destructive Orientals.

Patricia Crone

Mohammads God endorsed a policy of conquest, instructing his believers to fight against unbelievers wherever they might be found. In short, Mohammed had to conquer, his followers liked to conquer, and his deity told him to conquer.

And so on and so forth. The secular intelligentsia is generally unfriendly to hostile towards Muslims and religious people in general. At one spectrum you have the Atheists (of the Dawkinite variety) who view religion as a ‘virus’ or ‘contagion’ of the mind and consider raising a child in a religious household as a form of ‘child abuse’. Since Religion is an ‘evil’ there can be no accommodation and it must be eradicated to ‘save’ mankind. They not only want to banish religion from the public space but would like to banish it from the private sphere as well.

At the more tolerant end there are secularists who are willing to accept the second best solution of confining religion to the private sphere as a matter of individual choice, a kind of pointless hobby. So they’d rather use soft methods to secularise the Muslim population by showing them how they ‘should’ behave.

Just two random examples the recent BBC Eastenders episode. Funny, but it does give you an idea of the ‘ideal’ type of Muslim from a Liberal perspective. (Moral of the story Non practicing Muslim = Good, Practicing Muslim = Bad). Or the recent programme on BBC 2 about Female Muslim drivers, reading the blurb it mentioned that one of them appearing was divorced (Why mention that?) I’m sure there are plenty of other examples.

You can conclude from this that in their eyes the only good Muslim is a non-Muslim.

On the British government side I think they have mixed views. They are definitely funding and supporting Muslim groups who suit their political interests. In fact it withdrew support from the MCB because of its unwillingness to submit to its dictates.

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-a...ment-restores-links-biggest-muslim-group.html

In reference to the Gaza massacre again they play they play anti Antisemitism card. (The British government gave tacit support to Israel as they attacked Gaza).

However having said all this there’s plenty in Britain who are wary of marginalizing and trying to coerce Muslims into becoming more ‘British’. History if anything proves the inevitable dangers of it. Just look at the history of Ireland and the Catholic - Protestant divide. During the 19th C there was much Irish Catholic immigration to Britain and they suffered much prejudice from the populace due to their different customs and ways of life.

This lasted for decades and reached its peak during the 1920s and 1930s In Scotland, with the General Assembly in 1923 releasing a report entitled

"The Menace of the Irish Race to our Scottish Nationality", he said that it accused the Irish Roman Catholic population of being part of a papist conspiracy to subvert Presbyterian values and of being the principal cause of drunkenness, crime and financial imprudence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2014961.stm

In fact right up to the 1960s Irish Catholics had difficulties getting good jobs in Scotland. (Not to mention Northern Ireland). Cant remember the town but when one Irish person managed to get a job in a Bank the entire town took the day of to celebrate.



I think this is an interesting commentary on the parallels between prejudice directed towards Muslim and prejudice directed towards the Irish. The interesting insight for me is that reasons for the prejudice displayed is due to ongoing conflicts in the Middle East.

Anti-Irish racism in the late 20th century because there are so many parallels with the recent experience of the Muslim population. Racism occurs in a political context; in the case of the Irish in Britain it was the war in the North rather than IRA attacks on civilians (e.g. the Birmingham pub bombings) that gave it legs. The Prevention of Terrorism Act, pushed through after the bombings, had little effect on ‘terrorism’ but, by stigmatising the Irish population, effectively silenced criticism of British actions in Ireland.

To speak out was to be identified as a ‘terrorist sympathiser’. Long held notions of the primitive backwardness of Irish Catholicism were often invoked to explain the ‘fanaticism’ of Republicans and their supporters. A great deal of media time was spent examining the ways in which Catholic theology could be seen as justifying IRA actions – for example, the idea of a ‘just war’.

Demonisation of Republicans was common: media headlines often used the word ‘evil’ to describe both actions and the people who carried them out. Most venom was reserved for the small number of priests who were IRA supporters. Finally, and most importantly, the deeply held and particularly English view of the Irish as ‘thick Paddies’ came into its own in police or Special Branch-inspired media commentary on the methods, especially the mistakes, of IRA members.

Steve Garner, Racism in the Irish Experience, Pluto Press, 2004.

The situation with the Irish question is much better now especially in Scotland. However underneath the surface the old conflicts can rear its head

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExABpDCaepY

France has a history of unfriendliness to Muslims. This dates right back to the 19th Century. For example in the 19th century the only way you could become a French citizen (if you were a Muslim) was to renounce Islam. With Algeria they tried to make it become part of France. This goes on to the present day with the hysteria over Burkas and Veils (legislation targeting Muslims, Saorkozy reprimanding Obama for saying that Muslim women can wear what they like) and how Muslims in France aren’t ‘French’ enough.

Final comment

Restrictions like these simply do not exist in any European countries

On the restrictions part, you do get it, maybe not formally but informally. In the suburb live planning permission was refused for Mosque due to hostile reaction from residents. We did years later manage to get it up and running but its an 'Islamic Centre' not a Mosque. We keep a low profile so as not to upset the locals. And I’m sure this experience is replicated elsewhere and to many other areas of life as well.

to conclude from my experience in Britain, it may not be the most friendly place but it is one of the most tolerant countries. Compared to other European countries probably the best place to be if you are a Muslim.