"Anyone watch newsnight last night? religious fundamentalist in 'unable to have civil debate' shocker."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4687270.stmIdleRich said:No, what happened?
Paul Hotflush said:Yeh I watched that. Irritatingly, I found myself agreeing with the UKIP guy...
"had a 'discussion' with, amongst others, one of the organisers of ther protests in london. what a nice fella-
discounted the views of 3 other muslims because two of them were women who didn't have their faces covered and the other was a male muslim who didn't have a beard.
when asked why he demands sharia law in the uk he replied (i paraphrase) 'when living in the jungle you don't live like the animals' (terrible metaphor, no?)."
IdleRich said:I wish I'd seen it.
Ness Rowlah said:And I think the opposite is the case - the previous Norwegian prime minister was a leader for the "Christian People's Party" (the party is not just Christian in name+Bondevik is a Lutheran priest), both Tony Blair and his successor Brown are deeply Christian and the Christian Democrats (CDU) is a massive political influence in German politics.
Ness Rowlah said:Blair and bundeskanzler Merkel (the daughter of a priest) both say their prayers to him.
bassnation said:on the other hand, i think religion is on the move once again
well what are these complex reasons?
and exactly why can they not become homeboys, christians, atheists, pornstars or trainspotters?
Paul Hotflush said:Yeh I watched that. Irritatingly, I found myself agreeing with the UKIP guy...
borderpolice said:Unfortunatly you are right. let's give this slow power grab a snappy name:
what about "bin-ladenisation"?
bassnation said:we need a word which is applicable across all religions and is suitably catchy.
bassnation said:yeah thats good - but unfortunately and disproportionally the biggest assault on secular ideals is coming from the christian fundamentalists
k-punk said:I don't know, I'm not familiar with the research beyond knowing that muslims under-achieve. But 'muslims under-achieve' is not an explanation, it calls for an explanation.
k-punk said:If there were a non-religious form of idenfication for the disaffected young, Islamism would not have quite the appeal it does to many young Muslims.
borderpolice said:sure. but requiring an explanation is trivial. and what's more, one can predict what kind of explanations will be adumbrated by whom. such analyses usually tell more about the analyers then the subject of analysis.
but the point is that there are, prima facie. i have listed some. there's no shortage of possible alternative tribes.
k-punk said:Requiring an explanation is trivial? So your story is that Muslims under-achieve because they are Muslims. How productive.
k-punk said:Haven't we been here before? I answered that point in my last post.
geto.blast said:my 2 cents:
what a gross debate.. having to choose between "respect" for religion's crazy kinks and some right wing newspaper's right to expression.
i m sitting this one out :]