Europe becoming ‘platform for terrorists’, says US

[roadrunner]

RR,

There is a whole lot of difference in religious preaching and evil actions.

It is a pleasing to note that the Hindu fundamentalists (indeed if they are so) have not been disloyal to their salt, by blowing up the Underground railway or such horrendous acts that insult their being British!


So, where is the comparison?

As the adage goes - Sticks and stones may break my bones,but words cannot harm me!

Neither did the Muslims regards to the cartoons blow up anything. If you're so stuck on Muslims and Hindus and salt and no salt, go look up the the Hindu Canadian of Indian origin that went on a gun rampage killing several people.Was he being loyal to his salt.

Am I now to believe that I can generalize about Canadian Hindu communities, as you do? Alright, at least Canadian Muslim communities do not go round on college gun rampages killing lots of innocent people, but are "loyal to their salt"

 

[roadrunner]

But not the killing of the chap who was the originator!

Protest, if you will, but don't kill!

And that too in a cowardly manner!

After all, all religions claim that they are religions of peace!

Murder is not a peaceful act!

Sticks and stones according to your last post Salim. Now it seems the words do have an impact, which I agree.

"We could no more allow the slaughter of Shambo than we could the killing of a human being. Ultimately, we will be willing to defend his life with our own."
Welsh Hindus fight to save sacred bull | Top News | Reuters

Shameless people these Welsh Hindus are, right Salim? Be loyal to their salts!

 

[Flintlock]

Sticks and stones according to your last post Salim. Now it seems the words do have an impact, which I agree.

"We could no more allow the slaughter of Shambo than we could the killing of a human being. Ultimately, we will be willing to defend his life with our own."
Welsh Hindus fight to save sacred bull | Top News | Reuters

Shameless people these Welsh Hindus are, right Salim? Be loyal to their salts!

RR, if you had been following the Shambo controversy at the time, you'll remember that most of the protesters were white hindu converts.

Also, I'm not exactly sure how these people are being 'disloyal to their salt'.

 

[roadrunner]

They were Hindus (extremists) still, or is ethnicity important all of a sudden? And there were Hindus of Indian descent with them.

Their actions were supported by other Hindu groups.

 

[Flintlock]

They were Hindus (extremists) still, or is ethnicity important all of a sudden? And there were Hindus of Indian descent with them.

Their actions were supported by other Hindu groups.

Lol...extremists??? Alrite....fine....if you say so.

^^^Boy, those guys sure are some scary extremists!!

Ethnicity is important because we are discussing immigrants here, not indigenous people.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Lol...extremists??? Alrite....fine....if you say so.
Ethnicity is important because we are discussing immigrants here, not indigenous people.

But when does one become indigenous?

Second generation? Third generation? if you are born in, and grow up immersed in the systems and culture of a country, what difference (aside from skin color perhaps) do you have from those who are "indigenous"?

 

[Flintlock]

But when does one become indigenous?

Second generation? Third generation? if you are born in, and grow up immersed in the systems and culture of a country, what difference (aside from skin color perhaps) do you have from those who are "indigenous"?

If your emotional and cultural ties are outside the country, then you cannot be considered indigenous.

This is the reason why China wants Arunachal Pradesh from India. A certain monastery in this state is considered very important by Tibetian Buddhists.
So, in order to contain the emotional/cultural affiliations of Tibetans within China, it wants to acquire this state.

Also, I saw a post by Salim about how China is appointing Catholic Bishops and drawing ire from the Vatican. Same reason.

Even Hindutva leaders are trying to do the same, by "indianizing" the muslims.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If your emotional and cultural ties are outside the country, then you cannot be considered indigenous.

There is no way to conclusively measure that though. Some people in the US have been criticized of being unpatriotic and not loving their country and having allegiances elsewhere because they criticized the WoT - so using that as any kind of measure is highly flawed and dangerous.

 

[Flintlock]

There is no way to conclusively measure that though. Some people in the US have been criticized of being unpatriotic and not loving their country and having allegiances elsewhere because they criticized the WoT - so using that as any kind of measure is highly flawed and dangerous.

Ah, those accusations of not being patriotic are just that: Accusations. They can never be held up in court.

I think it is indeed very difficult to conclusively decide if a person is loyal to the home country or the adopted one.

But one can definitely take precautions by making sure that the immigrant appreciates the culture of his adopted country, and doesn't have any reason to turn hostile to it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ah, those accusations of not being patriotic are just that: Accusations. They can never be held up in court.

I think it is indeed very difficult to conclusively decide if a person is loyal to the home country or the adopted one.

But one can definitely take precautions by making sure that the immigrant appreciates the culture of his adopted country, and doesn't have any reason to turn hostile to it.

It doesn't matter whether the accusations will hold up in court or not, the community or individuals will already have a negative perception associated with them. No one can really answer that question except the individuals themselves.

Even with "appreciating the culture", how can you do that any better than the fact that second and third generation immigrants are completely immersed in it from cradle to grave?

 

[Flintlock]

It doesn't matter whether the accusations will hold up in court or not, the community or individuals will already have a negative perception associated with them. No one can really answer that question except the individuals themselves.

I don't think so...all this is a part of public debate, and I don't think that the people who were against the american WOT were alienated to such a huge extent.

Infact, now that people accept that the anti-war protestors were right, their views are respected all the more.

Even with "appreciating the culture", how can you do that any better than the fact that second and third generation immigrants are completely immersed in it from cradle to grave?

Well, many of them aren't really immersed at all.
In the case of muslims, we know that many religious preachers talk of the glory of sharia law and thei islamic way of life. In such circumstances, young muslims turn against British values and culture.

Moreover, the standard of public debate and culture in Britain have reached an all-time low, which contributes to the distrust.

You must have read, that some immigrants tend to become more religious than their counterparts back home.
This is especially true in case of muslims and hindus. Both groups tend to get stuck in a time-warp, and while their relatives back home become more liberal, these people tend to become more conservative.

Another example of this phenomenon is the US. Christians in the "bible belt" there are far more religious than their counterparts in Rome. (In this case, it doesn't constitute disloyalty because Christianity is perceived as an "american' symbol)

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I don't think so...all this is a part of public debate, and I don't think that the people who were against the american WOT were alienated to such a huge extent.

Infact, now that people accept that the anti-war protestors were right, their views are respected all the more.

But imagine if the community doing the protesting is a "immigrant" community, or even a small portion of it. In fact, that is exactly what is happening in Europe when you consider the wave of Islamophobia and anti immigrant sentiment - the actions of a few, and perhaps related support (opposition to the WoT, and religious conservatism) has perhaps combined to alienate the immigrant community, though the majority of them are peaceful and law abiding.

Well, many of them aren't really immersed at all.
In the case of muslims, we know that many religious preachers talk of the glory of sharia law and thei islamic way of life. In such circumstances, young muslims turn against British values and culture.

Moreover, the standard of public debate and culture in Britain have reached an all-time low, which contributes to the distrust.

You must have read, that some immigrants tend to become more religious than their counterparts back home.
This is especially true in case of muslims and hindus. Both groups tend to get stuck in a time-warp, and while their relatives back home become more liberal, these people tend to become more conservative.

Well you can't force people to start dating or going to night clubs, or force them to stop wearing head scarves. That is a mater of personal choice, which if you were to talk about indigenous culture, is something the West claims to cherish. I don't agree with your theory (or Naipaul's) that you need to relocate the "religious loyalty". Yes there are some clerics who do misuse the freedom of speech to incite violence, and those are the ones that should be taken out of the system.

You are correct that some immigrant communities do tend to become closed, but I think that is a natural reaction to being in an alien culture - what is important is that the host State ensure that the rights of their children are protected (Preventing forced marriages, physical abuse etc.) so that the a few generations down the road you do start to see integration occurring. And of course remove sources of ideology that are advocating hate and violence.

Another example of this phenomenon is the US. Christians in the "bible belt" there are far more religious than their counterparts in Rome. (In this case, it doesn't constitute disloyalty because Christianity is perceived as an "american' symbol)

I would say that the lack of loyalty to the Vatican is primarily because the Bible belt is not predominantly Catholic.

 

[Flintlock]

But imagine if the community doing the protesting is a "immigrant" community, or even a small portion of it. In fact, that is exactly what is happening in Europe when you consider the wave of Islamophobia and anti immigrant sentiment - the actions of a few, and perhaps related support (opposition to the WoT, and religious conservatism) has perhaps combined to alienate the immigrant community, though the majority of them are peaceful and law abiding.

I suppose there will always be a degree of suspicion towards immigrants, owning to their different appearance.

As far as the word "Islamophobia" is concerned, I think this word is meaningless.
The right-wing muslim groups in Britain openly demonstrate in the street demanding sharia law and talking about the rule of islam, bombing britain etc.
The picture of a muslim protester with a placard saying "behead those..." etc. does have a very powerful effect.
In such circumstances, it is but natural that people will be suspicious of muslims.

I have noticed though, that muslim groups tend to be the most vocal among all religious groups, and tend to have their way by hook or crook.

Well you can't force people to start dating or going to night clubs, or force them to stop wearing head scarves. That is a mater of personal choice, which if you were to talk about indigenous culture, is something the West claims to cherish. I don't agree with your theory (or Naipaul's) that you need to relocate the "religious loyalty". Yes there are some clerics who do misuse the freedom of speech to incite violence, and those are the ones that should be taken out of the system.

I never said that you should force people to date or go to nightclubs, or force them to stop wearing headscarves (though France has done that)

I think that the freedom to choose should be under some basic restrictions, like the law against drugs and murder, there should be laws against ideologies which seek to remove democracy.

I think a couple of clerics in Britain have been arrested in recent times.
But mostly, the British seem to be completely ignorant of the numerous Saudi sponsored schools and radical clerics in british mosques.

Naipaul doesn't really support the hindutva movement. He seems to understand the reasons behind it very well though.

China is doing it, by appointing bishops and lamas who are loyal to the CCP.

You are correct that some immigrant communities do tend to become closed, but I think that is a natural reaction to being in an alien culture - what is important is that the host State ensure that the rights of their children are protected (Preventing forced marriages, physical abuse etc.) so that the a few generations down the road you do start to see integration occurring. And of course remove sources of ideology that are advocating hate and violence.

I think its fine if the first generation immigrants tend to be conservative.

You are right, I agree with all of the above, and would like to add that faith schools should be banned and all education should be made secular.
Also, community programs should be organized so that the immigrants and the locals can interact and understand each other better.

I would say that is more because the Bible belt is not predominantly Catholic.

OH yeah...they're protestants. That explains it.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

All those who take law in their own hands are asinine.

If one is to compare one Indian Canadian on a rampage vs the whole Islamic world rising against the cartoons (which indeed was in bad taste) and causing mayhem and destruction, then I reckon there is a logical mismatch, apart from bending backwards to fish for any reason, at all cost, to clutch to, in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

One can also not compare the Indian Canadians action to the London bombings, 9/11 or any of these horrendous acts against humanity. I would take these foolish acts as acts that has put the Islamic world on the defensive, and I would not treat them as heroes of Islam, but those who are working against Islam itself!

As for Shambo, the bull, it was the whites who were the ones who protested. It may interest you that while it made headlines, it did not bother anyone else, be they in England, India or wherever the Hindus were. Compare that with the Danish cartoons where the whole Islamic community (I am sure there were many who did not bother) rose to mayhem and destruction! In short, while Islam is the centre core of Islamic people, I presume Hindus are not concerned with these issues, since they really are not material to existence and contemporary time!

I would not know in precise detail, but maybe Hindus are a laid back lot, while Islam, being a newer religion, has more fire and cohesion!

 

[Flintlock]

I would not know in precise detail, but maybe Hindus are a laid back lot, while Islam, being a newer religion, has more fire and cohesion!

Haha, they say that Hinduism is one of those things that can change and change, but never get wiped out. It absorbs every other ideology within itself.

Kinda like the english language, don't you think?