Splinter: Hating Muhammad

[S.A.M.]

Who would I be to change their policy? I know that if I wanted to stay there I would comply to whatever social and cultural standards are expected to harmonize with the society or leave. Its there country and they have a right to uphold certain cultural standards if they choose to. .

Sure, but you can still have an opinion on it. I lived there for almost five years and ensured that they wouldn't mistake me for a Saudi.

And I always wear jeans in Bangalore.

I too agree that people can choose the rules by which they define their society. But for the Saudis to call themselves liberal would be a big joke. Thats my point. Follow whatever rules you want, but don't label it something else. That creates a misunderstanding with people expecting you to be what you call yourself.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Lucy, if we kicked out of our countries all those people who consider themselves something other than what he consider ourselves, we would be left with homogeneous societies. Imagine being forced out of a country because of your heritage or how you define yourself. It was something which was quite common in the recent past, yet now it is isolated to a few apartheid states like Israel. We can take the examples of a few people, such as Uygurs ruled by China or the Chechens and Tatars ruled by the Russians. We see how these states who define themselves and homogeneous, enforce and support one distinct ethnic identity while denying all others. In both Chechnya and East Turkestan (Uygur Xianjiang region), there is a very active policy of immigration of ethnic Russian and ethnic Chinese into these regions to balance out the population and make these people isolated in their own lands, through complete denial of political sovereignty and complicit denial of everything perceived as Chechen, Tatar, Uygur, or Muslim.

Also, I'm glad you and SAM are talking again. Its a shame to let a mere debate get the better of us. Best of luck.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Lucy, if we kicked out of our countries all those people who consider themselves something other than what he consider ourselves, we would be left with homogeneous societies. Imagine being forced out of a country because of your heritage or how you define yourself. It was something which was quite common in the recent past, yet now it is isolated to a few apartheid states like Israel. We can take the examples of a few people, such as Uygurs ruled by China or the Chechens and Tatars ruled by the Russians. We see how these states who define themselves and homogeneous, enforce and support one distinct ethnic identity while denying all others. In both Chechnya and East Turkestan (Uygur Xianjiang region), there is a very active policy of immigration of ethnic Russian and ethnic Chinese into these regions to balance out the population and make these people isolated in their own lands, through complete denial of political sovereignty and complicit denial of everything perceived as Chechen, Tatar, Uygur, or Muslim.

Also, I'm glad you and SAM are talking again. Its a shame to let a mere debate get the better of us. Best of luck.

Brits and Danes are not looking for a homogenized states they are looking for harmonized integrated States. If you insist that this is about throwing people out based on where they come from then you have not read any of my posts. How can you compare these two countries with Chechnya where there was war with Russia over access to oil. Israel where land was given from one group to another, you cannot link every muslim problem in the world with a group who say they are english but refuse to integrate on even the most basic level like honoring the flag of the new nation and sending their children to mainstream schools.

How can anyone take an argument like that seriously. African-americans do not link themselves to evey african country and the plight of every african person just because they too are black. Why? Because at the end of the day they are american and there struggle and allegiance is with the U.S and there people are other americans. Again you make an argument that only weighs more to the point that these people have less and less to do with where they are and more and more to do with outside interests. Like I said if their minds are elsewhere they can take their body elsehwere too.

Well thank you Diamonds. Sam and I are trying to come to an understanding.

 

[S.A.M.]

Brits and Danes are not looking for a homogenized states they are looking for harmonized integrated States.

Based on what? What is the criteria for "harmonized integrated States"?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Based on what? What is the criteria for "harmonized integrated States"?

Based on the fact that there are certain values and heratige that they have the right to maintain since the Danes for example have lived there for thousands of years.

Integration means just that, integrating into the base community so that there are common community and national goals, a fusion so the future legacy of the country is not split between two differing people who do not share nor care about the same things. Swedes for example have a right to say no one should wear a burkha to work, it makes sense to me. Danes have a right to insist that all schools that teach in urdu close or integrate allowing non-muslim children and teaching in Danish. Its where they live afterall.

 

[S.A.M.]

So you prefer having to wear an abaya in Saudi Arabia than wearing jeans in Cambodia?

certain values and heratige that they have the right to maintain

Why do they have a "right" to maintain any form of exlusivity? What form of exclusivity is better than others?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Nope I have a choice to live where I live. I have no desire to live in a country where I cannot go to bar or cafe or where I cannot wear what I like. I would not choose to live in a muslim country.

Its their nation, they have the right to maintain whatever form of exclusivity they wish. Citizenship is not a human right its a privilege.

 

[S.A.M.]

Nope I have a choice to live where I live. I have no desire to live in a country where I cannot go to bar or cafe or where I cannot wear what I like.

Thanks, I'm glad to hear that you have an opinion which mirrors my own.

Could you give me an opinion on this?

”
Why do they have a "right" to maintain any form of exlusivity? What form of exclusivity is better than others?

Would you say a country has a right to any form of exclusivity?

 

[iceaura]

Would you say a country has a right to any form of exclusivity?

Where are "rights" involved in a country's dealings with individual non-citizens? The concept hardly makes sense.

Countries have "rights" in dealings with each other, such as have been established by agreement and treaty etc.

As far as dealing with individuals - very exclusive countries, such as Japan, and very inclusive countries, such as Brazil, each have their reasons.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Would you say a country has a right to any form of exclusivity?

I thought I did answer the question so maybe I didn't understand it please re-phrase

 

[S.A.M.]

Where are "rights" involved in a country's dealings with individual non-citizens? The concept hardly makes sense.

Countries have "rights" in dealings with each other, such as have been established by agreement and treaty etc.

As far as dealing with individuals - very exclusive countries, such as Japan, and very inclusive countries, such as Brazil, each have their reasons.

I thought I did answer the question so maybe I didn't understand it please re-phrase

Thats what I am trying to figure out

Its their nation, they have the right to maintain whatever form of exclusivity they wish. Citizenship is not a human right its a privilege...Based on the fact that there are certain values and heratige that they have the right to maintain since the Danes for example have lived there for thousands of years.

Do you have a line at what these rights are? Or is anything pretty much okay with you? At what point do you think a country can decide what its inhabitants should be? At what point is it not okay for you that any person dictates what another person living in his neighborhood should be? Where do you draw the line and why?

 

[iceaura]

At what point do you think a country can decide what its inhabitants should be? At what point is it not okay for you that any person dictates what another person living in his neighborhood should be?

The US answer to that is written into the US Constitution, for starters.

That doesn't seem to be your real question.

 

[S.A.M.]

The US answer to that is written into the US Constitution, for starters.

Lucy's not American. I'm trying to ascertain her position and how she draws the line between what is acceptable and not. We've been having this discussion across several threads and I'm trying to understand her position.

That doesn't seem to be your real question.

Huh? Then what is?

 

[DiamondHearts]

Nope I have a choice to live where I live. I have no desire to live in a country where I cannot go to bar or cafe or where I cannot wear what I like. I would not choose to live in a muslim country.

You would not choose to live in a Muslim country why? Because most Muslim countries do have cafes, and you can dress how you like. If it is bars which you need, some Muslim countries have bars but they are isolated to Christian neighborhoods, pork is also available exclusively in Christian neighborhoods. We could force them to stop drinking and eating pork to conform to our norms, but it is not only against our religion to force others, but it is intolerant and increases ethnic strife.

The West can learn much about religious and ethnic harmony from the Muslim world. Muslims, Christians, and people of other religious have lived in complete harmony for nearly 1500 years. It's not tolerance, but mutual respect. Something if taught in the West, could very well eliminate the need for racist groups like the BNP and Neo-Nazi parties.

 

[iceaura]

If it is bars which you need, some Muslim countries have bars but they are isolated to Christian neighborhoods, pork is also available exclusively in Christian neighborhoods. We could force them to stop drinking and eating pork to conform to our norms, but it is not only against our religion to force others, but it is intolerant and increases ethnic strife.

The West can learn much about religious and ethnic harmony from the Muslim world.

Coerce people into neighborhoods by religion and ethnicity?

That's a lesson in "harmony" and "mutual respect" we've been attempting to unlearn since we first realized the consequences of it.

Muslims, Christians, and people of other religious have lived in complete harmony for nearly 1500 years.

Bullshit.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Sam: Do you have a line at what these rights are? Or is anything pretty much okay with you? At what point do you think a country can decide what its inhabitants should be? At what point is it not okay for you that any person dictates what another person living in his neighborhood should be? Where do you draw the line and why?

Well what are the line of rights in Saudi Arabia? I'm not saying its a blueprint I am saying each nation decides for itself at whatever time are THEIR line of rights. The answer to the second question is anything that doesn't allow for death or denial of human rights, citizenship awarded to any visitor is not a human right. Its the people who decide what the nation should be not the other way around. Its okay if a minority creates harm for the nation or refuses to see themselves as part of the nation. I have answered that already

Edit: For example in Germany, because of their history, there is a law against totalitarian groups for example, with this law they have banned or are trying to ban Scientology. In the States Scientology thrives as a legitimate religion. This example isn't based on integration or culture but I use it as an example of how laws are designed what 'rights' are granted to outside organizations or people. Scientology for them is an outside organization they are trying to forbid in their society, Scientologists insist their religious rights are being suppressed and the german government as being intolerant.

 

[S.A.M.]

Coerce people into neighborhoods by religion and ethnicity?

That's a lesson in "harmony" and "mutual respect" we've been attempting to unlearn since we first realized the consequences of it.

It worked very well in India. Perhaps the west needs to learn that multiculturalism does not mean everyone pretends to be white.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

You would not choose to live in a Muslim country why? Because most Muslim countries do have cafes, and you can dress how you like. If it is bars which you need, some Muslim countries have bars but they are isolated to Christian neighborhoods, pork is also available exclusively in Christian neighborhoods. We could force them to stop drinking and eating pork to conform to our norms, but it is not only against our religion to force others, but it is intolerant and increases ethnic strife.

The West can learn much about religious and ethnic harmony from the Muslim world. Muslims, Christians, and people of other religious have lived in complete harmony for nearly 1500 years. It's not tolerance, but mutual respect. Something if taught in the West, could very well eliminate the need for racist groups like the BNP and Neo-Nazi parties.

Yes I have been to KL and Dubai so yes I understand that but I would not choose to live in any of those countries, none of those places are as relaxed as Phnom Penh which I prefer. In NY people live in religious harmony but its still a secular society. I disagree with your assessment of the West, there are other reasons why the BNP and neo-nazi parties exist first of all and issues of immigration are not solely set up by those groups. Secondly Muslim countries have a different history than those of Europe or India and you cannot compare them, sorry but there is little to compare of even Cambodia in South East Asia and European or American countries that are built on a different history.

 

[S.A.M.]

And yet, you would support the model of those countries which you don't prefer.

Don't you find that a contradiction? Wouldn't you rather KL [Kuala Lumpur?] and Dubai become more relaxed rather than other countries become more ethnocentric?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

And yet, you would support the model of those countries which you don't prefer.

Don't you find that a contradiction? Wouldn't you rather KL [Kuala Lumpur?] and Dubai become more relaxed rather than other countries become more ethnocentric?

Where is the contradiction? I never said I would support the model of a muslim country. How am I to make KL and Dubai as relaxed as the Khmers? :bugeye: