Diversity and Multiculturalism II:Make Diversity Great Again

[Ostroeuropa]

Why on earth would we tolerate Islamic culture in the west when it is anti-human rights and they say so themselves regularly?

In contrast to human rights activists, Islamic scholars and Islamist political parties consider 'universal human rights' arguments as imposition of a non-Muslim culture on Muslim people, a disrespect of customary cultural practices and sexual codes that are central to Islam. Zina laws come under hudud — seen as crime against Allah; the Islamists refer to this pressure and proposals to reform zina and other laws as ‘contrary to Islam’. Attempts by international human rights to reform religious laws and codes of Islam has become the Islamist rallying platforms during political campaigns

(In response to the death penalty for adultery, which functionally speaking also means the death penalty for rape victims who say they were raped and cannot produce four witnesses to the act itself, since this amounts to a confession of unlawful sex with the rape unproven.)

And:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Dec ... s_in_Islam

This declaration is widely acknowledged as an Islamic response to the United Nations's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948. It guarantees many of the same rights as the UDHR and serves as a living document of human rights guidelines prescribed for all members of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) to follow, but restricts them explicitly to the limits set by the sharia.

In other words "Yes free speech, except where Sharia says no." and "Yes right to X, except where sharia says no.", and an explicit rejection of freedom of religion as "A western-imposition of their culture on our culture where it doesn't belong" and an explicit rejection of equality.

This greatly restricts rights with respect to the Universal Declaration, since for example, women and members of other religions do not have the same rights as men under sharia, and that freedom of expression can be severely limited for religious reasons: for example, blasphemy can even now be punishable by death, in clear opposition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Why should these cultures be tolerated here?

[San Lumen]

Why on earth would we tolerate Islamic culture in the west when it is anti-human rights and they say so themselves regularly?

In contrast to human rights activists, Islamic scholars and Islamist political parties consider 'universal human rights' arguments as imposition of a non-Muslim culture on Muslim people, a disrespect of customary cultural practices and sexual codes that are central to Islam. Zina laws come under hudud — seen as crime against Allah; the Islamists refer to this pressure and proposals to reform zina and other laws as ‘contrary to Islam’. Attempts by international human rights to reform religious laws and codes of Islam has become the Islamist rallying platforms during political campaigns

(In response to the death penalty for adultery, which functionally speaking also means the death penalty for rape victims who say they were raped and cannot produce four witnesses to the act itself, since this amounts to a confession of unlawful sex with the rape unproven.)

And:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Dec ... s_in_Islam

This declaration is widely acknowledged as an Islamic response to the United Nations's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948. It guarantees many of the same rights as the UDHR and serves as a living document of human rights guidelines prescribed for all members of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) to follow, but restricts them explicitly to the limits set by the sharia.

In other words "Yes free speech, except where Sharia says no." and "Yes right to X, except where sharia says no.", and an explicit rejection of freedom of religion as "A western-imposition of their culture on our culture where it doesn't belong" and an explicit rejection of equality.

This greatly restricts rights with respect to the Universal Declaration, since for example, women and members of other religions do not have the same rights as men under sharia, and that freedom of expression can be severely limited for religious reasons: for example, blasphemy can even now be punishable by death, in clear opposition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Why should these cultures be tolerated here?

I don't see Sharia law being implemented anywhere in the west. I know several Muslims and they dont want anything like what you suggest.

In the US a Muslim Keith Ellison was elected Minnesota Attorney General the first Muslim in statewide office in US history. I guarantee you he is not going to advocate for nor enforce Sharia law. His religion does not come before state law. Three Muslims will serve in the Congress come January and several states including New York will have Muslims in the state legislature.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why on earth would we tolerate Islamic culture in the west when it is anti-human rights and they say so themselves regularly?



(In response to the death penalty for adultery, which functionally speaking also means the death penalty for rape victims who say they were raped and cannot produce four witnesses to the act itself, since this amounts to a confession of unlawful sex with the rape unproven.)

And:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Dec ... s_in_Islam




In other words "Yes free speech, except where Sharia says no." and "Yes right to X, except where sharia says no.", and an explicit rejection of freedom of religion as "A western-imposition of their culture on our culture where it doesn't belong" and an explicit rejection of equality.



Why should these cultures be tolerated here?

I don't see Sharia law being implemented anywhere in the west. I know several Muslims and they dont want anything like what you suggest.

In the US a Muslim Keith Ellison was elected Minnesota Attorney General the first Muslim in statewide office in US history. I guarantee you he is not going to advocate for nor enforce Sharia law. His religion does not come before state law. Three Muslims will serve in the Congress come January and several states including New York will have Muslims in the state legislature.

Tolerating Muslims /=/ Tolerating Islamic Culture.
Tolerating Christians /=/ Tolerating Christian Culture.
The overwhelming majority of muslims worldwide support Sharia law. In the states it's better than most places, but in Europe it's around 40-50% of Muslims support Sharia law, 15% oppose it, and the rest "don't know.".

[San Lumen]

I don't see Sharia law being implemented anywhere in the west. I know several Muslims and they dont want anything like what you suggest.

In the US a Muslim Keith Ellison was elected Minnesota Attorney General the first Muslim in statewide office in US history. I guarantee you he is not going to advocate for nor enforce Sharia law. His religion does not come before state law. Three Muslims will serve in the Congress come January and several states including New York will have Muslims in the state legislature.

Tolerating Muslims /=/ Tolerating Islamic Culture.
Tolerating Christians /=/ Tolerating Christian Culture.
The overwhelming majority of muslims worldwide support Sharia law. In the states it's better than most places, but in Europe it's around 40-50% of Muslims support Sharia law, 15% oppose it, and the rest "don't know.".

And your point is? It doesn't matter if they support it. Your not going to get laws like the death penalty for rape victims anywhere.

[The Huskar Social Union]

We are on topic, we're talking about racism.

What does Fallout have to do with the thread?

I answered a question, calm down and stop going "WHATS THE RELEVANCE" every five minutes

[Olerand]

What does Fallout have to do with the thread?

I answered a question, calm down and stop going "WHATS THE RELEVANCE" every five minutes

Especially considering that the discussion is over, and has been over for a minute.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I answered a question, calm down and stop going "WHATS THE RELEVANCE" every five minutes

Especially considering that the discussion is over, and has been over for a minute.

I think its still considered ongoing due to us questioning the relevance.

[Olerand]

Tolerating Muslims /=/ Tolerating Islamic Culture.
Tolerating Christians /=/ Tolerating Christian Culture.
The overwhelming majority of muslims worldwide support Sharia law. In the states it's better than most places, but in Europe it's around 40-50% of Muslims support Sharia law, 15% oppose it, and the rest "don't know.".

And your point is? It doesn't matter if they support it. Your not going to get laws like the death penalty for rape victims anywhere.

No, it does matter if they support it. In modern Europe, supporting Sharia law, which the ECHR has deemed to be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, is just as serious as supporting fascism or the Inquisition. It is a form of secession from the modern nation and its body politic.

We're very concerned if a significant minority of the country wants to impose the death penalty for blasphemy.

[Ostroeuropa]

Tolerating Muslims /=/ Tolerating Islamic Culture.
Tolerating Christians /=/ Tolerating Christian Culture.
The overwhelming majority of muslims worldwide support Sharia law. In the states it's better than most places, but in Europe it's around 40-50% of Muslims support Sharia law, 15% oppose it, and the rest "don't know.".

And your point is? It doesn't matter if they support it. Your not going to get laws like the death penalty for rape victims anywhere.

You do get them in many countries where Muslims are a majority. It's also a matter of tolerating that kind of toxic opinion and belief system in our own countries and allowing that sort of person to vote and influence society, instead of cracking down on their culture and demanding they modernize. Just because the racism and sexism is of a foreign sort doesn't make it acceptable.

[San Lumen]

And your point is? It doesn't matter if they support it. Your not going to get laws like the death penalty for rape victims anywhere.

No, it does matter if they support it. In modern Europe, supporting Sharia law, which the ECHR has deemed to be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, is just as serious as supporting fascism or the Inquisition. It is a form of secession from the modern nation and its body politic.

We're very concerned if a significant minority of the country wants to impose the death penalty for blasphemy.

That is not going to become the law in the US or anywhere in the west anytime soon. The city of Hamtramck, Michigan is majority Muslim and there is no Sharia law there.

[Olerand]

No, it does matter if they support it. In modern Europe, supporting Sharia law, which the ECHR has deemed to be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, is just as serious as supporting fascism or the Inquisition. It is a form of secession from the modern nation and its body politic.

We're very concerned if a significant minority of the country wants to impose the death penalty for blasphemy.

That is not going to become the law in the US or anywhere in the west anytime soon. The city of Hamtramck, Michigan is majority Muslim and there is no Sharia law there.

Yeah, not what I was responding to and not my point. The feasibility of Sharia law becoming law isn't the issue I was addressing. A significant minority of the population supporting the slaughter of cartoonists is.

[San Lumen]

And your point is? It doesn't matter if they support it. Your not going to get laws like the death penalty for rape victims anywhere.

You do get them in many countries where Muslims are a majority. It's also a matter of tolerating that kind of toxic opinion and belief system in our own countries and allowing that sort of person to vote and influence society, instead of cracking down on their culture and demanding they modernize. Just because the racism and sexism is of a foreign sort doesn't make it acceptable.

That sort of thing is not going to become law in Germany, UK, Canada or anywhere in the US. If one is an citizen they have right to vote and run for election.

No form of intolerance is acceptable.

[Ostroeuropa]

That is not going to become the law in the US or anywhere in the west anytime soon. The city of Hamtramck, Michigan is majority Muslim and there is no Sharia law there.

Yeah, not what I was responding to and not my point. The feasibility of Sharia law becoming law isn't the issue I was addressing. A significant minority of the population supporting the slaughter of cartoonists is.

This too.

It's like up and deciding there's no problem with a sizable minority of the country thinking miscegenation should be responded to by lynchiing the people involved.

You do get them in many countries where Muslims are a majority. It's also a matter of tolerating that kind of toxic opinion and belief system in our own countries and allowing that sort of person to vote and influence society, instead of cracking down on their culture and demanding they modernize. Just because the racism and sexism is of a foreign sort doesn't make it acceptable.

That sort of thing is not going to become law in Germany, UK, Canada or anywhere in the US. If one is an citizen they have right to vote and run for election.

No form of intolerance is acceptable.

Doesn't matter because they still influence the law and water down our modern approach by forcing us to account for their views in swing seats and so on. They're also members of our society with violently reactionary views that need to be addressed, see above.

Intolerance of religious fascism is not intolerance, it is self-defense.

[Holy Tedalonia]

No, it does matter if they support it. In modern Europe, supporting Sharia law, which the ECHR has deemed to be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, is just as serious as supporting fascism or the Inquisition. It is a form of secession from the modern nation and its body politic.

We're very concerned if a significant minority of the country wants to impose the death penalty for blasphemy.

That is not going to become the law in the US or anywhere in the west anytime soon. The city of Hamtramck, Michigan is majority Muslim and there is no Sharia law there.

“There’s a nazi majority in a German city, nazis will never take power” - said some Weimar Republic german

[New haven america]

That is not going to become the law in the US or anywhere in the west anytime soon. The city of Hamtramck, Michigan is majority Muslim and there is no Sharia law there.

“There’s a nazi majority in a German city, nazis will never take power” - said some Weimar Republic german

Oh God no! Sharia's comin' to Cleveland! Run for them damn hills!

[San Lumen]

That is not going to become the law in the US or anywhere in the west anytime soon. The city of Hamtramck, Michigan is majority Muslim and there is no Sharia law there.

“There’s a nazi majority in a German city, nazis will never take power” - said some Weimar Republic german

Not what I said. Thats not the same thing

Yeah, not what I was responding to and not my point. The feasibility of Sharia law becoming law isn't the issue I was addressing. A significant minority of the population supporting the slaughter of cartoonists is.

This too.

It's like up and deciding there's no problem with a sizable minority of the country thinking miscegenation should be responded to by lynchiing the people involved.

I gather having a Muslim as Minnesota Attorney General come January is a threat according to you?

[Ostroeuropa]

“There’s a nazi majority in a German city, nazis will never take power” - said some Weimar Republic german

Not what I said. Thats not the same thing

This too.

It's like up and deciding there's no problem with a sizable minority of the country thinking miscegenation should be responded to by lynchiing the people involved.

I gather having a Muslim as Minnesota Attorney General come January is a threat according to you?

A moderate white christian being elected to office does not disprove the threat of the Klan and the need to crack down on that culture. A muslim being elected to office does not disprove the threat of Islamic fundamentalism in our countries and the need to crack down on that culture.

[Ostroeuropa]

“There’s a nazi majority in a German city, nazis will never take power” - said some Weimar Republic german

Oh God no! Sharia's comin' to Cleveland! Run for them damn hills!

If a large number of Muslims have terrorized with violence, which they have, cartoonists and writers for blasphemy, what's the functional difference between laughing that off and saying it'll never be law that blasphemy is banned because they're a minority, and say, laughing off the notion of the Klan threatening folk with violence because Miscegenation isn't illegal anymore.

Or how about this one, there's no law saying the police will treat minorities worse, so hahaha you're being silly and we don't need to take you seriously and talking about fixing the problem is just hatred of the police and paranoia.

Does that make sense to you?

[San Lumen]

Not what I said. Thats not the same thing

I gather having a Muslim as Minnesota Attorney General come January is a threat according to you?

A moderate white christian being elected to office does not disprove the threat of the Klan and the need to crack down on that culture. A muslim being elected to office does not disprove the threat of Islamic fundamentalism in our countries and the need to crack down on that culture.

I dont see a massive amount of support for Islamic fundamentalism in my country.

What do you mean by crack down? You are familiar with the first amendment correct?

[Olerand]

A moderate white christian being elected to office does not disprove the threat of the Klan and the need to crack down on that culture. A muslim being elected to office does not disprove the threat of Islamic fundamentalism in our countries and the need to crack down on that culture.

I dont see a massive amount of support for Islamic fundamentalism in my country.

What do you mean by crack down? You are familiar with the first amendment correct?

I don't believe the other poster is American, and neither am I.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Why on earth would we tolerate Islamic culture in the west when it is anti-human rights and they say so themselves regularly?



(In response to the death penalty for adultery, which functionally speaking also means the death penalty for rape victims who say they were raped and cannot produce four witnesses to the act itself, since this amounts to a confession of unlawful sex with the rape unproven.)

And:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Dec ... s_in_Islam




In other words "Yes free speech, except where Sharia says no." and "Yes right to X, except where sharia says no.", and an explicit rejection of freedom of religion as "A western-imposition of their culture on our culture where it doesn't belong" and an explicit rejection of equality.



Why should these cultures be tolerated here?

I don't see Sharia law being implemented anywhere in the west. I know several Muslims and they dont want anything like what you suggest.

In the US a Muslim Keith Ellison was elected Minnesota Attorney General the first Muslim in statewide office in US history. I guarantee you he is not going to advocate for nor enforce Sharia law. His religion does not come before state law. Three Muslims will serve in the Congress come January and several states including New York will have Muslims in the state legislature.

This is bad.

[The Huskar Social Union]

I dont see a massive amount of support for Islamic fundamentalism in my country.

What do you mean by crack down? You are familiar with the first amendment correct?

I don't believe the other poster is American, and neither am I.

Ostro is welsh and you are of course Italian.

[San Lumen]

I don't see Sharia law being implemented anywhere in the west. I know several Muslims and they dont want anything like what you suggest.

In the US a Muslim Keith Ellison was elected Minnesota Attorney General the first Muslim in statewide office in US history. I guarantee you he is not going to advocate for nor enforce Sharia law. His religion does not come before state law. Three Muslims will serve in the Congress come January and several states including New York will have Muslims in the state legislature.

This is bad.

in what way?

[Ostroeuropa]

A moderate white christian being elected to office does not disprove the threat of the Klan and the need to crack down on that culture. A muslim being elected to office does not disprove the threat of Islamic fundamentalism in our countries and the need to crack down on that culture.

I dont see a massive amount of support for Islamic fundamentalism in my country.

What do you mean by crack down? You are familiar with the first amendment correct?

Neither of us are Americans and as I noted, the problem is less severe in the USA, and Muslims there appear less radicalized.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

This is bad.

in what way?

Muslims in a kufr government disobeying the orders of Allah SWT is haram in Al-Islam.