h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>"It is ultra-conservative. It denies free speech, women's rights, homosexual rights etc. It dictates dress codes, family laws and proscribes keeping pets or flying kites. It advocates the death penalty and extreme corporal punishment."

Wow - that sounds almost like a literal interpretation of the Old Testament?

Surely the problem is not what a book might say, but how many people there are who are likely to take it too seriously, or who see it as being in their interests for other people to take it seriously?

I think it's better not to take the extreme (and possibly noisiest) people as being indicative of the general view.

Just as there are headcases like the 'Christian Voice' bloke who would claim they speak for proper Christians, and maybe slightly less-crazed evangelicals who in their turn go on about how real Christians abhor homosexuality, I'm sure there are many rent-a-gob Muslims who would claim that they speak for the masses or for Islam when they in fact speak for few people, and speak for their own interpretation of Islam.

Especially if the spokesmen (and they are almost all men) have benefitted from a particular old-fashioned social structure, it's hardly surprising that they would claim it's a good idea.

But it's the "rent a gobs" like Iqbal Socranie that the Government give knighthoods to and who led all the groups that supposedly represent moderate Muslims.

Didn't he have some forthright views on homosexuality?

It's amazing how these religious types can insinuate themselves into certain social situations. A gay friend of mine had to take her daughter out of the school she was in because of the high percentage of born again christian parents in this particular school. Once it was discovered that her mother was gay, the kids in her class bullied her mercilessly, presumably under influence from their parents. The situation was complicated for racial reasons. The christian evangelical parents were nearly all black and so were the children. The teachers and head were white, and not extreme christian themselves, but seemed to be terrified of dealing with the situation for fear of being labelled racist. I'm pleased to say she is now in another school which has a mixture of black and white teachers, and a mixture of children and parents with no particular extreme religious agenda. She is now completely accepted.

These problems seem to arise when there is a concentration of extremist attitudes in one place or situation. And where people are cut off in some way from the general mixed attitudes of society. Much as maybe happens in some 'cult' set-ups.

These issues have to be faced up to. Without people being terrified of being accused of racism.

It's not race that is the problem it's extremism.

It's interesting watching the "Have your say" column on the BBC news site. It invariably contradicts the PC view.

For instance:http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&edition=1&ttl=20060817223322&messageID=1275028&#1275028

There are certainly a number of aspects of Islam - or aspects of many Islamic societies - that strike me as disgraceful and which I would not want affecting my life.

But I've never really thought of it as a threat? I'm surprised that anyone of you consider it one to be honest. The Pretender Muslim Council of Britain can issue whatever silly demands it likes, but morally backward religious conservatism is surely doomed to long-term obscurity in the face of concentrated public apathy towards religion and politics.

If there's a problem, its that these rules can be informally enforced through family structures. But maybe that is more a question to drag up one of the 'should parenting be licensed?' threads for?

Hmm some very interesting points.

The Islamic *naifesto* sounds just like the BNP manifesto minus the *encouraged* repatiration of brown people.

If you think its just Muslims who dont want their children (particularly) daughters mixing with others try chatting up a Jehovas witness or taking. On the subject of Nother Irland the same principle applies Imagine one of Iain Paisleys grandchildren taing their boyfriend round to see grandad.

"yes grandad Patrick is catholic but he votes unionist"

"oh that''s ok then"

Yeah right!


Im not saying that In NI there was ONLY sectarianism as the problem but it was part of it and dispite moderates in all walks of life there will it seems always be exttremeists not happy to let peoople decide for themselves how to devine a moral path.

The first parental discretion stickkers were "forced" onto record companies because they thought Prince lyrics were debauching the youth of America.

We are not in a fight for freedom from any particular religion or political party of a certain name, but from evil demagouges willing to sway the ignorant small c conservatives amongst us with horros stories.

one love

Perhaps this shows how difficult a job the police have.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1479

Concrete evidence of conspiracy is difficult to get hold of.

Well this has always been the case hasnt it?

There is no way of physically stopping terrorism or practically any crime for that matter. So what can be done to prevent Muslims or indeed anyone turning to terrorism.

I think the key to it lies in a sentence in the article linked by SWL.

"They were dangerous because they had this romantic feeling to use violence to create a new Islamic state,"

You could say the while incarcerated for being part of a terrorist organisation Nelson Mandela had a romantic notion of a South Africa where the aw did not seperate people because of their skin colour.

Was he right to holod this romantic notion? What fuelled his desire to strike out at the elected government of his country?

I think we as a antion need to examine why the likes of Bin Laden can get children who played alongside friends of different ethnic origins and religions, who have families and careers to live for are willing to kill random strngers and throw their lives away.

Some of millitant, extremist, Islamist call them what you will claims are valid.

The regime in Saudi Arabia is well known for its draconian grip on power, that this regime is supported by the UK and US while innocents die daily in Iraq because of an invasion fueled by greed for power and money is a great reqruiting poster for anti west Imaams.

IN a situation where racial profiling is even mentioned as a reasonable practice then the majoriyof Muslims will feel that whether because of race or religion this country hates them thinks nothing of their rights and does not listen to them.

I think it is time that we faced facts that the actions of our government are creating enough resenment that people within the Islamic world can use these things to instill a blinding hatred sucide bombers adn a general seige mentality in the minds of ordinary muslims so that they just cant see the wood for the trees.

one love

Here's a copy of a post I made elsewhere regarding the Middle East. I think the points I raise in it might help defuse some of "victim" claims.

--------------------------------------------

Personally, I think the “West” is making the age-old mistake of fighting using the tactics of the last war. The Israelis have just made the same mistake.

If we are to overcome any fundamentalist Islamic threat, I think we have to take a leaf out of Hisbollah’s book. As I understand it, the power vacuum that existed in Lebanon post 2000 following the Israeli withdrawal presented Hisbollah with an opportunity which they grasped with both hands. They insinuated themselves into the Lebanese body politic and using Iranian finance, were instrumental in rebuilding. Hospitals, schools, homes and infrastructure were all rebuilt by Hisbollah and this, coupled with their claimed military success against the Israelis, has put them into an unassailable position with the Lebanese people. Now Hisbollah are appealing for Western Aid. If the West does not step in, Iran surely will. It is time to do a deal with Hisbollah. We should work with this organisation and “smother it with kindness”. Firm steps could be taken with Israel to muzzle them in the meantime. A robust policy of rebuilding Lebanon hand-in-hand with Hizbollah whilst providing security will be positive steps towards winning hearts and minds. One step that will defuse a lot of ill-feeling would be to end the Palestinian refugee camps. Demolish them and rebuild them as modern towns. This could be a quid pro quo for the “Marshall Plan” in Lebanon.

Utilising the resources of the West to create a jewel in the Middle East could go a long way to stealing the thunder of the fanatics.

However, I am in no way expert in this region and posters on this board may know of a thousand reasons why this can never happen.

"One of the star turns at Manchester was Dr Azzam Tamimi of the Muslim Association of Britain. Dr Tamimi is a Palestinian who says that suicide bombings can be justified against Israel."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5269688.stm

"Star turns"????
Is this entertainment then? Promoting terrorism is worthy of stardom now according to the BBC? Don't "stars" have fan clubs? Perhaps this reporter can advise.

Labelling a terrorist as a "Star" does seem highly irresponsible. I mean young people of any faith and background tend to be impressionable, so if a trend began where the media began to give those extremists advocating terrorism publicity and "star billing" so to speak, we'd be facing many more incidents of young, impressionable and disillusioned people turning to extreme solutions?

Hm... isn't it happening anyway? The star-thing?
I mean, the thought that must be driving those suicide bombers etc surely is something along the lines that they can make a difference by committing these acts?

I heard the other day that the whole 'war on terror' is only working in Al Qaeda's favour, because of this reaction of the west *everybody* knows AQ and what it stands for. The western world is displaying a somewhat scared reaction, I mean: we show we feel genuinly threatened.

Isn't everything we've done for the past five years showing that the terrorist method works? Isn't that encouraging individuals to continue committing such atrocities, because they know they will get attention?

Would ignoring them have been better? How could we have ignored something like 9/11 or the London bombings?

I just can't wrap my mind around it all... it makes no sense!

I saw Paradise Now, and think it illustrates accurately the madness of such conflicts... Doesn't offer a solution. Do you think there is one?

Lizard King
(I can do anything, but apparently bringing world peace is beyond me, sadly..)

Saw an interesting documentary earlier tonight about 'Fundamentalism'. Apparently in Gaza, images of suicide bombers are everywhere, like on the side buses. And even poetry competitions and football tournaments are named after them.

Well I guess they've been living with it for longer than I've been alive... Can't imagine what that's like. people my age over there don't even know what it's like to live in peace!

I saw that documetary too. The ex-bodyguard barber who said he would be proud if any of his six children became martyrs and the funeral of a martyr where everyone was so happy, especially the father of the victim.

I can't believe that it's the 21st Century yet we still have death worshippers.

We are not so very different here in the UK. Every year the Queen and all the leaders of our main political parties lay wreaths at the cenotaph in Whitehall, (right in the centre of London, yards from Downing st). at the Remembrance ceromony. Inscribed in very large letters on the cenotaph is the phrase, 'The Glorious Dead'.

After WW1 in France monuments to the dead popped up everywhere with the usual inscriptions ("Morts pour la patrie" ("Dead for their fatherland"), etc.).

Except in one village where the inscription was: "Maudite soit la guerre" ("Cursed be the war").

There is no glory in death only sadness and pain.

To die fighting for ones country or people may well be an honouable thing, but is it still honourble when you have killed innocent civilians, women, children, old people. The most honourble thing to die for in those circumstanes is not fighting at all.

In what case has some battle/war for a country not involved the death of innocent civilians, women, children, old people? Can the honorable battle/war even exist?

In my view wars should not exist, nor should terrorism, bit to clarify what i ment, it comes down to intention. IF you are fighting in a war against soldiers then you are fighting the percieved enermy, and some accidents may accure, but if you are told to intentionly target and attack civillians and non combatants then it would be better to be shot as a traiter than take part.