Tony Blair's Comment - CNN

[President_Baccaga]

I am not going to get into Britain because I am not very familiar with the laws of that country.  However, I do know something about Italy and there is a law in effect that any individual cannot conceal themselves in a public atmosphere to the point where it is impossible or difficult to identify that individual (there are obvious exceptions such as during Carnevale, etc... but in "everyday" life, this holds true).  This law is applied to all people of all creeds, and recently Muslims in Italy have protested against banning these veils in the public square even though this law is not nor never was focused strictly on Muslims.

This is a fine example of a point that I made several posts prior in which I stated that there is nothing wrong whatsoever with a particular minority (or immigrant) group practicing their customs and traditions in the "host" country as long as those customs do not conflict and threaten the law of the land.  In this particular case, Muslims continue to protest despite the fact that there is nothing about this law that is directed solely towards them, which subsequently leads to backlash against Muslims within the country.

Yes but it is part of their culture, and so they should protest. I can totally appreciate a safety issue, and that might be a reason to keep the law, but from their standpoint can you blame them. I mean there are plenty of safety issue laws in this country that Christians have tried to change, and very often succesfully.

Yes, I can blame them.  No one forced them to move to Italy and they certainly should have been aware of and accepting of the laws and regulations of the country before making the decision to translocate.  Would I be justified in moving to Iran and protesting against Islamic law because it's not part of my culture?  Not at all.  It would have been my responsibility to accept the country; not the responsibility of the country to accept me.

[President_Baccaga]

Help me out: how is this in any way related to the topic of this thread or to this discussion in any way at all?

Italy, burqas, laws; rather than Britain, veils (i.e. headscarves), and customs -- just so that you can make the point that "muslims" "protest" against "neutral" laws (exceptions notwithstanding) and that there is a "backlash". Familiar tropes, and quite boring ones at that.

If you'll go back a couple of pages, you can see that I had written something and goaliechica had responded to which I had never countered.  I'm not concerned whatsoever with what you had posted regarding Blair and Britain and God knows whatever else.  Thanks though.

[BrerAnansi]

I am not going to get into Britain because I am not very familiar with the laws of that country.  However, I do know something about Italy and there is a law in effect that any individual cannot conceal themselves in a public atmosphere to the point where it is impossible or difficult to identify that individual (there are obvious exceptions such as during Carnevale, etc... but in "everyday" life, this holds true).  This law is applied to all people of all creeds, and recently Muslims in Italy have protested against banning these veils in the public square even though this law is not nor never was focused strictly on Muslims.

This is a fine example of a point that I made several posts prior in which I stated that there is nothing wrong whatsoever with a particular minority (or immigrant) group practicing their customs and traditions in the "host" country as long as those customs do not conflict and threaten the law of the land.  In this particular case, Muslims continue to protest despite the fact that there is nothing about this law that is directed solely towards them, which subsequently leads to backlash against Muslims within the country.

Yes but it is part of their culture, and so they should protest. I can totally appreciate a safety issue, and that might be a reason to keep the law, but from their standpoint can you blame them. I mean there are plenty of safety issue laws in this country that Christians have tried to change, and very often succesfully.

Yes, I can blame them.  No one forced them to move to Italy and they certainly should have been aware of and accepting of the laws and regulations of the country before making the decision to translocate.  Would I be justified in moving to Iran and protesting against Islamic law because it's not part of my culture?  Not at all.  It would have been my responsibility to accept the country; not the responsibility of the country to accept me.

The highlighted portion makes me want to hear your take on foreign policy...more precisely, America's current foreign policy...seriously...

[President_Baccaga]

The highlighted portion makes me want to hear your take on foreign policy...more precisely, America's current foreign policy...seriously...

Any points in particular?  I prefer a general foreign policy that I guess would be considered isolationist, and hence you can probably guess that I'm not thrilled with the F.P. of this current administration...

[parsley]

Red -- Thanks for stooping to come talk with us and give us the "correct answer." 

However, you shifted the original conversation -- about whether Blair is being outrageous for suggesting that minority groups should balance integration and multiculturalism -- to whether European countries should ban the veil.

Do I think they should? No.  So why are you shifting everyone on the side of higher levels of Muslim integration in the European population to being veil-banners?

There are also real fundamental differences between the conflict with Islam and Western society that are unlike any other example you like to list.  The Islamic population in some European countries is huge, especially those under the age of 25.  And that segment, especially in Europe, (as you note) is becoming more fundamentalist in their views.  The radicalization is then reinforced by only watching Arabic television shows and getting news only from Arabic news sources.  The return to the veil is a symbol of that.

If you read fundamentalist Islamic scholars, you'll find that not only are young fundamentalist adherents prohibited from integrating into Western cultures (think Sayyid Qutb's writings on America), but that radical youth are taught that the mere EXISTENCE of Western civilization is incompatible with Islam.  It's pretty hard to integrate when everyone outside of your community is considered Jahili.  To act in accordance with fundamentalist faith is to not identify as European and to work against their countrymen.  So there's a tension here that can't be dismissed or trivialized.

You reference evangelical Christians.  But evangelical Christian fundamentalism in America is tightly woven with concepts of nationalism and is not at all incompatible with self-identifying as both "fundamentalist Christian" and "American".  However, for the young Islamic fundamentalists the most salient community is "Islam", which has its own concept of "nation" -- one formulation of which is a renewed caliphate. 

I'm not trying to be lame and give everyone a history lesson, but I do think in your rush to be right and for me/us/etc. to be wrong, you're shifting the conversation to your terms and simplifying the problem to black and white.

[BrerAnansi]

The highlighted portion makes me want to hear your take on foreign policy...more precisely, America's current foreign policy...seriously...

Any points in particular?  I prefer a general foreign policy that I guess would be considered isolationist, and hence you can probably guess that I'm not thrilled with the F.P. of this current administration...

Define isolationism...and comment on its relevance and sustainability in the current world climate...

[FossilJ]

Furthermore, Blair speaks as though he's got honest "evidence" that assimilation bodes well for minority groups. Where and when?

I think there is plenty of "evidence" to demonstrate the negative results for minority groups who fail to assimilate, both for the minority groups as well as the country as a whole; the best example in Europe being France. 

The question is, who's to blame for these "negative results"?

[redemption]

Red -- Thanks for stooping to come talk with us and give us the "correct answer." 

However, you shifted the original conversation -- about whether Blair is being outrageous for suggesting that minority groups should balance integration and multiculturalism -- to whether European countries should ban the veil.

Do I think they should? No.  So why are you shifting everyone on the side of higher levels of Muslim integration in the European population to being veil-banners?

There are also real fundamental differences between the conflict with Islam and Western society that are unlike any other example you like to list.  The Islamic population in some European countries is huge, especially those under the age of 25.  And that segment, especially in Europe, (as you note) is becoming more fundamentalist in their views.  The radicalization is then reinforced by only watching Arabic television shows and getting news only from Arabic news sources.  The return to the veil is a symbol of that.

If you read fundamentalist Islamic scholars, you'll find that not only are young fundamentalist adherents prohibited from integrating into Western cultures (think Sayyid Qutb's writings on America), but that radical youth are taught that the mere EXISTENCE of Western civilization is incompatible with Islam.  It's pretty hard to integrate when everyone outside of your community is considered Jahili.  To act in accordance with fundamentalist faith is to not identify as European and to work against their countrymen.  So there's a tension here that can't be dismissed or trivialized.

You reference evangelical Christians.  But evangelical Christian fundamentalism in America is tightly woven with concepts of nationalism and is not at all incompatible with self-identifying as both "fundamentalist Christian" and "American".  However, for the young Islamic fundamentalists the most salient community is "Islam", which has its own concept of "nation" -- one formulation of which is a renewed caliphate. 

I'm not trying to be lame and give everyone a history lesson, but I do think in your rush to be right and for me/us/etc. to be wrong, you're shifting the conversation to your terms and simplifying the problem to black and white.

Dude -- I lived in France for a year and in England for three years.

But I'm glad we're making progress. Caliphate and Qutb. See? Your knickers are showing. You're scared of "da muslim" aren't ya? Kilts are fun, saris are cute, tutus are exotic, and headscarves are scary.

(I wonder if skinned heads are scary too?)


Anyway. Yes. Sign of the times and all that. You people watch too much cable TV and know too few different kinds of people. Crack open a book; you'll be glad of it.

[FossilJ]

Hypo --

If you or your sister were to decide to move to, say, Eritrea, should you or she have to undergo a cliterodectomy?

Or, if you or she were to move to Saudi Arabia, should you or she be made to wear a burqa?

Immigrants who decide to move to a foreign country should understand that it is not the country that has the responsibility to alter itself for those who want to come, but rather the immigrants should be accepting of that country's laws and traditions.  I did not live in Italy and expect that Italy start to celebrate the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving.  If I moved to a country in the Middle East, it would be my responsibility to accept its culture; not obligatory for that country to alter itself to support my way of life.

Your first example is exceedingly extreme, but yes... if a woman wanted to move to Saudi Arabia, she should understand that it is expected of her to wear a burqa.  If a potential immigrant doesn't like the way of life of a particular country, no one is forcing he/she to go there.

Countries don't have cultures.  They only have farcical, arbitrary political boundaries.

[BrerAnansi]

Red -- Thanks for stooping to come talk with us and give us the "correct answer." 

However, you shifted the original conversation -- about whether Blair is being outrageous for suggesting that minority groups should balance integration and multiculturalism -- to whether European countries should ban the veil.

Do I think they should? No.  So why are you shifting everyone on the side of higher levels of Muslim integration in the European population to being veil-banners?

There are also real fundamental differences between the conflict with Islam and Western society that are unlike any other example you like to list.  The Islamic population in some European countries is huge, especially those under the age of 25.  And that segment, especially in Europe, (as you note) is becoming more fundamentalist in their views.  The radicalization is then reinforced by only watching Arabic television shows and getting news only from Arabic news sources.  The return to the veil is a symbol of that.

If you read fundamentalist Islamic scholars, you'll find that not only are young fundamentalist adherents prohibited from integrating into Western cultures (think Sayyid Qutb's writings on America), but that radical youth are taught that the mere EXISTENCE of Western civilization is incompatible with Islam.  It's pretty hard to integrate when everyone outside of your community is considered Jahili.  To act in accordance with fundamentalist faith is to not identify as European and to work against their countrymen.  So there's a tension here that can't be dismissed or trivialized.

You reference evangelical Christians. But evangelical Christian fundamentalism in America is tightly woven with concepts of nationalism and is not at all incompatible with self-identifying as both "fundamentalist Christian" and "American".  However, for the young Islamic fundamentalists the most salient community is "Islam", which has its own concept of "nation" -- one formulation of which is a renewed caliphate. 

I'm not trying to be lame and give everyone a history lesson, but I do think in your rush to be right and for me/us/etc. to be wrong, you're shifting the conversation to your terms and simplifying the problem to black and white.

She also referenced Hasidic Judaism...but I suppose the parallels are more obvious to some than others...