It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The "two way street" argument is a classic liberal response to the perceived failure of communities to integrate into wider society and seeks to place 50% of the responsibility of wider society to adjust the other way. On the surface, it sounds wonderful and there is obviously and element of "wish thinking" here but it ignores the possibility that some communities may not wish to integrate with wider society. The premise is that all communities want to integrate into a modern, liberal, freedom loving, pluralist democracy but I don't see the logic or evidence behind this premise.
So if you move to Jakarta next week with three children, you don't expect ANY kind of help from the local authority to guide or assist you in settling in and connecting, learning the language?
That's a mighty fine view of humanity you have there, mate. Surely EVERYTHING is a 'two way street' when more than one person is involved..?
This 'every man for himself' mentality does not function with a species that is inherently social by design.
Besides, the first victims of Islamists are Muslims. Their communities have often been hijacked by the most obscurantist and oppressive elements of their faith. Let's start by being firm against Islamists. And refuse that a child or a growing teenager fasts during Ramadan at school. Zero tolerance on Sharia law. Make the UK more secular so nobody asks for special religious privileges. Yeah that's a start.
I thought 'vague waffle' was a Belgian dessert?
Adding to this thread seems fairly redundant as it is the same cycle of: atrocity by Muslims, sympathy speech for victims by PM along with lily livered begging for tolerance, speech from leader of Muslim community about how the majority are peace loving, people who blame religion being ordered to respect everyone's beliefs, a big argument ensuing in this thread, everyone forgettng about it until the next time.
It's getting as repetitive as it is unproductive.
Just an observation but why is it all the countries - UK, France, Belgium - that bend over backwards to be tolerant that get hit? When was the last suicide bomb in Hungary where they have put up fences and closed the border?
I thought we learned our lesson about appeasement the hard way in 1939 but it seems fear of being considered racist or Islamaphobic by the west is the trump card that allows the terrorists to keep on winning.
But they have never wanted to settle in and integrate. They have wanted to live entirely separate lives, unpolluted by western decadency.
Spot on.
The book 'Clash Of Civilizations' by Samuel Huntingdon comes to mind.... he basically proffered that two cultures with such morally opposed values as 'The West' and an 'Islamic East' could never co-exist peacefully. There is a lot of truth in this.
But that does not mean it is not in our best interests to attempt to make this co-existence as peaceful and amicable as possible. The POV of 'It's not going to work anyway so let's keep everyone separate' is defeatist and has been proven an ineffective way of dealing with such cultural clashes historically. It is a short term solution, which isn't good enough i.m.o .
The U.S.A has, for all intents an purposes, managed to integrate 'it's Muslims' far better than most European states. Why? Too many variables to cover all of it, but surely their policy of integrating 'New Citizens' and the way they encourage newcomers has smth to do with it.
Mainstream Islam is fundamentalist I'd tend to agree. But we need to denounce the ideas not the first victims of these ideas. And that means making a stand for a secular society.
What is a secular society? Serious question by the way.
the question has to be answered that, why is it that we are dealing with the Muslim community, its ability/inability to integrate and the horrible consequences of non-integration rather than other communities. By definition, there must be something different here. Think of the overt racism, poverty and challenges faced by the "Windrush generation" in the 50s. Our understanding of cultural differences and funding of "outreach" etc is so much better now than it was then. But, for all that, we may have seen riots against figures of the establishment by , yes again, mostly young men but mass terrorism was never on the agenda. They formed enmasse and threw roofing tiles and milk bottles at the Police. Did any one of them consider strapping on a suicide vest, getting on the tube and killing twenty people? This question has to be dealt with openly and honestly or we will never make any progress IMHO
PS: the same kind of problems would occur if the US starts pissing about in the South China sea, again based on Huntingdon's principles.
Afraid you may have answered your own (rhetorical) question there @bondjames :>
Interesting that 'The Night Manager' has been a hot topic over on the other threads - basically weapons and/or oil is the crux of the problem. Both are vital to sustain the wealthiest in society, and both are instrumental in the power games that have given rise to Daesh (we should stop calling them 'Islamic State' btw, that is the the all powerful name that they themselves like to be called. 'Daesh' is the derogatory term for them, they should be mocked, not 'big-upped').
Acehole, for your theory to be correct, then we would still be experiencing the same issues if Amish was the dominant religion in the Middle East. Because you have to go along that line of thought if the issue is about oil and weapons rather than religion. Does anyone out there really think that?
Church and state separated. No special privileges for religions. Nobody bound to obey religious rules by law. Law of the land the same for everyone regardless of their particular faith.
No lets call a spade a spade. These people are following the Quran to the letter.
No I don't.
When I moved to Moscow in the early noughties it was my choice. After struggling through the first day I spent all evening learning the alphabet so I could get around on the metro because the taxpayer hadn't payed for all the signs to be in English for me. Then I paid my own money to have Russian lessons.
At not one point did I think 'This is is a bit out of order. They really should have signs in English everywhere and fish and chip shops and Only Fools and Horses on the telly to help me feel at home.'
I had moved to a foreign country and it was up to me to assimilate into their culture no the other way round.
It sickens me when I go to the doctors and I see signs in 15 different languages. The NHS is dying on its arse but there's plenty of cash to spare to translate stuff for those who probably haven't paid an NI contribution in their lives. This country.
So, what we have now then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
I draw your attention to this comment in the above:
"Estimates of Saudi spending on religious causes abroad include 'upward of $100 billion'"
I always come back to the 'black' problem in certain neighbourhoods within the US. Similar scenarios to what occurs with the muslim communities in Europe occur within the black community in America. Perpetrators are sheltered, given sanctuary and even protected rather than 'outed', and a lot of that has to do with the community not trusting law enforcement, justifiably so in many cases sadly. This issue has to be dealt with within the Muslim community and within the Black community in the US. The implicit lack of trust. The victimization.
Also, I've noticed, perhaps unsurprisingly, an increase in protests and riots by the younger crowds in the US recently (mainly Bernie Sanders supporters). Some have gone to the precipice of violence. I expect these instances to increase before the election in November.
There is not only a 'culture' war brewing, but also, to some degree, a 'generational' war within societies.
PS: I am in full agreement regarding assimilation. Always have been. I have lived in England, Nigeria, Canada and the US and I've always been disappointed by those who choose not to assimilate. However, I also put the blame on 'multiculturalism'. It is human nature to hold onto what one is familiar with. If there are no incentives to integrate, why would one?
Not completely. In the UK Sharia law is tolerated in domestic matters. Vicars of the Church of England have certain constitutional rights that allow them to preach in public schools, where assembly prayers is compulsory. Oh and when there was that debate on repealing the blasphemy law some Islamists thought it was a great idea to extend it to other religions. Such as their own.
So what worldview should inform our governance, law and society - what distinguishes 'secular' from any other religion?
What? Secularism is not a religion. It's a principle that says religion and state should be separated, hence no special privileges for ANY faith and says that all citizens are equal before the law. Regardless of their personal beliefs.
a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
"consumerism is the new religion" - securalists do this.
So, it's a religion like any other. I'd argue that to be secular is to have faith in secularism. You can't be a blank slate - any secular school in the UK reflects the culture, ethos, values of the wider UK culture - the views taught are secular as opposed to say Christian, Islamic, Buddhist etc.
I had to do assembly prayer while schooling in England. I didn't mind it, because that's all it was. There was no 'preaching' or 'proselytizing' or anything like that.
I draw the line at blatant disregard of facts (i.e. origin of the species etc.) and violence towards fellow living creatures (yes, not just humans, but all living beings) in the name of religious beliefs though. Common sense first, I would hope.
In advanced societies, which have the privilege of education & where the rule of law is largely developed and stable, I would hope that religion should become less prevalent within the society in time. I also would hope that mechanisms are put in place to ensure that occurs slowly.
My point is that secularism is a workable & necessary solution in advanced societies. Perhaps, it's not always so in developing societies. However, one should also be wary of falling into other traps in advanced societies, such as consumerism, as has been mentioned.
You are being overly pedantic for the sake of it, which I suppose is fine it that's how you prefer to discuss things.
But you mangled my point. It is a two way street - within reason. Surely I don't need to spell out all of the base rules of common sense?
Again: "Surely EVERYTHING is a 'two way street' when more than one person is involved..?
This 'every man for himself' mentality does not function with a species that is inherently social by design."
What's wrong with practising religion in public?
The issue I have is more with the risk that it then becomes sanctioned (if subconsciously). 'My religion is superior to yours' etc. In my view, that's nonsense and shouldn't be countenanced, because all religions have flaws fundamentally.
Ultimately, I am a believer in a secular society as the ideal, and a secular law should take precedence, with respect for all peaceful religions (in reality as well as under the law) imho.
This debate has been done to death. Yet it's so simple, in principle. Freedom (in whatever form, religious or otherwise) only goes so far in that is does not impede anyone else.
So if your religion (or whatever) is costing society then it is inherently at odds with the base concept of a free society.
You're twisting the definition of religion. Secularism does not worship secular society. They think it's the best system not the ideal one. Which is not a supernatural being. And you're building a strawman about consumerism: not all secularists are, consumerism is not a principle of secularism and even if one is consumerist it does not equate to devotion.