Racial profiling

[Mikuro]

Originally Posted by rubaiyat

Irregardless muslims are not being rounded up randomly. The surveilance they are under is directed at those who are actually calling for or conspiring to violence. The same as police keep an eye on skinheads. I suppose that is racial profiling to "pick on" whites with shaven heads, Union Jack T-Shirts and heavy boots?

There seems to be a disconnect here. I don't think anyone's saying we shouldn't touch muslims if we have good reason to believe they're up to something. That's not racial profiling; that's legitimate intelligence. Nobody's saying otherwise. The only problem is when you use race as the only reason for suspicion, which is the issue here (no matter how much rhetoric is wrapped around it by politicians).

Originally Posted by rubaiyat

The non-muslim world emerged from most of its injustices long ago through liberalism and an increasingly open, free debate, that allowed the change.

Islam seems to be caught in a time warp and even has a large percentage trying to turn back time and lashing out at everyone else in the process.

I agree a lot with this. Imagine what would happen if you took 21st-century technology and put it in the hands of Christian churches hundreds of years ago. That's basically what's happening now.

I really don't think it's fair to judge their religion/culture as harshly as many people do, because ours was no better when our society was at the level theirs is now. The world has never advanced in unison. It's like adults who chastise their kids for the same things they did when they were young.

Of course, judging them by our own standards of the past doesn't work too well either, since they're using modern, dangerous technology. It's like a child with a gun. Kids will be kids, but if they're wielding that kind of power, they'd better grow up in a hurry.

That said, I really don't think the way to help the maturation of a society is to bomb the @#$% out of it, but...well, we're lacking a bit of cultural maturity ourselves in that regard. There are some people who think all our problems will be solved by promoting literacy and education among mideastern women. I don't think it's that simple, but I like the direction, at least.

Originally Posted by rubaiyat

Here's some good news :-p

Saudi Arabia promises to remove references to Christians as "swine" and Jews as "apes" in school textbooks.

Just a taste.

How...progressive.

[Cat]

Burnings lasted well into the 18th century in Europe, enslavement of blacks ended in the second half of the 19th century in the USA, racism had its heyday in the 20th century with various racial laws.

Still now in the west people are discriminated against for no other reason than skin color, "speaking funny" or having certain beleifs, and, yes, this sometimes leads to violence and death.

State and church promulgated racism have been abandoned, but it took us quite some time to get there.

Christians came to prominence once they succeded in turning their religion from a faith for slaves and women into the faith of the emperor. Half of europe was converted by the sword. You can bet that there is plenty of justification for that in the bible.

[rubaiyat]

You can bet that there is plenty of justification for that in the bible.

No there wasn't, unless you can find the quotes for me. The slavery exists in small sections of the old testament as does the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth but is clearly contradicted by everything in the New Testament.

The vast majority of Europe was converted by evangalists. To my knowledge the sword was first drawn against the beligerent tribes in the Prussian and east Baltic regions by Charlemagne. Charlemagne can be said to have used the church to secure his political aims.

Even the Norsemen who plagued christian Europe for centuries, capturing and selling millions of christians as slaves to the Moors in Spain, were converted by evangalists and not at the point of the sword.

The violence crept into the complex relationship between church and state once it was well founded.

Either way I am not going to absolve violence by religious extremists of whatever persuasion. For a good part of modern history we had eliminated sectarian violence in the West and it is now returning with a vengence from the East and striking not only at Christians and Jews, but Hindus,Buddhists, the Bahaii, what is left of the Zororastrians in Iran and Afghanistan and even alternate Muslim sects.

I keep coming back to this. It is being justified by what is clearly written in the Koran and the death penalty against apostasy in Islam that stops any criticism of either its contents or interpretation. Speak up against the Koran or its interpretation and you die.

Violence is a central part of the Koran whether you admit it or not. It is there in black and white. Pretending it is not is obviously not working, and seems to be taken as just a sign of a weak, corrupt western civilisation that has criticised itself into a state of permanent apologia.

Any reforms in the Islamic world against mutual self destructive violence, violence against women and other religions, ending of slavery etc have been violently opposed by those decrying those reforms as imposed by the west and unislamic.

They're right! So what are you going to choose and what are you going to do about it?

[Cat]

Charlemagne can be said to have used the church to secure his political aims.

And you don't think the same has happened to Islam? Is nobody in the middle-east using religion as a means to an end? So who's the culprit, the faith and the faithful or those who abuse the faith and use it as "opium for the masses"?

If tyrants and warmongers claim religious justifications for their actions, is the fault in politics or in religion?

If the state power is identified with a religious creed then when you speak up against the convenient interpretation of holy texts given by the powerful, you speak up against the dominant power. It is the worldly power of the state that reacts, not the spiritual power of the religion.

Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has reapeatedly called for peace, for unity, for an end to violence in Iraq. He has advocated free and fair democratic elections and was even nominated for the nobel peace prize for his efforts. That does not seem to be in accordance with the way you picture Islam. Sistani is a leading, politically involved Ayatollah, yet his words and actions contradict what you claim about all the violence in Islam.

If you are referring to Iran, rather than Iraq, then again I don't see the "violent" Islam you speak of. Khamenei recently asserted that Iran would never attack any other country and that production of nuclear weapons was out of the question. In accordance with this Ahmadinejad declared that Iran had no intention to produce nuclear bombs or attack other countries, mentioning specifically Israel, he remarked that he saw elections as a solution to the current problems, not wars.

Where is this aggressive, suppressive Islam? The "weak and corrupt" west has launched several attacks against Islamic states, no Islamic states have done so in quite some time. Small groups of fanatics which represent neither a country nor an organized religion have launches terrorist attacks across the globe, and these deranged fundamentalists have given their own personal interpretation of what their faith means to them and used it to justify crimes and political violence. However, you cannot take this as representative for the billion or so faithful muslims around the world. If it were representative, we already would have a full-scale "hot" world war right here and now.

Despite the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, despite all the threats issued to Syria and Iran, there is no full-scale war. The christian/jewish west has attacked and threatened several muslim countries, but they have not reacted in kind. Who is propagating violence here?

You (grudgingly) tell me that perhaps the Old Testament is filled with a wrathfull, vengeful god, that kills men and beasts alike, but that the New testament contradicts all that. Well, isn't the Old testament part of the jewish and of the christian faith? Should we just follow the New one? Go ahead, found another protestant evangelical sect, but catholics and jews will follow the ten commandments and the Torah. Moreover, doesn't Jesus tell us that he has not come to change the laws that were given to us? Doesn't he tell us that he effectively is the son of god, the son of the god of Abraham, Moses and David who is the God of the Old Testament?

There's not as much smiting in the New Testament, but how can you honestly ignore all the passages where god kills or torments sinners or political opponents of his chosen tribe? Jesus repeatedly refers to the old prophes of the old testament and pronounces that he is in agreement with them. Doesn't he himself prophesy something like "Brother shall kill brother, and the father the child: and the children will rise up against their parents, and cause their death." because of religious wars? Didn't Jesus come "not to bring peace, but a sword"?

If you go cherry picking quotes from assorted religious texts, you can always find engough violence and exceptions to justify your own violence and double standards. Those that do not listen to the word of god, will end like the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah: voilà your justification for bombing the hell out of those unbelieving muslims. White phosphorous on civilian population? Not a problem! Cluster bombs on residential area's? Why not: it's in the bible! Indeed: "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" as our saviour says, but, hey, they are not like us. So who cares if they get all the dirty stares and get searched twice as often in airports, while we are burning those who share their religious faith with "fire unquenchable".

You cannot export democracy with weapons. If change is not forthcoming out of Islamic countries, then trying to impose our ideals will only turn people against them. By military threats you strenghten those that use fear to rule, you strenghten the power of fundamentalists who preach against the west and charismatic populists who use religion to gain power. Invest in a future with dialogue, with help for the poor and famished, with education, leading by example, and you will avoid violence and oppression.

[Rhisiart]

Religion is particuarly dangerous when it is fueled by political ambitions, rather than theology or a genuine passion for the well-being of humanity.

The Catholic Church was spectacularly guilty of this for hundreds of years. New Islamic states such as Iran, are de facto run by Ayotollahs who most clearly have political ambitions.

Osama bin Laden's own Wahibian Sunni sect, the mainstay of Al-Queda, has a very strong political agenda (i.e. to bring about a Global Islamic Government).

Likewise, George Bush's followers believe that the creation of great wealth is an intregal part of being a good Christian and this can only be acheived by political control of both the US and oil-rich countries.

The Jews beleive they are God's children and have a God-given right to the whole of Palestine.

You can argue the toss over the Bible, Torah and the Koran. But the political power brokers will use any quotes out of context from these Holy books to further their political ambitions.

[rubaiyat]

Originally Posted by rhisiart

Religion is particuarly dangerous when it is fueled by political ambitions, rather than theology or a genuine passion for the well-being of humanity.

Religion is dangerous full stop. Because it claims ultimate authority on behalf of a deity/s who never seems to directly speak for Him/Themselves. Also because they claim the ultimate rewards/punishments, so anything can be justified in their name.

The Iranian Ayatollahs twin objectives against the Shah were to protect their large property holdings and theological power. Cat seems to be quite ingenuous about their nuclear ambitions, quoting (only some of) what they say, not what they are doing (now going down the plutonium path) and totally ignoring their vitriolic statements against Jews and calls to destroy Israel in the most brutal terms.

Ahmadinejad seems to be crazier than Osama bin Laden, who I think is quite calculating and lucid from his own perspective. Ahmadinejad believes in armagedon and seems hell bent on bringing it on himself.

It would be hilarious if not tragic to believe Iran is non violent. Ignoring the decades of state sponsored terrorism reaching as far as the Buenos Aires synagogue bombing, you only have to look at the internal violence against their own people, killing religious minorities as well as anyone singled out by Islamic "justice". The poor gentle Bahá'í have been particularly singled out, although all minorities suffer.

Where is this aggressive, suppressive Islam?

Where is it not? The closest to a free democratic Islamic state is Turkey which has the blood of millions of Armenians and unknown number of Kurds on its hands. A Turk even attempted to assasinate the Pope. The next closest thing to an Islamic democracy is Indonesia which again slaughtered a quarter million East Timorese and drove a substantial number from their homes into West Timor whilst trashing the country. It is also attacking christian and animist Papuans, Christians all over but particularly in Sulawasi and Maluku, Hindus in Bali, Chinese Christians, Buddhist and Daoists in Java etc.

In Sudan there has been a vicious war against the southern Christians and animists for decades which has spread to the Dafur region and east on the border with Ethiopia. Somalia, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, Jordan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Thailand, The Netherlands, Spain, Germany, The Philipines, France, Nigeria, Britain, the list goes on and on. Smaller scale violence has appeared virtually everywhere, even on the idyllic beaches of Australia.

The only reason we do not have full scale war, yet, is Iran does not have the atomic bomb, yet, although they are putting all the infrastructure including long range missiles in place. Meanwhile war by proxy in Lebanon, Iraq and many other countries is doing the job nicely. The "billion or so faithful" represents many peaceful members as does any selection of humanity, but also seems to be able to spontaneously produce endless excuses and bombers.

The west has supressed violent Islamic states where provoked and rescued muslims in Kosovo, bombing christian Serbia into submission to do so. Attempts to protect humanitarian assistance in other locations such as Somalia and Lebanon were attacked.

Do not take any of this as support of George W. Bush's war in Iraq. The man is an idiot and I can find no other, kinder way of putting it.

I am not going to bat for the Israelis either, but they were attacked by the Arab Nations on formation of their state and have been essentially at war since. In the process they have become a classic case of power and greed corrupting an intelligent moral people. I figure they believe they have nothing to gain from Arabs, whatever agreements they come to another group will break them. I believe the lessons from the holocaust (which is alternately denied by the Iranians and then criticised as not thorough enough) haunt them, that they believe they ultimately stand alone or perish.

I will squash the absurd statement that rhisiart made that "The Jews beleive they are God's children and have a God-given right to the whole of Palestine." There are plenty of Jews, even orthodox, who believe Israel has no such thing. Some of the most orthodox in fact believe Zionist Israel has no right of existence at all.

Cat your quotes from the New Testament mystify me, could you please give me references. Where are you getting these from? Hopefully not Saudi textbooks.

You clearly are not representing an extremist view, but within the Arabic world and beyond, ludicrous "facts" such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are promulgated and fueling all this blood letting.

Given that such "knowledge" permeates muslim society and spontaneously materialises into violence why should we not attribute the violence to its source, islamic prejudice?

[rubaiyat]

btw Cat everytime I hear or see the Hezbollah, Hamas or any radical Arabs weaping over the deaths of innocent civilians, for whom I genuinely do feel sorry, I am reminded of images that stick in my mind.

1. The celebration of Palestinian self government where gunmen firing up into the air killed a young girl.

2. The Arab family that was struck by one of the first Hezbollah rockets into Israel.

3. The celebration of Palestinians when Sadam Hussein invaded Kuwait and the planes struck the World Trade centre.

4. The holy Shiite mosques blown up to incite sectarian violence.

5. The Iraqi Imams blown up by other Iraqi Imams over a turf war for Iraqi "hearts and minds"

6. The town of Lockerbie with the ruins of the Jumbo jet plowed through it.

7. The Libyan diplomat shooting the London policewoman

8. The Jordanian suicide bomber who told his wife to leave the Royal Hotel, when her bomb belt developed a fault, then let off his own bomb filled with ball bearings and nails.

9. Wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer being thrown off the Achille Lauro by Palestinians.

10. The hundreds of Kenyan and Tanzanians killed and maimed in the African US embassy bombings

11. The statues of Buddha in Afghanistan being blown up by the Taliban

12. The soccer stadium in Kabul, built with western aid money, being used by the Taliban to stone to death "adultresses" or anyone else fallen foul of the Islamic police.

13. Lebanese Shiites cheering on rockets fired into Israel.

14. The blood covered Indonesian guards killed and maimed by bombers outside of the Australian embassy in Jakarta.

15. Captives having their heads sawn off.

16. The people who praised Saddam Hussein and his "good" reign of murder and terror in the name of Arabs.

There are too many images, they all blur one into another. Mostly they are of a people hell bent on revenge, real or imagined, at no matter what cost. People whose emotional control seems to be permanently set on "hate" and not "peace".

[Cat]

Cat seems to be quite ingenuous about their nuclear ambitions, quoting (only some of) what they say, not what they are doing (now going down the plutonium path) and totally ignoring their vitriolic statements against Jews and calls to destroy Israel in the most brutal terms.

Do you actually know what is needed to produce nuclear weapons? Weapons grade uranium needs at the very very least 20% enrichment, Iran is capable of less than 5%. You need thousands of centrifuges to enrich enough uranium for use in a nuclear reactor with ~2.5 - 4% enrichment, and many thousands more to reach true weapons-grade at more than 80% enrichment. Iran has just done basic test runs of its machinery, and has hundreds, not thousands of centrifuges in operation. When the plant at Natanz is completed it may house something around ~5000 centrifuges.

Iran has signed and ratified the Anti-Proliferation treaty, unlike Israel. Iran has been inspected by the IAEA and its director El-Baradei:

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has called on the world for calm on the Iran nuclear issue, saying there was no imminent threat from Tehran.

There is a lot of hype, IAEA chief, Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, said here on Thursday of Tehran’s nuclear agenda, adding that a fine line needs to be drawn between hype and reality.

About the bible:
Matthew
10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
(same in Mark 6:11, Luke 10:10-10:12)

Those that do not receive The Word will be punished, destroyed, worse than Sodom.

Matthew 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Even if your faith will bring you to fight your family, don't be afraid to kill your parents or your siblings for your faith, as you will be saved for your faith.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Those who not believe in Jesus will "not see life" (be killed?) and God will seek vengeance on him. Those that do not believe in Jesus will be rounded up by his followers and burned, for not sharing their faith.

Again, I'm not impressed by your list. Similar lists can be given for most religions, states or races. Such lists are worthless and do not constitute an argument either for or against racial or religous profiling.

There's a lot of stupid reasons for killing or getting killed and I agree that religion might be one of the most stupid. Also there are a lot of stupid ways to waste money. "Security" as we are doing it now might be one of the most stupid. If you want to save lives, ban smoking and drinking and you'll save more lives and money than by "spur-of-the-moment" security measures that essentially give up the "western" values that we try to "defend" by implementing them.