To want a way to label the reasonable fear of the variety of Islam that wishes to impose Sharia law?

The point you're trying to make is that some cultures are superior to others and you're trying to hang your argument on women's rights.

You have the internet at your fingertips and can look up Islam and women's rights. As I'm sure you're aware how Islam is interpreted is also dependent on culture and individuals within that culture.

Instead of dismissing things as 'rubbish' or chat bots, counter the argument. I'd like to hear why you don't think the West is responsible for the current state of Afghanistan or the regime in Iran. How you know Western countries haven't interfered in other countries politics.

Also@username8348 you haven't answered my question about the positive things Islam does for women, you've just slagged off the West again. What good things does Islam provide for women?
I'm off to bed, I think it's time this thread came to a natural conclusion.

So if the West started it - which is a lot of rubbish - why are these regimes which oppress women continuing?

I'm sure you're aware that the UK is experiencing a crisis in VAWAG yet you want to deflect and point the finger at other cultures.

Look at what's recently happened in France and tell me with a straight face that Europe doesn't have a misogyny problem. You could also take a look at domestic abuse stats in the States if you were interested but you're not.

You just want to score cheap points.

I've already explained how many regimes that oppress women in the ME were instigated or are supported by the West. Instead of engaging like an adult you accuse people of using chat bots.

@username8348 your post reads as if its from ChatGBT. Your attitude highlights exactly what's wrong with the attitudes of some Muslims. I'd suggest you tell me what posiive things Islam does for women - it won't take up too much of your time.

That post was quite foamy.

You have a very naive view of the West. The whole invasion of the ME by the States was done in the name of Christianity. Millions were slaughtered, that's not the distant past.

The debacle in Afghanistan was created by Western interference as was the current regime in Iran. The West has a habit of meddling in other countries and has done since the end of the Ottoman Empire.

The West tactically supported the overthrow of Egypt's democratically elected government. Instigated the fall of Libya's Jamahiriya, after crippling it with sanctions and they also prolonged the Syrian civil war. We won't mention the Arab Spring, Hussein, Yemen or other glaring examples.

The plutocracies in the Gulf States are wholeheartedly backed by Western powers even when they're perpetrating Islamic extremism.

Then of course, people complain when victims flee to the West to escape what they've created.

As for slavery we profit from countries with few if any human rights. All those cheap products you're buying come from China, which is currently perpetrating ethnic cleansing, and has no human rights, including the use of child labour. It's not the only country we exploit.

I won't blow your mind by telling you about cobalt and our exploitation of the Congo. Nor the repurcusions of colonisation which reverberate today.

Take a look at the current investigation into decades of Church sanctioned child abuse going on in Ireland or the Christians who perform FGM.

America has child marriage, four states don't have a minimum age. Let's not dwell on the Westerners who take advantage of sex trafficked women or lax laws in developing countries where they prey on women and children.

I await frothing from the usual suspects.

? Slavery, VAWG and child abuse are not all in the past in Christian countries.

Putin literally approved a law that allows wife beating.
We look the other way at modern sex trafficking and slavery. Yes it is illegal but there isn’t the will to put it in the past so it is very much with us.
The USA has overturned the right to an abortion- women are dying due to sepsis from miscarriages, others are being forced to birth babies.
Child abuse is rife.
Rape convictions are at 1 in 1,000 so is rape really illegal and wrong? Or is it just lip service?
Trump’s incoming Defence secretary is planning to bar American women from combat roles in the military.
The Rwandan genocide was Christians killing each other
The Bosnian genocide was Christians killing Muslims.

I don’t see Christianity as superior.

I wasn't planning on adding anything to this thread as, similar to the Middle East conflict threads and a number of pro Palestinian posts on this thread, the comments go round in circles with the same phrases chanted repeatedly. A poster upthread mentioned that they recognise similar styles of writing in lots of posts from allegedly different posters. I've noticed this too.
I would like to say that negative Christian cultural history keeps being dragged up in order to equate Christianity with Islam - slavery, child abuse, burning of heretics etc. I think someone even mentioned the Crusades, for goodness sake. The point is that Christians and western culture openly acknowledge that these behaviours were wrong and that they are no longer state sanctioned or accepted. It's all history and in the past. This is not the case with Islam, slavery still exists and is accepted in many Muslim countries, not to mention the disgraceful abusive treatment of women and girls.
Waiting for a response from the usual suspects.

Talk about Bill and Ben.

'Yeah, can't believe what happened in the UK. People sharing information were imprisoned. Obviously the government are colluding with Muslims.

What the West needs to do is get rid off the Geneva Convention, and in Britain the ECHR. Word gets round that you can do anything you like such as rape or burglarise and you get two weeks community service.

Hardened criminals were released from prison to make way for innocent people sharing information. People should be deported if they commit crime and sensible people need to take over.

Look what happened in Turkey, that's very likely to happen in the UK. '

Thanks for the laugh.

@SerendipityJane
As imperfect as it is, I do see politics and religion separated enough at present, in UK.
Yes, I do agree with a reform of the House of Lords to remove both birth rights and the church presence. And I think it will happen.

What I am asking is: do you see a separation between religion and political system in the UK today?

Not exactly as the question posed at 16:21, I submit.

The factual answer is (obviously) no. We have (nominally Christian) priests entwined in our lawmaking. Not out of any care for the nations spiritual well being, but as an accident of history when the Church was the biggest landowner after the crown so obviously had to have a say in the laws of the(ir) land.

When we don't have Lords spiritual, and the Head of State is not also the head of the nations favourite church, I could answer differently.

Yes @SerendipityJane
What I am asking is: do you see a separation between religion and political system in the UK today?

From your point, for the UK, as today:

1. Power and Authority: belong exclusively to the political system. Religions do not longer have power over anyone. ( bar the presence of the CoE in the House of Lords, which may be eventually be addressed. But, they do exercise some level of power through the political system, not the religious)
2. Community and belonging. That is a crucial part of making multiculturalism work actually. That both the community sense nurtured by the politics and religions can align enough to give a sound sense of belonging to all those living in the country. It is a constant balance, where culture, politics and religion meet indeed.
3. Moral and Ethical guidelines. The laws created by the political system trump any religion in the UK. Much of our freedoms come from this separation indeed.
4. Rituals and Simbolism: completely separated. Just read your own post. A completely separated set for religion and politic system.
5. Struggles for influence: connected to point 2. Sure individuals are entitled to follow their religion beliefs and practices. But they are also obliged to respect the law and freedom of others. It is politics, again, which has the upper hand, as they will arrest or fine anyone acting against the law.

They do have a similar structure and they have been in the same hands, the same thing really, at points of UK's history, but today they are separate systems. The secular political system has the power. We vote who we want to take control of it every 4-5 years. You do not need religion, at least you want it. It is your personal decision.
Do you agree with this? Or do you still think they are the same, today?

1. Power and Authority: Both religion and politics revolve around the establishment and exercise of authority. In religion, this authority often derives from divine or spiritual mandates, while in politics, it stems from constitutions, laws, or the will of the people. Both systems organize societies by creating hierarchies and structures that demand allegiance and obedience.
2. Community and Belonging: Religion and politics foster a sense of identity and belonging. Religious groups are built around shared beliefs, rituals, and values, much like political entities are grounded in ideologies, constitutions, and national identities. Both provide frameworks through which individuals connect with larger communities and understand their roles within society.
3. Moral and Ethical Guidelines: Both realms establish codes of conduct for individuals and communities. Religions define right and wrong through doctrines, commandments, and sacred texts, while politics enacts laws, regulations, and policies. In both cases, these systems aim to shape behavior, promote societal harmony, and address questions of justice and equity.
4. Rituals and Symbolism: Religion and politics rely on rituals, symbols, and ceremonies to solidify their influence. Religious practices include prayer, worship, and sacraments, while politics employs elections, oaths, and state ceremonies. Flags, hymns, and sacred texts function similarly to religious symbols, evoking loyalty and shared purpose.
5. Struggles for Influence: Throughout history, religion and politics have been intertwined in power struggles. Both seek to influence hearts and minds, often overlapping in governance, lawmaking, and cultural norms. Whether through crusades or revolutions, both have demonstrated their ability to mobilize people for causes rooted in deeply held beliefs.

Please provide me with an argument to support that they are not more different than a bullet and a spear hitting us.
In the UK, as 24th Nov 2024.

You are right in historical contexts and some countries currently ruled by political regimes imposing their version of a religion, because these politicians do not actually follow or believe in said religion for real.

They are different

Are they ? A bullet is very different to a spear to some people, but exactly the same thing to someone lying dead having been struck by either.

They are different @SerendipityJane .
But those who do want to use religion as to push for political control will use religion, because it is a rather convenient way.
It took many centuries and the spilled blood and ashes (Christianity did burn people alive at some point in history!) of our ancestors in Europe, but we got there, amidst not perfect separation, but a doable one. Not perfect, but it allows us freedom. And I think it is a good base for mixed communities indeed. If you live in UK today, you do not need to ever hear a single word from a religious book if you are not inclined to do so.

If the rule of the land includes freedom of religious belief and practice, equality for women (including the right to work to support their families), an elected political representation, freedom of speech, rights to education, health care and so on, there is a political and law system separated from religion.
If the rules of the land start by impossing a single religion and worship practice (though they may tollerate a list of others), continue with listing what women ( or other individuals, but women seem to be the primary target) can wear, do and say, and they profess to follow a particular religion, then you have a political regime using the excuse of religion. They will kill people who do not comply (against chore principle of most religions), force people into practices (again, most religions are meant to take natural place in the heart of the believer, not forced)...
So, secular systems will mention freedom and religionS. Yes, they will be influenced by culture, which is influenced by religion and they will not be perfect, I know. But extremist regimes will proclaim a single religion, while violating its values, one after another. It is only the extreme ones who deny a difference between religion and policy/ politics.

We need to separate the religion from the political movements and regimes.

That is if you assume there is a difference. What if you take the view that religions are merely political organisations that have (literally) sprinkled the fear of god into their goals ? The antagonism we can see in history between these supposedly separate entities does look suspiciously like they are really both competing over the same thing.

But what are the bullshit tropes?

It is a fact that Sharia Law in Afghanistan and Iran (and other places) are completely detrimental to women’s rights and existence as full, independent humans. This is within Islam.
Ditto strands of mosques in Europe where Sharia Law is practised and encouraged.
I don’t want that. Not anywhere ideally, but really not here in the midst of our free society.

So what are the bullshit tropes?
Has anyone labelled Muslims, or is it more a much needed criticism of parts of the Islamic religion?

I think there is nothing better than openly talk, extensively, about these issues. Yes, it offends some people. I do get offended by some of the things said here about christians, but please keep them coming. I do not want to shut debate or stop anyone from raising their concerns and analogies. Christianity has a long grim history, I know. I still love christians and many of the christian chore principles.

There is no point in denying that islamism exists, don't you think? The government in Afghanistan is an example. We need to separate the religion from the political movements and regimes. It sounds easy, indeed. But the islamists poise themselves as true pure muslims. They do muddy the waters on purpose. They are really good at this.
There has been (see the preacher in the video about Luton, who made it to jail) people within UK preaching islamism. Those are a minority. But I think just brushing it under the carpet does not help. We need to face it. Talk about it.
It is sad and unfair that perfectly law abiding muslims feel judged by this. That some has got attacked due to racism evolving from this. Unfortunatelly, there are extemists in all groups. It is up to those in the reasonable middle to fight them out of society.

Regarding the marches, I think that the identifiable presence of extremists is a good thing. Before you jump to it, hear me out: instead of spending millions finding them out, we only need some police officers with a notebook, camera and walk up to them and get their ID, possibly arrest them. Let them come out and show their faces. Some may be able of redemption. Others will end up in jail too.
I am sorry that any jew has been harrassed. That is wrong.
I must also say that we should be able to express our opinion on the political and war actions of Israel, as we do with any other country.

My view, (as ever subject to change), there is an ebb and flow around the boundaries of free speech dependent on the risk to societal stability that it represents at any given time.

jihadists/hate preachers are a risk to the stability of western society. They know it (it's their raisin d'etre), we know it, the security services know it. As @SerendipityJane says, they hide in the monolith of Islam.

I wonder where the people in Stacey Dooley's doc. are now. It would be interesting to revisit their views to see what's changed in the ensuing years.

If extremism is shown the police should deal with it, and wearing a swastika or attacking someone who is Jewish is completely unacceptable,

The attacking bit should go without saying - criminal act go to jail.

I am less sure about banning symbols and their uses. Quite aside from the fact it plays directly into the "we are being persecuted" narrative that fuels a lot of extremism, it suggests a slight insecurity on the part of society that will be interpreted as a weakness by the very same people.

I don't believe in magic words. I don't believe in magic spells. I don't believe in magic books. And I don't believe in magic symbols of any stripe.

Yes, a swastika is offensive. But we return to the crux of a liberal democracy which is that peoples freedom of expression is equally opposed to their lack of right not to be offended. It's truly impossible to ban all offence. And rather that even trying (which some are) you have to remind people it's the tax on their freedom of speech.

This seems germane to this thread as creating a fear of offence in society is a really good way to allow sinister elements to act unchecked.

Offence is clearly a subjective state of being. And should be treated as such.

If extremism is shown the police should deal with it, and wearing a swastika or attacking someone who is Jewish is completely unacceptable, although I would like to hear from Jewish people who also attend these protests about their experiences too.

What I can't stand is the exaggeration and hyperbole by people trying to shut the protests down because they don't like any focus on the horrors of what Israel is doing in the name of so called defence.