Muslims anger at Popes remarks

[speedymama]

Story here .

I wonder if a Fatwa will be taken out against the Pope who had the temerity to say something about Islam? His comments have been misconstrued and to be honest, I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Both Christianity and Islam have a bloodthirsty history but I think that Muslims are becoming too hypersensitive towards their religion. Why is it that clerics like Abu Hanza can stand on the streets of London, spewing hateful rhetoric about the West but the minute anybody in the West says something about Islam, Muslims around the world get their headscarves and beards in a twist? Chill out for goodness sake. I don't recall the Muslim collective condenming the Iranian President when he called for Israel to be wiped of the planet. I'm certain that there are many Muslims who make disparaging remarks about Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Sikhism etc. Religion is not just about words, it is about living up to what you preach and how you treat others. No wonder so many people in this country are turned off religion.

I personally agreed with everything the Pope said and interestingly, so did my male Muslim friend.

well your particular delusional framework is more worrying than some others DC.

I so agree with you DC. For instance why is it not ok to discriminate against blacks because of their colour but it IS actively encouraged to have a campaign to chose more women
THAT is discrimination against those people who are not women or black. But that's ok.
Bloody hypocrisy. It should be the best person for the job ALWAYS no matter their age , gender or colour. Positive discrimination , what a load of c**p

I wrote my company's "equal opportunities" policy, and it's not an inspiring document.
It has zero effect upon our business, it exists because we are required to have one.
That being said, the majority of the people we place in jobs are "minorities" or women.

That's not a result of political correctness, simply our goal of getting money.
We don't care, caring would cost.

I recall an essay by Isaac Asimov, written as a Jew after WWII. Arts grads in the media were whinging about how large organisations and the government treated people like numbers.
He rather liked the idea of being a number. Religious zealots don't murder people because their social security number ends in 3, or deny them work or food because their number is "unclean". There are no conspiracy theories that poeple with prime numbers are trying to reduce the purity of your culture. You don't get handed your position in society because they have a pretty number or that your number is close to that of the ruling elite.

don't agree. i got into Oxford because they were trying to actively recruit more students from state schools, 'positive discrimination' if you like. I got A's at A level so wasn't any more stupid than those they recruited from public school. Sometimes a balance has to be readdressed.

the argument that it is religion that breeds violence is presposterous:
Hitler
Stalin
PolPot

all avowed athiests. need I continue?

But Ruty if you allow positive discrimination you have to allow any sort of discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination after all.
whether it is positive or not is a completely subjective view point. It is only positive if it benefits you in particular.
If a were a white middle class male then it would be very negagtive discrimination would it not if the policy were to employ black minorities and women? That's not ok, it's hypocrisy and double standards. You must then say it's ok to have a policy that targets white males? I'm sure this happens anyway, discrimination does, but to publicly say you're going to target certain groups seems to be ok as long as they re not white males.
It's like the whole freedom of speech malarky. freedom for some people if they say the right things, ummm if they are in certain groups. That's not freedom. Freedom for the chosen few maybe. If you allow discrimination of any kind then you have to allow it all, not the bits that suit you in particular.

Donnie,it's the lust for control and power that breeds violence, always has and always will do.

precisely kittywits, which is why it is a nonsense to announce that if there were no religion the world would be full of people making love not war. I wish some people would get real about this.

I think Donnie because people don't want to face up to the realities of human nature. For example communism sounds pretty good on paper but it can never work because it's not natural to not want to strive and want to better yourself. If that were the case for humans then we would not have become the dominant species we are today.
I think people forget that our "civilaisation" is a very, very, thin veneer.
Most people still are driven by their primeval instincts. These instincts are merely curbed by the constraints of any particular society, it's ethics, morals and codes of behaviour.
They have to be of course or society would disintigrate and we would end of destroying each other but is is a very thin line we tread all the time between acting on our urges and knowing that we need to control ourselves in order to survive. If this were not the case then there would be no need for law, no need for punnishment.
We are not peace loving, we never will be and those of us who are more power driven will get more power.

kittywits i look at it in historical and cultural context. For decades [centuries even] white wealthy males have had the upper hand, and have discriminated against all others to maintain the upper hand. We have invaded other countries and dominated the world under colonialism, robbing other countries of their resources to get richer ourselves. I think the balance has to be readdressed, and this involves some positive discrimation to do it. Other wise the status quo just propels itself.

Thewr is no logic to the religion breeds violence, that I agree with. The Asda delivery man keeps tellin me that; I ye;; Buddhism at him as he walks away (every week- must use Tesco LOL), he never responds.

Extremism attracts people with certain personality traits whoa re looking for a cause. the same thing cn be said of animal rights, just as an example. These poeple then misunderstand and twist the texts and precepts of their faith until it fits what they chosoe to do with their life: hate.

case InPoint: Orginally Islam saw people 'of the Book' (Christians, Jews) as kin, if not quite equal. Now look at it: Bin laden yeeling about Infidels and the like. Yet historically it doesn't follow, as without Judaism / chrisitianity (and it's failings) there'd have nbeen no islam: Islam is (in theory) God's attempt to right the misconceptions and superstitions that had been bred into His religions.

A Psycho path will find a cause, and every society has its cruela mentally ill poeple: in a religious sociewty this will manifest as extreme religion, in a society like ours it'll manifest as ALF or eating disorders or extreme narcicism.

Sorry about typing: cut my thumb, even worse than usual

i think positive discrimation can go to far. I don't think all the women in Blair's govt are that competent [but not that keen on all the blokes either] I remember wanting to apply to the BBC trainee scheme but that year and the year after they were accepting applications from ethnic minorites only - but i accept that probably had to be done, and there were other more long winded ways i could get a job in the BBC if i had really wanted it.

Peachyclare; spot on with the hate thing - animal rights extremists don't love animals, they hate people. Extremists of any persuasion can take even the most innocuous statement/text/act and turn it completely on it's head to suit them and 'their message'.

I fear ruty has the perspective you get from too much immersion in a white male dominated culture.

Almost all oppressors aren't white males, and never have been.
Most of the world isn't white, and most of it has been oppressed, and that is independant of the colour of the people in charge.

The truth is that PD is a tool for left wing politicians to gain the power of patronage.
Who decides which group is "oppressed" and needs support ? You can bet money that it's who suits the person trying to get power.

A fine case example was Ken Livingstone.
As the old GLC started to die, he started pushing "Irish" people as some sort of oppressed minority. And as it happens the parliamentary seat he was going for had a large Irish component ?

The average person who descreibes themselves as "of Irish descent" is both richer and more educated than average "native" Englishmen. Hard to exactly see us as abject victims of British Imperialism.
Indeed in terms of ruty's simplistic attempts to right historical wrongs, we fought long and hard against British imperialism. Lokk up where "beyond the Pale" comes from. Hint: It wasn't a party thrown by the Irish to welcome the Engish to their new posession.
The Irish potato famines for which the British are partly culpable killed millions of my ancestors.

Should I be compensated for that ?
Irish people are of course more "white" than the average Brit, so are you going to have some sort of DNA based system to judge whether people get jobs ?
No.
Of course it will be given to that set of people who are most useful to those making the decision.

Surely the most positive aspect of PD is it allows role models to be created for other children to folow- if, for examplr, a Uni deliberately acets a number of kids from a certain esate or area, then it become attainable for the other, as they ahve seen that kids like them CAN do it? The kids don't necessarily ahve to be selected above others; positive discrimination can work by mentoring such children (eg in exam skills, UCAS, self esteem) in order to bring them onto a level playing field. Coming from a shite estate myself where no-one did anything more liberating than get knocked up and work in the jam factory, I can see the benefits hugely; it was only when I met and nearly married a not that brigt graduate that I realised you didn't have to be super human to got o Uni.

Positive discrimination at its best is a temprary measure with long term aims of empowering communities that traditionally miss out- that would include ethnic minorities, disabilities, poor kids, those from any traditionally low attaining abckground (and may well include irish descendnats, or indeed people like myself from old rural fmillies in areas where there simply is no HE provision).

I can see the risks though- it really needs to evaluated regularly, and be manged by someone with a very open persopective that sees beyond the colour of skin, for exampe: some ethnic minorities traditionally attain quite well iirc from Sociology AS? )long time ago though!)

I've just signe dupt o be a mentor in some of Newports schools, helping those whoa re classed as risky tant (might fall off at any moement or borderline grades, may be from a background with no support but bright) by mentoring, boosting their self esteem and giving them skills they can't acquire elsewhere. Taht's imo decent PD; it's not about colour or gender or anything, it just gives people a chance they didn't necessarily have. Sometimes, that's all it tkaes.

Oh DC you do talk rubbish but you're good for a laugh.

If you can have positive discrimination then you can have postive racsism, postive gender stereotyping etc. Of course that is a complete nonsense. Discrimination is wrong. Just because a particular group were dominant and favoured it doesn't make it ok EVER to discriminate against them. As I said before it's not positive for everyone so how can it be called positive. It is a misnomer to call it that. And it is only done so that peole can win paliamentry seats.
They wouldn't give a toss were it not for wining votes, as has already been mentioned.

Ruty, I think Dc makes more sense than alot of people here. Perhaps her views aren't paletable, but they are true.

(DC is a he, just for info [smil])

positive discrimination isn't just about parliamentary seats; I do completely disagree with that aspect. But it's about far more than that, for example the current Government proposal that children with challenging behaviour (NO, not just 'delinquents', that would be bound to include kids with SN I would guess) be given extra funding toa llow them to access better schools- make them more tempting prospects.

Unfair?

Is it unfair that all the teachers here want to work in one specific good school that cherry picks the best teachers AND best pupils, leaving the others to do their best elsewhere? Think not.

Discrimination occurs everywhere- as much by accidental means as deliberate (eg, X postcode gets educated here; Y there- which can often translate as poor people go there, rich there)

perhaps there are some imbalances that need to be readjusted?

Yes peachyclair, there certainly are imbalances that need to be redressed, I agree, but to call it positive discrimination is wrong. You can't allow for discriminatuon when it suits a cause. That is plain wrong. As I have said before, it is only positive for some groups. What about the others for whom it is anything but positive. Would you say they had to lump it? There is no justice in that and it makes a mockery of things.

BTW thought of calling Dc a HE but thought 'what are the chances of that?'
Should have gone with my instincts!

I was going to say, I always got the impression DominiConnor is a HE.

Perhaps it is a case of frantioc semantics; to me, PD includes when resources are ploughed heavily into equalizing the life chances of people- because after all, resources can only be spent once; a Uni mentoring scheme here is a youth club not there. I could understand why the poeple without the youth club would call that discrimination iyswim- I think we get it here, there's mainly (but not only- far from, just well hidden) middle class welle ducated inhabitants and the resources tend to go to the next city, which I think is largely fair enough (but do worry about the few poor kids / families or elderly epole without cars here who I bet feel discriminated against)

i think islam comes across as a faith with a massive chip on its shoulder.

i meet many faiths and usually IME those peope with a faith are nice people, usually freindly, respectful of the fact that you have a faith that you follow. which isn't my experience with islam.

i am a pansy lefty - i know i am taking my life into my hands on mumsnet, but instead of shouting at me - help me understand. becuase i don't.

moslems come accross as arrogent.

and dya know when i came to this conclusion?

yesterday.

before then i would hae heeded my own argument of i treat people as they treat me.

but i have worked in moslim communities and after spending 4 days biting my tongue and arguing against racism with every single person - every every single person i came accross in my trip up north. i questioned myself.

i have met one humble moslim. ever.

in real life situations, if people take the piss out of me - i cut them off. i dont entertain them - friends family - i dont care - i dont put up with just anything.

so why am i metaphorically speaking clinging onto this ideal of how i should should be thinking instea of my own experience.

its not the essence of islam i debate - but the modern culture of it.

( i know your on PD,but i neeeded to say it)

Custy your image of Islam is probably very valid for the ones you meet. Not my experience maybe, but nonetheless valid. Maybe it's not so much religions as their particular kind of cliquey thing (know the word can't remember it LOl ). It may be that the ones I meet are particularly keen to make a good impression- logical really, coz of what I am studying.

As a non-religious person i find that there is something not very humble full stop about thinking yur religion ahs the particular answer to everything, but of course that's the nature of the whole thing LOL