Wow! UK Backbone stiffer than upper lip.

[Rob Lister]

snip from Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=358019&in_page_id=1770)

Muslims opposed to the British way of life should leave the country, even if they are UK citizens, a senior Conservative said today. Shadow defence minister Gerald Howarth said that extremists who saw the Iraq war as a conflict against Islam should be considered as treacherous as Soviet sympathisers during the Cold War.

Mr Howarth also criticised remarks by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his own Tory colleague, Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Attorney General. Mr Howarth said the majority of Muslims adhered to British values and he described how the Union Flag had been flown at a meeting he had with Muslims over the weekend.

But the Aldershot MP compared those who despised the British way of life with the traitors who spied for the USSR. “If they don’t like our way of life, there is a simple remedy - go to another country, get out,� Mr Howarth told The Scotsman newspaper.

Asked what if those people were born in Britain, Mr Howarth replied: “Tough. If you don’t give allegiance to this country, then leave.�

Courtesy LGF (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/)

[WildCat]

They could start w/ George Galloway (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60554), and those who vote for him.

[Silicon]

"If you don't like the government, get out!"


Jeez I wish some of the more strident righties would have taken that advice during the Clinton years, instead of blowing up abortion clinics and day care centers in Federal buildings.

Nope? Still here? Damn. Guess we're going to have to figure out a way to beat the terrorists while still having a civil discourse with the more rational righties.


That is, until the Dobsons of the world find out I'm an atheist, then it's time for my appointment with the firing squad.


Sorry, if I'm snippy. A gang of righties (redstate.org) just told me that anyone who supports stem-cell research is pro "slicing and dicing of children." Guess that puts me and Frist in the realm of some Nazi doctor, and only them in the realm of normal, God-fearing folk.

Only a matter of time before civil war here in Amerika, comrade. And they won't hold their fire just cause you're a republican atheist.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Silicon
"If you don't like the government, get out!"


Jeez I wish some of the more strident righties would have taken that advice during the Clinton years, instead of blowing up abortion clinics and day care centers in Federal buildings.



Wow, Silicon, we agree on something. Additionally, I think most would consider muslim terrorists and their sympathisers right wing nut jobs as well. Well, their stated cause is right wing anyway. I doubt many voted for Bush though.

[fsol]

Blimey, Daily Mail via Little Green Footballs. Who'd of thunk it?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by fsol
Blimey, Daily Mail via Little Green Footballs.

That's almost exactly what I said! I didn't say Blimey. I used the F word.

[Ed]

and a turn from the idiocy that is multi culturalism.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by WildCat
They could start w/ George Galloway (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60554), and those who vote for him.

Or, as IraqtheModel refers to him, George Gallawi :D

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/08/its-sign.html

[Skeptic]

We could have a cool drinking game now: one shot every time he is called a "Racist" by one of the forum's usual gang of idiots, two for every mention of "islamophobia", three for calling him "insensitive", etc.

Trouble is, we'll all be drunk very quickly.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Skeptic
We could have a cool drinking game now: one shot every time he is called a "Racist" by one of the forum's usual gang of idiots, two for every mention of "islamophobia", three for calling him "insensitive", etc.

Trouble is, we'll all be drunk very quickly.
That's ok, I like to drink. It could be a weekend thing, which would have to start on Thursdays (US time) to accomodate our Aussie posters.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Silicon
"If you don't like the government, get out!"


I think the conservative's quote was "country" not "government". Which is a quite important distinction.

If you request citizenship you should be prepared to give some loyalty to that country. It is now your country, regardless of where your folks came from. I tend o view these things as a bit of a social contract - you spport the country, the country supports you.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ed
and a turn from the idiocy that is multi culturalism.

Yeah, lets get rid of pizza, lasagna, Christmas trees, Jews, rock music, Chinese food, Guinness beer, the Easter bunny, hookah pipes, Mexican food, hamburgers, The printing press, the statue of liberty, Asians, the theory of relativity, Catholics, eastern Europeans, st. Patrick’s day, Heineken, the theory of evolution tacos, Valentine's day, Thanksgiving and Santa Claus. In fact, lets get rid of any and every invention, technological development, idea, and creation not made by an American WASP. That'll show ‘em.

All we need is Ford, Chevy, Budweiser, NASCAR, Skoal and white outfits with pointy-head coverings. Ohh, God Bless America. :rolleyes:

[Tony]

Originally posted by Giz
I think the conservative's quote was "country" not "government". Which is a quite important distinction.


Actually, when there is a person in power the conservatives like "country" means government. When there is someone in power they don't like "country" means country.

If you request citizenship you should be prepared to give some loyalty to that country. It is now your country, regardless of where your folks came from. I tend o view these things as a bit of a social contract - you spport the country, the country supports you.

I tend to agree, but what about native born citizens? I, personally, have absolutely no loyalty to the government. If DC was getting bombed, I wouldn't lift a finger. However, I have extreme loyalty to the ideas this country was founded upon (freedom of thought and religion, individual rights, justice and equality). What's a patriot to do? Should I leave my country since I don't have loyalty to the government?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Mr Howarth is a perfect example of why the Conservatives have gone from being the "natural" party of government to a shambolic, ineffective, unelectable opposition.

What is "our way of life" that I have to sign up to or be thrown out of the country?

What if my way of life is different from his way of life? Do I throw him out or vice versa?

Exactly where are we going to send the British born people that we kick out to?

Maybe "our way of life" is to tolerate dissent and not resort to the introduction of thought crimes and suppression of free speech. If so, then it is clear Mr Howarth does not like our way of life. I assume he will throw himself out of the country shortly.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tony
Yeah, lets get rid of pizza, lasagna, Christmas trees, Jews, rock music, Chinese food, Guinness beer, the Easter bunny, hookah pipes, Mexican food, hamburgers, The printing press, the statue of liberty, Asians, the theory of relativity, Catholics, eastern Europeans, st. Patrick’s day, Heineken, the theory of evolution tacos, Valentine's day, Thanksgiving and Santa Claus. In fact, lets get rid of any and every invention, technological development, idea, and creation not made by an American WASP. That'll show ‘em.

All we need is Ford, Chevy, Budweiser, NASCAR, Skoal and white outfits with pointy-head coverings. Ohh, God Bless America. :rolleyes:

How silly. "Cultural diversity" is a feel good concept that promotes tribalism and that serves no useful purpose except to create nations within nations. How could that, with any kind of twisted logic, benefit a nation?

You are confusing the nature and progress of assimilation with cultural silos. In point of fact, the things you mention are precisely the result of a melting pot mindset. Glad you agree.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ed
How silly. "Cultural diversity" is a feel good concept that promotes tribalism and that serves no useful purpose except to create nations within nations. How could that, with any kind of twisted logic, benefit a nation?

So I can assume you're going to do your duty to the nation and accept the majority religion, the majority worldview and the majority values?

Hey everybody, it looks like Ed is advocating that we all convert to Christianity. After all, we don't want tribalism do we? We can't have all those pesky atheists, agnostics, deists, Jews and Buddhists messing things up and creating a state of "tribalism", can we?

Ed's mindset is just another manifestation of PCism.

You are confusing the nature and progress of assimilation with cultural silos.

No I'm not. I'm saying that "cultural silos" don't last forever.

In point of fact, the things you mention are precisely the result of a melting pot mindset.

Exactly, which is what multiculturalism is in the long run. But apparently, you're too myopic to understand that.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Tony

No I'm not. I'm saying that "cultural silos" don't last forever.



Exactly, which is what multiculturalism is in the long run. But apparently, you're too myopic to understand that.


I think the truth is a bit of both.

Let's face it, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

On one hand, it's idiocy to demand and enforce the conformity of all immigrant groups to the norm. Not going to happen, and you'll get a backlash anyway.

On the other hand, it's lunacy to neglect divisions in ones on society, because eventually someone's gonna toss a bomb or a molotov. Subways being suicide bombed by BRITISH NATIVES is prima facia evidence that there is a problem, and these divisions DON'T just sort out in the long run.


I'll say you're both right, at the same time you're both myopic and wrong if you don't each see that neither is the absolute correct answer.

[Hutch]

Well, I was going to start another thread, but this one seems to encompass the subject so I'll amend it by adding this link (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/08/05/london.bombings.blair/index.html)

It appears that even Mr. Blair is putting his toe in the "Love it or Leave it" camp:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced new measures to deport and exclude from UK for those advocating hatred and violence.

And in terms of the discussion of multi-culturalism vis-a-vis assimilation also occurring on this thread, Mr. Blair noted:

"We will establish, with the Muslim community, a commission to advise on how, consistent with people's complete freedom to worship in the way they want, and to follow their own religion and culture, there is better integration of those parts of the community presently inadequately integrated," Blair said.

Thats all from me for the moment. Press on.

[Beerina]

Ok, quit mincing words. How about "You preach that the West is evil and decadent, and needs to be overturned for a religious state, get the hell out."?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tony
So I can assume you're going to do your duty to the nation and accept the majority religion, the majority worldview and the majority values?

Certain values really should be considered mandatory for immigrants and even for native-born citizens. Such values include not blowing yourself up in order to kill your fellow citizens. Now, it SHOULD go without saying that minority communities should be required to adopt "majority values" such as this. And for the most part, immingrants and minority communities do accept these basic values.

But as has become abundantly clear, this acceptance of what most people (probably you included, though you might not have thought of it in those terms) would consider mandatory values is not universally accepted. This is not OK. The larger British community has every right to demand some baseline level of acceptable behavior and values, and if you don't accept that baseline, why ARE you living in the country?

You have phrased the issue in terms of what are, really, quite secondary issues. I couldn't care less what religion someone is, what kind of food they like, etc. But if they do not hold human life as precious, if they think that random slaughter is a divine act, I'm sorry, but I have no problem with casting such a person out from the society I live in. Do you REALLY feel otherwise?

I suspect that what you're really trying to do is protect a word, "multiculturalism", which probably doesn't mean exactly the same thing to you that it does to some of the other posters. So let's drop the word, and get to the basics. There are some people who take the position that all cultural values are equally valid and deserve equal respect and protection. That is a fatally flawed idea, and it must be discarded. There are values and beliefs that we should not, MUST not, accept or tolerate, such as the idea of jihad that the london bombers evidently believed in. That, ultimately, is what the debate is about. Not fallafals vs. hamburgers, or any of the other trivia that people so often focus on.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Certain values really should be considered mandatory for immigrants and even for native-born citizens. Such values include not blowing yourself up in order to kill your fellow citizens. Now, it SHOULD go without saying that minority communities should be required to adopt "majority values" such as this.

"Such as this"? Such as what? If you mean "not blowing yourself up in order to kill your fellow citizens", I agree.

But as has become abundantly clear, this acceptance of what most people (probably you included, though you might not have thought of it in those terms) would consider mandatory values is not universally accepted. This is not OK. The larger British community has every right to demand some baseline level of acceptable behavior and values, and if you don't accept that baseline, why ARE you living in the country?

Again, I agree. I'll even go one step further and say that (atleast in america) immigrants and native borns should accept the "live and let live" nature of American values.

You have phrased the issue in terms of what are, really, quite secondary issues. I couldn't care less what religion someone is, what kind of food they like, etc.

But that's multiculturalism, and that is what Ed brought up. He said nothing about blowing people up or the lack of respect for human life.

But if they do not hold human life as precious, if they think that random slaughter is a divine act, I'm sorry, but I have no problem with casting such a person out from the society I live in. Do you REALLY feel otherwise?

Absolutely not. I agree, but this issue is separate from the idea of multiculturalism.

I suspect that what you're really trying to do is protect a word, "multiculturalism", which probably doesn't mean exactly the same thing to you that it does to some of the other posters. So let's drop the word, and get to the basics.

I didn't bring up the word but ok.

There are some people who take the position that all cultural values are equally valid and deserve equal respect and protection.

I'm not one of them. I take the position that some cultural values are superior to others.

That is a fatally flawed idea, and it must be discarded. There are values and beliefs that we should not, MUST not, accept or tolerate, such as the idea of jihad that the london bombers evidently believed in.

What about the idea of war altogether? It doesn't seem much different than the london bomber's idea of jihad. Sure, the tactics are different, but it's still war. It's still perpetrating violence on others in the attempt to get what you want.

Should we tolerate a president, politicians and citizens that believe in war? Why or why not?

That, ultimately, is what the debate is about. Not fallafals vs. hamburgers, or any of the other trivia that people so often focus on.

I agree. Obviously, Ed does not. He thinks that burritos, Spanish speakers, and other evil manifestations of multiculturalism are dangerous to the American way of life

[Tony]

Originally posted by Beerina
Ok, quit mincing words. How about "You preach that the West is evil and decadent, and needs to be overturned for a religious state, get the hell out."?

I agree, problem is, I doubt people are going to apply that evenly. There are many, maybe more, on the christian right to which the above statement would apply. Are we going to deport Jerry Fallwell & Pat Robertson?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tony
"Such as this"? Such as what? If you mean "not blowing yourself up in order to kill your fellow citizens", I agree.


Yes, that's precisely the value I was refering to.

What about the idea of war altogether? It doesn't seem much different than the london bomber's idea of jihad. Sure, the tactics are different, but it's still war. It's still perpetrating violence on others in the attempt to get what you want.

This, I think, is the only serious disagreement between the two of us so far.

The putative goals of jihad (restoring the caliphate and converting the world to a radical version of Islam) are themselves unacceptable to me. You and I seem to disagree strongly about the Iraq war, but I doubt that you object to Iraq becoming democratic and peaceful. So while we disagree about tactics (you may think the cost was too high, and the chances of success too low), my goals in supporting the war are probably not actually incompatible with your values, and your reasons for opposing it aren't completely at odds with mine. But I'd wager both of our values are incompatible with the very goals, not merely the tactics, of jihadi terrorism.

Furthermore, I do not think jihad is simply a different tactic. Jihad is not just war. It is, in the minds of modern adherents like Al Quaeda, both a means AND an end. I do not think you can ignore the fact that they believe that dying while engaging in jihad guaratees them entrance to paradise as well as the ability to intercede on judgment day on behalf of their friends and family. The very act of blowing themselve up, in their view, accomplishes something that CANNOT be achieved by other means. Even if they could establish their dreamed-of caliphate just as easily through non-violent means, jihad would still be preferable.

I agree. Obviously, Ed does not. He thinks that burritos, Spanish speakers, and other evil manifestations of multiculturalism are dangerous to the American way of life

No, I don't think so. Rather, I think Ed is working with a definition of the word "multiculturalism" that you probably don't agree with. Your argument is probably more semantic than substantive. I suggest giving Ed the benefit of the doubt, and actually ask for explicit clarification if you suspect he really feels that way. If he does, I'll come up with some inventive insults to hurl in his direction right along side you, but I think you're reading too much into his words.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Yes, that's precisely the value I was refering to.


Aiight.

The putative goals of jihad (restoring the caliphate and converting the world to a radical version of Islam) are themselves unacceptable to me.

Me too.

You and I seem to disagree strongly about the Iraq war,

I initially agreed with some of it's stated (although minor) goals of bringing freedom to Iraq. But that has proved to be a royal pooch-screw and it's apprent that this administration doesn't want freedom here, so why would it want it in Iraq? It's also turning into one of the biggest boondoggles of the past 20 years.

but I doubt that you object to Iraq becoming democratic and peaceful.

Absolutely not, but at this point, it's a pipe dream.

But I'd wager both of our values are incompatible with the very goals, not merely the tactics, of jihadi terrorism.

True, but does that really matter? We don't find the idea of an Islamic (or Christian) state desirable, many, many others do. How can we expect and demand them to not use violence and force to get what they want when we do it ourselves?

Don't get my wrong, I agree that force and violence is necessary in the face of tyranny and to defend freedom, but that is clearly not the situation right now. The vast majority of war hawks and "support our troops" parrots fundamentally dislike the idea any freedom that doesn't conform to their religious and cultural notions. For an example, look no further than the opposition to gay marriage


Furthermore, I do not think jihad is simply a different tactic. Jihad is not just war. It is, in the minds of modern adherents like Al Quaeda, both a means AND an end. I do not think you can ignore the fact that they believe that dying while engaging in jihad guaratees them entrance to paradise as well as the ability to intercede on judgment day on behalf of their friends and family.

I don't ignore it, I just don’t think it's any different from other types of propaganda used to give soldiers a reason/incentive to fight. Theirs just happens to be an especially sick kind.

The very act of blowing themselve up, in their view, accomplishes something that CANNOT be achieved by other means. Even if they could establish their dreamed-of caliphate just as easily through non-violent means, jihad would still be preferable.

Yes it's sick; such is the nature of war, especially when fanatical religion plays a big role. But it's still war, and it's been that way throughout human history. The fact that we've been largely exposed to a sanitized version doesn't change that.

No, I don't think so. Rather, I think Ed is working with a definition of the word "multiculturalism" that you probably don't agree with. Your argument is probably more semantic than substantive. I suggest giving Ed the benefit of the doubt, and actually ask for explicit clarification if you suspect he really feels that way. If he does, I'll come up with some inventive insults to hurl in his direction right along side you, but I think you're reading too much into his words.

Ok Ed. What are you talking about when you say "multiculturalism"?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tony
True, but does that really matter? We don't find the idea of an Islamic (or Christian) state desirable, many, many others do. How can we expect and demand them to not use violence and force to get what they want when we do it ourselves?

You cannot expect anyone, anywhere, to ever forswear violence under all possible circumstances. That is a fantasy. But it's not about the simple use of violence. It's about whether these radicals can use or even simply advocate violence against a host country while enjoying the protections of that country. It has long been the case that such behavior was tolerated. But tolerance of those who would kill you is suicidal, and people are beginning to wake up to the fact that this is really what they had been tolerating for so long.

So the demand isn't simply about violence vs. nonviolence. I think a better way to phrase the question is what society do they want to be a part of? If they want to live in western societies, they must become part of those societies. Which doesn't mean giving up fallafals for hamburgers, but it does mean adopting those basic, unnegotiable values. If they do not adopt these values, then they are not part of western society, and western societies have no reason to tolerate their presence. Regardless of whether such people feel justified or motivated by our foreign policy, regardless of whether what we're doing abroad is right or wrong, they still pose a threat that we have no reason to tolerate. So we can argue about the rights and wrongs of the iraq invasion till the cows come home, but we had all better start agreeing that the immam down the street preaching death to the kufir should be deported now.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tony
So I can assume you're going to do your duty to the nation and accept the majority religion, the majority worldview and the majority values?

Hey everybody, it looks like Ed is advocating that we all convert to Christianity. After all, we don't want tribalism do we? We can't have all those pesky atheists, agnostics, deists, Jews and Buddhists messing things up and creating a state of "tribalism", can we?

Ed's mindset is just another manifestation of PCism.



The mind wobbles at the logical errors.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tony

I agree. Obviously, Ed does not. He thinks that burritos, Spanish speakers, and other evil manifestations of multiculturalism are dangerous to the American way of life

You are kidding, right?

I think that it is dangerous to have people maintaining loyalties across generations to a foreign country. I thibk that it is dangerous for generations of people to maintain an exclusionist mentality. I think that it is dangerous for the government to not activly encourage a common language for all citizens. Who the hell cares about burritos? Is that what you worry about with large and troublesome issues, your stomach?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tony
Ok Ed. What are you talking about when you say "multiculturalism"?

How mature. Hurl silly insults and then find out if you know what you were talking about.

Multiculturism, in the way I take exception to it, is simply the mindset that encourages people to maintain various aspects of the culture that they left to the exclusion of those of the place where they end up. Clearly, I am talking about substantive issues.

Since you skim and don't read I will repeat that: Clearly, I am talking about substantive issues.

I am concerned about maintaining native languages at the expense of english, in the case of immegrants to the US. That builds tribes, mistrust, lack of communication and an economic underclass. I am concerned about cultural/religious beliefs and customs that are abbhorant to civilized people. Forced marriages, wackey blood oaths, religious teaching that is antithetical to our law. I also have a big problem with the notion that an immigrant might have allegience to the country of their origen over the country that they moved to.

Bottom line is that we do not need to encourage a second (or third or fourth) nation within our borders. In fact, that is suicidal.

You seem to think that the only issue is food. Well, I think that we are the better for our burritos but that is a vanishingly small concern.

[WildCat]

FWIW, every Mexican (born in Mexico) I have ever known says that they don't even have burritos in Mexico proper. It's strictly an American thing, so really burritos are American! :p