Muslim education in Britain

[Michael Hardner]

Just a point of clarification please. Bob said, "heritage of cultural identity" and you paraphrased it as "ridiculous cultural baggage." Do you consider the cultural understanding that Bob has gained from his Jewish heritage - including the familial experiences of the Jewish Diaspora prior to and during WWII - as "ridiculous... baggage?"

No, I don't. I do categorize all of it as a group like that, though.

Kinda like - I respect individual religions, but not religions as a group.

[Bob]

???

Nor for you.

You mentioned "Canadian identity," and suggested that it might be very important for me.

I responded.

And now I'm "decid[ing]" what parts of identity are important for others?

I don't disagree with any of this, at all. Our only real argument is that you seem to be stressing the differences, whereas I'm stressing the similarities. That's it.

You haven't answered my question; and to be frank, I anticipated precisely this response.

I asked you exactly what are our profound differences as a result of our different histories and cultural legacies.

Your answer? that our histories and legacies are different.

So again: I know that. Obviously. It's not even debatable; it's as if you're asserting the sky is blue, perceiving some disagreement from me. I'm not asking what are the differences in historical background, or if they exist; I'm asking what are the "profound" and "fundamental" differences in human beings that have resulted from this historical background.

I mean, we've already established that we both hold to principles of liberty, democracy, and basic human rights. I'm sure we both agree that Jews aren't the hateful and absurd stereotypes that have been used to justify their oppression and attempted extermination; and that gentiles aren't a raving bunch of anti-semites who want you dead. We probably both agree that radical Islamist terrorism is a horrible thing; and that opposing it is good for our Muslim brothers and sisters, not only us; that Israel has a right to exist, and that the Palestinians do too.

That moral courage is good, bravery and compassion and intelligence are fine things....

I still have no idea what "profound" differences between us have been engendered by the differences in our ancestral histories.

When a person is deemde a psychopath, the label is arrived at through (related) defining attributes: monumental self-centredness, lack of compassion, difficulty in seeing other human beings as subjects as well as objects. (Most of us perceive others as both subjects and objects, depending on the circumstances.)

To wilfully torture a person demands a lack of compassion and empathy, and demands the perception be limited to person as object. In fact, a psychopath like Son of Sam, who murdered strangers via gunshot, could do so with less compassion/empathy deficit than a person who tortures another.

It's about the lowest a human being can go, to torture and to support torture; this used to be fairly well-understood in our culture. Sadly, perhaps because we have a sense of real servility to power coupled with blind patriotism and an unhealthy bigotry, torture is now sometimes discussed as if it is a sane debate over policy (or utterly trivial, liberal hand-wringing) rather than an attempt to omit the human conscience from our actions.

Most of us are not psychopaths, of course; that's why torture-defenders will always present hypotheticals that never happen, hypotheticals like the "ticking bomb" theory [sic] even after it's been totally discredited. Similarly, there are milita men who fantasize about shooting people...so they feel compelled to dress this up as Bravely Battling Big Government and so on. But the shooting people is the thing, little boys playing war with real guns.

In other words, psychopathy is not something that can be easily distinguished: "this is a psychopath, everyone else isn't." Rather, it's a spectrum. Everyone's not a psychopath, but most or all people can behave psychopathically.

Nazi Germany, alone, should tell us this much. Or Rwanda. I'm not convinced of the starkness of the distinction.

You and I may well be (though it's not certain). But it is too abstract, because there are plenty of distinctions in how peope feel about each of these matters. Lots of grey areas, which can sometimes lead to pretty big differences in opinion on these "shared values."

A person can produce the conventional pieties about "liberty"...and simultaneously complain about suspected terrorists having any rights, as if suspect is dark enough to dispose of principles of liberty altogether. Others will disagree. So thsoe who share a belief in liberty...maybe don't really share it.

But how does this apply in a larger context? I think you are saying that, for example, "the West" supports and cherishes freedom and democracy, while many cultures and countries don't. But it's not so clear. Say, for example, some Muslim students in Iran are angry at the Democracy-loving West...because the West openly and materially aided the secular dictator--at the expense of the existing democratic movements. (This is not a hypothetical, but an historical truth.) Further, they might argue, not without merit, that the secular dictatorship led through circumstance to the theocratic one.

Talking about our love of democracy would make them collapse with laughter, and rightfully so.

2004, the illegal overthrow of the democratically-elected Aristide. And the justifications (totally unproven), that he was a thug and a nascent dictator, are not credible, since his replacement has been objectively less democratic, by any standard. (And that's beside the point: shattering sovereignty, overthrowing an elected president who enjoyed greater public support than our leaders are accustomed to, and replacing him with someone of our choosing--is by definition a direct opposition to democratic principles. Outright, brazen.)

The idea was that "we" (meaning Canadians, Americans, et al) love liberty and democracy. That's not perfectly clear.

Yes, that's where the conversation started--after which I immediately pointed out that I overgeneralized; and then clearly said that there are differences...but that they're insignificant in comparison to our likenesses. Not insignificant in and of themselves; that doesn't make sense anyway, since "insignificance" demands a comparison by definition.

We're more alike than different. All this discussion comes down to this assertion I'm making.

I'm going to try to bring this conversation back to its core, as we've clearly gone off on too many tangents. Let me elaborate on my initial contention that people often have important differences between one another as a result of their distinct cultural identities. Many people don't have a strong sense of cultural identity, and I think they're often confused by this concept.

To elaborate a little on my Jewish identity, I feel connected to a broader collective of people - the Jewish people. I feel that I am part of something bigger than myself, and that I've inherited a particular history and have a role to play in a particular future. I have a spiritual, emotional, and moral connection to our history, from our emancipation from Egypt to our suffering of the Holocaust. I am quite sure that my experience when visiting the Holocaust Museum in Washington or Yad Vashem in Jerusalem is different from that of non-Jews. Although not exclusive to Jews, I know that a particular focus on education was instilled in me from my parents that is connected to pressures put on previous generations of Jewish people. That's not to say that there aren't other groups and individuals who strongly emphasize higher education, but there's a distinct Jewish focus on academics that's unique. I have a unique sensitivity to anti-semitism and all other forms of unjust prejudice resulting from a personal connection to these evils. I observe, to a certain degree, a religion that is very different from other religions. This religion (as well as the collective history of the Jewish people), to a point, also contributes to my political, personal, academic, and professional values. I know that many of the things I've listed above are broad in nature, but I use broad terms specifically because there is a lot of flexibility and variation in how Judaism affects me and other Jews in all facets of our lives. I simply cannot even begin to tackle the endless nuances in a discussion forum. The bottom line is, we're not all the same. When you say you don't view us as different, but perhaps you should. We're different, and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that. The other bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with these differences and alongside them, are many core values that unite Jews and non-Jews in free countries.

[Bob]

Not at all. But differences that come out of the here & now can be resolved. Differences that happened between our ancestors can't, really.

Why do you think that shedding this ridiculous cultural baggage is part of an unrealistic quest to rid the world of conflict ? Not my view, anyway.

Why do differences need to be resolved? Conflicts and disputes need to be resolved, but differences? What is wrong with differences between various groups of people (either cultural, religious, ethnic, etc)? Isn't the primary virtue of Canada that we are free to express our differences without fear of discrimination?

Don't you see how condescending it is to describe a culture's history and collective memory as "ridiculous cultural baggage"? These experiences, for better and worse, help shape cultures into their distinct identities. I'd like to tell me if you believe that distinct identities are contributing factors towards conflict. In other words, do you hope for a future world where cultural identities are diminished or even completely erased, and that we all be united simply as humanity and not as member of subcategories? Do you hope to live in a world that is post-identity/post-nationalist?

[Bob]

No, I don't. I do categorize all of it as a group like that, though.

Kinda like - I respect individual religions, but not religions as a group.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. That second sentence seem contradictory to me. It doesn't make sense to me.

[Oleg Bach]

The Muslims that I know like me fine. Please don't get involved.

Some Muslims will like you and others will hate you - It all depends on what they are taught in the home by their parents..some will teach their kids that we are filthy dog loving infidels and others will teach then that we are decended from the followers of Christ the great profit and are to be respected.

[Oleg Bach]

NEW Muslim immigrants that move into Toronto are displacing the white trash that inhabit the lowley projects. The perception that Muslims get of us is based in socio economics..if there first exposure to Canadians is not the cream of the crop..but white trash infidels then they will naturally get the impression that ALL Canadians are stupid Godless jerks...Let that Muslim arrive and reside in a more upscale neighbourhood...then the impression of Canadians will differ.

[bloodyminded]

I'm going to try to bring this conversation back to its core, as we've clearly gone off on too many tangents. Let me elaborate on my initial contention that people often have important differences between one another as a result of their distinct cultural identities. Many people don't have a strong sense of cultural identity, and I think they're often confused by this concept.

To elaborate a little on my Jewish identity, I feel connected to a broader collective of people - the Jewish people. I feel that I am part of something bigger than myself, and that I've inherited a particular history and have a role to play in a particular future. I have a spiritual, emotional, and moral connection to our history, from our emancipation from Egypt to our suffering of the Holocaust. I am quite sure that my experience when visiting the Holocaust Museum in Washington or Yad Vashem in Jerusalem is different from that of non-Jews. Although not exclusive to Jews, I know that a particular focus on education was instilled in me from my parents that is connected to pressures put on previous generations of Jewish people. That's not to say that there aren't other groups and individuals who strongly emphasize higher education, but there's a distinct Jewish focus on academics that's unique. I have a unique sensitivity to anti-semitism and all other forms of unjust prejudice resulting from a personal connection to these evils. I observe, to a certain degree, a religion that is very different from other religions. This religion (as well as the collective history of the Jewish people), to a point, also contributes to my political, personal, academic, and professional values. I know that many of the things I've listed above are broad in nature, but I use broad terms specifically because there is a lot of flexibility and variation in how Judaism affects me and other Jews in all facets of our lives. I simply cannot even begin to tackle the endless nuances in a discussion forum. The bottom line is, we're not all the same. When you say you don't view us as different, but perhaps you should. We're different, and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that. The other bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with these differences and alongside them, are many core values that unite Jews and non-Jews in free countries.

Well, it would appear we're rather talking past each other. If your cultural history has contributed to your political, personal, academic and professional values, that would seem to underline my argument, not undermine it.

Edited May 15, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

Well, it would appear we're rather talking past each other. If your cultural history has contributed to your political, personal, academic and professional values, that would seem to underline my argument, not undermine it.

That's not a bad way of putting it. The main message I wanted to convey is that there isn't anything wrong with acknowledging differences between us, which are often connected to our cultural/religious/ethnic backgrounds. There's nothing bad about differences. We shouldn't walk on eggshells when examining them, although of course this is easier said than done. These cultural/religious/ethnic differences are often important components of many of individuals, and it unites many members of particular groups on certain issues.

Let's take a contemporary political example, I think I read that 85%+ of Americans who identify themselves as "black" voted for Barack Obama. There's an example of a political issue upon which an overwhelming majority of a particular group was united. I'm certain the motivations behind this group's widespread support for Obama is at least in part connected to a shared sense of history and common experience among black people in the USA. That's quite a difference from other groups, and there's no problem in acknowledging it.

[bloodyminded]

That's not a bad way of putting it. The main message I wanted to convey is that there isn't anything wrong with acknowledging differences between us, which are often connected to our cultural/religious/ethnic backgrounds. There's nothing bad about differences. We shouldn't walk on eggshells when examining them, although of course this is easier said than done. These cultural/religious/ethnic differences are often important components of many of individuals, and it unites many members of particular groups on certain issues.

Let's take a contemporary political example, I think I read that 85%+ of Americans who identify themselves as "black" voted for Barack Obama. There's an example of a political issue upon which an overwhelming majority of a particular group was united. I'm certain the motivations behind this group's widespread support for Obama is at least in part connected to a shared sense of history and common experience among black people in the USA. That's quite a difference from other groups, and there's no problem in acknowledging it.

I agree with all this.

[Shady]

Why do differences need to be resolved? Conflicts and disputes need to be resolved, but differences? What is wrong with differences between various groups of people (either cultural, religious, ethnic, etc)?

Because sometimes cultural, religious and/or ethnic differences are illegal or immoral.

Isn't the primary virtue of Canada that we are free to express our differences without fear of discrimination?

No. Not necessarily.

[bloodyminded]

Because sometimes cultural, religious and/or ethnic differences are illegal or immoral.

Sure, but Bob wasn't talking about those differences.

[Michael Hardner]

Why do differences need to be resolved? Conflicts and disputes need to be resolved, but differences? What is wrong with differences between various groups of people (either cultural, religious, ethnic, etc)? Isn't the primary virtue of Canada that we are free to express our differences without fear of discrimination?

Why do differences need to be resolved ? Various reasons. Sometimes, for example, a dispute may involve on group with more power subjugating another group. Of perhaps the rest of the world is being affected by the dispute and wants a resolution.

What is wrong with differences ? Nothing. Sometimes they need to be resolved though.

Don't you see how condescending it is to describe a culture's history and collective memory as "ridiculous cultural baggage"? These experiences, for better and worse, help shape cultures into their distinct identities. I'd like to tell me if you believe that distinct identities are contributing factors towards conflict. In other words, do you hope for a future world where cultural identities are diminished or even completely erased, and that we all be united simply as humanity and not as member of subcategories? Do you hope to live in a world that is post-identity/post-nationalist?

I didn't apply that idea to a particular culture, though, nor am I applying it to one now. I am applying it to all of us, including my own. Shaping cultures is fine, but cultural identity is, to me, often a meaningless thing and gets in the way of healthy living.

Do distinct identity contribute to conflict ? Of course. Do I hope for a world where cultural identities are erased ? I don't have to hope for one - I firmly believe that cultural entropy exists. If you don't believe me, ask your Sumarian and Mesopotamian friends at coffee break.

Do I hope to live in a post-nationalist world ? I do live in one, at least the beginnings of one.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. That second sentence seem contradictory to me. It doesn't make sense to me.

My Jewish friends will tell me of their Cedar Supper. Very interesting, and I admire the cultural investment that it requires to keep a cohesive identity going, and I see the value of it. My Muslim friends will describe the feast they had at EID. Also very intriguing.

However much I appreciate the cultural ornamentation of religion and nationalistic culture, I recognize that these things are vestiges of the past and that all will wash away with time.

[Shwa]

My Jewish friends will tell me of their Cedar Supper. Very interesting, and I admire the cultural investment that it requires to keep a cohesive identity going, and I see the value of it. My Muslim friends will describe the feast they had at EID. Also very intriguing.

However much I appreciate the cultural ornamentation of religion and nationalistic culture, I recognize that these things are vestiges of the past and that all will wash away with time.

But "these things" don't wash away into nothingness, as your point about your Sumerian and Mesopotamian reveals; they grow and change into something else, built upon the former. The "cultural baggage" of ancient Sumer can be found in biblical writings.

The problem I see with your idealism is that it removes a significant factor from human lives - the fact that at our base we are story tellers whose stories are informed by our differences. Perhaps if we learn to speak and listen better to one another there is a better chance to resolve conflict.

That is, providing we want to resolve conflicts rather than profit from them.

[Michael Hardner]

But "these things" don't wash away into nothingness, as your point about your Sumerian and Mesopotamian reveals; they grow and change into something else, built upon the former. The "cultural baggage" of ancient Sumer can be found in biblical writings.

You are correct. This points to some kind of cultural evolution, perhaps.

The problem I see with your idealism is that it removes a significant factor from human lives - the fact that at our base we are story tellers whose stories are informed by our differences. Perhaps if we learn to speak and listen better to one another there is a better chance to resolve conflict.

What idealism ? As we've discussed with Sumeria - this is a process that is constantly happening. I'm no more idealistic than the person who says that world population will eventually level off; the trends are there for all to see and all signs point to it happening.

We are story tellers, and as you pointed out culture is constantly changing. I have met people who are proud of the suburban towns they came from... We are wired as cultural beings.

That is, providing we want to resolve conflicts rather than profit from them.

We will resolve conflicts, and new ones will come up. The important thing is that newer conflicts seem (to me, anyway - tell me if you disagree) to have smaller stakes, and more contemporary methods for resolution.

[Shwa]

What idealism ? As we've discussed with Sumeria - this is a process that is constantly happening. I'm no more idealistic than the person who says that world population will eventually level off; the trends are there for all to see and all signs point to it happening.

Idealistic in the above referenced by this:

Why do you think that shedding this ridiculous cultural baggage is part of an unrealistic quest to rid the world of conflict ? Not my view, anyway.

Now I don't equate idealistic with unrealistic, but even the person who says that the world population will eventually level off is a titch idealistic. Especially since that has certainly not been the trend over the past few thousands of years. So there is no sense in planning for it is there? I mean an earth with an equilibrium population with enough resources for everyone to have a decent standard of living would be... ideal.

We will resolve conflicts, and new ones will come up. The important thing is that newer conflicts seem (to me, anyway - tell me if you disagree) to have smaller stakes, and more contemporary methods for resolution.

Depends on what we mean by "smaller stakes." Are you referring to the totals in loss of life over a given period?

[Michael Hardner]

Especially since that has certainly not been the trend over the past few thousands of years. So there is no sense in planning for it is there? I mean an earth with an equilibrium population with enough resources for everyone to have a decent standard of living would be... ideal.

Actually, the models show that population growth is decelerating. That means the earth will level off in population.

Depends on what we mean by "smaller stakes." Are you referring to the totals in loss of life over a given period?

The US and Canada have disputed their borders in the past, as have Canada and Greenland. Compare that to Ireland/England or the Middle East conflicts. I say that newer conflicts tend to have shallower roots.

[Shwa]

Actually, the models show that population growth is decelerating. That means the earth will level off in population.

Source please. And the only reason I would want a source is to point out that if would be ideal for the model if the population actually levelled off. But I digress, this point is waaaay of topic where the your second point is not.

The US and Canada have disputed their borders in the past, as have Canada and Greenland. Compare that to Ireland/England or the Middle East conflicts. I say that newer conflicts tend to have shallower roots.

OK, well let's take this in terms of the OP. Do you think that the OP had 'smaller stakes' in mind when the post was constructed? (with dramatic, telling video no less! ) It seems to me that 'stakes' in this sense are more about the spreading of an ideology and the conflicts that arise from that spreading. It never fails to amuse that the open endedness of one ideology is used to advance the cause of a conflicting ideology. What appears to be at stake here is a call for the closing of the other end of human rights, religious freedom, freedom of expression, etc. No small stakes in my books, but a very complex conflict.

[Michael Hardner]

Source please. And the only reason I would want a source is to point out that if would be ideal for the model if the population actually levelled off. But I digress, this point is waaaay of topic where the your second point is not.

Since you said 'please'.... I gladly serve you this.... Here's the Wiki link wherein it states:

There is around an 85% chance that the world's population will stop growing before the end of the century.

Note that we're talking about THIS century. In other words, people are alive now that will see global population decline. Ask yourself why this piece of ostensibly good news isn't widely known. There's no conspiracy afoot, it's just that bad news travels quickly and good news doesn't travel at all sometimes.

OK, well let's take this in terms of the OP. Do you think that the OP had 'smaller stakes' in mind when the post was constructed? (with dramatic, telling video no less! ) It seems to me that 'stakes' in this sense are more about the spreading of an ideology and the conflicts that arise from that spreading. It never fails to amuse that the open endedness of one ideology is used to advance the cause of a conflicting ideology. What appears to be at stake here is a call for the closing of the other end of human rights, religious freedom, freedom of expression, etc. No small stakes in my books, but a very complex conflict.

A good friend of mine told me once that if you want religion to die, let it be practiced freely. The conflicts that come to us from countries with religious oppression are very old and rooted as much in ancient cultures as in religious structures IMO.

[Shwa]

Since you said 'please'.... I gladly serve you this.... Here's the Wiki link wherein it states:

There is around an 85% chance that the world's population will stop growing before the end of the century.

"...around an 85% chance..."

Those are promising odds. One could say ideal odds.

A good friend of mine told me once that if you want religion to die, let it be practiced freely. The conflicts that come to us from countries with religious oppression are very old and rooted as much in ancient cultures as in religious structures IMO.

OK, but break down what your good friend said and what you think "IMO."

The West, more or less, allows religion to be practiced freely, yet religion has not died and - as pointed out by the OP - it is actually growing in certain areas, Islam among them. So is all this cultural conflict simply the death throes of religion in the West?

But you then say that "conflicts come to us from countries with religious oppression" and then indicate that such conflicts are very old. Well if you allow the adherents to practice their religion "freely" that would include all the deep rooted structural conflict too would it not?

Or do you advocate something along the lines of allowing Judaism, but tone down the David-slaying-the-Philistine aspect because it causes conflicts with Philistines?

It would seem that allowing religion to be practiced freely is not as low-stakes as you want it.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Shwa

[Rue]

and many Jews refer to non jews disparagingly as Goy and arabs as animals, do all jews believe that? no...every nationality, ethnic group and religious sect group has it's wing nuts who believe they are superior to all others, we have a number of canadians on this forum who believe that as well...

Some of my best friends are goys Wyly but I don't understand that love affair with

white bread. Try a rye or a pumpernickel and just once use mustard instead of

mayonaisse. One last thing, when you have a bagel ( pronouce it bay-gill, not bah gull)

it should only be with cream cheese and lox, nothing else. Stop adding onions, capers,

lettuce, etc. That is ridiculous also you will most certainly go to hell if you

put ham and/or mayonaisse on a bagel.

I find these threads designed to incite fear or distrust in people self-explanatory.

Rational people will not stereotype all Muslims in a negative manner while others of

course will. The name of the group being stereotyped will change from Muslim to Arab to

jew to gay to black to what-ever but the exercise of negative stereotyping of the entire

group of people in the identified group will remain the same.

Unfortunately as psychologisst found out long ago, in the process of conceptualization we

take the matter around us that we perceive and label it to try make it meaningful.

Some of us have less ability to develop empathy and remain rigid and fixed in our

labelling processes.

There is probably little you or I can do to teach them how to be more empathic or how to

learn to flex their categories-its probably deeply engrained in them long before they

get to this forum and I would suspect while some of it was learned, some of it may

be genetic predisposition.

50% of people tested score below the average i.q.

[bloodyminded]

One last thing, when you have a bagel ( pronouce it bay-gill, not bah gull)

it should only be with cream cheese and lox, nothing else. Stop adding onions, capers,

lettuce, etc.

Yes, so true, and I thank you for this important advice. I didn't even know I liked bagels...until my girlfriend forced me to eat one with cream cheese and lox.

50% of people tested score below the average i.q.

Fair enough.

On the other hand, some people might argue that the world is run by intellectuals...and run quite badly.

Edited May 21, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

"...around an 85% chance..."

Those are promising odds. One could say ideal odds.

Maybe - but there you have it. I didn't look far for those stats and I have read many times before that population will stop growing this century.

So is all this cultural conflict simply the death throes of religion in the West?

Oh, I would say so. That's hard to prove though, and of course comparing religion today to 40 years ago is an "apples and oranges" comparison, i.e. comparing things that are different in more than one way.

But you then say that "conflicts come to us from countries with religious oppression" and then indicate that such conflicts are very old. Well if you allow the adherents to practice their religion "freely" that would include all the deep rooted structural conflict too would it not?

Sort of. Except that there isn't a cultural mosaic here, it's a melting pot and the cultural trappings of old will melt away in an environment that isn't currently pressed with them.

Or do you advocate something along the lines of allowing Judaism, but tone down the David-slaying-the-Philistine aspect because it causes conflicts with Philistines?

It would seem that allowing religion to be practiced freely is not as low-stakes as you want it.

Even a non-peaceful protest in Canada that involves the Palestinian/Israeli situation is tame compared to a demonstration in the region itself. Why is that ? Shouldn't there be riot police and bombs and rocks thrown here too ?

I don't know what the answer is to their conflicts - at best we can help them resolve it if they want to. As for us, our system continues to work well for us. Church and state are separate and religion (IMV) continues to exist in the background and not the foreground of day to day life.

[Michael Hardner]

Shwa, I also want to reiterate a point that I made, that I feel is important:

Ask yourself why this piece of ostensibly good news isn't widely known. There's no conspiracy afoot, it's just that bad news travels quickly and good news doesn't travel at all sometimes.

Start asking people if the population of the earth will be much higher in 100 years or lower and see what they say. I would guess that most will say higher. Why is that ? Why do we love doom ?