Ayaan Hirsi Ali's cancelled speech

[Michael Hardner]

MAC please reread my post.

[WestCoastRunner]

So I'm responsible for people too ignorant to understand that a generalization does not imply totality? I don't think so!

I think my communications are more than adequate to convey ideas. If certain types are eager to perceive a different intent they'll find a way to be offended, no matter what care I take.

If I'm ignorant and eager to perceive a different intent then perhaps you should better communicate that statement again. I consider my reading and comprehension skills pretty good so if I misinterpreted what you were trying to convey, than many others would as well.

The point I was trying to make is that statements such as you made, only add fuel to the fire of prejudice against religions. This is why I posted the link about the boy getting kicked off a bus because the driver perceived him to be a terrorist. He was 11 years old. Your statement is repeated many times over in society, not just on this forum resulting in misinterpretation and prejudice against 11 year old boys and others.

[Guest]

If I'm ignorant and eager to perceive a different intent then perhaps you should better communicate that statement again. I consider my reading and comprehension skills pretty good so if I misinterpreted what you were trying to convey, than many others would as well.

The point I was trying to make is that statements such as you made, only add fuel to the fire of prejudice against religions. This is why I posted the link about the boy getting kicked off a bus because the driver perceived him to be a terrorist. He was 11 years old. Your statement is repeated many times over in society, not just on this forum resulting in misinterpretation and prejudice against 11 year old boys and others.

But does one keep quiet and turn a blind eye to barbaric behaviour in the name of religion to avoid such things?

Is it better to wear self imposed blinkers in order to prevent idiotic bus drivers from having an excuse to act on their prejudices, or expose medieval religious practices occurring in the 21st century in the hope of somehow helping those who suffer the most from them?

[WestCoastRunner]

But does one keep quiet and turn a blind eye to barbaric behaviour in the name of religion to avoid such things?

Is it better to wear self imposed blinkers in order to prevent idiotic bus drivers from having an excuse to act on their prejudices, or expose medieval religious practices occurring in the 21st century in the hope of somehow helping those who suffer the most from them?

Displaying such blatant prejudice to an 11 year old boy is not the answer.

[Guest]

Displaying such blatant prejudice to an 11 year old boy is not the answer.

That's not at all what I said. It's not what I asked. In fact, I think I made your point as strongly as you did.

Still, what do you think of the practice of exposing egregious behaviour by religious people? Any religious people.

[WestCoastRunner]

That's not at all what I said. It's not what I asked. In fact, I think I made your point as strongly as you did.

Still, what do you think of the practice of exposing egregious behaviour by religious people? Any religious people.

Of course I don't agree with egregious behaviour by religious people. I have no problem exposing these behaviours. We have plenty of it here on the west coast. You were asking an either/or question.

(Is it better to wear self imposed blinkers in order to prevent idiotic bus drivers from having an excuse to act on their prejudices, or expose medieval religious practices occurring in the 21st century in the hope of somehow helping those who suffer the most from them?)

[Guest]

Of course I don't agree with egregious behaviour by religious people. I have no problem exposing these behaviours. We have plenty of it here on the west coast. You were asking an either/or question.

(Is it better to wear self imposed blinkers in order to prevent idiotic bus drivers from having an excuse to act on their prejudices, or expose medieval religious practices occurring in the 21st century in the hope of somehow helping those who suffer the most from them?)

Yes, in response to the "fuel to the fire" statement you made.

I personally think: Damn the fire.

Edited April 22, 2014 by bcsapper

[cybercoma]

But does one keep quiet and turn a blind eye to barbaric behaviour in the name of religion to avoid such things?

Is it better to wear self imposed blinkers in order to prevent idiotic bus drivers from having an excuse to act on their prejudices, or expose medieval religious practices occurring in the 21st century in the hope of somehow helping those who suffer the most from them?

there's a difference between speaking out against specifics and saying "Muslims" generally. Of course barbarism should be criticized. Saying Muslims generally is insulting to those who have nothing to do with it and live peaceful lives.

[Guest]

there's a difference between speaking out against specifics and saying "Muslims" generally. Of course barbarism should be criticized. Saying Muslims generally is insulting to those who have nothing to do with it and live peaceful lives.

Sure, but I think with over a billion Muslims on the planet, it's kind of taken as read that when one talks of sectarian violence, one is talking of those who are planting the bomb. When one talks of blasphemy laws, it's Pakistan that is the focus. Likewise with other aspects of the religion. (Even a small percentage of a billion is a lot, and there is so much to speak out against.)

[WestCoastRunner]

Sure, but I think with over a billion Muslims on the planet, it's kind of taken as read that when one talks of sectarian violence, one is talking of those who are planting the bomb. When one talks of blasphemy laws, it's Pakistan that is the focus. Likewise with other aspects of the religion. (Even a small percentage of a billion is a lot, and there is so much to speak out against.)

I live in Canada, I don't live in Pakistan. When a Canadian speaks about Muslims, they need to consider canadian muslims and the impact of their remarks on fellow canadians.

[Guest]

I live in Canada, I don't live in Pakistan. When a Canadian speaks about Muslims, they need to consider canadian muslims and the impact of their remarks on fellow canadians.

How exactly? I refer you to my post some while back regarding blinkers.

Are you simply suggesting that in all discussions of religious intolerance the religious in question be referred to as "some", or by nationality, or another identifying factor?

Or are you suggesting we refrain from bringing it up to avoid giving offence?

Edited April 22, 2014 by bcsapper

[WestCoastRunner]

How exactly? I refer you to my post some while back regarding blinkers.

Are you simply suggesting that in all discussions of religious intolerance the religious in question be referred to a "some", or by nationality, or another identifying factor?

Or are you suggesting we refrain from bringing it up to avoid giving offence?

I believe I was speaking to Argus's comments about large groups of Muslims being terrorists. We have large groups of Muslims in Canada. Are they terrorists?

[Guest]

I believe I was speaking to Argus's comments about large groups of Muslims being terrorists. We have large groups of Muslims in Canada. Are they terrorists?

I don't know about all of them. Some are though. Or were. Didn't they plan on cutting Stephen Harper's head off? (going from memory, here)

[Rue]

1. I totally agree with every word Argus said.

2. I totally agree with AC's last comment.

3. I support and applaud Ms. Ali for having the courage and balls to challenge Muslim extremists.

4. In regards to West Coast's last comments, West I am serious when I make this response: you are lucky you live in a country where you assume because someone is 11 they can not be a terrorist. I came across a boy of 6 carrying a nail bomb and he tripped carrying it and only a miracle prevented it from going off and maybe killing him and others. In most of the world 11 is not so young. You might want to look around at how many soldiers there are younger than 11 and just how old terrorists are. West, children younger than 11, children or people with Down's syndrome, severely retarded people, very old people, cripples, pregnant woman, they are all fair game in delivering terrorist attacks. Now you may be sure the bus driver was a racist-me I do not know what he was thinking-maybe he was-all I know is I have travelled enough to know 11, 15, 18, 25 age is meaningless in some parts of the world. You just can't tell and do not know who has become possessed by the righteousness of violence.

[Rue]

Cyber I do get your point as well. I actually once engaged JBG in a debate on that point but in retrospect I wish could have stated myself as AC just did to him. I think its possible to criticize Islamic extremism without stereotyping innocent Muslims as out ChrAC stated. We probably will disagree on Argus' position but I agree with it but I also concede to you that hating all Muslims or trying to justify hating them all because of extremist Muslims is illogical and as stupid as doing he same thing about Hindus, Siekhs, Christians, Jews, etc.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Rue

[cybercoma]

Sure, but I think with over a billion Muslims on the planet, it's kind of taken as read that when one talks of sectarian violence, one is talking of those who are planting the bomb. When one talks of blasphemy laws, it's Pakistan that is the focus. Likewise with other aspects of the religion. (Even a small percentage of a billion is a lot, and there is so much to speak out against.)

I take your point, but I think we could all be a little more specific about what we're criticizing. A lot of times it comes off as just a rant against religion generally, saying that the religion is the source of violence. Intelligence agencies around the world have found that not to be the case. Religion is an excuse to advance often times violent political ends.

[Michael Hardner]

Religion is an excuse to advance often times violent political ends.

Yes, Al Quaida wants power - they want a state. If religion will help them achieve that, then they will behave like all powers and exploit religion as a means to their ends.

[Argus]

The point I was trying to make is that statements such as you made, only add fuel to the fire of prejudice against religions.

I think, as per Dennis Miller, that you misunderstand the term 'prejudice'. It means to 'pre judge'. If I'm pointing out the flaws, faults and problems to society from a given religion which I have observed I'm not prejudging them, I'm judging them If others look at these, and use their own observation, they too are judging that religion. There is no prejudice involved.

Now if you presume your judgement with regard to the overall religion can be ascribed to a given individual, then that would be prejudice. And yes, some dumb people, like bus drivers, can do that, and always have, and always will. But I don't see why that should cause me to limit my own freedom of speech.

Tell me, do you think drawing this story to people's attention might cause prejudice?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/21/muslim-morality-squads-accused-of-confiscating-students-easter-eggs-in-u-k/

Edited April 22, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

there's a difference between speaking out against specifics and saying "Muslims" generally. Of course barbarism should be criticized. Saying Muslims generally is insulting to those who have nothing to do with it and live peaceful lives.

I disagree. Generalities are just that. All adults should understand a generality does not always apply. Canadians are hockey mad! Well, a lot are. Certainly hockey plays a major role in our culture, but not all of us actually care much about hockey. I'm pretty sure this is well-understood.

Muslims have a view of homosexuals which makes southern Texas Baptists seem like raving liberals. Generalization? Sure. True? Yeah.

Are all Muslims anti-homosexual? Nope. But still.

Muslims aren't much into gender equality. Generalization. Sure. Wrong? Not so much.

[Argus]

I live in Canada, I don't live in Pakistan. When a Canadian speaks about Muslims, they need to consider canadian muslims and the impact of their remarks on fellow canadians.

Most Canadian Muslims, the vast majority, come from the same cultures which we would be condemning in talking about "Muslims" as a whole. That is why, as I said earlier, despite the majority condemning Al Quaeda, a substantial portion does not. That is why another substantial portion feels it would be a great thing for us to amend our laws to make them more in line with Sharia.

[Argus]

I don't know about all of them. Some are though. Or were. Didn't they plan on cutting Stephen Harper's head off? (going from memory, here)

It's a minority, certainly, who sympathize with Muslim terrorism, but a much larger group which agrees with the aims of those terrorists.

But even a minority of a million people is still a lot. In a survey of Muslim Canadian attitudes, 3% stated full support for Al Qaeda, which works out to 30,000 Canadian Muslims who support Al Qaeda.

[Argus]

Yes, Al Quaida wants power - they want a state. If religion will help them achieve that, then they will behave like all powers and exploit religion as a means to their ends.

This is spurious nonsense. To suggest Al-Qaeda is merely using religion as an excuse for actual political aims is something totally unsupported by anyone I've ever read or seen who discusses the group.

Al-Qaeda wants the destruction of the West and a world ISLAMIC state ruled by ISLAMIC law and according to ISLAMIC principals. This is a fairly popular view among world muslims. In some countries half the population wants an Islamic state. The idea of a world wide Islamic state is Icalled the Caliphate, a world-wide Islamic state. And even in Canada, substial numbers of Muslims (about 10%) like the idea.

[Michael Hardner]

This is spurious nonsense. To suggest Al-Qaeda is merely using religion as an excuse for actual political aims is something totally unsupported by anyone I've ever read or seen who discusses the group.

I read the idea in a book by Gwynne Dyer, or perhaps it was just a column.

Al-Qaeda wants the destruction of the West and a world ISLAMIC state ruled by ISLAMIC law and according to ISLAMIC principals.

Ok. But... isn't this goal furthered by having a state, explaining why they're involved in uprisings everywhere ?

[bleeding heart]

I disagree that we can divorce religious fanaticism from politics generally.

I mean, move away from the Muslims for a moment: does anyone think the terrible violence being perpetrated by Christians in Africa--some of which has a distinctly religious flavor to it--is all about religion, and nothing about anything else? I don't believe it for a second.

[-TSS-]

The very fact that in the 21st century millions of people are still driven by medieval superstitious claptrap is enough to make you feel depressed about the future.