Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abraham
For much of the influence of this fundamentalism Europeand themselves are to blame. A majority of Europeans have no convictions, no beliefs anymore, no sense of cultural heritage and find it a show of progress to insult or belittle people that hold Christian or traditional values.
Then all of the sudden they are facing a growing group of people with strong religious and cultural values, who find a moral vacuum and are happy to fill it... What has European society to offer to them, or to resist them with, as far as values are concerned?
|
True. And as an American, I have put an end to the criticism of my country's (by and large) overt christian furvor, as such cultural sentiment, although extreemly annoying, may well be the US's saving grace after all. |
I admit that in recent weeks and months I started to give some - reluctant
- credit to that argument. That does not mean I like bush any more than before. I feel like the Romulans in DS9 who unwillingly had to join the alliance against the dominion.
With regard to Abraham, I know what he means, but find the formulation misleading, a bit. That's as if one would say it was the Polish's mistake that Hitler attacked them. But like with the Nazis back then, the source of today's dangerous situation is the evil philosophy of that old beduin's criminal mind, not the targetted victim's. It is not the infidel's mistake that they oppose his violent ambitions back then, and today. Our mistake is that we make it too easy for his followers to bring their forces into position. But we did not trigger the aggressiveness of Islam, not did we design it. We had nothing to do with it's creation. And that's why we also have no obligation to accept responsebility for Islam's appearance at all.
I also would not talk of Islam as a relgiion. It unites it'S "religous" aspects with policy-making, communal control, economy, social aspects. That way it escapes the description of beeing a religon only, that shall be proetcted by our laws for free religious practicing.
Quote:
|
We give Muslims in the West a “general confidence”, by that we are willing in to give their legal and political system freedoms in which to develop, in other words: by tolerating Sharia, we allow the creation of an autonomous legal system inside our own societies with it’s own judicial system. We do that, because Islam claims the right of free religion. What Islam does not say is that it does not differ between sociological, political, economical and religious levels. But the Western concept of freedom to practice religions is basing on the separation between religion and state. So, our constitutions in which the freedom to practice religions is anchored, are completely defenceless against Islam’s way to abuse this weakness. (...) A system of laws that includes criterions that make it possible for a foreign tradition of laws to infiltrate and to overcome or destroy it from within, has no real means of defence against such a hostile aggressor, and it necessarily must alienate itself from the cultural traditions by which it had formed up and changed throughout history. It’s like an organism that gets infected by a hostile virus against whom the immune system has not developed anti-genes, because it never had to deal with this virus before – this leaves the organism defenceless, and the virus invades single cells and takes them over to breed more virus cells. ("The dialogue that never was")
|