White Muslims?
04 Aug 2005, 1:10 pm
ascan wrote:
Going back to Tom's original post, about white people wearing Muslim dress, and widening that a little to include all people wearing Muslim dress in the UK. I think it's fair to say that some people, indeed in certain areas many people, see that as provocative. Of course Vetivert may accuse me of talking about something I don't understand, but that, unfortunately, is something I do; from speaking to white working class people whose communities have been literally taken from them by immigrants who much of the time can't even speak English.
Of course, it's their legal right to wear Muslim dress, as it is to speak whatever language they choose, but to many people those things are a statement of defiance: a kind of "this is our country now, so go get f***". In a way, like when the Orangemen march down Shankhill road: it's their right, but also seen as an overt political statement. OK, there are many differences between the two situations, granted; but, there's enough similarity to demonstrate the point.
Looking at the last example, the problem to a greater extent is perception, and the misunderstandings that Vetivert has stated exist due to ignorance; but, that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem — a big one — and that Muslims have as much responsibility (perhaps more) than the rest of us to ensure that now we're all in this bloody mess together that we can get on. And if that means they dress a little like the rest of us, and speak our language, then that's what they should do.
Of course, it's their legal right to wear Muslim dress, as it is to speak whatever language they choose, but to many people those things are a statement of defiance: a kind of "this is our country now, so go get f***". In a way, like when the Orangemen march down Shankhill road: it's their right, but also seen as an overt political statement. OK, there are many differences between the two situations, granted; but, there's enough similarity to demonstrate the point.
Looking at the last example, the problem to a greater extent is perception, and the misunderstandings that Vetivert has stated exist due to ignorance; but, that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem — a big one — and that Muslims have as much responsibility (perhaps more) than the rest of us to ensure that now we're all in this bloody mess together that we can get on. And if that means they dress a little like the rest of us, and speak our language, then that's what they should do.
The British Empire - one of the nastiest, most brutally oppressive and ruthlessly executed events in world history. It's so ironic: one of everybody's favourite cliches about Islam is that 'it was spread by the sword'. Apart from that generally not being true what about the spread of British culture and trade around the entire world in the 18th and 19th centuries? that was done by the gun, the cannon, by torture and rape, by slavery and exploitation, by what would these days be called genocide and included the invention of what would these days be called concentration camps. How glorious. I think that puts 'communities literally being taken away from them' in some kind of perspective. So what huh? it's all in the past. True but the past informs the present and that's the roots of how these people came to be living here at this time.
If we're talking collective responsibility we have to look at why the country welcomed the first waves of immigration from the sub-continent in the 1950s as there weren't enough people to drive our buses and clean our hospitals and do lots of other stuff we didn't want to do. I don't suppose those people were told they had to surrender their cultural identity when they arrived and they had to make the best of the racism and harassment they encountered every day and just get on with it. Hardly surprising they wanted to live together and hardly surprising they wanted to retain their customs, clothing and language. Wouldn't you if were living in an expat community somewhere abroad? especially somewhere hostile and unwelcoming, where you were given the worst jobs and the worst housing?
And now to be accused of being 'provocative', of making a gesture of defiance simply by wearing the clothes they choose to wear. I've no doubt some people do take a sense of pride from being seen to be Muslims but I don't begrudge them that and I don't know why Muslims should have 'perhaps more' responsibility to create a harmonious society. I'm sure the Pakistani community (because I think that's really who we're talking about here) could make more effort to build bridges but so could 'we', whoever 'we' actually are.
And the thing about the Orange parades is far too different, in my opinion, to have any value whatsoever as a comparison but let's not start on Northern Ireland hey?
and if you think racism is not alive and well in Britain today I saw a documentary a few weeks ago where an Asian guy filled in some job application forms, I think he was in the city or something, like an accountant or such, a fairly high professional satus thing anyway, and he did a batch with his real name which was something Arabic, and a batch with exactly the same details but with a fake English name and he got hardly any interviews using his real name and loads with the fake name.
anyway, I'm not here to fight the corner for Asian communities it's just what's come up
_________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
Long afloat on shipless oceans,
I did all my best to smile...
-----------------------------------------------------------
04 Aug 2005, 2:53 pm
All very well, but at the end of the day your Muslim friends are in the minority, this is a white Northern European Christian country. You cannot expect 50 or so million people to change their way of life for a few million relative newcomers. It is perfectly reasonable to expect Muslim immigrants to do the adjusting. It is perfectly reasonable to expect them to speak English, and to make some adjustment to their life style in order to not offend those whose families have lived here for centuries. That means, for example, not parading about head to foot in black linen. It means not kicking up a bloody fuss because some bright spark decides to use the word pig or pork on the front of his premises next to a Mosque. If I went to a Muslim country, I'd expect to obey their laws, and behave in a manner that didn't offend. Why shouldn't they do the same here?
I accept that many have lived here for generations, but I don't buy the oft-expounded liberal theory of them being victims. Many, if not most, haven't done too badly here. Even if they've not been employed, they've received all the benefits of our welfare state — what have they got to complain about?
rumio wrote:
and if you think racism is not alive and well in Britain today I saw a documentary a few weeks ago where an Asian guy filled in some job application forms, I think he was in the city or something, like an accountant or such, a fairly high professional satus thing anyway, and he did a batch with his real name which was something Arabic, and a batch with exactly the same details but with a fake English name and he got hardly any interviews using his real name and loads with the fake name.
Yes, there's racism in Britain, yes there's sexism and all the other -isms you can think of. Where there are people, you'll always find them. You'll never change that, and it cuts both ways: plenty of whites are the victims of race crime. What is important, though, is that racism is not a part of the legal system or political process; that's as much as you can ask. Come to think of it, I probably know as much about prejudice as any ethnic minority — if you've got AS it's par for the course — but, I accept that's how things are, and get on the best I can.
To be honest, I'll tell you the most likely reason why people were reluctant to employ that guy: it's too bloody risky! The do-gooders have created a situation where a person from an ethnic minority can make a claim of discrimination, with little or no evidence, and the legal system comes down on the employer like a ton of bricks. You know what? I wouldn't employ one. I wouldn't fancy living in a cardboard box after the legal profession had had their fill, because I accidently phrased something in a way that offended.
And, what gave you the idea it was Pakistanis who were the issue? The issue is with all immigrants who don't make an effort to assimilate: black, white, Africans, Slovaks whatever. It just happens that those from Islamic countries pose the biggest threat, at present.
You know, I reckon the majority of Muslims here in the UK speak good English, dress as we do, and are, to my way of thinking, more welcome than some of the white thugs you find hanging around any city centre. It's a great shame that a vociferous, politically motivated minority obsessed with "rights" and claiming to speak for them, has to mess things up.
Fogman
Veteran
Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont
04 Aug 2005, 4:17 pm
Thirty Years ago, the town that I come from was predominately white. twenty five years ago, the Government started to resettle refugees from Southeast Asia. There were a few minor scuffles between the Vietnamese and the Cambodians, but pretty much nothing out of the ordinary happened. They were soon followed by refugees from Afghanistan. No real issues there either. More people from these countries arrived, as well as a few from Iran and Poland. Hardly any issues, though some of them did dress a bit strangely.
In the early 90's, Ethiopians started to arrive en masse, as well as a few people from the carribean. As communism fell, people started coming from to Maine from the Eastern Bloc countries, most notably Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria, and Romania. Yet more Ethiopians arrived. Then the Somali's started to arrive as well as a few Kurds from Iraq, Iran, and Turkey.
When Yugoslavia disintegrated, a lot of refugees Bosnian refugees also came to Maine, from BOTH sides of the conflict, and there were no real issues within their communities, or with the greater community either.
The most recent wave of refugees in Maine are primarily from The Sudan. Nearly all of them are black, and they are both Christian and Muslim. No real issues there either. Also, people have been coming to Maine from Central and South America as well.
There are no real issues at all. Sure, some people in their communities might be sleazy, and get arreste for numerous things, but guess what? Like most other people, Most of the people who wound up being resettled in Maine are no more or less prone to violence and crime than anybody else.
So what if some of them dress a little strangely? Or have tribal scars all over their faces? If I went back there tomorrow, I could:
Have breakfast at the Somali Restaurant
Eat lunch at any number of excellent Thai restaurants
Take either Muy Thai, or Capoeira lessons
Eat Roasted Camel over rice.
None of the above would have been doable back in 1975.
04 Aug 2005, 4:35 pm
do you know, i can see everyone's point in all of the above posts, which is why i'm not going to reply to any of them, specifically.
this is what real debate is about, though - isn't it? about one p.o.v, and then another, etc., etc.,
the only thing i will say is to reiterate my comments somewhere or other (i think it mayhave been on the N. Ireland thread) that the issue is far too complex for easy definition (let alone "answers"), and there are more than just two p.o.v.s, and that the more we talk about it, the more we understand.
08 Aug 2005, 5:51 pm
eamonn wrote:
The wests "campaign against Islam" is on the mild scale compared to a lot of muslim countries were it is ileagal to build a christian or jewish place of worship and in fact being jewish and living in one of theses places is a serious risk on your life.
Islam had to be one of the most civilized religions going. They rescued the ancient Greeks from obscurity, they didn't charge in and destroy civilizations to make their point, their science and maths were streets ahead of those shackled by the christian outlook. As usual though someone comes up with newer "better" versions and the whole thing gets tainted. Muslims in general are far more tolerant of westerners than we are of them. I really don't like it when whole nations and the many different strands of the Muslim faith (or any other for that matter) are lumped together and judged by the most disagreeable aspect that can be thought of.
As to Fogmans post above, consider your back patted, in a non-patronising manner. It's great when you can meet, talk to and compare cuisine, etc with people from different areas.
08 Aug 2005, 7:33 pm
jb814 wrote:
eamonn wrote:
The wests "campaign against Islam" is on the mild scale compared to a lot of muslim countries were it is ileagal to build a christian or jewish place of worship and in fact being jewish and living in one of theses places is a serious risk on your life.
Islam had to be one of the most civilized religions going. They rescued the ancient Greeks from obscurity, they didn't charge in and destroy civilizations to make their point, their science and maths were streets ahead of those shackled by the christian outlook. As usual though someone comes up with newer "better" versions and the whole thing gets tainted. Muslims in general are far more tolerant of westerners than we are of them. I really don't like it when whole nations and the many different strands of the Muslim faith (or any other for that matter) are lumped together and judged by the most disagreeable aspect that can be thought of.
As to Fogmans post above, consider your back patted, in a non-patronising manner. It's great when you can meet, talk to and compare cuisine, etc with people from different areas.
If muslims in general are more tolerant in general than us of them then why dont you try and build a christian church or have an alcoholic drink in Saudi Arabia and see how far you get. As far as i know western countries in general are more tolerant of different races and beliefs than most muslim countries thats one reason why millions of muslims have flocked to the west (many of them to flee persecution) and not the other way round.
09 Aug 2005, 1:46 am
ghotistix wrote:
I've been pretty chilly toward Islam ever since its leader condemned Salman Rushdie to death for writing a novel. But that's just me and my wild ideas.
and it was an pretty appalling read, from what i've heard...
anyway - i still maintain that we shouldn't let the extremists represent everyone. and, if a religion (or any belief system) is strong enough, it can take a knock or two.
of course, one thing which occurs to me is the passion - if one is absolutely whole-hearted about one's beliefs, then one defends them utterly. i can't see many ordinary members of the CoE leaping up to defend it, as there is little passion there. i am not condoning fatwas, naturally (no surprise there). and by "passion", i do NOT mean mindless following of dogma. there's a balance in there, somewhere.
so, i don't think it's a wild idea, ghotistix, but i don't condemn all muslims for the actions of some.
09 Aug 2005, 12:13 pm
there's lots of points going on here
ghotistix wrote:
I've been pretty chilly toward Islam ever since its leader condemned Salman Rushdie to death for writing a novel. But that's just me and my wild ideas.
it's absolutely impossible to talk in terms of there being one leader of Islam and the guy you're referring to was only leader of what is numerically a very small percentage of Muslims ie the Iranian shia muslims. Shi'ites are a tiny minority amongst the world population of Muslims, of whom the vast majority are Sunni.
eamonn wrote:
If muslims in general are more tolerant in general than us of them then why dont you try and build a christian church or have an alcoholic drink in Saudi Arabia and see how far you get. As far as i know western countries in general are more tolerant of different races and beliefs than most muslim countries thats one reason why millions of muslims have flocked to the west (many of them to flee persecution) and not the other way round.
I posted back at the start of the thread I think about wahabbism, which is a mutated form of Islam backed for political and economic reasons by the extremely rich and powerful Saudi royal family. It is very intolerant and harsh but actually doesn't represent the traditional spirit of Islam at all. (there is currently a process of demolition going on in Mecca and Medina - one of the most important world heritage sites there could possibly be has already been largely destroyed by the Saudis who are now building huge hotels and shopping complexes to take money off the millions of pilgrims who go there to fulfil their religious duties. Buildings dating from the time of the Prophet himself have been razed to the ground by these people who call themselves muslims).
Anyway, that's by the by. The point being that Islam is an extremely diverse phenomenon but it's so much easier for everyone to keep seeing it as 'Islam' as though its some kind of monolithic entity and not go beyond that.
But come to that, why should you expect to be able to get an alcoholic drink as a matter of right? If you want to drink alcohol, go somewhere else. I don't have a problem with that.
and as to why 'millions of muslims have flocked to the West' - how long have we got?
when I started investigating Islam and actually started spending time talking to Muslims, especially from the Arab world, one thing that really surprised me was what they had to say about the regimes they came from. I know people who literally had to leave their homes and run for it because the security forces were coming for them. I'm talking about places like Libya and Egypt. And the reason they were coming for them was that they were Muslims. Ironic huh? Islam in arab countries is very similar to the position of Christianity in the west ie most people don't practice it and in some places if you do make efforts to practice it properly that doesn't go down well with the government. The reason being that most of the governments of the middle east are corrupt and tyrannical and are only concerned with power and wealth and, as I've posted elsewhere were put in place to some extent or another by Britain - all their top military people were trained at Sandhurst and they all have links to the British Royal family in one way or another. basically the whole thing is aimed at maintaining the status quo for the benefit of the west and people who genuinely practice Islam are seen as a threat to that power base, which goes back to the original stance of Prophet Muhammad who was opposed to the war-mongering tribal leaders of his time.
Anyway,
jb814 wrote:
Islam had to be one of the most civilized religions going. They rescued the ancient Greeks from obscurity, they didn't charge in and destroy civilizations to make their point, their science and maths were streets ahead of those shackled by the christian outlook. As usual though someone comes up with newer "better" versions and the whole thing gets tainted. Muslims in general are far more tolerant of westerners than we are of them. I really don't like it when whole nations and the many different strands of the Muslim faith (or any other for that matter) are lumped together and judged by the most disagreeable aspect that can be thought of.
like your style mate
but I'm too tired and hungry to carry on with this now
_________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
Long afloat on shipless oceans,
I did all my best to smile...
-----------------------------------------------------------
09 Aug 2005, 1:50 pm
eamonn wrote:
If muslims in general are more tolerant in general than us of them then why dont you try and build a christian church or have an alcoholic drink in Saudi Arabia and see how far you get. As far as i know western countries in general are more tolerant of different races and beliefs than most muslim countries thats one reason why millions of muslims have flocked to the west (many of them to flee persecution) and not the other way round.
Well, I was thinking more historically. These days economics have a lot to do with it. Have you noticed that many of the most objectionable countries are those supported by the west? There are Churches all over the Muslim world and yes Saudi Arabia will make life hell if you want a drink outside designated areas. If it was so difficult to drink, worship and generally act as though we owned the world in muslim countries, then the tourist industry would collapse. Many of these places don't make a big thing of being Muslim, as in my experience most Muslims will not make an issue of it unlike many christians. Persecution of Islam going back a couple of hundred years, the way we take their resources for little return, etc and our wonderful training schemes (CIA wasn't it) for the likes of Mr Bin Laden have more to do with our current situation than the teachings of Islam. In my opinion.
09 Aug 2005, 1:54 pm
rumio wrote:
there's lots of points going on here
it's absolutely impossible to talk in terms of there being one leader of Islam and the guy you're referring to was only leader of what is numerically a very small percentage of Muslims ie the Iranian shia muslims. Shi'ites are a tiny minority amongst the world population of Muslims, of whom the vast majority are Sunni.
I posted back at the start of the thread I think about wahabbism, which is a mutated form of Islam backed for political and economic reasons by the extremely rich and powerful Saudi royal family. It is very intolerant and harsh but actually doesn't represent the traditional spirit of Islam at all. (there is currently a process of demolition going on in Mecca and Medina - one of the most important world heritage sites there could possibly be has already been largely destroyed by the Saudis who are now building huge hotels and shopping complexes to take money off the millions of pilgrims who go there to fulfil their religious duties. Buildings dating from the time of the Prophet himself have been razed to the ground by these people who call themselves muslims).
Anyway, that's by the by. The point being that Islam is an extremely diverse phenomenon but it's so much easier for everyone to keep seeing it as 'Islam' as though its some kind of monolithic entity and not go beyond that.
But come to that, why should you expect to be able to get an alcoholic drink as a matter of right? If you want to drink alcohol, go somewhere else. I don't have a problem with that.
and as to why 'millions of muslims have flocked to the West' - how long have we got?
when I started investigating Islam and actually started spending time talking to Muslims, especially from the Arab world, one thing that really surprised me was what they had to say about the regimes they came from. I know people who literally had to leave their homes and run for it because the security forces were coming for them. I'm talking about places like Libya and Egypt. And the reason they were coming for them was that they were Muslims. Ironic huh? Islam in arab countries is very similar to the position of Christianity in the west ie most people don't practice it and in some places if you do make efforts to practice it properly that doesn't go down well with the government. The reason being that most of the governments of the middle east are corrupt and tyrannical and are only concerned with power and wealth and, as I've posted elsewhere were put in place to some extent or another by Britain - all their top military people were trained at Sandhurst and they all have links to the British Royal family in one way or another. basically the whole thing is aimed at maintaining the status quo for the benefit of the west and people who genuinely practice Islam are seen as a threat to that power base, which goes back to the original stance of Prophet Muhammad who was opposed to the war-mongering tribal leaders of his time.
Anyway,
Islam had to be one of the most civilized religions going. They rescued the ancient Greeks from obscurity, they didn't charge in and destroy civilizations to make their point, their science and maths were streets ahead of those shackled by the christian outlook. As usual though someone comes up with newer "better" versions and the whole thing gets tainted. Muslims in general are far more tolerant of westerners than we are of them. I really don't like it when whole nations and the many different strands of the Muslim faith (or any other for that matter) are lumped together and judged by the most disagreeable aspect that can be thought of.
like your style mate
but I'm too tired and hungry to carry on with this now
ghotistix wrote:
I've been pretty chilly toward Islam ever since its leader condemned Salman Rushdie to death for writing a novel. But that's just me and my wild ideas.
it's absolutely impossible to talk in terms of there being one leader of Islam and the guy you're referring to was only leader of what is numerically a very small percentage of Muslims ie the Iranian shia muslims. Shi'ites are a tiny minority amongst the world population of Muslims, of whom the vast majority are Sunni.
eamonn wrote:
If muslims in general are more tolerant in general than us of them then why dont you try and build a christian church or have an alcoholic drink in Saudi Arabia and see how far you get. As far as i know western countries in general are more tolerant of different races and beliefs than most muslim countries thats one reason why millions of muslims have flocked to the west (many of them to flee persecution) and not the other way round.
I posted back at the start of the thread I think about wahabbism, which is a mutated form of Islam backed for political and economic reasons by the extremely rich and powerful Saudi royal family. It is very intolerant and harsh but actually doesn't represent the traditional spirit of Islam at all. (there is currently a process of demolition going on in Mecca and Medina - one of the most important world heritage sites there could possibly be has already been largely destroyed by the Saudis who are now building huge hotels and shopping complexes to take money off the millions of pilgrims who go there to fulfil their religious duties. Buildings dating from the time of the Prophet himself have been razed to the ground by these people who call themselves muslims).
Anyway, that's by the by. The point being that Islam is an extremely diverse phenomenon but it's so much easier for everyone to keep seeing it as 'Islam' as though its some kind of monolithic entity and not go beyond that.
But come to that, why should you expect to be able to get an alcoholic drink as a matter of right? If you want to drink alcohol, go somewhere else. I don't have a problem with that.
and as to why 'millions of muslims have flocked to the West' - how long have we got?
when I started investigating Islam and actually started spending time talking to Muslims, especially from the Arab world, one thing that really surprised me was what they had to say about the regimes they came from. I know people who literally had to leave their homes and run for it because the security forces were coming for them. I'm talking about places like Libya and Egypt. And the reason they were coming for them was that they were Muslims. Ironic huh? Islam in arab countries is very similar to the position of Christianity in the west ie most people don't practice it and in some places if you do make efforts to practice it properly that doesn't go down well with the government. The reason being that most of the governments of the middle east are corrupt and tyrannical and are only concerned with power and wealth and, as I've posted elsewhere were put in place to some extent or another by Britain - all their top military people were trained at Sandhurst and they all have links to the British Royal family in one way or another. basically the whole thing is aimed at maintaining the status quo for the benefit of the west and people who genuinely practice Islam are seen as a threat to that power base, which goes back to the original stance of Prophet Muhammad who was opposed to the war-mongering tribal leaders of his time.
Anyway,
jb814 wrote:
Islam had to be one of the most civilized religions going. They rescued the ancient Greeks from obscurity, they didn't charge in and destroy civilizations to make their point, their science and maths were streets ahead of those shackled by the christian outlook. As usual though someone comes up with newer "better" versions and the whole thing gets tainted. Muslims in general are far more tolerant of westerners than we are of them. I really don't like it when whole nations and the many different strands of the Muslim faith (or any other for that matter) are lumped together and judged by the most disagreeable aspect that can be thought of.
like your style mate
but I'm too tired and hungry to carry on with this now
Oh i see. Agree with everyone who complains about the west and christianity and disagree with anyone who has complaints about Islam. Tolerance is a two way street. You have tried to make out it was the USA that ordered 9/11. When are you going to learn that extremism breeds extremism from the other side.
09 Aug 2005, 1:59 pm
jb814 wrote:
eamonn wrote:
If muslims in general are more tolerant in general than us of them then why dont you try and build a christian church or have an alcoholic drink in Saudi Arabia and see how far you get. As far as i know western countries in general are more tolerant of different races and beliefs than most muslim countries thats one reason why millions of muslims have flocked to the west (many of them to flee persecution) and not the other way round.
Well, I was thinking more historically. These days economics have a lot to do with it. Have you noticed that many of the most objectionable countries are those supported by the west? There are Churches all over the Muslim world and yes Saudi Arabia will make life hell if you want a drink outside designated areas. If it was so difficult to drink, worship and generally act as though we owned the world in muslim countries, then the tourist industry would collapse. Many of these places don't make a big thing of being Muslim, as in my experience most Muslims will not make an issue of it unlike many christians. Persecution of Islam going back a couple of hundred years, the way we take their resources for little return, etc and our wonderful training schemes (CIA wasn't it) for the likes of Mr Bin Laden have more to do with our current situation than the teachings of Islam. In my opinion.
I didnt say that bin laden is a true reflection of Islam. All i am saying is that the west is generally the most tolerant place in the world of religions imo.
09 Aug 2005, 2:30 pm
Tolerance is a two way street, I frequently compare the way news is reported in Asia and the same stories here and its often difficult to realise that they cover the same topic. I'm certainly not having a go at you, I just happen to think that with the information "issued" to us its a bit difficult to be impartial. I have trust problems and so I need to find out what the "other" side thinks rather than just accept what I'm told.
The problem here is that the "other" side everyone here is angry at is an illusion, exactly as "the west" that the extremist portrays is an illusion. I don't blame Christianity, although I do blame individual christians and economic imperialism for the way things are.
Even now with a hardliner elected democratically in Iran and the promise of closer ties between Iraq and Iran the press here are still trying to say what a wonderful "victory" this will be in the end. It's a sick world and there are faults on all sides. I'm not going to jump into one camp just for the sake of it, or, because Blair outlaws opinions sympathetic to any particular way of thinking.
P.S. is the practice of listening to the opinion of others still legal in our tolerant society?
P.P.S. can we have some examples of Islam causing the sorts of problems that christianity caused when entering the Americas? As important can we hold modern day christians responsible for the blinkered way their ancestors acted?
Last edited by jb814 on 09 Aug 2005, 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
09 Aug 2005, 2:36 pm
jb814 wrote:
I have trust problems and so I need to find out what the "other" side thinks rather than just accept what I'm told.
P.S. is the practice of listening to the opinion of others still legal in our tolerant society?
P.S. is the practice of listening to the opinion of others still legal in our tolerant society?
well said, jb814. but then, i doubt anyone will fall to the floor in shock at my agreement, as i've posted the same thing often enough.
i personally have a slight problem with the word "tolerance", as to me, it suggests "i will tolerate you/your belief", which sounds a bit superior to me. i prefer to go for "understanding", so that i understand another person's beliefs, without necessarily agreeing with them.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| White Women for Harris breaks world record for zoom call |
28 Jul 2024, 5:27 pm |
| Black and white thinking and "doubt-mongering" |
10 Oct 2024, 4:01 am |
