Controversial Muslim “parliament” Planned In Switzerland

That's fine, as long as they don't have a mandate to pass laws which courts would then have to enforce. If this side-Parliament will restrict its activities to what advocacy groups do, then by no means they can be denied a freedom of assembly.

 

It would have no political, judicial, legal or military impact. Such would not win voter approval. If this concept was a threat to the current government system, then it would be crushed from the left to the right. This "parliament" concept only has the chance of existing in the form of a club, and such seems to be its only intent.

 

Hey, anybody has the right to call themselves what ever they want. That's the beauty of freedom of expression. There was even a funky band once in the 70s called a Paliament which advocated space ships, and they never got harassed for mockery by NASA at their concert assemblies.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJvjWh2Vhu4&ob=av2n"]Parliament Funkadelic - Give Up The Funk - Mothership Connection Houston 1976 - YouTube[/ame]

 

I would expect that type of argument from a non native speaker of English. At least then there would be an excuse.

 

Wow, this seems to be going around. You're arguing that Muslims are a "race?" I guess by your rather broad definition, Americans are a "race" as well. I've never thought of them in such terms, but if you say so...

 

Come on Lil Mike. You seem like someone who is actually interested in ideas and of a different persuasion to me. Now we could try and understand each others position and debate it, or we could exchange rhetoric. Let me open with this. I think you made a good point on the US Healthcare system discussion. It got me thinking and I would appreciate a reply because I think I can learn from our discussion. But this post here is just silly. You are misrepresenting my position to score a cheap point.

I made the point that "races" don't really exist. The usage really covers "groups". Some people do indeed argue that when the British say something against the French they are being racist (calling them frogs for example). I think this is overstretching the word but to some people Gauls and saxons are a different race. Anti-Irish speech in Britain is also termed racist on the same basis.

I think this just illustrates the whole problematic use of the word. My argument was that the phenomenon of "anti-semitism", which people generally view as racism even though it excludes millions of semites called arabs, very strongly parallels the hate politics of islamophobes, who demonize muslims. So in the essential sense of the word, the way it is actually used, then it is racism. Whatever it is, if it parallels the hate politics of the Third Reich, most people would see it as evil. But too many prefer to argue about the word "racism" than the iniquitous neo-Nazism of islamophobes.

I also posted that I had a lot of problem as a secular liberal with the islamic religion.

 

You seem to assume that I will defend the racist actions of Uganda, Pakistan, India and China - many of these minorities as you call them (in the Indian subcontinent for example) being religious minorities (or muslims to make it simple in the case of India). You think we live in a world polarized between black and white? Of course the actions of these countries are racist. As a Brit I remember the Ugandan Asians particularly well.

Immigration policy is not racist though, not per se. As to a separate parliament these questions are always misrepresented by islamophobes as if the muslims are asking for some sort of State within a State. No European country woudl allow that. These are institutions that can only exist within the framework of the national law, which always over-rides these parliaments. Apart from the fact that golf clubs, chess clubs and mothers unions, have constitutions and rules which do not threaten to overthrow Western civilization, you might like to reflect that the Cathilic Church follows a highly developed and ancient system of Canon Law in administering its affairs which co-exists with systems of national law, and is subordinate to them when they clash, without the end of the world happening. Christian churches have conclaves, assembles and councils which are also parliaments in exactly the same way. It seems to me to make emminent good sense to encourage an islamic church which has structures and represents the mass of muslims rather than just cliques, so that these institutions can exert influence and also clearly communicate, both ways, between the islamic community and the rest of us. This to me seems like an excellent way of moderating the pernicious effect of extremism. Put it in a more cynical way. If you have a parliament you can actually see what muslims are up to and it is out in the open. That would probably be seen as a good thing by the head of the CIA, MI5 or Mossad, for example.

The opposite argument, that islam is ipso facto an evil religion that wants to send us all to Hell, is an islamophobic argument with strong parallels to those of the German Nazis in the 1930s. It demonizes one billion people and silences the voices within islam who call for reformation, moderation and an accommodation with modernity and liberal democracy.

 

Your argument, that races don't really exist, has a point to it, but in this case, it's purely a semantic one. In common usage, we understand what that term means, so to try to game the argument by coming up with your own definition of race (as you did in this post) looks to me as an attempt to derail the topic. Not that it's not a bad subject to discuss in it's own right, but you were simply trying to use it here in this thread to try to rescue "The Judge."

What you should know is The Judge is one of those anti-Semites (in the traditional usage of the term) who attempts to co-opt the term anti-Semite to refer to bigotry or prejudice against Arab peoples.

Like your race comment, it has a technical point about it that rings true, but the purpose of the usage here is to obfuscate.

In other words, there was some context to some of the posts here that you may not have been aware of.

 

If you read what I said carefully here http://www.politicalforum.com/1060964045-post43.html(maybe I didn't make the point clearly enough) you will see that I opened my point by clearly rebutting the Judge's assertion that anti-semitism included prejudice against arab peoples. I am clear that it does not (although I'm not sure it is anti-semitic to use this argument). But on the same basis, that meanings of words are loose and determined by usage, I argued that describing islamophobia as racism is as valid as describing prejudice against most other groups (such as Jews) as racism.

I wasn't bailing the Judge out at all. I actually share your view of the Judge's pedantry re the definition of anti-semitism. I have found myself using this term against real anti-semites from the Left, and found conservative thugs trying to derail me becuse they grunt...liberal...using the word anti-semite...let's attack muslims...grunt, and they try to derail my attacks on anti-semitism by attacking an assumed position on my part that I included arabs as the targets of anti-semitism. I say "anti-Jewish racism" now to avoid the semantic mess that this silly debate has caused (or "jewbaiting" which I find has a stronger polemical force). But you have to acknowledge that even though "anti-semitism" is anti-Jewish prejudice (according to the usage of the term, usage largely determining meaning), "semites" are both Jews and arabs and so the concept of the jews as a race is problematic. They are a cultural and religious entity, as are most "races". Muslims are also a cultural and religious entity, in very similar ways. And the extremism of the hatred of muslims resembles anti-semitism (that's anti-Jewish racism) very closely indeed.

The semantic pedants are those who defend islamophobia against charges of racism rather than condemn it as a stream of filthy prejudicial abuse.

 

Firstly I apologize...I think are are an interesting guy and I agree with the vast majority of your excellent posts. However, philosophically and politically I disagree with you on issues relating to foreign policy. My previous post was somewhat hurried, it was late and I was tired and therefore I didn't do myself justice.

I also feel as though I'm rushed because as I am aware there is a time limit for submitting text. This has been my experience in the past on this site whereby I have spent ages typing out well thought out arguments only for them to subsequently disappear into cyberspace. Have they improved this situation?

I would like to have a proper and civilized debate with you around this topic so maybe we can start afresh. Anyway, in adding to your well thought out post, I think that the arguments racists and Islamophobes use in their attempts to disguise their anti-muslim racism on the grounds that Islam isn't a race, is disengenuous given that the vast majority of the world's muslims are non-white so to speak.

In other words, religious and cultural differences are used as an alibi and cover for their racism. The pathetic thing is, is that they are too stupid to realize that we have them exposed for what they truelly are - vile and discusting racists.

 

This is incorrect. I don't hate any Semites (Jews or Arabs)

Websters defines anti-semitism as:

hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-semitism

You argue that it is not racist to hate Jews and you argue that I am anti-Semite since I don't hate any Jews. Your usage of the term "anti-semitism" is thus in full violation with its Websters definition even if the definition doesn't list all of the "anti" possibilities. Yet, you are not alone in misusing and abusing the definition of "anti-Semitism" and since many others share the same practice, more discussion is being made on establishing if it is still just for Websters to not list Arabs, who are also Semites, with the term:

Academics may redefine antisemitism
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/49177/academics-may-redefine-antisemitism

It just can't be that one uses the term "anti-Semite" to insult people who don't hate Jews while attacking Arabs or Muslims with racist hatred. The original usage of "anti-Semite" following WWII was to oppose racism, not to defend its practice. Your usage of anti-Semitism is obviously incorrect and in need of redefining.

 

I apply anti-Semitism against extreme generalizations made against Semites regardless if they are Jews or Arabs, while Lil Mike eagerly applies anti-Semitism against people who don't hate any Semites. Is not the meaning of the "anti" prefix "against"? One would think that you would be more concerned with Lil Mike's redefinition of anti-Semitism than with my opposition against racism.

When I was younger, I viewed the anti-Semite card as being a powerful weapon used to oppose racism. Later, I learned that it is often used to oppose the criticism of racism. If it is not supposed to be racist to hate Jews and if it is anti-Semite to not hate Jews, as Lil Mike suggests, then is the Websters definition justified? If Arabs are to be excluded from the term Semite in relation to the anti prefix, then many people need to stop using the anti-Semite card to insult people who don't hate Jews or in defense of people who hate Arabs. I simply view the situation for how it is, not for how some wish to argue that it should be.

Have it as it is, I'm not going to exclude Arabs from the term Semite while so much racist hatred is being expressed against Arabs or Muslims.

 

Kudos to you zulu. If more of us were prepared to apologize when we step over the mark - which we all do - then this forum would be a much better place. I reciprocate with an apology. Your tone might have been critical but I certainly took the "tone" thing at least one level higher, out of proportion to anything I was responding to. It wasn't helpful.

I agree with your above post. But you are accurate as diagnosing me as a Euston Manifesto type. Is that because you read me admitting this or is it just obvious from my posts? Just curious.

 

I prefer your dictionary definition to this. But what is Lil Mike's definition of anti-semitism? I missed that. I think the term has become so devalued (like fascist) I prefer not to use it, although (like fascist) it has a definite meaning.

 

This is very annoying indeed. It spoils your whole day doesn't it?

You need to check the box when you sign in so it doesn't kick you out. But if I do a long post I always just copy it to clipboard and if the post fails I can then paste it to a Word document (or any Microsoft application like Notes) before I sign back in.

 

Lil Mike claimed that I'm anti-Semite. Since I don't hate Jews or Arabs, since I make a huge effort to refrain from making hostile generalizations, since I criticize the hatred of Jews and Arabs, since nothing exists to show that I hate anyone, since I support Israel and Palestine, since I'm not necessarily opposed to Hamas or Likud Zionism and since I might be a Jew or an Arab, the only logical explanation for Lil Mike's claim is that he/she believes that anti-Semites are people who don't hate Jews or Arabs. This also seems to explain why he/she argues that it is not racist to hate Jews or Muslims and why he/she does not seem to speak out against such racism. His/her usage of the anti-Semite card is to either insult or identify people who are not racists.

 

Nope, I only wanted to show you I can throw in any kind of negative imagery or stereotyping into a debate, just as easily as your inclination to thrown in Hitler in such a debate.

 

they should of enforced separation of religion from gov, their own fault

you can't open the door to Christians and not expect someday other religions will not walk through the same door, our founders were smart

 

I accept the standard usage of the term anti-semitism. That was the point of my previous post. But I also agree that it can be overused. You can criticize the state of Israel without being anti-Semitic; many Jews do all the time. So I'm not one of those people who encompass all criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitic."

However in the months that I've been on this site, I've discovered that many posters use the term "anti-Semitic" as a term of prejudice against Arabs* all the while bashing Jews.

Really, if the SPLC ever gets hold of this site it will wind up on their hate site list.

So I have to read in a little carefully when the term "anti-Semitic" is used here.



* Yes I know that is a technical point; but again, it's not the common usage.

 

That's drivel. I established ten clear parallels. You established one. The parallels between Jewbaiting and islamophobia are very clear. That is why European Nazi parties have swapped their traditional Jewbaiting for muslim baiting. It was easier for them than changing their underpants.

Mind you. At least you tried. Others make windy accusations about intellectual weakness and then run away.

But the, windy accusations are a forte of islamophobes whose only argument in defence of their bigoted filth is "islam is not a race".

 

You linked fear of outsiders TO resentment of real attempts to establish quasi-democratic institutions striving to override will of the majority TO Hitler. Does the Swiss Parliament host a Nazi Party whose claim to fame is to impose draconian building codes on anything measuring over 50 feet in height? The Swiss love their countryside landscapes and like it when anything man made blends into these landscapes. You don't like it, so what? It's an esthetics issue, not a phobia issue. I've travelled there, so I'm speaking from a first hand experience.

 

How many times have you been there? Bet I've been more. It's hard for me to count the number of times but I would estimate about 50-60 times, maybe more. Du kanst gut deutsch sprecken? Ou francais?

What a pile of drivel this is. What post did you read? I likened nothing Swiss to Hitler. I likened the attitudes of those xenophobes whose one purpose in life is to spit venom at muslims, to Hitler's supporters. Mine was an attack on the "Eurabia" numpties. A country with four minarets 'aint heading to be Eurabia. Those who fantasize about Eurabian dystopias and demonize muslims at every opportunity - you know they'll try and bring their racism into every single discussion that they can - are the kissing cousins of German Nazis raving about Jewish conspiracies to take over the world.

I think I'll move on now. When you want to make a serious argument, based on what I actually posted, then I'll reply.

 

What's this drivel in an essay form alleging phobia and Nazi hatred as manifested through adherence to esthetics? You expanded the topic beyond the scope of this thread.

 

Do you really think I'm equating an objection to minarets to Nazism? I think you need to go back and read all my posts again then buddy.

Alternatively it could be that you are trying to derail my point that the American and non Swiss Europeans who keep ranting on about Eurabia are the kissing cousins of the NSDAP members back in the 1930s. The Jews were not going to take over the world then. Muslims are not going to take over the world now. You don't like the analogy so you keep on misrepresenting it as something to do with Heidi and cuckoo clocks.

But as you said before, the argument can be settled by how many times we have been to Switzerland, can't it Peter. How many then? Come on?

 

Once, but stayed there quite a few months. I liked the rolling hills and how everything appeared harmonious.