Courageous Moderate Muslims: Nyamko Sabuni
Ms. Sabuni is a black muslim female, a Swedish citizen, and holds a ministerial post in the government. But she wants Muslims to integrate into Swedish society, and is not shy about her stances against many Muslim practices.
Nyamko Sabuni, 37, has caused a storm as Sweden’s new integration and equality minister by arguing that all girls should be checked for evidence of female circumcision; arranged marriages should be criminalised; religious schools should receive no state funding; and immigrants should learn Swedish and find a job....she argues for a total ban on veils being worn by girls under the age of consent, which is 15 in Sweden.
According to Sabuni, many politicians have shied away from talking about the need for assimilation rather than multi-culturalism: “I am one of the few who dares to speak out. Sadly, some members of the Muslim community feel picked on.”
religious schools should receive no state funding
Applicable to Christian schools as well? I agree, totally.
Posted by: Cineaste | 01 November 2006 at 12:43 PM
Seeker, you may like this, When fundamentalism is an accepted part of life, what hope is there? and I really like the writer, Muriel Gray. Excerpt...
All the murderers have indeed been fundamentalists, but not all fundamentalists murder.
.and this is the part I like...
It would be of more practical help to try and reasonably persuade devout Muslim parents to let their children absorb a far wider cultural agenda, even if all it does is allow them to dismiss it. This is the essential way forward, even if it seems like an impertinence. The most effective way to change hearts is to unpick blind, unthinking, blinkered obedience to a faith by replacing it with questioning, empathetic reason. But since no will to visit such cultural dialogue on our most devout Muslim citizens exists, Reid should stop patronising them as parents.
They're not going to help him. Why should they? Until the ghettoised multi-culturalism that we all helped create is replaced with multi-racial, multi-faith mono-culturalism, nothing is going to change. So just shut up and get on with the job of increasing intelligence to find the killers before they kill.
Posted by: Cineaste | 01 November 2006 at 01:24 PM
Actually, I disagree with her somewhat. I think that if students in religious schools can pass regular state proficiency exams, they should be allowed to receive vouchers out of the state or county taxes that pay for public schooling.
I also think that if my home-schooled kids pass those tests, I should get a tax break for NOT sending my kids to public school.
Posted by: seeker | 01 November 2006 at 01:25 PM
"Because Christians and Jews cling to their delusions, they are in no position to criticize Muslims for theirs."
- Sam Harris
Posted by: Cineaste | 05 November 2006 at 05:06 AM
Because Christians and Jews cling to their delusions, they are in no position to criticize Muslims for theirs.
If that isn't bigotry, willful ignorance, untintelligent argumentation, and introlerance, I don't know what is.
If that's what secularists really believe, than we are worse off than I thought.
Posted by: seeker | 06 November 2006 at 12:51 AM
You fling a lot of derogatory remarks at Sam Harris but don't support them. Christians think Muslims are deluded about their religious beliefs. Muslims think Christians are deluded about their religious beliefs. You are in no position to criticize each other because you're both equally delusional. Leave politics to people who don't believe you get 72 virgins for blowing yourself up or that "The Rapture" will soon be upon us. If you believe either of these, you're a nut case.
Posted by: Cineaste | 06 November 2006 at 05:00 AM
Christians think Muslims are deluded about their religious beliefs.
Not exactly - this is a blunt, inexact description. They think many things about Muslims, some of which applies doctrinally to how they view all other faiths. Some of these, also, I have disagreed with.
Actually, just because one is religious, does not mean he can not criticize others' beliefs, any more or less than others. Just because you believe something clearly incredible and against nature (miracles, evolution, the rapture) doesn't mean you can't criticize the position of others.
Further, there are ethical and scientific grounds on which we can criticize others, regardless of our own positions.
For instance, if I argue that jihad is unethical and harms innocent people, my argument stands even if I am of some other religious persuasion. And if I argue that Mohammed was a polygamist, a possible pedophile, and violent man, that is a matter of history, not merely of religious persuasion.
Sure, if you want to pit unconfirmable truths about what happens after we die against each other, you may have a valid, albeit weak point. But even this can be argued logically using parallel logic (we see x pattern in nature, and it only follows that y happens in the life to come - this is how Buddhists often argue reincarnation) or by affirming the historical accuracy of the scriptures - that is, if the scriptures claim, for example, that Herod was the King in Judea during a certain time, we can confirm that historically. If in the next breath it says that an angel spoke to Mary, we could argue that the passage may be just as accurate, even though we can not confirm it.
While a secularist purist fails to recognize this logic, that is his mistake, imo.
Sam's point is a stupid one - it is designed to "logically" exclude people of faith from such discussions or criticisms of others. While it accuses any religious person of hypocrisy if they criticize others (which in some cases may be true), it is really just an ad hominem attack that focuses, not on the merit of the argument, but on the merit of the arguer.
Leave politics to people who don't believe you get 72 virgins for blowing yourself up or that "The Rapture" will soon be upon us. If you believe either of these, you're a nut case.
As I said, the hubris and superiority complex of secularists is evident in your comment. Just like John Kerry's Freudian slip reflected a real low opinion of our armed forces endemic in the liberal camp (even if he did not mean it), your comment belies the judgmental, antagonistic, and arrogant position that materialist secularists have taken in their position towards people of faith.
Sam's remark is demeaning, self-righteous, arrogant, and as I've said, illogical. He should be ashamed and apologetic.
Posted by: seeker | 06 November 2006 at 05:04 PM
Actually, just because one is religious, does not mean he can not criticize others' beliefs, any more or less than others. Just because you believe something clearly incredible and against nature (miracles, evolution, the rapture) doesn't mean you can't criticize the position of others.
While it is true that Ted Haggard can and does criticize the behavior of homosexuals, it carries little weight because he is such a hypocrite. The same applies to Fundamentalist Christians criticizing Fundamentalist Muslims, though they can and do criticize them, it carries little weight because their criticism is SO hypocritical. It's the pot calling the kettle black.
Sure, if you want to pit unconfirmable truths about what happens after we die against each other, you may have a valid, albeit weak point.
The 72 virgins and The Rapture are not tiny little unimportant tidbits of faith but major religious dogmas that motivate extremism in both religions. If these beliefs were just ignorant and played no part in politics then fine, believe and criticize as you will. But that's clearly not the case. Believing the Jesus is coming back soon is obviously harmful, crazy and plain stupid.
Sam's point is a stupid one - it is designed to "logically" exclude people of faith from such discussions or criticisms of others.
Why is it stupid to exclude hypocrites?
The hubris and superiority complex of secularists is evident in your comment. Just like John Kerry's Freudian slip reflected a real low opinion of our armed forces endemic in the liberal camp (even if he did not mean it)
Here is what I said on Sam Wilkinson's blog...
If he had said, “If you don’t study hard, you’ll end up a janitor” would he have had to apologize to all janitors? I realize what he said was a political lapse, but was it untrue? I mean, you don’t need a college education to enlist in the army. Kerry didn’t imply enlisted soldiers in the army were stupid, just uneducated. Yes, there is a difference.
...your comment belies the judgmental, antagonistic, and arrogant position that materialist secularists have taken in their position towards people of faith.
I would narrow that down to just Evangelicals. When I see your leader Ted Haggard I can't help but think "scumbag" hypocrite and I wonder how Evangelicals can be so gullible. Haggard's fall won't make any difference though. Evangelicals won't learn anything, they will just continue as they have, superstitious and gullible as ever.
Posted by: Cineaste | 06 November 2006 at 07:57 PM
While it is true that Ted Haggard can and does criticize the behavior of homosexuals, it carries little weight because he is such a hypocrite.
True.
Believing the Jesus is coming back soon is obviously harmful, crazy and plain stupid.
Perhaps you could explain why. I understand how this can make people so "other worldly" that they are of no use in the here and now, but the fact is, when acted upon in a healthy way, this is lived out similarly to how you live out the idea that you could die any day, and should make the most of NOW. The only difference is, the idea that we will soon meet Jesus includes the idea that we will have to give an account for our lives.
And what does Jesus required? Love, justice, truth, obedience to his commands, which are not harmful. They keep us mindful of what is important, not the lusts of the world, the flesh, and the devil, so to speak. They keep us focused on the coming Kingdom, which He taught is internal and growing, and will one day be fully manifest here. The Kingdom where love and justice rule the day.
Now, you might call that a fairy tale, and you are welcome to it. But the belief in such produces all manner of good things, not bad.
Kerry didn’t imply enlisted soldiers in the army were stupid, just uneducated. Yes, there is a difference.
Regardless of his intent, his faux pas was to many a slight, and a clear reflection of the low view of the military endemic in liberal politics and theology.
I would narrow that down to just Evangelicals.
Well, secularists disdain all religions, but especially evangelicals because they are vocal, intelligent, and active in politics. Of COURSE secularists don't dislike the tepid faith of liberals - it is functionally inert, no more than a panacea, an opiate, and plays right into the secular mindset of separation of church and state.
The problem with this myopic view of evangelicals is that they ignore the central and critical role of biblical Christianity in the rise and success of the west, especially the design and function of the American government. Having a nation built on Christian principles, they think that they can now throw out Xianity and continue on successfully without God. Too bad that is the height of stupidity, short-sightedness, and ignorance of history.
Posted by: seeker | 08 November 2006 at 03:05 PM
Perhaps you could explain why. ...this is lived out similarly to how you live out the idea that you could die any day, and should make the most of NOW.
The difference is, as I am sure you are aware, Evangelicals think the end of the world means they get to go to heaven. That is a "good" thing so the end of the world is also a "good" thing. Non Christians think the end of the world is actually a "bad" thing.
Environmental Problems Don't Exist or are a Sign of the Apocalypse excerpt...
Regardless of his (Kerry's) intent, his faux pas was to many a slight.
I am not questioning intent. Look. This is what I said...
If he had said, “If you don’t study hard, you’ll end up a janitor” would he have had to apologize to all janitors? I realize what he said was a political lapse, but was it untrue? I mean, you don’t need a college education to enlist in the army. Kerry didn’t imply enlisted soldiers in the army were stupid, just uneducated. Yes, there is a difference.
You agree with me that the vast majority of enlisted in the Army do not have a college education don't you? You agree that if you are enlisted in the Army, you will probably end up in Iraq? If you have agreed with the above then you agree with John Kerry. Yet, you denounce Kerry for saying something you agree with yourself. There is a word for that.
They (secularists) think that they can now throw out Xianity and continue on successfully without God. Too bad that is the height of stupidity, short-sightedness, and ignorance of history.
No, don't throw out religion. Some people need religion to make sense of what they don't or can't know. But, definitly remove religion from the government. If the Arab nations removed Islam from their governments I am sure it would be a much better place to live in, especially for women. It's not limited to Islam though. This applies to Christianity as well. BTW, did you know Sam Harris is religious. His religion is a branch of Buddhism.
Posted by: Cineaste | 08 November 2006 at 03:41 PM
Another thing that I just find amazing is that a leader in the Evangelical community has effectively ceded the moral high ground to a drug dealing gay male prostitute. Hark Evangelicals, there is something rotten in Denmark.
Posted by: Cineaste | 08 November 2006 at 03:47 PM
Evangelicals think the end of the world means they get to go to heaven. That is a "good" thing so the end of the world is also a "good" thing.
Only in the sense that a new kingdom where suffering and death are gone will be inaugurated.
many sincerely believe that because the Bible says God will provide, then this means that there are sufficient natural resources for everyone on the planet. They don't believe that there is any real crisis, so there is no reason to conserve or recycle because we won't run out.
Yes, some people have used a short term mentality to not be responsible stewards of the earth, or even of their own lives - they don't take jobs, don't invest, whatever.
However, this response to the doctrine of Jesus' imminent return is not faithful to the teaching of the Catholic or Protestant teachings of the scriptures. In fact, Jesus encouraged both investment AND living as if your life is short.
You agree that if you are enlisted in the Army, you will probably end up in Iraq? If you have agreed with the above then you agree with John Kerry.
What I am saying is that it doesn't matter if he was "correct" by the letter of the law, what I am saying is that his comment is clearly pejorative, even if he did not mean it that way. Who cares if he was "technically correct"? He is a boob for making such a comment. If he meant something else, he should have said something else. What is the point of saying they are uneducated?
Posted by: seeker | 08 November 2006 at 06:20 PM
Kerry said, “If you don’t study hard, you’ll end up in Iraq”. That is not the same as saying “If you are uneducated, you’ll end up in Iraq.”
There are, believe it or not, those who choose to go into the Army rather than going to college. It is not because they are lazy as Kerry believes but it is because they want a life serving their country.
Going into the army is not a punishment for bad choices.
Posted by: troy | 09 November 2006 at 12:17 PM
There are, believe it or not, those who choose to go into the Army rather than going to college. It is not because they are lazy as Kerry believes but it is because they want a life serving their country.
Kerry was not saying our troops are lazy either. Neither I or my brother interpreted Kerry as saying that. That John Kerry was denigrating our troops in ANY way is spin. The man graduated from Yale yet serves in the army. Bush graduates from Yale and...? I know Kerry respects the troops but he does not respect the reason they are in Iraq and he does not respect the people who sent them there for a bad reason; people who have not experienced war.
My brother serving in Iraq
Posted by: Cineaste | 09 November 2006 at 12:29 PM
This is just wonderful. After listening to this I realized I don't agree with European liberals regarding Islam and multiculturalism, I agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Like Wafa Sultan, she suggests that we need MORE blasphemous Danish cartoons.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - ABC Radio National
Posted by: Cineaste | 31 January 2007 at 01:24 AM