The rise of secularism?
The annual Pew survey of global attitudes has found a rise in anti-semitism and Islamophobia in Europe.
A spring 2008 survey by the Pew Research Center’s Pew Global Attitudes Project finds 46% of the Spanish rating Jews unfavorably. More than a third of Russians (34%) and Poles (36%) echo this view. Somewhat fewer, but still significant numbers of the Germans (25%) and French (20%) interviewed also express negative opinions of Jews. These percentages are all higher than obtained in comparable Pew surveys taken in recent years. In a number of countries, the increase has been especially notable between 2006 and 2008.
What could this sudden rise mean? People becoming more bigoted? A rejuvenation of the indignation behind the holocaust and anti-Jewish pogroms? Islam becoming more hated? Yeah right, how much more hated can it get? The most likely explanation might be simpler: more people hating religion in general. As Christoper Hitchens has pointed out, Islam may be the fastest growing religion, but atheism is the fast growing group in the world.
It would be interesting- and useful- to know precisely what they mean by “rating unfavourably”. Precisely which qualities are jews or muslims said to possess- or not possess- that are thought to inspire negative opinions?
As to jews, there’s the further complication that antisemitism is sometimes ostensibly religiously-based and sometimes ostensibly racially-based according to the convenience of the hater.
Fastest growing in terms of what numbers?
The most likely explanation might be simpler: more people hating religion in general
I find that unlikely. If someone has beome an atheist there might be a hostility to the locally dominant religion, but why would it be expressed through anti-semitism? I just don’t see a logical connection.
In Britain, at least, the same principle of “interchangeability” could also be said to frequently apply in the case of Muslims and Asians, from the perspective of many bigots. According to the latter’s convenience, as Roger has correctly said.
Beyond whatever they may pick up via the media and hearsay, they may not necessarily know enough about Islam to base their hatred on an informed opinion. However, they do hate Asians, and the recent demonisation of Islam and its followers just gives them a “hook” to hang their bigotry on and justify/rationalise it.
On the flipside, the actions of terrorists and extremists in the name of Islam during the past few years would also have pushed people who would otherwise have been neutral or amicable towards a more negative stance.
The most significant event that set people against Islam was 9/11, I’m guessing, yet the sudden rise came later.
Don, if someone hates all religions that not going to be favourable to any instance of them. They wouldn’t be favourable towards Judaism anymore than Christianity, and yet this may be misconstrued as anti-semitism/racism. It doesn’t matter that they’re not local religions; disdain for religion is usually based on how it affects the world globally.
If more and more people are becoming lukewarm towards religion then the question is what is religion offering people today? More and more people witness much of extremism which is highlighted in the media and it produces a negative result. It is then no surprise that people choose to be in a group which is away from extremism or choose to be away from religion at all. How many role models do we have today other than the ones who honestly first started their respective religions? People need more role models to look upto and learn from.
We can’t always blame the media too, it’s a mere reflection of the society. The growing number of atheists would become a challenge for the Religious leaders.
Islam might be the fastest growing religion at this point but no doubt we see more and more anti-islamic coverings too.
Please, do not conflate secularism (the title) with atheism (conclusion). Secularism is neutral on questions of religious beliefs, whereas atheism is not.
Rise of radical Islam in Europe? Policies of the Israeli government (which people often confuse with judaism?)
History books can give us a clue of how much worse can it get.
Sorry, but that would mean an increase in prejudice against Christians, Buddhists, and other religions as well. There is no evidence to suggest this link.
Ala,
‘ if someone hates all religions that not going to be favourable to any instance of them.’
Atheism is not about hating all religions. It’s about not believing in god. Could we establish that?
The article identifies the most hostile groups as being over fifty and of low education. I doubt that that is the demographic swelling the ranks of the godless.
The question in the survey appears to have been about attitudes to jews and moslems, not the extent to which you find their sacred texts convincing. About people, not ideas.
I suggest that this is more about the ignorant, the insecure and the fearful reaching for the oldest scapegoat. Anti-semitism runs deep in the places mentioned, but it crops up everywhere.
As for Islamophobia, yeah a lot of it is covert racism but the ‘Kill,kill,kill’ school of public relations is a factor.
Your argument that the rise in bigotry, anti-semitism and islamophobia in Europe is largely due to the rise in atheism and secularism is entirely unconvincing.
I went on the link, to no avail, to see if this Pew Survey also looked at opinions about Catholics, Sikhs & other religions apart from those listed. Anyone know?
Ala,
You said:
I kind of agree with this guy:
http://www.chickyog.net/2008/09/18/atheists-not-clubbable/
What the religious have never really gotton, like over man, is that being an atheist isn’t really being anything at all. It is to see religion as irrelevant, but largely not to deny believers their morphine.
Granted there are some atheists, we tend to call them secularists, who want to make it into a movement. Most atheists couldn’t be arsed.
If I can be serious for a moment, the word secular has been pulled through the wringer.
It is fair to say it can be expressed as representing a hight spot of Western Culture when it was supposed to represent the concept of a forum where everyone accepted that the state has nothing to say on the subject of religion and both it, the state, and they, the religions should remain apart. I suppose this is based on Jesus Christs’ render unto God, that which is his and render unto Ceasar, etc…
That has been a theme of sensible Western government for some time now. It would be a tragedy to see it break down.
But and but and but. We have seen the rise, in both this country and the USA of the brainless morons. Our basic governance being handed into the paws of Christian fundamentalists - not Muslims, Ala, Christians - who are likely to do immense damage to any ideas of community beyond their, conservatively restricted, Church. I absolutely detest Christian fundamentalists, and if there is a war to come, it is they that I will be against.
Anyway, a disbelief is really no such thing. It is an absence of belief. It is not curable. And neither is it a movement.
It’s just the way we are.
How about fighting against all forms of fundamentalism?
It is really the same beast under different guises, no?
There is of course the case of the rise of antisemitism in France in part because of Muslim youth. Though Le Pen and NF are pretty antisemitic as well.
Racism is one thing, but islamophobia… it would be interested to have a base-line, ie what was the level of anti-Muslim sentiment before 9/11.
Some people will always be racist, but surely it’s no surprise there is antagonism against Muslims as terrorism in the name of Islam continues? It would be surprising if there was not - some people act as if this was just a weather system that arrived out of nowhere.
In any case, how do you define Islamophobia? If you read Islamophobiawatch any criticism of Islam, from sharia and its view on gays and women to terrorism is Islamophobic. Yet we never hear the other side - what after all is Islamic terror, supported by around 100,000 British citizens, other than the worst kind of racism? I don’t believe 100,000 British non-Muslims would be likely to support terror campaigns against Muslims, yet the finger of blame is always pointed the other way. Now that’s a kind of racism - it’s as if, well, we wouldn’t expect anything more from Muslims, but non-Muslims…
Um…..OBVIOUSLY there will be more animosity to Muslims (primarily) and other religous groups since 9/11 and the continuation of American/UK interference in the Middle East post 9/11. I don’t see what is suprising here. In a bunch of countries where the media is so powerful in propagandising one point of view, this study is no surprise.
And Boyo, what is Western Foreign Policy that equates to hunudreds of thousands of dead innocents if you have the gall to describe these muslims as the worst kind of racists? What does that make you?
Well said.
I seem to have conflated atheism and secularism; I can’t even remember why now. I feel like I should change the title.
And Don, you’re right, I was thinking more of anti-theism.
This whole thing would have been cleared up if the survey sample was asked what they thought of Christianity, so we can establish whether this is a case of discrimination.
Ravi Naik @12,
I have always seen you as my chum on here.
Of course:
Of course it is Ravi.
There is not, as far as I can tell, an iota between you and me.
We are both against fundamentalism, I think. Correct me if I am wrong?
And given Ala at 16, I do not think there is an an iota of difference between Ala and me, or you, either.
Leon @ 15,
I take it that, as a fellow atheist, you couldn’t give a shit what I think?
Well, I don’t give a shit what you think either!
Except, you do tend to talk sense.
Hmm…..
Haha not quite, I just know it’s not a gospel to follow but a view to reason with and understand.
“but atheism is the fast growing group in the world.”
praise be to god…
no I am not an atheist…
I don’t have a problem with religions per se but the bigotry, intolerance, and judgementalism of others by many of those a little too religiously inclined is what I find nauseating.
“Granted there are some atheists, we tend to call them secularists, who want to make it into a movement. ”
If we- who are “we” here, Douglas?- tend to call atheists secularists, we are mistaken. Secularists think that the state should have no concern with religion- either to encourage or discourage it. There are religious secularists, even muslim secularists- ‘though I’d argue they have ceased to be muslims except in a cultural sense, given the basic tenets of islam. Atheists who are atheists the way religious believers are believers tend to hold quasi-religious beliefs- such as marxism- as firmly and irrationally as religious believers with atheism a product of the belief.
As I said, it’s a pity that we don’t know more about this survey- what were people asked? did the surveyors ask “Which groups of people do you rank unfavourably?” or “Do you rank these groups unfavourably?”? Were they asked exclusively about religion or were nationalities/races or other categories included? Were people asked their opinions about belief systems or about followers of those beliefs? When and where were the interviews conducted? Unless we know a lot more about methods, we cannot safely draw any conclusions from this study.
What?
Before it all falls apart.
Perhaps the very best thing about this website is that folk who appear to have nowt in common can still see each other as chums. Or at the very least talk to each other without falling out. That is probably what makes this a unique, and I mean unique, place on the whole internet. So, praise be to Sunny for creating a zone where Rumbold and I, for instance, could at least discuss our differences, without falling out.
I respect a lot of what Rumbold has to say.
Funny, that, I’d never have thought it. Which, I’d argue is the point about a place like this. It is about changing minds. Or sharing minds.
I have enormous respect for all of you who have made this, the way it is, so I do.
There is, I hope and believe, mutual respect…
I tend to agree that people have a negative view of ‘religious’ people. Which is a shame really, just as prejudiced, based on crazy actions of some religious groups we take such a broad brush prejudice. Turn the coin around - was it Tariq Modood who talked about ’secular fundamentalism’.
But there are plenty of people who don’t like religion and its nothing to do with recent events - it’s just not something they value and associate with their lifestyle and morality. fair enough.
I wonder, how much is light hearted and how much is serious - for example, prejudice arising out of associated acts of terrorism is more common now, but a more open minded approach might suggest that we don’t assume because one man rapes, so do they all. Prejudice against scientologist is coz peope think of Tom Cruise.
I suspect prejudice in Europe against Jewish people hasn’t abated just coz because people find another population to victimise. In any any case prejudice against jewish people is different these days hence people describe, rightly, anti-semitism as a very light sleeper.
At the end of the day, divide and rule works for people who discriminate against all minorities - and they like to play one group against another until they’ve helped to dismantle the laws that protect us all…
“I have enormous respect for all of you who have made this, the way it is, so I do.”
Yup!
This survey seems dodgy. I’d like to see the methodology (hardly newsworthy but would shed more light).
46% of Spaniards rating Jews unfavourably? I’ve never in all my life come across anti-Jewish sentiment in Spain. Of course, that doesn’t mean a thing. Just because I haven’t experienced it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Maybe people were thinking about the New Testament and the crucifixion. More likely, there is some mix-up with Israel. Spain is rather pro Palestine. As I said, I would like to see the methodology, whether the questions were leading, whether they were properly translated and equal across various languages, etc. I suspect it is dodgy, which would make the survey meaningless.
P.S.
I am encouraged by the comments. Tolerance is a greater good than victory in a battle of conflicting ideals.
El Cid,
That has been the whole point of this web site. It is not just tolerance, it is about mutual respect. I have made friends, I like to think, with folk I have nothing, obviously, in common with. To the extent that I would frankly fight and die for them.
Friendship beats religion beats stone.
I like to think. Amongst the regular commentators such as your good self, obvuiously.
The most likely explanation might be simpler: more people hating religion in general. As Christoper Hitchens has pointed out, Islam may be the fastest growing religion, but atheism is the fast growing group in the world.
Antisemitism is a hardy perennial. In Europe prejudice against jews is not based on dogma but on weird race-related baggage (of the collective kind). In the Middle East I supect it it is more dogmatically and politcally related rather than by race. And incidentlly, I’m prett sure that if Pew were to conduct a similar survey of anti-semitism in the Middle East, numbers would be a lot higher. Not that they’re at acceptable levels here.
Another survey I’d like to see commissioned by Pew would be ‘Attitudes towards Secularism and Atheism in Muslim-majority countries’.
I’d like to see an increase in intelligent Islamophobia of the dogmatic and non-self-loathing kind. Wishful thinking, I know.
Overview here - http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=262
full report here - http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/262.pdf
which I haven’t read - is 73 pages (survey details pg 44 on, for those interested in methodology)
Sorry Ala, this has very little to do with atheism. I wish it were the case!
Poland for example is really quite a catholic country. I am not aware of the religiosity changing particularly significantly in Europe in recent years.
These statistics match up exactly with far-right politics. Anyone seen Ross Kemp in Gangs? He visited the neo-nazi gangs in Poland and Russia. French 20%? Well, remember that recent French election where the French National Front got 17% of the vote? Russia has a massive neo-nazi problem, followed by Poland.
There has been a significant rise in the far-right across Europe, as a reaction to drastically changing societies, and just plain and simple racism on the sight of increasing immigrants in these countries.
I’ve wondered this before and I’ll wonder it again (not to say that Islamophobia is in any way justified): wtf is up with anti-Semitism? WHY? Especially after the Holocaust?
I can’t help thinking that in this increasingly ‘tribalised’ world, the ones doing the hatin’ are probably those of religious groups who feel like they should as it affirms their own identity. My mother telling me (completely earnestly) that Sikhs aren’t doing enough to produce children compared to Muslims is one example… I mean, you can get ignorant atheists, of course, but on the whole it takes a fair bit of thinking and critical analysis to arrive at that point, so I too would say anti-theism and/or tribalism rather than secularism/atheism. Secularism is a dodgy one, because it’s used to promote hidden agendas in France, if nowhere else.
People can be so stupid (especially in groups), I think I may just have answered my own Q. I personally they all just need to get some, and they’ll stop hating’ so much
.
Of course, with the media more than happy to be the megaphone of assorted islamist nutterers, about outbreeding the kuffar, or imposing islamic values on the others or violence resulting in martyrdom; then with police and security services regularly discovering aspiring jihadists — then a caution of Islam and by extension Muslims would not be incomprehensible by the average person.
Though bigotry is often a tar brush, it’s somewhat odd that it’s jews who are almost always the first to get it… I suppose it’s traditional.
marvin,
Why did you say this?
It has clearly got nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. Atheists don’t care which religious belief you have.
Mostly we see them all as deluded and backward.
But we, generally, aren’t aggressive about it. Despite being the majority, if you take church attendance as a measure, into account. Not that there is a broad, atheistic position, exactly. We all tend to go our own way….
My desire is to see more atheism, less religiousity, and more debate and acknowledgement about it officially and in the class room.
I think I worded that wrong. I do not wish atheists to hate religious people at all. Not unless they are particularly odious, but I see this as a rarity; I would say most religious people are very nice people, despite their belief system
Again, people are not defining what they mean by ’secular-ism’./ Ala are you conflating it with ‘hating religion’?
it seems to me its people with one kind of religion who are hell bent on hating those who are of a different religion.
but in any case, i thought the whole point of the ’secular’ was that you have whatever religion you have, because one religion over another isn’t promoted by the State apparatus.
this would seem to me, to give more people religious freedom, given that people want to follow different religions.
clearly what people think of as secular or (secularism) must be different, because so often i hear people talking about what individuals are doing, in the “public sphere”. which is rot of course, because the difference between a secular state and a non-secular state, (or the way it should be) is the influence, or intertwining of religious institutions and state authority.
if you’re an invidual hanging about preaching on street corners, that’s one thing. that’s not a problem for most people really. not at all. people generally want to have religious freedom.
now for some reason the french seem to understand things somewhat differently, so perhaps that’s muddied the waters.
perhaps ala wants to define what she means by ’secular-ism’, and if she’s talking about intolerance on the part of individuals practicing religion,she should say so.
its so hard having discussions when no one actually says what they mean, or the principles involved, and use -ism terms freely.
because I wouldn’t define as a ’secularist’ if that meant interfering with what individuals who have no state authority are doing - whether thats hanging about the streets preaching islam, wearing outlandish clothes or preaching satanism.
but definitely i am a secularist when it comes to de-linking the power of religious insitutions with the State authority and apparatus.
Most definitely so. what Religion you follow or not SHOULD NOT have any conncetion with what rights you have as a citizen. if everyone has the right to wear something they want, so if your choice is religious based that’s up to you. of course similarly, when others aren’t given the freedom to wear what they want, on the grounds of religion, you can’t expect special favours, not on the grounds of religion anyway. it should be on the grounds of individuality, and it should be advocating similar freedom of choice for other people. ( like, think uniforms people)
Can you understand what i’m getting at Ala? I’m making distinctions along the lines of power. I don’t like the religion i grew up with, and i’m not happy about the fact that in bangladesh, the law of my state deals with me not as an invidiual, but as a female Muslim. that clearly is not secularism, in my mind. Its prejudicing its treatment of me, based on what they claim should be my religion, because of the family i was born into.
So - can you understand where my ’secularism’- as i understand it comes from ?
p.s. ala, i hate to be so critical, but “atheism” isn’t a “group”.
p.s. i know religionistas are fond of banding together but they shouldn’t assume others are doing the same on the basis of their lack of faith in a deity. they might be of course, but you can’t assume it. that will be because there are a myriad of reasons why people wont’ believe in a deity, and a large part of that is how people define deity in the first place.
it’s ridiculous, i don’t like the religion i was brought up with, pr the set of beliefs that pass for the religion i was brought up with. I have every right (and if I don’t I bloody well should do) to criticise that religion without people suggesting i am ‘hating muslims’. that’s bollocks because obviously my family is muslim and they say i am too. just because i think the prophet sounded like a dick and i dont like the picture of God it paints doesn’t mean i don’t have the relationships, empathy and connections to those who choose to believe in that religion. that’s entirely their business, and what I ask for simply is to be able to discuss my views alongside listening to them say what their views are. the prophet is a historical figure and does not belong to anyone.
the whole point as far as i can see, of my critique of religion is the negative attitude on individuals, people, i.e. the real things in this life. if it makes someone happy to believe in a god or a fairy, frankly, i’m happy for them. religion is nothing special at the end of the day, its all about belonging. how many muslims go around talking about theology? not many. because no one cares!
what it seems to me ALa is really talking about, is the negative perception of communities who are ‘other’ in some way. and religious people are just as much culprits in this game, as are non-relgious people.
good points from don in no. 9
interesting point is that probably the largest group of people actually ‘becoming’ atheists, (rather than being born into families and everyone’s gradually pretty much lost religious belief) are the ’shock horror! apostate’ crew of people brought up as Muslims. its to us that its a really big deal actually, giving up this belief in a nasty god, and its such a relief. Usually means you’re happier and not going around hating people.
douglas - 26,
“Friendship beats religion beats stone.”
absolutely.
wasn’t it over on the other thread Ala was explaining why religious parents who only will let their kids mix with co-religionists should have faith schools to indulge their segregation?
friendship definitely trumps religion
28 sid good one
i hadnt realised so many people in muslim countries conflate atheism with satanism!!
yes perhaps anti-theism is more appropriate to talk about atheism. still anti-theism is about opposing the dominant theism of the day, and again, cannot be conflated with people who are against other communities of people who are religious of some kind or other. you can be totally anti-theistic and not “hate” the believers of religion. similarly you could be anti-theistic and hate all sorts of people. anti-theism is an intellectual position. it might lead to some emotional state, but why hatred over any other?
so you could suggest that this particular intellectual position leads to hatred of religious groups, if you wanted to, but please make it clear what your assumptions are.
of course, hatred is a funny term, its about very strong emotions. Dismissing the idea of a god which has scared everyone and stirred so much intense emotion through the centuries) might be seen as intensely emotional(usually by people who don’t want you to dismiss this god) but doesn’t at all equate to developing hatred of religious groups. you might feel pity for them though- is that what you’re really talking about Ala?
of course the real problem here is that if people criticise religion, dogma, the forcing of beliefs on people for so many centuries, then that is called ‘hating religion’ and ‘hating religious communities’.
i still think one of the best vehicle for hatred is to set yourself up as a religion, and say God told you to kill those people who are non-believers. of cours the other is to set yourself up as a Nation-state and encourage hatred of some other nation-state who is your enemy and set your army onto them/.
we’ve established lots of people hate religion.
perhaps we should now try and establish how many people hate secularism. I can’t hear that many people on this site saying I hate secualarism.
who’s da fundamental?
Sonia @ 42,
Well, frankly, if I can’t count on you as a chum, then there is no hope for me
Friendship extends, subsumes even, other stuff.
I think.
@ douglas and sonia:
Amen (lol)! Friendship is the stuff of life. Might I just make a point here of saying that G*d has never asked to be MY friend.
Although I suppose that if he HAD, I might’ve ended up like Mary, or Jeanne d’Arc… lol
@ halima:
Well… fundamentalist religion is a beast much easier to disagree with than secularism. Secularism’s a fair bit more flexible, so it’s rather hard to hate or condemn in the same way - especially in its ideal form.
Sonia, when I mentioned France, that was because France is usually held up as a model of secularity. However, what people tend to forget is that in countries like France (and Turkey), one religion will be quite dominant since well before ’secularism’ became the golden rule, and may thus have an impact on the ’secularism’ of that country.
I read a paper on integration and the difficulties presented to it by the hypocrisy of French secularism , which pointed out (for one) that all the laws designed to promote laïcité by banning religious symbols are not uniform, but only cover OVERSIZED religious symbols, i.e. a Sikh turban or a Muslim hijab, but not a Jewish yarmulke or Christian cross.
Now, I’m not trying to side with any one party, but that does seem like targeting very specific groups of people to me, as with all the measures designed to make people ‘French’ above all else - which doesn’t seem terribly secular to me. In fact, I WOULD even go so far as to say it doesn’t help the cause of non-white, non-Jews or non-Christians terribly… Although France is a country VERY loving of tradition. Reminds me a lot of America in many little ways.
(Let’s not even get started on Sarkozy… lol).
good points amrit. the whole hijab thing in france did seem to be more about integration than anything else. besides making a fuss about what individuals are wearing in the name of religion is self-defeating. its not what individuals are doing we should be worried about, its about the power of institutions. also for some reason, in france liberty seems to be more understood on the level of the group/state rather than the invidual. and ironically yes America has a lot in common with France and vice versa in as much as patriotism is encouraged, ironically in the name of liberty and all that.
and you’re absolutely right about france being a country very loving of tradition. look at the food…!
douglas 47 - absolutely, you’ve had hugs from me before and here’s another one!*squeeze* i would definitely agree friendship subsumes the other stuff, which is why i think the whole faith school segregation thing is so problematic. you’re limiting your kids horizons and not giving them a chance to make up their own minds.
its also much harder to propagate discrimination when your kids are friends with the people you’re trying to demonize.
Militant secularists could be just as dangerous as any religious fundamentalist. I don’t want to draw myself into empirical examples, because the hypotheticals are so obvious.
* Secularism is generally the belief that governing bodies should exist separately from religious belief.
* A secularist would wish to secularise.
* A secularist may apply this wish to a policy of military interventionism.
And thus we have a supporter of war, who may not have considered geographical context, socio-political context etc..
Ben
Militant secularists could be just as dangerous as any religious fundamentalist.
You mean militant atheists, surely. Even then, it’s confusing to militantly not believe…
Well, frankly, I don’t give a fig for anything that doesn’t have free love…and psychedelic T-shirts and music.
Ben,
* A secularist may apply this wish to a policy of military interventionism.
I suppose a secularist, like anybody else, may do all manner of things but I’m struggling to think of an example where anyone urged military intervention to impose secularism on another country.
Why, many supporters of the War on Terror (or, as Sam Harris rather more originally put it, a war on pestilential theology).
Sonia 39:
‘ have every right (and if I don’t I bloody well should do) to criticise that religion without people suggesting i am ‘hating muslims’. that’s bollocks because obviously my family is muslim and they say i am too’
In your case Sonia you have done a very unIslamic and unBengali (according to scripture and Bengali cultural mores) thing by marrying [name deleted- Rumbold]. Therefore you are no longer a Muslim. Hence your criticisms have to be seen in this context. You are unlikely to be engaged in mere philosophical and intellectual criticism of religious/Islamic dogma but in validating your own lifestyle choice, with which (knowing Bengalis) members of your own family no doubt have grave concerns.
Personally I think that if you are happy with your choice and the consequences then there is little need for you to comment (almost always negatively) on a religio-cultural identity you have voluntarily left behind. Naturally your avenues of critical debate have been narrowed. Given your personal experiences you do not come from a neutral position.
So, only someone who has “good credentials” according to you is able to comment on his/her life, family and cultural identity? What a joke.
Sonia, we established that I must have been either drunk or tired when I wrote this: I’m sorry, and I shouldn’t have mentioned secularism.
And I’m generally talking about an anti-theist position of unfavourability towards all religions as delusions that are either useless or harmful.
I was suggesting possible explanations for the apparent rise in unfavourability towards Islam and Judaism. But I realise it’s a long shot. Either way the survey, as some have pointed out, is not worth the paper it’s printed on if questions weren’t phrased properly.
Thank you Kepler for the link
I have 2 problems with the methodology.
1) I think the survey answers are distorted (i.e. polarised) because respondents aren’t given the option to say they view a particular group neither favourably nor unfavourably. “Don’t know” is not enough.
2) There is nothing to show how the questions were translated between the different languages. I think it is naive to think that translation is unimportant in cross-border comparisons.
I would also like to add that, looking specifically at the Spanish bit, that the percentage of respondents who viewed “Jews” FAVOURABLY fell to 37 pct from 58 pct in 2005. Seems like an unusually large swing don’t you think? I can’t help wonder whether Israel/Jews getting mixed up here. Just a gut suspicion. When was the bombing of Lebanon again?
And Sonia, I didn’t call atheists a group, Hitchens did. If we want to talk about numbers, and how many there are, then we use the term group for ease of communication.
It would seem silly to say ‘the atheist is the fastest growing type of person’. And I’m not a religionista if you were implying that.
duplicate- apologies
I think there is an inherent and insoluble defect in Europe and the U.S.A. in the way that this survey is carried out. As I said, the problem is with the definition of jews. If I were asked “Do you have an unfavourable opinion of christians or muslims?” I would answer yes. If I were asked the same question of jews I would answer no. This because I automatically think of muslims or christians as religious believers with the behaviour that such belief is associated with, whereas I do not think of jews in that way. I would think of Harold Pinter or Lewis Wolpert as jews in such a context, whereas i would not think of people with muslim or christian ancestry in defining muslims or christians. Logically, if Pinter or Feynman are jews, then Richard Dawkins, the son of an Anglican clergyman, is a christian, but we way many people learned to think of and define jews in their childhood does not allow that distinction.
I think that many other people would probably make similar assumptions when asked such a question and so give a not-completely-accurate response.
Right, so much more neutral to come from a strict Muslim and Bengali perspective, other perspectives would be biased. Hmm.
i wasn’t implying you were a religionista ala, i don’t know anything about you. there’s no reason to apologise, you can bring secularism into it if you want but just explain a bit more about what You understand as secularism. you have a perfect write to say what you think, its just useful to get things clear.
i think it highly presumptuous of you ashik to suggest i have little need to comment on a socio-religious identity i have left behind. a) you don’t know anything about my identity or my marriage b) and in any case i wasn’t talking about identity, i was talking about belief systems and institutions that impose these upon you. c) yes i don’t believe in god and hell anymore so luckily now can think of religion without the shivers. d) i dont know anything about your background so i wont presume, but i come from a muslim family, and i am from bangladesh. you can’t change your religion without being called an apostate and you certainly wouldn’t choose to draw that kind of attention to yourself. or without losing your family. they are extreme choices and i don’t see why i should be forced to either lie low/or if i’m totally honest, lose my family. the mere fact this stark choice exists makes it a reality for me.
i would give a lot for it to not be a reality for me but just some abstract social commentary. i wish!
so this religio-cultural identity does affect me ( and i don’t need to explain to you how it should be obvious) and in fact seems to do so even more now that i have married ‘out’. so i have every right and need to comment on my situation and the social dynamics that complicate life for me.
and yes of course my position is not neutral, why do you think i said it was? frankly i’d like it if i could tell my family i’m an apostate (shock horror!) because they don’t think i’m an apostate for marrying my husband, who converted in bangladesh so technically my marriage is halal in the eyes of “our” allah. and why did we do all this? because of family that’s why, and in many ways, the law in bangladesh.
i think i have every need to comment about the kinds of things i am commenting on, because as my sister “pointed out” to me this summmer, “you’re born in this culture and you’ll die in this culture, don’t think you’ve escaped”..it’s not as if these cultural strangleholds don’t affect us ‘married outs’/apostates anymore. they affect me and millions of other young men and women so frankly as a social commentator, i will absolutely say what i think. its very relevant because there are loads of young muslims who have to lie to their families because their families are franky intolerant about their children having individual thoughts or beliefs or lack of beliefs.
the problem with christopher hitchens anyway, to get back to the point, is not his ideas about god or metaphysics, but the way he doesn’t think about groups and institutions. he’s a bit of a groupist, that’s what i don’t like about him, he’s got the right ideas about god but not extending his analysis to social groups and power.
at the end of the day a belief or lack of belief in god/fairy/ etc. isn’t really the point, its the membership of groups that force belief systems as an identity on their individual members and keep those members under strict social control.
Sonia:
“frankly i’d like it if i could tell my family i’m an apostate (shock horror!) because they don’t think i’m an apostate for marrying my husband…and why did we do all this? because of family that’s why…”
I say do it. Just today, everyone was getting prepared to go to the Gurdwara, and they all expected me to go. When they said, ‘What time will we see you there?” I responded, “I’m not going.’ And they said, “Why?????’ and I involantarily made a face and said, “Because I don’t want to.” They were surprised, hurt, etc, but it is my life, and I should have the right to do what I want.
Not that I’m against Sikhism (or Hinduism, for that matter, since I equally dislike going to the mandhir) but I do not want to be forced to abide to things that I care little for (i.e. it is not important for me to follow any religion and visit a place of worship for personal satisfaction).
Sonia:
“the problem with christopher hitchens anyway”
is that he is a nerd and mostly discredited in the eyes of numerous people for his glib takes on many things.
and for your information, ashik you may think its “unbengali” to have an english husband, but frankly there are plenty of mixed bengali/something else couples in dhaka. and its actually not that uncommon in my parents circle. i’m sure you’ll understand (what with your usual sylheti vs dhakaiya spiel) about inter-regional differences in bangladesh and the fact that when my sister got married to her bengali muslim husband because he was from Comilla and we’re from Jessore this caused more hoo-ha than my marriage. we’re even more insular when it comes to our neigbours i think. the one thing my mother always said to me to not do was to come home wanting to marry a pakistani man. so you see, in the end she wasn’t going to complain when i brought home an english boy.
and i don’t think my parents ever expected me to go in for some arranged marriage. they knew they could never pull it off. yes i was a rebel. they knew there would be trouble if some prospective mother in law started asking about whether i prayed and read the quran i would have told her sweetly no and that i had no intention of doing so.
bengali girls are far more feisty and rebellious than you seem to think, ashik/. ah well you’ll learn one day.
and yes, i do want my critique to be understood in the light of my background. absolutely.
With all due respect (and I really mean this), ultimately, the ‘family’ can kiss my brown ass. If they are loving family members, they’d respect my decisions. Know what I am saying?
validating my lifestyle choices- erm excuse me, my whole pointwas that people should have a lifestyle choice, doh! and absolutely yes im lucky ive been able to make my lifestyle choices with relatively little hoo-ha, and not everyone else is so lucky. just because im lucky, i should just be quiet? heh funny ideas this bloke has.
70
absolutely Desi!
desi, well i dont think i could go as far as saying i’m “an apostate” - a major shocker - without some serious familial consequences, unfortunately. after years of trying, my mother now doesnt expect me to fast or pray or go to a mosque, cover my hair or any of those things, or go to mecca. and she knows ive been critical of religion growing up. but actually turning around and telling her i dont believe in her god would make her feel like she was going to hell, (and me definitely!) and i don’t want to deal with that. emotional blackmail and all that. sigh..
Sonia #73:
Totally understand your predicament.
I’m a lot meaner than you; I could kind of care less what the family thinks, as long as I am not rude about whatever I do. I’ve always been of the belief– and I might be wrong in this– that respect is a two way street, even if it’s blood we’re talking about, and I can only really respect someone who respects me as well, which means accepting certain decisions, including those involving the R factor. As long as I am not sanctimonious and preachy to some family members about being really religious, they can’t do the same to me about not being religious, no? And this doesn’t mean that I can do ‘whatever’ I want– like I wouldn’t scarf down a beef hamburger in my house because having beef in the house is a no-no, or suck on bacon in front of people who do not eat pork for religious reasons (unless I’m told by them that it is totally ok). But it’s a two way street– don’t force me to read the Bhagvad Gita, go to the gurdwara, peruse Watch Tower pamphlets, or carry around a pocket-sized Gideon’s Bible, thanks.
Oh dear Sonia, it seems I’ve hit a nerve. Regardless of what members of PP think, you have done the worst possible thing a Bengali gal can do ie. marry out of culture/religion. You also admit to being an apostate. You are a social pariah and happy about it, so why continue to feign any interest in culturo-religious matters for which you admit you care very little? They no longer impact upon you. Your family is in Bangladesh, over 1000 miles away. Be the assimilated person you want to be. Don’t let the gnawing insecurities and self doubts play so on your mind. In any case what you have to say on Bengali and Muslim culture will have little weight,. Regardless of how well you put your argument.
Whether one is a Sylheti or Dhakaiya, a rickshaw puller or the daughter of the Prime Minister, Bengalis/South Asians tend to be of one voice when it comes to voicing their opinions about inter-racial marriages. Especially those involving women marrying out. There is a reason mothers from your ‘circle’ in Bangladesh won’t leave you alone with their daughters. They think you’ll ‘influence’ them to do something similar.
ps. If you had family ie. parents, in the UK, there is little chance you would have married out. I’ve seen ‘student visa’ Bengali (usually Dhakaiya but a few Sylheti too) guys and gals who go off the rails at the first opportunity and sleep around and get involved in drugs. Reason: they’ve not had that sort of freedom before. They are quite surprised to see 2nd-3rd gen Bangladeshis in the UK often abstaining from such behaviour. And oh, the few mixed couples you’ve seen in Dhaka, two words: immigration status. As soon as the qualifying period is over, the awkward problems come out and the Bengali guy involved (usually Bengali guy married to a ‘other’ gal), will start asserting authority over the gal. Bengali girls are feisty and fight for their rights, that’s great, but they don’t go beyond the pale as you have. Social conditioning and all (more effective than any political ideology).
He is not a nerd, in my view. He is a superficial, arrogant, pompous arse, whose books are very badly researched, and therefore easily discredited by anyone with an internet connection and google.
Oh, you are so jealous. I guess some people have the courage to lead their own lives in their own terms, and others are left following what they are told, and be bitter about it. I guess it is easy to know which camp you belong.
Sonia,
I’ve just read your comments and was very encouraged even though its a Monday morning. You’re a tough cookie and I’m sure you will be able to handle your situtation with grace and courage. You have the ability to get through this, I have no doubt, unchartered territory though it probably is.
There’s not much you can do about the stupid, reactionary and cowardly views of others as illustrated in #75, but there’s really no need to. Fuck ‘em.
Sonia @39: I couldn’t agree more. That’s all.
“it seems I’ve hit a nerve. Regardless of what members of PP think, you have done the worst possible thing a Bengali gal can do ie. marry out of culture/religion.”
Why?
There’s a fine line between bebating lifestyle choices in abstract and passing judgment at a personal level. Even if I want to bring in my personal situation, that’s my choice, I don’t expect others to comment and pass judgement - unless they are my mother.
You have to learn boundaries.
Lots of people in Bangladesh marry foreign people and it’s quite normal. I don’t understand why it’s such a betrayal to marry outside - though the Islamic Ummah was global anyways, and nationalism nothing but a western construct. You mentioned in some other place that a man marrying outside is OK, and a woman marrying outside isn’t, based on the idea that the values of the male is transmitted to the child.
Well I can tell you right now, when I have my child, I will pass MY values, regardless of who the father is. If he doesn’t like it, he can take a HIKE. I tend to think, wrongly, so, that if I give birth, I have more right to my child than the father does. That’s my brand of feminism.
Sonia, my friend married a french guy and took him around Bangladesh in Sylhet and they were so nice to him - because I think they hadn’t met a ‘white’ person before - goes to show you, attitudes towards ‘insiders/outsiders’ is a bit meaningless when it comes to people’s humanity.
It’s the politics that creates barriers. You be cool and strong !
Woa, that is some serious unadulterated garbage @75. Ashik, I am irregular here but I do read some of the articles and I don’t remember reading anything this odious ever. It’s shocking in its arrogance and to compound things most of the comments I have read from you didn’t sound anything like this comment at 75. I can only guess I have misunderstood what you are trying to say, maybe you are explaining it but don’t personally subscribe to this type of thinking, it’s an off day or your id has been hijacked.
Sonia - Balls to this identity crap, these so called communities don’t give a toss about anything but pretense and hypocrisy on a massive scale, usually surrounding women and sex. Humanity, compassion, sensitivity, respect, acceptance are mere words for public consumption. But sorry you are an individual, not some mascot cum upholder of someone else’s prejudice or perception of what one should do and not do so they can judge you. Nobody can sanctimoniously define anyone’s bounds and expect to be taken seriously. That’s not your burden.
You are not telling anyone how to live their lives, you are not imposing your values on anyone, you are not judging them, you are just doing what makes sense to you. So what makes anyone else think they can do this apart from extraordinary arrogance and an irrational respect for one’s own worldview. This has to be some sort of disease, this level of self-importance and the proliferation of ’self appointed’ arbiters of morality. The very fact that some one ’seeks’ to be an ‘arbiter’ tells us this has got little to do with morality or anything else and every thing to do with posturing and tyranny.
The big problem with community morality and ideals is suffocation of individual integrity and individualism, these don’t matter as long as one publicly subscribes to these community values and the result is always catastrophic. In south asian societies we have all these high talking narratives about culture, morality and values but on a day to basis what you see in these societies is diametrically opposite. But since these communities have the arrogance to monopolize morality and culture, tell me how do entire societies accomplish this without seeing the fundamental dichotomy or inherent xenophobia, so they can lecture other people and pretend to be somehow better than other people it becomes imperative to ignore the reality of their societies which shatters this hypocrisy on a minute to minute basis. The consequence is perpetuating failure, there is no way you can solve a problem unless you identify and recognize it. Since this is their distinction in a world solving real problems its creates a oppressive pressure to conform to these fictional exaggerated self created ‘better than others’ values and an extreme reaction to those who don’t. This glass house has to be protected.
What we have instead is the obscene levels of hypocrisy for public consumption and the absence of individual values on a unrivaled scale everywhere else hence the pervasive corruption, wholesale bigotry, petty dictators all around, oppression of individuals, insensitivity to other people and the total absence of humane systems.
Why should anyone humour these fools. You don’t need to drag these primitive jokers with you. Let them fester in their time warp. It’s entirely their problem. When they get their heads out of their asses they will see some improvement in their societies. Of course the elites in these societies don’t care about the 95% who are living in atrocious conditions explaining how the situation came to be in the first place, the only thing that matters is posturing to themselves and the world, but how long before the majority get smart.
A society where one doesn’t have the liberty to impose one’s self defined values on anyone else, isn’t that liberalism, you can believe anything but you can’t impose it, through your community, government, religion, society, group, individual, nothing nada. Of course this takes the spice out of life for tinpot dictators which is unfortunately a human condition but that only makes it all the more important to have liberalism to foil these tendencies.
The so called ‘common good’ and other avatars of this type of group thinking is only good for those at the top who get to define these values and the unthinking sheep who require the comfort of not thinking. We are all individuals, we live life as individuals, we interact as individuals, that is the only identity that matters.
Bien dicho Raul
Backslapping on a fringe forum like PP is unlikely to make Sonia’s predicament more acceptable to her immediate family members, the wider Bengali community or to Muslims generally. Neither is Islamic scripture going to magically change regarding the treatment of apostates.
PP tends to give a very distorted view of South Asians and the diaspora, given it’s ahem…select…membership. I’m being brutally honest about Sonia’s predicament. At the end of the day if Sonia faces any problems in the future with her relationship, on a balance of probabilities, she will not go running to Ravi Naik or Sid but her (much maligned) parents and family for comfort and help.
If Sonia did not wish her personal life ie. relationship, to be discussed on PP then she should not have introduced the matter on the forum. It is perfectly valid to point out Sonia’s experiences and predicament in relation to the extremely negative views she holds about Islam and Bengali culture.
I don’t think that Sonia has said anything on this thread that opened the door to this sort of personal abuse.
Ashik
It’s not about backslapping anyone… It’s just trying to treat the other with respect.
Sure - mixed race relationships are difficult - and accepting difference in soceity is always hard and we know as non-white folks as we’ve often borne the brunt of racism in the UK.. So I try and have emphathy and respect for people who stand up for their values especially if it runs against mainstream norms - whether it’a the a homogenous white nation-state or a homogenous Asian family unit/society.
This is the most pathetic attempt of emotional blackmail I’ve read in years.
Ouch, that’s harsh. “Fringe”, eh. It misrepresents PP as the kind of website where the regular writers and commenters get together during the weekends and dress up as the Pussycat Dolls whilst dancing to old Madhuri Dixit songs and spanking each other with feather dusters. And that’s just the guys. What an insulting insinuation.
Sorry, what’s that, Rumbold ?…..Eh ?…..Uh-huh…..You’re kidding, right ?…..Seriously ??!!…..Crikey…..
Oh dear.
So there we have Bengali morality: murder, cruelty, theft, all are mere peccadilloes, but “you have done the worst possible thing a Bengali gal can do ie. marry out of culture/religion.”- by the way, Ashik, do you mean marriage out of culture AND religion or culture OR religion? If that’s a common attitude among Bengalis it explains many of the problems Bengal and Bengalis have.
Presumably you also disapprove of outsiders entering Bengal and polluting the sacred territory and Bengalis leaving it too- or do you think that when a Bengali leaves Bengal it raises the average intelligence and morality of both Bengal and the rest of the world?
Halima:
‘Lots of people in Bangladesh marry foreign people and it’s quite normal. I don’t understand why it’s such a betrayal to marry outside’
This is simply not true. The vast majority of Bangladeshis (insert Indians and Pakistanis as appropriate) have never even seen a Caucasian in the flesh. In Bangladesh the majority of people tend to marry others from their home district/region, despite being of the same religion and race. Therefore marriage to a Non-Bengali and a Non-Muslim is simply beyond the mental purview of most Bengalis/South Asians. That’s not to say a small minority of people don’t do it (statistically insignificant).
Re: Your friends French bloke wouldn’t happen to have converted to Islam before he met your friend, would he? Perhaps your friend doesn’t find time to come to this forum and piss on her religion and culture all the while bemoaning the current state of the community. Maybe she and her beau are a bit more practicing than sister Sonia.
ashik,
Back in the 40s there was lots of instances of East End (white) women marrying young Sylheti men who had come to Britain as immigrants, because there was, due to the war, a dearth of eligible young men at the time. I find it hilarious that people of your great-grandfather’s generation were more open minded and less bigotted than you, a product of Multiculturalism in the 21st century.
Many of their children and grandchildren have carried on living in the Sylheti community, many have not. I have even heard some of the English wives going back to Sylhet and settling there. I doubt a single one those people would agree with a word of the ignorant, cowardly and close-minded nonsense that you have passed of as Southasian norms.
And furthermore, anymore psersonal baiting of Sonia and I will get my mate Rumbold to ban you.
Perhaps your friend doesn’t find time to come to this forum and piss on her religion and culture all the while bemoaning the current state of the community. Maybe she and her beau are a bit more practicing than sister Sonia.
Wow. You really are a crass, pointless bigot and all the bile you’ve spilled on this thread says nothing about Sonia and everything anyone needs to know about you.
Rumbold - why is this fucker even being tolerated when he’s making personal attacks on other pp readers?
bloggers, this sort of crap should be deleted, full stop.
Re: Your friends French bloke wouldn’t happen to have converted to Islam before he met your friend, would he?
why would that be relevant? and they don’t practice at all.
Given your personal experiences you do not come from a neutral position.
Unless you’d like to give examples, I’d suggest that no position is neutral. One is either influenced by personal feeling or the field of accessible information.
It’s therefore a stupid rhetorical stick to wield.
Wow. You really are a crass, pointless bigot and all the bile you’ve spilled on this thread says nothing about Sonia and everything anyone needs to know about you.
Well said.
I would just like to add my voice to all those calling for Ashik’s removal.
At the very least, he posted Sonia’s husband’s full name on PP - I don’t think that is permissible or fair in the public domain. Beyond that, he is a hypocritical bigot (as Katy pointed out). He tries to accuse Sonia of hypocrisy, claiming she has left behind ‘her’ religion and culture (who said you could decide, fella?) and is not in a position to comment. He then comes on like the #1 authority on that subject himself, and tries to accuse her of not behaving the way she should (wtf?):
‘Perhaps your friend doesn’t find time to come to this forum and piss on her religion and culture all the while bemoaning the current state of the community. Maybe she and her beau are a bit more practicing than sister Sonia.’
Wrong on so many levels.
Rumbold hun, if you can - BAN AWAY.
Whoa, what the hell happened here?
PP’s a ‘fringe’ forum? If PP’s a ‘fringe’ forum, the others left of this site are way off the Richter scale
Ravi:
“He is not a nerd, in my view. He is a superficial, arrogant, pompous arse, whose books are very badly researched, and therefore easily discredited by anyone with an internet connection and google.”
I used the word ‘nerd’ in a vile sense– not anything meaning that he does extensive research or anything like that.
How about ‘Hitchens is a walking pooper-scooper”?
Some pompous beligerent bigot outstayed his welcome?
Hey, what’s with Sonia being personally attacked when all she said was that she married someone despite the odds?
Well, I disagree with your use of the word “nerd”, then.
There is nothing vile about a nerd - they have an unusual attention on obscured details. CH is nothing like a nerd. Nothing I tell you.
“Perhaps your friend doesn’t find time to come to this forum and piss on her religion and culture all the while bemoaning the current state of the community. Maybe she and her beau are a bit more practicing than sister Sonia.”
What?!
“If Sonia did not wish her personal life ie. relationship, to be discussed on PP then she should not have introduced the matter on the forum.”
Damn, we should all be more careful about relating our personal experiences on PP, so that it cannot be used against us in commenting. I now wish I could go back and line edit my little vignettes splattered all over PP…
“Oh dear Sonia, it seems I’ve hit a nerve. Regardless of what members of PP think, you have done the worst possible thing a Bengali gal can do ie. marry out of culture/religion. You also admit to being an apostate. You are a social pariah and happy about it, so why continue to feign any interest in culturo-religious matters for which you admit you care very little? They no longer impact upon you. Your family is in Bangladesh, over 1000 miles away. Be the assimilated person you want to be. Don’t let the gnawing insecurities and self doubts play so on your mind. In any case what you have to say on Bengali and Muslim culture will have little weight,. Regardless of how well you put your argument.”
Wow, Ashik, I didn’t know YOU had the proper credentials– or anyone else for that matter- to be able to talk about certain things.
Sonia, you keep being the ‘assimilated person’ you want to be. Who the hell cares what some anonymous commentator says on a (fringe) blog like PP?
But I know you are probably smarter than allowing yourself to get wound up over some comment left on a blog…
Ravi:
“Well, I disagree with your use of the word “nerd”, then.
There is nothing vile about a nerd - they have an unusual attention on obscured details. CH is nothing like a nerd. Nothing I tell you.”
Yeah, I agree with you. Bad choice of word on my part.
So ‘pooper scooper’ doesn’t work as an alternative? How about the “Grand Glibster”? Or charlatan? Perhaps Supreme Idiocy?
“and therefore easily discredited by anyone with an internet connection and google.”
Have to say– as another blogger said to me via e-mail– that lots of people with little more than an internet connection and access to google call themselves ‘experts’…
I have been reading PP for a a few months now, on and off, since my sister sent me a link. I have found most of the articles and comments interesting and illuminating, but I have never wanted to say something, until now. It is frustrating to read such ignorant and abusive comments, but it does serve as a reminder that unfortunately there are many out there who have not yet been “converted” (my religious metaphor!) to why it is so important in an open and free society to be tolerant and not to be prejudiced, and all prejudice should be unwelcome including race, religion or the person with whom you choose to call “my partner”.
If Ashik ever posts any personal information about anyone again he is banned for life. Understand?
Sonia has posted personal information on this forum for months and often used her own negative personal experiences in Bangladesh to variously paint South Asians, Muslims, Bengalis and Sylhetis and our culture in a uniformally negative manner. I do not regret one little bit that I queried her intentions with the very same information she shared with us.
As for Sunny and Rumbold, ‘tis your website and your will is done. You can ban members as you will.
Just put on the black cap, Rumbold. No leeway for stalkers.
whoa! boy i think we really touched on ashik’s nerves there, poor dear can’t handle the fact that there are ALL these people just not following tradition like they should!
let’s not ban ashik, and leave his comments up, its all far too amusing.
he’s giving us lots of fodder for the other thread on lovers burnt alive!*and anything about fascist understanding of family & culture. linking to his comments will keep me satiated with inspiration to write for months:-)
well of course im happy to talk about my personal experience, but im not the one “naming” people. ashik can talk about my husband without bringing names into it, i dont know why he thought it was significant to do so. ah well.
thanks to everyone (you know who you are!) for their supportive words and insight. actually, just having been to a positive psychology seminar down at the GLA, i’ve been thinking more about this well-being thing, and you know what, there’s no reason why support can’t come from non-traditional places. it’s connections and understanding that counts to me.
i know im often a voice of cynical pessimism around PP, but ive found people’s comments here generally inspiring, which is great. Hooray!
haha, now thats how to handle trolls. Well done Sonia.
Sister Sonia, I like the sound of that…could be in a
Monty Python sketch or something.
thanks Sid, and im glad to have inspired someone’s monday morning!” ooh and ive just been on Fb and seen your message - i’m aware i need to send you that info..sorry!
So being the bad, bad, Indian American/Hindu/Sikh girl that I am who’s quite happy to “sell-out” by possibly entertaining notions of getting with members of the opposite sex outside of my own ‘community’, I have to say to Rumbold that I found it incredibly sexy when he said:
“If Ashik ever posts any personal information about anyone again he is banned for life. Understand?”
I am shivering. Real rough and tough. I like this.
what is probably of more concern is ashik’s apparent involvement in the immigration system, i’d like to think there aren’t such prejudiced discriminating types of people working in that area. Or peraps its working in immigration that makes him see people as statistics, faceless ‘conformers’ to rules, rather than inviduals with beating hearts, feelings and situations.
perhaps i should look into getting you some HO Community Cohesion funding to go on a “learning journey” ashik, a diversity training course with a difference type thing.
Can’t all of the male PP bloggers rise to the occasion like Rumbold did more often? As long as it is not me who’s bearing the brunt of stern editorial management, I’ll happily follow PP just to see some Pickled manliness.
Sister Sonia (Sonia Bhenji)–
Don’t sweat it. Seriously.
Pickled manliness, i like that Desi. you do make me laugh.
Marinated secularism.