So I can’t really comment convincingly.”

In that case why , I repeat, discriminate if you do not have the knowledge & ability to comment convincingly.(you don’t have to state the latter literally BTW)

Getting back to you from earlier.

You make much about different values, culture and now duo culture. Most of it is used to construct the barrier of difference.

Values are largely human values which are common across all religions. (And yes a minority misinterpret or seek to apply outdated scriptures literally today which do not work for the modern values of the majority.)

Culture is hard to define – consider the answers on a post on PP a few weeks where we sought to define British culture.

Culture is undefinable because it is actually just personal tastes which are unique, can change over time/age/experiences and therefore too variable to quantify or ’set’ as culture. And the only purpose of defining a groups personal tastes would be to dictate what others personal tastes should be. That then encroaches onto personal freedoms. That then creates the cyclical debate over whether subsuming personal freedoms is against our values & culture.

So, were there Khalistani lunatics or not, as Aunti Vera averred?

Genuine question. I have no idea.

But surely such a massacre was what the Khalistan loonies, the very same people who bombed at least one airliner, wanted?

Its interesting that the first response to this thread by ‘Auntie Vera’ is a virtual knee-jerk apologia for what was effectively a pogrom of genocidal intensity perpetrated by functionaries of the Congress party against innocent children, women and men. It is obvious that Auntie Vera believes in collective punishment, murderous collective punishment of innocent children, women and men. It is obvious that were an individual of Auntie Vera’s ethnic group to commit a crime or offence deemed to be answerable by collective punishment, even if he or she would not like it, Auntie Vera would understand if his or her mother, sister, daughter was raped and then murdered, his or her male relatives mutilated and then set on fire in front of his or her eyes, and then Auntie Vera him or herself would understand and empathise with those that slit her or his throat, raped him or her, and poured petrol over his or her body and set him or her alight to die the most painful death imaginable.

All of that would be understandable, right, Auntie Vera? The context is one you accept and assert, so you would be happy to bear the sins of those individuals you shared an ethnicity with, happy to have your family raped and exterminated like insects in order to assuage the impulse of collective punishment, right, Auntie Vera?

That’s the upshot of it all. The other reason is that you are a snivelling, cowardly piece of moral excrement who renders apologia for murderous genocide and rape of innocents, a piece of moral cowardly scum.

Which is it, Auntie Vera? Let us know, you are either the neo-Jagdish Tytler, or the future sacrifical lamb to your own murder for something you have nothing to do.

Either way, you are an ethically illiterate cretin.

I was under the impression that you defend sharia law and support that Islam is morally equivalent with religions such as Judaism and Christianity. You also seem to think that there are no possible disadvantages of a rapidly increasing Muslim demographic. And considering you’re a Jew, I think you’re deluding yourself:

“EU official: Half of European anti-Semitism related to radical Islam”

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201867280106&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

This should also worry you:

“The European Union’s racism watchdog has shelved a report on anti-semitism because the study concluded Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups were behind many of the incidents it examined.”

From The Financial Times 
November 22-23 2003

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000152.html

“i criticised your use of the word “indigenous” (and i’m not too happy about “host culture and values” either) because i don’t see a clear dividing line between english or british “values” and “culture”…”

Imagine, bananabrain, how offended many Jews would be at claims that there was no such thing as a distinct Jewish people and no shared history, culture or values.

“in some ways i share the view, that bigoted, insular discourse has been allowed to get out of control for far too long and has been indulged by society and government. where you and i part ways, however, is where you assert that a) these views are an essential part of being a muslim and b) that the situation cannot be removed without essentially repressive and coercive means.”

Indeed we do agree and disagree on both those points.

“it is not beyond the wit of man to come up with a legislative solution that penalises and rewards behaviour rather than making it contingent on a particular religious label, to be awarded by whichever dubiously accredited body. that is the failure of your understanding.”

Notwithsatnding my view that demographics are the Achilles heel of democracy, I would go along with that.

For example, I would make it contingent on an Islamic organization receiving recognition, respect, government discourse or public funds for it to publically denounce support for killing apostates, homosexuals and people who have sex outside of marriage here or anywhere else.

The fact that many Muslim organizations don’t do this (or skirt around the issue by saying they “support a ‘moratorium’ on hudud punishments” aka Tariq Ramadan) is no less outrageous to Nick Griffin claiming that the KKK are “totally peaceful these days” on Question Time.

Unfortunately your position is an example of where Jewish people end up defending the indefensible out of a paranoia that a less tolerant environment may backfire on them.

nonsense. what am i defending that is indefensible? i criticised your use of the word “indigenous” (and i’m not too happy about “host culture and values” either) because i don’t see a clear dividing line between english or british “values” and “culture” – there are some things which are english which are not jewish – black pudding (oh, all right, shakespeare if you like) springs to mind. there are some things which are jewish which are not english – talmud study, for example – but there is a *vast hinterland* of values, objects and behaviours that we share, from humour to manners. there is, for example, a jewish sunday league for footballers. there are very few jews that have seen it that don’t recognise just how devastatingly accurate the satire of “life of brian” is. there is a kashrut supervisor for marmite. there are even some things that are distinctively british-jewish, like the office of the chief rabbi, many of the tunes used in synagogue or the limmud conference. all of these things arose from a tolerant environment. i am indeed defending pluralism as it makes such things possible. but pluralism, for me, is not about saying that all things are equally valid – but that all things have a place within the system. if every british jew shared the values and displayed the behaviours of some of the ultra-orthodox sects, we wouldn’t be held up as exemplars of integration by the likes of you. if every british jew shared the values and displayed the behaviours of the liberals, it wouldn’t be long before we weren’t actually recognisable as jews any more. the only reason it works is because the system is a portfolio, or an ecosystem if you prefer – it is its biodiversity that allows it to flourish. if the system gets out of whack for some reason, if one element unbalances it, then we have a problem. it is your contention, presumably, that the intolerant elements and interpretation of islam have done precisely that and, of course, you are entitled to this opinion. in some ways i share the view, that bigoted, insular discourse has been allowed to get out of control for far too long and has been indulged by society and government. where you and i part ways, however, is where you assert that a) these views are an essential part of being a muslim and b) that the situation cannot be removed without essentially repressive and coercive means. with this i fervently disagree and, more to the point, i don’t think that it is only restricted to islam – i would foresee my life becoming extremely unpleasant if the same level of bigotry and hostility to my way of life exhibited by the followers of richard dawkins became ubiquitous and indulged by the body politic – nick griffin, of course, goes without saying. what i object to is not islam, but lack of balance. what you appear to object to is islam. to quote ben goldacre:

“actually, it’s a little bit more complicated than that.”

Of course Jewish people are ‘unassimilable’.

no, we’re not. we just understand that if assimilation gets out of control as, arguably, it did in germany in the early C20th or the US during the baby boom, the system gets out of whack and requires correction – but this must happen from within.

And yes, frum Jews don’t necessarily accept British values and culture. But neither do they oppose non-Jews from having them.

if you can tell me what “british values and culture” are and how they’re different from jewish values and culture, then perhaps we might have somewhat to discuss – but, of course, these are not two distinct entities and never have been – just put a bunch of scottish reform jews together with a bunch of london chasidim – or me with a bunch of german jews! – and see how well your contention does then.

And crucially, Judaism is not prothletising.

you mean proselytising. yes, we’re not – but you are. you are proselytising for assimilation as if it were a universalist solution – and we already know that it ain’t.

These are crucial differences. And they demonstrate just how dangerous it is to expect Islam to be treated the same as Judaism in Britain.

it is not beyond the wit of man to come up with a legislative solution that penalises and rewards behaviour rather than making it contingent on a particular religious label, to be awarded by whichever dubiously accredited body. that is the failure of your understanding.

b’shalom

bananabrain

on the effendi thing, i’m not getting involved. i don’t know everyone who contributes to the spittoon, nor am i responsible for everything they do. as always, i speak only for myself. i think the spittoon is a valuable platform and it’s doing good work. as you know, i have always objected to bad language and personal attacks in comments and will continue to do so, but there is really no point you hassling me about this.

b’shalom

bananabrain

“I don’t know as much about Sikhism as I do about Islam”

Given that there has been some major interplay between the two on many levels I am surprised.

As to duo-cultural that is just a false construct which I will comment on (later) when I have the time

“You stated you liked Sikhs. But historically Sikhs did make war on those who did not allow them to practise their religion. From your own account you do not seem to think that that makes Sikhs dangerous to Britain. In fact you hold them up as a beacon as to how ‘integration’ needs to work. Why are you discriminating?”

Yes, I’ve liked most of the Sikhs I’ve met. As I’ve liked most of the Muslims I know. And sometimes ‘pretend’ to be related to.

I don’t know as much about Sikhism as I do about Islam, Christianity and Judaism. To be fair, I know little beyond the average layperson who reads more than most.

So I can’t really comment convincingly.

But what I do know is that Sikhism doesn’t seem to be prophesying. It doesn’t seem to have a history of imperialism, forced conversion and cultural aggression. And Sikhs do not, in any significant numbers, hope for an eventual Sikh Britain operating under Sikh law.

Also, their numbers are small.

But however ‘nice’ Sikhism seems to me, I’m certain that if the Sikh population here was to rise to 20%, 30% or 50%, then we would have the inter-community violence that inevitably occurs in all duo-cultural societies.

Who is Effendi, and why do you share a web site with him or her?

Lets have some biography…

And a bit of justification.

From you Bananabrain.

They’d tell us if they didn’t like us.

b’shalom

bananabrain

Unfortunately your position is an example of where Jewish people end up defending the indefensible out of a paranoia that a less tolerant environment may backfire on them.

nonsense. what am i defending that is indefensible? i criticised your use of the word “indigenous” (and i’m not too happy about “host culture and values” either) because i don’t see a clear dividing line between english or british “values” and “culture” – there are some things which are english which are not jewish – black pudding (oh, all right, shakespeare if you like) springs to mind. there are some things which are jewish which are not english – talmud study, for example – but there is a *vast hinterland* of values, objects and behaviours that we share, from humour to manners. there is, for example, a jewish sunday league for footballers. there are very few jews that have seen it that don’t recognise just how devastatingly accurate the satire of “life of brian” is. there is a kashrut supervisor for marmite. there are even some things that are distinctively british-jewish, like the office of the chief rabbi, many of the tunes used in synagogue or the limmud conference. all of these things arose from a tolerant environment. i am indeed defending pluralism as it makes such things possible. but pluralism, for me, is not about saying that all things are equally valid – but that all things have a place within the system. if every british jew shared the values and displayed the behaviours of some of the ultra-orthodox sects, we wouldn’t be held up as exemplars of integration by the likes of you. if every british jew shared the values and displayed the behaviours of the liberals, it wouldn’t be long before we weren’t actually recognisable as jews any more. the only reason it works is because the system is a portfolio, or an ecosystem if you prefer – it is its biodiversity that allows it to flourish. if the system gets out of whack for some reason, if one element unbalances it, then we have a problem. it is your contention, presumably, that the intolerant elements and interpretation of islam have done precisely that and, of course, you are entitled to this opinion. in some ways i share the view, that bigoted, insular discourse has been allowed to get out of control for far too long and has been indulged by society and government. where you and i part ways, however, is where you assert that a) these views are an essential part of being a muslim and b) that the situation cannot be removed without essentially repressive and coercive means. with this i fervently disagree and, more to the point, i don’t think that it is only restricted to islam – i would foresee my life becoming extremely unpleasant if the same level of bigotry and hostility to my way of life exhibited by the followers of richard dawkins became ubiquitous and indulged by the body politic – nick griffin, of course, goes without saying. what i object to is not islam, but lack of balance. what you appear to object to is islam. to quote ben goldacre:

“actually, it’s a little bit more complicated than that.”

Of course Jewish people are ‘unassimilable’.

no, we’re not. we just understand that if assimilation gets out of control as, arguably, it did in germany in the early C20th or the US during the baby boom, the system gets out of whack and requires correction – but this must happen from within.

And yes, frum Jews don’t necessarily accept British values and culture. But neither do they oppose non-Jews from having them.

if you can tell me what “british values and culture” are and how they’re different from jewish values and culture, then perhaps we might have somewhat to discuss – but, of course, these are not two distinct entities and never have been – just put a bunch of scottish reform jews together with a bunch of london chasidim – or me with a bunch of german jews! – and see how well your contention does then.

And crucially, Judaism is not prothletising.

you mean proselytising. yes, we’re not – but you are. you are proselytising for assimilation as if it were a universalist solution – and we already know that it ain’t.

These are crucial differences. And they demonstrate just how dangerous it is to expect Islam to be treated the same as Judaism in Britain.

it is not beyond the wit of man to come up with a legislative solution that penalises and rewards behaviour rather than making it contingent on a particular religious label, to be awarded by whichever dubiously accredited body. that is the failure of your understanding.

b’shalom

bananabrain

but America, one of the most ethnically diverse countries, hasn’t suffered a civil war for 140 years or so

Is hardly a strong arguement.

‘Strange Fruit’ was a song of the 1950’s was it not?

Anyway.

What about the civil war in England?

Are we precluded from talking about that?

Just because it was a while ago.

I baggsies Cavaliers, you can have Roundheads.

but America, one of the most ethnically diverse countries, hasn’t suffered a civil war for 140 years or so

Is hardly a strong arguement.

Anyway.

What about the civil war in England?

Are we precluded from talking about that?

Just because it was a while ago.

I baggsies Cavaliers, you can have Roundheads.

Did you insult me on another thread? I think you probably did.

BB and I don’t agree about anything much. But I have always found him to be a fair and friendly person. That counts with me. I try to reply to him much in the same way as he replies to me. Without malice.

Doesn’t mean we agree. From my point of view it is about respect.

You should try it sometime.

“Islam takes a very different approach (again, from memory): When living among the unbelievers, obey the laws of the unbelievers and do not make war on them as long as they allow you to practice your religion and do not drive you from your homes. These are crucial differences. And they demonstrate just how dangerous it is to expect Islam to be treated the same as Judaism in Britain.”

You stated you liked Sikhs. But historically Sikhs did make war on those who did not allow them to practise their religion. From your own account you do not seem to think that that makes Sikhs dangerous to Britain. In fact you hold them up as a beacon as to how ‘integration’ needs to work. Why are you discriminating?