Paris

[Purusha]

That is an accurate description of Saudi Arabia, Iran and a host of other Muslim states but not all Muslims, or Muslim states, are like that. The above is not true about Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Lebanon. It was not true about Iran before the Islamic Revolution, it was not true about Irak before and under Saddam Hussein, nor about Egypt before and under Mubarak, not even about Libya before and under Geddafi, or Syria before and under al-Assad father and son.

During my stay in France I met Algerian-born Muslims who were about the most friendly and helping people I ever met and their general way of thinking was no different than mine, at least on the surface. It is true, though, that they were highly educated and quite secular in outlook.

The Muslim native minority in Romania, which we inherited in 1878 from the Ottoman Empire, is thoroughly assimilated on all accounts and their Grand Mufti is an outspoken ennemy of Islamic terrorism. About recent Muslim immigrants I can´t say anything else than some of them are obviously radicals, judging by the fact that every year several of them are discreetly deported.

For that matter, the type of "right-wing" i was talking about is a left-wing strawman to begin with. The Bible states in American have some of the friendliest people you will ever meet. Still, by leftist logic, Muslims ought to be their number one enemy, right?

The problem is that Europe has for too long been (idiotically, criminally) tolerating exactly the sort of Muslims you described above: first and foremost, they have been (idiotically, criminally) alowed to come to Europe without a minimal background check; once there, they have been (idiotically, criminally) allowed to open mosques for the undisturbed indoctrination of their coreligionists, especially children and youngsters; they have been (idiotically, criminally) allowed to openly proclaim their murderous and destructive goals in public processions and marches under police protection (!!!); they have been (idiotically, criminally) allowed to organize themselves in ghettos and no-go zones; their misdemeanors, offences and crimes have been (idiotically, criminally) either brushed under carpet (Rotherham and other cases) or treated with soft punishment, if at all; and so on and so forth, all in the name of a twisted, perverted and ultimately self-defeating idea of human rights and freedoms, and it boggles the mind that even in the 14th hour, even now that the failure, idiocy and shortsightedness of such policy is hurtfully obvious there are people who claim that it was nothing wrong with this approach and it should be continued, even sped up, because the problem lies elsewhere. Yes, the West had a disastrous policy regarding the Middle East and Maghreb and is partially responsible for the whole mess, but that doesn´t mean that it should not take all available and necessary domestic measures to protect its citizens until it clears up that mess. The battle has many fronts, certainly, but the domestic one is right now the number one priority hands down.

Yes, and those are the fruits of multiculturalism.

[Purusha]

But what's the obvious connection?

The connection is that homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. How do you harmonize two point of views that flat out oppose and contradict each other? You speak of "tolerance", but that only works if both sides play along. What happens when one side doesn't want to submit? What happens if Muslims decide that homosexuality ought to be suppressed and that they are not going to have any homosexual marriage?

[knight66]

That argument basically amounts to saying that, because there is often infighting among siblings, we ought to abolish the very idea of family, or that at any rate it "proves" the family does not create a greater sense of cohesion among individuals (even though it proves nothing of the like).

I did not suggest any such thing. I understand you like to claim that you can see behind what people write, but at least where I am concerned, you fail.

Incidentlly, I am not being drawn in to an extended entrails dragged over a bed of lettuce discussion. Neither you nor Florestan seem interested in exploring a subject; rather, laying down the firm opinions that you hold. I did not want to allow that specific acpect that I outlined above to sit unchallenged.

So you may go at it as you wish and others can decide.

But bear in mind the rules of this site and be careful. I think much of what you write is designed to insult. So far no one has got too excited about your sweeping statements. But as you seem to predict doom for Europe, I predict a sad end to your contributions here unless you show some value on the music topics. This is primarily a music discussion board.

[Purusha]

I did not suggest any such thing.

Then by all means explain yourself. How is infighting among siblings supposed to support the idea that having completely different families living in the same house leads to a stronger, more cohesive existence? Because if it does not prove such a thing, why bring it up?

[Florestan]

in Italy where the North feels almost entirely estranged from and hostile wowards the South

As someone with slight but trustful former and current Italian connections I doubt that all, or even the majority, of Northern Italians feel that way but I agree that it is a significant issue. Yet the reasons for this estrangement and hostility have nothing to do with religion or culture. Is not Milan under the same religious jurisdiction as Palermo? Are the religious beliefs and practices different in Venice than those in Naples? Is Dante less admired, read and studied in Foggia than he is in Padova? Is Vivaldi regarded as a foreign composer in Calabria?

and people in Sicily don't necessarily own to the badge of Italian.

Once again: Italian is a political, not a religious or cultural badge.

It, along with Germany and several other European countries are recent constructs which have spent many centuries as separate sub-tribes, (principalities), and only a short time as any kind of supposedly integrated society.

Well, England and France have been supposedly imtegrated societies for centuries, yet their history is rife with internal conflicts, revolutions and civil wars. But it is quite interesting that many of them had religious background and bitterly opposed Catholics to Protestants (an umbrella word). Italy, divided for centuries, never knew any kind of religious civil war precisely because from North to South there was the utmost uniformity of religion. The only conflicts Italy knew (and knows to this day) were and are about who should rule, not about what religion should prevail and what way of living and thinking should be imposed over the whole country.

Additionally, religion was and remains a live dividing line, or a relatively recent point of pressure in a number of countries between Roman Catholic and Protestant believers. Think of Northern Ireland in the very recent past.

True but irrelevant. The issue was Italy.

There the divisions only just sit beneathe the water, ever ready to explode. If historical religious issues do not form the basis of new conflict, that is only due to the secularisation of these societies.

True as well. Good luck in secularizing Saudi Arabia and Iran, or the followers of Anjem Choudary for that matter --- it is mindboggling that such a man roams freely in England.

Those or other such rifts sit in Spain, France and Italy to my knowledge. The pressures arising now will cause a polarisation which will push a number of countries to the right of where they currently sit and the regional divisions will become increasingly marked.

That might very well be the case, but just because those regional divisions never disappeared in the first place, they have just been brushed under the carpet in the name of a cosmopolitan-liberal utopia that obviously failed --- and I don´t say that with joy as I am myself quite cosmopolitan and liberal but I am also accutely aware of the fact that what fits and benefits individuals doesn´t always or everywhere or anywhere fits and benefits entire societies, let alone aggregates of societies.

[Florestan]

Yes, and those are the fruits of multiculturalism.

No argument here.

[Florestan]

nor Florestan seem interested in exploring a subject; rather, laying down the firm opinions that you hold.

I laid down some firm facts. It is not my fault if they don´t fit your worldview. And frankly I´m disapponted: you know, and can, better than that.

[Purusha]

I think there is a certain misunderstanding going on here, because when some of us speak of unity some appear to believe we are talking about uniformity. Obviously, there is diversity in unity (by definition), but it is the diversity of organs one finds in a living human being, and not the type of diversity one finds in a dismembered corpse, which is the type of diversity multiculturalists appear to be advocating for. Brake everything down and then mash the pieces together hoping something magical happens in the process. Why do i get the feeling that the smashing down is actually the point, and that the mashing together is just how some want to justify the smashing?

[Florestan]

I find it both extremely amusing and extremely disheartening that while Anjem Choudary, the Brest imam Tannhauser pointed us to and scores of others of their ilk freely roam the streets of Europe spilling their venom, the one who is threatened with being shut down is an anonymous and inoffensive poster in an internet board, and on what ground, good God!; he doesn´t post more often on music.

Let´s make a thought experiment. Say, after the first month of his activity, Anjem Choudary would have received the following official warning from the UK government:

[...]bear in mind the rules of this site country and be careful. I We think much of what you write preach is designed to insult. So far no one has got too excited about your sweeping statements. But as you seem to predict doom Sharia for Europe, I we predict a sad end to your contributions residence here unless you show some value on the music tolerance and respect topics. This is primarily a music discussion board tolerant and respectful society.

Wouldn´t that have been nice?

Now, let´s get back to reality and witness someone being threatened with censorship because he disturbs our enjoying our favorite composer and doesn´t even bother to tell us which is his...

[The new erato]

Yes, let's get down to reality where a discussion board is the property of some private entity, and the rules of public speaking are governed differently, as they should be. Two totally different discussions. What you say in my home and what you say publicly are two totally different things, as you surely know.

[Gurn Blanston]

And now it's locked. The purpose of this thread was not to allow an outlet for bile and venom to be spilled. We seem to be unable to keep to any sort of line which involves any outlook except our own selfish one. Those of you who live to fear the end of the world, you should start a thread for that where there can be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the more mature people can actually have a discussion like adults.

GB