'No fundamentalist Muslim views' - Aust PM

[Kiless]

Cited from here:http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...s/2005/08/18/1123958182093.html?oneclick=true

PM defends radicals summit decision - 18:15 AEST Fri Aug 19 2005
Prime Minister John Howard has defended his decision to leave radical Islamic groups out of next week's summit on religious violence.
Mr Howard has invited 14 moderate Muslim leaders to discuss ways to stop religious leaders inciting violence and terrorism, in the wake of the London bombings.
But Islamic groups have criticised the guest list, saying it could lead to impressions the prime minister had invited only those who would say what he wanted to hear.

I'm intrigued.

Having worked with Muslim people in a school, I had the opportunity to know fellow teachers and parents who pretty much showed the full range of Muslim beliefs - from women who took to the veil and loudly challenged the negative stereotypes usually associated with becoming a Muslim, to parents who spoke up at P&T meetings saying that the amount of reverence showed to Allah at the school wasn't enough and outlining stricter rules that they thought the College should have and more. They all worked together fairly well, with even those espousing more radical interpretations of the Koran given respect... is a political meeting that different?

The PM and Foreign Minister Downer, from this link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1441805.htm

Mr Howard says extremist and fundamentalist groups have not been invited because "we want to promote the ideal of moderation and identification with the values that all Australians share".
"I see no merit in inviting unrepresentative people who have an extreme view," he said.
"We want to discourage extreme views. To invite people who represent an extreme point of view is to give them disproportionate and unmeritorious recognition, which would anger people who are trying to do the right thing."

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says he agrees with a decision to exclude extremists from the summit.
"I don't think people who hold those views, which are the antithesis of what just about all Australians stand for, I don't think they should be given a platform and I don't think they should be empowered," he said.
"I think what we have got to do is harness the energy - not just in Australia, but around the world - of moderate Muslims and that is most Muslims."

I am still torn. I do not support fundamentalism... but is this just courting trouble? Will there be riots or worse?

 

[Giz]

You can't include all of the nut cases all of the time. (Not if you want to reach any kind of consensus anyway).

If my Government was to hold a conference on race relations I wouldn't expect them to invite the BNP.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am still torn. I do not support fundamentalism... but is this just courting trouble? Will there be riots or worse?

If the lack of an invitation to a discussion leads to riots, then the problem is too deep and far progressed for those talks to have done much good anyways, regardless of who gets invited. I don't know if it's the right decision or not, but if riots DO result from these groups not being invited, I think that would rather prove the point that they didn't deserve an invitation.

 

[Ed]

Perhaps the opinions of some are not worthy of respect.

 

[normdoering]

Perhaps the opinions of some are not worthy of respect.

I think it's reasonable to exclude people who would try you and sentence you to death for blasphemy if they could.

In fact, I think it would be reasonable to napalm those clerics.

According to Rationalist Bulletin # 146 (19 August 2005):
http://www.rationalistinternational.net

Just like Rushdie, the clerics in Pakistan still want to kill writers for blasphemy.

...the author had been found guilty of committing blasphemy as he described the four Imams, who were respected and recognized the world over as the third generation of interpreters of Islam after Prophet Mohammed, as Jews. According to the public prosecutor, it was another act of blasphemy that the author claimed that the punishment of stoning to death for adultery was not mentioned in the Quran.

Odd that stoning isn't in the Quran, it's in the Bible.

Same newsletter talks about a 60 year old Christian and two teenagers getting the blasphemy charge.

 

[Freakshow]

Cited from here:http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...s/2005/08/18/1123958182093.html?oneclick=true

PM defends radicals summit decision - 18:15 AEST Fri Aug 19 2005
Prime Minister John Howard has defended his decision to leave radical Islamic groups out of next week's summit on religious violence.
Mr Howard has invited 14 moderate Muslim leaders to discuss ways to stop religious leaders inciting violence and terrorism, in the wake of the London bombings.
But Islamic groups have criticised the guest list, saying it could lead to impressions the prime minister had invited only those who would say what he wanted to hear.

I'm intrigued.

Having worked with Muslim people in a school, I had the opportunity to know fellow teachers and parents who pretty much showed the full range of Muslim beliefs - from women who took to the veil and loudly challenged the negative stereotypes usually associated with becoming a Muslim, to parents who spoke up at P&T meetings saying that the amount of reverence showed to Allah at the school wasn't enough and outlining stricter rules that they thought the College should have and more. They all worked together fairly well, with even those espousing more radical interpretations of the Koran given respect... is a political meeting that different?

The PM and Foreign Minister Downer, from this link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1441805.htm

Mr Howard says extremist and fundamentalist groups have not been invited because "we want to promote the ideal of moderation and identification with the values that all Australians share".
"I see no merit in inviting unrepresentative people who have an extreme view," he said.
"We want to discourage extreme views. To invite people who represent an extreme point of view is to give them disproportionate and unmeritorious recognition, which would anger people who are trying to do the right thing."

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says he agrees with a decision to exclude extremists from the summit.
"I don't think people who hold those views, which are the antithesis of what just about all Australians stand for, I don't think they should be given a platform and I don't think they should be empowered," he said.
"I think what we have got to do is harness the energy - not just in Australia, but around the world - of moderate Muslims and that is most Muslims."

I am still torn. I do not support fundamentalism... but is this just courting trouble? Will there be riots or worse?

What has you "torn"? Just the possibility of "riots or worse"? Or something else?

 

[Kiless]

Re: Re: 'No fundamentalist Muslim views' - Aust PM

What has you "torn"? Just the possibility of "riots or worse"? Or something else?

I guess it's my hope that rational discourse could be made whatever beliefs you have... will this exclusion result in violence?

Some of my opinions have since changed since watching late night SBS yesterday and viewing a man who apparently represents one group of 'fundamentalist muslims', who states that Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with September 11th attacks in NY.... that confused me more!

 

[clarsct]

Cited from here:http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...s/2005/08/18/1123958182093.html?oneclick=true

PM defends radicals summit decision - 18:15 AEST Fri Aug 19 2005
Prime Minister John Howard has defended his decision to leave radical Islamic groups out of next week's summit on religious violence.
Mr Howard has invited 14 moderate Muslim leaders to discuss ways to stop religious leaders inciting violence and terrorism, in the wake of the London bombings.
But Islamic groups have criticised the guest list, saying it could lead to impressions the prime minister had invited only those who would say what he wanted to hear.

I'm intrigued.

Having worked with Muslim people in a school, I had the opportunity to know fellow teachers and parents who pretty much showed the full range of Muslim beliefs - from women who took to the veil and loudly challenged the negative stereotypes usually associated with becoming a Muslim, to parents who spoke up at P&T meetings saying that the amount of reverence showed to Allah at the school wasn't enough and outlining stricter rules that they thought the College should have and more. They all worked together fairly well, with even those espousing more radical interpretations of the Koran given respect... is a political meeting that different?

Um. I know I'm American and perhaps I have a skewed viewpoint, but are you saying that you teach religion in your schools? Just asking.

The PM and Foreign Minister Downer, from this link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1441805.htm

Mr Howard says extremist and fundamentalist groups have not been invited because "we want to promote the ideal of moderation and identification with the values that all Australians share".
"I see no merit in inviting unrepresentative people who have an extreme view," he said.
"We want to discourage extreme views. To invite people who represent an extreme point of view is to give them disproportionate and unmeritorious recognition, which would anger people who are trying to do the right thing."

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says he agrees with a decision to exclude extremists from the summit.
"I don't think people who hold those views, which are the antithesis of what just about all Australians stand for, I don't think they should be given a platform and I don't think they should be empowered," he said.
"I think what we have got to do is harness the energy - not just in Australia, but around the world - of moderate Muslims and that is most Muslims."

I am still torn. I do not support fundamentalism... but is this just courting trouble? Will there be riots or worse?

Ok. If you had a summit to discuss the halting of pot smoking, would you invite the drug dealers?

Why or why not? Aren't their viewpoints and beliefs on the issue valid?

That, and Ed had a point.

Lastly, too many cooks spoil the broth. If you try to acommodate everybody, you'll wind up doing nothing or making things worse, even. Some people just won't bring anything useful to the table.

 

[Freakshow]

Re: Re: Re: 'No fundamentalist Muslim views' - Aust PM

I guess it's my hope that rational discourse could be made whatever beliefs you have

Please don't take this personally. I don't know you, and I do not mean the following statement to be an insult to you personally in any way.

But that hope is a belief that is so detached from reality as to border on being delusional. The world, unfortunately, does not work that way. That's just not the way things are. Not even close.

 

[Kiless]

Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No fundamentalist Muslim views' - Aust PM

Please don't take this personally. I don't know you, and I do not mean the following statement to be an insult to you personally in any way.

But that hope is a belief that is so detached from reality as to border on being delusional. The world, unfortunately, does not work that way. That's just not the way things are. Not even close.

Yes, but we can dream, yeah?

Perhaps having a good example of how political / religious / cultural differences can be worked out - eh, if it is worked out by this meeting they're proposing - would be good for the fundamentalists. But then, yeah, probably pipe dream.

 

[Freakshow]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No fundamentalist Muslim views' - Aust PM

Yes, but we can dream, yeah?

Perhaps having a good example of how political / religious / cultural differences can be worked out - eh, if it is worked out by this meeting they're proposing - would be good for the fundamentalists. But then, yeah, probably pipe dream.

"Dream" is different from "hallucinate"!

I try to take a very practical and pragmatic view on these sort of matters.

 

[Kiless]

Re: Re: 'No fundamentalist Muslim views' - Aust PM

Um. I know I'm American and perhaps I have a skewed viewpoint, but are you saying that you teach religion in your schools? Just asking.

If it's a religious school, sure, they teach religion. Like - St Hilda's Anglican college, St Mark's Catholic School, An-Noor Islamic School, et al.

Me personally, teach religion? Oddly enough, just for two years. I TOLD them I was an atheist and the Deputy said, 'Eh, we've got no one else doing it and you have Accreditation A, (this no longer exists, but it meant I did the required unit of religion at post grad level at a Catholic university) so whatthehell.'

I ended up teaching about The Children's Crusade and helping them with their English homework. Silly, I did warn them.

That, and Ed had a point.
Lastly, too many cooks spoil the broth. If you try to acommodate everybody, you'll wind up doing nothing or making things worse, even. Some people just won't bring anything useful to the table.

Could a good example, however, be demonstrated by having a few? Is it right to alienate them all?

And what defines them as fundamentalist anyway?

 

[Freakshow]

Re: Re: Re: 'No fundamentalist Muslim views' - Aust PM

Because the analogy is wrong, that's why. These are religious beliefs, not criminal acts.

Some religious beliefs are criminal, as far as I'm concerned. "You can't go to school, or drive a car, or go out in public without a burka, or keep your clitoris and labia, because you're a woman, and you are less-than-human." "You have to have a beard at least a fist long, otherwise you go to jail." "You MUST practice this certain religion in this country, or we will put you in jail, or worse." And so on, and so forth.

It all sounds criminal to me.

Not all ideas are of equal value.

 

[espritch]

Some religious beliefs are criminal, as far as I'm concerned. "You can't go to school, or drive a car, or go out in public without a burka, or keep your clitoris and labia, because you're a woman, and you are less-than-human." "You have to have a beard at least a fist long, otherwise you go to jail." "You MUST practice this certain religion in this country, or we will put you in jail, or worse." And so on, and so forth.

My favorite is "If you disagree with our interpretation of our ancient religious text, you are a blasphemer and must be put to death". This seems to happen on a regular basis in Iran and Packistan. It use to happen on a pretty regular basis in Christian countries back before the enlightenment defanged the Churches.

 

[Kiless]

Some more thoughts...

By only talking to the mainstream, does this mean that they further isolate the extremists and annoy them? Does the mainstream have an understanding of what makes the extremists tick and how to best accomodate them? After all, it's not the mainstream that are being held responsible for what the extremists do....

 

[clarsct]

I hate to admit it.....

But Kiless might slowly be bringing me around to her view.

Perhaps the extremists should have a delegate. If nothing else, they will be heard.

Then again, a wily and cunning diplomat for their cause could turn the moderates against one another, rendering the meeting useless.

Hmmmm.

I say don't invite them to this one. Bring the moderates around seperately, then bring in the extremists on the next one. Get a consensus first, then bring in the troublemakers.



But they should have some voice....


Side note: Kiless? You teach at a religious school? Or am I misunderstanding? (just curious)

 

[Kiless]

Re: I hate to admit it.....

But they should have some voice....


Side note: Kiless? You teach at a religious school? Or am I misunderstanding? (just curious)

If you don't have a voice, methinks, you just get angrier. And if they are seen as responsible for most of the troubles in the first place, well......

I have always taught in religious schools! As I said at a Curtin Uni lecture, 'I seem to be collecting the set!'

Catholic University first - have worked for (big breath) Catholics, Methodists, Anglicans, Muslims and was nearly headhunted by a Jewish school (in the end turned them down, but I'd certainly consider them again, they were very nice).

My attitude is that all of them were willing to give a little atheist a job and run the risk of exposing me to their students, they can't be that bad.

 

[Manny]

Re: Re: I hate to admit it.....

If you don't have a voice, methinks, you just get angrier.

The kinds of guys who are on a level to theoretically be invited to this meeting are never, ever going to change. It would be like inviting David Duke to a meeting on what to do about white supremecists.

No, the idea is to isolate them. Make it clear that they are not welcome to be a part of civilized society until they, well, want to be a part of civilized society. The snub is as much or more at followers and potential followers of these guys as at the guys themselves. "If you go with this guy, you're out. Definitely out of society, maybe deported, maybe worse."

 

[Freakshow]

Some more thoughts...

By only talking to the mainstream, does this mean that they further isolate the extremists and annoy them?

Dont' care.

Does the mainstream have an understanding of what makes the extremists tick and how to best accomodate them?

Don't care.

I don't care if the extremists are annoyed. (I admit not reading the link in your original post, and I am not talking about that specific issue. I am talking about the overall bigger picture view of extremists. Such as fundamentalist Islam, and extreme racism, such as formal white-supremist organizations.)

I don't care about what these groups think, or whether or not they are annoyed. If someone wants to have some camp out in Idaho where they get annoyed all day about everything non-white, then fine. I don't care...as long as they are not actually going out and doing anything harmful. These people can be annoyed and upset all they want, as long as they keep it to themselves.

Now, I realize a lot of extremists are not keeping it to themselves (example: 9/11). But nothing can be done to change the sort of extremist that has gone so far off the beaten path as to be at a point where they cannot function in modern society without hurting people.

There are people we can change (I think most people in the middle-east are beyond hope this point, but if we get rid of the fundamentalist Islam governments, we might be able to help the next generation, and the generation after that even more), and there are people we can't change (the sort of people who listen to OBL and fly planes into buildings.)

For the people we can't change: I don't care what they are thinking. Because we can't change it. All I care about is taking away their ability to hurt other people. That is something we CAN change. Analogy: You aren't going to change a serial rapist. This is a compulsive behavior, and he cannot stop. So we lock him up in a cage. That serial rapist can sit in that cage for the next 50 years until his death, thinking about how badly he wants to rape women. He can think about that all day and dream about it all night, for all I care. As long as he stays in that cage, I DON'T CARE what he is thinking.

 

[Ziggurat]

By only talking to the mainstream, does this mean that they further isolate the extremists and annoy them? Does the mainstream have an understanding of what makes the extremists tick and how to best accomodate them?

We don't WANT to accomodate the extremists (or at least, we shouldn't if we have any sense about us). And I'd say it's not quite about isolating or convincing or annoying the extremists so much as disempowering them. The muslim community is already fractured, we can't heal those rifts. And there is no possible discourse or discussion or understanding that can bridge that divide either. What we may be able to do, however, is disempower the radicals, and empower the moderates. Because power is really what this is about: the radicals recruit by displays of power, they convince by displays of power. For a young, confused, alienated muslim youth who is susceptible to seduction by extremist, it's ultimately that promise of power and its corollary, our weakness in the face of that power, that is so convincing. Accomodate them? That would only prove the point that the radicals are strong and we are weak, and who (especially among the young) doesn't want to feel that they belong to a group with power? No, this is a case where actions speak louder than words, and those actions must convey strength, not weakness.