“The acrimonious debate over admitting Turkey to the Union now seems to be accelerating Islam and Europe towards a damaging collision course.” Shada

The fault is not with the European countries but Turkey for choosing to become more Islamic and hostile towards non-Muslims.

It is not surprising that the Muslims in Turkey want Erdogan, the Islamist, to discard the Kemalist secularism of Ataturk to becoming an Islamic country.

Recently, the Islamist, Erdogan (prime minister of Turkey), won the King Faisal International Prize from Saudi Arabia for his “services to Islam”. http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=52509

Shada puts the blame largely on the Europeans for the failure of the Muslim to integrate. The fact is that Muslims never integrate wherever they go, not in Europe, Asia, Australia, Americas nor Africa.

Truth is that we need to look at the overwhelming evidence that Muslims are creating trouble with non-Muslims all over the world, in Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, China, India, Russia, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, etc.

Chances of any integration are nil until the Muslims are willing to leave Islam and move into the 21st century. Islam is the reason why many Islamic countries are failed states.

If Muslims are serious about making real progress, the time to blame other cultures, religions, nationalities, ideologies for the state they are in has to stop. Muslims need to examine their belief system and life-style. After 1400 years, there is plenty of house-cleaning to be done.

Wafa Sultan an Arab psychologist observed why devout Muslims are psychologically and mentally defective,
“it is impossible for any human being to read the life of Muhammad and believe in it, yet emerge a psychologically and mentally healthy person” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zdN234Bp9

"By the way Pericles, you use a pseudonym from the background of Western democratic reasoning. I can think of nothing further from that than Islam. Perhaps you should change your pseudonym!" eyejaw

I agree. What about 'Saladin'?

David Jennings asks:

"Was the lobotomy painful?"

Nope. In fact it was voluntary. I had the ToTF* module excised from my brain.

--Do you think Henryk M. Broder, author of the Spiegel piece I linked, also underwent a lobotomy?

--Do you think it right that European "intellectuals" like Grass should accede to, even justify, censorship through intimidation?

--When "Piss Christ" was put on display in Melbourne several Australian newspapers published a copy of the photograph. No major Australian newspaper published even one of the Muhammad cartoons. Let's see your rationalisation for the different treatment of the two "blasphemous" images.

--Muslims are trying to introduce blasphemy laws in the guise of "defamation of religion". See http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52P60220090326 . Would you like to see such laws enacted in Australia? We already have them in Victoria – the infamous "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act" that egregiously conflates attacks on religion with racism.

My position is this:

Any religion, philosophy, system of belief, viewpoint or ideology including but not restricted to agnosticism, atheism, Buddhism, capitalism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Marxism, socialism, Zionism and Zoroastrianism is a LEGITIMATE target for analysis, critique, satire and scorn. The critic is under no obligation to abide by a true believer's rules on "objectivity" or "fairness" or to take account of the true believers' "feelings". There should be no right not to be offended. In fact the critic has a right to make statements or construct images that a true believed may find deeply wounding. Incitement to violence, NARROWLY DEFINED**, should however be forbidden.

Do you agree with the above statement?

If not which religions, philosophies, etc should be immune from attack and why?

*Tolerance of Taurine Fertiliser

**I usually explain the distinction thus:

Judaism is a load of excrement and anyone who believes that rubbish is mentally retarded – permitted.

Kill the Jews – forbidden.

Stevenlmeyer

You should read the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Victoria) and the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. Some of the other States and Territories are also moving to address religious vilification. So in truth some of your comments would not be permitted under the law.

Steven writes:
"**I usually explain the distinction thus:

Judaism is a load of excrement and anyone who believes that rubbish is mentally retarded – permitted.

Kill the Jews – forbidden."

Well thats a bad explanation because its wrong under the law. If somebody wanted to sue a person who made comments like that under the Victorian Act or in NSW they probably could. Read the Dow Jones v Gutnick case. Just because they may have posted elsewhere it doesn't matter so long as the publication reaches the relevant jurisdiction. Those remarks about Judaism would probably offend under the Commonwealth's Racial Discrimination Act.

And what is the point of being so rude and offensive anyway?

Aw shucks, Philip Tang.

>>(eyejaw) "By the way Pericles, you use a pseudonym from the background of Western democratic reasoning. I can think of nothing further from that than Islam. Perhaps you should change your pseudonym!"

(Philip Tang) I agree. What about 'Saladin'?<<

That's really sweet of you, but I wouldn't be able to live up to the responsibility to virtue that the name carries.

"...when the Crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099 they murdered virtually all of its inhabitants, boasting that parts of the city were knee-high in blood. When Saladin re-took the city in 1187, he spared his victims, giving them time to leave and safe passage. It was, after all, a holy city, and it was captured by the Muslims in a 'just war'."

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/saladin.htm

Such chivalry. Such humanity.

"Saladin staffed [the hospital] with doctors and druggists, and it had special rooms, beds, bedclothes, servants to look after the sick, free food and medicine, and a special ward for sick women. Nearby, he also built a separate building with barred windows for the insane, who were treated humanely and looked after by experts who tried to find out what had happened to their minds."

It's so very kind of you to think of me in this way, Philip Tang, but modesty forbids.

Europe is Europe and their choice. They are Indigenous people and should be allowed a say in the cultural evolution of their respective countries.

We should know that better than most. You cannot force cultural change on anyone.

Called cultural genocide is it not?