The Forum > General Discussion > Muslim Christian Relations-A historical perspective.
Muslim Christian Relations-A historical perspective.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Page 9
- 10
- 11
-
- All
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 19 July 2007 7:09:06 PM
| |
OK, try this for civilized discussion JSP.
>>Even high street banks have been told not to display “piggy” banks in their windows for fear of offending a passing muslim.<< The piggy bank story was debunked ages ago. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1494636.htm >>the British culture is under attack from the muslims, as anything deemed offensive to them is removed even if it’s a part of the majority culture<< This is nonsense. In fact, it is a source of great amusement to the locals that we seem to lap up all these sensationalist stories as if they were true. >>Police conducting house searches are instructed to remove their shoes before entering muslim houses<< No, they are advised - not instructed - to do so, to avoid giving offence. This is not just a Muslim thing - other religions have similar domestic customs which the police, as part of the community, try to observe wherever possible. >>There are many, many more examples of this sort of censorship of the native British culture<< None that bears scrutiny as being a form of censorship. >>Look at the Cronulla riots where top cops tried to tell us that the blame lay with “racist” Australians who dared to display our own flag<< The Cronulla "riots" were nothing more than a re-run of the mods-and-rockers style gang punch-ups that Britain experienced in the sixties. A few hot-heads, a few interracial insults and away you go. Anyway, do you really think that was riot? How many people were actually hurt, for goodness sake? Los Angeles 1992, now that was a riot. What you appear to misunderstand is that Britain has for many years been a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country. It hasn't happened overnight, and it hasn't happened without some give-and-take. But unless you are one of those people who believe that all immigration is abhorrent (usually called "little englanders" over there), the attitude is predominantly one of acceptance. I happen to agree that the occasional example of self-styled do-gooders to overcompensate and make unrealistic compromises is to be condemned. But a genuine attempt to live together need not sink to this level. Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 19 July 2007 7:44:47 PM
| |
I will have to second Pericles re the Cronulla riots.
Australia was unfarely portrayed in international media. All what happened was protest that got hijacked by few empty headed under the influence of alcohol, sun and an overdose of Allan Jones. Thats not Australia or Australians. Peace, Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 20 July 2007 11:19:35 AM
| |
Part 1
Fellow Human, I accept that you are not offended by “piggy banks” etc. That only reveals that you are a liberal or secular muslim and not a fundamentalist. Incidentally, most of what is deemed offensive is decided by and acted on by town and city councils, not actual muslims. It is also reassuring that you accept the Australian flag as your own. Pericles, “The piggy bank story was debunked ages ago” may or may not be true. Having been mostly in Australia since the 90’s, I have had to rely on reports from the media and friends abroad to keep me updated on any developments. I checked out the ABC link and see that the media support the “piggy bank” theory while the banks oppose it. ABC being the media itself, who should we believe? Whether police are advised or instructed to remove shoes before entering a house for search purposes, this would interfere with the integrity of the search, giving the occupants time to dispose of anything illegal if that was the case. I can’t see how the “Cronulla riots" were nothing more than a re-run of the mods-and-rockers style gang punch-ups. Mods and rocker were of the same race and religion, whereas in Cronulla, there were definitely racial/religious undertones. If it wasn’t a riot it was still a breakdown of public order Posted by JSP1488, Friday, 20 July 2007 3:43:25 PM
| |
Part 2
On the subject of “acceptance”, on my many visits to Butterworth (Penang), I was made aware of certain dress codes such as not wearing singlets in public as that may cause offence to the locals. . Why couldn’t they accept my lifestyle? I understand, only too well, Britain’s multi-ethnic make-up. I lived there until 1990. When I was a kid, I saw the first Pakistanis arrive and take jobs on the buses. I heard Enoch Powell warn of troubles if immigration was not netter managed. I saw Chinese Triads move into Glasgow and the Pakistani/Indian immigrants bring in their extended families (something I couldn’t do here). A few times I visited London and was amazed at the amount of different races there. One memory is of being on the Tube and being the only white passenger in the carriage. So it’s one thing advocating a bit of give and take, but another to bring minorities onto equal footing. I’ve adopted Australian culture as my own and don’t expect any special treatment. I suppose that I’m a “little Australianer”. Posted by JSP1488, Friday, 20 July 2007 3:44:33 PM
| |
Branding and related issues with product management are common. The Bank of New South Wales' Donald Duck money caused some controversy when tellers cut Donald's kneck and the kids freaked. The Subaru Legend was to be called the Legacy but in Australia the name was dropped because of associations with a charity. Club dark chocolate has replaced the pipe from next to the arm chair. On the other hand, chocolate with milk from contented cows seems okay for Indians. Choo-Choo Bars as recently as 15 tears ago had a gooliwog on the wrapping.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 20 July 2007 4:23:23 PM
|
I too would be uncomfortable with the idea of "foundation documents" written generations after Jesus' mission and separated by location too. Creed was written hundreds of years later.
BOAZ,
We have covered some these matters in your other thread, wherein seemingly Jesus' oral teachings about the Kingom of God/Heaven based on freedom and the obsolescence of the Jewish Law, were transmuted and Hellenised by Paul and became the creed and doctrine of an institutionalised church. We have (a) the original teachings, (b) an oral tradition period with regionalised versions, (c) Paul deifying Jesus under Greek influence, (d) the writings of many local gospels [too smaller or greater extent influenced by the pagan religions], (e) the Nicaean Council reaching back in their history and selecting and standardising threads and chosing the gospels [keeping some eliminating others]and creating a godhead [perhaps influenced by the Egyptian Serapis model, Jesus is Horus].
Jesus wanted to change the Jewish prevailing system demoting the family and the Law/Rites. Mohammed wished to instil an identity to unify the Arabs and protect his people from foreign encouchments. Jesus used centrifugal forces, whereas Mohammed used centripedal forces