Pork Banned From London Big Borough's Primary Schools Menus

GodsEmbryo

Closed Account
ENJOY INTEGRATION!

Sabrina, I'm confused by your use of the words "Enjoy integration!". Could you elaborate on that please?

As far as I understand, what you mean by integration in this context is that our society is adapting the rules, while it should be the other way round, right? I quote: "But muslims seem to have a special immunity against neutrality of secular states. So much for integration."But in a neutral secular state we are guaranteed freedom of religion and since we are living in a multicultural and multireligious society, shouldn't it be normal that we guarantee this religious freedom by adapting the rules? Secondly, it's not on demand by muslims. It's not that muslims choose not to integrate and wanted change of the rules, they addapted. So this article is in my view not about muslims particularly, but about our society.

This quote from the article bothers me: "We are pandering to other religions too much ..." In other words muslims seem not to be integrating in a (christian) society. Hence my confusion. Do you agree with this article that integration means that other religious cultures should adapt to a christian society? Or do you disagree with this article that a neutral secular state should guarantee freedom of all religions?
 

SabrinaDeep

Official Checked Star Member
Sabrina, I'm confused by your use of the words "Enjoy integration!". Could you elaborate on that please?

As far as I understand, what you mean by integration in this context is that our society is adapting the rules, while it should be the other way round, right? I quote: "But muslims seem to have a special immunity against neutrality of secular states. So much for integration."But in a neutral secular state we are guaranteed freedom of religion and since we are living in a multicultural and multireligious society, shouldn't it be normal that we guarantee this religious freedom by adapting the rules? Secondly, it's not on demand by muslims. It's not that muslims choose not to integrate and wanted change of the rules, they addapted. So this article is in my view not about muslims particularly, but about our society.

This quote from the article bothers me: "We are pandering to other religions too much ..." In other words muslims seem not to be integrating in a (christian) society. Hence my confusion. Do you agree with this article that integration means that other religious cultures should adapt to a christian society? Or do you disagree with this article that a neutral secular state should guarantee freedom of all religions?

Gods, thank you for bringing it back on topic and of course also for questioning me and disagreeing. Integration is the reverse process to differentiation. There is no integration when you can't bury a Christian beside a muslim, there is no integration when you can't show off something that allegedly offend the muslims. There is no integration when you need to change your dietary culture in areas where the muslims are present etc etc. Integration is not part of the Islam creed. Assimilation is. Now, i'm all in favor of attempting to integrate each other (after all we are humans and faulty and there will always be problems in succeeding and it will require a large amount of time anyway) but if one of the two integrating sides aims at assimilation, then my house rules stand: my home, my rules. In other words, get assimilated or go to fuck off, if you don't want to integrate and you want to assimilate me. Enjoy integration is a sarcastic statement. Secular states have raised and are raising a lot of exceptions to their secular rules only for Islam. Everybody talks about integration with the muslims while what's happening is a violent (and i'm not talking about terror here) attempt to force us to embrace their creed and subsequent habits/culture. To those who can't see this, i say: enjoy integration.

shouldn't it be normal that we guarantee this religious freedom by adapting the rules
I believe that a secular state should have their own public rules and these should never be an object of exception for any religion. Muslim religious freedom is guaranteed in every western country. Nobody is questioning their right to believe in Mohammed and Allah and to follow their doctrine either among the walls of their houses or gathering together in their cult spaces. The problem comes when their religious freedom implies making exceptions for them which affects the public life of any other citizen. Pushing for exhuming a Christian corpse because buried beside a muslim one is not religious freedom; pushing for removing any Christian symbols from public and working places while pretending to keep your own symbols (burka etc) is not religious freedom; banning some dietary habits in favor of others good only to one side is not religious freedom; dispensing muslims for working at certain time of the day when there is the prayer call or in ramadan time, while denying Christians to refuse to work on Sundays is not religious freedom; http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kfc-customer-refused-hand-wipe-4343915 is not religious freedom. I put this example as last because i think it is emblematic: if alcohol is not halal, i'm happy for you not to use it for whatever purpose; but when it's denied to me because of your "religious freedom" something went badly wrong.
Are we going to start building muslim hospitals with halaal medicines? Shall we all go there? Or shall we have both halaal and haraam hospitals? US banned "NIGERS ONLY" transportation a while ago...shall we introduce "INFIDELS ONLY" trains, so that slutty women showing off their cleavage and legs don't contaminate the pure Mohamed adepts? Does this sound like integration to you?
 

GodsEmbryo

Closed Account
Gods, thank you for bringing it back on topic and of course also for questioning me and disagreeing. [...]

I don't think I'm actually disagreeing after reading your response. Maybe some details but apart from that... I wasn't sure what kind of context we were talking about. Since integration more or less means "adapting to the rules, etc of a group" we need to define what kind of "rules" we're talking about first before we can agree if something is integration or not. For example if someone said they shouldn't scrap pork because muslims must adapt to a christian society, and someone else said they shouldn't scrap pork because society needs to stay neutral towards religion, it would seem these people agree but... it's a complete opposite point of view.

shouldn't it be normal that we guarantee this religious freedom by adapting the rules

I believe that a secular state should have their own public rules and these should never be an object of exception for any religion.

What I mean by adapting rules in this case would for example be: allow all kids in school to have a certain lunch according to their religion or views. Or none. Which is more or less the same as what you say. So, I agree.
 
qPPeDOv.gif

Be nice to have a little raccoon buddy to share popcorn with.
 
High five!

JSRCJmJ.gif

I have a few in my backyard that I feed along with the stray cats. The raccoons walk around like shifty shoplifters and have repulsive table manners but I see such charm in their aspirations of filth. Truly commendable after they are done with dinner feeling just fine washing their ass in the drinking water. Like a muddy swamp the next morning when I feed them all again.
 
Top