News Riots put Sweden's open-door immigration policy in spotlight

[aquitaine]

So are Christians incompatible with modern western values?

Well, actually yes. You will find no such double standards with me, especially since liberalism has spent 500 years pushing back against them. The only difference is that they are not given the kind of political cover to do their nonsense that Islam gets. Criticism and satire of Christianity is (rightly) looked as something normal while criticism and satire of Islam is frowned upon as "Islamophobia" and whomever engages in it is labeled a racist and/or being intolerant. Surely you can see the hypocrisy here.

There is nothing about that in the link. Did you link the wrong article? It would be interesting to know what kind of punishment they had in mind.

Yes there is. Here is the exact paragraph:

The news is no less alarming on the question of freedom of speech. Seventy-eight percent support punishment for the people who earlier this year published cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Sixty-eight percent support the arrest and prosecution of those British people who "insult Islam." When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62 percent of British Muslims say No, it should not.

Bolded by me. As you can see the problem isn't just with the terrorism itself but the sympathy for their cause.

Anymore? Cases like this one have never been considered terrorism. Hate crimes are not the same as terrorism.

Really? Well in any case it was still motivated by religious intolerance.

 

[Cthugha]

Well, actually yes. You will find no such double standards with me, especially since liberalism has spent 500 years pushing back against them. The only difference is that they are not given the kind of political cover to do their nonsense that Islam gets.

Political cover? That sounds quite odd.

Criticism and satire of Christianity is (rightly) looked as something normal while criticism and satire of Islam is frowned upon as "Islamophobia" and whomever engages in it is labeled a racist and/or being intolerant. Surely you can see the hypocrisy here.

Is it really? I do not see that, but that might be different in different countries, though. However, it is obvious that real racists often join in the chant of criticism and take this as a starting point for their racist agenda. Therefore, I think it is important to make criticism concerning islam detailed. There is a huge span between ultraorthodox salafists and movements like the Ankara school. There are large differences between Sunni und Shia islam. If you discuss with, say, turkish people, you will note a huge difference between people from the countryside and people from rather liberal places like Istanbul. General, undetailed criticism is like calling Americans gun-loving, neurotic war hawks. Sure, these do exist, but all the others who are not will feel even more annoyed when they hear that.

Yes there is. Here is the exact paragraph:

Argh, I looked in the wrong one of your links. I am getting old.

Really? Well in any case it was still motivated by religious intolerance.

Yes, it was. However, common definitions of terrorism include a large scale political moment and the desire of "high visibility" of the terror act. I do not think that applies here.

 

[Tosh5457]

For one thing, I do consider them representative because this isn't some tiny minority but a very significant portion. 40% of UK Muslims want Sharia law to be implemented and 78% of UK Muslims supported punishment for the publishers of those Danish Mohammed cartoons, which is more than enough to indicate that you have a big problem that no amount of denial and wishful thinking can change.

That is brutal, and there is no possible comparison with Christians. Even though the Christian Bible is incompatible with European society, the worst you'll find many Christians defending is prohibiting gay marriage and adoption by gays. You won't find 40% of Christians defending a sinister and arbitrary set of laws like Sharia. Besides there is another fundamental difference: the Christians are already in Europe and they always were, whereas the Muslims are here only because we let them enter. In one case you can't do anything about, in the second case you can close the borders with Muslim countries.

Political cover? That sounds quite odd.

I've never heard anyone say "We should be tolerant with the Christians, it's called religious tolerance". Yet I'm always hearing that about the Muslims in Europe and US.