Mohammed now second most popular boys' name in Britain

[forester814]

Originally Posted by cnredd

No...

It's all part of SELECTIVE and PARTIAL globalization...

It's Third World countries and immigrants from fundamental theocracies using globalization as a one-way street into Western culture, but the OPPOSITE does not hold true because the same countries that allow their culture to be exported refuse to allow other cultures to be imported...

Of course globalization is selective!
It is only going to move in whatever direction people let it move.
I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

[cnredd]

Originally Posted by forester814

Of course globalization is selective!
It is only going to move in whatever direction people let it move.
I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

It's not people...it's their governments...

And certain governments crack down on their OWN people for accepting cultures of other parts of the world all the while pushing their own culture down the throat of other nations...

Regime-change fears drive Iran's vice crackdown

Tehran, Iran - It is no secret in Iran: Authorities have gone out of their way to publicize a crackdown against thugs and smugglers that has also enveloped academics and women whose dress is deemed "un-Islamic."...

...This past weekend, 24 Internet cafes and coffeehouses were shut down in a sweep of 435 such locales, Reuters reported. Police said they were shut for "using immoral computer games [and] storing obscene photos." A fresh "winter" crackdown was announced last week on un-Islamic dress, which includes women's high boots.

"Their vulnerable spot is these 'Westoxicated' Iranians – the threat is not military attack, but Iranians who 'live differently from us,' who listen to the West," says a veteran analyst who asked not to be named. "Many would follow those [thugs] who are willing to attack."

[forester814]

Originally Posted by cnredd

It's not people...it's their governments...

I think we are making the same point in different ways, cnredd. Governments are run by people. Whether those people were elected by other people or seized power with guns, governments are people.

That is what I meant in my previous post about globalization moving only in directions that people let it move. Obviously, all people play a part in that, but the people in government have the most say about it.

And certain governments crack down on their OWN people for accepting cultures of other parts of the world all the while pushing their own culture down the throat of other nations...

I am aware of this, and like you, I am not happy about it. The way people (I admit, I am gender-biased, and am mostly bothered by the treatment of women) are treated in some countries, I find it appalling and outrageous.

[lackluster]

Originally Posted by forester814

I am aware of this, and like you, I am not happy about it. The way people (I admit, I am gender-biased, and am mostly bothered by the treatment of women) are treated in some countries, I find it appalling and outrageous.

Then wouldn't it stand to reason that instead of embracing the sort of change that threatens the rights for women where they do have such rights, you would resist it, instead? You can't have it both ways, and simultaneously embracing regressive change and supporting progressive ideals just doesn't make any sense.

[forester814]

Originally Posted by lackluster

Then wouldn't it stand to reason that instead of embracing the sort of change that threatens the rights for women where they do have such rights, you would resist it, instead? You can't have it both ways, and simultaneously embracing regressive change and supporting progressive ideals just doesn't make any sense.

I'm afraid you are going to have to state the obvious in a more obvious way. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

As a self-identified progressive, I certainly am not embracing or supporting any regressive social or economic changes for anyone.

As I look back, I'm not even sure what I might have said on this thread to give you that mistaken impression.

[lackluster]

Originally Posted by forester814

I'm afraid you are going to have to state the obvious in a more obvious way. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

As a self-identified progressive, I certainly am not embracing or supporting any regressive social or economic changes for anyone.

As I look back, I'm not even sure what I might have said on this thread to give you that mistaken impression.

In post # 7, your exact words in response to cnredd were that "change should be embraced". Since the change in Britain involves a large influx of people with extremely regressive attitudes as is so much in evidence by opinion poll after opinion poll, then what you are actually asking people to embrace is change for the worse in terms of any sort of liberal barometer you might imagine from attitudes towards women, attitudes about the separation of church (or mosque in this case) and state, attitudes towards gay people, attitudes towards individual self-expression, and attitudes about the very nature society should take.

You may wish to characterize this as a simple matter of fearing change. It is not. You may chalk it up to simple xenophobia. It is not. This is about preserving western liberalism against people who wish to have nothing to do with it, and who are becoming LESS assimilated as their numbers and political clout increases.

Why this change is good thing from a liberal perspective is anybody's guess, but you DID say that it should be embraced.

[forester814]

Originally Posted by lackluster

In post # 7, your exact words in response to cnredd were that "change should be embraced". Since the change in Britain involves a large influx of people with extremely regressive attitudes as is so much in evidence by opinion poll after opinion poll, then what you are actually asking people to embrace is change for the worse in terms of any sort of liberal barometer you might imagine from attitudes towards women, attitudes about the separation of church (or mosque in this case) and state, attitudes towards gay people, attitudes towards individual self-expression, and attitudes about the very nature society should take.

You may wish to characterize this as a simple matter of fearing change. It is not. You may chalk it up to simple xenophobia. It is not. This is about preserving western liberalism against people who wish to have nothing to do with it, and who are becoming LESS assimilated as their numbers and political clout increases.

Why this change is good thing from a liberal perspective is anybody's guess, but you DID say that it should be embraced.

Ah, I see. You do make a good point, and I had not considered the situation from that perspective. Obviously, the type of societal changes I favor are not as you describe.

I admit I don't know the full answer to this complicated situation, but I DO know the answer is NOT building a political (or even a physical) wall to keep "them" out of "our" country.

Perhaps this is just my own optimism speaking here, but I feel that painting everyone from a particular country, region, or faith with one behavioral brush is a little bit of an oversimplification, and yes, in this case, xenophobic.

I would hope that people who are leaving such repressive countries for the west are doing so in part because they personally do not favor the regressive attitudes of their native governments, and wish to be a part of western liberalism.

I would also hope that in living among westerners, vestigial regressive attitudes would soften (not harden as you suggest) over time, through education and osmosis.

I assume your final comment was meant as a petty insult aimed at me. That's a shame, given that your argument up to that point was well-delivered.

What's more, it missed the mark, since I am not arguing from the point of view of a liberal here. I am arguing from the point of view of someone who favors peace, tolerance, and mutual understanding. These are human values, not liberal or conservative ones.

Clearly, properly assimilating immigrants into a society benefits the entire society, not just one political subgroup.

Even after considering your well-made points above, I do still believe this is a change that should be embraced, but perhaps some controls need to be tightened on the process.

Where you and cnredd see a looming disaster, I see potential for cultural enrichment and understanding... IF handled properly.

[lackluster]

Originally Posted by forester814

Ah, I see. You do make a good point, and I had not considered the situation from that perspective. Obviously, the type of societal changes I favor are not as you describe.

I admit I don't know the full answer to this complicated situation, but I DO know the answer is NOT building a political (or even a physical) wall to keep "them" out of "our" country.

Perhaps this is just my own optimism speaking here, but I feel that painting everyone from a particular country, region, or faith with one behavioral brush is a little bit of an oversimplification, and yes, in this case, xenophobic.

I would hope that people who are leaving such repressive countries for the west are doing so in part because they personally do not favor the regressive attitudes of their native governments, and wish to be a part of western liberalism.

I would also hope that in living among westerners, vestigial regressive attitudes would soften (not harden as you suggest) over time, through education and osmosis.

I assume your final comment was meant as a petty insult aimed at me. That's a shame, given that your argument up to that point was well-delivered.

What's more, it missed the mark, since I am not arguing from the point of view of a liberal here. I am arguing from the point of view of someone who favors peace, tolerance, and mutual understanding. These are human values, not liberal or conservative ones.

Clearly, properly assimilating immigrants into a society benefits the entire society, not just one political subgroup.

Even after considering your well-made points above, I do still believe this is a change that should be embraced, but perhaps some controls need to be tightened on the process.

Where you and cnredd see a looming disaster, I see potential for cultural enrichment and understanding... IF handled properly.

There is nothing the least bit petty nor insulting in holding a person to their words. You have called me petty and insulting for doing so, though, so I am prepared for such charges lest I ever remind you again.

As to this "painting with a behavioral brush", I would say that I certainly prefer arriving at my opinions based upon something knowleagable and factual rather than just imagaining how I want things to be and arriving at conclusions based upon optimistic assumptions that have little or no basis in fact. In this regard, when 40% of British Muslims want to replace the British legal system with the brutality of Sharia law, I do not pretend otherwise. When 78% support the arrest and prosecution of anybody critical of Islam and only a mere 3% take a consistantly pro freedom of speech stance, I take note. When 28% want Britain to be a Taliban style fundamentalist state, I acknowlege that. When the sizeable majority supports the British Muslim councel's refusal to acknowlege the holocaust, and when twice as many think 911 was an Israel/U.S. plot as compared to those who don't, I do not form my opinions based upon my imagination, but upon reality, and lest you think I paint with a "broad brush", I by no means imagine that when 97% do not support free speech that means 100% do not support free speech, nor when a large majority are visciously antisemitic that this means 100% are visciously antisemitic. I DO think that these statistics are alarming, however, and especially since exposure to British culture has certainly not liberalized Muslims, and in fact, their attitudes are becoming more assertively totalitarian as they gain numbers.

You mentioned the assimilation of immigrants, and I fully agree that this should be the goal, but you are confusing Britain with the U.S. here. The majority of U.S. Muslim immigrants HAVE arrived here to escape repressive governments, and HAVE assimilated. We are a melting pot culture where assimilation is a given. Britain is not the U.S., however, for even as you "hope" British Muslims are emigrating for political reasons, the truth of the matter is that they have left for economic ones, and although you hope they have or will be assimilated, neither they nor the British have done anything towards those ends. Most British Pakistanis, for instance, are married to their cousins, and the British immigration policy has favored immigration based upon familial ties to the point where entire clans have essentially relocated from Pakistan to Britain, while the British multiculturalist attitudes have worked against assimilation. They are ghettoized, margainilized, lacking in opportunity, and are becoming increasingly radical. Second generation are more radical than first, and their numbers are growing exponentially due to the low status of women while native Brits are declining in numbers.

Yes, assimilation is the key, but the fact of the matter is that British Muslims have not assimilated, and as their numbers grow they are becoming MORE insular not less. Multiculturalistic attitudes have fostered the creation of whole separate communities with attitudes contrary to the greater community to grow within that greater community, and something is going to give unless they address this problem. Just hoping and wishing based upon some erroniously fanciful assumptions just isn't going to do that.

Peace, tolerance and mutual understanding is a groovy thing, indeed, but I think people need to examine WHAT they are tolerating here. When a person tolerates totalitarianism, what they are actually enabling is those who would put an end to tolerance rather than foster it.

[forester814]

Originally Posted by lackluster

There is nothing the least bit petty nor insulting in holding a person to their words.

I agree. Holding a person to his or her words is a good thing.
And I stand by my words.

But that is not the insult I referred to. Using the term "liberal" (or "conservative" for that matter) as an insult, as you did, is a bad thing.

You have called me petty and insulting for doing so, though, so I am prepared for such charges lest I ever remind you again.

No, I called petty your attempt to use the word "liberal" as an insult.
I called this action petty, not you.
You are not a petty person, that is clear.

Hmm. It appears there has been some miscommunication here, on both sides.
I apologize for my part in that.

I DO think that these statistics are alarming, however, and especially since exposure to British culture has certainly not liberalized Muslims, and in fact, their attitudes are becoming more assertively totalitarian as they gain numbers.

I do too. This is the first I have heard about them. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I would be interested to read more about this issue. Can you provide me a link or two?

and although you hope they have or will be assimilated, neither they nor the British have done anything towards those ends.

Then as I said in my previous post, there needs to be some changes made to the process. Clearly, this is a failing of the British government. If the situation is as you describe, it would be negligent to allow it to continue as is.

They are ghettoized, margainilized, lacking in opportunity, and are becoming increasingly radical.

Again, a failing of the British government. This trend needs to be reversed, or at least halted.

Just hoping and wishing based upon some erroniously fanciful assumptions just isn't going to do that.

Well, let's be real for a moment.
That is about all I can do as a private citizen on the other side of the world, isn't it?
It's not as if I can affect immigration policy in Britain.

It's their government's job to sort it out.

My job, if I can even call it that, is simply to suggest what I would like the end result of the sorting out process to be. And that is all I have been doing here.

When a person tolerates totalitarianism, what they are actually enabling is those who would put an end to tolerance rather than foster it.

Agreed, but that is putting a rather dark spin on it, isn't it? It's not as if Britain itself is turning into a totalitarian state. The country is not lost.

As I have said, I am not tolerating these repressive attitudes, but I am seeing an opportunity here. I agree now that I have seen your statistics that the situation is more precarious than I thought.

But if the British government makes the correct immigration and social policy changes (and again, I don't know what those would be), I believe the ship can be righted.

Do you have any suggestions for what should be done?
This isn't a challenge to your position, it's a legitimately curious question.

[lackluster]

Originally Posted by forester814

But that is not the insult I referred to. Using the term "liberal" (or "conservative" for that matter) as an insult, as you did, is a bad thing.

I'm curious as to how you could construe a statement that says "from a liberal perspective", as being any sort of epithet or insult? Listing myself as a moderate liberal in this forum ,and arguing from the standpoint of supporting liberal values against the illiberal, myself, this just doesn't make any sense to me. I hardly indulged in that mindless "you liberals" stuff that some people indulge in and I certainly did not attach anything negative to the word, so I am at a complete loss here. I WANT people to support liberal values -- true liberal values -- and so I challenge those who see themselves as liberal to actually do so.

as to some articles, here is a couple:

Many British Muslims Put Islam First, NRO: Survey Shows Many Are More Loyal To Fellow Muslims Outside U.K. - CBS News

Populus Limited > Poll Archive > Muslim Poll - The Times - 09.12.05-19.12.05


As to what Britain should do, the first is to embrace a melting pot approach instead of all the politically correct multiculturalism it currenly embraces. They should outlaw consanguinious marriages (which leads to much more than just clannish attitudes) and take very proactive steps towsrds bringing Muslims into the mainstream. They should aggressivlely pursue imams who preach Jihad and prosecute or deport them. They should put a stop to the incursion of sharia into their legal system and prosecute any person practicing it in leu of Britain's own legal system. THey should get rid of the teachers in their schools who refuse to teach proper history out of fear of offending totalitarian sensibilities. In short, they should stand up for traditional liberal values and stop pandering to this extreme illiberality just because they fear confronting it.

People have been hoodwinked into thinking that opposing totalitarianism is somehow racist. They haven't figured out the catch 22 inherent in the notion that in order to advance LIBERAL values, one must CONSERVE these values when they are already prevelent in a society. Change for change sake is not a good thing when that change is peing pulled away from liberal values rather than towards them.