Cerecl wrote:Then the native population leaders and the immigrant leaders should get together and explain each other's position. The immigrants have become part of the country they migrated to, yet too many on this thread still clearly think in the "we and they" way. Pretty easy for radical terrorist to preach "look, you want to be a good citizen, but these people can only think of laughing at you".
You approach it with a liberal perspective. But is human nature like this?
One unites a country by having a common enemy. Why are people interested in soccer? Why do young people develop their own words and different classes different habits and dress?
Many humans are hardwired to "us versus them".
Hindus in India are the exception. They don't look down on people who aren't Hindus. That's because they have low caste people to look down at.
Interesting enough there is a cultural organisation that wants to unite all Hindus. Needless to say some of its members can't do without common enemy and are prejudiced against Muslims.
Some means some. It's probably a minority, but it's not insignificant.
We two could probably find a compromise. But then I'm not interested in sport in TV.
We had an atheist Muslim in boarding school who loved pork and had quite some humor. Though he had different skin colour we didn't consider him as not one of us.
People in India often ask me how I like Indian culture. I always answer "What part of it? " Usually they want to know if I like Indian food. One Indian was surprised when he saw me eating with hands. Eating fish with hands is the most comfortable way to do it.
Somehow eating and dressing isn't as trivial as reason would suggest.
Why ridicule or applying the current day's morality standard on someone who lived >1000 yrs ago in another country with complete different culture? No argument killing people over their speech is high crime, but I don't get the merit, necessity or moral justification of deliberately ridiculing anyone (excluding universally acknowledged criminals/evil personalities and politicians probably an exception as they signed up for it when they chose their career), especially someone who is long dead and therefore not in a position to defend him/herself.
I am generally prejudiced against tribal societies. But then I believe economy, not religion decides the culture. India is getting richer, divorce rates increase. Nobody could afford earlier.
Islam has religion and politics mixed.
There is no way a secular society can accept it. But then it's not like Europe always had strict seperation of church and politics. The history of crusades limits my sense of superiority.
Another problem:
If you ask a Muslim what is his favorite surah he may not be able to answer. I speak of religious, not cultural Muslims. A religious friend of mine answered that one can't understand the koran unless one studies it.
Can I get upset if you say the theory of relativity is wrong? How to keep in highest respect something I don't understand?
The Holy Eucharist among Catholics may be an example.
You are right, it's not nice to make a mockery of the Eucharist. But if the Catholic Church prohibits tomorrow discussion over it, I will be the first to make some jokes.
I mustn't criticize Nixon because he can't defend himself?
Public figures, dead or alive, can be criticized.
Just thinking out loud...