Alexandra wrote:scobienz wrote:However, if an extremist muslim like the guy with a hook started to preach hatred - in other words, if he demonstrated hatred and intolerance - then i would expect a backlash both from the tolerant society and its laws to deal with it properly (which is exactly what happened), just as I would expect the laws to deal with a neo-nazi walking up and down the streets chanting death to Jews. Ipso facto, Popper's Paradox applies.
For example, a Muslim promoting Sharia law should not be welcome because it's incompatible with tolerance? Do you expect some level of assimilation or should Muslim immigrants be allowed to wear hijabs?
I know I'm nitpicking and probably sound like a racist prick, but I'm curious about where you draw the line. Islam isn't really what I would call a tolerant religion so I think it would be relevant to know how much a Muslim needs to push you to not be welcome compared to a nazi.
Bless
If we are going to nitpick, then we need to nitpick around definitions and relative understandings of the nature of various religions. Otherwise the debate is meaningless.
Take your statement that Islam isnt really what you would call a tolerant religion. If you focus on the extreme bastardisation of ancient texts as the basis for an understanding of a religion then Islam is not tolerant, in the same way that radical catholicism or anglicanism or sikhism isn't. But its most extreme variant is not the essence of a religion. Talk to any run of the mill muslim and they will abhor the excesses of the extreme fundamentalists and say it has nothing to do with their faith, but as - for example - any buddhist will recoil in horror at what is being done in their name again the minorities in Myanmar. But that's a well trodden path.
The point of tolerance is simple. We live in a society where there are accepted norms of behaviour, many of which are backed up by either the rule of law or by conventional standards of behaviour. If a guy like the hook dude extremist preaches hate, preaches that infidels must be beheaded, then that is clearly not tolerable. Neither is the nazi example I used before. Both should not be tolerated in or by a tolerant society.
You talk about those advocating sharia law as an example. Again a definitional certainty is needed. When people hear those words they immediately think of hand amputations. The reality again is that that is its most extreme, a literal transation of the 'eye for an eye' mantra that exists in both the Koran and Bible. No normal muslim thinks that is an acceptable implementation of Sharia Law in a modern society, and that it exists in tribal parts of the third world that more closely resemble the dark ages shouldnt muddy the waters of the debate.
The UK has dozens of Sharia Councils operating, as do many western countries. They deal with tedious rubbish like marriage or family disputes, and operate completely within the context of their host country's law. If a radical fundamentalist tried to bring in hand chopping, ie outside of the host country's laws and standards of acceptable behaviour, then THAT would be something that tolerant society should not tolerate.