David Cameron's speech on Islamic extremism and the implications for JWs

by Mickey mouse 21 Replies latest jw friends

  • Mickey mouse
    Mickey mouse

    David Cameron (Prime Minister of Britain) gave a speech today at a Security Conference in Munich. The transcipt is here. He made some interesting points. Excerpts below the video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWNgwSMCvX8

    So, when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious frankly – frankly, even fearful – to stand up to them. The failure, for instance, of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage, the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry someone when they don’t want to, is a case in point. This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared.
    In our communities, groups and organisations led by young, dynamic leaders promote separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion.
    Governments must also be shrewder in dealing with those that, while not violent, are in some cases part of the problem. We need to think much harder about who it’s in the public interest to work with. Some organisations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community are showered with public money despite doing little to combat extremism. As others have observed, this is like turning to a right-wing fascist party to fight a violent white supremacist movement. So we should properly judge these organisations: do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separation? These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations – so, no public money, no sharing of platforms with ministers at home.
    At the same time, we must stop these groups from reaching people in publicly-funded institutions like universities or even, in the British case, prisons. Now, some say, this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry. Well, I say, would you take the same view if these were right-wing extremists recruiting on our campuses? Would you advocate inaction if Christian fundamentalists who believed that Muslims are the enemy were leading prayer groups in our prisons? And to those who say these non-violent extremists are actually helping to keep young, vulnerable men away from violence, I say nonsense.
    I also believe we should encourage meaningful and active participation in society, by shifting the balance of power away from the state and towards the people. That way, common purpose can be formed as people come together and work together in their neighbourhoods. It will also help build stronger pride in local identity, so people feel free to say, ‘Yes, I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am Christian, but I am also a Londonder or a Berliner too’. It’s that identity, that feeling of belonging in our countries, that I believe is the key to achieving true cohesion.
  • Mickey mouse
    Mickey mouse

    Oh, and:

    We need to argue that prophecies of a global war of religion pitting Muslims against the rest of the world are nonsense.
  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Isn't he basically arguing that adherence to national identity should be stronger than any other facet of our identity? A rather predictable message for the state to espouse, and not one I am particularly enthusiastic to embrace. The state is already too big for its boots without demanding that we define ourselves first and foremost in relation to it. If society allows subcultures to emerge where people can form a greater attachment than to the state as a whole then I see that as no bad thing. If he says nationality must be more important than religion what is next? That nationality must be more important than family? I think those are priorities I should be free to decide for myself.

    Besides which I simply cannot stand the David Cameron, his comments are frequently contradictory and incoherent, but always self-serving. I hope he is out of office as soon as possible.

  • cantleave
    cantleave

    Hear Hear Slimboy

  • Mickey mouse
    Mickey mouse

    Um, well yes, not a fan of the man here either but I think it's interesting that he is saying we should ask the same questions regarding Christian fundamentalists as muslims.

    Take the first excerpt and replace arranged marriages with homophobia. JWs are encouraged to define themselves solely by their religion and are actively discouraged from nationalistic thinking.

    If David Cameron thinks Christian fundamentalists should not be allowed to preach in prisons, why does he allow JWs in?

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    My gut tells me he is right but my intellect and American values suggest that he is on a slippery slope towards religious persecution. It is a true conundrum. Anglo-American values should cherish equal rights for women and a belief in brotherhood. Susan Brownmiller's book on rape, Against Our Will, woke me up to a double standard for black and white conduct in America. I lived in NY and was frequently on the subways. My blonde hair made me a magnet for unwanted lechery, touching, perhaps worse. I felt hopeless. If the perp were white, I'd call the police. If the perp were black, I felt I had to suffer to atone for slavery. It made me say enough. I was much happier screaming at them, ordering them that a step further and th epolice would find them. I no longer accepted crap.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Yes I have sometimes wondered whether the state will at some stage challenge the right of Jehovah's Witesses to discriminate on the basis of sexuality for example. What if a gay person in a civil partnership wants to be a Jehovah's Witness or even an elder? Are Witnesses are exempt from equality legislation because they are a religion? If Cameron is serious about imposing modern, secular, liberal values on all society maybe the Witnesses will have problems in the future excluding homosexuals or denying women the right to become elders. Having said that I would not take Cameron at his word on anything. He is simply making this speech to create an impression among certain conservatives who think he is not right wing enough. Words are cheap, whether he will actually change anything is another matter.

  • besty
    besty

    freedom of religion trumps most things for the time being

    next logical step I can see is for public benefit criteria to be rigourously applied and ultimately the removal of charitable status from some organisations -

    then watch the JW's open the soup kitchens - gotta protect the taxpayer subsidy element of the business model....

  • dgp
    dgp

    I won't saw how or why (because I don't want to give details about who I am), but I have many reasons to agree with much of what Cameron said.

    Band on the Run, sorry to make this comment again, but I don't think asking religious groups to respect human rights is the same as religious persecution. Of course they will say so, but I believe this is a HELL (pun intended) of a good place to scream out loud that religious people don't always tell the truth (to put it mildly) and only with extreme frequency abuse their members (to put it extremely mildly). And even non-members: try telling Muslims that their Quran is nonsense. There must be some common limits no one should cross. That should be set by a lay authority, and the lay authority must enforce those limits.

    It's about time the Watchtower is prevented from shunning those who, for example, just can't quit smoking. That the Watchtower can get away with doing so is outrageous.

    And then, for some time now I have wondered how it is that ALL CHURCHES are tax-free. Cynical me would say that quite often they are used for profit. Wait! THEY ARE!

  • Simon
    Simon
    freedom of religion trumps most things for the time being
    next logical step I can see is for public benefit criteria to be rigourously applied and ultimately the removal of charitable status from some organisations

    Funny how that is. We've just been watching 'The Tudors' on NetFlix and of course the Church is represented and self-serving and it's amazing how nothing much has changed in hundred of years and these minorities still somehow have their hooks into society and have a say in a whole raft of issues.

    Charitable / tax status should be the first thing to go and once they don't have the state funding they should loose their influence (as if most people, especially in secular Britain pay much attention to them anymore).

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit