[lit-ideas] Re: Muslim Prejudice (Judy?)
- From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:26:02 +0000 (GMT)
Yes. I mean, I thought it wasn't that good but then, I don't expect
deep/profound from Warsi. I asked if Veronica had read it because I thought if
she had, she might not have said
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The one I liked the best was the man who said that she ought not to have spoken
about anti-Muslim prejudice. Given her position, she ought to have spoken out
about how one of the causes of prejudice against Muslims is their refusal to
except Western secular values.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
this is at the start of the part of her speech about prejudice against Muslims:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let me say right away to British Muslims that I acknowledge that there is a
minority of people that try to justify their criminal conduct and activity by
suggesting that it is sanctioned by their faith.
It is a problem that we must confront and defeat.
But that problem should not lead to unfounded suspicions of all Muslims.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
and later
>>>>>>>>>>>>
… so let me take this opportunity to address the British Muslim community
directly… .........
Muslim communities must speak out against those who promote violence.
Muslim men and women must make clear that any hatred towards others is wrong.
And above all, not stand on the sidelines, but step forward and help to lead a
progressive, united fight.....
..............
Third, and above all, British Muslims needs to remember that with rights come
responsibilities.
That means no burying our heads in the sand and denying the problem…
…but standing up and doing something about it
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
(etc.)
by the way, Donal,
Her speech is
> available on-line at an url given in my last post
no need to tell me that, I'd already posted that url...........
On Mon, 24/1/11, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Muslim Prejudice (Judy?)
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Monday, 24 January, 2011, 12:02
>
> --- On Sun, 23/1/11, Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >Oh sorry, I meant, so now you've read Sayeed Warsi's
> speech you've modified your views.>
>
> Really. Perhaps I've missed something. Her speech is
> available on-line at an url given in my last post. With
> unintentional irony it sets out its stall as follows:-
> "I sensed that people were fed up of the patronising,
> superficial way faith is discussed in certain quarters,
> including the media…
> ….and that sadly there has been a rise in a sloppy kind
> of religious illiteracy."
>
> It then proceeds to discuss matters in a highly patronising
> and superficial way and indulges (as my last post tried to
> highlight) in all sorts of sloppy illiteracy. If she were a
> sixth-former in a debating competition one might applaud
> through gritted teeth, not because it was well done but
> because they made the effort and that must be encouraged,
> and after all they're only a sixth-former and didn't chose
> the debating topic. As it is, it never rises above the level
> of facile remarks such as Islamophobia has passed some
> dinner-table threshold of acceptability and her telling the
> Pope that he should be doing all he can to improve
> inter-faith relations (_of course_ her response is here
> typically patronising and superficial, childishly expressed
> and immensely self-regarding: next she'll be advising him to
> do all he can to improve the Catholic church itself). Anyone
> who seriously applauds this inept speechifying should
> examine their motives and complacency,
> which no doubt are hidden from themselves by their love of
> empty finger-pointing. To applaud because the speech comes
> from the 'lovely righteous place' of being anti-phobia is
> just the sort of thing only the chattering classes can pat
> themselves on the back for doing: no wonder Bob Dylan was
> almost sick years ago when he picked up that award from
> those self-congratulating, self-important 'politico'
> luvvies. Of course, they thought his ungracious behaviour
> just awful. They would. There's still a lot of them about.
>
> About the best that can be said about her speech is that it
> has raised the profile of an important issue or set of
> issues. But then the same could be said of the invasion of
> Poland re appeasement and related positions.
>
> Donal
> Dinner-table set for none
> "Vote for me and I'll set you free"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub,
> vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
