[lit-ideas] Re: Muslim Prejudice
- From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:56:29 +0000 (GMT)
I don't think we disagree on this, really, Donal.
Judy Evans, Cardiff
--- On Wed, 26/1/11, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Muslim Prejudice
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wednesday, 26 January, 2011, 1:39
> --- On Tue, 25/1/11, Judith Evans
> <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > so, it depends what Warsi was talking about.
>
> Quite.
>
> > Did she have
> > in mind criticism of Muslim hospital staff who refuse,
> on
> > religious grounds, to obey hygiene rules?
>
> > This is just one of the stories certain of our mass
> media
> > either misreport or simply make up. (They make
> up and
> > misreport stories about travellers and immigrants,
> > too.)
> >
> > But if it had been true, you say, criticism would have
> been
> > justified. Yes.
>
> It might be justified but I didn't say so, preferring the
> (to me) more straightforward example of 'honour-killing',
> which should not only be criticised but opposed by force
> wherever necessary. As to hygiene, well if someone was a
> health hazard as a result of their religious beliefs they
> should arguably be excluded from health work; but if they
> simply smelt unpleasant, the argument would be different
> again.
>
> > But it wasn't simply criticism of the Muslim
> > or Muslims alleged to have done this that ensued.
> >
> > So, it is not simply a matter of
> >
> > and that adherents of "Western
> > > secular values" (such as not murdering your
> daughter
> > because
> > > her relationship with someone else does not meet
> with
> > your
> > > approval, in fact shames you as you see it)
> therefore
> > see
> > > themselves as pitted against Muslims who are
> pitted
> > against
> > > these values -
>
> Afair I didn't suggest it was "simply" (as in 'merely') a
> matter of this; and (of course) I agree that opposition to
> honour-killing ought not to be confined to only Muslim
> honour-killing. This doesn't contradict what I'd written,
> which did not suggest adherents of "Western secular values"
> are pitted _only against Muslims_ but that they are "pitted
> against Muslims who are pitted against these values", and
> then did not say "only" them - perhaps I should have made
> clear that they are pitted against non-Muslims who are
> pitted against these values as well, rather than leave open
> the possibility of someone thinking it is only if their
> opponents are Muslim that adherents of "Western secular
> values" are bothered by opposition to their values?
>
> Perhaps I should add that I adopt the shorthand phrase
> "Western secular values" only for convenience - it is used
> by me to encompass values that are based on religious
> principles as well secular and that are not uniquely
> Western. We could discuss these values at length but might
> agree that they tend to be against Robespierre's view that
> we should stamp out corruption by beheading people and stuff
> like that.
>
> Just as there are versions of Christianity that are
> compatible with "Western secular values" as I use the term,
> so there are versions of Islam and other religions that are
> compatible: and there are versions of all these religions,
> including Christianity, that are not compatible. Perhaps
> instead of "Western secular" we might use the term
> "liberal", in the English rather than American sense. What
> we ought to do, as liberals in this sense, is encourage and
> protect those versions of religion that are
> compatible with liberal values.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
