Rog Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 I like this. It was filed in April of last year in the UK Daily Telegraph Item starts “Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has called on the country "to show our opposition to Islam", regardless of the opprobrium such a stance provokes abroad. Her comments further undermined the image of Denmark as a liberal haven for those seeking a new life in northern Europe. The Danish government has already been accused of fuelling xenophobia by introducing measures which effectively closed the country to asylum seekers. But in overtly political passages from an official biography published yesterday Queen Margrethe makes comments certain to complicate her nation's relationship with Muslims. She said: "We are being challenged by Islam these years - globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy. "We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance." "And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction." The Queen, aged 65 has reigned since 1972, wields no political power but does occasionally comment on political issues. Denmark has seriously limited immigration in the past three years and the anti-immigrant Danish People's Party, an ally of the centre-Right government, has pushed through laws making it harder to bring in foreign spouses or qualify for asylum. The queen told her biographer, Annelise Bistrup, apparently referring to Muslim fundamentalists: "There is something impressive about people for whom religion imbues their existence, from dusk to dawn, from cradle to grave." She said she understood how disaffected young Muslims might find refuge in religion. This tendency should be fought by encouraging Muslims to learn Danish so they could integrate better, she said. "We should not be content with living next to each other. We should rather live together." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the-rhymes Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 I suppose she has the right to freedom of speech If Saudi can do this why can't a Christian nation? That doesn't make her right though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted February 7, 2006 Author Share Posted February 7, 2006 I suppose she has the right to freedom of speech If Saudi can do this why can't a Christian nation? That doesn't make her right though. Events would indicate otherwise --- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 You really ought to know better than to rely on the 'Torygraph' for accuracy of reporting, Rog! From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margrethe_II_of_Denmark A statement in a 2005 autobiography by the Queen has been wrongly translated by an english newspaper article [1]. Newspapers in some Muslim countries has unfortunately carried that false translation, giving notion to the belief in the Arab world that the Queen has strong reservations about Muslim immigration into Denmark. The false interpretation used in the headline and as a general point in the article is: "We have to show our opposition to Islam". The correct translation would be: "We have to show an alternative to the totalitarity that is also one of the sides of Islam". The actual words which the Queen told the author of the book, Annelise Bistrup, is (in Danish): Der må vises et "modspil" mod den "totalitet, som også er en side af Islam". The mistranslated word is "modspil" (which can never mean opposition). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 You really ought to know better than to rely on the 'Torygraph' for accuracy of reporting, Rog! From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margrethe_II_of_Denmark A statement in a 2005 autobiography by the Queen has been wrongly translated by an english newspaper article [1]. Newspapers in some Muslim countries has unfortunately carried that false translation, giving notion to the belief in the Arab world that the Queen has strong reservations about Muslim immigration into Denmark. The false interpretation used in the headline and as a general point in the article is: "We have to show our opposition to Islam". The correct translation would be: "We have to show an alternative to the totalitarity that is also one of the sides of Islam". The actual words which the Queen told the author of the book, Annelise Bistrup, is (in Danish): Der må vises et "modspil" mod den "totalitet, som også er en side af Islam". The mistranslated word is "modspil" (which can never mean opposition). Two points. Firstly, have you ever considered that Wilkpedia is probably one of the less reliable sources to use? Secondly, translation is NOT just about translation of words in grammatical context. Semantics and overall context must also be applied if the intent of a statement is to come out. That said, the words of Churchill make rather interesting and relevant reading on this matter --- "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Seems like Rog doesn't like muslims much. Churchill didn't either: he was gassing Iraqis long before Saddam was a glimmer in his father's eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 Seems like Rog doesn't like muslims much. I don't like islam. I consider it to be a repressive foul and malevalent ideology that puts a cold grey hand on social evolution. If I feel anything for muslim people it is pity that they are held in the grip of islam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the mo beats experience Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 What i find distasteful about Islam is its them and us attitude, you're either a follower or an infidel, spells religeous hatred whichever way you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I feel much as Rog does, but about "conservative" ideologues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 What i find distasteful about Islam is its them and us attitude, you're either a follower or an infidel, spells religeous hatred whichever way you look at it. Hmmmmm. Something historical... something along the lines of, "You're either a Christian or a pagan" seems to come to mind; or was that "You're either a Jew or a Gentile"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Didn't Bush also say "You're either with us, or against us" Still theres just too much fanaticism in Islam - When I watched the Life of Brian I thought it was a hoot, I didn't take to the streets screaming bloody murder and death to Monty Python. Would have made a good sketch though. edit: typos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Frankly I can't think of a religion that doesn't piss me off, but the fashion at the moment is to beat on muslims. Why single out one ludicrous intolerant superstition when one can ridicule the whole range Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 Frankly I can't think of a religion that doesn't piss me off, but the fashion at the moment is to beat on muslims. Why single out one ludicrous intolerant superstition when one can ridicule the whole range Two really big reasons. Because islam differs from the rest in the compunction to convert as opposed to the invitation to join of Christianity and the obstruction to being accepted in Judaism. Because islam is utterly fixed in a morality and an ideology of 1300 years ago to match a permanent warlike tribal situation and is utterly incapable of moving with the times so making it unlike all of the big world religions and ideologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 A religion is either immutably true, or man-made bullshit. Thus the Pope is either right in claiming that Africans should not use condoms to prevent AIDS, or he's full of shit. Clearly, I believe the latter. Similarly, Leviticus regarding homosexuality, the Jewish and Islamic religions pre-occupation with mutilating male children's genitals, etc etc etc. And you might remember a few missionaries trying to convert people in Asia and Africa. In India they were only recently considering a law preventing Christians fdrom trying to convert people from Hinduism. But Rog chooses only to hate muslims. Wonder why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 A religion is either immutably true, or man-made bullshit. Thus the Pope is either right in claiming that Africans should not use condoms to prevent AIDS, or he's full of shit. Clearly, I believe the latter. Similarly, Leviticus regarding homosexuality, the Jewish and Islamic religions pre-occupation with mutilating male children's genitals, etc etc etc. And you might remember a few missionaries trying to convert people in Asia and Africa. In India they were only recently considering a law preventing Christians fdrom trying to convert people from Hinduism. But Rog chooses only to hate muslims. Wonder why. OK, let’s try to explain in terms simple. #1. I DO NOT HATE MUSLIMS. I hate islam – the ideology and the 'religion'. BIG difference. #2. In Christianity many Christians do not follow the dictates of their religion and so have done and still in some cases do awful things. BAD! #3 On islam many muslims do not do the dictates of their religion and so have not done and still do NOT do awful things. GOOD! #4. Christians have been in deep trouble not only for trying to obtain converts but even for being Christians in most predominantly islamic countries for hundreds of years. And why do I hate islam so much? Because of what it dictates that its adherents should do not only to others but to its followers. OK? Plain enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.