BBC Blog Network

Listed below are comments made by AnonymousCalifornian between Friday, 16th October 2009 and Monday, 30th November 2009 (21 Hours Ago) .

• «Newer
• Older»

• The fear of minarets 6:51pm on 30 Nov 2009 What I found strange is that many of the opponents of the minaret-building supported the ban because they believed minarets would disrupt Swiss tradition and culture, and clash with the building style in Switzerland. If that were the case, couldn't minarets be built in the 'Swiss' style? And Christianity is not a tradition or a culture, although it has heavily influenced Western traditions and cultures.
  
  What I found annoying in the reporting on this issue was the recurring idea that opposition to Islam is just because of Islamic terrorism post-September 11 (or 11 September). Prior to September 11, many Americans - and I'm sure many Europeans as well - were pretty clueless about Islam and Islamic countries; and we probably still are.
  
  However, after September 11, we learned that many Islamic countries repress the rights of their women. We learned that most Islamic countries do not allow freedom of relgion; even supposedly moderate countries like Turkey and Malaysia would be the most religiously intolerant countries if they were Christian, and if people(s) are equal, there should be no double standards. People are considered Muslim at birth, and are not allowed to convert on penalty of death. Muslims expect to practice and share their religion in Western countries, but heavily restrict the practicing of non-Islamic faiths and ban proselytization in their own countries. Polls showed us that while mostly peaceful themselves, the majority of people in the Islamic world believed that terrorism (even against civilians) is acceptable in some cases.
  
  Reading between the lines, the BBC (which has tried to keep this topic out of the front pages more than it should - i.e. removing it from the front page relatively quickly, not listing many or all of the articles on the topic in the 'SEE ALSO' menu) has pointed out that Swiss officials fear unrest from their Muslim community after the vote. That in and of itself is telling. If a vote didn't go the way Christian fundamentalists in the United States would have liked, there still would not be fear of unrest.
  
  Apparently, Swiss Muslims are angry that Islam is being singled out, and that there is no ban against Christian, Jewish, Sikh, or other religions' symbols. I know this sounds harsh, but on a global level, maybe Islam has earned the right to be distinguished from other - largely much more peaceful - religions?
• Getting to grips with Thanksgiving Day 05:09am on 27 Nov 2009 By the way, I think adherence to Thanksgiving tradition was the reason for the invention of the Tofurky, so that vegetarians/vegans could fulfill their cultural obligations while still remaining vegetarian/vegan.
• Getting to grips with Thanksgiving Day 04:28am on 27 Nov 2009 Thanksgiving is one of the few major traditions Americans have - we don't roll wheels of cheese down a hill, after all.
  
  I can't speak, or write, for all Americans of course, but I think that it's basically a requirement that Thanksgiving dinner must include turkey, cranberry sauce, potatoes (normal, sweet, or both) and pumpkin pie (I don't include that nasty stuff called stuffing, but some people might). Besides that, there's lots of leeway; you can cook your turkey in a plethora of ways, with myriad spices/flavorings, and it wouldn't be considered an affront, for instance. You can even have turkey fajitas.
  
  And don't you, Mardell, somewhat contradict yourself when you extol 'fait simple', and then go on to explain how you've had Chinese, Thai, and Malaysian food for Christmas dinners? All of those cuisines aren't exactly paragons of 'fait simple' (Japanese would be).
  
  My Thanksgiving dinner consists of: normal oven-roasted turkey; cranberry sauce ('real' and the canned variety); mashed sweet potatoes; mashed potatoes (and gravy); creamed spinach; and Yorkshire pudding (which is apparently part of the English national dish). For the pumpkin pie, sweet potatoes, and creamed spinach, I just used Chinese five spice powder, as I saw no reason to go out and buy nutmeg and cloves just for this. I'll admit the sweet potatoes didn't work out so well.
  
  Anyways, here's hoping you and all the others in the United States (or Americans abroad) have had, or are having, a good Thanksgiving.
• My Lai: "Smoke coming from the muzzle" 04:08am on 27 Nov 2009 @ NEARPOSTHEADER:
  
  Are, or were you, a soldier? And crucially, are/were you an American soldier?
  
  I highly doubt that American soldiers - or soldiers in any Western nation - are indoctrinated to believe civilians are subhuman - even when the Vietnam War was taking place. They are indoctrinated to follow orders, and I can see how some might believe that the ends justify the means (i.e. if you hurt them hard enough, they might surrender faster, saving more lives in the long run). In the case of My Lai, it would have been 'by doing this, civilians will fear the Americans more than the Vietcong, and so won't harbor Vietcong and will aid - or at least not obstruct - the Americans/South Vietnamese government).
• Is Obama serious about climate change? 03:11am on 26 Nov 2009 Is any major non-European nation serious about climate change? In the EU, it has arguably been raised to the point of dogmatic religion - although I realise this will seem to be hyperbole to some - so surprise that most of the rest of the world is not frantically concerned about climate change is understandable.
  
  The fact is that people know 100% that if the budget deficit continues, that will bring ruin to the country, and put an enormous burden on future generations. Yet does that cause our country to not spend more than it can afford, year after year? The same goes for many European and other developed countries.
  
  We have arguably pressured and even invaded countries for our economic interests; does that suggest that we give a rat's bottom if some sparsely-populated tiny island states are submerged by rising sea levels? The 'V11' (Vulnerable 11) was set up to try to shame the rest of the world into combating climate change - somehow I don't think any sympathy for their vulnerability to a warmer climate will amount to very much.
  
  If we don't do squat about some horror we know will happen (irresponsibly spending beyond our means), and whose solution we know how to implement, then how do you think that we'll do something about some horror that many question (rightly or wrongly), and for which there are no 'easy' solutions?
• Europe's identity crisis 04:47am on 25 Nov 2009 "In Britain some migrants from Pakistan and Kashmir are more cautious about living alongside other communities in the giant melting pot that is Britain today."
  
  My understanding is that Britain is still 95% white. While some of this number are from non-British European countries like Poland, Britain is still a far cry from a 'giant melting pot', at least by New World standards, even if London is.
  
  "There are only about 300,000 Muslims in the country and many of them are from the Balkans and so do not practise Islam?"
  
  But take into account Switzerland's small population. 300,000 is about 0.1% of the American population, but is a much higher percentage of the population for Switzerland.
  
  And what is with Muslims who do not practice Islam? If they don't adhere to Islam, then aren't they not Muslim? I know at lot of Muslims have an unhealthy obsession with Jews, but 'Muslim' is not a 'race' (or ethnicity, if you are one who defines ethnicity by genes and ancestry and not culture) the way 'Jewish' is. And unlike Christianity - where 'non-practicing' Christians may be slackers, but may still theoretically be Christian - I am under the impression that to be a real Muslim does require adherence to some rules. And in theory, a strict Muslim might still be assimilable into Swiss society and not be a terrorist, terrorist threat, or terrorism supporter. Likewise, a victimised 'Muslim by birth,' but not in practice, may be all of those things.
  
  On the topic as a whole, I think Gavin's touched upon something that makes common sense. That is, multiculturalism equals multinationalism. If European countries do not want to be nations defined by common ancestry, great, but then there is even more impetus for the new nation to be bound together by a common culture. The way I see things, multiculturalism is the same as a nation having many ethnicities (defined as being a group with a particular culture), and thus a nation with many different sets of values, some of which may be at odds with each other. A multicultural nation is a nation divided into many smaller nations, and the people's loyalties are more to those smaller, ghettoised nations, than to their purported real ones.
• Sensible caution or more dithering? 07:23am on 12 Nov 2009 Regarding comment 1:
  
  I think the point of the blog posts ending in questions is to make us (the readers/posters) feel involved with the blogging process, like we're contributing something. Not that Mardell's a slacker who's trying to use us as free labour (that would be funny, though). Many of us (particularly on this blog), aren't British, either.
  
  As for the topic, I'm going to go with: Obama's 70% dithering, 30% paternalistically trying to get the Afghan state to improve its game.
• Healthcare plans: a threat to freedom? 07:07am on 06 Nov 2009 I really liked Via-Media's post in comment 3. I generally agree with all of it.
  
  One legitimate criticism raised by opponents, however, is that universal healthcare, and especially the public option, will end up like welfare. Many welfare recipients either do not realise, or do not care, that they are essentially in debt to their fellow Americans who pay taxes, and so they think nothing of taking from the taxpayer dole year after year. It's the impersonality of government that does this - it's hard to feel that one owes anything. In contrast, if one's in a rough spot economically, and one goes to one's church (or other social organisation) for help, that person either knows the people who are donating money to help get him or her back on his or her feet, or one is aware that individual people are giving up some of their own money for his or her benefit.
  
  That is bound to make one feel a bit more in debt, and a little shamed that one needed to go beg, essentially, for financial help. Before I rile people up with this last bit, I just think shame is a good emotion in this situation in that it is likely to motivate people to try harder to get a job so that: a) they no longer have to look to others for help, in this regard, and b) hopefully one day they will be in a situation where they are wealthy enough to be able to help out another monetarily.
  
  While not directly related, 'free' healthcare helps to bolster this attitude that nobody's footing the bill for these services - which is not the case - and so it is acceptable for freeloaders to take advantage of this without ever contributing anything. If these 'freeloaders' could be educated, or shamed into realising that others are giving up things like a new car, for example, to help them, then maybe they'd start pulling more of their fair share.
  
  Obviously, a child (or adult) with some rare, debilitating, and costly form of cancer is not going to be expected to pay back the cost of medical care. But in the majority of cases, people who already freeload in American E.R.s (the de facto existing public option) could be doing more to pay their costs.
  
  So in that respect, I sympathise with opponents. If there's going to be a move toward (official) subsidised healthcare or even the public option, then there should be a corresponding cultural change among the many Americans* who are already in debt to their tax-paying peers who bail them out at their own expense.
  
  On the flip side, in theory a public option where people are much more willing to seek preventative care, or go to the doctor as soon as they get sick, might end up being cheaper than the costs Americans pay through taxes already and through hiked-up hospital bills made so expensive to compensate for the free care freeloaders get in E.R.s.
  
  * I'm not going to touch on the topic of whether or not illegal aliens/immigrants are currently putting an enormous strain on hospitals, or whether or not a free public option will lead to large numbers of Mexicans crossing over the border to get free access to developed-world healthcare in American cities near our southern neighbour.
• Can rural America hold the world to ransom? 04:07am on 31 Oct 2009 "[Kerry] is also being forced to consider inducements - like offshore drilling permits and incentives for the nuclear industry - which might attract wavering Republicans.
  
  "In short, West Virginia's opposition to the Senate climate bill will end up watering down America's position on climate."
  
  Supporting nuclear energy is not really watering down the United States' position on climate change. More Americans, especially fiscally conservative ones, would support nuclear energy over more costly solar or wind energy. If the latter two drop drastically in price, great, then they can replace coal and nuclear. Until then, nuclear energy is as zero-carbon-emitting as wind turbines and solar panels (all of which 'cost' a lot in greenhouse gases and pollution in their production).
  
  And we (Americans and the world) are going to need oil and natural gas for years to come. Drilling for hydrocarbons offshore of the United States just means that it won't have to be sourced from unstable, human-rights-abusing countries (worse than 'evil America') and will be less polluting to the world in that the stuff won't have to be shipped thousands of miles on tankers from Venezuela or the Old World. Or we could just pay more for Canadian and Mexican oil, and outsource some of our fossil fuel pollution to them (and Mexico has a lot of threatened biodiversity)
  
• The right to offend? 9:29pm on 16 Oct 2009 "Offending religion and the defeat of dogma ushered in the modern world."
  
  This seems to be a common belief among the comments here, and - from what I've seen - the common belief in Europe.
  
  It's erroneous.
  
  Criticising religion and 'the defeat of dogma' did accompany the West's development into the modern era. Taking on religion is not the reason for modern, advanced civilisation.
  
  Furthermore, the Enlightenment was about questioning what was accepted as fact. This did not pertain solely to religion, as many seem to have forgot. Science was questioned too, and the Aristotlean model of how the universe worked gave way to modern physics. Society was questioned, and the strict social hierarchy of royalty, nobility, commoners, peasants and serfs gave way to a more egalitarian view; prejudice, not only in religious matters, gave way to more tolerance. Political structures were questioned, and absolute monarchy - particularly in continental Europe, but even in Magna Carta England/Britain - gave way eventually to parliamentary constitutional monarchies and republics.
  
  One could argue that the old conditions listed above were supported by the religious leadership. The Roman Catholic leadership clamping down on Galileo. Divine Right. And so on. However, that was just sheepskin to make such conditions (especially the socio-political ones) palatable to the unwashed masses. We have Atheist regimes today who rule by the Divine Right of 'the Party knows best' and who cling to generally unaccepted science because it also supports the accepted order (i.e. Chinese support of the multi-regional hypothesis of the origin of modern humans).
  
  The modern world did not come about by vanquishing adherence to an evil, development-retarding religion. It came about by a healthy questioning of the world and a curiosity about how that world worked and how new ideas could change things for the better.
  
  Ridiculing religion does no good except to make Atheists feel a little warm and fuzzy inside. Observing, analysing, questioning religion and everything else is what is constructive. You question views you disagree with - as well as those with which you agree - you don't mock those views and the people who hold them.

• «Newer
• Older»

BBC.co.uk