Well done Respect!!

[mutley]

I agree with what you say on the veil but what does this mean:



Does that mean you support muslims having the proportion of schools as christians (in terms of the population)? As christians actually have 17% of schools and are 71% of the population that would mean there would be about 0.75% of schools would be muslim (a quarter of 3%). That's about 30 muslim schools nationally.

Or should all religious groups be given the number of schools that they represent in terms of their proportion of the population?

It means (I assume..) what it says: 'Muslims having equal rights to schools'. That does not mean advocating them. I have the 'right' to sit outside in swimming trunks on Xmas day. Most people would say that I would not be advised to do so.

As for your other point - the bottom line for me is that if a vote came up to fund a specific shool in an area where there were other xian schools, I think you'd have to support it, or you would not be giving equal treatment. If you didn't, many in the Muslim community would say 'these socialists, they don't think we should have the same rights as Xians'. Putting another motion for total secularisation (which would prob get no votes) wouldn't change that. Hell you could put your secularisation motion first to get your points across, but if/when that fell, you'd have to support equality. And yes I'd support the principle that any religous group has the right to get funding if any currently do. Again, that doesn't mean i think that setting up such schools is the way forward for those communities.

And i think we've done this to death now...

 

[cockneyrebel]

It means (I assume..) what it says: 'Muslims having equal rights to schools'. That does not mean advocating them. I have the 'right' to sit outside in swimming trunks on Xmas day. Most people would say that I would not be advised to do so.

Which means what? If you advocate muslims (and other religions I presume, remember hindus and buddhists have no schools at all), having equal rights to schools, does that mean you'll support them setting up new schools.

If yes, how many? If not what do you mean?

As for your other point - the bottom line for me is that if a vote came up to fund a specific shool in an area where there were other xian schools, I think you'd have to support it, or you would not be giving equal treatment. If you didn't, many in the Muslim community would say 'these socialists, they don't think we should have the same rights as Xians'. Putting another motion for total secularisation (which would prob get no votes) wouldn't change that. Hell you could put your secularisation motion first to get your points across, but if/when that fell, you'd have to support equality. And yes I'd support the principle that any religous group has the right to get funding if any currently do. Again, that doesn't mean i think that setting up such schools is the way forward for those communities.

This is just knee jerk, ad hoc and totally unclear.

So you only support the setting up of religious schools where there are already religious schools? Would that mean you'd support every religion in that area having their own school? And if there were only one or two christian/gora schools would you support people if they wanted another one?

But if there are no religious schools in a certain area would you campaign against the opening up of any religious schools?

Putting another motion for total secularisation (which would prob get no votes) wouldn't change that. Hell you could put your secularisation motion first to get your points across, but if/when that fell, you'd have to support equality.

Well presumably it would get the vote of socialists and secularists. But my point is that if you did this and then oppossed the opening up of a new religious school (of whatever faith) then I don't think people would think that socialists/goras could be accused of being in favour of discrimination.

And yes I'd support the principle that any religous group has the right to get funding if any currently do. Again, that doesn't mean i think that setting up such schools is the way forward for those communities.

In which case the SWP is gonna be supporting a lot of religious schools opening up over the next few years, as all religions seem to be wanting to open up more schools.

 

[Jean-Luc]

I can't see how anyone who wants a free, secular society can support any demand for religious schools of any sort, let alone muslim ones. In fact I'd even go so far as to say particularly not muslim schools in present circumstances. There is simply a basic incomptability between islam and a secular society. Sharia law is a load of barbarous shite as is forcing women to wear the veil (and don't tell me most aren't forced to) and the cruel, ritual slaughter of animals. Surely we are opposed to all this. OK, muslim clerics have the democratic right to demand muslim schools -- so they can better dominate and control their flocks. But we, too, have the democratic right to oppose their demand and in fact their religion (as all other religions). Which is what we should be doing unless we want to return to the middle ages or abandon some of our fellow humans to be the clutches of obscurantism. This battle was fought in the past against the catholic church and its pretensions and now has to be fought against islam.
Respect has lost the plot here and gone over to the other side.

 

[Das Uberdog]

My fucking God you fascist prick - can't respond to the arguments against you so you just keep spouting your Islamophobic bile in the name of secularism, and disgustingly, socialism.

No, totally - when the Nazis were attacking the Jews in Germany we should have stayed quiet on the contentious, non-vote winning arguments such as equality, civility and respect for the Jewish community. Jesus, what were we thinking as socialists, supporting such a brazenly anti-European, incompatable religious group?! There's a difference between fucking supporting a marginalised, minority religion and culture and supporting a dominant established Christian church in the West. The difference is you find it difficult to discriminate unfairly against the dominant and majority ehtnic/religious groups in society, but it's easy to oppress the smaller one's even through association.

You seriously think that the way to attract the Muslim community away from extreme religious bile is to simply tell them that their entire religion is incompatable with Western society and beliefs? You're a fucking moron - not that this wasn't blatant.

This argument is a non-starter - a stand-off between people with their heads in the real world and people with too many hang-ups on Islam to think straight.

 

[biff curtains]

Yes that's right the situation for Muslims currently mirrors that of Jews in 30's Germany. Fuck if only it was just schools they had to worry about then!

 

[Das Uberdog]

Dickhead - so should we not have fought for the situation of the Jewish community before the Nazis played onto the scene then? 1890s Germany? Fucking arsehole.

 

[Jean-Luc]

My fucking God you fascist prick - can't respond to the arguments against you so you just keep spouting your Islamophobic bile in the name of secularism, and disgustingly, socialism.

So if you criticise the muslim religion you're a fascist? And of course fascists need to smashed, don't they? I see you've learned a lot from your proxy religion about how to deal with dissenters, you, if I may return the compliment, islamist prick.
I don't think you know anything about the secularist, freethinking, rationalist movement and tradition in this country which has always been predominantly leftwing and its criticism of ALL religions. If you want to read an anarchist/libertarian criticism of islam go to http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/woodworth-koran.html
According to this, this is what the koran says is going to happen to atheists like me: "Atheists are to be crucified or else have their hands and feet cut off". Richard Dawkins better watch out too. And I suppose should Lindsey Germain and Chris Harman. Maybe even you?
And you, you stupid prick, want schools to be set up to teach this! Well, I don't and I'm going to fight back against clerics who want to set up a state where atheists would be in the same position as Jews in Nazi Germany.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Yes that's right the situation for Muslims currently mirrors that of Jews in 30's Germany. Fuck if only it was just schools they had to worry about then!

Word!

The situations are not really comperable. BTW before DU and his swappie pals accuse me of it I'm not Islamophobic but I am Islamistophobic.

Jews in Germany prior to WW1 especially had become 'more German than the Germans' and took an active part in German life, didn't secrete themselves or were placed in ghettos and considered themselves German first and Jewish second even to the extent that some in the Reform movement considered moving the Sabbath to a Sunday as a way of fitting in. There was anti semitism in Germany (where doesn't it exist unfortunately) but it wasn't as vehement as it was after the Treaty of Versailles and the subsequent ecomonic hardships that the German people suffered.

Of course what became the Allied powers should have supported the Jews long before the situation in Germany became untenable. There was bags of antisemitism from western leaders and terrible restrictions on immigration to safe countries such as UK and USA for people trying to get out.

But the analogy between the condition of muslims in the west today and Jews in the west in the past breaks down when examined a bit more closely.

Jews in Germany were suffering oppression from Weimar onwards which is something that cannot be said for the conditions of muslims in the UK. The UK government, third sector groups and the people have gone out of their way rightly to understand Islam. This wouldn't have happened in Germany or many other European countries in the early 20th C.

The situation isnot the same. Nobody in the majority community outside of a few neofash fraggles is planning or advocating the destruction of muslims, nobody is forcing them to wear yellow crescents on their clothes, nobody is confiscating their property and tearing children from their mothers breasts. To make the comparison between the preliminaries to the horror of The Shoah and the position of muslims in the UK in the present day is deeply offensive.

I'll criticise fascism where ever I find it. Whether it is the drunken bootboys shouting 'kill the pakis' in a pub or whether it comes from the sort of nutters the swappies seem to be so keen to ingratiate themselves with. Its the collusion with religious fascism that offends me about the swappies. Make no mistake the swappies are going to get their arses bitten by their association with political islam. There are ways to peace between faiths but capitulation and appeasement to religious fascists whether muslim, jewish, christian or worshippers of the flying spaghetti monster is the way of disaster.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Got to challenge you on a few points here though despite agreeing with you on some points.

I can't see how anyone who wants a free, secular society can support any demand for religious schools of any sort, let alone muslim ones.

This used to be my position but I've changed my view. The main criteria I would use is will this sort of education hinder a persons journey through secular life? I wouldn't have a problem with muslim schools provided that the admin of the school was transparant. Parents at Jewish schools are free to criticise aspects of the schools religious ethos (for example a jewish school handing its jewish studies course over to an Ultra Orthodox group would be criticised openly)

In fact I'd even go so far as to say particularly not muslim schools in present circumstances. There is simply a basic incomptability between islam and a secular society. Sharia law is a load of barbarous shite as is forcing women to wear the veil (and don't tell me most aren't forced to)

Not all Sharia is about limb chopping etc. Some of Sharia law relates to contract law and restitution for wrongs for instance. Its the interpretation which is the problem. Re the veil, other religions that have a sharp gender divide women can walk away without phyisical danger in the UK which is not the situation for a lot of muslim women. I'd like to see refuges and support for women in particular who don't want to live in t h is way. The growth of feminist judaism and christianity has opened these religions out and a similar thing in Islam needs to be encouraged.

and the cruel, ritual slaughter of animals.

I disagree with you on this. I think Kosher and Halal slaughtering is far kinder than the industrial slaughterhouses that you have for non kosher and halal meat.

Surely we are opposed to all this. OK, muslim clerics have the democratic right to demand muslim schools -- so they can better dominate and control their flocks. But we, too, have the democratic right to oppose their demand and in fact their religion (as all other religions). Which is what we should be doing unless we want to return to the middle ages or abandon some of our fellow humans to be the clutches of obscurantism. This battle was fought in the past against the catholic church and its pretensions and now has to be fought against islam.

I appreciate you point coming from a athiest perspective but I have no problem with faith schools provided that there are safeguards. I'm concerned where faith schools are ghettos. Faith schools with a strong connection to the secular I'm OK with.

Respect has lost the plot here and gone over to the other side.

I wouldn't say the other side but they are certainly licking some Islamist arse which is boosting support for the extreme right.

 

[cockneyrebel]

This argument is a non-starter - a stand-off between people with their heads in the real world and people with too many hang-ups on Islam to think straight.

I hope you're not including me in that sentence. I certainly stand 100% againt the rise in Islamophobia/muslim bashing that has happened over the last few year and is an extremely worrying development. So much so that muslims I know (even secular ones) have begun to think about whether they'll have to leave the country in the future for fear of it getting worse and worse. But I don't think the SWPs policy on things like supporting religious schools opening will help things at all and lead to the adhoc, made up on the spot policies shown above. And this will happen more and more in the next few years, from all religions, look at the figures. Religions such as hinduism, sikhism and buddhism have even less schools than islam, and christian groups are crowing on their websites that the current environment gives them the chance to increase christian schools as well. And what are you gonna do, pick and choose which religions schools to open on some made up on the spot basis? All we have so far is mutley saying that if there are no religious schools in an area then he doesn't support religious schools opening, if there are religious schools already then he'd support all religions having their own school, but doesn't specify how many. It's just a madness that a revolutionary socialist group is going down that road.

Last point I'm not sure mutley why you are assuming that someone oppossing a religious school opening would be a "gora". Firstly there are plenty of black and Asian people who only want secular schools and secondly I think you're making assumptions about a lot of muslims by saying that they'd start talking about "these goras" if someone said they only wanted a secular education system and explained it in an open way.

I can't be bothered with this debate now though, it's descended into the posts above and KJ and Jean-Luc are coming out with loads of this rubbish on various threads and Jean-Lucs latest posts have just been muslim bashing.

 

[mutley]

Sorry Cockers, but Jean-Luc's bile is exactly the terms in which the argument that you are backing up gets argued.

He at least is honest in saying that he has a particular problem with Muslim schools. The fact that this was a non-issue until there was the prospect of Muslim schools is interpreted by many Muslims (and others) as meaning that this is the real argument.

Couple of brief points - agree it wasn't just be 'goras' opposing it, my point in using the word was that marginally derogatory terms like that would be the way a refusal would be discussed in the Muslim community - 'They (the goras) won't let 'us' have 'our' schools.'

A last point, that KJ has kind of hinted at - there are already a whole bunch of Muslim schools that are private. That means they don't get inspected, don't have to deliver the nat curriculum and can do what they like. Once they're funded, they have to accord with the conditions that go with the cash. Which is anothe reason why in some circumstances, funding should be agreed. It means actually existing Muslim schools have to engage with the rest of the educational establishment, and kids who go to them get a better deal.

PS that's not making up the position willy-nilly,(or whtaver CR said) it's recognising that a 'one size fits all situations' approach doesn't work. As someone once said: ' Theory is grey, but the tree of life is green'.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Sorry Cockers, but Jean-Luc's bile is exactly the terms in which the argument that you are backing up gets argued.

and

And as for uniting with Blair, on some issues the left does have to have the same line eg when it comes to LGBT equality. The formula 'Blair's for it so we must be against' is a bit weak really.

At least have some consistency.

Jean-Luc's bile has nothing in common with what I'm saying. Indeed not that long ago the SWP had the same line that I'm coming out with, the SWP would never have agree with what Jean-Luc is saying.

He at least is honest in saying that he has a particular problem with Muslim schools. The fact that this was a non-issue until there was the prospect of Muslim schools is interpreted by many Muslims (and others) as meaning that this is the real argument.

Please now you really are being dishonest and out of order.

By saying "at least is honest in saying that he has a particular problem with Muslim schools" are you implying that this is also the case with me? If so you really are being a bit of wanker to be honest. I would argue the same thing whatever the religion of the schools was, and it wasn't a non-issue for me. As I've already shown actually Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists are actually even less represented in terms of religious schools but I'd still say the same thing if any one of those religions wanted to set up a state funded school. The issue has been brought up here because the SWP is now supporting setting up religious schools, which didn't used to be the case.

Couple of brief points - agree it wasn't just be 'goras' opposing it, my point in using the word was that marginally derogatory terms like that would be the way a refusal would be discussed in the Muslim community - 'They (the goras) won't let 'us' have 'our' schools.'

Sorry mutley are you a spokesperson for the muslim community? Also I think you're actually being prejudiced in treating muslims as a homogenous group. Believe it or not there are actually secular muslims as well and there are muslims who oppose religious schools being set up.

And if socialists showed that they were against all religious schools I think you could cut against that way of thinking. Instead you're saying that we need some kind of quota system (or that's the reality of what you're saying). As such you'll end up supporting opening up lots of religious schools over the next few years as all religious groups ask for more schools for their religion. This is anything but just an issue for muslims. Do you not think that christian, jewish, hindu and sikh communities are also not asking for more state backed religious schools?

that's not making up the position willy-nilly,(or whtaver CR said) it's recognising that a 'one size fits all situations' approach doesn't work. As someone once said: ' Theory is grey, but the tree of life is green'.

But of course it is. You have shown this on this thread by saying you'd support more religious schools where there are already religious schools, but not for areas where there aren't. It's just an ad hoc opportunistic policy.

A last point, that KJ has kind of hinted at - there are already a whole bunch of Muslim schools that are private. That means they don't get inspected, don't have to deliver the nat curriculum and can do what they like. Once they're funded, they have to accord with the conditions that go with the cash. Which is anothe reason why in some circumstances, funding should be agreed. It means actually existing Muslim schools have to engage with the rest of the educational establishment, and kids who go to them get a better deal.

And never mind that socialists want an end to private education. No the answer is clearly for more state backed religious schools instead. You really couldn't make this stuff up.

 

[mutley]

Please now you really are being dishonest and out of order.

By saying "at least is honest in saying that he has a particular problem with Muslim schools" are you implying that this is also the case with me? If so you really are being a bit of wanker to be honest. I would argue the same thing whatever the religion of the schools was, and it wasn't a non-issue for me. As I've already shown actually Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists are actually even less represented in terms of religious schools but I'd still say the same thing if any one of those religions wanted to set up a state funded school. The issue has been brought up here because the SWP is now supporting setting up religious schools, which didn't used to be the case.

I'll accept that's not your position, and was being lazy in how I phrased it. (But I'd watch it with your double negative.. hope it wasn't freudian ) But what i would say it (ie a position akin to JL's) is what lies behind the concern of many left/liberal opponents of faith schools.


Sorry mutley are you a spokesperson for the muslim community? Also I think you're actually being prejudiced in treating muslims as a homogenous group. Believe it or not there are actually secular muslims as well and there are muslims who oppose religious schools being set up.

There have been a number of polls that indicate that while many Muslims don't want to go/ send their kids to these schools, they are for equality of funding. They can see the hypocrisy of tolerating Xian ones and blocking Muslim ones. And my experience is precisley that - lots of Muslims I know are quite open to a debate about what will best suit their kids, but they want to have the same choices available as the majority have had for the last60 years and will not accept unequal treatment.

And if socialists showed that they were against all religious schools I think you could cut against that way of thinking. Instead you're saying that we need some kind of quota system (or that's the reality of what you're saying). As such you'll end up supporting opening up lots of religious schools over the next few years as all religious groups ask for more schools for their religion. This is anything but just an issue for muslims. Do you not think that christian, jewish, hindu and sikh communities are also not asking for more state backed religious schools?

That double negative is as clear as mud.. What I'm saying is that any religous community that wants a school should be treated equally to any other.

But of course it is. You have shown this on this thread by saying you'd support more religious schools where there are already religious schools, but not for areas where there aren't. It's just an ad hoc opportunistic policy.

No its recognising that situations change over time and in different areas. And I wouldn't 'support' more religous schools I'd reluctantly accept that equality necessitated that some get funded in some areas.

And never mind that socialists want an end to private education. No the answer is clearly for more state backed religious schools instead. You really couldn't make this stuff up.

That's not 'the answer' you git the point is that Eton ain't gonna get abolished in the near or medium term. I guess it would be possible to get Muslim private schools shut down though - what would you say then?

Your position is obviously that we can cut through the whole issue by demanding the integration of all private and religous schools into a 100% comp secular system.
Me I say that as that demand is fucking miles from actually being politically attainable, your position is abstract bollocks. End of..

 

[Jean-Luc]

Scuse my ignorance, but what's a "gora"?

 

[cockneyrebel]

I'll accept that's not your position, and was being lazy in how I phrased it. (But I'd watch it with your double negative.. hope it wasn't freudian ) But what i would say it (ie a position akin to JL's) is what lies behind the concern of many left/liberal opponents of faith schools.

Fair enough. But just as you say your position doens't make you a Blairite, my position doesn't put me on the side of people who might wanna use this issue for reactionary reasons. However I would say that supporting opening faith schools is in essence a reactionary position.

Also "it wasn't a non-issue for me" means that it was an issue for me, don't see how that is written wrongly?! But anyway, it doesn't matter, you know what I meant.

Scuse my ignorance, but what's a "gora"?

It means "white person" in Hindi. It's often used in a slightly derogatory way. To be honest I can't see why mutley brought it up in that way, maybe showing he's "down with the lingo".

There have been a number of polls that indicate that while many Muslims don't want to go/ send their kids to these schools, they are for equality of funding. They can see the hypocrisy of tolerating Xian ones and blocking Muslim ones. And my experience is precisley that - lots of Muslims I know are quite open to a debate about what will best suit their kids, but they want to have the same choices available as the majority have had for the last60 years and will not accept unequal treatment.

But not having any state funding for religious schools is equality of funding, and as said that can easily be explained from a socialist point of view. I have no problem in pointing out the hypocricy and discrimination, but my answer would be to stop all religious funding, not having some kind of de facto quota system.

I just think you are stereotyping and being a bit patronising by saying muslims won't understand or accept the arguments for socialists arguing that all schools should be secular.

That double negative is as clear as mud.. What I'm saying is that any religous community that wants a school should be treated equally to any other.

Are you an english teacher or something? I think you know what I mean. All religious communities are asking for more religious schools. Because of your position you will be supporting the opening up of more and more religious schools over the next few years.

No its recognising that situations change over time and in different areas. And I wouldn't 'support' more religous schools I'd reluctantly accept that equality necessitated that some get funded in some areas.

And you're seriously saying that's not an ad hoc policy?

In reality you are supporting many more religious schools. The example of Tower Hamlets will come up again and again in the next few years and you'll have to support the opening up of more and more religious schools.

That's not 'the answer' you git the point is that Eton ain't gonna get abolished in the near or medium term. I guess it would be possible to get Muslim private schools shut down though - what would you say then?

Your position is obviously that we can cut through the whole issue by demanding the integration of all private and religous schools into a 100% comp secular system.

Me I say that as that demand is fucking miles from actually being politically attainable, your position is abstract bollocks. End of..

Git!

Seriously though what are you talking about, why the hell would I call for the shutting down of muslim private schools?! But I would call for the shutting down of all private schools, but of course that is just abstract. As is a lot of the things socialists stand for, might as well throw all kinds of stuff out of the window by that rate.

And you might say my position is abstract. I just don't accept this, the issue of secular education is anything but abstract, and the same goes for the funding of schools as more and more of the state education system is put into private hands. But where your position leads you to is supporting the opening of more and more religious schools on and ad hoc basis.

But you're right, we seem to be going around in circles a bit now.

Lastly I don't see why you keep making this an issue just about muslims. Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists (who combined are about as big as the muslim population) have even less state funding for religious schools than muslims.

 

[Jean-Luc]

It means "white person" in Hindi. It's often used in a slightly derogatory way. To be honest I can't see why mutley brought it up in that way, maybe showing he's "down with the lingo".

Lastly I don't see why you keep making this an issue just about muslims. Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists (who combined are about as big as the muslim population) have even less state funding for religious schools than muslims.

I didn't realise that "gora" was as bad as that -- a sort of muslim equivalent of "paki". I had guessed that it just meant something like "goy". It looks like double standards are at work again.
As to the second question, surely it's only because SWP/Respect have targetted muslims to the exclusion of these other groups. Makes it difficult for them not to back Muslims in inter-communal conflicts between them and Sikhs (as in Southall and Slough) and them and Hindus (as in India). I believe that the sort of muslims Respect is wooing ("we're all Hezbollah now") regard hindus as "idol worshippers" who are beyond the pale. But then the Hezbollocks are shi-ites and that's another inter-communal rivalry.
I really can't understand why the SWP decided to enter get involved in "communitarianism" on one side.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I didn't realise that "gora" was as bad as that -- a sort of muslim equivalent of "paki".

No it's not the equivalent of using the word paki at all, it's not even as bad as using the word honkee. It doesn't have to be have negative conatations to it, it is just often used in a mildly derogative way.

 

[Jean-Luc]

Since the Respecters (of islam) here label any criticism of islam from a "gora" as "bile" and fascism, here's a couple of books by people from the correct "race" background:
Why I am not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq (see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879759844/thesecularweb/ )
Why I am an Atheist by Bhagat Singh (see http://www.marxists.org/archive/bhagat-singh/1930/10/05.htm )
I know the second might not be acceptable since Singh was an ex-Sikh and that the Taleban regime in Afghanistan required Sikhs to wear a special sign resembling a yellow star. They also forced Sikh women to be veiled . . .