<p>“Muslims in Great Britain, Canada, and Germany are pushing to be exempt from their nations’ laws and be only answerable to Shari’a.”</p>
<p>There are small groups of Jews in Israel demanding the same thing. (Not to mention Amish in America who successfully pushed to be exempted from school attendance laws; Wisconsin v. Yoder.) But we usually don’t make overbroad statements like “Jews want to abolish secular law.” We acknowledge that this is a tiny subgroup on the fringes of Jewish society, and we don’t tar millions of other people with the same brush by classing all Jews in with the crazies.</p>
<p>So why do we talk about Muslims so differently?</p>
<p>Hannah, if you can’t see the difference between exempting your kids from a secular school attendance requirement, and FGM, stoning female adulterers, punishing rape victims, slicing out the tongues of blasphemers, etc., then further discussion is pointless.</p>
<p>kluge, your last statement just set off my B.S. meter. If you are black, or ever entertain black friends in your home, or get mail delivered by a black postman, or have a black friend pick you up in his car, or attend church services with black fellow parishoners, the white seperatist wouldn’t come within ten miles of you. If he were to come across you as you were mingling with someone of another race, he would walk away in disgust & return to his racially pure little cabin in the woods. Harmless, really.</p>
<p>Padilla, a known violent gang member, would not likely fit in at the neighborhood block party. Tell me you wouldn’t have a home security system installed A.S.A.P? Tell me you’d let your daughter drop by with a plate of brownies to welcome him to the neighborhood?</p>
<p>My understandin is that FGM predates the spread of Islam in Africa, but I can’t find any firm numbers on the web that tell me what percentage of non-Muslims in sub-Saharahan Africa practice it. But just as an example about 75% of the women in Ethiopia are circumcised, but less than 75% are Muslim. (Breakdown is Religion: Muslim 45%-50%, Ethiopian Orthodox 35%-40%, animist 12%, other 3%-8%) Or for a more striking example - take Uganda where FGM is now illegal and has been reduced by about 36% from unknown original levels. (I couldn’t find a number). The religious breakdown there is Traditional African religions 32,06%, Muslim 4,48%, Christians 63,46%. The holdouts are romote tribes, not the Muslims.</p>
<p>Stickershock, I guess it all comes down to fear of the unknown. I have to admit that I am unable to fathom the mindset of those who feel that people of different ethnic backgrounds should be separated. And the copout that “white separatists” is different from “white supremacists”, while a convenient cover for groteque racists, is a lie. None of those people think that all races are equal, but should be kept apart - they think whites are better. In fact, the essence of white seperatism is the fundamental belief that “those people” aren’t human - at least not human in the sense that “we” are. That form of belief frequently leads to bad things. Those people scare me.</p>
<p>UCLAri - I agree. And it’s the door I actually live behind, fortunately. :)</p>
<p>“Opie and Mini- as to your comments in response to my post, I was using a vehicle known as sarcasm, it is a form of humor.”</p>
<p>Hey on this site you can never tell… try a next time. I get the sarcasm but also understand there’s more than a few that agree with your joking post.</p>
<p>said by Sitckershock
“white supremist don’t want to harm anyone”…</p>
<p>wow, now I jsut want to cry…ss, harm is not always killing, even though many do want to kill</p>
<p>harm takes many many forms and viseral hatred is one</p>
<p>when someone makes such a statement, it just floors me, and gives me an insight into them more than they would probablly like</p>
<p>scary stuff that someone thinks white supremists mean no harm…wow</p>
<p>it may not be illiegal to be a white supremist and to hate, but it in no way is harmless…just think back to the 40s…and if they could get away with causing harm like their heros did, I think they would</p>
<p>SS’s little admonishment that I clearly do not understand the difference between those nice separatists and the supremacists is sort of hysterical.</p>
<p>From where I sit, they are all dangerous, xenophobic, racist and bigoted. Yup, I’ll use all the descriptors, because their actions (yes, both groups) have proven them to be worthy of such names.</p>
<p>CGM: Reading comprehension problem? Or did you purposely misquote me?</p>
<p>THere is a very distinct and important difference between a white supremist & a white separatist. It is not a copout or a lie. Separatists want no mingling of the races. Does it matter why? If they thought blacks were a superior race, yet still wanted to restrict racial mingling, would you suddenly view them positively? They are not blowing up buildings, churches, or bridges. They are not lynching, beating, or harassing blacks. They hide in the woods and live seperate lives. Nobody is harmed except themselves. To compare a racist movement that closes itself off and tries to escape reality with the skinhead/supremicists who actively seek to violently confront blacks is ridiculous.</p>
<p>White separatists not racist–now that is la-la land!</p>
<p>Just do some googling. Here’s just the first quote I stumbled onto: </p>
<p>“”“”"Today he says he does his best to patronize European-American-owned businesses. He has formed a new white separatist group whose meetings minorities may not attend.</p>
<p>He complains about minorities moving into Pasco County, about Mexicans taking jobs once held by white teenagers, about black claims of discrimination.</p>
<p>“The blacks, they need to get over that,” he said. “If they don’t like it here that much, they need to go back to Africa.”“”"</p>
<p>Sheesh!</p>
<p>Anyone who emphasizes race in the face of genetic evidence that of some 35,000 genes, only 10 are concerned with skin color is–sorry–a bigot. </p>
<p>Just as Senator Conrad Burns, George Allen, etc., etc., lots of nice people who have said despicable things. We need to call 'em when we see 'em!</p>
<p>Maybe I didn’t read your message carefully. You also didn’t read mine. If you say that that “no one is harmed except themselves,” and that they “hide in the woods” my quote obviously belies that. The man wants people to “go back where they came from.” No hiding in the woods!</p>
<p>November 2005, Texas. Christopher Chubasco Wilkins, a prison escapee, was recaptured on November 5 and charged with murdering three men in the Fort Worth area during his month-long escape. Wilkins, who is according to police a self-proclaimed white separatist heavily tattooed with a variety of white supremacist tattoos, including a portrait of Adolf Hitler, is alleged to have killed two Hispanic men and one African-American man by gunshots to the head. Police are examining a possible racial motive. Wilkins had been living at a halfway house in Houston, after being released from federal prison, and left the house without permission. </p>
<p>It’s disheartening that people buy into how “separatists” are not about racial hatred.</p>
<p>Did you consider that perhaps, just as some here have never made the distinction between supremacists and separatists, that the journalists writing these reports have fallen into the same trap? Quite frankly, I had never known that there was a distinction, myself. But perhaps there is.</p>
<p>Wilkins is a supremist with a violent history. Separatists do not advocate violence. Again, I never said they do not harbor racial hatred. Those are your words, not mine. My original post about separatists referred to the Ruby Ridge fiasco where a family was roused and raided by the FBI. The mother and one of her sons was murdered. The family had harmed nobody, but chose to live in a remote area as white separatists. No honest comparison is possible between Wilkins & the Ruby Ridge situation.</p>
<p>The guy in your first example won’t be inviting blacks over for Sunday brunch or shopping at non-white owned businesses. So what? Freedom of association. If he throws a Molotov cocktail through a black-owned business or beheads a member of a different religion, then I’ll worry. He can hold his little (I’m sure this is accurate) separatist meetings every day if he wants. Who is harmed? Will you or anyone else be attending against your will? No. Will his little group have any impact on weakening the legally-protected rights of non-whites? No. Will he earn anything but scorn & pity from 99.99999% of the population? No. If he crosses over to the realm of supremist and advocates or engages in violence, then he’ll be locked up.</p>
<p>FF: THe distinctions are important. Remember how important kluge felt the distincions between Padilla’s plotting and actual terrorist activity were? </p>
<p>I know that journalists often confuse the two. I may not like breathing the same air as a separatist, but I am not in any danger being near him. A supremist is dangerous. I would be afraid to let my son wear his Tiki Barber jersey around such a kook. On the other hand, wearing the jersey around the separatist would be an effective way to get hime to go away.</p>
<p>I’d be wary of the argument that separatists are so benign. Though most are quite happy with the public line that they’re just for seeing people go their own little ways, I don’t know how much that’s the actual reality. </p>
<p>Besides, we all know what happens when you corner an angry animal. Some of these people are just ONE step from “whacko militia leader” as opposed to “whacko in the woods.”</p>
next time. I get the sarcasm but also understand there’s more than a few that agree with your joking post.</p>