Ironically, this may have done more for "interfaith" understanding than the actual game. "Muslim-Christian football tie scrapped after sex row," from Reuters:
OSLO (Reuters) - Muslim and Christian leaders in Oslo scrapped a football match meant to foster understanding between religions on Saturday after the imams refused to play a team that included women priests.
The imams said physical contact with women would be inappropriate, NRK public television said, and the Norwegian Christians refused a proposal of a male-only clash. The match was to have followed talks meant to build bridges between faiths in Norway.
"Some say that bodily contact is the problem. It leads to special feelings that can lead to something forbidden," imam Senaid Kobilica told NRK public television in explanation.
A woman priest from Norway's Lutheran state church, who was part of the Christian team, said that barring women from the pitch would be discrimination.
"It's disappointing because it means deciding to sacrifice someone from one's own side -- women, who historically are those who have had to give way," priest Kjersti Oestland Tveit said. "It's a setback for sexual equality in 2007."
Her objection prompted the Christian captain to cancel the match. "There are both men and women priests in Oslo, and you can't have a dialogue in which everyone can take part and then have a game where only men are allowed," Trond Bakkevig said.
Hmm...would it be okay if the female priests wore burkhas and no male was allowed within 1 meter of them?
This shows there can be no dialogue with islam. It is there way or no way everytime. I'm glad the Christians pulled out of the game rather than not letting the female priests pray. Maybe there is still hope for Europe.
Karl
Her objection prompted the Christian captain to cancel the match. "There are both men and women priests in Oslo, and you can't have a dialogue in which everyone can take part and then have a game where only men are allowed," Trond Bakkevig said.
Guess what? There is more than a game at stake, educate yourselves.
Some say that bodily contact is the problem. It leads to special feelings that can lead to something forbidden,"
This I don't get. If raping a woman is okay in islam, why would brushing up against her in a soccer game be not okay?
Special feelings leading to something forbidden?
What is he alluding to? Is he suggesting that if a muslim soccer play brushes up against a female player, he will get an erection, and be therefore obligated to rape her on the field? And even if that was the case, raping of infidel women is NOT forbidden in islam. So I still don't get it.
Here's the truth - The Muslim goalie could not stand the possibility of being scored on by a woman.
They should plan more and more events that "foster understanding between religions." As more and more Mohammedans complain about contact with females, the native Norwegian will soon understand the total intolerance of Mohammedism.
"What is he alluding to? Is he suggesting that if a muslim soccer play brushes up against a female player, he will get an erection, and be therefore obligated to rape her on the field?"
Posted by: jihadwatcher at May 6, 2007 04:43 PM
We'd have 'em on the 'offside rape' rule resulting on a free kick to the nuts.
jihadtobejoking,
I would suggest a public neutering rather than a kick to the nuts...
Those 72 virgins won't be as much fun then.
Karl
Well, there goes the opertunity for the annual 'Special Feelings Charity cup'! Damn. The Muslims couldn't rise to the challenge.
They couldn't get up for the game.
my brother is a resident of norway. i visited him a few yrs ago. its heavily socialist and very overly politically correct. the immigrant neighbourhood has a high level of crime. norway is also rich in oil money, the money is literally being put away into an account for when that nation runs out of oil. needless to say the muslims are flocking their in their hundreds of thousands in anticipation of all that money they will steal from the dozing socialists once islam takes norway.
Rape reports soar in Oslo...
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1567514.ece
related..
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1770352.ece
do we really need more of this dialie I mean dialog stuff?
Just send 'em home. No questions answered.
Good! The church is standing up for gender equality and not acting like dhimmis. One of the few bits of good news out of skandinavia recently....
Pelayo says:
"They should plan more and more events that "foster understanding between religions." As more and more Mohammedans complain about contact with females, the native Norwegian will soon understand the total intolerance of Mohammedism"
I disagree. That after everything that's happened around the world in the years since 9/11, the Madrid, London, Bali and Mumbay bombings, the murder of Theo van Gough (in one of Norway's nearest neighbours!) - and the list could go on - we're still at the stage where people think that good will gestures such as this soccer match idea actually mean anything is dismally depressing. If these events don't make an impression on people, will a disagreement over the players in a soccer game do so?
Christian leaders who broach ideas like this in this day and age are simply pathetic and ridiculous. Such an outcome was entirely predictable, and Christian authorities ought to instead be demanding serious meetings around discussion of important issues - such as what Muslims living in the West and benefitting from Western governments' generosity are going to do to insist on Muslim governments' reciprocation with the Christians in the Middle East and other Islamic lands. (Not that I have any great hopes that Muslim governments will actually ever do this).
I take some reassurance perhaps in the fact that at least they didn't knuckle under to the absurd demands of multiculturalist "sensitivity" by removing the women from the field.
But we sure as hell don't need soccer to get to know what these people are all about. Anybody willing to open their eyes and admit the patently obvious should be able to "understand" them only too well.
CAnt have any fitnah,
Funny I always thought jihad was a personal struggle to defeat inner demons ,
Consider whether a restriction on informal male/female contact isn't a healthy thing. In this case, it protects an unhealthy society; but could it be that the western acceptance of unisexual culture is a weakness?
... could it be that the western acceptance of unisexual culture is a weakness?
Posted by StillBreathing
There are remnants in western society (various religious groups) that might want to advance such a thesis, but the issue in this case is the insistence of Muslims on claiming immunity from current Western standards, which they feel should be trumped by Islamic law. They are the tail that insists on wagging the dog.
templar, the muslims in this case are acting as a religious group, not as a political domination machine. i see that we can't always separate the two, but let's stick with this particular case.
they don't want to play with men and women in close physical contact. is the role of a good anti-jihadist to force them to do so? would you complain about orthodox jews or strict baptists or whatever, if they refused the game as well? i think it would be bad form to complain about other groups on this basis. people have their ways and should have their rights, even informally and even in terms of our respect for those decisions. and in this case, the objection has survival value, or so I believe.
the weakness of islamic culture is its religion. the weakness of judeo-christian culture -- especially in relation to birthing the next generation -- may be its lack of religion.
"special feelings that lead to something forbidden"
Special feelings? Are these men such horny dogs that all they have to do is touch a woman and they instantly develop SPECIAL FEELINGS; and here I thought that special feelings developed over time.
If a Muslim man ever tells you you're special, then don't believe him; what he meant to tell you was that you make him horny.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=452815&in_page_id=1770
They just don't want women allowed to kick any balls.
It might give them ideas.
(I wish more Muslim women would take it up... it'll come in handy some day.)
StillBreathing-
The day a group of Hasidim start playing soccer is the day the Messiah is coming.
Let's be real.
This isn't "worryin'-about-those-dangerous-ultra-orthodox-Jews-watch.org" now is it.
When rabbis start beheading people, I'll be as vocal in opposing them.
As long as people are crazy in private, who cares.
It's when they insist on spreading it that they become trouble.
If they are so desperate for having a dialog come down to Allahabad, India and play with some Hindu monks on the banks of the Ganges. ;)
Hummm imagine what will happen when they get voter majorities ... like in Lebanon, and they actually start winning elections based upon the promise of Sharia law. What then?
StillBreathing:
Your interest in the possible value of traditional, gender-segregated cultures is fine, but you are interested in that in a context of freedom, I presume, where those who want some kind of renewal of extremely traditional or archaic gender values can have communities that pursue that, and can advocate freely for that, while those who don't want that can live as they please. You have no desire, in other words, to impose ancient traditional norms on everyone. Correct?
But in that you differ radically from Muslims, and that is why I think your argument here fails. At present Muslims do not want a gender-apartheid culture in a context of freedom and laissez-faire to opt out. No, they want it, or according to various polls about half of the Muslims in the world want it, in a context of Sharia law, which would be imposed on everyone, like it or not.
So, unless a Muslim group explicitly disavows Sharia law and the desire for Muslim supremacism via the state, then their demands for a gender-segregated culture should be utterly rejected. These soccer players have not explicitly disavowed a desire that gender-apartheid should be imposed on everyone, have they? When they do that publicly, then let their desire to play a segregated game be respected.
"As more and more Mohammedans complain about contact with females, the native Norwegian will soon understand the total intolerance of Mohammedism." --Pelayo
I agree with this but it is rather astonishing that so many Europeans (in particular) remain in denial about what Islam is and what Islam wants (demands).
The longer it takes to wake up the worse the awakening will be.
Ameriki:
As you probably know, until relatively recently Lebanon was a majority-Christian nation. It seems that when Arafat and his crowd moved there, war came with them, and the Christians have since been gradually driven out by Muslim violence. Lebanon is no longer majority-Christian, and the Christian population is shrinking as more and more flee Muslim violence on Christians. The beautiful Brigitte Gabriel, once of Lebanon, tells that story pretty well.
To U.S. citizens:
Reading Bat Ye'or shows how divisions between non-Muslims sometimes played a critical role in permitting Muslims to takeover. Therefore, when any potential ally in Europe or elsewhere seems foolish, blind, or insulting to Americans, those of us who are American should avoid responding with insults in return, and restrict ourselves to frank and helpful criticism, and respectful listening (not the same as agreeing). We simply cannot afford to lose any potential allies, even if they are far from where we stand at the moment.
Alexon:
Maybe Europe is starting to awaken. A few hours ago France elected Sarkozy. One of Sarkozy's platforms was to reestablish friendship with the U.S. He also wants to clamp down on immigration, and has at least talked tough about the Muslim intifada in the Paris suburbs.
Well, I don't suppose he called it a "Muslim intifada," so don't let me give you that impression.
Hey Traeh,
I know about the Sarkozy win and it does give some hope. I've been over at the now mostly dormant thread "France's Royal: Vote for me, or the Muslims will riot" venting like crazy over the crap reporting coming from AP and Reuters.
"We simply cannot afford to lose any potential allies, even if they are far from where we stand at the moment." --traeh
Good Point! Yes, we need a coalition of resistance to islamic supremacy which will hold together on the eminently compelling basis of mutual survival. That's a helluva bond too once the case is made.
... when any potential ally in Europe or elsewhere seems foolish, blind, or insulting to Americans, those of us who are American should avoid responding with insults in return, and restrict ourselves to frank and helpful criticism, and respectful listening (not the same as agreeing).
Traeh:
This is a noble self-effacing sentiment which represents the best of the American spirit. Allow me, as a Canadian, to add that the same holds true in reverse. There is far too much America bashing everywhere in the world, but the most discouraging and disheartening aspect of this is that it occurs among peoples that ought to know better, including Europeans and even Canadians. (I must admit I was guilty of a couple of episodes of this in some of my earliest comments on this site, when I became exasperated with one or two posters whose comments seemed "over the top", but I'd like to think I've learned better since then).
For what its worth, I second your suggestion, and call on non-Americans to do likewise in our own comments. The U.S.A., whatever faults it may have, is clearly the most benevolent world power that ever existed and deserves the world's great respect and gratitude, even if it too occasionally misses the mark, as does everyone else, some with far greater evil effect.
By the way, I've been heartened by the Sarkozy victory in France as well. Although I've always been a bit of a natural right winger, for pragmatic reasons relating to some of their key policies which seemed, to me at least, to highlight gaps in the thinking of the Right, I've tended to vote with the Left in the past, but this has become untenable for me in light of the Left's present course, both in regard to Islam, and in relation to a broad swath of social policy matters, so I expect I'll be voting Conservative next time. If I can make that transition from the Left to the Right, from soft-headed multiculturalism to insistence on assimilation, I believe others can as well. I hope, believe and pray that the world is waking up and that change for the better is in the wind.
In any case, in tandem with the recent loss of the Social Democrats in Sweden, Sarkozy's win is a very encouraging sign - something definitely worth celebrating so here's my acclamation:
DOWN WITH SOCIALISM AND EVERY OTHER FORM OF COLOSSAL STUPIDITY!
LONG LIVE A FREE FRANCE AND FREE EUROPE!
GOD BLESS NICOLAS SARKOZY!
AND GOD BLESS THE U.S.A.!
Some say that bodily contact is the problem. It leads to special feelings that can lead to something forbidden,
lol this remind you of something that happened during my basic training, we're playing combat soccer is soccer with no rules tackling allowed these guys inmans would have had a fit at one game we had! The guys and gals played together and train together we had one girl that was 5 foot 8 38 26 36 long blonde hair blue eyes very good-looking, there was one tackle and a dog pile on her she came out stark naked all her clothes and ripped off we all learned she was a natural blonde that day all the guys were standing around staring at her shock and she still had the ball she scored a goal and ran to the armory and get back in uniform. Unfortunately it looks like the Muslim world every Muslim on the field would have been running after her to rape her because of course in their mindset and nude woman and a infidel would have been just asking for rape. And they consider themselves so superior to Western men, but the funny thing that private if any man had tried to touch her without her permission the entire platoon would have torn the guy apart and by the same token in the West except for a few criminals when a woman says no to a man even her husband is normally accepted but in the East in the supposedly superior Arab Islamic nations marital rape is common apparently and of course the man always blame the woman when they are raped in that mindset means no woman is really safe and sex is so deeply feared by the man they cannot admit that any woman would say no to them
"Unless a Muslim group explicitly disavows Sharia law and the desire for Muslim supremacism via the state, then their demands for a gender-segregated culture should be utterly rejected." -- traeh
your suggestion is to reject all accommodations except for those who take the pledge.
interesting.
... a football match meant to foster understanding between religions...
What's so hard to understand? The Koran is clear enough; so are the other Islamic scriptures.
No, the Vikings don't wanna come to an understanding of Islam, they expressly do NOT want to know the truth about it. What they want is for the Moslems to like them, and that's a barren goal.
They're just insecure at the risk of letting the girls show bigger manhood than they do...
...no, wait, they just did!
never mind. lol
A soccer match is not how Muslims want to play with little girls...
Now, what would Rosie O'Donnell have done in this situation?
Nearly everyone is talking ignorant nonsense here. The real point of this story is that both sides are corrupt, mendacious and odious.
1) These aren't Christians. They are the Norwegian State Church, which may once have been Lutheran, but is now staffed largely by agnostics and atheists. It has as much claim to be a Christian body as the Muslims themselves.
2) The grotesque notion of mixed male-and-female teams makes a mockery of the game. If you are supposed to play soccer, play it as it is supposed to be played. Almost all sports are segregated, and that for a very good reason: male and female are physically different and perform differently. This shows that the body promoting this match is fundamentally PC - its attitude to football being, either you do it the PC way or we won't play.
(There may be an additional element of male humiliation. Norway's male footballers never won a thing, but their female national team has a semi-permanent subscription to the European Cup. But that does not mean they could play with a competent professional male team.)
3) The notion that Christian preachers, if they are that, are professionally similar to Muslim prayer leaders is more nonsense. This is a stupid attempt to reduce to the same matrix two groups which are very different in nature, purpose and role.
4) On the other hand: had the Muslims refused to play against female players on the grounds of respecting the game and treating it as it should be treated, I would have been with them all the way. But they did not. They refused because of their destructive obsession with sex and their assumption that self-control is impossible. Therefore they are as much at fault as the associated atheists and state scroungers of the so-called Norwegian state church. The whole thing was, from the beginning, a flatulent travesty designed not to increase but to decrease mutual understanding, to falsify basic facts and categories, and incidentally to insult a noble game.
The scary part of this is the lack of forethought on the part of the people who proposed this to begin with.
The person who sat Condi rice across the table from the Iranian minister at the meeting he walked out of had their own agenda, I believe, and that is failure.
Not that anything that would come out of a face-to-face with Iran could be considered a WIN.
Let's put it this way, if you are going to the State Dinner in Washington tonight for the Queen you will be told what to do and what not do. I have been to 'knives and forks' classes in foreign countries before being allowed to place my American insensitivities in front of people who might be offended.
The State department has a lot of people who's job it is to do just this.
On the surface it might seem the agenda is to point out the inequality of the sexes in Islam. but nowadays I am looking for games within games. I am afraid my mind is not convoluted enough to wrap around these various games.
Pablo:
I don't doubt what you say about the condition of the Norwegian Church but I think your point about the sport is misplaced.
We're not talking about the World Cup here, just an amateur, friendly, street-level game whose purpose was to build camaraderie among a group of, presumably, non-athletes i.e. to blow off steam and have some fun. It was a recreational activity to offset more serious work. A pointless exercise, I grant you, and yes, sponsored by a very corrupt establishment, but world-class, professional league rules of sport are just a bit heavy for this.
If this were a more serious match in something approaching competititive league play, I'd say your comment was very keen and incisive, but in this case I say to you the same thing I'd say to the Muslims: "Easy. Let's keep it light!"
Paolo:
Sorry for mangling your name in that last note. Not the first time I've done it either, but I don't know where that mistake keeps coming from.
Damn!
I'll try to get it right next time.
the quotes from the Norwegian team are amazing. are they all asleep ? or do they all belong to some denomination which forbids members to read newspapers ? is this the only "setback for sexual equality in 2007" which has come to their attention ? having grown up reading about the heroism of many Norwegians in WW2, i will not say that they are wimps, but why can't they hear that steady drip-drip-drip sound ? it is not heavy water this time....
were the Muslims afraid the women would win?
oh, nice one, exsgtbrown !
Who plays footbal with women anyway ?