Eu migration to Ireland - got an opinion?

bonkey

SkepticOne wrote:

Give me a modern Western society any day even if it is not based on the strictures of some religious book.

I'll take one too...that wasn't the point I was making.

I was objecting to OFG basing half of his argument on a tirade against religion and how our religiously-freed western society is superior....whilst basing the half - the examples of his arguments all on one specific religion. If one is willing to blur such distinctions, its easy to see why all practicioners of a given religion are tarnished with the same brush for the actions of an extremist few. Its more or less the same level of generalisation.

OFG is alterning between attacking "religion" as being the problem, and illustrating Islam being the problem. While he persists in this, I'm quite happy to have he, you, or anyone else point to aspects of Islam which "prove" his point about religion in general.

The point in question was me fishing to see whether he'd slam all aspects of all religions, or - yet again - use Islam as his evidence of rationality in arguing against religion.

jc

SkepticOne

bonkey wrote:

The point in question was me fishing to see whether he'd slam all aspects of all religions, or - yet again - use Islam as his evidence of rationality in arguing against religion.

OK. I would agree that you can't use the example of one religion to argue a point about religion in general. However, many religions don't in themselves have strictures about how to organise societies. What I think, and I'm open to correction here, is being argued is that society is best organised on secular principles. Islam is probably one of the better examples here in that it does have such strictures. From the point of view of a devout muslim in a Western society, it may be the case that, although they are bound by Islam to obey the laws in the country they are in, the society, if it is not based on certain religious principles may be, in a sense, wrong. This may lead to conflicts that, for example, a Buddhist may not experience.

OfflerCrocGod

bonkey wrote:

You keep saying "religion" here, but you obviously mean "Islam". You've already qualified your other arguments to explain that Christianity doesn't really have this problem any more, or to explain that you've no problem with the Buddhists, Hindi, etc. that come from other places......so could you either stop generalising about having a problem with religion, or stop saying you don't have a problem with all these people from other places who are predominantly religious[\i], because the two don't gel.

I think I understand what you mean.....Yes I don't see Christianity as anything other then a dead force it's flock is getting smaller by the day and in Europe it's lost a huge amount of influence and power. It won't die with dignity, but it will die which is what matters. Islam is more dangerous because it is a hugely powerful force in poilitics and everyday affairs in the Middle-East, it dominates the landscape in the Middle-East much like Christianity used to in Europe - that's why I'm confident that with time it will end up like Christianity did in Europe. In Islam, like it once was for Christianity, the holy books are tought to be the source of the states laws. In this case the Qur'an and the Sunnah ( Hadith is the arab word ) , the problem with that mentality is that those books never change, not really so good for the society.

bonkey wrote:

I'm looking for the democracy on the planet which has a majority of its population who are not followers of any religion, and I'm coming up blank. Maybe you could explain how religion is the problem, as opposed to
Islam??? While you're at it, could you address the point I made previously which you dodged first time round, which is explain why you don't like religions which do not do anything of the sort (i.e. no absolute doctrine, nothing which undermines democracy, no killing in the name of their God)

I've got no problem with religions like that, ones that can be used to justify terrible things are my problem. Islam, Christianity, Protestant etc...really aren't like that. Western democracies have this thing called seperation of church and state which we have no problem with here in the west, in the middle-east they traditionally need the army to enforce it though. That's a tradition we can do without.

The vast majority of people who claim they are religious are not really....I think I covered this before, they are "part-time" religious people. They have their weddings and so on in churches but they don't really care what the church say. Most people in Europe rarely go to mass - in the UK it's 8% attendance. Those people will still classify themselves as belonging to a certain religion though. They aren't though they just like to believe they are.

bonkey wrote:

Don't you mean "as long as", and not "because". After all, the reason you want to keep the Muslims out is because you're convinced they will impinge on your lifestyle by threatening the very way of life that you have???)

They could, not they will. I'm calling for filtering bonkey, not a total shutdown of our borders, I'm convinced you are not reading my posts. Yes "as long as" is correct although I don't see how that could ever happen. I am more worried about tensions between communities and small fanatic groups doing stupid things. But yes if by some very bizarre twist ( impossible! ) our goverment is replaced with religious loonies and our democracy is stripped away then it will be my problem.

bonkey wrote:

Really? There's only one Christian faith? Only one Muslim faith? Hindii? Buddhist? Jewish? There's no distinction between the fundamentalist, the extremist, and the more "conventional" religious castes?

What I meant is that if you are of religious domination X, you live by X's rules, you don't get to choose the ones you prefer and discard the ones you don't. If you do that then be brave enough to admit you are not an Xian because you disagree with it's rules. People who are like that are the majority in western countries - I can't be arsed to listen to what my priest says but I'm in his religion. Those people are harmless, they aren't religious fanatics. I already said I have issue with the extremists, not with the "part-timers".

bonkey wrote:

Ah. I see. How convenient. So...anyone who violates any precept of their religion isn't actually religious. Given that Islam is fundamentally a religion of peace....wouldn't that mean that all of the people you have an objection to aren't really religious, but only pretending to be? Why, then, blame the religion that they're not following??? Why punish those who do follow that religion for those that only pretend to??? Or are you saying we should punish those who are only pretending to be Muslim because the real religion is one of violence?

Religion can be used by people to justify the acts they carry out, or should I say they get other people to carry out. "You go blow yourself up and you'll get 66 virgins in paradise". An Imman is to be listened to and obeyed - if he preaches hate he will be listened to. I've heard Islam is a religion of peace....some of it's followers haven't it seems. Sharia Law isn't pretending, it's real and it's pretty backward, it is Islamic law. I'm not calling for "punishment" ( were do I call for that? ) I'm saying I dislike it.

bonkey wrote:

But the western world is a religious society. The majority of the people in it follow a Christian faith.

Condoms. Seperation of state and religion. Divorce. Gay marriages in a few countries - it's spreading to others. Abortion. Evolution taught in schools. 2 people went to Maynooth to become priests this year. Declining numbers in mass. Vatican can't get it's constitutional header. bonkey Europe is about as religious as my fat ass.

bonkey wrote:

God is great that he put all that oil in one place??? OK....fair enough...

Allah Akbar....what I was trying to hint at is that the difference between those places was their attitude towards religion. In a place were it was more important and more intolerant it was more likely to hinder progress.

bonkey wrote:

While we're at it...why don't you have a look at what type of social conditions are most suitable for religions to form and to increase in popularity. There might be a lesson to learn there.

Ignorance and poverty - the lesson there is that we also has those here in Europe we don't anymore to the same extent. That's why religion has lost it's power here.

bonkey wrote:

I suggest you study some history. We had no shortage of empires to copy from. Or do you think it was entirely co-incidental that that there was an extremely popular move in the 12th or 13th century to rename London as New Troy? Do you think the Renaissance - the rebirth - was not actually a "re" anything???

No sh1t, I thought the Roman Empire was South American! Are you telling me that it was actually European??!! In other words we had ourselves and our history to call upon....so you could say we had ourselves and no one else to copy from when it came to our constitutions and laws except ourselves. In other words we did it on our own.

bonkey wrote:

And as for maths...we didn't get that from those iggerant, backwards Muslims. No sireee. We made that up all on our own. Algebra, Calculus, the decimal numbers....all good western inventions. And gunpowder too....we had no help there.

I said that right now their system is backward....yes 800 years ago they came up with some great things....but they haven't changed since then. That doesn't strike me as so great. Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz and Sir Issac Newton where Muslim? I didn't know that, thanks for that interesting fact. I don't know what the Chinese have to do with this the Hui are a small minority and had nothing to do with Black Powder. I already said I welcome the Chinese into Ireland, some of my friends are Chinese.

bonkey wrote:

..says it all really. "Possible Extremists"??? Because they share the same religion, or are from the same part of the world?

Ummm....no, because they are angry young men who may not be sympathetic to the western lifestyle. Of course "possible" I'd hope convicted ones will never be let in to our country, why should we let them in if they are young men who hold extreme views? Let their own goverment deal with them not ours. Continued....

OfflerCrocGod

bonkey wrote:

Yes indeed. Including the vast majority of Muslims....

I said it's only a fringe group we need to filter out. Yes the vast majority of Muslims are no problem at all ( we take in such small numbers anyway )

bonkey wrote:

How? Oh...I see...adopt the Canadian model....Hmm. The Canadian model...Rich, educated Muslims are not a problem. Poor, less-well-educated Muslims are. Why then do you conclude that its the religion which is the threat/problem???

You are less likely to follow a religion blindly if you are educated. The same goes for being well off. Religion is the tool that is used to control people. If you don't believe it the tool fails to control you.

bonkey wrote:

Well, you seem to varicate between saying that, and clarifying that you've no problem with the vast majority of people, most of whom statistically are religious by normal standards (and...as I pointed out earlier...you never established why the terrorists should be considered religious on your exclusionary "if you don't follow all the rules, you're only pretending" standards)

I'm not comfortable with religions because they can be used to manipulate people. If the people are gullible enough they can be sent out to do anything/commit anything. Most people don't take their religion that seriously, it's more a habit/hereditary thing and they are in the majority. With time there will be fewer of these because they are just too lazy to bother. Someone who believes their way religion is under threat can react very violently and can justify it to themselves because they are "Defenders of the Faith". They can become terrorists.

bonkey wrote:

And you accuse me of not reading your posts? If you could just show me where I suggest this, I'd be most grateful. You might explain how you've conveniently re-interpreted "very religious people from some backwater country" as "unchecked, unfiltered people" along the way...because it might give you some hint as to what I was actually pointing to.

Your original statement was vague, I took it to mean I was being intolerant towards these people because I disliked the ones who were very religious. Well yes I don't see why after having finally removing the Catholic Church as a power in our country we should start importing other religious power bases. I don't want to start from scratch, it could take 3 or 4 generations before they are fully intergrated! That's why I have strong misgivings toward Turkey joining Europe. If you are secular, modern in your outlook then OK you can be let in but if you are strongly religious then some filtering should take place, background checks just to make sure someone who could cause problems isn't let in.

bonkey wrote:

I'd rather you explain to me how telling me that democracy is the best system we have actually answers the question I posed, which was whether or not prosperity, and all that comes with it in our society was unquestionably a good thing. You're telling me you don't see a single aspect of our modern western society that isn't necessarily a good thing? The rapid increases in obesity? The increasing prevalance of gun-related crime? The decline of our environment? The all-powerful god Profit? Its all good???

Read SkepticOne's post.

bonkey wrote:

I'd prefer to have the choice...not be villified for it by people who would associate certain choices of religion with social incompatability. I'd prefer to live in a culture that looked to see what it could learn from others, as opposed to one which followed in the footsteps of all those which fell before it as it held on to its self-belief of absolute superiority even as it fell apart.

You have the choice, you can be a super-religious person and no one will stop you. I don't see why we should let in people from other parts of the world who are like that though, since religious societies tend to be regressive. So many people would want to come into our country so we may as well choose the best; the ones who will integrate the easiest and fastest. Instead of the ones who could take generations to integrate.

bonkey wrote:

Personally? I think the villification of an entire religion for the acts carried out by a few extremists in its name is more dangerous than either. Such logic would lead me to look at Northern Ireland and conclude that neither Catholics nor Protestants should be allowed in this country either, or to conclude that there is some fundamental moral difference and implication between a Catholic blowing up a street in Enniskillen and Muslim doing likewise in some other place.

You asked about our problems bonkey compared to the problems we could get by letting in everyone without any sort of checks. A small fringe group who may have no support in their community could carry out such an attack. It happened in Madrid and I don't think they had any support in muslim community there, they don't need support they just need to be let into the country. I have repeated over and over again that I'm worried about fringe extremists and that's why we should check out any strongly religious people before letting them in. Up North they don't chant "God is great", they don't believe that if you martyr yourself you will go to heaven, there are no martyrs up there, the church up there is about as powerful as it is down here. Young kids aren't brought up to follow the orders of their local priests as if it was law. Don't be ridiculous the North is not a religious hotbed.

bonkey wrote:

Who is they? The Muslims in the democracy of Indonesia? In the democracy of Turkey? Or the Muslims living in Ireland, England, the US etc.? The millions of Muslims who just voted in Afghanistan and didn't vote for a religious leader? After all...its the religion you're blaming...so you should surely be able to explain how Muslim-majority democracies actually exist on this planet.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to have a democracy and religion, I'm saying that having extreme religious views are most definitely not conductive to democracy. Turkey is secular because it's got a very.....overbearing army. I am saying extremists are dangerous, speaking of Indonesia have you been to Bali recently? Nice place except for a big smoking crater in the ground. Afghanistan! YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! I wont even bother refuting that one it's such a bad choice. As long as the people don't follow their religion in their choices of leaders it's OK, once they do things can turn out really bad.

bonkey wrote:

Been to any good Auto da Fé recently?

Of course not, the inquisition ended in the 19th century bonkey and we don't do them anymore because we don't follow the Church in matters of law anymore. Seperation of church and state, remember? When was the last time the Bible was edited or the Qur'an?

bonkey wrote:

No change in the Catholic Church's position on anything in the past decade?

Do you think they welcome change? That they actually would change anything at all if it weren't for the fact that our modern world is forcing them to! It's the modern secular world that's forcing them to change it's not voluntary.

OfflerCrocGod

bonkey wrote:

I'll take one too...that wasn't the point I was making.

I was objecting to OFG basing half of his argument on a tirade against religion and how our religiously-freed western society is superior....whilst basing the half - the examples of his arguments all on one specific religion. If one is willing to blur such distinctions, its easy to see why all practicioners of a given religion are tarnished with the same brush for the actions of an extremist few. Its more or less the same level of generalisation.

My problem is with a religion that asks for your unquestioning allegiance and that sets it's self up as the sole store of justice and truth. That expects to be the foundations of the laws of any country that practices it. Buddhism is a way of life, a philosophy, it's not really a religion at all, it doesn't ask it's followers for all those things at all. The kinds of religions which are like I described are the one which belong to the "People Of The Book" category. Christianity, Islam, Judaism those tend to ask of their followers that their laws are the laws of their respective holy book......that I find totally stupid and ridiculous. A religion to me is something which makes statements beyond proof and expects its followers to just "have faith". Even when those claims are proven to be horsecrap. Gautama never said he was anything more then a teacher. So it's not really a religion to me. While Hinduism.....well it's not really tied down to any set of religious laws or religious concepts, much like Buddhism

bonkey wrote:

OFG is alterning between attacking "religion" as being the problem, and illustrating Islam being the problem. While he persists in this, I'm quite happy to have he, you, or anyone else point to aspects of Islam which "prove" his point about religion in general.

The point in question was me fishing to see whether he'd slam all aspects of all religions, or - yet again - use Islam as his evidence of rationality in arguing against religion.

jc

Religions which accept no compromise are dangerous. I use Islam because Christianity is spent, Judaism has few followers left alive, Buddhism is not a religion, Hinduism is very similar to Buddhism and doesn't really classify as a religion to me, it's more spiritualism like Confucianism or Taoism a school of tought, a philosophy. To me a religion will not accept new thoughs or learning - it is written down so many years ago and that's the way things will be forever and you have no choice in the matter, you must accept that. If that's not dangerous then bonkey I don't know what is.

ionapaul

Leaving the Muslim question to the side, does anyone know the mechanism by which so many Chinese work visas are issued? Does Ireland have a special relationship in that regard with China? I personally think it is wonderful, Chinese people are friendly and extremely hard-working, the 'model minority', I don't think anyone should take offence when I say if I was a business owner looking for workers I would choose Chinese over Irish any day!

OfflerCrocGod

Yes all my Chinese friends are very hard workers and very friendly. I heard some where that there were nearly 100'000 of them in Dublin/Ireland(?) that is nearly 10% of the population of Dublin! I find that figure believable since there are so many of them on the streets. It's cool because it gives Dublin a very cosmopolitan feel