Maura Durante amd AlQuida

Wibbs

bonkey wrote:

I think they're a fabulous example. They stick to themselves, and the Spanish generally leave them alone, and everyone generally gets on fine. Spain hasn't turned into England, and the world as we know it hasn't ended.

Actually, with respect it's not such a good example. The Spanish are getting increasingly irritated with such enclaves of British and German ex pats. Friction is there and it's getting worse. Personally I've little respect for someone who moves to a country and refuses to even pick up bits of the language. It's plain bad manners if nothing else.

Woah there. Hold up.

Sharia Law? Honour Killings?

Yea I was wondering where the Honour killings bit came from as if you take Sharia law that's a major no no. Fair is fair, "honour" killings and crap like that are against Islam and Sharia in a big way. They're a local anomaly with highly incorrect interpretations of Islam as justification. There's fatwas aplenty flying all over the place against the practice.

When you find something in Pakistani law that you can point as being unacceptable, that doesn't automatically mean that Islam is to blame. When you find something in Pakistani culture you find unacceptable, that doesn't automatically mean Islam is to blame.

Blame is the wrong word, but there is a link between Pakistani law and Islam, as it's an implementation of the Sharia which is part and parcel of the religion in question.

Cue the responses from those who can't understand that this is not a cry for an "anything goes", and probably someone sarcastically asking why I don't move to some fundamentalist location if I'm so in love with sharia law.

Waiting for those comments myself.:D

Change is not the problem. Never was, never will be.

Change into what exactly? All change is good is it?

Wibbs

bonkey wrote:

And I would have said that anyone making such a comment is woefully misinformed about what a comparison is.

Then why make the comparison in the first place between christianity and islam then?

Seperation of church and state is not a Christian notion. Its a secular notion.

With a theological basis to allow it. "My kingdom is not of this earth" etc. A totally different view to that of Islam where the running of this "kingdom on earth" is laid out covering all aspects of both political and daily life.

So you're saying that every single Muslim nation on the planet currently has a legal system run entirely by Sharia law?

Nope, but they are heading that way. Pakistan when formed in 1947 was a secular democracy. With every decade since it has drifted ever nearer to full sharia law. Bangladesh, Iran, Algeria, even Nigeria(nth) is increasingly gearing towards Sharia.

Sure it is.

Being a long-established democracy in a modern wealthy nation, it is a fine example to show how the long-established democracies in the modern wealthy Western nations will fall prey to the same fate.

Modern wealthy nation? What? Have a look at the problems facing Pakistan. Look at the military expenditure in the sillyness with India. Look at the increasingly inadequate education system.
http://www.usd.edu/~clehmann/pop_prob/pakistan/educationproblem.htm
http://www.usd.edu/~clehmann/pop_prob/pakistan/monstrous_debt.htm
http://www.usd.edu/~clehmann/pop_prob/pakistan/povertyproblem.htm
http://www.usd.edu/~clehmann/pop_prob/pakistan/governmentproblems.htm
All this and a miltary dictatorship. That's a good example in your eyes? Regardless of the debate, you really need a better example. Seriously.

They can be as loud in their protests as they want. You're glibly ignoring the fact that they're protesting because they are losing. They might be able to slow the rate of transition, but they are losing ground steadily.

They're protesting because they are gaining support. I'm sure many in Iran thought the same just before Khomeni took over.

bonkey

Wibbs wrote:

but there is a link between Pakistani law and Islam, as it's an implementation of the Sharia which is part and parcel of the religion in question

A link, yes. However, Pakistani law is not reflective of all Muslims, no more than the rabid actions of the likes of bin Laden are.

We cannot choose some extremist sub-section and conclude that all Muslims (or all Muslim nations) are the same. Well, we can do so, but its morally corrupt from my perspective.

Practices like the handshaking issue are attacks of convenience, as they are rules which are practiced by moderate and extremist alike. However, they are not representative of extremism - that logic is not a two way street.

Wibbs wrote:

Change into what exactly? All change is good is it?

Fair point...but consider how much of modern "yoof culture" our parents or grandparents consider to be a good thing. Ever been told the music you listen to is noise? That people dress disgracefully these days? That morals are gone to hell in a handbasket? Guess what....our parents were told more-or-less the same thing by their forefathers.

So does that make all such change bad?

Even on the hand-shaking thing (that we've done for centuries)....I dunno about back home, but over here there's a massively-growing "gansta culture" where all the hip-hop-lovin' males greet each other with some ever-changing, elaborate full-upper-body greeting that could be termed a handshake only loosely and euphemistically.

Note - they don't greet the women this way. Ever.

Why is this not as unacceptable a change (or moreso) as Muslims seeking to adhere to the teachings of their faith when it comes to greeting men and women differently?

Change is just something that happens. Some of it will be for the best, some for the worst, but we should be very very careful as to what change we try and oppose, and how lest we undermine our own ultimate goals.

I don't see opposing moderate practices that moderate Muslims engage in, thus affirming the claims of a Western/Islamic divide, as being profitable, even if the same practices are engaged in by extremists.

We eat, breath, sleep, and drink and extremists do those things too, so lets be honest enough to recognise that just because an extremist does something doesn't make that action extremist in nature.

Then, when the practices that we truly cannot reconcile ourselves with come on the horizon, we can oppose them. And you know what? Many moderate Muslims will line up alongside us in opposing them, rather than against us because we've alienated them by making this an issue against all of Islam. Why will they do this? Because they won't see it as a fight against Islam, but rather a fight against practices that we and they both find anathema to our beliefs and ways of life.

bonkey

Wibbs wrote:

Modern wealthy nation? What?

I'll really have to start using sarcasm tags again...

Pakistan is not a modern, wealthy, democratic, Western nation.

Using it, therefore, as a basis to look at what will happen in modern, wealthy, democratic, Western nations is utter folly.

Culturally, historically, demographically, and whatever other ally's you want.....it is not a model we can use. So why do people keep pointing and saying "but look whats happened there?

It would be like me saying we're all going to die in a massive earthquake, then pointing at Pakistan and saying "see...it happened there so I'm obviously right".

There's no justification for making such a comparison, and yet time and time and time again, Pakistan has been brought up in this thread as some example "the threat to us from Islam".

Its nonsense. Its as much an applicable example of a threat to Ireland from Islam as it is an applicable example of the threat to Ireland from earthquakes.

jc

Wibbs

bonkey wrote:

I'll really have to start using sarcasm tags again...

jc

Yea, I must get my sarcasm detector checked. Obviously on the blink, though my glib mode seems to be running ok by all accounts.:D

bonkey

Wibbs wrote:

Yea, I must get my sarcasm detector checked. Obviously on the blink, though my glib mode seems to be running ok by all accounts.:D

Touché.

grubber

bonkey wrote:

So I take it that grubber and your good self will be amongst those I can expect to see lining up to decry the US eroding our Irish culture which i sbeing caused by it forcing its culture on us?
jc

Sorry this is a non-issue. I have heard this left-wing whine before and have always thought it was b/s. Any erosion of Irish culture by the US is entirely with our willing collusion. They have not forced it on us.

bonkey wrote:

No, you're not. You're talking about the far, far more serious and threatening issue of how people greet each other. Or have we abandoned that topic in favour of a general Islam-bash? If we have, its past time for me to bow out.

As for defensiveness about culture....this whole thread has been sparked by people wanting to "protect" our culture from some sort of dilution or change by these danged foreigners who won't adapt our ways. What does that say about us, if we have people outraged that these immigrants can refuse to shake hands and nothing is done about it?

bonkey, If you live in Switzerland, would you insult someone there who welcomed you to their country? And secondly, if you did, how would you expect your host to react?

bonkey wrote:

And you know what else is inevitable? That the culture we want to "protect" will change almost beyond recognition within our lifetimes anyway.

Cultures change. You can accept or refuse this as much as you like, but it won't change the reality. Your children will not have the same culture as you. Go three or four generations, and the differences will be even more severe.

So whats the difference? What, exactly, are we "protecting"?
jc

So let us make way for intolerant and ignorant customs. Ooops sorry if I've offended your politically-correct multicultural principles again

pete

dathi1 wrote:

I leant a lawn mower to one a couple of months ago and he was abhorred when I offered the hand of friendship to his wife.

Apologies if this has been asked already, but did you ask his wife what she thought?

fly_agaric

bonkey wrote:

So I take it that grubber and your good self will be amongst those I can expect to see lining up to decry the US eroding our Irish culture which i sbeing caused by it forcing its culture on us?

Yes, me and my good mate grubber! Er...Or not! Anyway, I did post in After Hours on some thread a while back about showering immediately after gym or later. I remarked on people's new found obsession with biosafety-zone 4 levels of personal hygiene and how it was another fad from the US we are busy aping now we have the money to pay for it. Does that count as a small protest?:D

This peddling of US culture through the media is different though because its the people themselves who decide what bits of it they accept or reject.

bonkey wrote:

Exactly. Thats when it most definitely should matter. But time and time again we see people getting up on their high horses about trivial matters like hand-shaking. And then some get all indgnant (because this is "our" country, dammit) when claims are levelled that integrationa and acceptance should be a two-way street. And when the serious issues do arise....well....its the boy who cried wolf all over again, isn't it?

I didn't start this thread - I merely commented on what I saw as a sign of muslims not wanting any truck with the culture of this country. As for the boy crying wolf - I haven't seen any discussion of these kinds of issues - serious or otherwise in our media yet.

bonkey wrote:

No, you're not. You're talking about the far, far more serious and threatening issue of how people greet each other. Or have we abandoned that topic in favour of a general Islam-bash? If we have, its past time for me to bow out.

Is extending the discussion to more serious areas of cultural conflict than shaking hands or not shaking hands an Islam bash? A more charitable person may have said I was injecting sense into the thread even if I am going offtopic. You already established that hand-shaking thingy is not really a big deal - but that doesn't mean the underlying issue isn't worth talking about.
Or would you just prefer all such discussions stop and are using a more subtle and indirect form of the old "you're a racist/bigot" slur to get me and others to belt up?

bonkey wrote:

So you accept that exceptions are made. Doesn't matter what they are. Its a case where Westerners are being told "sure...we're willing to cede this flexibility to you" rather than being told "live according to our rules, as you make us do in your country".

I didn't think the things I mentioned would be exceptions to any laws - just that they would upset people and cause trouble. Exceptions to cultural taboos. You said that actual legal exceptions are made for the Westerners in their compounds. If so, I take your point.

bonkey wrote:

You don't need such exceptions at all if the incoming visitors aren't intolerant enough of the incumbent culture to be willing to live under its strictures.

I repeat my point that the primary reason for the compounds and any exceptions was protection of the local culture from any contact with the culture of the Westerners.
We seem to have established (well you said it anyway, which seems to be the only way anyone can establish anything on this thread) that immigrants will always bring aspects of their culture with them.
Even if people obey the laws of their new country (a minimum given for coexistance), and are respectful & sensitive to the traditions and culture of their new country to boot - they will probably find it very hard to eradicate all vestiges of their previous culture.

The latter was the only thing that would have been acceptable. Failing that, the Westerners had to be coralled into compounds to keep their culture out completely. Something which was not the success it should have been thanks to the effect of US cultural exports I was going on about earlier.

bonkey wrote:

As for defensiveness about culture....this whole thread has been sparked by people wanting to "protect" our culture from some sort of dilution or change by these danged foreigners who won't adapt our ways. What does that say about us, if we have people outraged that these immigrants can refuse to shake hands and nothing is done about it?

What's all this "us" stuff now? I take full responsibility for all I said on this thread but I am not speaking for anyone else and I never said I was. I though you were allergic to generalisations anyway?
You've already taken me up for generalising about Islam as a whole (and bashing it no less) through focussing on the intolerance of particular groups of muslims and particular muslim states.

bonkey wrote:

So what you're saying is if we take people from a country with inequality, they don't automatically get rid of their social structure upon entering our country?

I would have taken that as given. You're still tying the intolerance to the country of origin.

Yes, that is what I am saying (first part).
(2nd part) Okay, I'll try to be more precise. I'm tying the intolerance and resultant inequality to customs practiced in several Islamic countries by a proportion of the muslims there (mouthful). I'm not tying it to one particlar country, I'm not tarring Islam as a whole either since obviously not all muslims have these views. The religion, Islam, is the common factor here though.
The main problem for me is that these "intolerant muslims" claim that such intolerance is a part of how their religion should be practiced.
They say - for example - it is "unislamic" to extend women the kind of rights and freedoms they have in the west. The extremists actually say that democracy itself is "unislamic" :rolleyes:. They are the ones bringing Islam into this - making people begin to associate such intolerant rubbish with Islam itself.

bonkey wrote:

Woah there. Hold up.

Sharia Law? Honour Killings?

What relevance do these have to my claim that the distinction between methods of greeting women is not one of trying to establish a superiority/inferiority?

None at all. I said in my previous post and repeated in this one that nobody (IMO) will care much about whether the man will shake the hand of women he is not related to or not. Those who don't know the reasons may find it a bit insulting at first (as another poster pointed out, you generally reject the handshake of somebody you dislike etc) but it is no big deal.
I already said that I think these kind of small things have been representing people's thoughts about some bigger issues. I mean, people aren't going to make pages and pages of posts just over whether somebody shakes someones hand or not, are they? Well, I wouldn't anyway.

bonkey wrote:

Yes. I did. The keyword being partly.

When you find something in Pakistani law that you can point as being unacceptable, that doesn't automatically mean that Islam is to blame. When you find something in Pakistani culture you find unacceptable, that doesn't automatically mean Islam is to blame.

But thats all you've done. You've pointed at people in Pakistan who are doing things you find unacceptable, and you're deciding that Islam is at fault, and that we need to protect ourselves against Islam, even though - by your own admission - there's plenty of Muslims here already and they're not engaging in these practices.

It would seem that you're actually admitting that it is not Islam which is the problem whilst insisting that Islam is what needs to be dealt with.

I think I covered this in the first part of this post. To draw an analogy, look at the religious right wing crazies in the US. Its easy to identify evangelical Christianity as the common factor
and they themselves say that many of their beliefs come from their religion.
Look at Bush and the work that "God told him to do:rolleyes: " in the ME. I have to say it would make me suspicious of evangelical Christianity that such people count themselves as believers - but of course I know that most of its followers are normal, decent people.

bonkey wrote:

You recognise that its a caricature and yet try and analyse it as though it wasn't.....

Never mind. Pretend I never said anything. I'd only make your head spin more if I tried to clear that one up.

Well I assumed (incorrectly on second reading) you were arguing honestly with that analogy. You weren't. My mistake. To go back to the main point, I am sure that there are laws on the books of Islamic countries that many people here would consider intolerant, but whose proponents and defenders would say derive from Islam. What do we make of that?

fly_agaric

bonkey wrote:

Change is not the problem. Never was, never will be.
Change is just something that happens. Some of it will be for the best, some for the worst, but we should be very very careful as to what change we try and oppose, and how lest we undermine our own ultimate goals.

hmm. Are you saying that we should just accept any changes in culture with time for whatever reason as inevitable and not try to direct and control them as this just causes conflict?
Do you really have no feelings as to whether any particular change is good or bad or can you just hold these feelings in strict check and keep the attitude of, well, cultures are always evolving so meh! - it'll work itself out, what does it matter.

Will you still feel the same when the big Christian revival and attendant mega-churches and chastity rings hits Ireland's shores in a few decades (joke).

bonkey wrote:

I don't see opposing moderate practices that moderate Muslims engage in, thus affirming the claims of a Western/Islamic divide, as being profitable, even if the same practices are engaged in by extremists.

We eat, breath, sleep, and drink and extremists do those things too, so lets be honest enough to recognise that just because an extremist does something doesn't make that action extremist in nature.

Then, when the practices that we truly cannot reconcile ourselves with come on the horizon, we can oppose them. And you know what? Many moderate Muslims will line up alongside us in opposing them, rather than against us because we've alienated them by making this an issue against all of Islam. Why will they do this? Because they won't see it as a fight against Islam, but rather a fight against practices that we and they both find anathema to our beliefs and ways of life.

I take your point about how we should home in on the things that really bother us and not demonise he practices of the average muslim (even if it does make the original starting point of the thread seem even more irrelevant). I don't think the stuff about an Islam/West divide is just "claims". There is a problem here. The last few years have not exactly fostered good relations.

I hope we will be able to oppose the practices "that we truly cannot reconcile ourselves with" and I hope we get the kind of help you think we will on this from moderate muslims.
I wouldn't count on it though. The intolerant zealots seem to be winning - they certainly make the most noise and are good at cowing their enemies. Will we be able to stand up for our principles in the face of terror - I highly doubt it. In my more optimistic moments I think perhaps that is my big-bad-world syndrome kicking in. Watching too much news.

pete

fly_agaric wrote:

I repeat my point that the primary reason for the compounds and any exceptions was protection of the local culture from any contact with the culture of the Westerners.

uhhh i always thought the reason "western" living areas existed was because there was no way in hell oil workers etc from "the west" would go native somewhere like saudi so they were... "accommodated".

The Britons here tend to live in housing compounds - walled oases of comfort where they can mingle with other western families, use the communal swimming pool, even indulge in some illegal home-brewed beer, all out of sight of the Saudi authorities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3779141.stm

bonkey

grubber wrote:

Any erosion of Irish culture by the US is entirely with our willing collusion. They have not forced it on us.

Really? So if I have a problem with this ritual "handshake" greeting stuff....and someone Irish tries to greet me that way....how exactly has it not been forced on me?

bonkey, If you live in Switzerland, would you insult someone there who welcomed you to their country?

It depends what you mean by insult.

Would I refuse traditional offers of hospitality? I do it all the time, explaining my reasons for doing so....such as (for example) explaining the fact that the offered drink/food is something that makes me physically ill.

Similarly, I was quite reticent initially about the whole three kisses greeting that the Swiss often engage in, mostly because I wasn't sure who it was and was not supposed to be offered to (there's complex unwritten rules that no-one quite agrees on). So quite often I was left awkwardly standing there, unable to offer someone a hello or goodbye because I didn't want to cause offence by offering the wrong thing.

And secondly, if you did, how would you expect your host to react?

If I declined their offered hospitality politely, or apologised afterwards, offering an explanation in each case....I would expect that they would politely dismiss my refusal / faux pas as being utterly not worth mentioning. In my experience, thats exactly what happens.

So let us make way for intolerant and ignorant customs.

From my perspective, the only intolerant or ignorant custom I've heard discussed on this thread is the notion that a host should not excuse a guest for an unintended slight.

And as you might have noticed, thats one ignorant and intolerant custom I oppose.

Ooops sorry if I've offended your politically-correct multicultural principles again

Its quite alright.

I know that any offence that could have been caused would not be intentional, but rather an offshoot of our differing beliefs, and thats something I am fuly capable and willing to excuse tolerate and move past.

I'm also not that quick to offend in the first place. I grew out of that particular vice some years ago.

jc

GuanYin

grubber wrote:

Sorry this is a non-issue. I have heard this left-wing whine before and have always thought it was b/s. Any erosion of Irish culture by the US is entirely with our willing collusion. They have not forced it on us.

Incidently, apart from not knowing the meaning of genocide, you never responded to my question about whether you find the catholic churches intrusion into other societies and their part in the spread of HIV to be of a similar offensive nature to you as refusing to shake hands with a woman.

If it isn't may I ask why you believe that?

bonkey

fly_agaric wrote:

This peddling of US culture through the media is different though because its the people themselves who decide what bits of it they accept or reject.

As I've pointed to grubber already, thats not true.

I can choose what bits I adopt personally, but I cannot choose what bits get adopted by the rest of society and then enter common usage.

I can't prevent you from deciding to greet me with this American custom, no more than I can prevent you from deciding to greet me French-style, Swiss-style, or in accordance with Islamic practices.

So its not really that different.

Is extending the discussion to more serious areas of cultural conflict than shaking hands or not shaking hands an Islam bash?

No...its the failure to seperate the two, coupled with some of the more "enlightened" descriptions I've read about Muslims and Islam on this thread. Note...I'm not laying that at your feet....

A more charitable person may have said I was injecting sense into the thread even if I am going offtopic.

To be fair, I'm beginning to think we fundamentally agree on the handshaking issue being a mountain/molehill confusion issue.

You already established that hand-shaking thingy is not really a big deal - but that doesn't mean the underlying issue isn't worth talking about.

No, it doesn't. I'm just wary of people not distinguishing between the common-but-insignificant issues and the less common but more significant ones.

Y'know...using the handshaking thing to lump all Muslims in one boat, then use something more serious (albeit also only practiced by a few, and not causing a problem in Ireland to date) to falsely claim some slippery-slope argument....

We seem to have established (well you said it anyway, which seems to be the only way anyone can establish anything on this thread)

lol!

I though you were allergic to generalisations anyway?

No, I'm allergic to the misuse of generalisations.

You've already taken me up for generalising about Islam

But who was I generalising about? I referred to an "us" (and at times to a "we"), but who is that? I never specified, that I recall.

By not defining who it is, I am referring only to those to whom the generalisation applies. Were I to say "we Irish" or something, then I'd be suggesting the generalisation applied to all Irish....which is where objections would be likely to aeise.

The religion, Islam, is the common factor here though.

Yes and not. The people all engaging in this...they're all human. So humanity is also "the common factor", right?

You're missing the point that a common factor is only meaningful once it doesn't also apply to people who don't fit your description. If I said that because these people are all human, its obviously a problem with humanity, I'm sure you'd see the flaw in my generalisation straight away. If I claimed it was their race, not only would I be racist, but I'm sure you'd see the flaw in my generalisation straight away. So why is their religion different?

The main problem for me is that these "intolerant muslims" claim that such intolerance is a part of how their religion should be practiced.

And intolerant Christians teach that their intolerance is how it should eb done as well. Indeed, you'll be hard pressed to find a religious believer who tells you that their religion is the wrong way to do something, or the wrong interpretation of their underlying beliefs.

They say - for example - it is "unislamic" to extend women the kind of rights and freedoms they have in the west. The extremists actually say that democracy itself is "unislamic" :rolleyes:.

No disagreement from me...but I will point out that there are plenty of Muslims who will also disagree that these statements are correct. So why would we lay the blame at the feet of their religion?

None at all. I said in my previous post and repeated in this one that nobody (IMO) will care much about whether the man will shake the hand of women he is not related to or not.

You're suggesting the OP had an ulterior motive other than the one presented?

I already said that I think these kind of small things have been representing people's thoughts about some bigger issues. I mean, people aren't going to make pages and pages of posts just over whether somebody shakes someones hand or not, are they? Well, I wouldn't anyway.

I agree almost entirely. The only thing missing from what you're saying is whether or not we should accept the blurring of the insignificant and significant issues into one big thing, or should be at pains to illustrate that they are not the same thing.

I believe that establishing a degree of objectivity is never detrimental to ones case, whereas giving the impression of a lack of objectivity can be. So like I said...I see the failure to seperate the issues as significant. It undermines our own ability to be able to stand our ground when it counts.

I made a similar case on one of the traveller threads...that ensuring we do not tolerate or turn a blind eye to bias on our part helps us when it comes to discrediting farcical arguments like that our stance is such because we are just "anti-traveller" or "anti-Islam".

To go back to the main point, I am sure that there are laws on the books of Islamic countries that many people here would consider intolerant, but whose proponents and defenders would say derive from Islam. What do we make of that?

No more or less than I do of laws inspired by interpretations of Christianity that I find intolerant.

I hope we get the kind of help you think we will on this from moderate muslims. I wouldn't count on it though.

Well, while we have "allies" encouraging us at every step to do as much as we possibly can to alienate these moderates, I wouldn't count on it either.

The intolerant zealots seem to be winning - they certainly make the most noise

I notice (with a smile) that you don't attribute a religion to the intolerant zealots. Both sides have them, of course.

Will we be able to stand up for our principles in the face of terror - I highly doubt it.

We've done so reasonably well in the past....but I too have my concerns.

jc

grubber

psi wrote:

Incidently, apart from not knowing the meaning of genocide, you never responded to my question about whether you find the catholic churches intrusion into other societies and their part in the spread of HIV to be of a similar offensive nature to you as refusing to shake hands with a woman.

If it isn't may I ask why you believe that?

psi wrote:

Its not a patch on the action of the beliefs of the predominant religion in Ireland that is directly responsible for the deaths of god knows how many in Africa.

This was followed by the ever-so-helpful recklessone qouting from the relevant articles. These incidentally reinforced what I had taken to mean by genocide. So you may remember I was responding to your own quote above asserting the Catholic Church being directly responsible for deaths in Africa (countries unspecified).

QUOTE:
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
....etc"
END OF QUOTE

OK so far. So my question to you is I think still valid. Unless somewhere you made it clear that the Church did not intend to cause these deaths of "god knows how many in Africa".

QUOTE
therecklessone then adds:
"Genocide requires intent, and since HIV respects neither national, ethnical, racila or religious groups, one would have to suggest that the church intended to inflict significant damage to every such group in Africa (including Roman Catholics) for the charge to hold water. I'll leave psi to argue his/her own case, but genocide it is not"
END OF QUOTE

Forgive me, I am not legally trained, but therecklessone appears to have included those infected with HIV as a "group". I would have thought that The Church, following your logic above, would use HIV as "the weapon" to wipe out these unfortunates, not as the group of Africans to be wiped out..
So, far from myself not knowing the meaning of genocide, I have to conclude that it is yourself and t.r.o. who have difficulty with the concept.


I will answer the second part of your post later.


Grubber

Zombrex

grubber wrote:

Sorry this is a non-issue. I have heard this left-wing whine before and have always thought it was b/s. Any erosion of Irish culture by the US is entirely with our willing collusion. They have not forced it on us.

No one is forcing you to adopt muslim culture either ... I wonder how happy you would be though if RTE started showing TV programs on a Sunday morning in Arabic.

Yet a constant flood of US TV, Films and music all the time, well thats ok, cause what? You enjoy US media?

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

No one is forcing you to adopt muslim culture either ... I wonder how happy you would be though if RTE started showing TV programs on a Sunday morning in Arabic.

Well at least one bloke I know would be happy that he didn't have to stump up the cash for getting Al Jazeera on his satelite dish. You could be on to a winner there Wicknight.....:D

dathi1

No one is forcing you to adopt muslim culture either ... I wonder how happy you would be though if RTE started showing TV programs on a Sunday morning in Arabic.

You see I don't think this was the argument that started this whole debate in the first place. We're not talking about Islamic culture per say....we're talking about a growing aspect of Islamic culture which in my opinion in now growing at such a pace due to recent uncontrolled immigration as to be unstoppable in its tracks. A recent BBC opinion poll in the Uk put 65% of all young Muslims in the UK between 18-25 in support of Osama Bin Laden. People have made excuses for a simple gesture like not shaking the hands of women only men here as acceptable. Trivial as this may be to some to me its the tip of the iceberg. Intolerance of women is unacceptable. Tolerating that intolerance is also unacceptable. Going off on tangents about the now defunct Catholic Church doesn't excuse this intolerance either. As recent events in Britain, France, Denmark, Sweden and Holland have shown if we don't take a stand against this type of intolerance including all its more extreme intolerent aspects we will reap what we have sown.
Speaking of AlJazzera I watch it nearly every day...I also watch AlArabia...and I like Arabic Music.

pete

grubber wrote:

This was followed by the ever-so-helpful recklessone qouting from the relevant articles. These incidentally reinforced what I had taken to mean by genocide. So you may remember I was responding to your own quote above asserting the Catholic Church being directly responsible for deaths in Africa (countries unspecified).

I must have missed the bit where the catholic church was actually accused of genocide.

grubber

Wicknight wrote:

No one is forcing you to adopt muslim culture either ... I wonder how happy you would be though if RTE started showing TV programs on a Sunday morning in Arabic.

Yet a constant flood of US TV, Films and music all the time, well thats ok, cause what? You enjoy US media?

Yes it looks as though "we" enjoy American TV, films, music ets. We also enjoy Australian soaps and British comedies. Some of us even like French films.
I honestly don't see how you equate this market driven demand with some form of cultural imperialism. That's what you're implying isn't it?

As for RTE showing Arabic programmes. That's fine as long as ALL other religions also have their time. So this would include the various denominations of Christians, Judaism, Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Sikhism, Confucian, Taoist, Zoroastrianism, Shinto. But then why exclude Animism or the many tribal religions of Africa and elsewhere? I personally think we should also have a slot for pre-Christian Pagan beliefs still practised today. And finally you wouldn't want to exclude athiests and agnostics.

So yes, as long as RTE allocate time for all of these (and any more I may have omitted), I will be happy to also watch programmes about islam.

grubber

psi wrote:

Incidently, apart from not knowing the meaning of genocide,

I hope i've already answered that to your satisfaction.

psi wrote:

you never responded to my question about whether you find the catholic churches intrusion into other societies and their part in the spread of HIV to be of a similar offensive nature to you as refusing to shake hands with a woman.

If it isn't may I ask why you believe that?

Well there are 2 parts to this question. The first part is easy in that I don't find the Catholic Church's intrusion into other societies accaptable. However I am not really in a position to condemn those no-doubt well meaning people for the continuation of this practice. This is the difficulty we have in passing judgement onthose of a mentality to prosletize their sincere beliefs.

Throughout history people have attempted to convert others to their beliefs. Again in the sincere belief that they wanted to "save" them. Or often as not it was for political expediency. Would the West be "Christian" today if it hadn't been for the Holy Roman Empire adopting Christianity and forcing it onto a bunch of heathens, ie you and me

psi wrote:

and their part in the spread of HIV to be of a similar offensive nature to you as refusing to shake hands with a woman

Sorry PSI but we seem to be back to your hobbyhorse again. I don't accept they intended to spread HIV and neither do I believe they facilitated it. Not being there I can only guess that they followed Catholic teaching of abstinence and non-use of artificial birth control.

lazydaisy

Given how many people DO NOT wash their hands after using the bathroom it seems a very good idea to scrap the shaking hands custom.

Islamic men wont shake a womans hand in case she has her period. At that time we are considered dirty by the religion. Some sects of Judaism also believe this. If you promote the right to practise one's religion, than you can not complain about Muslim men not shaking womens hands, it is part of their religion. Intolerance of women isnt acceptable? Are you kidding? Its easy to point the finger at Islam here, but take a look at what the Irish Catholic church has been doing to women. Look what the constitution says about a woman's role. You think they are so different, Islam and the RC Church?

Multi culturalism means people have to learn to to live with each others customs and habits. When in Rome, means assimilation, one of the arms of Empire. Note the reference to Rome in that saying, one of Europe's most successful imperial projects, which does not promote difference, but rather the submission of smaller groups to the behaviors and beliefs of bigger more dominant ones.

As it stands now, RTE has secularised versions of the Angelus. This is still very Catholic. Once it practises mulitculturalism, you will have these prayer breaks every few hours to accomodate Islam, that is if the state still wants to practise religion. If there were authentic separation of church and state, RTE would scrap the religious pauses for thoughts, reflections, whatever, altogether and focus on being a television station, not a spiritual guider.

Eventually there will be an arabic tv station in the UK & Ireland, just as there are Latin American/Asian/Italian/ you name it tv stations in the US. Culture follows money. Once constituencies start making real money then the cultural production follows. There are probably more people speaking arabic in Ireland now than there are people speaking Irish, and the gaelos have TG4.

therecklessone

grubber wrote:

Forgive me, I am not legally trained, but therecklessone appears to have included those infected with HIV as a "group". I would have thought that The Church, following your logic above, would use HIV as "the weapon" to wipe out these unfortunates, not as the group of Africans to be wiped out..
So, far from myself not knowing the meaning of genocide, I have to conclude that it is yourself and t.r.o. who have difficulty with the concept.

Legal training is not necessary, a basic understanding of the English language would suffice.

The relevant article again (emphasis mine)

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Sufferers of HIV are indeed a group [any number of entities (members) considered as a unit Source], but it is your understanding of genocide that is flawed not mine. HIV sufferers do not constitute a "national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

Furthermore, for genocide charges to hold water requires intent to inflict significant damage on a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The common denominator (HIV) that binds your "group" together is also the means to inflict significant damage. In effect, for it to count as "effectively tantamount to genocide" (your words), psi would need to have said that the Church targeted HIV sufferers, inflicting damage on them as a group by spreading HIV. Which makes no sense whatsoever, as they do not become part of the common unit until they become infected.

grubber

therecklessone wrote:

Sufferers of HIV are indeed a group [any number of entities (members) considered as a unit Source], but it is your understanding of genocide that is flawed not mine. HIV sufferers do not constitute a "national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

Furthermore, for genocide charges to hold water requires intent to inflict significant damage on a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The common denominator (HIV) that binds your "group" together is also the means to inflict significant damage. In effect, for it to count as "effectively tantamount to genocide" (your words), psi would need to have said that the Church targeted HIV sufferers, inflicting damage on them as a group by spreading HIV. Which makes no sense whatsoever, as they do not become part of the common unit until they become infected.

Sorry young feller, but you are talking codswallop. And I'm going by YOUR definition of what constitutes a "group" for the purposes of the quoted (by you) article. Thus it refers to national, ethnical, racial or religious. NO MENTION WHATEVER OF MEDICAL CONDITIONS such as HIV.

Furthermore From PSI's original post in which he asserted that The Church was responsible for all these deaths in Africa (without specifying national, ethnical, racial or religious group), please tell me this, as I have asked it before. What clues were in PSI's statement to say the Church didn't INTEND to cause these deaths?

fly_agaric

@bonkey: Sorry, I'm slowing down...:)

bonkey wrote:

As I've pointed to grubber already, thats not true.

I can choose what bits I adopt personally, but I cannot choose what bits get adopted by the rest of society and then enter common usage.

I can't prevent you from deciding to greet me with this American custom, no more than I can prevent you from deciding to greet me French-style, Swiss-style, or in accordance with Islamic practices.

So its not really that different.

I didn't see you point this out, or more likely your point flew over my head before. I now see what you mean but I don't agree there is no difference.

These "American customs" are either being suggested to us indirectly through US cultural exports or being sold to us directly by companies (well, the US companies do bring their "culture" with them from the US when they employ people here so they are an exception to this).
Some of us decide to follow these customs and when enough do, that custom get adopted by the society as a whole. So it is like a democratic decision on the part of our society. All our individual choices accumulate and add up to the collective result. The votes are weighted by the importance of the people casting them of course.:).
There is nothing one individual who disagrees can do about it, but if enough people disagree and refuse to go along the custom will be rejected by society as a whole. Or it may be accepted by some subgroup. No great loss.

It is different if immigrants come and are practising a new custom in our midst whether we like it or not. We have no vote here. We have to come to an accomodation of some kind or there will be problems. What about our customs that may offend them? With the culture being pushed at us through media etc we are like voters who pick and choose, with immigration there is a negotiation or an interchange going on.

The other reason why we don't have as much problem with US culture affecting ours is of course that the Americans are more familiar to us anyway, which is what you have been getting at. The (muslim) immigrants' customs differ more sharply - which makes things harder.

bonkey wrote:

No, I'm allergic to the misuse of generalisations.
But who was I generalising about? I referred to an "us" (and at times to a "we"), but who is that? I never specified, that I recall.

By not defining who it is, I am referring only to those to whom the generalisation applies. Were I to say "we Irish" or something, then I'd be suggesting the generalisation applied to all Irish....which is where objections would be likely to aeise.

Point taken. Ok. I agree. What else can I say!

bonkey wrote:

Yes and not. The people all engaging in this...they're all human. So humanity is also "the common factor", right?

I don't like where that thought is going, but yes, I'd say humanity is the problem.:( Saying that is kind of trite though.

bonkey wrote:

You're missing the point that a common factor is only meaningful once it doesn't also apply to people who don't fit your description.

I'd say it doesn't have to be a 100 % exact fit to have meaning.

bonkey wrote:

If I said that because these people are all human, its obviously a problem with humanity, I'm sure you'd see the flaw in my generalisation straight away. If I claimed it was their race, not only would I be racist, but I'm sure you'd see the flaw in my generalisation straight away. So why is their religion different?

You can't change your race.
Humanity, race (which is hard to be precise about) - they are "what you are", genetics that can't be changed. Generalisation based on the second of these has rightly gotten a bad name over the years. Generalising about all humans will at least offend or please everyone equally. People are very queasy about eugenics etc.

You are usually indoctrinated into your religion as a child, and that and your subsequent experieces then shape how you practice or do not practice your religion.
Your religion and the way you practice it are about "who you are" and generalisations on this basis are more palatable IMO.

Even people like the BNP have caught onto this!:D

I accept what you are saying (basically that there are a lot of people who are muslims who reject the extremist positions so how can it be the religion itself).

I suppose it is the way the extremists have interpreted their religion. There. I'm down to saying that the common factor between all these Islamic extremists is the fact that they are, erm, Islamic extremists. Not very helpful, eh...

So, two questions now occur. Does Islam have more of such extremists than other religions. I don't know - as a % probably not. Are they doing more damage than the extremists of other religions? I'd say - yes they are.

Another question:
If yes, is this because of something inherant to Islam, or just our bad luck?
Sometimes I think the first - sometimes the second. I mean, Christianity has had periods in the past where extremists came to the fore and there was massive intolerance and attendant bloodletting. I don't know enough about Islam or all the other big religions and how they compare to say really.

The Islamic extremists have managed to define themselves as victims fighting the good fight against "Western imperialism" (the foriegn policy of the powerful Western countries) and "Western corruption" (a more nebulous concept to do with the culture and society of the "West" - the things at we've been on about here). The first part of their message finds alot of sympathetic ears among muslims IMO, which could help with pushing the 2nd part.

bonkey wrote:

And intolerant Christians teach that their intolerance is how it should eb done as well. Indeed, you'll be hard pressed to find a religious believer who tells you that their religion is the wrong way to do something, or the wrong interpretation of their underlying beliefs.

Very true. Their particular brand of intolerance just doesn't seem to be causing as much trouble at the moment as the Islamic variety.

bonkey wrote:

No disagreement from me...but I will point out that there are plenty of Muslims who will also disagree that these statements are correct. So why would we lay the blame at the feet of their religion?

As I said - because of what the extremists themselves say.
I concede this may be unfair (see above).

bonkey wrote:

You're suggesting the OP had an ulterior motive other than the one presented?

No, but I suspect not that many people posting on the thread (probably the OP included) are going to lose very much sleep over muslim handshaking etiquette and how it applies to Ireland.

bonkey wrote:

I agree almost entirely. The only thing missing from what you're saying is whether or not we should accept the blurring of the insignificant and significant issues into one big thing, or should be at pains to illustrate that they are not the same thing.

I believe that establishing a degree of objectivity is never detrimental to ones case, whereas giving the impression of a lack of objectivity can be. So like I said...I see the failure to seperate the issues as significant. It undermines our own ability to be able to stand our ground when it counts.

I made a similar case on one of the traveller threads...that ensuring we do not tolerate or turn a blind eye to bias on our part helps us when it comes to discrediting farcical arguments like that our stance is such because we are just "anti-traveller" or "anti-Islam".

I agree with what you say. I admit I may have been guilty of the error you describe. Sometimes it can be hard to be objective when vexed and angry about something - see stuff about travellers and Mr. Nally for example. I need a break from all the bad news. I haven't look at the news today. If I can continue that for 2 weeks I believe I'll become a better person.

therecklessone

grubber wrote:

Sorry young feller, but you are talking codswallop. And I'm going by YOUR definition of what constitutes a "group" for the purposes of the quoted (by you) article. Thus it refers to national, ethnical, racial or religious. NO MENTION WHATEVER OF MEDICAL CONDITIONS such as HIV.

You condescending ****.

I am no "young fellar", and I've taken enough of your thinly veiled contempt.

Let me make one thing clear.

I think your allegation that psi's first comment re. the Catholic Church in Africa is bo**ox. Yes, thats right, bollox. You said psi's argument was akin to accusing the Church of genocide, I have said from the start that I wasn't going to fight psi's battles but that your arguement was flawed and no matter what he/she accused the church of it wasn't genocide. What part of that was hard to understand?

growler wrote:

What clues were in PSI's statement to say the Church didn't INTEND to cause these deaths?

therecklessone wrote:

Genocide requires intent, and since HIV respects neither national, ethnical, racila or religious groups, one would have to suggest that the church intended to inflict significant damage to every such group in Africa (including Roman Catholics) for the charge to hold water. I'll leave psi to argue his/her own case, but genocide it is not.

What part of that was hard to understand?

For the record:

1. I do not belive psi accused the Church of genocide when he/she made his/her original comments.
2. I do not believe the Church is guilty of genocide in its behaviour in Africa regarding birth control and the spread of HIV.
3. I do not believe HIV sufferers constitute a group which can suffer genocide under the Convention as stated.
4. I do believe you accused me of having difficulty in understanding the concept of genocide in this thread.

I stated from the start that whatever psi could be accused of, attributing a charge of genocide to the Church was not on.

Again, for the record:

Your use of the word genocide was flawed:

1. Because I do not believe the Church has shown intent.
2. Because HIV sufferers are not a national, ethnical, racial or religious group under the convention.
3. Even if they were a constituent part of one of those groups, the activity required to inflict damage on their group (i.e the HIV infection) was the exact same required to make them part of the required group (and that is nonsensical)

fly_agaric

pete wrote:

uhhh i always thought the reason "western" living areas existed was because there was no way in hell oil workers etc from "the west" would go native somewhere like saudi so they were... "accommodated".

I'd agree that it was a help but I don't agree that no one would have gone if they couldn't have a mini version of life at home recreated for them in a walled compound.
If there is enough money in it you can get young, ambitious people to go anywhere. Why do any Westerners still stay there given the level of threat they now face? They must be on colossal danger pay.

fly_agaric

Wibbs wrote:

Yea I was wondering where the Honour killings bit came from as if you take Sharia law that's a major no no. Fair is fair, "honour" killings and crap like that are against Islam and Sharia in a big way. They're a local anomaly with highly incorrect interpretations of Islam as justification. There's fatwas aplenty flying all over the place against the practice.

That's pretty interesting.

Zombrex

grubber wrote:

Yes it looks as though "we" enjoy American TV, films, music ets. We also enjoy Australian soaps and British comedies. Some of us even like French films.

I am saying this external media erodes more of the native culture of Ireland in an afternoon than mass immigration would in 10 years.

It influences and changes fashion, music sport, language, the very basis elements of our culture. Yet people seem to have no problem with any of this. Yet a muslim guy doesn't want to shake someones hand then the cry "multiculturalism is destroying our culture" is thrown up. Its completely ridiculous.

grubber wrote:

As for RTE showing Arabic programmes. That's fine as long as ALL other religions also have their time.

Well I assume you are being sarcastic

.. and that you think all religious broadcasting should be removed from RTE ... finally something I think everyone can agree on. The pause at 6 o'clock is ridiculous in this day and age, with the multi-religion society developing in Ireland.

Freelancer

Wicknight wrote:

.. and that you think all religious broadcasting should be removed from RTE ... finally something I think everyone can agree on. The pause at 6 o'clock is ridiculous in this day and age, with the multi-religion society developing in Ireland.

Several years ago a priest was on the last word defending the angelus. His argument on why we should keep could be summerised as;

1) Well now the church of Ireland have a televised mass at christmas, so many faiths are allowed air time, so the angelus is just one example of religious programing

2) Ah sure wheres the harm in keeping it? It'll only be a spot of bother and a bit of aul hassle to take it away. Do you really want to start messing it, now do ye?

That the defense. Its ludicrious, it's still there, and if the people asking for it, can't come up with a compelling argument for it, then it should be scrapped.