Maura Durante amd AlQuida

grubber

therecklessone wrote:

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.

Is this indicative of a new and more esoteric level of discussion?

therecklessone wrote:

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?

Not true. I merely asked if he was accusing the Church of genocide, based on his statement about it being "responsible for god knows how many deaths in Africa". What part of that was hard to understand?

therecklessone wrote:

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.

.
Neither do I but like i said above, I was simply asking the question. I don't think this was unreasonable considering his/her statement. You obviously do.

therecklessone wrote:

2. I do not believe the Church is guilty of genocide in its behaviour in Africa regarding birth control and the spread of HIV.

Well I'm pleased to hear it.

therecklessone wrote:

3. I do not believe HIV sufferers constitute a group which can suffer genocide under the Convention as stated.

My argument entirely. From #76 above I wrote:

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.

You disagreed with this and in #84 above you reiterated your flawed argument. This I again attempted to correct in #85

grubber wrote:

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.

therecklessone wrote:

4. I do believe you accused me of having difficulty in understanding the concept of genocide in this thread.

I think the foregoing confirms that.

therecklessone wrote:

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.

Pleased to hear that also

therecklessone wrote:

.
2. Because HIV sufferers are not a national, ethnical, racial or religious group under the convention.

Yes I think the penny is about to drop.

therecklessone wrote:

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)

He's got it. By george he's got it. Well done t.r.o. and get to the top of the class! Now why did that have to take so long?

dathi1

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.

A Muslim guy who wants to shake the hand of a man but not the women in the same room. As in Canada I suppose when the call for the implementation of sharia law to complement Irish law is declared by the same crackpots you'll dismiss this a trivial too??
Don't get me wrong...I know were you're coming from. Recently a lot of people have woken up to the fact that we have a mutated version of Islam on the rise here and elsewhere in Europe. The left over 60s brigade-pro Multiculturalists are all of a sudden losing the battle and argument when faced with the reality as recent events throughout Europe have demonstrated. Its entertaining too see the same people here defending the intelorence of Islamofacisim just to back up such a overated concept.

grubber

Wicknight wrote:

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.

Is it equally a problem for you when Irish film producers, TV companies, music promotions etc sell their arts to foreign lands? Did you lie awake at nights worrying that Riverdance would corrupt the youth of North America?

Wicknight wrote:

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.


Well I assume you are being sarcastic

Not sure why you make that assumption. What I was challenging was the (seemingly widespread) notion that Islam is somehow SPECIAL. So if RTE should allot time for Islamic programmes, they should give equal time to all other religions. And none.

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.

This might be a better outcome, I can see advantages in this though maybe more for reasons of secularism than any other.

Zombrex

grubber wrote:

Is it equally a problem for you when Irish film producers, TV companies, music promotions etc sell their arts to foreign lands? Did you lie awake at nights worrying that Riverdance would corrupt the youth of North America?

No I don't because I don't think multiculturalism is a problem .. in fact I welcome it, I think our culture needs a bit of a shake up.

Zombrex

dathi1 wrote:

A Muslim guy who wants to shake the hand of a man but not the women in the same room.

He has the right to shake or not to shake the hand of anyone he wants. As I said if he was actually offended by the woman no one would have batted an eyelid that he didn't shake her hand. But heaven forbit he do it for a reason we don't understand.

dathi1 wrote:

As in Canada I suppose when the call for the implementation of sharia law to complement Irish law is declared by the same crackpots you'll dismiss this a trivial too??

Is Canada implimenting Sharia law? Did I miss the email?

"Crackpots" have always called for crack pot schemes (hence there name) ... I am pretty sure there are a number of crackpots in the US, UK and Ireland calling for a more Christian orientated laws in the world. Last time I checked the Bible belt nut jobs were blowing up abortion clinics and murdering doctors. Kanas is banning evolution. My college recieved death threats over a thesis project that seemingly "made fun of Jesus".

Does that mean I should object to people taking first communion or going to mass or following Christianity in general?

It is certainly possible to object to "crackpots", but focusing on "Islam" in a completely general sense as this evil religion corrupting our culture is insulting, hypocritical and ultimately not going to do anything. When someone actually calls for the stoning of a woman, the death of westerners etc I will be the first up there denouncing it, just like if Christian calls for death to doctors, or making divorse illegal.

But focusing on such ridiculously trivial matters such as an Islamic man simply following his religion and not touching a woman who is not his wife is simply ignorent scaremongering. I might as well object to the Catholic church's position in African with reguard to HIV by trying to stop people going to mass and drinking "blood"

therecklessone

therecklessone wrote:

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?

grubber wrote:

Not true. I merely asked if he was accusing the Church of genocide, based on his statement about it being "responsible for god knows how many deaths in Africa". What part of that was hard to understand?

This part:

grubber wrote:

The impression I'm getting from your point of view is the Catholic Church of is guily of this "crime" (which is effectively tantamount to genocide).

Are you accusing the Catholic Church of genocide?

So your impression was that his argument is that the Church was guilty of a "crime" which is tantamount to genocide, then you asked him was he accusing the Chrurch of genocide.

*my emphasis throughout.

grubber wrote:

He's got it. By george he's got it. Well done t.r.o. and get to the top of the class! Now why did that have to take so long?

I think you say it best yourself...

grubber wrote:

Is this indicative of a new and more esoteric level of discussion?

Considering your condescending attitude on this thread, and your reluctance/inability (delete as applicable) to actually read what I've posted, I see little point in continuing a discussion with you. I do believe you'll pen a witty retort, but I wouldn't be waiting on a reply anytime soon.

grubber

therecklessone wrote:

Considering your condescending attitude on this thread, and your reluctance/inability (delete as applicable) to actually read what I've posted, I see little point in continuing a discussion with you. I do believe you'll pen a witty retort, but I wouldn't be waiting on a reply anytime soon.

therecklessone wrote:

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

therecklessone,
Whether you choose to read my posting or not, is of course entirely up to you. But I am mystified as to why you believe I have a condescending attitude. Condescension is definitely not in my nature; and neither do I have anything to be condescending about.

From the 2 quotes above I could, if I had a mind to, conclude that it is yourself that comes across as condescending. But I have assumed these comments were part of a (sometimes) heated discussion and I don't take personally anything that has been said.

If however I have offended you then I unreservedly apologise.

Regards Grubber

Victor

I hope you aren't going to ask me to go through the bother of hunting for links to stories about muslim "elders" (all men ) in the West asking for Shariah law, honour killings, forced marriages, etc. We haven't had enough immigration from muslim countries yet for it to happen here but give it 5 years or so and it will. It is inevitable.

I think you won't have to travel very far from your door step to find honour killings and forced marriages in Ireland's past and present.

Note that forced marriages / arranged marriages is not a Muslim thing, its a cultural thing.

Arranged marriages are apparently quite popular in China in the Han community (non-Muslim) and in Hindu India, whereas many western and far-eastern Muslims don't go for arranged marriages.

As for RTE showing Arabic programmes.

RTÉ's policy on religious and minority programming is to include it if there is demand. Presumably airtime would be somewhat proportional to demand.

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.

I'm wondering are you confusing being Arabic with being Muslim. The two do not equate. Malaysia and Indonesia are largely Muslim countries but are not Arabic. Several Arab countries (Lebanon, Syria ...) have Christian, Jewish and other minorities, these people being Arabs, but not Muslims. Can I ask is this confusion deliberate, negligent or ignorant?

bonkey wrote:

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

Yeah, some Jewish guy came up with it. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesars".

dathi1

Is Canada implimenting Sharia law? Did I miss the email?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35850
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/shariah-law.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/36C85FA4-7C91-4DB5-A259-6A3DD38D1AB7.htm

The rest of your stuff on the Catholic Church is irrelevant to the discussion.

fly_agaric

Victor wrote:

I think you won't have to travel very far from your door step to find honour killings and forced marriages in Ireland's past and present.

Present? I'm intrigued. Do go on!

Victor wrote:

Note that forced marriages / arranged marriages is not a Muslim thing, its a cultural thing.

Oh no...not this again. Anyway, a forced marriage is a different kettle of fish to an arranged one where the 2 people are willing to go along with it. One is a violation of somebodies' rights - the other is a custom that seems a bit odd to us now, but has many good and sensible things going for it.

Victor

fly_agaric wrote:

Present? I'm intrigued. Do go on!

"X marries Y after whirlwind 3 month romance?" Six months later "X and Y are delighted to announce the birth of ...."

Isn't abortion essentially an honour killing?

Not quite the same thing, but we've had a bunch of revenge killings recently.

Oh no...not this again.

I didn't bring it up, blame the other guy.

Anyway, a forced marriage is a different kettle of fish to an arranged one where the 2 people are willing to go along with it. One is a violation of somebodies' rights - the other is a custom that seems a bit odd to us now, but has many good and sensible things going for it.

So the only difference is forced marriage is an arranged marriage goen wrong?

Zombrex

dathi1 wrote:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35850
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/shariah-law.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/36C85FA4-7C91-4DB5-A259-6A3DD38D1AB7.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4236762.stm

Islamic Sharia law based civil tribunals for family law were rejected in Cananda, despite the fact that civil disputes can be settled with Christian or Jewish based tribunals.

These are only civil tribunals and Islamic law isn't even as recongisned as Christian or Jewish law with relation to these tribunals. Hardly Canadan implimenting Sharia law.

dathi1 wrote:

The rest of your stuff on the Catholic Church is irrelevant to the discussion.

It relevant if you are talking about all religious extremism in general, not but I suppose not very relevent if people just object to Islamic religious extremism, not Christian and Jewish.

fly_agaric

Victor wrote:

"X marries Y after whirlwind 3 month romance?" Six months later "X

and Y are delighted to announce the birth of ...."

Isn't abortion essentially an honour killing?

Not quite the same thing, but we've had a bunch of revenge killings recently.

Wouldn't agree with the abortion comparison (please, I beg, don't make go into this and potentially derail the thread:D ). The vengeful crime family thing is closer IMO, but as you said, not quite the same. Asymmetry of forces for one thing. Muslims (and any other groups) who engage in the type of "honour killings" I was thinking of have the criminal ones too.

Victor wrote:

So the only difference is forced marriage is an arranged marriage goen wrong?

Yes (IMO).

grubber

Victor wrote:

RTÉ's policy on religious and minority programming is to include it if there is demand. Presumably airtime would be somewhat proportional to demand.

I'm wondering are you confusing being Arabic with being Muslim. The two do not equate. Malaysia and Indonesia are largely Muslim countries but are not Arabic. Several Arab countries (Lebanon, Syria ...) have Christian, Jewish and other minorities, these people being Arabs, but not Muslims. Can I ask is this confusion deliberate, negligent or ignorant?

Well spotted. I thought I had got away with it. My excuse was that the thread was dealing with Muslim customs, and when someone asked about RTE broadcasting Arabic programmes on Sundays, i took it to mean Muslim programmes.
Though aren't you being a bit pernickety?

Victor

grubber wrote:

Well spotted. I thought I had got away with it. ..... Though aren't you being a bit pernickety?

Should I pick "broadbrushed" or "bigoted" to describe your remark?

grubber

Victor wrote:

Should I pick "broadbrushed" or "bigoted" to describe your remark?

My excuse was that the thread was dealing with Muslim customs, and when someone asked about RTE broadcasting Arabic programmes on Sundays, i took it to mean Muslim programmes.

I was neither being broadbrushed or bigoted. Islam began as a pan Arab religion and I would think most people would presume a strong correlation between the two.

Victor clearly thinks this is an unforgiveable mistake