Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

Has it? I wasnt aware of that.

Yeah, something about teaching two babies an idea before they have developed language and then they both develop different lanuages afterward but remember the same idea even though the concept doesn't exist in one of the languages (think is Japanise). Or something. Remember it on the news, or maybe Slashdot

Don't ask me for more, i'm just saying i've heard of it ... anyway, isn't this all way off topic?

lazydaisy

Yeah. It might be off topic. But language is an important issue when talking about multi-culturalism, so maybe it isnt that off topic.

Wibbs

Apparently so. I heard the same thing as Wicknight and rsynnott re the language thingy.

BTW

Wicknight wrote:

....it is likely that the crowd dropped their stones because they knew this woman was innocent.

Hoisted by your own petard, methinks.

Also her innocence was up for grabs as she was "taken in adultery", but I take your point there (Funny though that the man she was supposedly found with wasn't). Also AFAIK the Jewish court sat at the temple, so the presumed guilty would have been brought there. Sentence would have been carried out elsewhere though. Anyway a tad off topic so.......

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

BTW Hoisted by your own petard, methinks.

But Jesus does not tell them to throw (or not to throw) multiple stones at her, and this is not even the method described in Jewish law if he had. Thats ignoring the fact that this event was not taking place under Jewish law in the first place (which was the point of the story), let alone Islamic law which was based on Jewish law.

Even if Jesus had said "...throw the first stone", it is still has not relivent to Islamic law, or even Jewish law as the entire point of the event was to make Jesus do something illegal by that very law.

In fact, since I re-read the passage, I can't even find the part in the Bible which says they dropped their stones, or that they were even carrying stones to begin with. I assume they were actually carrying stones because otherwise you entire argument makes no sense.

The only stones mentioned in John 8 are the ones the people pick up to throw at Jesus later.

You are disputing the facts of Islamic law based on a mis-quote from a book written 500 years before Islam was even founded.

Wibbs wrote:

Also her innocence was up for grabs as she was "taken in adultery"

Say the men themselves.

The entire event was staged in an attempt to trick Jesus into breaking the law. If this woman had commited adultery, under Jewish law, herself and her sexual partner would be taken before a Judge to be tried. It was specifically against Jewish law, as it is Islamic law, for vigilanty justice to be carried out by a mob. The mob themselves would have executed. It is also specifically against Jewish law to bring someone who is know to have committed a crime (be unclean) into a Temple. All of the men could have faced punishment for both of these crimes if this woman was actually guilty and had punished by them. The only way the story makes sense historically is if the woman is innocent. That is of course if the story actually ever took place at all.

Wibbs wrote:

Also AFAIK the Jewish court sat at the temple, so the presumed guilty would have been brought there. Sentence would have been carried out elsewhere though. Anyway a tad off topic so.......

Well I don't think that is true since criminals were not allowed in Temple so it would be kinda hard to judge them. But even if this were true, the woman was being brough specifically in front of Jesus as part of a conspiricy that is documented in the Bible

But you are right this is getting off topic. The original points are

1) The stoning you read about in Africa and other places, seemingly carried out under Muslim law, is not actually Islamic execution. It isn't really surprising since the places you hear about this happening the people can barely read let alone understand the exact ins and outs of the Quar'an. Of course that doesn't justify it, or even the proper method of stoning. But then we don't hold Christians responsible because some christian countries take the "eye for an eye" notion of revenge and justice to the extreme of capital punishment.

2) The execution of people, woman specifically, in these areas is more down to cultural and social issues that a following of Islam. This is shown by the very fact that woman are nearly always choosen never men, where as in fact Islam doesn make a distinction. If a woman dies for adultary so does the man she must have been seen commiting the act with.

3) Saying this type of stoning is defined specifically in Islam and there for is fundamentally a part of the religion, is the very same as saying electruction is defined by Christianity, a position you have already rejected because this method is not in the Bible. So if the Bible is not responsible for "incorrect" execution methods used in Christian America why is the Quar'an responsible for "incorrect" execution methods in some (i stress the some) Muslim countries.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

Yeah. It might be off topic. But language is an important issue when talking about multi-culturalism, so maybe it isnt that off topic.

True, but it becomes more of an issue of the country has an offical language.

America doesn't (well i think it was french for a while), specifically for the reason of immigration. So if there is no "default" language, it is just as valid an argument for a Hispanic American to say to a Wasp "Learn Spanish please"

Of course in Ireland no one speaks Irish (waits to be flamed by all 10 fluent Irish speakers), so I suppose the same argument holds in Ireland. Of coures it would be very helpful for someone to know English living and working here, but the only language you could require people to learn would be Irish and that would be rather pointless

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

You are disputing the facts of Islamic law based on a mis-quote from a book written 500 years before Islam was even founded.

Let's face it, I think it's been shown your knowledge of Islam, in it's chronology, history, beliefs and terms is not exactly extensive, nor particularly accurate, regardless of your viewpoint on the subject.

1) The stoning you read about in Africa and other places, seemingly carried out under Muslim law, is not actually Islamic execution. It isn't really surprising since the places you hear about this happening the people can barely read let alone understand the exact ins and outs of the Quar'an. Of course that doesn't justify it, or even the proper method of stoning. But then we don't hold Christians responsible because some christian countries take the "eye for an eye" notion of revenge and justice to the extreme of capital punishment.

It is a Muslims duty to read and recite the Quran. In fact knowing it by heart is considered a great spiritual quest. These people you describe are not illiterates. In fact this literacy would be one of the reasons for the flowering of Islamic science in the middle ages.

2) The execution of people, woman specifically, in these areas is more down to cultural and social issues that a following of Islam. This is shown by the very fact that woman are nearly always choosen never men, where as in fact Islam doesn make a distinction. If a woman dies for adultary so does the man she must have been seen commiting the act with.

Wrong, both men and women are stoned today in accordance with Sharia law. It is true however that more women are. This appears to be the case in early Islam too.

3) Saying this type of stoning is defined specifically in Islam and there for is fundamentally a part of the religion, is the very same as saying electruction is defined by Christianity, a position you have already rejected because this method is not in the Bible. So if the Bible is not responsible for "incorrect" execution methods used in Christian America why is the Quar'an responsible for "incorrect" execution methods in some (i stress the some) Muslim countries.

Ok, let's put this to bed for once and for all. Forget if you will, Jewish tradition, Jesus, the man in the moon, whomever. Here are specific references to stoning and it's methods and reasons in the Hadeeth(life of the Prophet). These are Islamic texts which lay the groundwork for Islamic/Sharia law.*

Specific reference to stoning. In fact it's described as a duty for Muslims when adultery is the crime;
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/017.smt.html#017.4194

Here the stoning of a man and note if you will the word "stones" not stone.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/063.sbt.html#007.063.195

Yet another example where "stones" are mentioned;
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/082.sbt.html#008.082.806

Another more detailed description of the method. Note the crowd and multiple stones;
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/017.smt.html#017.4202

Do you notice any reference to a single stone? A trained executioner. No, it's a crowd with stones under the direct instruction of Mohammed. Now do you see the religious and historical precedent?

Of course in Ireland no one speaks Irish (waits to be flamed by all 10 fluent Irish speakers), so I suppose the same argument holds in Ireland. Of coures it would be very helpful for someone to know English living and working here, but the only language you could require people to learn would be Irish and that would be rather pointless

The gaelgoirs will just looove you for that one.:D

I would insist that some command of the lingua franca was a requirement. Even an undertaking to attend a course in the language of the country the person is travelling to would suffice. If I went to live in France I would feel it encumbent on me to learn the language. It's good manners if nothing else. Anything else actively encourages feelings of isolation, both in the immigrant population and the native. That we don't need.


*From a respected non nutbag source, which may be worth your further perusal, to acquaint yourself with both the good and the bad. Some of it is the remit of Islamic scholars, but it may give you some feel for the subject, beyond the BS on both sides.

lazydaisy

I think the government requires you to have a certain level of proficiency in Irish to get a job in the civil service, which includes schools and univerisities? Is that right?

There are apparantly more mandarin speakers than Irish speakers in Dublin. http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1130746,00.html

So I guess if they have school age children those kids would be required to learn Irish? Even of they dont know English yet?

Does it become an ideological choice or a practical one on the part of the department of education to preserve the Irish language requirement in its schools and or the government in its employment requirements?

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

Let's face it, I think it's been shown your knowledge of Islam, in it's chronology, history, beliefs and terms is not exactly extensive, nor particularly accurate, regardless of your viewpoint on the subject.

Seems a bit better than your grasp of the Bible .... but ok, I never claimed to be an expert on the Quar'an, but that still doesn't change the fact that Islamic law describes how to stone someone. And I mean that isn't my opinion it is the opinion of those who are experts in the Quar'an, some of which support stoning and would have very little reason to lie about the correct method, any more than a Christian fundamentalist would have a reason to lie about how a murderer was executed in Texas.

If someone, now or back then, kills someone in a different method of stoning (or any other method) does that change that fact?

I mean people were killed in very elabourate ways in the Bible, does then Jewish law allowd all forms of execution (no, btw) or does it mean modern execution of all forms is justifide by the Bible? You have already said no to the later.

But you are apply one standard to the Christian religion and one to Muslims, (which was my objection to the entire stereotyping of Muslim immigrants in the first place) that because stoning, of all kinds, is described in the Quar'an means that the religion's laws state that all forms of execution are fine, but at the same time the Bible doesn't justify todays methods of execution? The Bible describes all kinds of executions and murders done in the name of God. That doesn't mean those executions are part of Judaism "law". The Bible and Quar'an are stories, they describe things that have happened.

I mean I'm not a Muslim and I am totally against any form of capital punishment. I'm not making this sh*t up, and I have no great motive to make Muslims nice and fluffy (despite what Grubber would say). Stoning someone in the correct way is just as barbaric. But then so is hanging someone, pumping 100 volts through them, sticking a needle in them so their heart stops.

But do you seriously want me to list all the ways people have been put to death in the Bible for the glory of God ...

Wibbs wrote:

It is a Muslims duty to read and recite the Quran.

Are you saying it is impossible not to be a devout Muslim because to be a Muslim you must be devout ... that doesn't make sense. You don't become devout purely by being Muslim, what does the hand of Allah reach inside you or something?

Wibbs wrote:

These people you describe are not illiterates.

Muslims aren't illiterate, but in tribes in northern Nigeria that are currently trying to have a woman stoned to death I would imagine mostly are, and they certainly don't seem to understand Muslim law very well.

Wibbs wrote:

Do you notice any reference to a single stone? A trained executioner.

Do you notice that this descibes an event before any of the Muslim laws had actually been written ...

Wibbs wrote:

No, it's a crowd with stones under the direct instruction of Mohammed. Now do you see the religious and historical precedent?

Yeah, Muslims executed people. So did Christians and Jews.

Both Muslims, Christians and Jews have been executing women for adultary since the formation of these religions. I still fail to see how Islam is any better or worse in this regard, except that a small handful of Muslims countries still carry out this law. You say it is different because it is described in the Quar'an as good, but sure forms of genocide are described in the Bible as being good ..

Wibbs wrote:

I would insist that some command of the lingua franca was a requirement.

Before or after they get here?

Wibbs wrote:

From a respected non nutbag source, which may be worth your further perusal, to acquaint yourself with both the good and the bad.

True, I found that site quite interesting, especially the 10 Misconceptions of Islam and this passage in particular :-

Hence, we cannot equate Islam and the Muslims. Islam is the way of life; Muslims are people who claim to follow that way of life. A Muslim may claim to follow Islam, but be wrong. In the context of misconceptions, we can restate the above principle in a slightly different way:

Some misconceptions about Islam are due to the wrong beliefs and actions of Muslims, and others are due to a significant lack of understanding and false stereotyping by non-Muslims.

arkle8

I have a no real problem with people from the other EU countries coming to work here. Provided they play by our rules and do not work for below the minimum wage.
All Africans who arrive here without proper documentation should be retuned to their place of departure IMMEDIATELY. We don’t need them and don’t want them.
I would say that 95% of Irish people agree with this.

Zombrex

arkle8 wrote:

We don’t need them and don’t want them.

Actually we do want them and we certainly do need them.

But AFAIK any worker found without a proper work permit are subject to criminal proceedings, including deportation, be they African, American or Asian.

Húrin

Uthur wrote:

Even I, speaking as a complete lefty-looney, can see that multiculturalism is
a stupid idea. If you go to live in another country you accept that there
will be different social mores in that country that you have to abide by.

When you move to another country you have to play by their rules. An
Irish person wouldn't move to Iran and walk up the street half-naked or
bladdered drunk. Likewise, you can't travel half way around the world to
Ireland and act like you're still at home.

This means that certain things will not be accepted by the host
population here: circumcising your kids with a razor blade, beating them
with sticks, or refusing to give your seat on the bus to a heavily pregnant
or elderly woman, for example. And lots of other things besides.

Edit: I have heard liberals (even some of my friends) defend all of these things
on the grounds that they are acceptable in the perpetrators' native
cultures. I don't happen to agree

I agree with you. I think that the good elements of foreign cultures can be preserved and can improve this country, but I disagree with the cultural moral relativism of many on the left. I think that for example women's rights should always take precedence above Islamic doctine.

netwhizkid wrote:

Like that is one of the main causes of conflict in the Middle East, Women choose to wear the veil and American values then suggest she is suppressed someway.

Yes, because the majority of women in the Middle East have a choice on whether to wear the veil. Right. The middle east needs more feminism not less of it.

Hobbes wrote:

Well the US is built on multiculturism

This is not true. The US is the model of an alternative to the multiculturalist "salad bowl". The US is a "melting pot" where there is one culture that is informed by the cultures of the immigrants that make up its people. I am not so enthusiastic about this idea either because it is too conformist. I think the middle road between them is the best.

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

Seems a bit better than your grasp of the Bible .... but ok, I never claimed to be an expert on the Quar'an, but that still doesn't change the fact that Islamic law describes how to stone someone. And I mean that isn't my opinion it is the opinion of those who are experts in the Quar'an, some of which support stoning and would have very little reason to lie about the correct method, any more than a Christian fundamentalist would have a reason to lie about how a murderer was executed in Texas.

Thought this had been put to bed. Now I've provided many, many links to the correct method of stoning under Sharia law(Multiple stones/crazed religious loonies throwing same). You have not. You've just repeated ad nauseum that "I'm right you're wrong". This is going nowhere. Google Iran or any other Sharia law state and stoning and you'll find the relevant info.

That doesn't mean those executions are part of Judaism "law". The Bible and Quar'an are stories, they describe things that have happened.

The Quran and Hadeeth are both stories and explicit instruction on how to live your life as a Muslim. Basically if it's in there it's considered a duty. Everything from washing to eating to execution is covered.

Stoning someone in the correct way is just as barbaric. But then so is hanging someone, pumping 100 volts through them, sticking a needle in them so their heart stops.

I'm against the death penalty too, but as I've pointed out before stoning as a method of punishment is designed to be a s painful as possible. The other methods you describe while barbaric were designed to be humane(stupid I know but true nonetheless) Google the origins of both the electric chair and lethal injection.

But do you seriously want me to list all the ways people have been put to death in the Bible for the glory of God ...

Nope. It would be pointless as no methods of execution found there are still being used in Christian or Jewish states(which regardless are mostly secular. I know the US, I know, but at least some of them are trying )

Muslims aren't illiterate, but in tribes in northern Nigeria that are currently trying to have a woman stoned to death I would imagine mostly are, and they certainly don't seem to understand Muslim law very well.

There are religious Islamic schools all over northern Nigeria and the literacy rate is higher than in the christian south.

Do you notice that this descibes an event before any of the Muslim laws had actually been written ...

You don't seem to understand. The laws were set down by Mohammed and his example in life, the very person mentioned in those passages. He is/was the Muslim law. This isn't the same thing as Christianity, where the organised form of the religion was created long after the founders death. Sharia law has a direct line to the life and sayings of Mohammed. It's one of the things Muslims are very proud of. The adulteration of the texts is minimal when compared to the other faiths. There is little leeway.

Yeah, Muslims executed people. So did Christians and Jews.

This is not a competition between religions and their nuttier practices. Christians and Jews no longer execute people using the methods of an ancient book. Muslims do.

Both Muslims, Christians and Jews have been executing women for adultary since the formation of these religions. I still fail to see how Islam is any better or worse in this regard, except that a small handful of Muslims countries still carry out this law.

Agreed, but in the last few decades the number of countries that have gone over to Sharia law is increasing. That's the difference. In the the west and east, the tendency is for secularism(with the odd burp from the George Dubyas of the world).

Before or after they get here?

After obviously.

arkle8 wrote:

All Africans who arrive here without proper documentation should be retuned to their place of departure IMMEDIATELY. We don’t need them and don’t want them.
I would say that 95% of Irish people agree with this.

WTF??? Send them back on the banana boats eh? Sheesh I must be in the 5% then and I'm hardly what you would describe as a liberal.

Nice post from Húrin btw.

rsynnott

Wibbs wrote:

I'm against the death penalty too, but as I've pointed out before stoning as a method of punishment is designed to be a s painful as possible. The other methods you describe while barbaric were designed to be humane(stupid I know but true nonetheless) Google the origins of both the electric chair and lethal injection.

Factual correction: the electric chair was not designed to be humane. It was designed to demonstrate that AC was (allegedly) more dangerous than DC current, and to create a spectacle. Similarly, although the lethal injection is theoretically meant to be humane, there was never any chance of it being so; the designers knew full well that it would never be administered by medical staff, but instead by people who would frequently botch the job. Of the other three methods currently used in the US, gas chamber, hanging, and firing squad, only firing squad is vaguely humane. The gas chamber is particularly horrific.

If they wanted a humane method of execution, they could have used a simply-applied anaesthetic.

Wibbs

rsynnott wrote:

Factual correction: the electric chair was not designed to be humane. It was designed to demonstrate that AC was (allegedly) more dangerous than DC current, and to create a spectacle.

Factual correction; the electric chair was initially concieved and percieved as a more humane way of killing someone than the slow strangulation usually found in the hanging methods of the time. The fight over between westinhouse and edison over the safety of AC or DC came later. In fact the US considered themselves modern and humane precisely because of this perception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_P._Brown

Similarly, although the lethal injection is theoretically meant to be humane, there was never any chance of it being so; the designers knew full well that it would never be administered by medical staff,

They may have known that on doctor would be an executioner, that doesn't take away from the fact that it was designed to be more humane. In fact it acts much as your last line suggests. General anaesthetic followed by drugs that cause paralysis stop the heart. The problem as you say is that medical staff, or better training is needed. It doesn't help that many inmates are drug users, ex or current and this causes a lot of problems.

Of the other three methods currently used in the US, gas chamber, hanging, and firing squad, only firing squad is vaguely humane. The gas chamber is particularly horrific.

The gas chamber is pretty much out of favour now, as a few cases were brought to US courts on the basis of the whole "cruel and unusual punishment" lark. Contrary to what you suggest, most medical research considers modern hanging(not strangulation) as probably the most "humane" of the execution methods. Firing squad has the potential of great pain being felt before blood loss finally causes loss of consciousness.

Michael G

HelterSkelter wrote:

Look at all the idiots sitting outside coffee shops in the freezing cold thinking they are Italians/Spanish/French.

I just like a cigarette with my espresso. I have no choice about sitting outside.