Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

But its their problem. We should not structure serious social policy around the insecurities and phobias of some people.

If some people are very uncomfortable in large open spaces should building planning have to facilitate that phobia?

Or if some people get nervous by large crowds do we put a limit on the number of people allowed in rock concerts or stadium gigs?

The answer would be no because the issue is with the own person.

So why are we supposed to stop immigration to and from our country because it makes some people uncomfortable to be on a bus full of black people? Or be in a night club full of Arabian people?

LOL, Well, acrophobia (edit: I now see that the word I was llooking for is agoraphobia!) never drove anyone to violence (I think). When people get violent and agressive it becomes everyones' problem. The feelings of xenophobia or tribalism or whatever are just as present in the immigrants as in the people already here. They're human too.

Anyway, maybe some people on the thread want to stop immigration completely. I'd be happy enough if it eased off a bit. Unlike some other places in Europe, most of our immigration is not coming from muslim countries in N. Africa and Asia, so the whole "clash of cultures" thing is less of a problem for us as of yet.

Wicknight wrote:

And history teaches us that women shouldn't have the vote, and that black people are a sub-standard species who should be enslaved to help the economy. And that Irish people are lazy and dishonest.

History doesn't teach us any of this happy horseshít. You are mixing up ideas people held in the past with processes. We can look at history in different places and times and judge that large and rapid migrations of people have been accompanied by "problems" ranging from small scale, intermittant violence right up to wars and genocides. Am I wrong about this? (Edit: Even stable countries that are very mixed with many different groups/cultures also seem to be prone to blowing up like tinderboxes when the wrong set of circumstances sets them off. eg Yugoslavia, communal riots in India)

Wicknight wrote:

...Yeah and life didn't end

Of course, it did "end" for many people who had the ill luck to become statistics in the process of resolving these problems of conflicting cultures by creative destruction. But, onwards and upwards eh, just so long as it is over before I'm born and I can live out my days in a nice and relatively stable interregnum. It's all me, me, me.

Wicknight wrote:

The ideas that we should wrap ourselfs in some kind of protective blanket and pretend that if we stop external people entering our country everything will be just great is nonsense.

Yes, it is nonsense - but...why do we have to go looking for trouble though by allowing too many people with too different a culture to immigrate over too short a timeframe? I don't think this is happening in Ireland at present. We have massive immigration (highest per capita in the world at present I think), but almost all of it is comprised of Eastern Europeans or returning emigrants.

Anyway, I'd bet all the open-borders people will be first into their gated communities and/or crying for a draconian police-state to keep a lid on it if it all turns to shít at some point in the future. They can then order stuff online from the local Asian foodshop:) .

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

And in what happyland would we be if, for example cultures came in who considered women are lesser and should'nt have the vote?

There are a lot nut jobs in Ireland, Britian and America who believe women are lesser and shouldn't have the vote. They don't control things, and have no managed to get people follow that idea. So why do you think a bunch of Islamic nut jobs are going to suddenly have the law changed.

It shows a complete lack of understanding if you think the majority people from Muslim countries subscribe to the idea that women shouldn't be allowed vote. The only two Middle Eastern countries I can think of that don't allow women to vote are Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait has recently made plans to introduce it.

People seem to forget that most of the middle east were western style democracies in the 50s, until the CIA f**ked everything up and allowed extremists to take hold. There is nothing about the people or the religion that is fundamentally restrictive to western morality of civil liberites such as voting rights, at least no more fundamentally restrictive than Christianity. The Swiss only gave women the vote in the last 30 years. Should we ban them as well?

Wibbs wrote:

NO but the lessons of the past should be.

You are right, the lesson is that fear and intolerance to other cultures produces problems.

Wibbs wrote:

Certainly, but why import more problems?

Sure why get out of bed in the morning, you might get hit by a bus, you are better off spending your life in a sealed room,that way nothing bad can happen to you. The world doesn't work like that. The good vastly out weighs the bad.

Wibbs wrote:

While you would be right technically with regard to Islam, the perception of women and their rights under such a system leaves such "honour" killings open to debate.

Not really. Abortion doctor killings can be justified by the Bible if you are nuts enough. Beating your wife can be justified by the Bible if you are nuts enough.

There is nothing in Islam teachings about honour killings and most Muslims would agree that it is totally wrong, just like most Christians would agree that it is wrong to kill doctors.

Wibbs wrote:

You mentioned the immigration in the past to Ireland, which ones weren't on the back of a military invasion? Off topic though.

Firstly I mentioned immigration of Irish people into other countries. Secondly, anyone who arrived after 1922 or wasn't British arrived in Ireland not on the back of military invasion. That includes the hundreds of thousands of European workers who have lived and worked in Ireland, raised familys, been part of the culture, since the formation of the State. They didn't cause much problems, probably cause people couldn't tell them apart from "Irish" people on the bus.

Wibbs wrote:

To the former, I would say, hardly,

There are a large number of pubs and clubs in Eastern Europe, especially the ones that have drinks promotions, that bar Irish people. Why? Cause we take the piss seeminging

Wibbs wrote:

to the latter I would say that they had a point in the bad days of the "troubles" to keep a bloody close eye on those with certain "sympathies"

So you think the negative stereotyping of Irish people then and now was right and justifable? Ok then ....

Wibbs wrote:

They may be strangers, but they're cultural baggage comes with them, so it can make a difference

In what way? The look at you differently?

Wibbs wrote:

They didn't have too long to wait in Britain, Spain, France, Holland, Germany, Italy........

Muslims = Al Queda ... right ... must have missed that news bulletin ... :rolleyes:

Wibbs wrote:

They couldn't in the first instance, in the second instance they tried at various times.

And do they now? No! "Why not", you ask... possibly because they discovered Irish emmigration wasn't actually that bad, that Irish people weren't drunken criminals, in fact they actually like Irish people now ... ummm

Wibbs wrote:

We're not a potential threat.

Says who? Wake up! The IRA went on cease fire only a few years ago .. Omagh was only a few years ago. Are all the people we were potential terrorist dead now? Did we all die of old age? Being terrorist and hating the British is in our blood. It is part of our culture. We have grown up with it. We our taught it by our history teachers, by our preists and by our parents. Anyone of us could be a potential terrorist, it isn't something you just stop believing. 90% of the population are Catholic. 90%!!! The vast majority belong to a religon that teaches that murder is justifable to obtain a goal of freedom. Hatred between Catholics and British Protestants has been going on for hundreds of years, you think it just stops straight away.

Or maybe all that is bullsh1t ... and maybe the stereotypes we have against Muslims in general are bullsh1t .. just a thought ...

Wibbs wrote:

No we only lose when we find ourselves changed for the worst by some cultures out there which are inferior when it comes to general human rights.

You mean like a culture that condone, nah supports, terrorism and racial hatred. Oh wait ....

Religious extermism isn't part of the Arab culture any more than it is part of the Irish culture. We were (still are) a country ruled by religion up until recently. But we aren't now. The Middle East wasn't ruled by religious extremism until recently. There is nothing in the culture that is fundmentally opposed to our style of civil liberities.

Where does it say that we have to give up our ideas of civil liberites to accomadate Islamic fundamentalism. We don't give up our ideas of civil liberites for Christian fundamentallism, internal or foreign. Yet Americans flock to are country, and some critise it. Why would that be any different with Muslims?

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

The feelings of xenophobia or tribalism or whatever are just as present in the immigrants as in the people already here. They're human too.

So if an Irish person gets violent at a black guy on the bus because of "tribalism", that teh fault of the black guy for being here in the first place .. oh, ok, I get it now ...

It never ceases to amaze me that people complain that immigrants seemingly don't respect our laws, but its ok if an Irish person breaks the law because he is provoked by the idea of immigration.

fly_agaric wrote:

Unlike some other places in Europe, most of our immigration is not coming from muslim countries in N. Africa and Asia, so the whole "clash of cultures" thing is less of a problem for us as of yet.

Why? cause all muslims are extremist whacko? But Polish and Eastern European people are nice and fluffy? Or is it just they look like us so it doesn't upset people as much?

fly_agaric wrote:

Of course, it did "end" for many people who had the ill luck to become statistics in the process of resolving these problems of conflicting cultures by creative destruction.

Are you saying the Irish people are prone to genocide when they meet foreign cultures ... are you serious ...???

fly_agaric wrote:

Yes, it is nonsense - but...why do we have to go looking for trouble though by allowing too many people with too different a culture to immigrate over too short a timeframe? I don't think this is happening in Ireland at present. We have massive immigration (highest per capita in the world at present I think), but almost all of it is comprised of Eastern Europeans or returning emigrants.

But the Irish "culture" what ever that is has as much in common with Eastern Europeans as it does with Middle Easterns ... I fail to see how one culture is "too different" and the other is just right.

fly_agaric wrote:

Anyway, I'd bet all the open-borders people will be first into their gated communities and/or crying for a draconian police-state to keep a lid on it if it all turns to shít at some point in the future. .

And when exactly will that be?

Because we are way way over due for things turning to sh1t .. i was under the impression from teh anti-immigration crowd that it was going to be 2001 .. or was it 2002, or 2004 .. jesus I can't keep up, the anti-immigration people keep changing the damn date for when our culture is going to be eroded and we will all be learning the Koran in school...

actually hold on a minute, wasn't it Chinese people we were not supposed to like, cause they could not speak English, and took all the Burger King jobs away from teh skangers ... sure they seem tame now to the Islamic nut jobs trying to blow up Grafton St (while oppressing women, with the other hand seemingly) ... i breath a heavy sigh of releaf if I get an Asian chick serving me in McDs now, rather than an A-rab or Eastern European .. they all look so cross, where as Asian people are happy all the time

so with the Chinese settling into our culture fine (sure they are nearly white, and they do share the Irish love for hard work) it was the Africans we were supposed to be scared of. remember the Nigerians? The asylum seekers, who got free phones, cars and houses off the State ... they spread the AIDs, they were all into crime and eating people all that stuff ... savages ... oh the cold sweat I hate the first time I saw a big black brut with a small innocent Irish girl holding hands!!! She is probably dead from AIDS now .. and rude! boy were those africans rude

But even if they were rude, boy the Nigerians look like boy scouts compared to the Muslims. We would much rather rudeness and the odd outbreak of AIDS if it saved use from the dreaded "Islamic fundamentalist" Seemingly an entire continent of peole became Islamic extremists over one night right after 11th Sept 2001 (who knew!) ... and now they are all just itching to get over here and oppress our women (the cheek!, only true red haired Irish blokes may oppress our women!!) and blow things up. And talk really fast ... jesus we wouldn't mind so much if they just didnt talk so fecking fast! ...

and then (briefly) it was all the Eastern Europeans joining the EU, they would flood in and destroy our economy, though now they actually have a "not too different" culture to us (surprise surprise!) so that ok for them to come .. we thought "hold on, these guys aren't that bad, not only are they white, but it is really hard to tell them apart from Irish people, so they don't make us uncomfortable" ... so back to the Muslims (boo! hiss!)

I really wish they would make up there mind, this "sure doomsday, its just around the corner" nonsense gets very confusing after a while. I have no idea who were are supposed to like and who were are supposed to be "very concerned about" ... sure it changes on a daily basis ... did ya read in the paper what the Chinese are getting these days! Free cars!! .. oh wait ... sigh, so confused

gaf1983

Wibbs wrote:

I await the latter with some interest. It better be a "dry" club.

This was your reaction to the suggestion that one day we could witness in Ireland a nightclub full of Arabs. Well actually it's not so unrealistic - I've known a few Muslims in my time who won't drink in public but they will at home or in a bar if the curtains are closed, because you see as they say, "Allah doesn't see through walls."

Karl Hungus

Christ, this discussion is going all kinds of ridiculous...

Wicknight wrote:

So if an Irish person gets violent at a black guy on the bus because of "tribalism", that teh fault of the black guy for being here in the first place .. oh, ok, I get it now ...

It never ceases to amaze me that people complain that immigrants seemingly don't respect our laws, but its ok if an Irish person breaks the law because he is provoked by the idea of immigration.

At this stage Wicknight, you're being blatantly facetious on the matters being put to discussion here, not to mention completely mis-representing just about everything that has been said. Hell, I'd go as far as saying you're just being plain dishonest with reguards to what other posters are saying.

Fly_agaric's point was that xenophobia exists in immigrants also. Somehow, for the sake of whatever self-righteous rant you wanted to make, his point sudden became that "It's ok for an Irish person to get violent towards a Black person" just to suit you! How exactly you managed to extract that self-serving statement from what was actually being said, is beyond me.

Most of your recent posts read pretty much the same; self-serving misreprestations, and rants filled with righteous indignation, none of which even border on addressing what's been said.

I'd say that if you actually going to respond to someone, you should do so on the virtue of what is actually being said. Stuffing words in peoples mouths to suit you makes whatever point you had invalid, as it's not worth squat if you have to be dishonest about what other people are saying in order to make said point.


Something else that bothers me, is a lot of this kind of self-serving mis-interpretation that goes on here seems simply to tar the other users in an unfavourable light, eg; fascist, almost as if once you get a user to that point, their opinions are somehow invalid. Never mind that the idea of someone's opinion is actually invalid, simply because it's not status-quo, I find quite offensive. But this kind of behaviour (And I'm not just talking about Wicknight here, I see this kind of thing all too often) seems like nothing more than an attempt at "Winning" the arguement, without actually addressing anything. Frankly, that kind of behaviour is just not on.

lazydaisy

WK- when you said American christians should be banned from entering Ireland were you kidding? I really cant tell. Also- you mention Jesus an awful lot. What's that about? Then you seem to promote anti-racism and then say things like hating the brits "is in our blood" which is entirely contradictory.

I cant see infrastructurally how Ireland can support immigration. Its hospitals, roads, and transport systems are already bursting at the seams.

Does anyone think that the fact that so many generations of Irish people have had to watch beloved family members leave for foreign lands has affected the national mood around the new incoming populations?

annR

>>I cant see infrastructurally how Ireland can support immigration. Its hospitals, roads, and transport systems are already bursting at the seams<<

I agree but the same time we're told we need immigration to keep the economy growing . .

Wibbs

fly_agaric wrote:

Yes, it is nonsense - but...why do we have to go looking for trouble though by allowing too many people with too different a culture to immigrate over too short a timeframe?

Nail on the head.

Wicknight wrote:

It shows a complete lack of understanding if you think the majority people from Muslim countries subscribe to the idea that women shouldn't be allowed vote. The only two Middle Eastern countries I can think of that don't allow women to vote are Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait has recently made plans to introduce it.

It shows a lack of understanding of those countries if you think the position of women has been anything but equal because of cultural and religious differences. As you point out later, fundamentalist thinking is on the rise, not the decline.

People seem to forget that most of the middle east were western style democracies in the 50s, until the CIA f**ked everything up and allowed extremists to take hold. There is nothing about the people or the religion that is fundamentally restrictive to western morality of civil liberites such as voting rights, at least no more fundamentally restrictive than Christianity.

Exactly. People also seem to forget that all those countries with "western style" democracies have drifted towards fundamentalism and it wasn't just the CIA's fault.:rolleyes:

The Swiss only gave women the vote in the last 30 years. Should we ban them as well?

Nah, they make nice chocies and watches..:)

You are right, the lesson is that fear and intolerance to other cultures produces problems.

No the lesson is that cultures with such differences find it very difficult to get along.

Not really. Abortion doctor killings can be justified by the Bible if you are nuts enough. Beating your wife can be justified by the Bible if you are nuts enough.

Where does it say in the bible that one should kill doctors or anyone else that doesn't agree with them for that matter? The Quran gives pretty precise instructions on wife beating(only lightly depending on the translation) and subdueing and killing unbelievers.

There is nothing in Islam teachings about honour killings and most Muslims would agree that it is totally wrong, just like most Christians would agree that it is wrong to kill doctors.

Agreed most would, in spite of, not because of their religion. When women are considered somehow lesser than men, when women have to cover themselves to stop men from becoming too "exited", when women's testimony is considered worth half of a mans, when a women is responsible for protecting her "honour", when a woman can be stoned to death for not doing so, then all these opinions lay the ground for such "honour" killings.

Firstly I mentioned immigration of Irish people into other countries. Secondly, anyone who arrived after 1922 or wasn't British arrived in Ireland not on the back of military invasion. That includes the hundreds of thousands of European workers who have lived and worked in Ireland, raised familys, been part of the culture, since the formation of the State.

Hundreds of thousands? In what Ireland did this happen? Since the formation of the state, the flow of people in Ireland has been outwards. There was some Italian and Chinese immigration from the 60's onwards, but nothing like hundreds of thousands.

There are a large number of pubs and clubs in Eastern Europe, especially the ones that have drinks promotions, that bar Irish people. Why? Cause we take the piss seeminging

News to me and to others that have been in places like Prague etc.

Muslims = Al Queda ... right ... must have missed that news bulletin ... :rolleyes:

Obviously not. But until someone can show me an example where an IRA type shouted "Jesus is great" as they detonated a bomb, then the religious element can't be overlooked.

The vast majority belong to a religon that teaches that murder is justifable to obtain a goal of freedom.

No it doesn't, but other faiths can be interpreted that way.

Hatred between Catholics and British Protestants has been going on for hundreds of years, you think it just stops straight away.

Well it took long enough, why repeat it? That's the crux of my point. We know sh!t happens, so we should at least try to minimise it. Why import problems? Why import cultures that find our culture lacking and theirs better? Respect and tolerance goes both ways.

Religious extermism isn't part of the Arab culture any more than it is part of the Irish culture. We were (still are) a country ruled by religion up until recently. But we aren't now. The Middle East wasn't ruled by religious extremism until recently. There is nothing in the culture that is fundmentally opposed to our style of civil liberities.

Exactly. We(most of Europe as well) were ruled by religion. Now we're not to anything like the same extent. We've evolved more secular humanist societies. The Middle east is going the other way. Similarly Islam is heading the same way in Africa and elsewhere(Pakistan springs to mind). If secular democracies are so appealing how come the reverse is happening in such places?

But the Irish "culture" what ever that is has as much in common with Eastern Europeans as it does with Middle Easterns ... I fail to see how one culture is "too different" and the other is just right.

Because one is more different. When do you see Eastern European women veiled for a start?

gaf1983 wrote:

This was your reaction to the suggestion that one day we could witness in Ireland a nightclub full of Arabs. Well actually it's not so unrealistic - I've known a few Muslims in my time who won't drink in public but they will at home or in a bar if the curtains are closed, because you see as they say, "Allah doesn't see through walls."

True, I've heard the same myself:D

Karl Hungus wrote:

Fly_agaric's point was that xenophobia exists in immigrants also. Somehow, for the sake of whatever self-righteous rant you wanted to make, his point sudden became that "It's ok for an Irish person to get violent towards a Black person" just to suit you! How exactly you managed to extract that self-serving statement from what was actually being said, is beyond me.

Well said. This idea that intolerance is a one way street and it's all "our" fault is an all too common theme. To be fair Wicknight is neither alone in this nor the worst example of this thinking by a long shot.

Zombrex

Karl Hungus wrote:

Fly_agaric's point was that xenophobia exists in immigrants also.

Hey don't blame me, Fly_agaric brought up the idea of xenophobia driving someone to volience. He brought up the idea of cultures so different it can't help but lead to violence and genocide.

Fly_Agaric is saying xenophobia exists in immigrants, that this can lead to violence therefore we should be careful of letting them in. Therefore xenophobia is a bad thing, that it will cause things to turn to "sh1t" and we will all be running to our gated communities.

It is something we do not want here, we should not let immigrants in because they themselves can be racist, they themselves can be violent and rude to the local population, they themselves can exclude themselves from the local population out of ignorance.

But if xenophobia is such as bad thing, that we do not want as part of our society, why do we tolerate it from Irish people?

His very comments are xenophobic, about cultures being to "different" to ours, that these cultures mixing with ours will lead to violence (seemingly because of history)

Using xenophobia as a reason or justification for keeping people out of our country is nuts. It is not ok for an immigrant to be xenophobic, to be racist, to be violent towards a native Irish people, but it is ok to use xenophobia to justify keeping people out of the country?

Karl Hungus wrote:

Frankly, that kind of behaviour is just not on.

Do you actually have an issue with the points I am making, or do you just think I shouldn't post here?

w66w66

fly_agaric wrote:

The feelings of xenophobia or tribalism or whatever are just as present in the immigrants as in the people already here. They're human too.
.

Interestingly ethnic groups seem to become more ethnocentric when they are a minority. This is possibly due to a natural feeling of insecurity one might feel being an ethnic minority in a country they can't identify with.
Similarly in Britain, whites are far more likely to vote BNP in ethnically diverse areas. It's seems as whites themselves become a minority they become more ethnocentric.
If this is the case, then multiculturalism is an inevitable result of an ethnically diverse society.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

As you point out later, fundamentalist thinking is on the rise, not the decline.

And ... there is no reason to believe that there is something about the religion or people that is fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is on the rise all over the world, including America. Yet we don't call for a restriction on Americans entering the country? Maybe it is because we cannot seperate out the idea of muslim and muslim fundamentalist

Wibbs wrote:

Exactly. People also seem to forget that all those countries with "western style" democracies have drifted towards fundamentalism and it wasn't just the CIA's fault.:rolleyes:

They didn't "drift" towards fundamentalism, the governments were over thrown by the west, and fundamentalists took power. This happens all over the world, it has very little to do with the religion or the culture of the middle east.

Wibbs wrote:

No the lesson is that cultures with such differences find it very difficult to get along.

Only when stereotypes and fear are allowed to fester.

Wibbs wrote:

Where does it say in the bible that one should kill doctors or anyone else that doesn't agree with them for that matter? The Quran gives pretty precise instructions on wife beating(only lightly depending on the translation) and subdueing and killing unbelievers.

All over the fecking place ... it says a number of times that it is ok to kill someone to save an "innocent" life. It also says it is ok to kill someone if you cause is in the name of the laws of God. What you think the Christian fundamentalists are just making this sh1t up?

Wibbs wrote:

Agreed most would, in spite of, not because of their religion.

What are you basing that on? You seem to have a very strange idea of Islam.

The Bible explains in a lot of detail exactly what to do if a man rapes a virgin woman. He is to pay the father compensation and then marry her. Do Christians and Jews agree this is wrong in spite of their religion or because of it?

Wibbs wrote:

When women are considered somehow lesser than men, when women have to cover themselves to stop men from becoming too "exited", when women's testimony is considered worth half of a mans, when a women is responsible for protecting her "honour", when a woman can be stoned to death for not doing so, then all these opinions lay the ground for such "honour" killings.[\QUOTE]
All of which is also in the Bible ....

Yet hold on a minute, we don't in force all the stupid things in the Bible. Some of us want to but they are generally ignored. In countries like America they get more of a voice, but we don't let that tar the entire country, or let it stop us from letting Americans into the country.

Yet because the Koran says things (just as nuts as the Bible), and all Muslims are fundamentalists (didn't you know), we should safely assume all muslims follow and believe in this teaching. Despite the fact that we know most Christians, even the very religous, don't

Wibbs wrote:

Hundreds of thousands? In what Ireland did this happen? Since the formation of the state, the flow of people in Ireland has been outwards.

Since the formation of the state there have been over 75,000 English people come and live in Ireland. That is the just English. If you factor in the Europeans and Americans that have lived and worked in Ireland since 1922 it is easily into the 100,000.

Wibbs wrote:

News to me and to others that have been in places like Prague etc.

Oh well I mean if you didn't experience on your holiday I doubt it happens and all the people I know who did experience it must be lying ..

Wibbs wrote:

Obviously not. But until someone can show me an example where an IRA type shouted "Jesus is great" as they detonated a bomb, then the religious element can't be overlooked.

What if they shouted "F**k the Protestants" .... Of course I doubt an IRA person has ever shouted a religous slur .. And the fact that they are all Catholic has nothing to do with it ... :rolleyes:

Wibbs wrote:

No it doesn't, but other faiths can be interpreted that way.

Yeah it does .. its in the Bible ..

The Bible is far far more violent than the Koran
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/bible_quran.html

It also contains a number of passages that say voilence is completely justifable if your cause is just.

In fact the Bible is the only religious book in the world (as far as I know) that actually says suicide to cause violence is justifable (little story of Samson killing himself to kill the Philistines)

Wibbs wrote:

Well it took long enough, why repeat it? That's the crux of my point. We know sh!t happens, so we should at least try to minimise it.

But I was being saracstic and you are contradicting yourself.

We are "not a potential threat", yet our 800 years of violence ended 5 months ok (and some doubt even that)

So how are we fine, yet Muslims are trouble? That doesn't make sense. We were killing British when Islam was a tiny cult in the Middle East. We have one of the longest history of sustained violent campaigns of any country. Yet we are not a threat, but Muslims are?

Why again?

Wibbs wrote:

Respect and tolerance goes both ways.

It does ... Islam has respected the Christian countries for hundreds of year, yet we keep invading and killing them

Wibbs wrote:

Exactly. We(most of Europe as well) were ruled by religion. Now we're not to anything like the same extent. We've evolved more secular humanist societies. The Middle east is going the other way. Similarly Islam is heading the same way in Africa and elsewhere(Pakistan springs to mind). If secular democracies are so appealing how come the reverse is happening in such places?

Islam isn't new ... it is hundreds of years old. So how can there be something in Islam that is making countries in the Middle East more fundamentalist when for years (when Christian countries were) they weren't fundamentalist.

It seems that we have to move away from religion to break free of the shackles of fundamentalism. Islamic countries were "liberal" (relatively speaking) long before we were. It is only recenty that fundamentalism has taken hold in some countries.

So if it isn't Islam itself that causes this, then why do we fear Muslims entering our country.

Wibbs wrote:

This idea that intolerance is a one way street and it's all "our" fault is an all too common theme.

Thanks for proving my point .... our intolerance of other cultures must be "their" fault ... :rolleyes:

Karl Hungus

Wicknight wrote:

Hey don't blame me, Fly_agaric brought up the idea of xenophobia driving someone to volience. He brought up the idea of cultures so different it can't help but lead to violence and genocide.

Fly_Agaric is saying xenophobia exists in immigrants, that this can lead to violence therefore we should be careful of letting them in. Therefore xenophobia is a bad thing, that it will cause things to turn to "sh1t" and we will all be running to our gated communities.

It is something we do not want here, we should not let immigrants in because they themselves can be racist, they themselves can be violent and rude to the local population, they themselves can exclude themselves from the local population out of ignorance.

But if xenophobia is such as bad thing, that we do not want as part of our society, why do we tolerate it from Irish people?

His very comments are xenophobic, about cultures being to "different" to ours, that these cultures mixing with ours will lead to violence (seemingly because of history)

Using xenophobia as a reason or justification for keeping people out of our country is nuts. It is not ok for an immigrant to be xenophobic, to be racist, to be violent towards a native Irish people, but it is ok to use xenophobia to justify keeping people out of the country?

:v:

There's so much wrong with that little blurb, that I barely know where to begin...

First of all, since when do we tolerate any xenophobia from Irish people at all? Enda Kelly gets ripped apart left right and centre for his "Racist" joke... And we "Tolerate" xenophobia? Hell, I'd actually like to find out just how many stormfronters have been banned from boards simply because of the fact that they're xenophobic. Some tolerance alright. :rolleyes:

Honestly... We live in possibly the most PC-Barmy country there is! Now there's this idea going around in political correctness that it all falls on us, not to be racist, and as long as we're not, everything will turn out all pink and fluffy no matter how much immigration we face.

The whole point isn't that we should keep people out because they're xenophobic, and that we don't want xenophobia in our society, as that's absurd! To paraphrase Fly, we're only human. No, the point is simply that people other than Irish can be racist too, as generally every Politcally Correct party pretty much fails to see, or accept this.

So I don't think it's a case of saying xenophobia justifies violence, or can drive someone to it. No, I think it's more to do with the idea of so very many Politically Correct parties basically shoving their heads in the sand with reguards to racism that is from someone other than Irish, and what exactly will happen if people continue to ignore it.

People just don't seem to see that racism isn't something confined solely to white people, and frankly, we do tolerate it far too much concerning other cultures. Lets take those two girls, Prussian Blue for example, who sing about white supremacy and such, and all of a sudden we have the whole world up in arms about how wrong it is, yet all the while people like Ice Cube are preaching racial hatred, and nobody gives a fudge.

A great majority of people seem to think that the door doesn't swing both ways, and that aslong as we're all nice and happy concerning people of other races, it's all going to be peachy.

So frankly, I don't think it was said anywhere that we should restrict immigration because we don't want xenophobia in our culture, I think it's said that we should focus on the realities that immigrants can be just as xenophobic as ourselves, and even more so, simply because they don't have Political Correctness breathing down their necks at every second. I think the point that's being put across is that in order for immigration to work, we have to recognise the potential racism that exists in immigrants.

Wicknight wrote:

Do you actually have an issue with the points I am making, or do you just think I shouldn't post here?

Kindly point out where I said anything of the sort.

I have issue with the fact that you're not addressing any points at face value, but rather mis-representing them.

Zombrex

Karl Hungus wrote:

First of all, since when do we tolerate any xenophobia from Irish people at all?

We are tolerating it right now ... Wibbs just gave me a post about how violence, oppression and fundamentalism are part of Muslim culture, and fly_argaic is saying we should limit immigration from cultures that are "too different" from ours. And I won't even bother repeating what Grubber has stated in his posts.

Yet you are attacking my posts ... Do you agree with their position?

Karl Hungus wrote:

To paraphrase Fly, we're only human.

And because we are only human we should tolerate this position?

Karl Hungus wrote:

No, the point is simply that people other than Irish can be racist too, as generally every Politcally Correct party pretty much fails to see, or accept this.

That isn't a reason for or against immigration ... you might not be saying it is, but a lot of posters here are.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Ice Cube are preaching racial hatred, and nobody gives a fudge.

Who doesn't give a "fudge" ... I think there have been a number of campaigns to ban Ice Cubes music, everything from inciting volience toward women, to cop killing.

Karl Hungus wrote:

I think the point that's being put across is that in order for immigration to work, we have to recognise the potential racism that exists in immigrants.

Where has it ever been said that immigrants can't be racist .. or where has it ever been said that immigrants even have to be nice people.

What has been said is that immigration will cause untold trouble if we allow it, the new argument being that even if we are open arms and not racists, they are going to be racist and intolerant of our culture so immigrant and mulitculturalism cannot work.

pete

Karl Hungus wrote:

Lets take those two girls, Prussian Blue for example, who sing about white supremacy and such, and all of a sudden we have the whole world up in arms about how wrong it is, yet all the while people like Ice Cube are preaching racial hatred, and nobody gives a fudge.

The issue with Prussian Blue wasn't that they are white, it was the fact that they are children, singing about white power / racial purity / other violent racist cobblers with the apparent intention to package & market them at other children. Comparing this to "people like Ice Cube" (what, black people?) "preaching racial hatred" is a non-starter. I'm not saying elements of Ice Cube's lyrics are pretty, but it's just not on the same page.

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

And ... there is no reason to believe that there is something about the religion or people that is fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is on the rise all over the world, including America. Yet we don't call for a restriction on Americans entering the country? Maybe it is because we cannot seperate out the idea of muslim and muslim fundamentalist

Specious argument. A far larger proportion of Muslims(especially newly arrived) would have a far greater link and public adherance to their faith than most Americans.

They didn't "drift" towards fundamentalism, the governments were over thrown by the west, and fundamentalists took power. This happens all over the world, it has very little to do with the religion or the culture of the middle east.

Some were/are propped up by the west, some are ex communist states. Regardless the song remains the same.

Ah yes but, your tone seems to suggest that it's all the white european mans fault. Bad Bad European. :rolleyes: It always seems to come back to this, whenever we are talking about anywhere in the world that's a bit screwed up, Africa, the Middle east, blah blah blah. It's always "our" fault.

All over the fecking place ... it says a number of times that it is ok to kill someone to save an "innocent" life. It also says it is ok to kill someone if you cause is in the name of the laws of God. What you think the Christian fundamentalists are just making this sh1t up?

Generally they are, especially in their reading of the old testament.

What are you basing that on? You seem to have a very strange idea of Islam.

The Bible explains in a lot of detail exactly what to do if a man rapes a virgin woman. He is to pay the father compensation and then marry her. Do Christians and Jews agree this is wrong in spite of their religion or because of it?

Of course they think it's wrong. Because most Christian countries have become secularised over time. Most Islamic countries are going the other way. In any event, this isn't a p1ssing contest between religions. Personally, I'd remove religion from the running of a country as far as it's possible. Leave it up to the individual and so long as no laws are broken, I say what ever floats your boat(or ark).

All of which is also in the Bible ....

If it as rooted in the bible and Christians, where do you see veiled Christians walkin the streets? When was the last time you heard of a Christian being stoned to death, When was the last time you heard Christian women being confined to their houses? When was the last time you heard Christian women being hanged for "honour" crimes? When was the last time you heard of public hangings, beheadings, cutting off of hands and stoning in Christian, Hindu or Buddhist countries?

Yet hold on a minute, we don't in force all the stupid things in the Bible. Some of us want to but they are generally ignored. In countries like America they get more of a voice, but we don't let that tar the entire country, or let it stop us from letting Americans into the country.

Again with the specious comparisons to the US.

Yet because the Koran says things (just as nuts as the Bible), and all Muslims are fundamentalists (didn't you know), we should safely assume all muslims follow and believe in this teaching. Despite the fact that we know most Christians, even the very religous, don't

Again, where do you see Christians veiled or otherwise showing outward examples of that fundamentalism?

What if they shouted "F**k the Protestants" .... Of course I doubt an IRA person has ever shouted a religous slur .. And the fact that they are all Catholic has nothing to do with it ... :rolleyes:

My argument still stands. You may chose not to see it, but it does.

Yeah it does .. its in the Bible ..

The Bible is far far more violent than the Koran
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/bible_quran.html

It also contains a number of passages that say voilence is completely justifable if your cause is just.

In fact the Bible is the only religious book in the world (as far as I know) that actually says suicide to cause violence is justifable (little story of Samson killing himself to kill the Philistines)

Maybe you should care to read further along the page of your reference link. Apparently it's twice as violent as the bible(if you want to keep score about such things). In any case your example of Samson is wide of the mark. A. it was about sacrifice, B. Are Christians or Jews expected to follow this example? Does the concept of Jihad even exist in other religions? Nope to both.

We are "not a potential threat", yet our 800 years of violence ended 5 months ok (and some doubt even that)

You might be able to stretch a threat to the UK, but hardly to the rest of the non Irish world. BTW, it was hardly 800 yrs of violence either. Read your history.

So how are we fine, yet Muslims are trouble? That doesn't make sense. We were killing British when Islam was a tiny cult in the Middle East. We have one of the longest history of sustained violent campaigns of any country. Yet we are not a threat, but Muslims are?

Have you any comprehension of history. Islam was far more than a "tiny cult"(I'm sure Muslims love that description) when we were "killing British" as you put it.

It does ... Islam has respected the Christian countries for hundreds of year, yet we keep invading and killing them

Again read your history. That's so crazy a view as I've heard for a long time, regardless of our mutual positions. Have you never heard of the Caliphate? Islam has been just as guilty of expansionism as the "west". Have you ever heard of the Ottoman empire, the Mogul? Before you start with the idea of religious tolerance in such empires, may I remind you that all non muslims in a muslim state have to pay tax(jizya). No point in ruining your taxation monies. There were also large areas of Africa controlled by Islam. Nice little earner it was too, considering the slave trade(long before the bad Europeans took to it too. Long after Europe banned it as well). Islam has respected Christian countries? There has been centuries of antagonism between Islam and the west with both sides at fault. Oh sorry I forgot, it's always our fault. Shame on me. Maybe if one takes one's history from sources like "kingdom of Heaven" movies, you'll have a different view. Ahhh, the unblemished Islam and the bad bad European. Now that's a reason for >:rolleyes:

Islam isn't new ... it is hundreds of years old. So how can there be something in Islam that is making countries in the Middle East more fundamentalist when for years (when Christian countries were) they weren't fundamentalist.

Unreal. For a start it's well over a thousand years old. FYI it started in the 7th century. If I was a Muslim, I'm sure I'd be a bit non plussed at your defence of something you apparently know so little about. Secondly, when was this golden age of non fundamentalist secular Islam? When was this golden age of non Islamic expansionism? Islam was "fundamental" for most of its history, as was Christianity in the west. The west largely grew out of that, beginning with the reformation and the enlightenment all the way to today. No such movements have ever held sway in the Islamic world.

It seems that we have to move away from religion to break free of the shackles of fundamentalism. Islamic countries were "liberal" (relatively speaking) long before we were. It is only recenty that fundamentalism has taken hold in some countries.

I agrre with the break in religion. That said in most other religions the break with the state is significantly easier. As an example "my kingdom is not of this earth", blah blah would be the Christian view. The Budhist and Hindu view would be similar. Islam on the other hand has been inextricably linked with the state and even the legislature. It is part of Islam not added or subtracted too easily.

So if it isn't Islam itself that causes this, then why do we fear Muslims entering our country.

I would contend that it is precisely many features of Islam that cause this. We can only hope that more quiet Muslim minds rule the day(and there is hope there).

Karl Hungus wrote:

A great majority of people seem to think that the door doesn't swing both ways, and that aslong as we're all nice and happy concerning people of other races, it's all going to be peachy.

Much as I don't want to tar Karl Hungus with the brush I may be tarred with, but that line sums it up for me with regard to some of the more woolly headed thinking about "multiculturism"(w66w66 made a very valid point too).

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

So if an Irish person gets violent at a black guy on the bus because of "tribalism", that teh fault of the black guy for being here in the first place .. oh, ok, I get it now ...

It never ceases to amaze me that people complain that immigrants seemingly don't respect our laws, but its ok if an Irish person breaks the law because he is provoked by the idea of immigration.

As other posters have said - you are twisting my words now.
Do you think xenophobia is something that only "caucasian" people suffer from?
I used the word "tribalism" because that was how someone else on the thread (Wibbs, I believe) described it. If it's not approved as correct newspeak by the "Ministry of Truth" I apologise insincerely.

I really don't know how you extracted all that rubbish about the law or black people getting beaten up and blaming the victim from my comments. Everyone should obey all the laws of the country they live in (unless perhaps it is a dictatorship/one party state).

Wicknight wrote:

Why? cause all muslims are extremist whacko? But Polish and Eastern European people are nice and fluffy? Or is it just they look like us so it doesn't upset people as much?

I already got into a very long discussion on the extremist/whacko faction of muslims and whether Islam itself has anything to do with it with another poster so I'll leave that alone. It is a problem of course, which means we should be quite careful about who we admit to the country. As Wibbs already said, during the troubles, the UK "had a point ... to keep a bloody close eye on those with certain "sympathies"".

Part of it is looks (for the more xenophobic among us), but most of it is culture. The reason why immigration from Eastern Europe is less of a problem is as people keep saying again and again and again - there are less differences of all types, both politically correct and less politically correct between us and the polish and Eastern European immigrants.
I work and have worked with several people from different countries around the world. Maybe you have too? I find generally the closer the country is to Ireland geographically (this excludes the ex-UK colonies of course) - the easier it is for us to understand one another and not find our selves at cross purposes over the little things. This has to help if different communities with different customs want to live side by side in peace contributing to one country as suggested by a multicultural ideal. Maybe you've found it too - but don't admit it to yourself.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time as I think you knew what I meant anyway. As Karl Hungus pointed out - it seems like you are trying to bring me to a point where you can say "look, see - reactionary bigot-racist-scum! Now crawl back under your rock and shut-up!"

If that's what you want - then for a quiet life, I'll comply.

Wicknight wrote:

Are you saying the Irish people are prone to genocide when they meet foreign cultures ... are you serious ...???

No that wasn't what I meant. Just generally pointing out that a lot of suffering and death has been involved in the process of cultures mixing, working out their differences, coming to an accomodation. You said:

We should learn from our own history that multiculturalism is not bad, that cultures can exist side by side without destroying each others culture.

I didn't know what you were getting at.
You explained that you were talking about the Irish history of emigration, being discriminated against for a time and then subsequent assimilation into the mainstream culture in the US. I mean, their oiginal culture doesn't really exist as an entity anymore now does it? Unless as a small tributary of US culture.

About the "problems" to do with such processes - you then said Yeah and life didn't end ...

Funnily enough, I wasn't thinking of genocide - merely discrimination (against the Irish) and communal violence (between the black and new Irish immigrant underclasses - "problems" as a result of bigotry on all sides), and the suffering of people who had to live through that but now that you mention it...

Others have mentioned the glorious part our diaspora played in the destruction of the native americans. I also think of the aborigines in Australia, who I'm sure had no great love for the Irish. This particular genocide did not have a proper military/invasion aspect AFAIK and was done by way of a combination of landgrabs by the ex-convicts and "settlers", tit-for-tat violence (who had the better weapons?) and introduced diseases. In both cases was there not a clash of totally incomaptible cultures - settler/farmer vs nomad/hunter, on the same bit of land, at the heart of it?

Wicknight wrote:

(about things turning to shít) And when exactly will that be?...(followed by a pretty lengthy and funny bit of free-form ranting)

I don't know. Maybe never. Depends how high our immigration rate is and who is doing the immigrating IMO. As I said, I don't think the process has really begun here yet.

Your blowing off steam was good for a laugh anyway. There is one problem. The various bits of collected nonsense and dire predictions you go on about aren't my opinions anyway.

Wicknight wrote:

(about my and others "xenophobia")We are tolerating it right now

LOL. Why don't you complain about my "xenophobia" (or perhaps use another more aggressive term if you like) and try and get me banned then?
Please, be my guest and report my posts on this thread! I don't care.

Anyway, just one question. How much immigration do you think Ireland should have? Should the border be free and open and we'll let the "market" decide? When the country becomes enough of a hole again that the people trying to get out either balance or outweigh those trying to get in we'll know we've got it about right.

Wicknight wrote:

And because we are only human we should tolerate this position?

We have to work within the limitations of what we are - not what we think we should be.

Wicknight wrote:

It does ... Islam has respected the Christian countries for hundreds of year, yet we keep invading and killing them

Maybe "Islam" in the abstract has, but there's precious little respect for Christianity or Christian worship (or "shock" - Christians themselves) in many so-called "Islamic" countries.

Wicknight wrote:

Hey don't blame me, Fly_agaric brought up the idea of xenophobia driving someone to volience. He brought up the idea of cultures so different it can't help but lead to violence and genocide.

Fly_Agaric is saying xenophobia exists in immigrants, that this can lead to violence therefore we should be careful of letting them in. Therefore xenophobia is a bad thing, that it will cause things to turn to "sh1t" and we will all be running to our gated communities.

It is something we do not want here, we should not let immigrants in because they themselves can be racist, they themselves can be violent and rude to the local population, they themselves can exclude themselves from the local population out of ignorance.

But if xenophobia is such as bad thing, that we do not want as part of our society, why do we tolerate it from Irish people?

His very comments are xenophobic, about cultures being to "different" to ours, that these cultures mixing with ours will lead to violence (seemingly because of history)

Using xenophobia as a reason or justification for keeping people out of our country is nuts. It is not ok for an immigrant to be xenophobic, to be racist, to be violent towards a native Irish people, but it is ok to use xenophobia to justify keeping people out of the country?

I never said we should have zero immigration. I have pointed out an unpleasant truth about human nature as I see it and the possible consequences of too much immigration of people who are too different occuring too quickly. If you want to abuse me for that, then knock yourself out.

I can't afford to live in a gated community by the way.;)

On an associtated point, why is it that most of the asylum seekers and refugees (~35% of the national total IFIRC) have been placed in flats and houses in north inner city Dublin and a large fraction of the others have been sent to the new suburbs in the west of Dublin (Irish Times a week or so ago)? If DSouth and DL-Rathdown people love the refugees so much, sure wouldn't they be prepared to see a bit more tax money spent to house them in more salubrious areas, their children schooled there etc. You've gotta be kidding me! It's so funny, a cat could laugh at it!

I'm expecting you to come up with some creative insults based on the above paragraph!

Wicknight wrote:

Do you agree with their (grouping me, grubber, Wibbs) position?

Is my position the same as grubber's?

annR

I know this is away from the current conversation and may possibly be classified as 'woolly headed multiculturism' but maybe if we got to know some of these people who are coming into the country it might give us a clue as to what they are actually like.

I don't know about you but I am uncomfortable with the lack of basic human communication with them and the fact that I don't actually know any of them. It feels like a new class has been created or something. We're happy for them to do service jobs so long as they don't try to talk to us and don't draw too much attention to themselves.

Even if no more were allowed in as of tomorrow, what do we do with the ones that are here? Pretend they aren't here? What 'problems' might there be? What are we going to do about it?

That goes for Poles as much as Nigerians for instance - ok we don't mind them as much because they're a bit more similar, but let's face it they're still immigrants aren't they and will face the same attitudes.

I think I'm just bored with life in general here and people talking about traffic and house prices, I miss travelling and enjoy the country becoming a bit more interesting with different people.

cyclopath2001

annR wrote:

I don't know about you but I am uncomfortable with the lack of basic human communication with them and the fact that I don't actually know any of them.

I know a number of people here of different nationalities and faiths, they're all very nice people with decent values. Very interesting to get to know and quite definitely worth the extra effort.

fly_agaric

Wibbs wrote:

Ah yes but, your tone seems to suggest that it's all the white european mans fault. Bad Bad European. It always seems to come back to this, whenever we are talking about anywhere in the world that's a bit screwed up, Africa, the Middle east, blah blah blah. It's always "our" fault.

Yes. Ironically, one of the criticisms levelled at the colonial powers in Africa was the way they divvied up the land between them so that post-independence you ended up with nation states made up of a mosaic different tribes (ethnic groups to Wicknight) who didn't really like each other very much, or felt they had more in common with other people in one of the neighbouring states -> unstable countries and lots of wars.
I know I'm being a bit facetious, but, couldn't they all not just get along after independence!

lazydaisy

First of all its silly to compare Ireland to the US with regards to immigration - different history and different infrastructures. Also - immigrants in the US do have to assimilate, its part of the agreement. That is why so many Irish-Americans are WASPY, as are many Hispanics and Asian_Americans. Thats just what happens. Of course you lose part of your culture, but you know that when you choose to immigrate.

Secondly, Islam was not always friendly to Christianity. That is a blatant lie. A tiny cult in the middle east? Are you for real? Sober up!

If you didnt let Americans into the country you would be losing a huge tourist revenue and loads of Irish people would never see their children or grandchildren.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

Specious argument. A far larger proportion of Muslims(especially newly arrived) would have a far greater link and public adherance to their faith than most Americans.

What are you basing that on?

America is one of the most religious countries in the western world (along with Ireland). 60% of Americans believe in the Genesis description of creation, Noah's Ark and the parting of the Red Sea as all being literal. 40% of Bush's vote was made up of evangelical Christian vote. Not only does religion play a very important part in US social life it effect politics and policy.

Wibbs wrote:

Some were/are propped up by the west, some are ex communist states. Regardless the song remains the same.

The song being that power vacuums and military strength, rather than something inherent in Muslim religion or culture, allow fundamentalists to come to power ...

Wibbs wrote:

Ah yes but, your tone seems to suggest that it's all the white european mans fault. Bad Bad European. :rolleyes:

Sigh ... next you are going to pull a “Grubber” and say I am ashamed to be white.

Why you are bringing "fault" into this I have no idea. Are we the CIA? Are we the American or British governments? Are we even American or British (I'm not, I assume neither are you)

The point is fundamentalism in the Middle East has very real and quite complex causes and circumstances, that extend way beyond the usual anti-immigration/anti-Muslim B.S that Islam and the culture in the Middle East is just prone to fundamentalism.

If everyone in the Middle East were Christian the same things probably would have happened. Saying it is because of their religion is the easy, though completely incorrect, scape-goat answer.

Wibbs wrote:

Generally they are, especially in their reading of the old testament.

Ok, but when the Muslim nut jobs are reading the Koran and blowing up buildings because it tells them to, they are following the literal interpretation?

Do you see the point I am making here ... Christianity is as violent and oppressive a religion as Islam if you want it to be. So why are people scared of Muslims but not Christians?

Wibbs wrote:

this isn't a p1ssing contest between religions.

Yeah I can see that .... :rolleyes:

Wibbs wrote:

When was the last time you heard of a Christian being stoned to death,

Christians don't stone to death their criminals. It is too quick and painless a death. Stoning in Islamic laws is a similar death to beheading, designed to be as quick and painless as possible. It is traditionally used on women because of the Muslim veil they wear means they cannot be beheaded. In Islamic law a trained executioner bashes the woman's head with a large rock in a series of quick succession. Death happens with in 5 – 10 seconds.

Of course things are not so nice if you happen to be a Christian sentenced to death in America. With electrocution death is slow and very painful (in fitting with the “eye for an eye” teachings of the Bible). It can take up to 5 minutes for someone to eventually die. Despite the common assumption electrocution does not stop the human heart, death normally comes from the prisoner drowning from blood building up in the lungs as the lung tissue begins to melt.

Now I would point out that I am totally opposed to capital punishment, for any crime. It is the reflection of a barbaric legal system. But it is equally, if not more, barbaric in America as it is in Muslim countries.

Christians in America have been legally killing people since the formation of the state. Do I hold that against Christian Americans? Yes. Does it mean they should not be allowed enter the country? No. Am I scared that American influence in Ireland will eventually lead to capital punishment being reintroduced in Ireland No, of course not. So the question would be, if we don't worry about this from America, why do we worry about it from Muslims.

Adultery is considered in the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths as a capital crime, just like homosexuality. Because some Christian nut jobs in America call for execution of sinner, or because some nut jobs in Africa call for execution of sinners has very little to do with whether we allow people into our country.

I am against all forms of religious extremism. That doesn't mean Muslims are more prone to fundamentalism, and it doesn't mean we should single them out when restricting who should be allowed into the country.

Wibbs wrote:

When was the last time you heard Christian women being confined to their houses?

When was the last time you saw a woman in a Muslim country wearing a short skirt and low cut top. Cause I saw one yesterday ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4325207.stm

I am not saying the oppression of women is good or fair. It isn't. It is wrong. All religious oppression is wrong. Oppression of anyone is not good.

I am saying that if you exclude one culture or religion you should really exclude them all, because every culture does it in some way or shape. Including our own.

Wibbs wrote:

When was the last time you heard Christian women being hanged for "honour" crimes?

Well it was a man not a woman, but last July a Florida man killed his son because he thought he was gay.

Wibbs wrote:

Again, where do you see Christians veiled or otherwise showing outward examples of that fundamentalism?

What is your fixation with Muslim women wearing a veil? You do know they don't have to and the vast majority do it by choice...

Wibbs wrote:

My argument still stands. You may chose not to see it, but it does.

Your argument was that because the IRA never shouted the exact words "For Jesus" before they blew up a building then the IRA campaign was nothing to do with religion. Do you know how silly that sounds ...

And just so you know, suicide bombers only shout "For Allah" in movies ...

Wibbs wrote:

Does the concept of Jihad even exist in other religions?

That's a joke right.

“Jihad” means “struggle”, or in the context of war “a holy war” ... no your right, no other religion has ever taught of that idea .. .:rolleyes:

Wibbs wrote:

You might be able to stretch a threat to the UK, but hardly to the rest of the non Irish world. BTW, it was hardly 800 yrs of violence either. Read your history.

800 years! How silly of me. You are right ... it was 835 years of violence ...

Wibbs wrote:

Unreal. For a start it's well over a thousand years old.

Is it thousands of years old? Nope .. so it must be hundreds of years old

I am dyslexic and I would freely admit my grammar and spelling are all over the place. But seriously if you want to attack my grammar maybe you could pick something that is actually incorrect ...

Wibbs wrote:

That said in most other religions the break with the state is significantly easier.

Define “easier” ... The emergence of democracy in Europe and America was almost never accomplished with out a number of wars (normally called, strangely enough “revolutions”). The Middle East is rather unique that democracy has gradually emerged without serious blood shed that accompanied European democracy. In fact revolutions are normally organised by external rather than internal factors to remove democracy when it has emerged. After the Persian Constitutional Revolution in 1909 Iranian democracy managed to last till 1953 and Operation Ajax came along ... and we know the rest.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

Secondly, Islam was not always friendly to Christianity.

True, and Christians have never been that friendly to Muslims.

The difference of course is that it is actually written in the Quar'an that Muslims should be friendly to Christians and Jews since they are "People of the Book" (the book being the Bible) ... can we say the same of Christians ... I think a few decrees by a few Popes saying that Muslims should be killed on sight in Europe might not be interpreted as particularly "friendly"

lazydaisy wrote:

A tiny cult in the middle east? Are you for real? Sober up!

Ummm ... you didn't actually read my post did you ... :rolleyes:

lazydaisy wrote:

If you didnt let Americans into the country you would be losing a huge tourist revenue and loads of Irish people would never see their children or grandchildren.

True but it is worth it. We would be saving our society from religious extremism that supports executions, book burning, violence against homosexuals, oppresson of women, the oppression of science and law. These people wish to create a society based on oppressive religious laws that undermine our freedom and civil liberities.

Sorry but Christians from America are just too extreme and fundamentalist for us to let in to try and take over here and spread their fundamentalism here

(BTW swap Christian for Muslim and America for Middle East above and you might get the point I am making ...)

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

Do you think xenophobia is something that only "caucasian" people suffer from?

Nope, and I would love to know where you got that idea from ... I think that the threat of xenophobia to discourage immigration is a pretty blantant form of xenophobia itself.

Neither the fact that some of us are xenophobic or that some immigrants are xenophobic is a justification for restricting immigration to a certain set of not too "different" people.

fly_agaric wrote:

It is a problem of course, which means we should be quite careful about who we admit to the country.

Yes but the position amount anti-immigration people here seems to be that being careful means "only non-muslims" ... can you not see the problem in that? You yourself have gone to great pains to explain that Muslim people are in fact too different from us to be able to live and work in Ireland without, naturally, causing problems.

fly_agaric wrote:

The reason why immigration from Eastern Europe is less of a problem is as people keep saying again and again and again - there are less differences of all types, both politically correct and less politically correct between us and the polish and Eastern European immigrants.

But as I have said about 5 times if you don't know the person you have no idea what they are like or what their culture is like. Their culture has no effect on you. So why object to them going about their business?

fly_agaric wrote:

the easier it is for us to understand one another and not find our selves at cross purposes over the little things.

I work with both Eastern European and Muslim (from Britian and Middle East) people at work. Never found that. They are equally different. The only person I found I could not get along with in work was a guy from Cork.

In fact the biggest problem/difference what has ever come up at work with non-Irish people was that one of the Eastern European people was vegaterian.

fly_agaric wrote:

I don't know why I'm wasting my time as I think you knew what I meant anyway.

Actually I am very confused .. you seem to be saying the same thing as Grubber and Wibbs (the Muslims will lead to trouble and should not be let in), yet you keep retreating back behind the argument "but its not me, its just human nature, I have nothing against them, but some people do and that natural, so its best we limit how many come in"

At least Wibbs and Grubber stand behind their arguments.

fly_agaric wrote:

No that wasn't what I meant. Just generally pointing out that a lot of suffering and death has been involved in the process of cultures mixing, working out their differences, coming to an accomodation.

You are doing it again ... you bring up genocide in a discussion about immigration and multiculturalism in Ireland and now you retreat back with the "well I am just saying sometimes it causes conflict" ... why are you mentioning it if it isn't relivent to the discussion?

fly_agaric wrote:

I didn't know what you were getting at.

I am getting at the fact that the Irish spread to every corner of the world and didn't destroy the native culture, yet retained a sense of "Irishness"

fly_agaric wrote:

I mean, their oiginal culture doesn't really exist as an entity anymore now does it? Unless as a small tributary of US culture.

The British French and Spanish decendence were in America long before the Irish. And they hated the Irish at the time. They believed the Irish culture was awful and would destroy their new Republic. They were wrong ..

fly_agaric wrote:

In both cases was there not a clash of totally incomaptible cultures - settler/farmer vs nomad/hunter, on the same bit of land, at the heart of it?

And now you are talking about genocide again ... when the Muslims start a genocide in Ireland get back to me ...

fly_agaric wrote:

There is one problem. The various bits of collected nonsense and dire predictions you go on about aren't my opinions anyway.

What is your opinon then ...

Do you just suggest and throw in things like genocide of native people (seriously, wtf) and then retreat saying something along the lines of "well I'm just saying, it isn't my opinion, I don't care about immigration, I'm just saying" ...

fly_agaric wrote:

Anyway, just one question. How much immigration do you think Ireland should have?

As much as it can sustain ... and we won't know that till we do it .. predicting how much our culture can tolerate Muslims is nonsense.

fly_agaric wrote:

Should the border be free and open and we'll let the "market" decide?

No .. but I don't think we should restrict immigration into this country based on where you are coming from or your religion ...

fly_agaric wrote:

When the country becomes enough of a hole again

Yes, now I can see how your position is completely different than Wibbs and Grubbers ... :rolleyes:

fly_agaric wrote:

We have to work within the limitations of what we are - not what we think we should be.

And what are we? Racist? Xenophobic? Tribalist?

fly_agaric wrote:

If DSouth and DL-Rathdown people love the refugees so much, sure wouldn't they be prepared to see a bit more tax money spent to house them in more salubrious areas, their children schooled there etc.

LOL ... are you sure you aren't Grubber on a different nick? So many stereotypes in just one sentence, from bleeding heart liberals all living in Dublin South, to scrounging asylum seekers, to refugee children shouldn't be mixed with "Irish" children .. where to begin ...

fly_agaric wrote:

Is my position the same as grubber's?

At this point I am beginning to suspect you are the same person ...

lazydaisy

60% of Americans do not believe in all that fiction you pronounce from the Bible. Get real and stop making stuff up. Havent you read about the boy who cried wolf?

Having been born to Irish immigrants in America and sent to Catholic schools in NYC, technically I am one of those people you think should not be allowed in the country because I want to undermine the civil liberites of the native Irish ? That's funny. And on top of you'd think not allowing Irish people to see their kids and grandkids, brothers and sisters, would be worth it. Talk about fascist and cruel. That is just mean. Wow. Im impressed with that level of hatefulness.

You clearly have no understanding of the immigrant experience despite your rantings of how sympathetic you are.

It would be really nice of people who commented on the Bush electorate showed some undserstanding of how the electoral college works.

Ireland already and still has its civil liberties under lock and key thanks to religious oppression {the RC church/the Irish Taliban}

Islam started in the 6th century. It is thousands of years old.

Karl Hungus

Wicknight wrote:

We are tolerating it right now ... Wibbs just gave me a post about how violence, oppression and fundamentalism are part of Muslim culture, and fly_argaic is saying we should limit immigration from cultures that are "too different" from ours. And I won't even bother repeating what Grubber has stated in his posts.

I'd disagree... First of all, I don't see any of the posts by Fly or Wibbs as xenophobic, therefor there's nothing for me to tolerate as such. You on the other hand, are interpreting their posts very selectively, but no, you are not tolerating them, you're countering them at every step, and being vehemently dishonest about what their posting, shoving words in their mouth, so you are certainly not tolerating any such thing. It's about as tolerant as openly critisizing a Nigerian (For example) and reguardless of what he says, you're claiming he's saying he's a drug dealer.

Wicknight wrote:

Yet you are attacking my posts ... Do you agree with their position?

Do you choose to interpret my posts as an "Attack" on yours?

Do you see everything in such black & white terms that simply because I'm not agreeing with you, I'm "One of them"?

Wicknight wrote:

And because we are only human we should tolerate this position?

Again, nothing of the sort was said or implied, and to suggest otherwise is a willfull misrepresentation.

I won't go back on myself and attempt to explain in terms that cannot be twisted, because you're quite frankly twisting everything, and if you want to argue that point, go back and read what is actually said, and take it at face value, not whatever spin you want to put on it.

Wicknight wrote:

That isn't a reason for or against immigration ... you might not be saying it is, but a lot of posters here are.

So... You're calling me on something that I "Might not be saying"?

And frankly, no... I don't think a lot of posters here are saying anything of the sort.

Wicknight wrote:

Who doesn't give a "fudge" ... I think there have been a number of campaigns to ban Ice Cubes music, everything from inciting volience toward women, to cop killing.

Specifically here on boards, I don't think I've ever seen any outrage towards him at all. And looking at things on a global scale, you can go into any music store and pick up an Ice Cube CD with no bother, so what has any campaign you're talking about accomplished?

Wicknight wrote:

Where has it ever been said that immigrants can't be racist .. or where has it ever been said that immigrants even have to be nice people.

What has been said is that immigration will cause untold trouble if we allow it, the new argument being that even if we are open arms and not racists, they are going to be racist and intolerant of our culture so immigrant and mulitculturalism cannot work.

And once again, I don't think anything of the sort has been said, rather you're seemingly trying to pass off your interpreations as fact. I think what's been suggested is that immigration and multiculturalism cannot work under the current status quo where political correctness is solely aimed at the Irish, and if we want it to work, then we need to address issues of racism in immigrants, rather than having everything falling on the shoulders of the Irish, quite unrealistically.

As for where it has been said that immigrants can't be racist. Take a look at organizations like Residents Against Racism, who are constantly shouting about "State Racism" and all the Irish racists, yet when have we ever seen RAR shout down a racist Nigerian, or Polish person? Many such people like those involved with RAR, or Anti Fascist Action, or other groups, or just individuals with similar views, are certainly acting as if no immigrant can ever be racist, and there is no such establishment that combats racism in any other insurgant culture.

pete

lazydaisy wrote:

60% of Americans do not believe in all that fiction you pronounce from the Bible.

From a survey undertaken by the University of Michigan:

Percentage of Americans who said the following statement came closest to describing their feelings about the Bible: 1990 2000
The Bible is the actual Word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word 45% 35%
The Bible is the Word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, word for word 41% 49%
The Bible is a book written by men and is not the Word of God 12% 12%
Don't Know, Other 2% 3%

pete

Karl Hungus wrote:

Take a look at organizations like Residents Against Racism, who are constantly shouting about "State Racism" and all the Irish racists, yet when have we ever seen RAR shout down a racist Nigerian, or Polish person? Many such people like those involved with RAR, or Anti Fascist Action, or other groups, or just individuals with similar views, are certainly acting as if no immigrant can ever be racist, and there is no such establishment that combats racism in any other insurgant culture.

So... because you haven't seen these groups criticising racism originating in Polish / Nigerian communities, you're saying this means they don't acknowledge that it might exist? That's quite a logical leap there.

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

The song being that power vacuums and military strength, rather than something inherent in Muslim religion or culture, allow fundamentalists to come to power ...

Why religious fundamentalists? Why not secular military juntas? Why not democracies(after the usual civil wars etc). Why does it always go back to religion?

Sigh ... next you are going to pull a “Grubber” and say I am ashamed to be white.

I suspect if either of us are pulling a Grubber, then a quick dash to the personal issues forum is on the cards.

Ok, but when the Muslim nut jobs are reading the Koran and blowing up buildings because it tells them to, they are following the literal interpretation?

There is certainly more scope inherent in Islam for military action than in almost all other religions. It was started and spread by military action for a start.

Do you see the point I am making here ... Christianity is as violent and oppressive a religion as Islam if you want it to be. So why are people scared of Muslims but not Christians?

The fact is its not and neither are any of the other faiths to nearly the same extent as Islam.

Yeah I can see that .... :rolleyes:

See what you like. I'm at best an atheist with agnostic leanings.

Christians don't stone to death their criminals. It is too quick and painless a death. Stoning in Islamic laws is a similar death to beheading, designed to be as quick and painless as possible. It is traditionally used on women because of the Muslim veil they wear means they cannot be beheaded. In Islamic law a trained executioner bashes the woman's head with a large rock in a series of quick succession. Death happens with in 5 – 10 seconds.

You really don't know what you speak of. Seriously, a little more research and a little less self righteousness in the pursuit of your cause would serve you better. Regardless of this or any other argument, stoning is considered among the most painful ways to die imaginable. Every single thing you typed in that paragraph is wrong. No ifs, buts or maybes. In stoning the stones used must expressly not be large enough to cause death instantly nor small enough to be pebbles. This definition is designed to cause the most pain possible in the condemned. It is not only for women. Both men and women are buried, the man to the waist and the woman to the neck. If either escape before sentance is carried out they are free to go.(unlikely, but more likely for the man). It is also not carried out by a trained executioner, but by a group of people.

Some reference material might help;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#In_Islam
http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE130632005

The relevant passage;
"Methods of execution such as stoning, which are specifically designed to cause the victim grievous pain before death are of particular concern to Amnesty International, as the most extreme and cruel form of torture."

Of course things are not so nice if you happen to be a Christian sentenced to death in America. With electrocution death is slow and very painful (in fitting with the “eye for an eye” teachings of the Bible). It can take up to 5 minutes for someone to eventually die. Despite the common assumption electrocution does not stop the human heart, death normally comes from the prisoner drowning from blood building up in the lungs as the lung tissue begins to melt.

Did I say I agree with the death penalty? Your argument is all over the place here. Many Christian groups in America are precisely the ones campaigning against the death penalty as they consider it against the teachings of Jesus.

Now I would point out that I am totally opposed to capital punishment, for any crime. It is the reflection of a barbaric legal system. But it is equally, if not more, barbaric in America as it is in Muslim countries.

Again did I say it's anymore or less barbaric? No. What's your problem with American anyway. It seems to be your catchall for Christian society.

Adultery is considered in the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths as a capital crime, just like homosexuality. Because some Christian nut jobs in America call for execution of sinner, or because some nut jobs in Africa call for execution of sinners has very little to do with whether we allow people into our country.

I seem to remember the Jesus bloke stopping a stoning for adultery.

When was the last time you saw a woman in a Muslim country wearing a short skirt and low cut top. Cause I saw one yesterday ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4325207.stm

Indeed, fair play to them. I notice it's the Christian nutters in the US that are putting pressure on these countries to allow women the vote.

I am not saying the oppression of women is good or fair. It isn't. It is wrong. All religious oppression is wrong. Oppression of anyone is not good.

We agree on one thing anyway. No arguments there.

I am saying that if you exclude one culture or religion you should really exclude them all, because every culture does it in some way or shape. Including our own.

Not to nearly the same extent.

Well it was a man not a woman, but last July a Florida man killed his son because he thought he was gay.

Did Jesus, Buddha, Krishna whoever instruct him to do so? Good example anyway, now look at the record of human rights abuse under Islamic rule.

What is your fixation with Muslim women wearing a veil? You do know they don't have to and the vast majority do it by choice...

If they consider themselves Muslims they do, I'm afraid. The Quran and Hadeeth are quite clear on veiling. Only the face and hands are to be seen. If you consider it as a choice when all around you see it as a religious obligation, then fair enough. Ever hear of societal pressure?

Your argument was that because the IRA never shouted the exact words "For Jesus" before they blew up a building then the IRA campaign was nothing to do with religion. Do you know how silly that sounds ...

Not silly at all. Find me a passage in the Gospels(catholic or protestant) that say kill those of another faith, or examples where Jesus calls the faithful to subjugate other faiths till there remains none but his. You can do the same for Buddha or any other faith founder you chose. The IRA and their ilk were condemned from every pulpit in the land. Where do most of the Islamic terrorists get their training? Religious schools. See the diff yet?

And just so you know, suicide bombers only shout "For Allah" in movies ...

If you're ever on a plane and someone shouts "Allah wu Akbar", see how quick your cheeks clench. I don't think someone shouting "praise the lord" will have a tenth of the effect.

That's a joke right.

“Jihad” means “struggle”, or in the context of war “a holy war” ... no your right, no other religion has ever taught of that idea .. .:rolleyes:

Well Jihad does mean struggle. Specifically in the cause of Allah. It has many meanings by some accounts, personal jihad against the self, jihad against the unbelievers, hypocrites and corrupt Muslims. Regardless of the various types, jihad as a concept has always had strong roots in Holy war. Specifically holy war against the unbelievers. Most of the Prophets early success in spreading the faith came about through "holy war". This military jihad has a long history.

Is it thousands of years old? Nope .. so it must be hundreds of years old

I am dyslexic and I would freely admit my grammar and spelling are all over the place. But seriously if you want to attack my grammar maybe you could pick something that is actually incorrect ...

I attacked(if you chose to see it like that) your chronology. Your grammar and spelling are fine TBH. In fact as you're dyslexic, I tip my hat to you. I wouldn't have noticed, which is the best compliment(just an aside, mutual ranting resume).

The Middle East is rather unique that democracy has gradually emerged without serious blood shed that accompanied European democracy. In fact revolutions are normally organised by external rather than internal factors to remove democracy when it has emerged. After the Persian Constitutional Revolution in 1909 Iranian democracy managed to last till 1953 and Operation Ajax came along ... and we know the rest.

True. Afghanistan would be another one. Obviously it's not all bad, but the religious nutters seem to be gaining serious ground.

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

In fact the biggest problem/difference what has ever come up at work with non-Irish people was that one of the Eastern European people was vegaterian.

Do NOT get me started on bloody vegetarians. Coming over here and stealing our lettuce. The tomato is holy my arse. Now that's a bunch who need some manners put on them....

The difference of course is that it is actually written in the Quar'an that Muslims should be friendly to Christians and Jews since they are "People of the Book" (the book being the Bible)

Only the "nice" PR bits do. They are outnumbered by the far more aggressive passages that put things quite differently. The "people of the book" are to be subdued and forced to pay tax. The pagans suffer a far worse run of it. The Jews in particular are singled out for dire warnings and punishment. One passage even has the very rocks and trees themselves crying out for them to be killed. Try reading past the wishy washy hype. How do you think these mad mullahs can convince people of these things if these opinions are not in the religious texts, repeated over and over? Their audience are well versed in the words of the Quran and Hadeeth. Surely they might raise doubts if its as peaceful a faith as some profess? The Quran is written in plain language for all to see. Look at the changes wrought in Christianity and Europe when the gospels were made available in the vernacular. People could see that the church were taking the p!ss in many ways. Hasn't happened in Islam. Ever wonder why?

True but it is worth it. We would be saving our society from religious extremism that supports executions, book burning, violence against homosexuals, oppresson of women, the oppression of science and law. These people wish to create a society based on oppressive religious laws that undermine our freedom and civil liberities.

Sorry but Christians from America are just too extreme and fundamentalist for us to let in to try and take over here and spread their fundamentalism here

(BTW swap Christian for Muslim and America for Middle East above and you might get the point I am making ...)

Again with the US comparisons. If as you say that most Americans believe in the literal word of the Bible, how do you explain America itself. Hardly the most "Christian" of countries. Prayer banned in schools, Gay rights, Womens rights, freedom of speech, one of the most scientific countries on the planet(they went to the moon you know), with a mostly laudable constitution the envy of many a land. Hmmmm Ok. Now look at the Islamic countries, Now you compare and contrast and see the point I'm making. Silly comparison, non?

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

If as you say that most Americans believe in the literal word of the Bible, how do you explain America itself. Hardly the most "Christian" of countries.

It is the most "Christian" of western countries by a long way.

Wibbs wrote:

Prayer banned in schools

Which has faced over 100 legal challanges and campaigns this year alone from the Christian Right.

Wibbs wrote:

one of the most scientific countries on the planet(they went to the moon you know)

That is the only western country to restrict the teaching of evolution

Wibbs wrote:

a mostly laudable constitution the envy of many a land.

Hold on a minute .. I thought we were talking about the rise of fundamentalism here ...

Wibbs wrote:

Obviously it's not all bad, but the religious nutters seem to be gaining serious ground.

I pointed out a number of times that Middle Eastern countries were democracies when Americans were still not letting black people to vote. But I was shot down with "yes but look at them NOW" arguments ...

but its ok to ignore the huge rise of Christian fundamentalism in America since the late 70s and focus on their constituation written over 200 years ago that defines sepeartion of church and state and which has faced a torrent of legal challanges and effects to change it in the last few years from the Christian right?

So make up your mind please. Are we talking about modern religious fundamentalism or not?