Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Moslems in Western Society
Comments
-
peakpilgrim wrote: »Hi
Is there a problem with Moslems adapting to Western Society and what can be done to assist Moslems to do so?
Yes there is.
Nothing really. Islam has been warring against the West for near 1400 years. After their crushing defeat at Second Vienna (Sept 11, 1683) the were reduced to piracy in the Med until thie recent spate of attacks on the West marked their return. Alas, the West is fractured and lost in narcissistic belly button gazing introspection. We'll see if the West wins this one0 -
Yes there is.
Nothing really. Islam has been warring against the West for near 1400 years. After their crushing defeat at Second Vienna (Sept 11, 1683) the were reduced to piracy in the Med until thie recent spate of attacks on the West marked their return. Alas, the West is fractured and lost in narcissistic belly button gazing introspection. We'll see if the West wins this one
If you want to view the world in those terms, then the "West" has been at war with everyone else on the planet for just over 2000 years then, when the Roman empire first began.
Also, plenty of Western countries hired pirates, the British were well known for this for example.
As for the recent attacks, well look no further than the war of aggression that was the Iraq war, launched to find imaginary WMD's.
Every single thing you said, is easily turned around and can be squeezed in to the same simple frame.0 -
wes: I'm in total agreement with you on America. The difference between America and Europe is that discussions about faith are welcomed in the public sphere instead of frowned upon. The State has no role in religion, and religion has no direct role in the State. Rather the policy seem to be, to encourage people to set up their own stall and allow whoever wants to join whatever religion to join. In Europe that kind of model does not currently exist.
Very good article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/18/religion-america-first-amendment
Some people seem more interested in restricting religion than actually freeing society up to have a free choice.0 -
Some people seem more interested in restricting religion than actually freeing society up to have a free choice.
Its true that this is happening to an extent in Europe (France trying to ban the burqa) but the biggest group, by far, who can be accused of doing this is the muslims themselves in their own countries. If muslims cant allow people in their own countries to freely choose their religion, is it not hypocritical for them to expect the same in other countries?0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Its true that this is happening to an extent in Europe (France trying to ban the burqa) but the biggest group, by far, who can be accused of doing this is the muslims themselves in their own countries. If muslims cant allow people in their own countries to freely choose their religion, is it not hypocritical for them to expect the same in other countries?
This is true, but if we are to claim the moral high ground on issues of religious freedom we shouldn't be too concerned with comparing life here with life in Saudi Arabia, we should always aim for better.
BTW, this doesn't just concern Muslims, it concerns all people of faith.0 -
Advertisement
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »Its true that this is happening to an extent in Europe (France trying to ban the burqa) but the biggest group, by far, who can be accused of doing this is the muslims themselves in their own countries. If muslims cant allow people in their own countries to freely choose their religion, is it not hypocritical for them to expect the same in other countries?
So Muslims who live in Europe are responsible for the actions of Muslims in other countries?
I honestly fail to see the hypocrisy of a Muslim in Europe complaining about say the Burqa ban in France. Its hardly there fault that some of the co-religionists elsewhere are acting like idiots now is it? It would also be equally silly for someone of French descent living in say Algeria or Egypt to be held in anyway responsible for the proposed Burqa ban.
Also, there are plenty of Muslims, who were born and lived in Europe all there lives, so a 3rd or 4th generation French Muslim of Algerian descent (or a native convert), is hardly responsible for the actions of some dictator in Algeria and has every right to complain about the proposed Burqa ban just like any other French citizen. Basically France is there country and not Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or whatever other place.
Now, Muslims in other countries where they don't have equal rights for all Religions are in no position to complain, but if Europe starts to emulate them, then they are very much in the same position.0 -
wes: I'm in total agreement with you on America. The difference between America and Europe is that discussions about faith are welcomed in the public sphere instead of frowned upon. The State has no role in religion, and religion has no direct role in the State. Rather the policy seem to be, to encourage people to set up their own stall and allow whoever wants to join whatever religion to join. In Europe that kind of model does not currently exist.
Very good article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/18/religion-america-first-amendment
Some people seem more interested in restricting religion than actually freeing society up to have a free choice.
From a personal freedom stand point, the US gets a lot of things right and there is a lot that we here in Europe (and elsewhere) can learn from them and of course this applies the other way round as well.0 -
So Muslims who live in Europe are responsible for the actions of Muslims in other countries?
I honestly fail to see the hypocrisy of a Muslim in Europe complaining about say the Burqa ban in France. Its hardly there fault that some of the co-religionists elsewhere are acting like idiots now is it? It would also be equally silly for someone of French descent living in say Algeria or Egypt to be held in anyway responsible for the proposed Burqa ban.
While the european muslims are not responsible for what other muslims do, the hypocrisy is there because they share the same beliefs. The belief systems that govern muslim ruled countries are the same that rule over eurpean muslims lives, and while you can say the european muslims may not be as fundamentalist as some of the middle eastern contries, even the "secular" muslim countries are notorious for having poor human rights in relation to non-muslims (eg Hindus in Malaysia).
Basically, what I'm saying is that if european muslims where running europe according to their beliefs, I don't think that they would allow other religious ideals an equal foothold. (NB, Its not that I don't believe that muslims should be allowed live anyway they want in a secular country, they should, I just see it as hypocritical for them to demand it when if the tables where turned, they wouldn't allow other people their religious freedom of choice)Also, there are plenty of Muslims, who were born and lived in Europe all there lives, so a 3rd or 4th generation French Muslim of Algerian descent (or a native convert), is hardly responsible for the actions of some dictator in Algeria and has every right to complain about the proposed Burqa ban just like any other French citizen. Basically France is there country and not Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or whatever other place.
But islam is their religion. And when even supposedly secularist islamic nations completely disregard freedom of religious choice for non muslims and even ex-muslims, then I see some hypocrisy in their complaints when they are tied to these other countries by having the vast majority of the same beliefs.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »While the european muslims are not responsible for what other muslims do, the hypocrisy is there because they share the same beliefs. The belief systems that govern muslim ruled countries are the same that rule over eurpean muslims lives, and while you can say the european muslims may not be as fundamentalist as some of the middle eastern contries, even the "secular" muslim countries are notorious for having poor human rights in relation to non-muslims (eg Hindus in Malaysia).
You will find that most 3rd world countries have miserable Human Rights records e.g. Indian Administered Kashmir. So should we hold all Indians as hypocrites if they complain about the treatment of Hindu's in Malaysia then? Or how about American's, the US has funded terrorists the world over, so are they hypocrites when they complains about the likes of Al Qaeda? If we are to apply your standard to all, then everyone is bascially a hypocrite.Mark Hamill wrote: »Basically, what I'm saying is that if european muslims where running europe according to their beliefs, I don't think that they would allow other religious ideals an equal foothold. (NB, Its not that I don't believe that muslims should be allowed live anyway they want in a secular country, they should, I just see it as hypocritical for them to demand it when if the tables where turned, they wouldn't allow other people their religious freedom of choice)
So there being hypocrtical, based on something they would hypotetcially do? Sorry, thats a massive stretch imho.Mark Hamill wrote: »But islam is their religion. And when even supposedly secularist islamic nations completely disregard freedom of religious choice for non muslims and even ex-muslims, then I see some hypocrisy in their complaints when they are tied to these other countries by having the vast majority of the same beliefs.
Again, the Muslims in Europe are not responsible for these things and as such are not hypocrtical. If we are to apply your standard fairly then pretty much every single person on this planet is a hypocrite.
Irish people are now hypocrites if we complain about Religous fundamentalists, as we have a blasphemy law, if we are to adhere to your standard. Basically, what your saying about Muslims, should equally apply to you and me. Btw, it doesn't matter if you disagree with it, as with the standard you apply to Muslims, you don't consider whether they would disagree with such actions or not. After all, we are Irish and we did elect are government.0 -
You will find that most 3rd world countries have miserable Human Rights records e.g. Indian Administered Kashmir. So should we hold all Indians as hypocrites if they complain about the treatment of Hindu's in Malaysia then? Or how about American's, the US has funded terrorists the world over, so are they hypocrites when they complains about the likes of Al Qaeda? If we are to apply your standard to all, then everyone is bascially a hypocrite.
Indians all around the world are only connected by nationality (likewise americans). What an indian born in another country does is no refelction on any other indian as they won necessarily hold to the same ethics and ideals. Muslims, however, are connected by the same set of ideals, what one muslim does is based on the ideals that are held by all and while there are a few black sheep who go way further thatn rest would withe these ideals, even the moderate ones hold to an incredibly biased and skewered world view.So there being hypocrtical, based on something they would hypotetcially do? Sorry, thats a massive stretch imho.
Why? Do you think if muslims somehow just started ruling western european countries, even the muslims who were born in those countries, that they wouldn't rule under islamic law?Again, the Muslims in Europe are not responsible for these things and as such are not hypocrtical. If we are to apply your standard fairly then pretty much every single person on this planet is a hypocrite.
I never said they are responsible, just that they are hypocritical because its their very own ideals that are being used in islamic countries and commiting the same crimes against non-muslims that they are complaining about being committed against themselves.Irish people are now hypocrites if we complain about Religous fundamentalists, as we have a blasphemy law, if we are to adhere to your standard. Basically, what your saying about Muslims, should equally apply to you and me. Btw, it doesn't matter if you disagree with it, as with the standard you apply to Muslims, you don't consider whether they would disagree with such actions or not.
What I'm saying about Muslims should apply to all people who hold to the same ideals and beliefs. If Ireland was not a secular country, then we would be hypocritical complaining about fundamentalism when we have our very own fundamentalist law, however, Ireland is secular, nearly everyone has complained about the law.After all, we are Irish and we did elect are government.
The people who voted for the current government are hypocritical for complaining about them.0 -
Advertisement
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »Indians all around the world are only connected by nationality (likewise americans). What an indian born in another country does is no refelction on any other indian as they won necessarily hold to the same ethics and ideals. Muslims, however, are connected by the same set of ideals, what one muslim does is based on the ideals that are held by all and while there are a few black sheep who go way further thatn rest would withe these ideals, even the moderate ones hold to an incredibly biased and skewered world view.
So all those Hindu God statues in Indian government buildings are figments of my imgination? Basically, India is secular depending on who is in charge in a particular state, if a Hindu Nationalist party is running the show, then Dalits, or anyone else will have a hard time.
Seems to me you have a ridiculous double standard going imho.Mark Hamill wrote: »Why? Do you think if muslims somehow just started ruling western european countries, even the muslims who were born in those countries, that they wouldn't rule under islamic law?
So Bosnia, Albania, Turkey and Kosova are all ruled under Islamic law?!?Mark Hamill wrote: »I never said they are responsible, just that they are hypocritical because its their very own ideals that are being used in islamic countries and commiting the same crimes against non-muslims that they are complaining about being committed against themselves.
Why does this only apply to Muslims? Why not to everyone else? If you believe in Secular Democracy and the US (a secular democracy) decides to engage in a war of aggression, then there all hypocrites right? They must share some common beliefs?
Basically, you are assuming all Muslims the world over, only ever complain about there own lot. I must have imagined those candle light vigils in Iran, for the victims of 9/11 (a country the US has threatened to attack numerous times and got rid of there secular democratic government), and feck there were even some in occuiped East Jerusalem, Palestine (a place where the US has provided billions to the people murdering Palestinians and stealing Palestinian land). Western News would rather show the few nutters who were celebrating and ignore the candle light vigils as per usual. You seem to think that Muslims have no empathy for no one else, which is just bizar.Mark Hamill wrote: »What I'm saying about Muslims should apply to all people who hold to the same ideals and beliefs. If Ireland was not a secular country, then we would be hypocritical complaining about fundamentalism when we have our very own fundamentalist law, however, Ireland is secular, nearly everyone has complained about the law.
Secular countries do not have blasphemy laws. Its goes against the whole concept imho, at best we are quasi-secular.
Also, as I pointed out before, whether people in Ireland disagree or not is irrelevant by your standard, as you aren't bothered by this possibility with Muslims.Mark Hamill wrote: »The people who voted for the current government are hypocritical for complaining about them.
No, by your standard every single one of us are hypocrites, as we all will vaguely agree on this whole concept of Ireland.0 -
So all those Hindu God statues in Indian government buildings are figments of my imgination? Basically, India is secular depending on who is in charge in a particular state, if a Hindu Nationalist party is running the show, then Dalits, or anyone else will have a hard time.
Seems to me you have a ridiculous double standard going imho.
I think you are having a hard time understanding my point. My point was that people who share the same belief systems are far more connected than people who share the same birth place. Someone being american or indian (ar anything else)is a result of being born there, so the acts others from america, india, etc are no reflection on them. However if that someone is a muslim, hindu or any other religion, they are that religion out of choice and the acts of the vast majority of other people of that religion(not necessarily the fundamentalists mind) do reflect on them.So Bosnia, Albania, Turkey and Kosova are all ruled under Islamic law?!?
I said western europe, you know the part where muslims are demanding equal rights. Here's an article describing how Irish muslims want ireland to be ruled under shariah law.Why does this only apply to Muslims? Why not to everyone else?
Again it applies to any group of people who hold to same ideologies. It doesn't apply to groups of people purely for being born in the same country because being born in the same country doesn't automatically imply that the ideologies are the same.If you believe in Secular Democracy and the US (a secular democracy) decides to engage in a war of aggression, then there all hypocrites right? They must share some common beliefs?
Its not just some common beliefs, its the extent of the beliefs. Keeping to a secular democracy is not like keeping to a religion. Besides, america didn't go to war out of any ideologies that come from its secular democracy.Basically, you are assuming all Muslims the world over, only ever complain about there own lot. I must have imagined those candle light vigils in Iran, for the victims of 9/11 (a country the US has threatened to attack numerous times and got rid of there secular democratic government), and feck there were even some in occuiped East Jerusalem, Palestine (a place where the US has provided billions to the people murdering Palestinians and stealing Palestinian land). Western News would rather show the few nutters who were celebrating and ignore the candle light vigils as per usual. You seem to think that Muslims have no empathy for no one else, which is just bizar.
I never said individual muslims have no empathy for others, the laws of islam however do not.Secular countries do not have blasphemy laws. Its goes against the whole concept imho, at best we are quasi-secular.
I agree it goes against the concept, apparently Ahern acknowledges this but claims that its a result from having a constitution (written before ireland became secular) which makes provisions for it and the country not really being able to afford a referendum to remove it though (its a weak excuse I know, but secularism is slow moving in this country, there are plenty of kinks to work through)No, by your standard every single one of us are hypocrites, as we all will vaguely agree on this whole concept of Ireland.
No it depends on the scope and complexity of the ideologies that people hold to.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »I think you are having a hard time understanding my point. My point was that people who share the same belief systems are far more connected than people who share the same birth place. Someone being american or indian (ar anything else)is a result of being born there, so the acts others from america, india, etc are no reflection on them. However if that someone is a muslim, hindu or any other religion, they are that religion out of choice and the acts of the vast majority of other people of that religion(not necessarily the fundamentalists mind) do reflect on them.
Thats utter craziness..
The mass slaughter of Muslims carried out by Christians in Bosnia in the 1990's do not, and should not reflect on me.
The actions of the shankill butchers do not, and should not, reflect on nigerian protestants.
The idea that they do is insane.
Thats a poorly worded article, but, if a majority of people demand a law, should it not be enacted.Mark Hamill wrote: »I said western europe, you know the part where muslims are demanding equal rights. Here's an article describing how Irish muslims want ireland to be ruled under shariah law.
Think of abortion when considering your answer.
Does the anti-abortion will of the majority of Irish people outweigh the freedom of a womanto decide that she simply does not want a baby?
Which is more democratic in this isle of ours?Mark Hamill wrote: »Again it applies to any group of people who hold to same ideologies. It doesn't apply to groups of people purely for being born in the same country because being born in the same country doesn't automatically imply that the ideologies are the same.
Its not just some common beliefs, its the extent of the beliefs. Keeping to a secular democracy is not like keeping to a religion. Besides, america didn't go to war out of any ideologies that come from its secular democracy.
You really are going to have to explain the difference between going to war to ward off fictitious weapons of mass destruction, and going to war because god told the prophet david that a genocide was in order?Mark Hamill wrote: »I never said individual muslims have no empathy for others, the laws of islam however do not.
Then you've interperated the Shariah differently from Mahmoud II, Saladin and Abu Mansur to name but 3 - and frankly I'd trust their knowledge of Islamic law over yours?Mark Hamill wrote: »I agree it goes against the concept, apparently Ahern acknowledges this but claims that its a result from having a constitution (written before ireland became secular) which makes provisions for it and the country not really being able to afford a referendum to remove it though (its a weak excuse I know, but secularism is slow moving in this country, there are plenty of kinks to work through)
Nonsense.. it would be effectively free to tag on a 'secular' amendment to the pending referendum on October 2nd. Fact is we are not secular. We are a democratic nation with freedom of religion and a clear catholic majority, including a state funded broadcaster that pumps out a religious message specifily designed for the majority religion, despite being funded in equal part by all, including Muslims. Effectively, Muslims are paying to broadcast the angelus.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »I think you are having a hard time understanding my point. My point was that people who share the same belief systems are far more connected than people who share the same birth place. Someone being american or indian (ar anything else)is a result of being born there, so the acts others from america, india, etc are no reflection on them. However if that someone is a muslim, hindu or any other religion, they are that religion out of choice and the acts of the vast majority of other people of that religion(not necessarily the fundamentalists mind) do reflect on them.
I am going to have to disagree, Nationalism can (and is in some countries) a extremely powerful way for people to be connected. Take the first World War, largely caused by chauvinistic nationalism.Mark Hamill wrote: »I said western europe, you know the part where muslims are demanding equal rights. Here's an article describing how Irish muslims want ireland to be ruled under shariah law.
Your article quotes one guy. How exactly does he equal all Irish Muslims? Does he some how magically know what the Irish Muslim are thinking? The guy was clearly expressing his personal opinion, he didn't even claim that what he was saying was something all Irish Muslim are thinking.
The guy is basically engaged in a lot of wishful thinking, and it is hardly evidence to prove your point. You taking some vague wishful thinking from a single Muslim, as evidence of hypocrisy is a massive stretch.
Now on the other hand, in Albania, Bosnia, Kosova and Turkey, we have Muslims who are in a large enough position to actually put Sharia into the law and they haven't. While, they might not be in Western Europe, I still think the fact that these guys haven't put Sharia into law, show's not all Muslims will do that the first chance they get.Mark Hamill wrote: »Again it applies to any group of people who hold to same ideologies. It doesn't apply to groups of people purely for being born in the same country because being born in the same country doesn't automatically imply that the ideologies are the same.
Again, Nationalism can be very very strong and unite a majority in a country.Mark Hamill wrote: »Its not just some common beliefs, its the extent of the beliefs. Keeping to a secular democracy is not like keeping to a religion. Besides, america didn't go to war out of any ideologies that come from its secular democracy.
There was this cold war business, where the world was split into 2 camps, authoritarian communism and democratic (and authoritarian) capitalism, which thankfully didn't result in a full blown world war, but did result in several proxy war's. Also, the US has launched war's (albeit retroactively) in the name of democracy as well btw.Mark Hamill wrote: »I never said individual muslims have no empathy for others, the laws of islam however do not.
Law's aren't living things, so they can't possibly have any kind of empathy for anyone ever. I really don't understand what your getting at here.Mark Hamill wrote: »I agree it goes against the concept, apparently Ahern acknowledges this but claims that its a result from having a constitution (written before ireland became secular) which makes provisions for it and the country not really being able to afford a referendum to remove it though (its a weak excuse I know, but secularism is slow moving in this country, there are plenty of kinks to work through)
I don't think he is a fanatic or anything, just a bloody idiot. Still regardless, the country isn't really secular and with the new law, it has actually taken a step backward. We still have the Catholic church running most of our state schools for example. Now I have no issue with Catholic schools or anything, but in a secular country, no religious group should be running most of the state schools.Mark Hamill wrote: »No it depends on the scope and complexity of the ideologies that people hold to.
Nationalism, can unite people in a similar way to Religion. In the case of being Irish, we have people who have never set foot on this Island, who identify with it and that is a fairly benign form of nationalism. In extreme cases it rivals Religion for how people identify with one another.0 -
Sonic_exyouth wrote: »Thats utter craziness..
The mass slaughter of Muslims carried out by Christians in Bosnia in the 1990's do not, and should not reflect on me.
The actions of the shankill butchers do not, and should not, reflect on nigerian protestants.
The idea that they do is insane.
If the actions carried out by the bosnian christians or shankill butchers was carried out according to an exact ideology that is strongly held by other christians or protestants then it does reflect. (Note however that it depends on what the ideology actually is, ie if the common ideology of christians in is that being muslim is wrong, then what happened in bosnia doesnt apply to them, as the ideology doesnt necessarily imply that muslims need to be murdered, however if the ideology states that non christians are to be treated as enemies then the implication is there. This is obviously very simplified to get across my point)Sonic_exyouth wrote: »Thats a poorly worded article, but, if a majority of people demand a law, should it not be enacted.
Think of abortion when considering your answer.
Does the anti-abortion will of the majority of Irish people outweigh the freedom of a womanto decide that she simply does not want a baby?
Which is more democratic in this isle of ours?
Large groups of people tend to be quite easily moved by emotive reasoning as opposed to objective logic, so having laws in because the majority of people want them isnt necessarily a good thing. Think of ignorant most irish people are of other religions, particularly islam. Most people, inspired by what the media shows them probably would want islam banned in ireland.Sonic_exyouth wrote: »You really are going to have to explain the difference between going to war to ward off fictitious weapons of mass destruction, and going to war because god told the prophet david that a genocide was in order?
I dont get your question.Sonic_exyouth wrote: »
Then you've interperated the Shariah differently from Mahmoud II, Saladin and Abu Mansur to name but 3 - and frankly I'd trust their knowledge of Islamic law over yours?Mark Hamill wrote:I never said individual muslims have no empathy for others, the laws of islam however do not.
Oh really, so shariah law would support the marriage of a muslim woman to a non muslim man? Would it support a non muslim woman keeping her children if the muslim husband divorce or passed away? There are even muslim countries where the muslims themselves are forbidden by law to change their own religionSonic_exyouth wrote: »Nonsense.. it would be effectively free to tag on a 'secular' amendment to the pending referendum on October 2nd. Fact is we are not secular. We are a democratic nation with freedom of religion and a clear catholic majority, including a state funded broadcaster that pumps out a religious message specifily designed for the majority religion, despite being funded in equal part by all, including Muslims. Effectively, Muslims are paying to broadcast the angelus.
I agree that we are not secular yet, I was only stating Aherns excuse.0 -
I am going to have to disagree, Nationalism can (and is in some countries) a extremely powerful way for people to be connected. Take the first World War, largely caused by chauvinistic nationalism.
Yes, but this just reaffirms what i said earlier about how its the extent to which ideologies are shared. In the WW1, very complicated and fundamental national ideologies were shared by people, it wasn't just that one nation thought they where better than other at sports or whatever, its that one nation thought they where so good that no other nation should be under their rule.Your article quotes one guy. How exactly does he equal all Irish Muslims? Does he some how magically know what the Irish Muslim are thinking? The guy was clearly expressing his personal opinion, he didn't even claim that what he was saying was something all Irish Muslim are thinking.
The guy is basically engaged in a lot of wishful thinking, and it is hardly evidence to prove your point. You taking some vague wishful thinking from a single Muslim, as evidence of hypocrisy is a massive stretch.
That one guy is Secretary-General of the Irish Council of Imams Ali Selim, so hardly just some random muslim off the street. Its also supported by the opinion poll done be the irish independant in 2006 which shows that a third of the muslim population want ireland run under Sharaih law and a third want it governed as islamic state.Now on the other hand, in Albania, Bosnia, Kosova and Turkey, we have Muslims who are in a large enough position to actually put Sharia into the law and they haven't. While, they might not be in Western Europe, I still think the fact that these guys haven't put Sharia into law, show's not all Muslims will do that the first chance they get.
Fine, I concede that saying all muslims would is too big a generalixation, there a some who wouldn't.There was this cold war business, where the world was split into 2 camps, authoritarian communism and democratic (and authoritarian) capitalism, which thankfully didn't result in a full blown world war, but did result in several proxy war's. Also, the US has launched war's (albeit retroactively) in the name of democracy as well btw.
America might have claimed those wars were in the name of spreading democracy, but they were really about power.Law's aren't living things, so they can't possibly have any kind of empathy for anyone ever. I really don't understand what your getting at here.
Empathy is a bad choice of words, I mean fairness and equality.I don't think he is a fanatic or anything, just a bloody idiot. Still regardless, the country isn't really secular and with the new law, it has actually taken a step backward. We still have the Catholic church running most of our state schools for example. Now I have no issue with Catholic schools or anything, but in a secular country, no religious group should be running most of the state schools.
I agree, he's an idiot and the coun try isn't really secular, but it is on its way (very slowly though).Nationalism, can unite people in a similar way to Religion. In the case of being Irish, we have people who have never set foot on this Island, who identify with it and that is a fairly benign form of nationalism. In extreme cases it rivals Religion for how people identify with one another.
I agree, but when someone label themselves with a particular religion there is a much more defined uniting wth other people of that relgion than if you label yourself with a particular nation. Two muslims or christians or jews etc will have be more likely to have more unifying ideologies than two Irish people or two french people or two brits etc.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Yes, but this just reaffirms what i said earlier about how its the extent to which ideologies are shared. In the WW1, very complicated and fundamental national ideologies were shared by people, it wasn't just that one nation thought they where better than other at sports or whatever, its that one nation thought they where so good that no other nation should be under their rule.
Which is no different than people who want to spread democracy by invading a country for instance.Mark Hamill wrote: »That one guy is Secretary-General of the Irish Council of Imams Ali Selim, so hardly just some random muslim off the street. Its also supported by the opinion poll done be the irish independant in 2006 which shows that a third of the muslim population want ireland run under Sharaih law and a third want it governed as islamic state.
I am going to go out on a limb and assume the same 30% voted for both the Shariah and Islamic state stuff, seeing as those things are basically the same thing asked slightly differently. Which shows the quality of the poll, when there asking the same question twice, but in a slight different way.Mark Hamill wrote: »Fine, I concede that saying all muslims would is too big a generalixation, there a some who wouldn't.
Alright.Mark Hamill wrote: »America might have claimed those wars were in the name of spreading democracy, but they were really about power.
True enough, and when you get down to it. Most wars are about power, be it over land ideology or what have you.Mark Hamill wrote: »Empathy is a bad choice of words, I mean fairness and equality.
Alright, I get what your saying now.Mark Hamill wrote: »I agree, he's an idiot and the coun try isn't really secular, but it is on its way (very slowly though).
Well, the blaspehemy law is a massive step backwards, but hopefully one that doesn't last too long. Luckily the law seems next to impossible to enforce, without having everyone sueing everyone else almost.Mark Hamill wrote: »I agree, but when someone label themselves with a particular religion there is a much more defined uniting wth other people of that relgion than if you label yourself with a particular nation. Two muslims or christians or jews etc will have be more likely to have more unifying ideologies than two Irish people or two french people or two brits etc.
Nowadays, in Western Europe that is true, but if you go say North Korea or China where Chavanistic Nationalism is far more common, you will see a huge reversal in what you say.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Isn't intergrating something the Muslims themselves should do, as they are visitors?
Isn't that like giving a car to a guy who can't drive?
[It is not a perjorative analogy on the matter, but on the logic of the post]0 -
To be honest I'm sceptical about the US making more effort with Muslim immigrants than European.
Perhaps you have to have a lot more financial backing to get to the USA as a Muslim. Having this backing you have a higher chance of being an English speaker and other reasons to leave you less prone to isolation.
Also a good point made about Black converts to Islam, they're making up a sizable amount of the Muslim population and are going to have a lot more family connections than the average Muslim in European countries.
One road I wouldn't go down however is saying we shouldn't accommodate Muslims because Muslim countries wouldn't accommodate us. That's completely unfair on individual Muslims, they're not making the rules in their home/ancestral countries.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »One road I wouldn't go down however is saying we shouldn't accommodate Muslims because Muslim countries wouldn't accommodate us. That's completely unfair on individual Muslims, they're not making the rules in their home/ancestral countries.
But those muslim countries are making rules based on religious ideologies held by all muslims. Now I'm not saying this means we shouldn't accomadate muslims because of this (and I didn't dsay it before either), I said that the muslims are hypocritical for demanding accomandation when their own belief systems, if used to rule a country, wouldn't allow for the same thing0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »But those muslim countries are making rules based on religious ideologies held by all muslims. Now I'm not saying this means we shouldn't accomadate muslims because of this (and I didn't dsay it before either), I said that the muslims are hypocritical for demanding accomandation when their own belief systems, if used to rule a country, wouldn't allow for the same thing
The idea that you can ascribe anything other that the fiver pillars as "religious ideologies held by all muslims" is really a bit misguided.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
You make sure everyone that can drive a car learns as it is in your own self interest. If you give a car to a friend then get him 20 hours of driving lessons to go with it.0 -
Sonic_exyouth wrote: »The idea that you can ascribe anything other that the fiver pillars as "religious ideologies held by all muslims" is really a bit misguided.
The idea that parts of the five pillars don't include some big and far reaching concepts is really quite naive. If Muslims believe in the shahada, then they are going to believe that the Quran is the word of god, and the Quran is hardly a short and concise book.0 -
You make sure everyone that can drive a car learns as it is in your own self interest. If you give a car to a friend then get him 20 hours of driving lessons to go with it.
I'm still not sure how this really applies to the situation being discussed. Its not necessarily in this countries best interest for it to expend money and effort integrating immigrants.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »The idea that parts of the five pillars don't include some big and far reaching concepts is really quite naive. If Muslims believe in the shahada, then they are going to believe that the Quran is the word of god, and the Quran is hardly a short and concise book.
Not quite.
Many Muslims believe in abrogation, in particular 'the salafi', thus can effectively decide that whole chapters (Al Kafiroon for example) was abrogated by the hadith.0 -
Sonic_exyouth wrote: »Not quite.
Many Muslims believe in abrogation, in particular 'the salafi', thus can effectively decide that whole chapters (Al Kafiroon for example) was abrogated by the hadith.
This just means there are muslims who believe in a more fundamental view of the quran, they want any bid'ah that where made since the time of the original writing removed, but the same basic ideologies are held, its just how they are expressed is what is varying.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »This just means there are muslims who believe in a more fundamental view of the quran, they want any bid'ah that where made since the time of the original writing removed, but the same basic ideologies are held, its just how they are expressed is what is varying.
Err, no.
They don't believe the bits of the qur'an they view as abrogated.
They believe that what happened later, the hadith of the sunnah of the rasul as they see it makes these ayats null and void0 -
To be honest I'm sceptical about the US making more effort with Muslim immigrants than European.
its not making an effort right now, its quite the opposite, if you have muslim down as a religion on your passport or your passport has "islamic republic of" written on top of it, your not getting into america, no exceptions (unless your higher up on the food chain than most of us)
but we have to understand that there is a HUGE persian/arab/pakistani/indian community in america and most of them are muslim (every 7-eleven is either owned by an arab or an indian) but these people have been living there for decadesPerhaps you have to have a lot more financial backing to get to the USA as a Muslim. Having this backing you have a higher chance of being an English speaker and other reasons to leave you less prone to isolation.
not really true, maybe if you donate like 10 million dollars (which lets face it alot of people do. not everyone gets in because of a 4.0 GPA) or something to a college like harvard and beg them to give you a letter for student visa, maybe they might give it to you, but if you have that kind of money to pee away im sure your well off without going thereAlso a good point made about Black converts to Islam, they're making up a sizable amount of the Muslim population and are going to have a lot more family connections than the average Muslim in European countries.
alot of blacks are affilated with nation of islam (who are not muslims see malcom x etc etc) and 5 precenters, who call themselves muslims but are not muslimsOne road I wouldn't go down however is saying we shouldn't accommodate Muslims because Muslim countries wouldn't accommodate us. That's completely unfair on individual Muslims, they're not making the rules in their home/ancestral countries.
im guessing youve never been to dubai or bahrain or egypt on a summer holiday, you know there are places other than spain to go on holidays, and irish people should try that out.0 -
Advertisement
-
RELIGION IS THE OPIUM OF THE MASSES. More people have died in the name of " God " and religion than any other cause. So the question is; " Why bother?" John Lennon's song summed it up nicely. The latest incident in America and all of the recent martyrs ( suicide bombers to some of us ) serve to remind us of the extremes the nutters will go to. They are indifferrent to the suffering of others (ie. the people behind the scenes organising ). I did spend time in the middle east ,attended a public execution and seen the attitude, but admire the fact that they say that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done .Croke Park could make a lot of extra revenue staging these events. The poulation figures might take a hit and a lot of one handed people would be on disability, and Roadstone shares would go up supplying the stones for the adultery cases .Every cloud has a silver lining.0
Advertisement