Mr Myers sets a poser....again.

AlekSmart

Is Kevin Myers OTT in this piece from Today`s Indo..?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-muslim-girls-are-covertly-prepared-for-forced-marriage-yet-the-feminists-stay-silent-2485661.html


In the course of this piece Kevin Myers makes the following point....

Now aside from "refugees" from one Muslim country to its neighbour, there's little sign of mass-population movement from one Islamic country to another. Bangladeshis, Pakistanis. Afghans, Somalis, may operate as guest workers in Saudi Arabia, where they have no rights, but if they seek a brighter economic future, they move their families to the Christian/secular countries of Greater Europe, which includes North America and Australasia.

A little further on he makes another point....

This is simply not true of Muslim immigration. Not merely is there not a single stable, prosperous Muslim democracy in the world, free of terrorism and fundamentalism, there is no society that has received large numbers of Muslims that has not soon been confronted by an Islamic defiance of existing societal norms. This defiance can be cultural, in which dissident dress code is sought as a religious right; or educational, in which Muslims are raised within their own autonomous school system; or legal, with a demand for Sharia law; or insurrectionary, in which local Muslims opt for terrorist jihad against the state which admitted them.

No European country -- not one -- that has admitted large numbers of Muslims has been spared any of these outcomes.

No European country -- not one -- that has admitted Hindus has had to face any comparable problem.

As a reader,but not necessarily an admirer of Mr Myers,I do find myself somewhat challenged by many of his points and I`d suggest they do merit some reasoned consideration.......

That Hindu-Muslim comparison is not one we see being made with any great regularity round these parts ?

Worth discussing ?....or is it just his accent that provokes such opprobrium amongst the Gael...?

Einhard

I like reading Myers every now and then because even though he talks an awful lot of bollocks, he does make me think about why I hold certain positions in opposition to him, and sometimes he does hit the nail on the head and says things that ought to be raised more often. In relation to the above article, if he cannot think of a stable, prosperous, and democratic state, then obviously he has never heard of Turkey. Or, in terms of relative global prosperity, Indonesia. People seem to forget that 30 years ago, many of the "Christian" democracies in Europe and South America were authoritarian dictatorships.

Manach

In Western non-communistic Europe, about 40years there would have been only 3 authoritarian dictatorships regimes Spain, Portugal and Greece?

Einhard

Manach wrote: »

In Western non-communistic Europe, about 40years there would have been only 3 authoritarian dictatorships regimes Spain, Portugal and Greece?

Yes, but that's still a fairly high number, and one that people who rail about Islamic incompatability with democracy choose to ignore.

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

Yes, but that's still a fairly high number, and one that people who rail about Islamic incompatability with democracy choose to ignore.

Is religion itself incompatible with democracy?

kaiser sauze

I find his points exceptionally meritable and articulate.

I have not heard anyone call his remarks racist, yet, but I am waiting for the ignorant and arch liberals to come out to decry "another bashing of a minority cult religion".

Einhard

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Is religion itself incompatible with democracy?

I'd say pure religion is, yes. But religious people can be, and are, democrats.

tallus

His point about Hinduism V Islam doesn't really hold water for me. I mean I know one Hindu country, but many countries have Islamic beliefs.

Bottle_of_Smoke

tallus wrote: »

His point about Hinduism V Islam doesn't really hold water for me. I mean I know one Hindu country, but many countries have Islamic beliefs.

the point about hindus was referring to hindu migrants in other countries

ArtSmart

sorry, did you say Myers is a poseur or set a poseur? and is that a sexual act?

AlekSmart

Einhard wrote: »

If he cannot think of a stable, prosperous, and democratic state, then obviously he has never heard of Turkey. Or, in terms of relative global prosperity, Indonesia. .

Perhaps,although I`m less than flaithuleach about holding Turkey up as a model of stability and democracy unless one is prepared to factor in the Military quotient into those definitions.

Indonesia too,although admittedly prosperous,is only now beginning to understand the elements of the Surhato years and it`s emergence from them.

Mind you,I suppose both countries have not as yet managed to engineer a 21st Century Property Bubble yet ,so therefore have`nt really understood the true benefits of Prosperity and Democracy..?

Nodin

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

the point about hindus was referring to hindu migrants in other countries

The numbers aren't comparable. However where there have been problems within countries of origin, these have occassionally travelled with migrant groups. Sikhs and Irish are two that come to mind.

Aleksmart wrote:

Is Kevin Myers OTT in this piece from Today`s Indo..?

Yes, its the usual nonsense.

Myers wrote:

This is simply not true of Muslim immigration. Not merely is there not a single stable, prosperous Muslim democracy in the world, free of terrorism and fundamentalism, there is no society that has received large numbers of Muslims that has not soon been confronted by an Islamic defiance of existing societal norms. This defiance can be cultural, in which dissident dress code is sought as a religious right; or educational, in which Muslims are raised within their own autonomous school system; or legal, with a demand for Sharia law; or insurrectionary, in which local Muslims opt for terrorist jihad against the state which admitted them...?

Pre WW1, this was often the argument against Jewish emigres from Eastern Europe, and catholics in various countries - almost word for word. I don't find it any more valid now its been updated with the bete noir of the moment.

Cookie_Monster

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I find his points exceptionally meritable and articulate.

I have not heard anyone call his remarks racist, yet, but I am waiting for the ignorant and arch liberals to come out to decry "another bashing of a minority cult religion".

+1

Nail on head there once again from Meyers

Bottle_of_Smoke

Nodin wrote: »

The numbers aren't comparable. However where there have been problems within countries of origin, these have occassionally travelled with migrant groups. Sikhs and Irish are two that come to mind.

I wasnt making any point there, just indicating what Myers meant. Ie Hindu immigrants anywhere - he wasn't referring to Hindu countries being successful.

Anyway though - you refer to Sikhs and Irish, I don't think the Irish have ever tried to set up separate rules for themselves in another country. I guess it was easier for the Irish because the places they have mostly emigrated to -Britain, America, Australia etc are all of a very similar culture to the Irish one. Sure Ireland was more Catholic but I'd imagine the type of person to emigrate was often the type who'd want to escape Catholicism

Sikhs have to an extent with the whole turban thing I guess. They do tend to integrate better it would seem though. Though again not a perfectly valid comparison because Sikhs are largely Punjabi whereas Muslims come from a massive range of ethicities and cultures.

Nodin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

+1

Nail on head there once again from Meyers

...despite his rather selective use of the facts and rabble rousing.

I was under the impression this was a discussion board, not a cheer leading site for right wing opinion pieces.

Would care to address the holes in Myers plot vis a vis his use of Hindus as a comparison and his neglect to mention the problems involving that community, as well as his 'forgetfulness' in not mentioning Sikh terrorism....?

Nodin

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

......Anyway though - you refer to Sikhs and Irish, I don't think the Irish have ever tried to set up separate rules for themselves in another country........

*cough cough
http://www.bivouacbooks.com/bbv2i3s6.htm

You'll also find that Orthodox Jewish communities live largely seperate lives in communities run under Jewish law in a number of countries. Ne'er a peep out of Myers on that.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Nodin wrote: »

*cough cough
http://www.bivouacbooks.com/bbv2i3s6.htm

You'll also find that Orthodox Jewish communities live largely seperate lives in communities run under Jewish law in a number of countries. Ne'er a peep out of Myers on that.

That's amusing but not really the same thing now!

Though agree with ya about the Jewish communities point

kaiser sauze

Nodin wrote: »

...despite his rather selective use of the facts and rabble rousing.

I was under the impression this was a discussion board, not a cheer leading site for right wing opinion pieces.

Would care to address the holes in Myers plot vis a vis his use of Hindus as a comparison and his neglect to mention the problems involving that community, as well as his 'forgetfulness' in not mentioning Sikh terrorism....?

Is it a 'right-wing view' when the inevitable outcome is pointed out?

I think not.

Would you like Sharia courts to be allowed to run in tandem with the courts of this country? This already happens in The UK.

This cannot be allowed here. We have established our own system, as broken as it is, and to have outsiders come in and demand special provisions for them alone is not consistent with treating everyone the same under one rule of law.

What would happen if a load more Irish people moved to The UAE/Yemen/Saudi and asked for special provisions to respect their christian beliefs?

You and I both know the answer to that!

In relation to Sikhs, they have already tried to get exemptions and our Gardaí said that a uniform is a uniform is a uniform....long may that continue. (I was sure there was some kind of hearing(court?) over this matter, but cannot find it now)

Once you start making exemptions for peoples' religious beliefs, there will never be an end to it.

kaiser sauze

Found it, it was The Equality Tribunal, whose decisions are binding.

ISAW

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I wasnt making any point there, just indicating what Myers meant. Ie Hindu immigrants anywhere - he wasn't referring to Hindu countries being successful.


Sikhs have to an extent with the whole turban thing I guess.

IU think ther was trouble in the 1970s with them over helmets on motorcycles.

But the Myers thesis may lack thoroughness. Islam has a history of active expansion so it is oart of their culture. Just as it is for Christians. In fgact Christians went to many a country and insisted on telling the natives that their religion was now taking over. Soiuth America for example, or North America or central Americs or China, Japan, Middle East, India, Africa. Note I am listing continents as the countries are to numerous to mention.

Atheistic regimes were far more bloody then any religious ones e.g. China ( both communist and Imperial) Russia ( particularly communist) Campuchia.

I havent looked into hindu expansion in hostory but Ill guess they did get involved in attacking other faiths . I could be wrong. certainly the Jews did it. You masy be aware of the Battle of Jericho when the Jews arrived in Israel and defeated the locals. Most people are not aware of the battle following that. The city was called Ai. they apparently killed every man woman and child with the exception of a single woman. according to the Bible that is.

Joshua 8:25-26 . Fuitque numerus omnium qui ceciderunt die illa a viro usque ad mulierem circiter duodecim millia, omnes viri Hai.Porro Josue non reduxit manum suam quam elevaverat ad laceam, donec interficeret omnes habitatores Hai.

And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai.

26. For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.

They do tend to integrate better it would seem though. Though again not a perfectly valid comparison because Sikhs are largely Punjabi whereas Muslims come from a massive range of ethicities and cultures.

it may be a recent thing that elements of Islam are more intolerant than the core of Christianity. Fringe "Christians" if they can be called that can be as violent and intolerant as extremist Islamists.

Cookie_Monster

Nodin wrote: »

...despite his rather selective use of the facts and rabble rousing.

I was under the impression this was a discussion board, not a cheer leading site for right wing opinion pieces.

Would care to address the holes in Myers plot vis a vis his use of Hindus as a comparison and his neglect to mention the problems involving that community, as well as his 'forgetfulness' in not mentioning Sikh terrorism....?

no I would not. Post 18 sums it up pretty well for me.

PeakOutput

Einhard wrote: »

if he cannot think of a stable, prosperous, and democratic state, then obviously he has never heard of Turkey. Or, in terms of relative global prosperity, Indonesia.

he specifically said

not a single stable, prosperous Muslim democracy in the world, free of terrorism and fundamentalism

both the examples you give have large fundamentalist elements

PeakOutput

ISAW wrote: »

Atheistic regimes were far more bloody then any religious ones e.g. China ( both communist and Imperial) Russia ( particularly communist) Campuchia.

*facepalm* are religious people still trotting out this little nugget of propoganda?

FTA69

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Would you like Sharia courts to be allowed to run in tandem with the courts of this country? This already happens in The UK.

Nonsense, Sharia in England is voluntarily practiced and does not in any way supercede British law; neither can any judgement made in these informal settings carry any weight if it is in contradiction to British civil law. Even the articles you posted state that fact, your post is alarmist rubbish.

kaiser sauze

FTA69 wrote: »

Nonsense, Sharia in England is voluntarily practiced and does not in any way supercede British law; neither can any judgement made in these informal settings carry any weight if it is in contradiction to British civil law. Even the articles you posted state that fact, your post is alarmist rubbish.

Alarmist?

This is the first step, next thing is that these courts will be the equal of established courts and, despite the current situation where they are not, the fact that people are going there rather than the normal civil process is alarming.

I rarely use the phrase, but 'slippery slope' is applicable here.

ISAW

PeakOutput wrote: »

he specifically said



both the examples you give have large fundamentalist elements

Bit of a "only true scotsman"
AS has the US with Christian fundies for example . Your point being?

ISAW

PeakOutput wrote: »

*facepalm* are religious people still trotting out this little nugget of propoganda?

When you cant deal with an issue do you always resort to trying to attack the person nd claim that whether they are or are not religious is changing the fact about atheistic regimes? I'm not aware of any atheistic countries which didn't have a controlling regime in charge which suppressed and slaughtered those that challenged their atheistic regime.

I suppose it comes down to
Believers think it matters that people believe.
Some atheists don't think it matters if people believe. Believers would disagree with these atheists and view them as bad for society but would not wish to harm them in any way.

Other atheists believe that everyone should be atheist and it is a superior way. They think it is bad for society if people believe. They also think that belief should be curtailed by law and atheism should be promoted. It is these other atheists who set up regimes with atheism as a central principle of the regime. These type of fundamentalists atheists have caused hundreds of millions of deaths.

Fundamentalist religions (which are a small minority and are not mainstream) have also caused deaths but religion has also contributed to developing society. What has atheism contributed? What great atheist civilization ever existed?

1. atheistic ones caused mare death then all the others
2. Atheistic regimes contributed less then the others
3. Non atheistic regimes were sometimes benign.

And the FACT is that people like Dawkins for example DO VIEW atheism as a "better way" and want religious people removed from any authority. Maybe some atheists couldnt care less and want to sit on their hands and do nothing, which can be criticised in itself but I am specifically talking here about evangalising fundamental atheists such as those like Dawkins who subscribe to scientism.

If you promote atheism as a better way for society and you promote removing religious believers from positions of authority then you are one of these people.

If Myers is drawing attention to fundamentalists then we should all note the wider picture fundamentlists atheistic regimes caused far more damage and contributed nothing of note to society.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ISAW most western nations are today atheistic or secular regimes.

Stalin/Pol Pot etc turned on religion because they were totalitarian leaders and the church could have been used by the people to unite against them if given religious freedom.

PeakOutput

ISAW wrote: »

Bit of a "only true scotsman"
AS has the US with Christian fundies for example . Your point being?

my point being exactly the same as myers'

Not merely is there not a single stable, prosperous Muslim democracy in the world, free of terrorism and fundamentalism, there is no society that has received large numbers of Muslims that has not soon been confronted by an Islamic defiance of existing societal norms.

that is true as far as i can tell and your two examples dont contradict it because they are both fundamentalist

ISAW wrote: »

When you cant deal with an issue do you always resort to trying to attack the person nd claim that whether they are or are not religious is changing the fact about atheistic regimes? I'm not aware of any atheistic countries which didn't have a controlling regime in charge which suppressed and slaughtered those that challenged their atheistic regime.

its very simple, how many people have been killed in the name of atheism? how many people have been killed in the name of one religon or another? the regimes you mentioned were not communist or totalitarian because they were atheist, they were atheist because they were totalitarian and didnt want to share any power or control with any type of church. they didnt carry out any atrocities in the name of atheism, they carried them out in the name of their particular totalitarian regime and to suggest otherwise is total and absolute crap

as has been said by bottle_of_smoke most western nations are atheistic in that they do their best to not involve any religions viewpoints or anything about god in the decisions they make (its even written into at least one constitution).

I suppose it comes down to
Believers think it matters that people believe.
Some atheists don't think it matters if people believe. Believers would disagree with these atheists and view them as bad for society but would not wish to harm them in any way.

way to state the obvious, most people who believe in religon but are also rational people so dont want to force anyone else to believe in it (accept their kids and anyone else they directly control i suppose) most atheists are exactly the same. they dont believe in god, they feel that people who do and everything that goes with that is detrimental to society but they dont try and force their beliefs on anyone else(accept those that they directly control)

Other atheists believe that everyone should be atheist and it is a superior way.

so they are just as arrogant as the religious, this is probably more a human characteristic then anything to do with either religion or atheism

They also think that belief should be curtailed by law and atheism should be promoted.

not once have i ever heard an atheist suggest this, have you any links?

it is these other atheists who set up regimes with atheism as a central principle of the regime. These type of fundamentalists atheists have caused hundreds of millions of deaths.

that is simply untrue as explained above

Fundamentalist religions (which are a small minority and are not mainstream) have also caused deaths but religion has also contributed to developing society. What has atheism contributed? What great atheist civilization ever existed?

while im not convinced by the scale of this graph if we take it at face value, we are roughly 1000 years behind technically and scientifically as a result of the dark ages. the dark ages, which was suprisingly enough, the time when religious control and conflict reigned supreme and was considered more important than anything else

1. atheistic ones caused mare death then all the others
2. Atheistic regimes contributed less then the others
3. Non atheistic regimes were sometimes benign.

just because you repeat something over and over again dosnt make it any less wrong

And the FACT is that people like Dawkins for example DO VIEW atheism as a "better way" and want religious people removed from any authority. Maybe some atheists couldnt care less and want to sit on their hands and do nothing, which can be criticised in itself but I am specifically talking here about evangalising fundamental atheists such as those like Dawkins who subscribe to scientism.

replace dawkins with the name of any religious leader and atheism with whatever religon that leader leads, what is your point? dawkins has his beliefs, religous people have theirs.

the world is so diverse now that no one religion has any place in a position of authority over people who dont share their beliefs.

If you promote atheism as a better way for society and you promote removing religious believers from positions of authority then you are one of these people.

religous people can of course remain in positions of authority as long as they dont try to enforce one single law of their religion on the masses. if they cannot seperate their personal beliefs from their job as a lawmaker or person in control then they have no business being there. they can get a job with their church and preach to people who want to be preached at

If Myers is drawing attention to fundamentalists

so you are saying that it is only a coincidence that when any sort of population of muslims(for example) move to an area or a country, demands for their views to supercede the indiginous cultures start being heard? and you are saying that it must be because fundamentalists follow these moderate populations around and make the demands pretending to talk on thier behalf?

then we should all note the wider picture fundamentlists atheistic regimes caused far more damage and contributed nothing of note to society.

:rolleyes:

Nodin

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Is it a 'right-wing view' when the inevitable outcome is pointed out?.

Who says its inevitable?

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Would you like Sharia courts to be allowed to run in tandem with the courts of this country? This already happens in The UK.

As do Jewish Beth Din courts, but for some reason its only when the bogeyman does it theres a panic.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

This cannot be allowed here. We have established our own system, as broken as it is, and to have outsiders come in and demand special provisions for them alone is not consistent with treating everyone the same under one rule of law..

None of the major Irish parties have supported such an idea. You might as well get in a panic over the risk of a first born child having to be offered to Molech at every full moon.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

What would happen if a load more Irish people moved to The UAE/Yemen/Saudi and asked for special provisions to respect their christian beliefs?

You and I both know the answer to that! ..

So essentially you're saying that our behaviour as a supposedly liberal state in Western Europe should be guided by arch conservative Monarchies etc in the middle east....but you're against Sharia.....

kaiser sauze wrote: »

In relation to Sikhs, they have already tried to get exemptions and our Gardaí said that a uniform is a uniform is a uniform....long may that continue. (I was sure there was some kind of hearing(court?) over this matter, but cannot find it now)

Once you start making exemptions for peoples' religious beliefs, there will never be an end to it.

The vast majority of "exemptions for peoples' religous beliefs" and indeed prohibitions in this country have historically been for one religion, and it wasn't Sikhism, Hinduism, Islam or the Hare Krishnas. As Sikhs fought (and still fight )loyally for the Brits for a few hundred years clad in a Turban, I personally can't see the big deal.

cookie monster wrote:

no I would not. Post 18 sums it up pretty well for me..

Yet it doesn't answer any of the points I raised and is of itself flawed.

FTA69

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Alarmist?

This is the first step, next thing is that these courts will be the equal of established courts and, despite the current situation where they are not, the fact that people are going there rather than the normal civil process is alarming.

I rarely use the phrase, but 'slippery slope' is applicable here.

It isn't, because there is a far cry between voluntary, informal and community-based restitution methods being practiced and those taking the place of existing structures. British civil law is not under threat, and nor would it be shy to assert itself if needs be. In fact schemes like this would be beneficial in the sense people are sorting out their own personal problems amongst themselves as opposed to clogging up the courts with litigation. As Nodin said, the Jews in Stamford Hill have similar schemes, but there is no hue and cry about that.

The fact you declare it to be a "slippery slope" (a phrase used to decry things such as sex education and allowing students to be openly gay) doesn't mean that civil law is in anyway under threat. It's not as if they're going to be stoning women to death in Finsbury Park.