Mr Myers sets a poser....again.

Einhard

AlekSmart wrote: »

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..?

PeakOutput wrote: »

he specifically said



both the examples you give have large fundamentalist elements

I think the above two posts are evidence of the double standards that some people, sometimes unwittingly, sometimes purposefully, apply to Islam. When an example of a a democratic Muslim nation is demanded, it has to be of the purest form, a very paragon of democratic virtue, without blemish or taint. The fact that there are no such democracies in the world, doesn;t stop people from denigrating Turkey and Indonesia for perceives failings, whilst ignoring the same in Western Christian or secular democracies they champion in opposition to Islamic examples. Yes, Turkey has had problems with military intervention over the years. But if one is to use those relatively minor interventions to question Turkish democracy, then one would have to do the same regarding Spain, Portugal, Greece, Germany, most of estern Europe, and all of Latin and South America. Turkish had a far more democratic 20th century than any of the latter examples, yet its foibles are constantly dredged up, and the others' ignored.

As for Indonesia, the major point is that it has emerged from the Suharto era. His rule can't be ignored, but neither can it be used to deny the legitimacy of Indonesian democracy as its currently constituted. If that were the democratic benchmark, then there'd be precious few democracies in the world.

PeakOutput is right when he states that both countires are home to a fundamentalists who seek to undermine democracy in the name of Islam. It's a problem, but again it doesn't alter the fact that they are democracies. Fundemantalists come in all shapes and sizes, and exist in all manner of democracies. On this island for example, we had a form of political/religious fundamentalism for years in the North, which saw the Catholic minority actively discriminated against for decades. India is having hige problems containing a Maoist insurgency, Columbia faces the threat of FARC, whilst Mexico risks becoming a failed, narco-state if the government doesn't get a grip on the situation there. All of these represent(ed) a threat to the democratic ideal, yet noone suggests that theese countries are or were less democratic because of these issues. And yet, when it's an Islamic nation, the very fact that Muslim fundamentalists array themselves against the democratic structures and the rule of law, somehow negates those very democratic institutions. It's a perverse double standard.

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.

I fairness, I don't think that ANY form of law, secular of religious, should be allowed to stand as an alternative to the law of the land in a democratic state.

PeakOutput wrote: »

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).

Turkey is actually one of the most secular political systems in the world. Its prohibitions against religious iconography in government institutions, universities etc, would make the French blush. And yet, when the Turkish government wish to rescind some of these restrictions, and give rights to Turks that are commonplace in the EU, people like Myers scream about Islamification and theocracy.

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

I'm sorry, but as any student of medieval history would attest to, this is a gross oversimplification of the causes of the s0-called Dark Ages. I'm an atheist myself, and so have no bias in stating this other than an interest in historical fact and accuracy, but the decline in literacy, innovation, and practically every other barometer of human achievement in the "Dark Ages" had precious little to do with the Church. People seem to omit the massively traumatic impact of the dissolution of the Roman Empire and the transformation of Europe from a single, stable, political entity, into a chaotic patchwork of squabbling tribal states, when discussing the "Dark Ages". Effective communication, the sine qua non of widespread learning and innovation was truncated by the collapse of Rome, and the wars amongst the barbarian sucessor states. It was this, along with the disappearance of effective political patronage, the collapse of the economy, and the huge political instability of the period, that saw the decline in learning in the period. If anything, the Church was instrumental in limiting the decline in education and preserving Roman heritage. The Carolingian Renaissance for example, was driven very much by ecclesiastical advisers to Charlemagne, his predecessor, and his sucessors. Monastic and other Church sciptoria preserved not just literacy, but improved standards in the written word, and crucially saved Classical works that would otherwise have been lost. Church scholars produced histories of the world, and learned commentaries on earlier writers, were active in astronomy and in promoting science, and worked to prevent futher political disintergration after the fall of Rome, and after Charlemagne's death. There are, of course, reasons to criticise Church policy, especially in the later Middle Ages when dogmatic intolerance came more to the fore, but it's both lazy and uninformed to claim that the Church was, in any meaningful way, responsible for the European "Dark Ages".

Incidentally, I notice your graph leaves out the huge strides in science and other spheres, made by Islamic scholars in Spain, North Africa, and across the Middle East in early medieval period. Were it not for their efforts, and indeed, the activities of the Church scholars mentioned above, then the much lauded Renaissance would never have occurered.

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

My sentiments exactly.

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?

Well, in fairness, European Christians done such a good job of that over the centuries, that they not only superceded the indigenous populations, but in many cases, wiped them out. And quite often in the name of their God too.

In saying that, I know where you're coming from, but would point out that the vast majority of Muslims have no problem living according to the laws of their adopted country. To analogise, Irish travellers cause huge problems in Britain, and cause an awful lot of legitimate resentment. Yet, were anyone to equate the minority Irish travellers with the rest of Irish society living in the UK, and then draw negative conclusions from that, people would be outraged. Yet that is exactly what is happening re Muslims. Again, a double standard is being applied.

PeakOutput

I think the above two posts are evidence of the double standards that some people, sometimes unwittingly, sometimes purposefully, apply to Islam. When an example of a a democratic Muslim nation is demanded, it has to be of the purest form, a very paragon of democratic virtue, without blemish or taint. The fact that there are no such democracies in the world, doesn;t stop people from denigrating Turkey and Indonesia for perceives failings, whilst ignoring the same in Western Christian or secular democracies they champion in opposition to Islamic examples. Yes, Turkey has had problems with military intervention over the years. But if one is to use those relatively minor interventions to question Turkish democracy, then one would have to do the same regarding Spain, Portugal, Greece, Germany, most of estern Europe, and all of Latin and South America. Turkish had a far more democratic 20th century than any of the latter examples, yet its foibles are constantly dredged up, and the others' ignored.

As for Indonesia, the major point is that it has emerged from the Suharto era. His rule can't be ignored, but neither can it be used to deny the legitimacy of Indonesian democracy as its currently constituted. If that were the democratic benchmark, then there'd be precious few democracies in the world.

PeakOutput is right when he states that both countires are home to a fundamentalists who seek to undermine democracy in the name of Islam. It's a problem, but again it doesn't alter the fact that they are democracies. Fundemantalists come in all shapes and sizes, and exist in all manner of democracies. On this island for example, we had a form of political/religious fundamentalism for years in the North, which saw the Catholic minority actively discriminated against for decades. India is having hige problems containing a Maoist insurgency, Columbia faces the threat of FARC, whilst Mexico risks becoming a failed, narco-state if the government doesn't get a grip on the situation there. All of these represent(ed) a threat to the democratic ideal, yet noone suggests that theese countries are or were less democratic because of these issues. And yet, when it's an Islamic nation, the very fact that Muslim fundamentalists array themselves against the democratic structures and the rule of law, somehow negates those very democratic institutions. It's a perverse double standard.

its a fair point but is the move to democracy a move away from islam? it seems the the fundamentalists think so. can there be a true islamic state with democracy or are the two incompatible? is religon in general incompatible with democracy?

Well, in fairness, European Christians done such a good job of that over the centuries, that they not only superceded the indigenous populations, but in many cases, wiped them out. And quite often in the name of their God too.

of course they did that dosnt mean its right and it certainly doesnt give the next batch of fundamentalists the right to do the same

the colonisation of america was a barbaric affair but it still dosnt give anyone the right to go on a massacre in america in attempt to do the same thing again. we are living in arguably far more enlightened times were everyone can, cheesy as it sounds, live in peace and harmony as long as their is respect for everyones beliefs, theist, agnostic or atheist, and as long as there is a clear and permanent seperation of religon and state

In saying that, I know where you're coming from, but would point out that the vast majority of Muslims have no problem living according to the laws of their adopted country. To analogise, Irish travellers cause huge problems in Britain, and cause an awful lot of legitimate resentment. Yet, were anyone to equate the minority Irish travellers with the rest of Irish society living in the UK, and then draw negative conclusions from that, people would be outraged. Yet that is exactly what is happening re Muslims. Again, a double standard is being applied.

i understand what your saying and i agree that most muslims or most people from any group are fine living and integrating with the local populations if they move somewhere. what people are angry about, imo, is the giving into the demands of the vocal minority and the accusation of being racist or intolerant if you think it is a disgrace that these demands are being made not to mind given in to

feicim

Another cry for attention from myers. He is full of it. With his half truths and twisted facts, always trying to be standing (on his high horse) on the thin line between racism and not. I don't buy into the manure he passes off as "thought".

More of the same from myers. Its a poser if you are not in possesion of the actual facts around the points he makes.

That is why hes dangerous, to the uneducated/ill informed he can make anything sound plausible...

Einhard

PeakOutput wrote: »

its a fair point but is the move to democracy a move away from islam? it seems the the fundamentalists think so. can there be a true islamic state with democracy or are the two incompatible? is religon in general incompatible with democracy?

Fundamentalist religion of any form is incompatible with democracy as we understand it today. Happily though, faundamentalist religion has long been in decline, and that's true within the Islamic world, though not to the same extent.

i understand what your saying and i agree that most muslims or most people from any group are fine living and integrating with the local populations if they move somewhere. what people are angry about, imo, is the giving into the demands of the vocal minority and the accusation of being racist or intolerant if you think it is a disgrace that these demands are being made not to mind given in to

But what exactly are these demands that secular societies are supposedly caving into, and where is it happening? I'd be alarmed if such a thing was happening, but as far as I can see, it's really a figment of overactive, and sometimes xenophobic, imaginations.

sollar

We should look at immigration from the view point of how does it affect ireland.

Would it be good for this country to have a very large immigrant muslim population. IMO the answer is no. Look at other westrern countries with large muslim populations and they haven't integrated well. So why accept them in large numbers.

Forget political correctness do what suits us.

wes

Typical Myers, with the same old nonsense. Western Europe has plenty of terrorists groups, ranging from the far left to the far right. So if we are to go by his criteria, then there is almost no country in the world that doesn't have some fundamentalists or terrorists groups operating within.

To pretend that Muslim countries are the only ones with such groups is utterly stupid, and clearly shows the same old typical BS of completely ignoring any and all facts that don't suit the current nonsense the man is peddling that week.

As for the so called "dissident dress code", is even more stupid. People in Western countries all dress differently. There is no uniform dress code last, i checked.

Also, to pretend that Muslims are the only ones who cause trouble vis a vi there Religion in the West, is again a load of BS, here is an example of extremists Christians torturing there children, whom they believe to be witches:

Witch Children in the UK

It isn't hard to find many example of people doing all kind of nasty things, from different groups in the West, but again to look at the whole picture is far to inconvenient for a nonsense peddler.

Palmach

FTA69 wrote: »

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..

Really this nonsense has been explained ad nauseum to the pc useful idiots both here and on p.ie. The Sharia Courts have the status of courts. Here is the Times link.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Illiterate, uneducated women form the wilds of Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia will be brow beaten into going to these courts and accepting the "justice" they dispense. Sharia is a system that renders women second class citizens and it is scandalous that this primitive system is given any legal status. The very people the feminists and the left claim to be representing are the very ones that will suffer most from this dhimmitude.

wes

Palmach wrote: »

Really this nonsense has been explained ad nauseum to the pc useful idiots both here and on p.ie. The Sharia Courts have the status of courts. Here is the Times link.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

So, I take you have the same issues with the Beth Din courts, which do the same as the Sharia courts and are always left out of these discussions for some bizarre reason..... The article even mentions those courts, which have existed for a 100 years, doing the exact same thing. Why is this suddenly an issue? Surely, you must have the same concerns for Jewish Women, who could suffer under Halaka? Why no concern for them?

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

Really this nonsense (.......)from this dhimmitude.

You might spare us the "pc" and "useful idiots" cliches.

The courts are not empowered to act contrary to British law. No ruling of theirs can supersede British law.

While I personally think it a bad idea to allow even this kind of mummery to run alongside the normal court system, the fact is that theres been a precedent going since the early 1900's and - unless theres a proposal to abolish all such courts - any 'sharia-centric' objections smack of the usual Islamophobia.

ArtSmart

AlekSmart wrote: »

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..?

funny.

as it happens they've a different lending approach, enshrined in their beliefs actually referred to as the Islamic banking model (it's used outside Islamic worlds as well). It basically involves taking only enough interest from a loan to cover inflation and running costs. (and also recognising a strong moral responsibility for lending actions - you know like what we had, but the opposite )

weird people.

good info below on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking


ah Kevin, cant you find love still?

PeakOutput

ArtSmart wrote: »

funny, as it happens they've a different lending approach, enshrined in their beliefs actually referred to as the Islamic banking model (it's used outside Islamic worlds as well). It basically involves taking only enough interest from a loan to cover inflation and running costs. (and also recognising a strong moral responsibility for lending actions - you know like what we had, but the opposite )

weird people.

good info below on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking


ah Kevin, cant you find love still?

if my understanding of it is right it is against their beliefs to pay interest

that dosnt mean their banks take any less money off the borrowers it just means they do it in a different way so that it is not technically interest, i cant remember how it works exactly but its something like the bank buys the house and then adds on the amount that interest would account for and then gives the person a loan for that amount to buy the house off them

AlekSmart

ArtSmart ;69950288]funny.

as it happens they've a different lending approach, enshrined in their beliefs actually referred to as the Islamic banking model (it's used outside Islamic worlds as well). It basically involves taking only enough interest from a loan to cover inflation and running costs. (and also recognising a strong moral responsibility for lending actions - you know like what we had, but the opposite )

This,I presume is the Hawallah model ?

It`s always quite instructive to see how humanity always manages to find ways around "Principles" or "Beliefs".

I rather suspect that you`ll search long and hard to find a poverty stricken Islamic Banker,a sub-species equally absent from Christian,Jewish,Hindu.....or,come to think of it,any organized religion...including Atheism

Nodin;69926621]...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.

....?

Thankfully,as the posts in this thread go towards proving,Nodin`s first impression is indeed correct.

The discussion is ongoing .....

Palmach

wes wrote: »

So, I take you have the same issues with the Beth Din courts, which do the same as the Sharia courts and are always left out of these discussions for some bizarre reason..... The article even mentions those courts, which have existed for a 100 years, doing the exact same thing. Why is this suddenly an issue? Surely, you must have the same concerns for Jewish Women, who could suffer under Halaka? Why no concern for them?

Nodin wrote: »

Y

While I personally think it a bad idea to allow even this kind of mummery to run alongside the normal court system, the fact is that theres been a precedent going since the early 1900's and - unless theres a proposal to abolish all such courts - any 'sharia-centric' objections smack of the usual Islamophobia.

For the record I am against any legal system that is religiously based. That includes the Beth Din. Judaism and Islam both discriminate against women and their legal systems should not superced the law of the land which they do in Sharia and Beth Din courts as I have pointed out. This should not be allowed to happen.

Palmach

ArtSmart wrote: »

funny.

as it happens they've a different lending approach, enshrined in their beliefs actually referred to as the Islamic banking model (it's used outside Islamic worlds as well). It basically involves taking only enough interest from a loan to cover inflation and running costs. (and also recognising a strong moral responsibility for lending actions - you know like what we had, but the opposite )

weird people.

good info below on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking


ah Kevin, cant you find love still?

Yes and haven't they advanced with this banking model which by the way is a concocted 20th century system that has no basis in history.

Im waiting for Myer's companion piece in the next couple of days where he decries the western compounds in the islamic world, where these foriegners pay no attention to the local laws or the sense of morality..where people engage in activity that truly offends the locals, but its ok, because they're excercising their god given right as westerners to experience their concept of culture,no matter who is offended..

Palmach

Deleted User wrote: »

Im waiting for Myer's companion piece in the next couple of days where he decries the western compounds in the islamic world, where these foriegners pay no attention to the local laws or the sense of morality..where people engage in activity that truly offends the locals, but its ok, because they're excercising their god given right as westerners to experience their concept of culture,no matter who is offended..

Note they have to live in compounds as you say. Do Muslims live in Muslim compounds? Ridiculous whataboutterry.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

For the record I am against any legal system that is religiously based. That includes the Beth Din. Judaism and Islam both discriminate against women and their legal systems should not superced the law of the land which they do in Sharia and Beth Din courts as I have pointed out. This should not be allowed to happen.

Neither court supercedes British law. You can't 'point that out' because its not actually true.

Palmach wrote: »

Yes and haven't they advanced with this banking model which by the way is a concocted 20th century system that has no basis in history. .

'muslims are stuck in the middle ages...'

'muslims are making new stuff up'.

Bit of a lose/lose scenario there, isn't it.

Palmach

Nodin wrote: »

Neither court supercedes British law. You can't 'point that out' because its not actually true.

read the link. where both parties agree to arbitration the decision is binding.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

read the link. where both parties agree to arbitration the decision is binding.

Yes. However the legislation under which the courts are constituted clearly lays out that it cannot pass any judgement contrary to British law. Therefore you have a civil court with 'Sharia' trappings, rather than a Sharia court.

Palmach

Nodin wrote: »

Yes. However the legislation under which the courts are constituted clearly lays out that it cannot pass any judgement contrary to British law. Therefore you have a civil court with 'Sharia' trappings, rather than a Sharia court.

It is binding. You do understand what that means don't you? You really are a pathetic creature trying desperately to justify anything at all so long as you call everyone Islamophobes. here is a link from that hot of Right wing xenophobia The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courtshere is one short passage:

An example of the kind of decision that is contrary to UK law and public policy is the custody of children. Under British law, the child's best interest is the court's paramount consideration. In a sharia court the custody of children reverts to the father at a preset age regardless of the circumstances. In divorce proceedings, too, civil law takes into account the merits of the case and divides assets based on the needs and intentions of both parties. Under sharia law, only men have the right to unilateral divorce. If a woman manages to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent, she will lose the sum of money (or dowry) that was agreed to at the time of marriage

Now kindly stop talking out your bottom and wise up.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

It is binding. You do understand what that means don't you? You really are a pathetic creature trying desperately to justify anything at all so long as you call everyone Islamophobes. here is a link from that hot of Right wing xenophobia The Guardian.

.

They can't make people abide by something contrary to British law.

The article primarily refers to Sharia councils acting as courts where there is " neither control over the appointment of these judges nor an independent monitoring mechanism. "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts

These are nothing to do with the muslim arbitration councils recognised under the act.

ISAW

PeakOutput wrote: »

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

http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide%23Selected_pre-20th_century_democides&usg=AFQjCNG9Ilib2fljCexA16rA2-cbWkBWlw
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide%23Selected_pre-20th_century_democides&usg=AFQjCNG9Ilib2fljCexA16rA2-cbWkBWlw
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB2.1A.GIF
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB2.1B.GIF


Atheistic regimes killed more than any Church controlled regimes! you may
include

"Papal State and a few German states which were a part of the Holy
Roman Empire and were run by abbots or bishops, there was historically no
direct ecclesiastical involvement in state administrative affairs."

if you wish and the result is : STILL MORE atheistic regime deaths!

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).

there are hundreds of states in the world. One does not make a case!
There are about six billion people. Several billio0ns of them believe in a single god. Others believe in pagan or spirtitual things.

Atheistic regimes wanted to enforce the idea of there being no God! they failed and contributed nothing to society and killed hundreds of million!
FACT!

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)

Wrong!
i took those people into account in my last reply.
I am referring to militant atheists who enforced atheism such as Mao and Stalin's regimes. They caused untold damage!

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

Waffle! You are now trying to say religious people are okay and only the fundamentalists are bad!
the fundamentlaists are always a tiny minority of religious - just as they are of Islam in the Myers case.

But even taking that into account Atheistic non religious regimes killed MORE!

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

You have some now!
Can you show they are wrong?

while im not convinced by the scale of this graph if w

It is waffle - science has no such units of "progress"

white1awake

God Bless Kevin Myers.

He really is one of the last truth-speaking treasures on this Island.

Einhard

white1awake wrote: »

God Bless Kevin Myers.

He really is one of the last truth-speaking treasures on this Island.

It's funny, but having read your posts elsewhere, and seeing that you had posted here, I instinctively knew what position you were going to take on the issue!

Nodin

white1awake wrote: »

God Bless Kevin Myers.

He really is one of the last truth-speaking treasures on this Island.

...except when, like here, he's clearly wrong, again.

bitter

white1awake wrote: »

God Bless Kevin Myers.

He really is one of the last truth-speaking treasures on this Island.

He has an agenda but he does ask the right questions

PeakOutput

ISAW wrote: »

http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide%23Selected_pre-20th_century_democides&usg=AFQjCNG9Ilib2fljCexA16rA2-cbWkBWlw
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide%23Selected_pre-20th_century_democides&usg=AFQjCNG9Ilib2fljCexA16rA2-cbWkBWlw
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB2.1A.GIF
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB2.1B.GIF


Atheistic regimes killed more than any Church controlled regimes! you may
include

"Papal State and a few German states which were a part of the Holy
Roman Empire and were run by abbots or bishops, there was historically no
direct ecclesiastical involvement in state administrative affairs."

if you wish and the result is : STILL MORE atheistic regime deaths!



there are hundreds of states in the world. One does not make a case!
There are about six billion people. Several billio0ns of them believe in a single god. Others believe in pagan or spirtitual things.

Atheistic regimes wanted to enforce the idea of there being no God! they failed and contributed nothing to society and killed hundreds of million!
FACT!

Wrong!
i took those people into account in my last reply.
I am referring to militant atheists who enforced atheism such as Mao and Stalin's regimes. They caused untold damage!



Waffle! You are now trying to say religious people are okay and only the fundamentalists are bad!
the fundamentlaists are always a tiny minority of religious - just as they are of Islam in the Myers case.

But even taking that into account Atheistic non religious regimes killed MORE!



You have some now!
Can you show they are wrong?





It is waffle - science has no such units of "progress"

you obviously didnt read a thing i said, or you chose to ignore it as not one of your points above has any bearing to anything i said

fontanalis

Deleted User wrote: »

Im waiting for Myer's companion piece in the next couple of days where he decries the western compounds in the islamic world, where these foriegners pay no attention to the local laws or the sense of morality..where people engage in activity that truly offends the locals, but its ok, because they're excercising their god given right as westerners to experience their concept of culture,no matter who is offended..

Morality?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7098480.stm

AlekSmart

Interesting indeed Fontanalis,one hopes that for the girls sake, The irish Indendent`s Saudi editions air-brush Mr Myers column from the paper.

It might appear to some that Sharia minded Judiciary do not take kindly to media scrutiny of their deliberations and judgements.

Mind you,I`m supposing Ms Justice Maureen Clark had a totally different set of reasonings in her mind when she ran the likes of the Irish Times`s Simon Carswell from her Irish High Court in order to facilitate Brian Lenihans craving for secrecy in all things financial....;)

I wonder does Mr Myers keep up with his publics opinions by reading Boards.ie....:)

ChocolateSauce

What I find unbelievable (or would, if I couldn't see it before my eyes) is that more people aren't realising that Myers is right.

Lets not be so disingeneous as to actually pretend that Islam isn't making aggressive inroads into the west, demanding special privileges for itself, demanding our rights be surrendered, and trying as hard as possible to be offended, and to bully, harass and terrorise us into being guilty for offending its adherents by merely pointing out its very real and very dangerous teachings for what they are.