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
Mr Myers sets a poser....again.
Options
Comments
-
ChocolateSauce wrote: »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.
..probably because, as on a number of issues, he's demonstratably wrong.ChocolateSauce wrote: »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.
So much of the usual nonsense condensed into in one paragraph...
I suppose we'll start at the start. Who is in charge of this "Islam"?0 -
PeakOutput wrote: »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
What you said:they didnt carry out any atrocities in the name of atheism
I have the following from Fasgnadh a denizen of another group I post to who is an agnostic:
China, abandoned their
forced atheist indoctrination atheism and persecution of religion,
changed their constitution to allow greater religious and economic
freedom, but maintained their central Communist Party control, and have
prospered enormously, growing faster than the western economies!
"With the gradual liberalisation that developed with
Deng Xiaoping's open door reforms, religion was no
longer proscribed. In 1982, the constitution was
amended to allow Chinese people considerable freedom
of religion."
http://cbbc.org/china_guide/religion.html
American Religious Identification Survey, Summary Report March 2009:
"Self-identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition
2001 2008
Religious 167,254,000 (80%) 182,198,000 (80%)
Agnostics 991,000 (0.5%) 1,985,000 (0.9%)
Atheists 902,000 (0.4%) 1,621,000 (0.7%)
so much for the "secular/atheist" countries claim!
At the dawn of the 20th Century approximately one half of the world's
population identified itself as either Muslim, Catholic, Protestant,
Hindu or Buddhist, and 100 years of secularism, and technological
advancement, and scientific progress later and that number is now
two thirds.
It is simply not relevant that the Nazis were German,
it was their Nazi anti-semitism that led to them persecuting
Jews.. just as it was the anti-religious bigotry of the
atheist tyrannies that led to them burning churches and temples,
torturing and killing believers.. why are you an atheist holocaust
denier; ?
"Between 1917 and 1940, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested.
In 1918, the Cheka under Felix Dzerzhinsky executed over
3000 Orthodox clergymen of all ranks.
There were Nazis who were German as well..
...So f****** WHAT..
...anti-religios persecutions and pogroms
were as central to EVERY filthy f****** atheist tyranny
as anti-semitism was to every Nazi regime!
>Why not state communist/atheist?
Because EVERY atheist state openly persecuted believers,
but communism in Cuba did not.
Some were drowned in ice-holes or poured over with cold water
in winter until they turned to ice-pillars.
- John Shelton Curtis, The Russian Church and the Soviet State
(Boston: Little Brown, 1953)
This is the constant pattern in EVERY atheist state!!!
the "but they were totalitarian" doesn't stand!
Castro had such a regime and didn't murder Christians or anyone else by genocide because his regime isn't atheistic!0 -
What you said:
the "but they were totalitarian" doesn't stand!
Castro had such a regime and didn't murder Christians or anyone else by genocide because his regime isn't atheistic!
obviously we arent going to agree, you can say over and over again the same thing but its fundamentally wrong.
also castro's regime was atheistic and castro himself was an atheist but he was far less harsh on religion then the russians thats for sure but in 1992 alone he closed down more than 400 catholic schools charging them with spreading dangerous beliefs among the people0 -
PeakOutput wrote: »obviously we arent going to agree, you can say over and over again the same thing but its fundamentally wrong.
Let me see. I produce published statistics which show the level of atheism is tiny and that atheistic regimes killed hundreds of millions. I say it over and over again and exach time I add to the published sources I produce. They include academic sources and official publications.
You keep saying the same opinion with no support at all and then claiming you are right.
which do you think people would regard as more reasonable to accept?also castro's regime was atheistic and castro himself was an atheist but he was far less harsh on religion then the russians thats for sure but in 1992 alone he closed down more than 400 catholic schools charging them with spreading dangerous beliefs among the people
He didn't oversee an atheistic regime with atheism at its heart like the ones I referenced.
Fasgnadh again: Message-ID: <iA8yo.669$gM3.238@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com>
from google groups
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
�Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
People are becoming more religious, not less religious,
and religion itself is also evolving"
- Dr Reza Aslan
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2010/2902272.htmThere is no RATIONAL explanation, you simply pretend, without ANY
evidence, that when EVERY Atheist tyrant commits Mass Murder, you
can MAGICALLY, sans PROOF, GUESS their 'motivation, and so you
assert your UNPROVEN and UNPROVABLE belief that you can perform
psychic divination and just 'know' that it was their 'communism'
and not their atheism that made them kill theists, forcibly INDOCTRINATE
children with atheism, burn churches and persecute ALL RELIGION..
despite CLEAR evidence that 'MODERN'(sic) MILITANT ATHEISTS OPENLY
ADVOCATE THE SAME THING:
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
Cambodia:
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/392millones.jpg
Members of the Comintern,Clearly the claim that Soviet anti-religious terror, torture and murder
was aimed at the Orthodox church for it's collaboration with Monarchy
is COMPLETE BULL****!
ALL faiths were targeted!!
ATHEISM was the IMPOSED STATE DOGMA!!!!!
"the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
- Daniel Peris,
"Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853* Communist Party of Armenia
* Central Bureau's Azerbaijani Section
* Communist Party of Bulgaria
* Socialist Workers' Party of China
* Communist Party of Czechoslovakia
* Communist Party of German Austria
* Communist Party of Finland
* Communist Party of France
* Zimmerwald Left Wing of France (see also French Section of the
Workers' International (SFIO))
* Central Bureau's Georgian Section
* Communist Party of Germany
* Communist Party of Great Britain
* Communist Party of Hungary
* Worker's Union of Korea
* Communist Party of Latvia
* Social-Democrats of the Netherlands
* Central Bureau's Persian Section
* Communist Party of Poland
* Balkan Revolutionary People's of Russia
* Communist Party of Russia
* Social Democratic Left Party of Sweden
* Communist Party of Switzerland
* Central Bureau's Turkestan Section
* Communist Party (Bolshevik) of Ukraine
* Socialist Labor Party of the United States
* Socialist Propaganda League of the United Kingdom
* Communist Party of Volga region in Russia
* Communist Party of Yugoslavia
Just highlight the "Theists" in that lot,
Well which of the above were theistic?
Myers may be pointing to something but the atheistic lot were much worse than any Islamists.0 -
im not disputing the fact that thos regimes murdered millions
im disputing the reasons you are giving for the murders
you still havnt shown one shred of evidence that the killings were done in the name of atheism rather then in the name of communism or facism or whichever regime you are refering to
and cuba was an atheistic regime they just werent as harsh on religions as communists were traditionally0 -
Advertisement
-
So much of the usual nonsense condensed into in one paragraph...
I suppose we'll start at the start. Who is in charge of this "Islam"?
Are you really suggesting that something needs to be centrally directed to be making inroads? Or that I think there is a central director? I think we both know the answer to each question is no, so lets not talk down to each other or play dumb, we'll wind up writing more but saying less.
Why do you not think that Muslims are making unreasonable demands? Can you not see it happening? Or do you just not think their demands are unreasonable? Or is it that you simply believe the noise is coming from a tiny minority as opposed to an extremely large minority, as I do?
And incidentally, regarding Myers, I agree that he is often wrong and always unpleasent. But he is right about this issue, more or less.0 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »Are you really suggesting that something needs to be centrally directed to be making inroads? Or that I think there is a central director? I think we both know the answer to each question is no, so lets not talk down to each other or play dumb, we'll wind up writing more but saying less. .
So there's no central authority or director. And isn't it true there's more than one "Islam"?ChocolateSauce wrote: »Why do you not think that Muslims are making unreasonable demands? Can you not see it happening? Or do you just not think their demands are unreasonable? Or is it that you simply believe the noise is coming from a tiny minority as opposed to an extremely large minority, as I do?.
It's coming from a tiny minority, otherwise there'd be considerably more trouble than there is.
If you're going to talk about "demands", you might be specific in your references.....ChocolateSauce wrote: »And incidentally, regarding Myers, I agree that he is often wrong and always unpleasent. But he is right about this issue, more or less.
Really......despite the fact that none of his odd selection of examples hold any water and his rather notable blind spot as regards to problems associated with various immigrants across the decades, regardless of where they came from, or indeed often their religion...0 -
PeakOutput wrote: »im not disputing the fact that thos regimes murdered millions
im disputing the reasons you are giving for the murders
Havent you read the references I supplied!
They specifically stated atheism was at the heart of their movement.
Their central politburos were all avowedly atheistic. go on show me which one in the abiove list I supplied had religious believers in control or an poliotburo?
That specificially targeted religion and religious adherents!you still havnt shown one shred of evidence that the killings were done in the name of atheism rather then in the name of communism or facism or whichever regime you are refering to
How about:
ATHEISM was the IMPOSED STATE DOGMA!!!!!
"the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
- Daniel Peris,
"Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853
How about:
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
�Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Leninand cuba was an atheistic regime they just werent as harsh on religions as communists were traditionally
They were communist and persecuted proplr but didnt spoecifically promote atheism as central to their revolution and slaughter believers .it was not so opposed to belief like atheistic regimes that promote atheismn and kill those who are not atheist!
http://books.google.ie/books?id=MFUZkWWgOtMC&dq
page 127-128
So take your "not as harsh on" and turn it into "not atheistic"
Hazrsh on religion= state atheism = atheistic.
Atheistic regimes by definition want astheism and are harsh on religion.
It isnt communism or socialism does this it is State atheism. Granted some communists or Islamists do kill others but not all. ALL atheistic regimes promote atheism and surpress religion.0 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »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.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that everything is hunky dory within Islam, or that the religion does have a serious problem with extremists, but the kind of rhetoric you espouse is just hysterical. I don't agree with Sharia courts, but as others have pointed out, such arrangements have long existed for other religious communities within the UK. Why the double standard? Either people advocate for their complete abolition, or keep quiet about it, for to pick on the one and not the other borders on a certain form of -phobia.0 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »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.
Can you give me one example of these 'special priviliges'?0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think anyone is suggesting that everything is hunky dory within Islam, or that the religion does have a serious problem with extremists, but the kind of rhetoric you espouse is just hysterical. I don't agree with Sharia courts, but as others have pointed out, such arrangements have long existed for other religious communities within the UK. Why the double standard? Either people advocate for their complete abolition, or keep quiet about it, for to pick on the one and not the other borders on a certain form of -phobia.
Or pick on one particular group for 'not integrating' when they migrate, but ignore other groups who haven't.
And the point remains, westerners in the middle east don't adopt local customs and norms either.0 -
Havent you read the references I supplied!
They specifically stated atheism was at the heart of their movement.
Their central politburos were all avowedly atheistic. go on show me which one in the abiove list I supplied had religious believers in control or an poliotburo?
That specificially targeted religion and religious adherents!
How about:
ATHEISM was the IMPOSED STATE DOGMA!!!!!
"the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
- Daniel Peris,
"Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853
How about:
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
�Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
They were communist and persecuted proplr but didnt spoecifically promote atheism as central to their revolution and slaughter believers .it was not so opposed to belief like atheistic regimes that promote atheismn and kill those who are not atheist!
http://books.google.ie/books?id=MFUZkWWgOtMC&dq
page 127-128
So take your "not as harsh on" and turn it into "not atheistic"
Hazrsh on religion= state atheism = atheistic.
Atheistic regimes by definition want astheism and are harsh on religion.
It isnt communism or socialism does this it is State atheism. Granted some communists or Islamists do kill others but not all. ALL atheistic regimes promote atheism and surpress religion.
I'm not going to argue this with you to the point of derailing the thread but can you see it all generalizes to dogma? Whether its atheistic or theistic is not the root of the problem in any case, its a dogmatic regime that controls its people that does the damage.0 -
I'm not going to argue this with you to the point of derailing the thread
How?
I'm indicating that Myers is pointing to Islam as a huge threat and it pails to insignificance to the already documented threat of atheistic regimes.but can you see it all generalizes to dogma?
Oh I generalise atheistic regimes and Myers only points to Islam? The fact that he takes a small minority of Islam and generalises this to all Islamic societies in history isn't significant?
What is significant is that ALL atheistic regimes were swimming in blood.Whether its atheistic or theistic is not the root of the problem in any case, its a dogmatic regime that controls its people that does the damage.
NO! Some theistic regimes were authoritarian and bloodthirsty. some Islamic regimes were fundamentalist. ALL atheist regimes with enforced atheism at the core of their beliefs indulged in wholesale slaughter which dwarf the atrocities of religious regimes. Religious regimes in addition contributed something to society. Atheistic ones contributed nothing but death and famine.
And they still have their adherents today.0 -
How?
I'm indicating that Myers is pointing to Islam as a huge threat and it pails to insignificance to the already documented threat of atheistic regimes.
I'd be worried that the thread would end up focusing on atheism too much.Oh I generalise atheistic regimes and Myers only points to Islam? The fact that he takes a small minority of Islam and generalises this to all Islamic societies in history isn't significant?
What is significant is that ALL atheistic regimes were swimming in blood.
Its his formula for stirring the boat, for me the guy has little to no credibility but he does get discussion going. I'd ask him the same question if I could.NO! Some theistic regimes were authoritarian and bloodthirsty. some Islamic regimes were fundamentalist. ALL atheist regimes with enforced atheism at the core of their beliefs indulged in wholesale slaughter which dwarf the atrocities of religious regimes. Religious regimes in addition contributed something to society. Atheistic ones contributed nothing but death and famine.
And they still have their adherents today.
You seem to be agreeing with me there. Correct me if I'm wrong but from what you've said you sit something like this on it:
The size of the circles don't mean anything in this case. Don't you agree its fairly clear it all generalises to dogmatic regimes?0 -
So there's no central authority or director. And isn't it true there's more than one "Islam"?
Certainly, although I think it's fair to refer to it in the singular. If the religion is based on the teachings of Muhammad and the Quran, it's Islam.It's coming from a tiny minority, otherwise there'd be considerably more trouble than there is.
Terrorism (the violent kind) is coming from a tiny minority no doubt, I wouldn't dream of claiming otherwise. But the every day deep conservatism, including outrage at satirical cartoons to cite the best example, is not the work of a tiny minority. When more than 40% of British Muslims want criticism of their religion to be illegal, this is not a tiny minority.If you're going to talk about "demands", you might be specific in your references.....
Specifically, I'd highlight the Jyllands-Posten cartoon response. In western countries, tens of thousands took to the streets demanding, quite literally, bloody murder. In Denmark, several umbrella Muslim organisations, representing a considerable number of people, filed criminal charges against the free press. This is merely the tip of the iceberg. I don't actually think you're unaware of the problems I'm mentioning, but if you are you need to read more news. Over the last ten years I've seen more cases than I can count of Muslims being outraged and demanding the power of the state be brought to bear against people for expressing their opinions openly and honestly. I myself have been told by an Imam and some members of his flock that I shouldn't be legally allowed to criticise Muhammad in public.Really......despite the fact that none of his odd selection of examples hold any water and his rather notable blind spot as regards to problems associated with various immigrants across the decades, regardless of where they came from, or indeed often their religion...
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If you're referring to immigrant crime/poverty levels, those have nothing to do with the rolling back of civil liberties (The only time I've ever seen a news item about a non-Muslim demanding a special exception for their religion was a British Hindu demanding the right to be cremated in the open air, contrary to pollution regulations). Myers' selection of examples as I read them in the OP are fine to my eyes. He doesn't specifically cite any examples, but to someone who has been paying rapt attention to the issue of Islam in Europe he doesn't need to; as soon as I read what he had to say I knew of several specific examples which he must also be aware of.Einhard wrote:I don't think anyone is suggesting that everything is hunky dory within Islam, or that the religion does have a serious problem with extremists, but the kind of rhetoric you espouse is just hysterical. I don't agree with Sharia courts, but as others have pointed out, such arrangements have long existed for other religious communities within the UK. Why the double standard? Either people advocate for their complete abolition, or keep quiet about it, for to pick on the one and not the other borders on a certain form of -phobia.
When did I advocate a double standard? Just because I didn't mention others in a post about Islam doesn't mean I'm giving anyone a blank cheque.
If you'd like to talk hysterics, why don't you bring up violent, global protests which saw over 140 people killed, embassies burned, embargoes passed, Fatwa's issued, and death threats made, all over a set of satirical cartoons. I'm sorry but if you think I'm being hysterical, it is you who is using the double standard.Oh no you didn't wrote:Can you give me one example of these 'special priviliges'?
Having Sharia courts seems like a special privilege to me. Although to be fair, most European countries have said no. On the other hand, it is becoming glaringly obvious that it isn't acceptable to ridicule Islam in public, but all other religions are fair game, especially Christianity. When's the last time someone was arrested or prosecuted or murdered for lampooning that religion?
If that isn't special privilege I don't know what is, and if Muslims weren't looking for that kind of treatment more of them would speak out against blasphemy laws and religious hatred laws.
The main proponents of hate are also the main callers for censorship, and this is almost always nationalists and religious immoderates.0 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »
Having Sharia courts seems like a special privilege to me. Although to be fair, most European countries have said no. On the other hand, it is becoming glaringly obvious that it isn't acceptable to ridicule Islam in public, but all other religions are fair game, especially Christianity. When's the last time someone was arrested or prosecuted or murdered for lampooning that religion?
If that isn't special privilege I don't know what is, and if Muslims weren't looking for that kind of treatment more of them would speak out against blasphemy laws and religious hatred laws.
The main proponents of hate are also the main callers for censorship, and this is almost always nationalists and religious immoderates.
Canon law and the previously mentioned Jewish courts have this status too. So its not actually very special at all, is it, considering Muslims haven't achieved the same legal rights as other religions in Europe, is it?
And when was the last time anyone was arrested for lampooning Islam?
We recently brought in draconian blasphemy legislation in Ireland courtesy of an Opus Dei cabal in our government. Where is your outrage against Catholicism and its extremists?0 -
OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »Canon law and the previously mentioned Jewish courts have this status too. So its not actually very special at all, is it, considering Muslims haven't achieved the same legal rights as other religions in Europe, is it?
They already have the same legal rights, (except where a state church exists, but that is another matter which also needs to be dealt with), thanks to freedom of religion. It is special because it is a religious court, separate from the proper, state court. One of the cornerstones of our society is that the law must be applied equally to everyone. Therefore any court which does not use the law of the land as its law is a special case.
It happens in Muslim countries on a nearly weekly basis. It happened in Britain to a Christian couple who called Muhammad a warlord and it happened to the democratically elected Geert Wilders. I'm not a news outlet btw- if you're not paying attention to these extremely important issues as they happen you'll miss them and come under the mistaken impression that everything is fine. I don't memorise them or file them away (I should, I know) so I can link to them at the drop of a hat.And when was the last time anyone was arrested for lampooning Islam?We recently brought in draconian blasphemy legislation in Ireland courtesy of an Opus Dei cabal in our government. Where is your outrage against Catholicism and its extremists?
In a previous thread about Catholicism, I'm sure. For the record, Catholic extremists don't fly planes into buildings or murder children, so please don't compare them. Catholic extremists make state visits to receptive nations and preach that condoms are worse than AIDS.0 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »Certainly, although I think it's fair to refer to it in the singular. If the religion is based on the teachings of Muhammad and the Quran, it's Islam. .
.....fascinating.....So theres no difference between a moderate Alevi and a fanatically committed Wahabi, in faith or attitude?ChocolateSauce wrote: »Terrorism (the violent kind) is coming from a tiny minority no doubt, I wouldn't dream of claiming otherwise.
.
....like above, you lump "terrorism" all together, yet like "Islam" there's a wide range of groups, doing a number of things for a number of reasons. Please be specific.ChocolateSauce wrote: »But the every day deep conservatism, including outrage at satirical cartoons to cite the best example, is not the work of a tiny minority. When more than 40% of British Muslims want criticism of their religion to be illegal, this is not a tiny minority.
.
So muslims are the only conservative immigrant group then...?ChocolateSauce wrote: »Specifically, I'd highlight the Jyllands-Posten cartoon response. In western countries, tens of thousands took to the streets demanding, quite literally, bloody murder.
.
No tens of thousands protested, only a minority demanded "bloody murder".ChocolateSauce wrote: »In Denmark, several umbrella Muslim organisations, representing a considerable number of people, filed criminal charges against the free press. This is merely the tip of the iceberg. I don't actually think you're unaware of the problems I'm mentioning, but if you are you need to read more news. Over the last ten years I've seen more cases than I can count of Muslims being outraged and demanding the power of the state be brought to bear against people for expressing their opinions openly and honestly.
.
Again, its an attitude thats hardly unique to muslims. And seeing as they are a minority of a minority, they've no chance of getting their way.ChocolateSauce wrote: »I myself have been told by an Imam and some members of his flock that I shouldn't be legally allowed to criticise Muhammad in public.
.
Anecdotes are really not worth bringing up.ChocolateSauce wrote: »I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If you're referring to immigrant crime/poverty levels, those have nothing to do with the rolling back of civil liberties (The only time I've ever seen a news item about a non-Muslim demanding a special exception for their religion was a British Hindu demanding the right to be cremated in the open air, contrary to pollution regulations). Myers' selection of examples as I read them in the OP are fine to my eyes. He doesn't specifically cite any examples, but to someone who has been paying rapt attention to the issue of Islam in Europe he doesn't need to; as soon as I read what he had to say I knew of several specific examples which he must also be aware of.
.
He doesn't mention Sikh and Hindu honour killings. He doesn't mention arranged marriages in those communities. He doesn't mention the status of women in those communities. Theres a large number of things he leaves out.
You aren't aware of Sikh efforts with regards to the wearing of the Turban, hair length and issues with the bearing of the Kirpan? You're unaware of Sikh terrorism? You're unaware that the Sikh community abroad often sends funds to Sikh sepratist groups?
You're unaware of Hindu fundamentalism/nationalism? of Hindu terrorism and fundraising for same? Of the discrimination based on caste? Of calls to close gallerys depicting Hindu Goddesses? Of protesting against films featuring Hindu idols? Of the row over the slaugher of a tubercular cow?ChocolateSauce wrote: »If you'd like to talk hysterics, why don't you bring up violent, global protests which saw over 140 people killed, embassies burned, embargoes passed, Fatwa's issued, and death threats made, all over a set of satirical cartoons. I'm sorry but if you think I'm being hysterical, it is you who is using the double standard.
...I thought we were discussing muslim immigrants...ChocolateSauce wrote: »Having Sharia courts seems like a special privilege to me.
.
...but as theres been Jewish courts for over 100 years, thats hardly that special.ChocolateSauce wrote: »it happened to the democratically elected Geert Wilders
.
Geert Wilders wasn't arrested for "lampooning".0 -
I'd be worried that the thread would end up focusing on atheism too much.
Fair enough. Myers not referring to atheistic regimes is one thing but people challenging me that what I say about atheistic regimes is a myth is another.You seem to be agreeing with me there. Correct me if I'm wrong but from what you've said you sit something like this on it:
The size of the circles don't mean anything in this case. Don't you agree its fairly clear it all generalises to dogmatic regimes?
Yes but there is an even bigger religious circle that intersects the whole dogmatic thing. I myself am anti authoritarian which has it's own implications but I accept the logical analysis presented.0 -
Myers highlights the issue for discussion. It's a pity that any attempt at discussing the problems of integrating large numbers of Muslims into a western society is met by posters shouting islamophobia. And yes there are more than likely problems with integrating large numbers of any religion but it's large numbers of muslims that have moved to Europe, especially Britain. When this new population holds views like below, you can't just stick your head in the sand and try and defend it using Beth Din courts of the odd aggressive Hindu.
The worrying points seem to show young Muslims are more conservative and violent than the older ones polled.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6309983.stm
Some good suggestions at end of that piece.0 -
Advertisement
-
A good collection of opinion polls from the last few yearsOpinion polls
Opinion Polls in the Islamic world
Islam-related opinion polls in the UK collected by The LibertyPhile
Opinion Polls of British Muslims show that a disturbing minority are Islamists:
Poll, March 2004 - 13 percent support terror attacks on the US.
Poll, July 2005 - 6 percent support terror attacks on Britain. 13 percent have "a lot" of sympathy for the attackers.
Survey, Feb 2006:
16 percent of British Muslims support suicide bombing in Israel.
7 percent of British Muslims support suicide bombing in Britain.
Survey, July 2006:
16 percent of British Muslims support the "cause" of the London bombers. These people should not be living in the West. If they do not believe in freedom, they should not live in the free world. They should leave.
Survey of British Muslims, Channel 4, Aug 2006 (also here)
24 per cent agreed or tended to agree that the 7/7 bombings were justified.
45 per cent think 9/11 was carried out by the US or Israel.
36 percent said they wanted Sharia law in the UK.
Half said British people who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted.
Almost 80 per cent said those who published cartoons of the prophet Mohammed should be punished.
Survey of British Muslims, Channel 4, June 2007
24 percent of British Muslims deny that the four British Muslim suicide bombers carried out the 7/7 attacks.
24 percent of British Muslims believe the British government carried out the 7/7 attacks.
Optimism - Few western Muslims support terrorist violence.
The opinion polls above are a lot better than polls in the Islamic countries. Probably 80-90 percent of Muslims in the west we can live happily with. Only 10-20 percent are a problem.
Survey, July 2006 also shows that a fantastic 56 percent of British Muslims think the UK government is not doing enough to fight Islamist extremism.
Pessimism - They want to end our liberties peacefully.
40 percent of Muslims want sharia law in UK.
That is, 40 percent of British Muslims want to end our western liberties. They just want to do it peacefully. If ever they are in the majority, they will end British freedom.
The poll shows 41 percent of British Muslims don't want sharia law. And of course they may win the argument, as, over time, British Muslims finally come to understand and appreciate what a free society is.
Still, 40 percent in favour is an appalling number. It is a strong argument for restricting Islamic immigration until current Muslims integrate better. Certainly, no one who believes in sharia law should be allowed into the West.
Poll shows Muslims in Britain are the most anti-western in Europe - Pew Survey, 2006
Only 17% of British Muslims believe that Arabs carried out 9/11.
The young are worse than the old:
Poll of British Muslims, Jan 2007 (and here)
37 percent of young British Muslims want Sharia law in Britain.
36 percent of young British Muslims think apostates should be killed.
13 percent of young British Muslims said they "admired" Al Qaeda.
The stats for older British Muslims are much better. Maybe the young will ditch their fascist views as they grow up. Or maybe, disturbingly, the young show what the British Muslims of the future will look like.
The fantastic young Muslim woman Munira Mirza (British-born daughter of Pakistani immigrants) discusses the report, and, brilliantly, declines to blame it all on "Iraq" or "Israel" or some other mythical root cause. Instead, she blames it on multiculturalism, and the patronising left-liberal habit of treating immigrants as members of groups and tribes, rather than as individuals and freethinking citizens. This has helped alienate young British Muslims from British society, and forced them to look for an alternative identity.
Brilliantly, she points out that the alternative to multiculturalism, that is, a proposed unifying culture of Britain, does not have to be an exclusivist, ethnic, monocultural Anglo-Saxon tribalism, nor does it have to be just a bland, valueless, greedy consumer society. Rather the unifying culture of Britain should be the universal values of the western Enlightenment. This is what every British immigrant can and should sign up to.
Munira Mirza really speaks my language. I, and people like me, understand the values to promote to get immigrants to integrate into the West. The liberal left don't. Their values will lead to tribalism, alienation, bigotry, racism, ethnic conflict, and in the long-term possibly even civil war.
Survey of Muslim students in Britain, July 2008
40 percent support the introduction of sharia for British Muslims.
33 percent support a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.
"England is a cesspit. England is the breeding ground of fundamentalist Muslims."
- Shocking words from Nigerian writer Wole Soyinka, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, angry at the radicalisation of the Nigerian Flight 253 bomber while he was a student in Britain.
Reported 3 Feb 2010. Image from here.
He may exaggerate, but what is the world coming to when foreign intellectuals complain about the jihad being exported from England? (He's not the only one.)0 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »They already have the same legal rights, (except where a state church exists, but that is another matter which also needs to be dealt with), thanks to freedom of religion. It is special because it is a religious court, separate from the proper, state court. One of the cornerstones of our society is that the law must be applied equally to everyone. Therefore any court which does not use the law of the land as its law is a special case.
They don't. Thats the point. The Catholic Church run a parralell legal system in all countries they have a presence in. Jewish communities have a quasi legal system in many countries they have a presence in. There are plenty of examples of this in the West. But Sharia law is the rubicon. Civilisation will collapse if we let them settle their grevances in house, but not Christians or Jews. That is Islamaphobia. Simple as that.ChocolateSauce wrote: »It happens in Muslim countries on a nearly weekly basis. It happened in Britain to a Christian couple who called Muhammad a warlord and it happened to the democratically elected Geert Wilders. I'm not a news outlet btw- if you're not paying attention to these extremely important issues as they happen you'll miss them and come under the mistaken impression that everything is fine. I don't memorise them or file them away (I should, I know) so I can link to them at the drop of a hat.
No, I am asking you to back up your bluster. You are no more or less likely to be prosecuted for mocking Islam as you are for any other religion. To say otherwise is deliberatly being disengenious.ChocolateSauce wrote: »In a previous thread about Catholicism, I'm sure. For the record, Catholic extremists don't fly planes into buildings or murder children, so please don't compare them. Catholic extremists make state visits to receptive nations and preach that condoms are worse than AIDS.
Catholic extremists murdered children in Irish 'care' facilities.
There are plenty of examples of Christian extremists commiting murder.
Look at Uganda for a particularly nasty manifestation of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism0 -
OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »Civilisation will collapse if we let them settle their grevances in house, but not Christians or Jews. That is Islamaphobia. Simple as that.
YHWH can lick my balls
The father, son and holy spirit sit in a circle jerk.
Now it's your turn... Say something derogatory about Muhammad, let's see how islamophobic you are. If it is so perfectly valid to equate Christianity, Judaism and Islam, openly insult their prophet and god0 -
36% of Muslims wanting Sharia law is very disturbing. I doubt its that high in Middle eastern countries.0
-
Laminations wrote: »Myers highlights the issue for discussion. It's a pity that any attempt at discussing the problems of integrating large numbers of Muslims into a western society is met by posters shouting islamophobia. ...........
That tends to be because of the amount of Islamophobia....0 -
Laminations wrote: »YHWH can lick my balls
The father, son and holy spirit sit in a circle jerk.
Now it's your turn... Say something derogatory about Muhammad, let's see how islamophobic you are. If it is so perfectly valid to equate Christianity, Judaism and Islam, openly insult their prophet and god
Will you grow up.0 -
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »36% of Muslims wanting Sharia law is very disturbing. I doubt its that high in Middle eastern countries.
I think we need to define Sharia law. My undertanding is that in certain circumstances an Immam will issue an opinion on a dispute that has its basis in faith, specifically family related issues. The parties are not compelled to accept the verdict as it has no legal power. Similar to any number of tribunals we have at the moment, the Employee Appeals Tribunal etc.
Its not very exciting stuff, and many other religions have similar setup's to deal with non-legal issues in house. Why is this one so controversial?0 -
The parties are not compelled to accept the verdict as it has no legal power. Similar to any number of tribunals we have at the moment, the Employee Appeals Tribunal etc.
ONYD,perhaps that is so in a nice sterile managed sense.
However I believe the concerns amongst Moslems and non-believers alike relate to the pressures imposed upon young poorly educated females in particular to agree to accept the binding findings of the Sharia principled Tribunal.
Thus,the role of the extended family also comes into play,with the elder Male members generally having full control in matters of family honour or finance etc.
We in the non-believing camp tend to play down the far greater roles of "Family" and "Honour" in Islamic interpretations of life,largely due to the diminished nature of the same elements in modern Western life.
I`m not so sure of the amount of conflict which Canon Law or Talmudic Law finds itself in on an everyday basis with western legal norms,but I suspect Sharia vs Secular is causing far more unrest all across the Islamic/Western interface with particular focus on societies such as the UK where there are quite obvious polarization movements afoot.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »I think we need to define Sharia law. My undertanding is that in certain circumstances an Immam will issue an opinion on a dispute that has its basis in faith, specifically family related issues. The parties are not compelled to accept the verdict as it has no legal power. Similar to any number of tribunals we have at the moment, the Employee Appeals Tribunal etc.
Its not very exciting stuff, and many other religions have similar setup's to deal with non-legal issues in house. Why is this one so controversial?
Well I guess thats it. Liars, Damned liars etc
Suppose we'd need to know how the question was worded in the survey, ie do those 36% want Sharia law to be the law of the land or just Sharia interpretations with no power to superced the existing laws. The former being disturbing but the latter fine.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »36% of Muslims wanting Sharia law is very disturbing. I doubt its that high in Middle eastern countries.
But look at the Pew data here in relation to the points raised about Turkey
http://pewglobal.org/2010/02/04/mixed-views-of-hamas-and-hezbollah-in-largely-muslim-nations/
and in UK
http://pewglobal.org/2006/07/06/muslims-in-europe-economic-worries-top-concerns-about-religious-and-cultural-identity/
25 percent growth ( from 34 to 42 ) in general public who view fundamentalism with concern.
Yet Muslims at 43 per cent are more concerned!
The following point of "Are you christian /Muslim first and citizen second?" is more along Myers argument.
But if you look further down only 15 % of British Muslims identify with fundamentalists!
and going back to 2005 only 15 % of Muslims in the UK support suicide bombing:
http://pewglobal.org/2006/06/22/the-great-divide-how-westerners-and-muslims-view-each-other/0
Advertisement