M103 passed in Canada

Billy86

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Well there are plenty of threads on boards slagging off Catholics Jews and other religions on here so if it's good enough for one religion it's good enough for Islam.

They certainly can, but if they consistently showed up in length on every thread about a specific one of Christian or Jewish people and no other religions, or if they frequently assumed it was a Jewish or Catholic person responsible every time something bad happened only to vanish if it turned out not to be, they too would be discriminating against people based solely on their religion.

Wibbs

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

You can't criticize someone for the adherance to belief system is what you're saying? It mightn't be polite depending on the circumstances and it might be bad social etiquette but what you're saying has massive implications no? Because then you are necessarily saying you cant criticize someone based on their beliefs. What can you criticise someone for then? Purely action?

It seems that goes out the window when it's the local Catholic Church and babies bones are found in septic tanks. Then it''s seemingly fine to criticise someone for adhering to that faith, fine to criticise the religious hierarchy, fine to criticise the dogma that led to it. Fine to criticise the religion itself. Odd how that works.

Billy86

Dr Martin wrote: »

The same people unquestionably supporting this will shout the loudest about our blasphemy laws.

I don't remember posting about our blasphemy laws, but can you let me know if our blasphemy laws motions or laws, and are they in place for the sole purpose of preventing systemic discrimination against Catholics in 84% Catholic Ireland?

Dr Martin

Yes. Catholics need to be protected from the growing Christianpobia in this country.

Billy86

Wibbs wrote: »

OK then B, define Islamaphobia. If there's such a big difference it should be easy? If someone says they feel Islam as an ideology, politic and philosophy is incompatible with modern western society and should be open to critique and corralled from politics, is that "Islamaphobia"?

As Snake Plisken noted other faiths are fair game hereabouts. Hinduism not much because it's not part of our daily culture and it's a little too exotic for western tastes. Buddhism usually gets a free ride because many agnostic types turn to it for the perceived lack of magical thinking, which it's actually chock full of, and it's exotic enough, but not too exotic in general terms so it passes muster who think themselves above dreamcatchers and crystals. Christianity is fair game, Judaism to a lesser degree, again because outside of "Israel, what do we think of them" politics, it's remote(). Our own personal Irish piñata of collective guilt that we love to bash is Catholicism and indeed clerics, past and current and adherents, past and current of same are regularly in the firing line. Do I think that over the top at times? I do*, but overall I am OK with the fact that people can lash out, can criticise, can strive to never let that kind of odious daft thinking nonsense rear its ugly head again.






*years back I read a book called Chickenhawk, an autobiography of a Huey pilot in Vietnam. One tale told of a supply chopper that went down on a flight and was never seen again. Because of all the military pilfering that tends to go on in war, to balance the books every quartermaster in Vietnam claimed to have supplies on said craft. As the author noted; no wonder it crashed, the fúcker weighed 300 tons. Catholic Ireland to me is that cultural helicopter for us. Weighed down by every sin of the past we could muster. It crashed and burned and we let our collective sins go down with it. Books balanced.

I thought I already had - discriminatory prejudice against Muslims, simply because they are Muslims. Like we saw in the Quebec thread a few weeks back.

As you mention, we are low on the count of Buddhist, Hindus, etc... but at 1.1% of the population we're hardly teeming with Muslims, yet the obsession some have with it (which if Islam had never existed would likely just be replaced with an obsession with some different 'other) is a bit transparent with a fair few on here. As for criticising it on it's own merits, that is fine by me - I'm not in the slightest bit religious either way.

Billy86

Dr Martin wrote: »

Yes. Catholics need to be protected from the growing Christianpobia in this country.

Oh. The penny just dropped. Best of luck in your journeys!

Snake Plisken

Billy86 wrote: »

I don't remember posting about our blasphemy laws, but can you let me know if our blasphemy laws motions or laws, and are they in place for the sole purpose of preventing systemic discrimination against Catholics in 84% Catholic Ireland?

Actually the main spokesman for the Clonskeagh Mosque Ali Salim threatened to use the laws if any Irish paper published a cartoon of the Prophet
Muslim scholar could seek legal advice if Irish media republish Mohammed cartoon
http://jrnl.ie/1870437

Depp

Grayson wrote: »

So it's the word Islamophobic you have a problem with. Not racism? You're not worried about someone right to insult different races. You're just worried about someone right to insult muslims?

The undefined nature of the word is my problem. Islam is a theology, not a race. Anyone who insults someone based on their faith whatever it may be but their faith may be is to be condmned, but anyone who has valid questions and concerns about said faith is perfectly entitled to do so. The problem with the term by its current definition, and the proposed ''whole government approach'' to eliminating it, is the term throws these two groups in the same bracket as if they were the same thing.

Billy86

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Actually the main spokesman for the Clonskeagh Mosque Ali Salim threatened to use the laws if any Irish paper published a cartoon of the Prophet
Muslim scholar could seek legal advice if Irish media republish Mohammed cartoon
http://jrnl.ie/1870437

Besides the irony of you giving out about this after having just thanked a post saying people who don't like systemic discrimination against people based solely their religion would also be the ones giving out about blasphemy laws, that doesn't answer whether the blasphemy laws are laws or motions, and are they in place for the sole reason of preventing systemic discrimination against Catholics in a country that is 84% Catholic?

Depp

Billy86 wrote: »

I thought I already had - discriminatory prejudice against Muslims, simply because they are Muslims. Like we saw in the Quebec thread a few weeks back.

As you mention, we are low on the count of Buddhist, Hindus, etc... but at 1.1% of the population we're hardly teeming with Muslims, yet the obsession some have with it (which if Islam had never existed would likely just be replaced with an obsession with some different 'other) is a bit transparent with a fair few on here. As for criticising it on it's own merits, that is fine by me - I'm not in the slightest bit religious either way.

We are in agreement on how it should be defined so, however, both our perceptions don't fall in line with the official defenition, which is what I find to be problematic.

Billy86

Depp wrote: »

We are in agreement on how it should be defined so, however, both our perceptions don't fall in line with the official defenition, which is what I find to be problematic.

The Oxford definition is "Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."

I have nothing against someone with a 'dislike of Islam' but I would agree with 'dislike of Muslims' and prejudice against their Islam or Muslims as unacceptable (same goes for pretty much any religion) - assuming we are using the definition of prejudice as 'preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.' (both from Oxford).

Not liking the actual institution of Islam (or any religion) is fine by me though.

RDM_83 again

Billy86 wrote: »

The Canadians I know are actually quite happy with it and/or don't care because racial tensions typically aren't much of an issue over there, which might come as a surprise to the alt-right Irish lad in the video.

White Anglo Canadians tend to be uber politically correct and won't speak their mind is what I've found (maybe its different outside the GTA though), its actually refreshing getting a non white persons opinion on stuff here because they tend to be way more open.
Mind you I sort of feel a lot of it is all lip service and about having a nicer image than the USA, Trudeau gets no sh-t for approving the same pipelines as Trump got major stick for, they deport people all the time and it doesn't cause a big stink, talk a lot about the environment but one of the worst countries in the world for pollution and out of modern countries for environmental protection, as well as that they elected Harper who was pretty hard right on a lot of stuff for a decade and replaced him with a candidate who's a prime example of having the right surname (but hey if the rich handsome white guy does yoga and calls himself a feminist he gets a pass)

Grayson

Wibbs wrote: »

It seems that goes out the window when it's the local Catholic Church and babies bones are found in septic tanks. Then it''s seemingly fine to criticise someone for adhering to that faith, fine to criticise the religious hierarchy, fine to criticise the dogma that led to it. Fine to criticise the religion itself. Odd how that works.

It's criticising an organisation for what it did. You can criticise a catholic for allowing that stuff to happen. It's not saying that all Catholics are bad because of the actions of some.

Think of it like criticising a charity that swindled people. It's different to criticising charity workers of all type.

the great communicator

M103 is a blight, it is the implementation of Islamic blasphemy law and nothing less.

Dr Martin

But you liberals are always saying Ireland is not Catholic majority anymore and people just have their kids baptized for craic, mammy puts them down as Catholic on the census form etc

So yes, I welcome any laws to prevent the worrying trend of Christianpohbia in this country.

Depp

Billy86 wrote: »

The Oxford definition is "Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."

I have nothing against someone with a 'dislike of Islam' but I would agree with 'dislike of Muslims' and prejudice against their Islam or Muslims as unacceptable (same goes for pretty much any religion) - assuming we are using the definition of prejudice as 'preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.' (both from Oxford).

Not liking the actual institution of Islam (or any religion) is fine by me though.

I'm in 100% agreement with this. If the ''dislike of or'' part of the definition were to be removed I would be in complete support of this motion and ostensibly it being written into law. People should 100% be free to practice any religion without fear of prejudice but said religion should in no way be excused from people criticizing or disliking it!

Grayson

How is it that it's against racism and people are ok with that. It's against religious discrimination and people are ok with that. You mention Islamophobia and people are suddenly saying that it's unfair and banning freedom of speech.

the great communicator

Zaph wrote: »

So it's sad that people can't be openly racist? Would you be as up in arms about this is the motion was to stop people engaging in homophobia? Or blatant sexism? Or abusing members of a different religion? Or is it only stifling free speech because it condemns Islamophobia?

Islam is a set of ideas not a race. Decrying it or pointing out it's flaws is no different to disputing the ideas of fascism, marxism or capitalism.

Depp

Grayson wrote: »

How is it that it's against racism and people are ok with that. It's against religious discrimination and people are ok with that. You mention Islamophobia and people are suddenly saying that it's unfair and banning freedom of speech.

I concisely explained the problem with the term in my last reply to you, what about said post do you need clarified?

Depp

Just updated the op to include a further video by the creator of the first that includes a few clarifications and corrections.

Billy86

Depp wrote: »

I'm in 100% agreement with this. If the ''dislike of or'' part of the definition were to be removed I would be in complete support of this motion and ostensibly it being written into law. People should 100% be free to practice any religion without fear of prejudice but said religion should in no way be excused from people criticizing or disliking it!

I do get you, though I don't necessarily think that would be a concern from experience over there. Canadians tend to be very open, accepting and willing to let people do their own thing so long as they're not harming others hence their reputation for politeness (bit of a running joke the Yanks have about them), but contrary to what that might lead people to think they do generally call bullsh*t when needed in my experience and I wouldn't reckon 'you cannot criticise at all' would not be the intention. The irony is they're kind of what the US likes to think of itself as being (but often isn't) in that sense without making constant noise about it, whatever circumstances led to it they generally have great race/religious relations.

Quebec generally is meant to be a good bit different, never got the chance to go over apart from a day in Gatineaux (over the bridge from Ottawa... kind of like if you crossed O'Connell Bridge in Dublin and found yourself in a different, all Irish speaking separatist city :pac: bit of a dump but in a weird/nice way),

Grayson

the great communicator wrote: »

Islam is a set of ideas not a race. Decrying it or pointing out it's flaws is no different to disputing the ideas of fascism, marxism or capitalism.

However it is wrong to say that Muslims are bad or that Islam as a whole is bad.

Example: ISIS and muslims who believe in a violent fundamentalist version of their religion are bad.

That's ok.

Example: Islam is bad because some muslims are evil.

Not ok. In the second example you're extending it to all followers of that religion.

It's similar to saying "The catholic church in Ireland was complicit in the abuse of women and children" compared to "Because the catholic church was complicit in the abuse of minors catholicism is bad".

Or "Christians in Uganda are extremely homophobic, therefore all Christians are bad".



That not to say that there are times a blanket statement isn't ok. For example Scientology is a very close tight knit group who's followers a rigidly hold the same belief system whereas with catholics or muslims there's a huge variety. It's far easier to make a blanket statement about Scientology rather than the other two.

Sweetemotion

Grayson wrote: »

However it is wrong to say that Muslims are bad or that Islam as a whole is bad.

Example: ISIS and muslims who believe in a violent fundamentalist version of their religion are bad.

That's ok.

Example: Islam is bad because some muslims are evil.

Not ok. In the second example you're extending it to all followers of that religion.

It's similar to saying "The catholic church in Ireland was complicit in the abuse of women and children" compared to "Because the catholic church was complicit in the abuse of minors catholicism is bad".

Or "Christians in Uganda are extremely homophobic, therefore all Christians are bad".



That not to say that there are times a blanket statement isn't ok. For example Scientology is a very close tight knit group who's followers a rigidly hold the same belief system whereas with catholics or muslims there's a huge variety. It's far easier to make a blanket statement about Scientology rather than the other two.

Bla, Bla , Bla. Christians done it 500 years ago so everything is ok folks.

RDM_83 again

Grayson wrote: »

How is it that it's against racism and people are ok with that. It's against religious discrimination and people are ok with that. You mention Islamophobia and people are suddenly saying that it's unfair and banning freedom of speech.

There was tons of threads on feedback back in the day and it took forever for even the slightest reduction on the constant catholic bashing (and I've a feeling thats simply because it was boring and repetitive), a good recent example recently is of how long the Should Christianity be Banned thread lasted, funny how your never fighting against that phobia.

Basically the answer that was always given to defend Catholic bashing stuff is that its different to judge people for their beliefs rather than for an unchangeable characteristic like race/skin colour/sex etc should also apply to Islam

Depp

Grayson wrote: »

However it is wrong to say that Muslims are bad or that Islam as a whole is bad.

Example: ISIS and muslims who believe in a violent fundamentalist version of their religion are bad.

That's ok.

Example: Islam is bad because some muslims are evil.

Not ok. In the second example you're extending it to all followers of that religion.

This is very true except for no-one is saying this, pointing out flaws in islam and saying certain tenets of it are wrong is not the same thing as saying islam in its entirety is wrong and it is not the same as saying all muslims are wrong.

Dr Martin

You can call me an idiot for believing in Christ, say all Catholics are deluded morons. That's fine with me. Free speech trumps your feelings.

Grayson

RDM_83 again wrote: »

There was tons of threads on feedback back in the day and it took forever for even the slightest reduction on the constant catholic bashing (and I've a feeling thats simply because it was boring and repetitive), a good recent example recently is of how long the Should Christianity be Banned thread lasted, funny how your never fighting against that phobia.

Basically the answer that was always given to defend Catholic bashing stuff is that its different to judge people for their beliefs rather than for an unchangeable characteristic like race/skin colour/sex etc should also apply to Islam

I expect an apology when you go to that thread and see that I said banning Catholicism was stupid.

the great communicator

Grayson wrote: »

However it is wrong to say that Muslims are bad or that Islam as a whole is bad.

Example: ISIS and muslims who believe in a violent fundamentalist version of their religion are bad.

That's ok.

Example: Islam is bad because some muslims are evil.

Not ok. In the second example you're extending it to all followers of that religion.

It's similar to saying "The catholic church in Ireland was complicit in the abuse of women and children" compared to "Because the catholic church was complicit in the abuse of minors catholicism is bad".

Or "Christians in Uganda are extremely homophobic, therefore all Christians are bad".



That not to say that there are times a blanket statement isn't ok. For example Scientology is a very close tight knit group who's followers a rigidly hold the same belief system whereas with catholics or muslims there's a huge variety. It's far easier to make a blanket statement about Scientology rather than the other two.

It's not wrong to say Islam as a whole is bad. Islam is a set of ideas. I'm sure there are many here who believe capitalism is a terrible idea that breeds nothing but unfairness and hardship yet bear no ill will to each and every one of us typing here on our branded laptops.

I have no animosity towards individual muslims and they are both under the law and in my opinion free to practice their faith and should and will continue to do so freely.

But the Quran, the story of Muhammad and the way of life in Muslim majority areas today are all open to and worthy of criticism in spades. We must discuss bad ideas in order to defeat and disprove them.

Dr Martin

I mean we're at the stage now where the Southern Law Poverty centre has put a Muslim who wants to reform Islam and bring it into the 21st century on their 'hate list'! Maybe I'll end up on that list one day.

Perhaps they should put Ataturk down as an historical 'Islamophobe'.

Dr Martin

Muslims follow the word of a pedo and warlord. Should it be illegal to say that?

Grayson

Dr Martin wrote: »

You can call me an idiot for believing in Christ, say all Catholics are deluded morons. That's fine with me. Free speech trumps your feelings.

I've said many times I think religions are stupid. However I think it's wrong to make a moral judgement about a person or group of people based on their religion. Being a Muslim or christian doesn't indicate if someone is good or bad.

Depp

Dr Martin wrote: »

I mean we're at the stage now where the Southern Law Poverty centre has put a Muslim who wants to reform Islam and bring it into the 21st century on their 'hate list'! Maybe I'll end up on that list one day.

Perhaps they should put Ataturk down as an historical 'Islamophobe'.

They've 3 or 4 reformist muslims on it now but thankfully that list has very little relevancy in actuality. Think the official term is ''anti islam extremist watch list''. Its so preposterous that its actually funny in a way.

WoolyJumper

oh christ, came across this guys videos when looking for some advice on a mac.....he has some very very strange views. Especially when it comes to women. The particular video I saw was him explaining the he doesn't go to clubs and basically his conclusion was the type of women that goes to club gets dressed up to attract men to get free drinks only to reject the man later. I know thats a bit off topic just find it hard to take anything he says seriously.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Depp

Grayson wrote: »

I've said many times I think religions are stupid. However I think it's wrong to make a moral judgement about a person or group of people based on their religion. Being a Muslim or christian doesn't indicate if someone is good or bad.

again, outside small groups of extremists, no-one is saying this. No one is trying to make moral judgements against all muslims based off the fact they are muslim. Ayaan Hirsa Ali and Maajid Nawaz arent calling out the flaws in their own faith because they want to spread hate against all muslims.

Dr Martin

Grayson wrote: »

I've said many times I think religions are stupid. However I think it's wrong to make a moral judgement about a person or group of people based on their religion. Being a Muslim or christian doesn't indicate if someone is good or bad.

And I don't care if you say Christians are bad cos they hang gays in Africa. You should be allowed say it.

AlekSmart

the great communicator wrote: »

Islam is a set of ideas not a race. Decrying it or pointing out it's flaws is no different to disputing the ideas of fascism, marxism or capitalism.

You will not get any points for pointing that out.

A great many people round these parts,fall back upon the long established experiences of their Catholic upbringing,and fully expect a fundamental Muslim to be like the fundamental Catholic of their youth.

The fail to appreciate that the most devout Catholic ever to emerge from Ireland,would not in any way compare to your average devout Muslim...Our ingrained folk memories of Sodalities (Male & Female),Confraternities,Black fast days,Novenas,Ecclasticial Courts,Exorcisms and whatever,stand no chance when compared to the strictures imposed upon Muslims.

The difference between our respective religious outlooks and practices is largely down to the availability of vastly improved Education,which brought with it Questioning,with initially,a reluctance,then a downright refusal to,any longer accept,Religious dictats based upon unwavering loyalty to a Leadership which had long exceeded it's remit.

You will search long & hard before finding an Islamic society,which is prepared to accept any liberalization of it's religious based education.

Education is power...these Men fully embrace that principle,and are not about to surrender their last (and only) weapon of mass control.

RDM_83 again

Grayson wrote: »

I expect an apology when you go to that thread and see that I said banning Catholicism was stupid.

No appology will be forthcoming because went back and searched and what you actually said was
"I'm surprised how many people voted yes. I'm all in flavor of a separation of church and state but banning a religion is a bit far"

and then a decent few posts talking about historic church issues etc (including ironically complaining about censorship)

If you were actually balanced in your views you'd be calling out the Anti-Catholicism and calling for the thread to be closed in feedback here

Call Me Jimmy

sdanseo wrote: »

Very fine line in some debate between criticising a person because of their religion, and criticising that religion itself.

Preventing wanton discrimination is honourable. Preventing discord about subjects which deserve to be discussed is censorship. There are those who are muslim who use it as justification for murder or even genocide and that has to be condemned and in that context doing so could be in danger of being branded islamophobic. Is the lesser of the two evils really to let extremism perpetuate unchecked?

And a very fine line (I would say non-existent) between protecting someone from criticisim based on their adherence to a religion and criticising someone else for their adherence to any obviously abhorrent belief system (white-supremecy). These lines matter when you get anywhere near law or legislation. It's easy to imagine people as racists who are just looking for any excuse to hate brown people, what's harder is considering that there may be reasonable questions raised about protecting belief systems (and necessarily the people who adhere to them) from criticism. I can say anyone who is a flat-earther is an idiot but not of anyone who is muslim is an idiot. I don't think anyone who is a muslim is an idiot, but I should be able to say it if I want to (which I don't).

Widdershins

Zaph wrote: »

So it's sad that people can't be openly racist? Would you be as up in arms about this is the motion was to stop people engaging in homophobia? Or blatant sexism? Or abusing members of a different religion? Or is it only stifling free speech because it condemns Islamophobia?

Do they not have laws against racist behaviour already? If so, why this new one for Islamophobia, specifically?

Widdershins

Dr Martin wrote: »

I mean we're at the stage now where the Southern Law Poverty centre has put a Muslim who wants to reform Islam and bring it into the 21st century on their 'hate list'! Maybe I'll end up on that list one day.

Perhaps they should put Ataturk down as an historical 'Islamophobe'.

Salman Rushdie's fatwa comes to mind... not just from your comment but somehow also from the topic of this thread.

suicide_circus

I always like to blaspheme three times before breakfast.

Islamophobia is a word which attempts to blur the line between criticism of a set of ideas and criticism of a group of people. If a group of people identify so strongly with a set of ideas that any criticism of those ideas make they feel personally attacked then frankly that's too darn bad.

Call Me Jimmy

suicide_circus wrote: »

I always like to blaspheme three times before breakfast.

Islamophobia is a word which attempts to blur the line between criticism of a set of ideas and criticism of a group of people. If a group of people identify so strongly with a set of ideas that any criticism of those ideas make they feel personally attacked then frankly that's too darn bad.

**** man thats bang on

AlekSmart

AlekSmart wrote: »

The fail to appreciate that the most devout Catholic ever to emerge from Ireland,would not in any way compare to your average devout Muslim...Our ingrained folk memories of Sodalities (Male & Female),Confraternities,Black fast days,Novenas,Ecclasticial Courts,Exorcisms and whatever,stand no chance when compared to the strictures imposed upon Muslims.

I think it's because most of them have never been to a muslim country, instead seeing small numbers here or there.

My issue isn't really with the present day.. I'm more concerned with a decade or two decades from now when Europe/Ireland has far more muslims living here. Alas, it seems like everyone is looking at short-term issues rather than the long-term effects of such. I don't think they really realise that Islam is not going to be the relatively slight friction that Protestants/Catholics had. While there are many different perspectives/philosophies in Islam, there are a great number that find Western culture/lifestles abhorrant, but they'll still come to Europe for economic reasons.

I have nothing against Islam as a religion, and I have travelled though/lived in Islamic countries. As long as it, and other religions are practiced privately in the home or their place of worship, I really don't mind. However, I do draw a certain line with public displays of religion (All religions). That being dress, behavior, etc. Just as I wouldn't want devout christians to be whipping themselves in public or Hindi followers leaving dead bodies outside their temple.

Personally, I'd prefer that we didn't focus on Islam at all, but rather sought a society where all religion is protected in the home/holy place, and public displays were severely limited. We live in a very diverse world now, and there will be plenty of friction between cultures without encouraging Relgious reasons to join in.

AlekSmart

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's because most of them have never been to a muslim country, instead seeing small numbers here or there.

My issue isn't really with the present day.. I'm more concerned with a decade or two decades from now when Europe/Ireland has far more muslims living here. Alas, it seems like everyone is looking at short-term issues rather than the long-term effects of such. I don't think they really realise that Islam is not going to be the relatively slight friction that Protestants/Catholics had. While there are many different perspectives/philosophies in Islam, there are a great number that find Western culture/lifestles abhorrant, but they'll still come to Europe for economic reasons.

I have nothing against Islam as a religion, and I have travelled though/lived in Islamic countries. As long as it, and other religions are practiced privately in the home or their place of worship, I really don't mind. However, I do draw a certain line with public displays of religion (All religions). That being dress, behavior, etc. Just as I wouldn't want devout christians to be whipping themselves in public or Hindi followers leaving dead bodies outside their temple.

Personally, I'd prefer that we didn't focus on Islam at all, but rather sought a society where all religion is protected in the home/holy place, and public displays were severely limited. We live in a very diverse world now, and there will be plenty of friction between cultures without encouraging Relgious reasons to join in.

Pertinent and well crafted post.

However,for some,as yet unknown,reason any attempt by a European State to move towards such an egalatarian situation is immediately met with a wave of internal dissention,rather pointedly reserved for matters Muslim.

Even at a local level,our news media shy away from reportage that focuses on the rather glaringly apparent contradictions between the Requirements imposed upon a practicing Muslim and the norms we non-Muslims have long ago secured in our Western European surroundings.

This sense of complacent superiority,so evident in many of the pro-immigration supporters will,one day be their undoing.

As to phobias,and religious based phobias in particular,I would have no problem accepting that "Extreme or irrational fears of something" are a quite natural integral part of Human existance which play a role in the self-preservation of the species.

My own fear of Islam,if it be that,comes form observing the march of militant,radical,violent devotion to Islamic strictures by a significant number of it's devotees.

We appear to have quickly and easily forgotten the beheading videos of Ken Bigley and those others that followed..

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/brother-murdered-iraq-hostage-ken-7724488

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35626237

The relevance of these incidents is in the chanting and invocation of the Prophets name as justification for the deed itself...That aspect alone should be enough to ensure we treat any attempts to convince us that we need to be more open and accomodating to broader Islamic beliefs without first subjecting them to robust and thorough screening.

Unless,of course,we Western Europeans do actually see merit in the stoning of females and the public amputations so regularly performed across the Muslim world ?

Western Europe,and Ireland in particular has had it's fill of Religious based tomfoolery,and needs to openly question and challenge the motives of those who seek to facilitate the unquestioning re-introduction of a belief structure which seeks to impose it's dictats on ALL humanity.

jackofalltrades

So at a time when Western countries are increasingly under attack from Islamist violence.
Canada decides to pass a motion condemning criticism of the underlying ideology.
Well done Canada. :rolleyes:
There's a Tropic Thunder quote just for this kind of situation.

Widdershins

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I'd prefer that we didn't focus on Islam at all, but rather sought a society where all religion is protected in the home/holy place, and public displays were severely limited. We live in a very diverse world now, and there will be plenty of friction between cultures without encouraging Relgious reasons to join in.

I think this makes perfect sense. I think that would be the perfect balance, if it could be achieved. It would not go down well with people who insist that they must wear religious attire and have call to prayer etc in public, though.

Widdershins

Widdershins wrote: »

I think this makes perfect sense. I think that would be the perfect balance, if it could be achieved. It would not go down well with people who insist that they must wear religious attire and have call to prayer etc in public, though.

TBH, I have no problem with the call to prayer. It sends a shiver down my spine to hear it, but it's also quite beautiful.

However, there is no requirement in Islam for prayer to be done in a public place where unbelievers are living. In a country with a majority population of muslims it makes sense, but in a country where the majority are of other faiths (or none), it makes no sense.

This insistance on being able to display a religious or cultural behavior in a country that does not have that religion/culture natively/naturally is unreasonable. If you ever go to Iran, Indonesia or Egypt.. while other religions are 'protected' (somewhat), there is no drive to allow public displays of other religions.. They're to be done behind walls away from the eyes of the native people (of whom the vast majority are muslim.)

This insistance by some Europeans to be more open, more free, more generous (than other nations) to other religious groups is impractial and unrealistic. It completely ignores the tensions that exist in the world... and does nothing to reduce those tensions. Rather it encourages the alienation of these groups in Europe and an increase of anger/hatred/distrust.

Jews were easy targets for Hatred because they dressed differently and behaved differently than the general population. It was easy for groups to point in their direction... Considering the tensions in the world regarding Islam, is it really a good idea to reinforce the perception of differences? Which is what allowing something like Niqab in our streets would do. Just as allowing a Satanist High priest to walk around in his regalia would also achieve.

At least the Mormons wear their magic underwear beneath their clothes...

Islam and any religion must be open for criticism or comment. Hate speech should definitely be reined in, but healthy debates concerning the religion itself, and its impact on society should be encouraged. Whether that be about Islam, Christianity, Jedism, etc.

Widdershins

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH, I have no problem with the call to prayer. It sends a shiver down my spine to hear it, but it's also quite beautiful.

However, there is no requirement in Islam for prayer to be done in a public place where unbelievers are living. In a country with a majority population of muslims it makes sense, but in a country where the majority are of other faiths (or none), it makes no sense.

This insistance on being able to display a religious or cultural behavior in a country that does not have that religion/culture natively/naturally is unreasonable. If you ever go to Iran, Indonesia or Egypt.. while other religions are 'protected' (somewhat), there is no drive to allow public displays of other religions.. They're to be done behind walls away from the eyes of the native people (of whom the vast majority are muslim.)

This insistance by some Europeans to be more open, more free, more generous (than other nations) to other religious groups is impractial and unrealistic. It completely ignores the tensions that exist in the world... and does nothing to reduce those tensions. Rather it encourages the alienation of these groups in Europe and an increase of anger/hatred/distrust.

Jews were easy targets for Hatred because they dressed differently and behaved differently than the general population. It was easy for groups to point in their direction... Considering the tensions in the world regarding Islam, is it really a good idea to reinforce the perception of differences? Which is what allowing something like Niqab in our streets would do. Just as allowing a Satanist High priest to walk around in his regalia would also achieve.

At least the Mormons wear their magic underwear beneath their clothes...

Islam and any religion must be open for criticism or comment. Hate speech should definitely be reined in, but healthy debates concerning the religion itself, and its impact on society should be encouraged. Whether that be about Islam, Christianity, Jedism, etc.

Call t prayer: Neither do I have a problem with it, but if religion is to be separate to public life, it doesn't really work, does it? But I suppose this is a workable theory and need not be totalitarian!. And yes I agree, I think it's kind of hauntingly beautiful.

Depp

Widdershins wrote: »

Call t prayer: Neither do I have a problem with it, but if religion is to be separate to public life, it doesn't really work, does it? But I suppose this is a workable theory and need not be totalitarian!. And yes I agree, I think it's kind of hauntingly beautiful.

I think if you restrict how people express their faith publically its of no help whatsoever. If someone wants to genuinely and voluntarily express their faith be it by wearing either a hijab or a cross around their neck or ringlets down over their ears I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this. Restricting this is a short step away from banning the religions outright and I think thats as heinous as banning free speech.