Pakistani businessman wants to convert historic convent into a Mosque

Zubeneschamali

SnakePlissken wrote: »

why are we not allowed maintain the secular nation we have built?

Firstly, we have built no such thing, at least not yet. We live in an explicitly Roman Catholic state. Here is the Preamble to our poxy Constitution:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

Secondly, if we did live in a secular state, it would keep its nose out of the religions of its citizens. Catholic, Muslim, Pastafarian - knock yourselves out as long as you don't want State sponsorship and don't break any laws. Building mosques, churches, noodle restaurants, not the States business.

darced

This post has been deleted.

SnakePlissken

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Again, you may post your banal, tiresome comments as long as you wish, but it would certainly be more mature to actually construct an educated rebuttal rather than the internet equivalent of putting ones fingers in their ears.

well the issue is that you want ireland to remain a secular state* yet you dont want muslims to be allowed to setup a mosque. that is quite the opposite of secularism.

It most certainly is NOT the opposite of secularism, secularism is the rejection of all religions so I'm baffled by your confusion of such a simple term.

Yourself isit

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Justification, thought it was obvious.

It's not obvious. You were wrong. Also the inquisition was nowhere near as bad as the sub educated think.

ohnonotgmail

SnakePlissken wrote: »

It most certainly is NOT the opposite of secularism, secularism is the rejection of all religions so I'm baffled by your confusion of such a simple term.

i think you need to buy yourself a new dictionary. a secular state is one that is neutral in matters of religion.

RustyNut

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is a disused building. there is nothing special about it.

The answer to this is simple, we need to get the christian god and the muslim god to meet in the building and fight it out to see who gets to keep it.

I think the christian god might win because he is really 3 gods, the father, the son and the ghost,god, but on the other hand the muslim god has flying animals so that might balance it out.

We could get Dana White to promote it and maybe even get it shown on pay per view and make a few quid.

Oh yea a levitating virgin would make a great interval act, I dont see how we could lose.

Yourself isit

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Firstly, we have built no such thing, at least not yet. We live in an explicitly Roman Catholic state. Here is the Preamble to our poxy Constitution:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

Secondly, if we did live in a secular state, it would keep its nose out of the religions of its citizens. Catholic, Muslim, Pastafarian - knock yourselves out as long as you don't want State sponsorship and don't break any laws. Building mosques, churches, noodle restaurants, not the States business.

It's interesting that the most fervently anti catholic posters - almost indistinguishable from the DUP - are the most apologetic for Islam. This isn't terribly consistent.

The_Kew_Tour

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We are Irish. We do things different to the French and English. All our lads will integrate fine. If the worst comes to the worst and they don't we just blame the "far right" for everything. All 12 of them

That's how some think

wes

SnakePlissken wrote: »

It most certainly is NOT the opposite of secularism, secularism is the rejection of all religions so I'm baffled by your confusion of such a simple term.

National secular society of the UK says something different:

Secularism is a principle that involves two basic propositions. The first is the strict separation of the state from religious institutions. The second is that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law.

What they is secularism is very different than what you say. Your view would be more accurately termed "Antitheism".

ohnonotgmail

RustyNut wrote: »

The answer to this is simple, we need to get the christian god and the muslim god to meet in the building and fight it out to see who gets to keep it.

I think the christian god might win because he is really 3 gods, the father, the son and the ghost,god, but on the other hand the muslim god has flying animals so that might balance it out.

We could get Dana White to promote it and maybe even get it shown on pay per view and make a few quid.

Oh yea a levitating virgin would make a great interval act, I dont see how we could lose.

ah but the christian isn't really 3 gods, its one god with 3 different personalities. besides the god of islam IS the god of christianity.

Yourself isit

RustyNut wrote: »

The answer to this is simple, we need to get the christian god and the muslim god to meet in the building and fight it out to see who gets to keep it.

I think the christian god might win because he is really 3 gods, the father, the son and the ghost,god, but on the other hand the muslim god has flying animals so that might balance it out.

We could get Dana White to promote it and maybe even get it shown on pay per view and make a few quid.

Oh yea a levitating virgin would make a great interval act, I dont see how we could lose.

You should take that argument to some radical mosque.

Surely the most extreme atheists should welcome the secularisation of Irish society, some thing that will be reversed over time with islamic immigration

SnakePlissken

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

SnakePlissken wrote: »

It most certainly is NOT the opposite of secularism, secularism is the rejection of all religions so I'm baffled by your confusion of such a simple term.

i think you need to buy yourself a new dictionary. a secular state is one that is neutral in matters of religion.

Nothing wrong with my dictionary...

Secularism is a belief system that rejects religion, or the belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education.

I prescribe to the former.

Grayson

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i think you need to buy yourself a new dictionary. a secular state is one that is neutral in matters of religion.

Precisely. It's neutral. It doesn't ban them from the public sphere.

RustyNut

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

ah but the christian isn't really 3 gods, its one god with 3 different personalities. besides the god of islam IS the god of christianity.

Yea it might take a bit of organising all right.

Grayson

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I say we let them have roscommon. It was a lost cause anyway.

ohnonotgmail

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Nothing wrong with my dictionary...

Secularism is a belief system that rejects religion, or the belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education.

I prescribe to the former.

you need to point me to the dictionary you are using because the dictionaries i've looked at dont use the word reject in the definition. and even assuming you are using secular correctly (you're not) you are still not acting in a secular manner. you are simply being discriminatory towards islam. nothing more.

Grayson

Hang on, there's two of them?

Yourself isit

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Agreed, there seems to be a streak of xenophobia in Irish culture.

There seems to be a much stronger streak of anti Irish hatreds in Irish culture.

ohnonotgmail

Grayson wrote: »

Hang on, there's two of them?

there are at least 4 accounts with that similar name.

Yakult

Its not like Christians have never built churches in Muslim countries etc.

No new places of worship should be established or built. We need to stop the spread of religion regardless of what kind of religion it is.

Does nothing but divide people and bring hate.

wnolan1992

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Nothing wrong with my dictionary...

Secularism is a belief system that rejects religion, or the belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education.

I prescribe to the former.

I think what you want is a state that bans religion, not a secular state.

RustyNut

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

ah but the christian isn't really 3 gods, its one god with 3 different personalities. besides the god of islam IS the god of christianity.

I take it back, it would be wrong to make a mentally ill god fight.

wes

Yakult wrote: »

Its not like Christians have never built churches in Muslim countries etc.

No new places of worship should be established or built. We need to stop the spread of religion regardless of what kind of religion it is.

Does nothing but divide people and bring hate.

Its been done, and erm it lead to exactly what your trying to prevent........

Yourself isit

Yakult wrote: »

Its not like Christians have never built churches in Muslim countries etc.

No new places of worship should be established or built. We need to stop the spread of religion regardless of what kind of religion it is.

Does nothing but divide people and bring hate.

Eh? Vast majority of Christian churches in Muslim lands were built prior to the Islamic invasions. There are strong disincentives to building new churches. It's not allowed in some Arabian states.

wnolan1992

Yourself isit wrote: »

Eh? Vast majority of Christian churches in Muslim lands were built prior to the Islamic invasions. There are strong disincentives to building new churches. It's not allowed in some Arabian states.

Reconquests, not invasions.

Yourself isit

RustyNut wrote: »

I take it back, it would be wrong to make a mentally ill god fight.

That would have been radical in 1955.

Yourself isit

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Reconquests, not invasions.

What? How do you reconquest places that were never islamic?

kylith

Yakult wrote: »

Its not like Christians have never built churches in Muslim countries etc.

No new places of worship should be established or built. We need to stop the spread of religion regardless of what kind of religion it is.

Does nothing but divide people and bring hate.

Why would anyone bother building new plces of worship when Christian churches are being shut right, left, and centre and sitting idle?

Widdershins

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm not a racist but...

I'm not a sexist but...

I'm not a misogynist but...

I'm just sayin...

That makes no sense whatsoever as a response to my ''Im not religious but respect religious peoples places of worship.''

You're the person who found out your family member was racist, aren't you?

Hitman3000

kylith wrote:

Why would anyone bother building new plces of worship when Christian churches are being shut right, left, and centre and sitting idle?

Makes prefect sense. Cuts down on carbon emissions of a new build and breathes new life into a building that would otherwise fall into disrepair and ruin.

SnakePlissken

Grayson wrote: »

Hang on, there's two of them?

Two of whom? Two posters who have both independently taken their name from an 80s cult movie? Yes there is, is there some point you're trying to forward?

I haven't read the entire thread, just the first couple of pages and the last couple.

But can anyone clarify what exactly is "historic" about this building? It was built in the late-19th century, like a lot of Irish buildings, but as far as I can see, there is no question of it having any historic importance, nor is anyone suggesting tearing it down.

What exactly does the "historic" claim relate to?

Ipso

Maybe they could use a Mosque rock. It worked for the taigs.

AnGaelach

Yourself isit wrote: »

Eh? Vast majority of Christian churches in Muslim lands were built prior to the Islamic invasions. There are strong disincentives to building new churches. It's not allowed in some Arabian states.

Even in countries where it is legal to build a Church they're getting blown away or burnt down by Islamic extremists (Egypt had something like 70 Coptic Christian churches bombed or burned last year or the year before, not including the Christians who were kidnapped and murdered).

Hitman3000

Ipso wrote:

Maybe they could use a Mosque rock. It worked for the taigs.

Taigs? You just back from the march, sash and bowler hat put away for another year?

AnGaelach

AnGaelach wrote: »

Even in countries where it is legal to build a Church they're getting blown away or burnt down by Islamic extremists (Egypt had something like 70 Coptic Christian churches bombed or burned last year or the year before, not including the Christians who were kidnapped and murdered).

Are we suddenly looking to the Islamic civilisation for inspiration on our social conduct now?

Amazing how many people seem to reject Islamic immigration on some ludicrous claim that we should behave similarly to those whom they are... running away from? Think about what you are saying.

AnGaelach

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Are we suddenly looking to the Islamic civilisation for inspiration on our social conduct now?

Amazing how many people seem to reject Islamic immigration on some ludicrous claim that we should behave similarly to those whom they are... running away from? Think about what you are saying.

Don't remember advocating the bombing of mosques and the kidnapped of Muslims, though if you can find my post where I did so I'd be very much obliged.

Ipso

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Taigs? You just back from the march, sash and bowler hat put away for another year?

It was a great day, myself, Mervyn and Sandy had a good laugh shouting at the croppys to stay down.
Anyway, I find it hilarious that Irish people who make part of their national identity the fact that d'English used to persecute them for being catholic have no problem stopping other people building religious buildings.

Hitman3000

Ipso wrote:

It was a great day, myself, Mervyn and Sandy had a good laugh shouting at the croppys to stay down. Anyway, I find it hilarious that Irish people who make part of their national identity the fact that d'English used to persecute them for being catholic have no problem stopping other people building religious buildings.

Seems to be fashionable now to celebrate bigotry and sectarianism.
Personally I have no issue if a bunch of people want to praise some invisible non existent deity. Fire ahead, all I care about is they harm no one and receive no state money.

AnGaelach

AnGaelach wrote: »

Don't remember advocating the bombing of mosques and the kidnapped of Muslims, though if you can find my post where I did so I'd be very much obliged.

I'm referring to intolerance generally.

Too often, on these threads, there is a clamorous shriek about the fate of Christians in Arabic and Islamic societies, as if that is something that could possibly be relevant to our social conduct -- almost as if we should reduce ourselves to the lowest common denominator.

AnGaelach

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm referring to intolerance generally.

Too often, on these threads, there is a clamorous shriek about the fate of Christians in Arabic and Islamic societies, as if that is something that could possibly be relevant to our social conduct -- almost as if we should reduce ourselves to the lowest common denominator.

These people are coming from an intolerant culture, they're not going to suddenly become ultra liberals. We have seen the ghettoisation of European cities, we've seen third and fourth generation immigrants radicalise themselves, we've seen Muslims remain a staunchly conservative bloc even those who have lived in liberal European countries for decades.

There's tolerance, and there's stupidity, and right now we're leaning towards the latter.

Galwayguy35

Glenster wrote: »

House for pretend Christian god gets magic water sprinkled on it and becomes house for pretend Islamic god. The world turns.

Instead of a priest in a dress preaching about how a book from 2000 years ago is the literal world of god and we're all sinners and women cant be priests and we should all fast and give him our money, there'll be someone with a different accent and a slightly newer book.

Yeah but you might not be as quick to stand in front of muslims and say that in person, say it to the wrong one and they might cut your head off.

Sofiztikated

AnGaelach wrote: »

These people are coming from an intolerant culture, they're not going to suddenly become ultra liberals. We have seen the ghettoisation of European cities, we've seen third and fourth generation immigrants radicalise themselves, we've seen Muslims remain a staunchly conservative bloc even those who have lived in liberal European countries for decades.

There's tolerance, and there's stupidity, and right now we're leaning towards the latter.

Strange that all muslim Mp's in Germany voted FOR same sex marriage.

AnGaelach

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Strange that all muslim Mp's in Germany voted FOR same sex marriage.

Six whole people! I guess it's okay to judge the majority by a minority when you approve of the result?

It's a shame that the statistics don't support your bubble.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.

Riding high on Reddit

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/13/saudi-arabia-boosting-extremism-in-europe-says-former-ambassador

Sofiztikated

AnGaelach wrote: »

Six whole people! I guess it's okay to judge the majority by a minority when you approve of the result?

It's a shame that the statistics don't support your bubble.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

Either there's mixed perceptions, or bad wording but

Shaista Gohir, the chair of the Muslim Women’s Network UK, said interviews with other religious groups such as devout Jews and Christians would probably reveal similar social attitudes to those thrown up by the polling. She said that although any prejudice against gay people was unacceptable, the fact that nearly 50% of Muslims did not think homosexuality should be illegal was a sign that attitudes were shifting.

“Although they may not accept it from a religious point of view, [Muslims] accept that people should be able to have the freedom and right not be discriminated against and and live their lives,” said Gohir, adding that LGBT Muslims were beginning to speak out publicly and increasing numbers of Muslim families were having to come to terms with family members coming out as gay.

Are they coming from a **** attitude and place? Jesus, yes.

So is all religions. Some are further along the "Not being **** to each other" scale than others.

RustyNut

AnGaelach wrote: »

I guess it's okay to judge the majority by a minority when you approve of the result?

Oh the irony.

Yourself isit

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Either there's mixed perceptions, or bad wording but


Shaista Gohir, the chair of the Muslim Women’s Network UK, said interviews with other religious groups such as devout Jews and Christians would probably reveal similar social attitudes to those thrown up by the polling.


Are they coming from a **** attitude and place? Jesus, yes.

So is all religions. Some are further along the "Not being **** to each other" scale than others.

The word "devout" is doing a lot of work there.

Irish Guitarist

He described the town as like a "desert with no businesses and nothing to do."

"If you bring the Syrians there, from my heart, you are punishing them," he said at the time.
These comments were met with criticism from some members of the local community in the town.

He sounds like a right prick.

Any genuine refugee from a war torn country would be glad just to be in a country where they aren't in fear for their life. "Nothing to do". He should fuck off back to Pakistan. He doesn't seem to have much time for Ireland so I don't get why he would want to live here.

Yourself isit

Islam may or may not liberalise. German muslims were from largely secular turkey. The trend in Europe, particularly Britain, now is that islamic believers are trending to be more devout in the second or third generations. Also the family reunifications and arranged marriages top up a non assimilating culture, although of course there are counter currents of middle class assimilation.