Is Islam right for Ireland?

jmayo

Odhinn wrote: »

What's he a Doctor of?

Who.

Grayson wrote: »

...
There are millions of refugees displaced because of Syria. They are all people. Individuals just like us. They need help and it's serious. We have to think about what we are going to do. Nothing? resettle them? there's no easy answers and each has it's own challenges. And they are very serious challenges.
...

This is one of the big lies that has been fed about the massive muslim migration to Europe.
And it is to tug at the old heart strings and play this on an emotional level.
The vast vast majority of those crossing the Med from the likes of Libya are from North Africa, Sub Saharan Africa and the horn of Africa.

Ever notice the make up of the ones being picked up by the Naval taxi service ?

A huge chunk of the ones that made it to Germany or Sweden are Afghani, North Africa, Kurdish, Turkish, Albanian, Kosovan, Modovan, Uzbeks, etc.

Yes there are a fair amount of Syrians, but even authorities have had to admit that there is huge number that are not.

utmbuilder wrote: »

Almost 60,000 muslims in Ireland already.

Dont think they have caused any problems so far. Most are home owning familes.

Millions of investment into horse racing every year, funded their own 5 million mosque.

Large number of doctors, company owners, etc

Didnt see many in the dole office in the recession

We have had a fair few nasty rapes carried out by Egyptian, Eritrean and Pakistani including one carried out on mentally challenged young woman.

And we have had an ISIS recruiter.
Oh and an al qeada money man.

Oh and don't forget the mentally ill young refugee that killed a legitimate Japanese migrant and attempted to attack a number of other people after only a couple of days in the country.

And one of those recent London attackers had spent some time here.

An Irish muslim convert became a suicide bomber.

Doesn't ring any bells at all ????

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I continue to find it bizarre that everyone tends to frame the whole migrant debate as being about either religion or race, when in reality it's about culture.

A white Christian born and raised in Saudi Arabia and totally immersed in Saudi culture is going to have a view of (to take one example) womens' rights and sexual freedom which is entirely incompatible with Western values.

Good luck finding many of those.
AFAIK all Saudis are considered to be muslim and that is by the state itself.
And the religious police would enforce the old death for apostasy if they found natives had converted.

There are estimated to be about 1.5 to 2 million christians living there as guest workers, but they will never ever get citizenship.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

In WW2, European refugees were housed in camps in Syria.

Ehh Syria was a French controlled mandate prior to WW2 and the British invaded in 1941 to overthrow the Vichy French who were helping the Axis powers.
De Gaulle put a Free French General in control of Syria and Lebanon.
Shortly afterwards he recognised the independence of Syria and Lebanon but only Lebanon became an independent state in 1943.

So in WW2 it was not a muslim state.
You forgot to mention that little nugget and were kinda of economical with the old facts..

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Like I said before, if someone wants to judge Muslims by the actions of the worst of them then they should be OK with Christians being judged by the actions of groups like the Westboro Baptist Church.

Right lets blow another one of your little assertions out of the water.
Odious and all as the Westboro Baptist Church is it only amounts to less than 100 odd members. Supposedly only about 70-80.
And odious as their beliefs are (they hate everyone really) they haven't had any suicide bombers or international terrorist attacks AFAIK.

Now there are about 2.3 billion christians in the world.
Now I believe that is 2,300,000,000
So lets be generous and round it to nearest 1000 so 1000 WBC loons.

On the other hand there are 1.8 billion muslims.
Now I believe that is 1,800,000,000

Now just doing quick scan there are more than 100 actual islamist terrorists who have slaughtered people across the globe from Indonesia, to Kenya, to Manchester to Florida.
All in the name of their religion.

Hell Beslan attack involved 34 islamist attackers so that would be nearly half WBC wiped out in one operation.
The 2008 Mumbai attacks involved 8 so they would be another chunk of WBC gone.

So really the thousands of fundamentalist muslims that have been involved with the likes of Boko Haram, Al qaeda, ISIS, etc, etc is equivalent to the 100 odd of the Westboro baptist church.
And I am only comparing actual terrorist and jihadi fighters to with WBC not all those who flood the streets every time someone draws a cartoon of that guy from the desert.

Forgive me for seeing big difference in the order of magnitude in your comparisons. :rolleyes:

Wibbs

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I think Ireland is liberal. But the statistics and practical facts don't agree. Which is why I think it's stupid to try and judge someone based on such things.

How in god's holy name does Ireland end up liberal after decades of not being if the stats and "practical facts"(whatever the hell that means) don't agree? The "practical facts" as you call them demonstrably show Ireland as becoming extremely liberal. One of the most liberal and safe and stable within Europe.

I'm not the one ignoring subcultures. I'm not the one suggesting people be judged based on their religion or nationality.

Yes you are ignoring subcultures. You said: "They are from that country so by your test they represent the culture of that country. If they represent the culture of that country then they can't really be running from it so they should not be let in", which is one of the dafter things I've read on this thread and there's a high bar set. In that sentence you make no allowances for subcultures, that say a Jewish, or Christian Iranian would have a different set of cultural ideas and ideals to a Muslim Iranian, or why the former might want to flee the country and the culture in charge. Though to be fair Iran contrary to US propaganda is not a great example on that score. Far better to be a Jew or Christian in Iran than in their great friend Saudi Arabia.

You still don't get it. I simply don't believe in judging people based on their nationality or where they are from. Once you start labeling people based on the group they happen to come from I don't see any difference between that and racism.

Oh I get it. I get that you're so afraid of being prejudiced - a good thing - that even when faced with something that might warrant a cautious prejudice you baulk at it. IE your suggested if imaginary example of "what if 80% of group X hated gays? 20% wouldn't and so we can't judge". Its beyond confusing.

I don't see precaution as an issue. We've had armed patrols and checkpoints on our own streets recently.

If you're comparing a few Garda checkpoints and armed patrols to the situation on the ground in Paris this debate has gone into the realms of farce. And why does Paris et al need such precautions? Why do we not need them to nearly the same degree?

Nobody has said issues should be ignored.

By your own words you're ignoring them. You would ignore 80% of a group being homophobic, because a minority might not be.

masculinist

The Loner wrote: »

I will never understand why western liberals are so desperate to defend the most backward religion on the planet.

It appears to be institutionalised from the top down (Bilderberg and Brussels ? Its a global ideology not an original local one so its more than just here) so those propagating apologist nonsense for something clearly wrong and making weak excuses or deflecting the real stories currently in the media or public life etc would risk or lose their jobs if they went off script and started treating everyone like adults by criticizing those ideas and ideologies which need criticism.
It takes someone with exceptional public speaking skills and nerves of steel to stand alone on an issue when all the newspapers, tv and radio are constantly hectoring them and twisting reality.
The media don't have any backbone apart from one or 2 who have been sacked over the years. If they did then they would resist and reject anyone removing their independence . The old media and worryingly a lot of our establishment from FF to FG and labour wants to ban and heavily censor the new media as it represents a platform for free speech and a living for those who use such facilities as patreon. The smaller parties are on the pc train too.
And its not only the media who are pushing this nonsense. Theres also a group of people online who constantly put forward identical talking points to shout down online discussion. Nowhere in history do identical idiots appear spontaneously and unconnected. Its' organized. Call me paranoid if you want but theres a lot of money backing our downfall - the downfall of enlightenment renaissance values. But its completely logical for those who wish to usher in authoritarianism to do so by authoritarian methods. You cant expect them to be fair, gentlemanly or good sports. The only way we can push back is from the grass roots.

Seanachai

Is any Abrahamic religion right for a Northern European island? When you research how these desert faiths were actually spread here and what they espouse, it's shocking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqFKK7V8XMc

SnakePlissken

Auguste Comte wrote: »

I'd love to have the time to fact check the rest of the posts in this thread, when I read a lot of the anti Muslim posts I just keep seeing this guy and getting a giggle, keep it up lads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5VDbu-HLMs

Said guy was speaking about muslim rape gangs over a decade before the UK authorities finally aknowledged their existence, and indeed their frightening numbers, but hey, he wasn't particular eloquent and is from a poor socia-economic background so he had no voice to those useful idiots on the far left..

masculinist

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Said guy was speaking about muslim rape gangs over a decade before the UK authorities finally aknowledged their existence, and indeed their frightening numbers, but hey, he wasn't particular eloquent and is from a poor socia-economic background so he had no voice to those useful idiots on the far left..

Well look at this useful mercenary idiot spouting rubbish completely unchallenged about life in Sweden for women and unable to resist a dig at Irish men . Good thing for her there no comment section .

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/in-sweden-you-don-t-have-to-deal-with-men-cat-calling-you-in-the-street-1.3443157?mode=amp

Captain Obvious

jmayo wrote: »

Ehh Syria was a French controlled mandate prior to WW2 and the British invaded in 1941 to overthrow the Vichy French who were helping the Axis powers.
De Gaulle put a Free French General in control of Syria and Lebanon.
Shortly afterwards he recognised the independence of Syria and Lebanon but only Lebanon became an independent state in 1943.

So in WW2 it was not a muslim state.
You forgot to mention that little nugget and were kinda of economical with the old facts..

Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan. All with different types of government but all populated by Muslims. All took in Jewish refugees. Iran took in hundreds of thousands of Polish alone.

jmayo wrote: »

Right lets blow another one of your little assertions out of the water.
Odious and all as the Westboro Baptist Church is it only amounts to less than 100 odd members. Supposedly only about 70-80.
And odious as their beliefs are (they hate everyone really) they haven't had any suicide bombers or international terrorist attacks AFAIK.

Now there are about 2.3 billion christians in the world.
Now I believe that is 2,300,000,000
So lets be generous and round it to nearest 1000 so 1000 WBC loons.

On the other hand there are 1.8 billion muslims.
Now I believe that is 1,800,000,000

Now just doing quick scan there are more than 100 actual islamist terrorists who have slaughtered people across the globe from Indonesia, to Kenya, to Manchester to Florida.
All in the name of their religion.

Hell Beslan attack involved 34 islamist attackers so that would be nearly half WBC wiped out in one operation.
The 2008 Mumbai attacks involved 8 so they would be another chunk of WBC gone.

So really the thousands of fundamentalist muslims that have been involved with the likes of Boko Haram, Al qaeda, ISIS, etc, etc is equivalent to the 100 odd of the Westboro baptist church.
And I am only comparing actual terrorist and jihadi fighters to with WBC not all those who flood the streets every time someone draws a cartoon of that guy from the desert.

Forgive me for seeing big difference in the order of magnitude in your comparisons. :rolleyes:

The Westboro Baptist Church was just an example of the odious Christians that could be used to tar the entire religion. There are plenty others. Violent people and groups. Countries with severely regressive laws. You're picking and choosing which Muslims to use to tar the whole religion but you have an issue when it's done the other way.

Wibbs wrote: »

How in god's holy name does Ireland end up liberal after decades of not being if the stats and "practical facts"(whatever the hell that means) don't agree? The "practical facts" as you call them demonstrably show Ireland as becoming extremely liberal. One of the most liberal and safe and stable within Europe.

Practical facts are ones that contradict the stated fact. For example, we are supposed to be a secular state yet the Catholic Church can use their positions as patrons to influence public schools and hospitals. And their policies don't tend to be liberal. As for statistics, just look at the referendum results from the past and the polls for the next one. We're only liberal thanks to a slim majority.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes you are ignoring subcultures. You said: "They are from that country so by your test they represent the culture of that country. If they represent the culture of that country then they can't really be running from it so they should not be let in", which is one of the dafter things I've read on this thread and there's a high bar set.

I was paraphrasing your position. I agree it's daft.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I get it. I get that you're so afraid of being prejudiced - a good thing - that even when faced with something that might warrant a cautious prejudice you baulk at it. IE your suggested if imaginary example of "what if 80% of group X hated gays? 20% wouldn't and so we can't judge". Its beyond confusing.

I'm not afraid of being prejudiced, I simply don't want to be because i think it's wrong. Although I understand why someone inherently prejudiced might have trouble understanding the difference.

Wibbs wrote: »

If you're comparing a few Garda checkpoints and armed patrols to the situation on the ground in Paris this debate has gone into the realms of farce. And why does Paris et al need such precautions? Why do we not need them to nearly the same degree?

The armed support units were introduced into Dublin to free up the ERU to focus on counter terrorism.

Wibbs wrote: »

By your own words you're ignoring them. You would ignore 80% of a group being homophobic, because a minority might not be.

I'm not ignoring them though, I just don't think they should be used against the minority. By all means address the issue. But that's not what an immigration block does. It doesn't fix anything, it just hides from it.

Irish Praetorian

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Said guy was speaking about muslim rape gangs over a decade before the UK authorities finally aknowledged their existence, and indeed their frightening numbers, but hey, he wasn't particular eloquent and is from a poor socia-economic background so he had no voice to those useful idiots on the far left..

Dammit Snake you stole my bit, but I forgive ya

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'm not ignoring them though, I just don't think they should be used against the minority. By all means address the issue. But that's not what an immigration block does. It doesn't fix anything, it just hides from it.

How do you address the issue without limiting the numbers gaining entry? Doesn't it makes sense to resolve the issues we currently have with the current population of immigrants without allowing more in? [Yes, yes, there will always be problems, but we can reduce the more obvious areas of conflict]

You see, I don't understand the logic that says we should keep ourselves open to immigration without having measures in place to restrict that immigration, and a solid plan to resolve the problems/tensions that currently exist. And those tensions/problems definitely exist.

Isn't objecting to measures to limit immigration ignoring the issue? That we are not equipped to deal with the problems that are facing western culture by Islamic immigrants, and we don't have a clue how to deal with them.

JohnMc1

2 Scoops wrote: »

What does Mrs Merkel think?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/14/angela-merkel-multiculturalism-is-a-sham/?utm_term=.0615fd4c8d75

"Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a ‘life lie,’ ” or a sham, she said

In fact, she was only repeating a sentiment she first voiced several years ago when she said multiculturalism in Germany had "utterly failed."

"Of course the tendency had been to say, 'Let's adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each other.' But this concept has failed, and failed utterly..

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has courted growing anti-immigrant opinion in Germany by claiming the country's attempts to create a multicultural society have "utterly failed".

"This [multicultural] approach has failed, utterly failed," Merkel told the meeting in Potsdam, west of Berlin, yesterday.

Merkel wants to have her cake and eat it too. She wants to court the growing anti-immigrant side,but she still wants to continue her reckless agenda of open borders and flashflood of immigrants.

Sadly, I think Western Europe is getting to the point where voting and protesting won't fix the problems. Its growing to a point where a civil war is inevitable.

Wibbs

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The Westboro Baptist Church was just an example of the odious Christians that could be used to tar the entire religion. There are plenty others. Violent people and groups. Countries with severely regressive laws. You're picking and choosing which Muslims to use to tar the whole religion but you have an issue when it's done the other way.

I have no such issue. Name them. Name the Christian countries with severely regressive laws. And no, before you even draw breath, Ireland is not one of them. No matter how much you would like it to be in your cultural equivalence universe.

Practical facts are ones that contradict the stated fact.

Da fuq? OK I see where you're going with this.

For example, we are supposed to be a secular state yet the Catholic Church can use their positions as patrons to influence public schools and hospitals. And their policies don't tend to be liberal.

And yet for all this influence and propaganda with each passing year since the mid 80's their "practical" influence has been washed away by a wave of youth, satellite TV and a look behind the curtain. Only to be mulled over and railed against today by kids on the interwebs. Those who feel late to a party their older brothers and sisters and parents invited themselves to and wishing they weren't late to the game. Though it's easy to be a rebel and truth teller after the fact. The plain fact is a goodly majority of those decrying the Catholic Church today would have been daily communicants polishing rosaries in the past. I would suspect the more fervent the decrying, the more likely that would be the case. I know, I knew them at the end of the church's nonsense. Annnyway...

As for statistics, just look at the referendum results from the past and the polls for the next one. We're only liberal thanks to a slim majority.

Again I suspect you would still not be happy if it were a slim majority. You're hellbent on your image of a cassocked Ireland mired in the past with laundries and kiddie fiddlers. Knock yourself out, it's very popular, even when it's as plain as the nose on one's face it's a nonsense. Tell it to our biracial Irish-Indian openly gay loved up with a partner Taoiseach

I was paraphrasing your position. I agree it's daft.

Christ it's like playing football with a golfist.

I'm not afraid of being prejudiced, I simply don't want to be because i think it's wrong. Although I understand why someone inherently prejudiced might have trouble understanding the difference.

Yeah, we get it. I'm a racist. That's an easy if obvious out when your debate falls flat. *slow handclap* Here's a gedankenexperiment for you... Imagine you're walking down a deserted street at two in the AM. A group of people are walking towards you. which one are you more worried about?



Or



Exactly. You're prejudiced(or dishonest). Welcome to the human race. On both points.

The armed support units were introduced into Dublin to free up the ERU to focus on counter terrorism.

Still didn't answer my question. Is Ireland dealing with immigrant social issues to the same degree as any other European state that has "embraced" multiculturalism to a medium or large degree. I'll save you foostering around for a reply; you can't answer that too honestly.

I'm not ignoring them though, I just don't think they should be used against the minority. By all means address the issue. But that's not what an immigration block does. It doesn't fix anything, it just hides from it.

So to take my example earlier of finding out 80% of local snakes will kill you stone dead with a single bite, you'd walk around unburdened by prejudice thinking of the 20% that are harmless? I suspect you probably would. Which is laudable by the way. I am not questioning your heart. Far from it. I wish your heart reflected the head of reality, but I hate to break it to you it usually doesn't and human history is littered with the well meaning disappointments of those who thought it did.

jmayo

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan. All with different types of government but all populated by Muslims. All took in Jewish refugees. Iran took in hundreds of thousands of Polish alone.

Ehh who was affectively running Egypt during war and remind us again how near were Afrika korp to The Suez and Cairo?
Jordan, actually Trans Jordan, was also British protectorate until it became independent in 1946.
And yes Iran accepted Poles lots of them Jews to pass through from USSr and indeed the pro German Shah had told the Germans that he considered Iranian Jews to be Iranian. But you also failed to point out that the Shah was replaced after British and soviets invaded to protect oilfields from Germans.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The Westboro Baptist Church was just an example of the odious Christians that could be used to tar the entire religion. There are plenty others. Violent people and groups. Countries with severely regressive laws. You're picking and choosing which Muslims to use to tar the whole religion but you have an issue when it's done the other way.

No you are trying to create an equivalency between the worst that Christianity has to offer and the worst that Islam has to offer. And as I showed their is a huge order of magnitude in difference.
You are a spoofer as also evidenced by you trying to equate Irish security situation to that in likes of France or the place of the Catholic Church in Ireland to the place of Islam in a huge chunk of Islamic dominated states.

Belfast

Deleted User wrote: »

Many Muslims drink Alcohol. Especially younger muslims before they get married. They're just not considered to be good muslims. They'll often go live in another country (usually Asia or 3rd world) embracing all the non-muslim ideals for a few years, and then return to their families later having tried everything. And then switch to being wonderful muslims.

None of the Muslims I knew in Belfast or Dublin did.

Pepefrogok

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Said guy was speaking about muslim rape gangs over a decade before the UK authorities finally aknowledged their existence, and indeed their frightening numbers, but hey, he wasn't particular eloquent and is from a poor socia-economic background so he had no voice to those useful idiots on the far left..

Yes sir, high time people started realising the story behind this "muslamic ray guns" video that progressives love to sniff their own farts over, man it really gets to me, you can see his hurt, watching young girls possibility his direct relatives being groomed, raped and abused and then to see them sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. Themselves even arrested when they went to try and free their own daughters and sisters from their prisons and labelled "racist" Gut wrenching. What blows my mind is the people who now, NOW! with the benefit of hindsight and having seen the abuse, the cover up and the injustices now still mock this man on even fain shock at the very reason why the EDL was originally set up for under Tommy Robinson, people need to educate themselves and look at the facts.I mean thousands of girls raped, tortured and killed all hushed up, we know this happened yet many have still been so precondition to fear the "racist" label that they must believe that any one who speaks up must be what they fear, a dirty racist! even now we have all seen what happened. Madness.

Hellrazer

RustyNut wrote: »

Did you manage to find out which school Ali Salim dictated the dress code to? I had a quick Google but couldn't find it. I don't think it actually happened, I awate you proving me wrong or are you just a purveyor of fake news?

Not that hard to find on google.

He didn't dictate it as such and I was probably a bit strong using the word dictate in my original post.
Mr Selim was/is the head of a muslim campaign group that submitted a report to the Department of education asking that Muslim girls be allowed to wear headscarves and hijabs and more modest clothing in schools.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/islamic-dress-code-should-be-accommodated-in-schools-group-1.3346343

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/call-for-state-schools-to-accommodate-islamic-beliefs-1.1915810

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/row-erupts-over-wearing-of-hijabs-in-our-schools-30585072.html


In his submission hes asked the department of education to allow school going muslim children be allowed to keep their Islamic identity by wearing headscarves and more modest clothing. Hes asked that Christian symbols be removed from school uniforms aswell.
Personally I don't have an issue with that. Im of the firm belief that no religion should have a say in how our children are taught and that includes catholic views.

The other side of the coin is will the two Muslim schools in Dublin allow in non-muslims or those with no religious beliefs??
You cant have it both ways.


One of the articles even states that the

, the Islamic Foundation of Ireland (IFI) and the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland (ICCI) - the official body for Islamic education in Ireland - rejected his views.

In a statement to the Sunday Independent, the IFI said: "As patron of the Muslim National schools in Ireland since 1990, we can confidently assert that such opinions are neither shared by the IFI, the ICCI nor the majority of participating members in the Islamic community here."

So even members of his own religion are against his views.

Hellrazer

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Liberal cultural values? In a country where over 80% describe themselves as practicing Catholics?

Of course were now a liberal country. Probably one of the most liberal in the world.

Where only 60% voted to allow gay marriage?

Law of the land if it was 51% to 49% in favour it would still be legal. And as its now legal that makes us a fairly liberal country.

Where abortion is a criminal offence?

Not for much longer. The legislation of abortion will be the final nail in the coffin of catholic run Ireland.

Where the Church is involved at a management level in almost every school and hospital?

But that too is changing with most schools now not having any church members on their actual board of management. Most of the hospitals in the state are now government run but the land is still owned by religious groups. There are very few state run hospitals that have any church member on their board of management.

Just to point out that when we repeat the language used by these fanatics it does a disservice to ourselves.
Calling headscarves and hijabs 'modest' is crazy. Oppressive is more like it. You could call a headscarf modest if only worn in winter and if men and women wore them willingly the way we were hats and scarves. But its not , its a totally different game.

Modest or Oppressive? Am I wrong?

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

My point is that you cannot judge a person based on their nationality or religion. Even if 80% of Muslims hated gays, your still advocating treating the other 20% as if they do to.

Here is the thing, you are morally 100% right here on an individual scale.
The problem is we are talking about macro level changes. Its a moral dilemma we don`t need to have. Refugees can go to a number of middle eastern/north african countries to escape war. Western money goes further in these countries than here anyway. Apart from that our modern societies/economies are structured so its very expensive to have kids and get accommodation (housing crisis anyone?) - adding more people will makes us poorer in gdp per capita in real terms.

Using an extreme exaggeration to illustrate the societal point:
If we dumped 4 million Saudi Arabians in Ireland what way would our society change? Would they be a great bunch of individuals or would we end up with a bunch of people trying to ram Sharia down our throats?

Belfast

Belfast wrote: »

None of the Muslims I knew in Belfast or Dublin did.

Note where I said Asia or 3rd world countries? Although I suppose NI might fit in somewhere there. It's usually university students going to Asia because the tuition is so cheap compared to other countries and they have full license to do pretty much whatever they wish. It was very common in China to meet students from the former soviet republics or from the M.East with girlfriends (a no, no), smoking tobacco through their pipes, and drinking beer in the parties.

Do a google search for young Muslims drinking alcohol. You'll get enough references to show that many do it. Not all, mind.

Deleted User wrote: »

Just to point out that when we repeat the language used by these fanatics it does a disservice to ourselves.
Calling headscarves and hijabs 'modest' is crazy. Oppressive is more like it. You could call a headscarf modest if only worn in winter and if men and women wore them willingly the way we were hats and scarves. But its not , its a totally different game.

Modest or Oppressive? Am I wrong?

I honestly don't care if it's applied to their own people, as long as there is zero expectation for western people to adopt the practice in the west. When they expect our populations to dress modestly for the sake of their customs, I'm thinking they haven't heard the word integration enough.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I honestly don't care if it's applied to their own people, as long as there is zero expectation for western people to adopt the practice in the west. When they expect our populations to dress OPPRESSIVELY for the sake of their customs, I'm thinking they haven't heard the word integration enough.

FYP

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

FYP

No. I say what I mean to say. You don't need to edit my posts. It's only oppressive if the women have no desire (are forced) to be dressed that way, and many do prefer to dress like that. It's their culture and religion.

Just because you have an issue with it, doesn't mean that they do, and therefore your oppressive comment is... meh.

Pseudorandom

Wibbs wrote: »

I have no such issue. Name them. Name the Christian countries with severely regressive laws. And no, before you even draw breath, Ireland is not one of them. No matter how much you would like it to be in your cultural equivalence universe.

I mean there's a bunch of massively Christian African countries where homosexuality is illegal if that's what you're looking for. Uganda for one.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

No. I say what I mean to say. You don't need to edit my posts. It's only oppressive if the women have no desire (are forced) to be dressed that way, and many do prefer to dress like that. It's their culture and religion.

Just because you have an issue with it, doesn't mean that they do, and therefore your oppressive comment is... meh.

It is oppression. Its an oppressive totalitarian religion.
Ask yourself why do they need to cover up like that at all?

Wrapping up in head to toe is not a normal thing to do on a 40c day and yet its done everyday in the middle east. You`d have stones in your head to think its dressing 'modestly' and your be crazy to think it isnt because of oppression.

What % of our population is it ok for us to have as muslims? As you say yourself its ok once they dont expect westerners to dress that way so obviously a muslim majority is not ok for you. Is it ok to have sharia law patrols in Western Countries like happened in the UK? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_patrols

First it`ll be 'once they dont expect westerners to dress that way', next it`ll be 'sharia law is ok in THEIR areas (within western countries)

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sharia-law-uk-courts-muslim-women-rights-few-compared-islamic-countries-religious-rulings-quran-a8064796.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-17/muslim-group-wants-sharia-law-in-australia/2717096
https://aifs.gov.au/publications/family-matters/issue-84/legal-recognition-sharia-law

Why would Ireland be any different to other Western countries experiences? Why would we want that headache?

Omackeral

On the school boy making violent threats in the name of ISIS...

wexie wrote: »

But he must have been of course. No chance whatsoever that it was just a screwed up teenager looking for attention. None at all

Odhinn wrote: »

Turbulent male teenagers? Surely not.

I would almost bet there’s a geansai load of people taking this stance that were absolutely up in arms over the so-called rape list graffiti on the toilet wall in a school in Cork.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It is oppression. Its an oppressive totalitarian religion.
Ask yourself why do they need to cover up like that at all?

Wrapping up in head to toe is not a normal thing to do on a 40c day and yet its done everyday in the middle east. You`d have stones in your head to think its dressing 'modestly' and your be crazy to think it isnt because of oppression.

What % of our population is it ok for us to have as muslims? As you say yourself its ok once they dont expect westerners to dress that way so obviously a muslim majority is not ok for you. Is it ok to have sharia law patrols in Western Countries like happened in the UK? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_patrols

First it`ll be 'once they dont expect westerners to dress that way', next it`ll be 'sharia law is ok in THEIR areas (within western countries)

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sharia-law-uk-courts-muslim-women-rights-few-compared-islamic-countries-religious-rulings-quran-a8064796.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-17/muslim-group-wants-sharia-law-in-australia/2717096
https://aifs.gov.au/publications/family-matters/issue-84/legal-recognition-sharia-law

Why would Ireland be any different to other Western countries experiences? Why would we want that headache?

Have you read any of the earlier parts of the thread? Even just a few pages back? If so, you might have noticed my stance on Immigration and Islam.

As for their attire being oppressive, I've heard the same argument about traditional Indian women, and other cultural groups with similar practices... and I still return to the perspective that most of these women find comfort in their attire. Admittedly, I consider the comfort they receive to be a result of social/religious conditioning..

In any case, don't edit my posts. It annoys the **** out of me.

Wibbs

Hellrazer wrote: »

In his submission hes asked the department of education to allow school going muslim children be allowed to keep their Islamic identity by wearing headscarves and more modest clothing. Hes asked that Christian symbols be removed from school uniforms aswell.

"Islamic identity" is to allowed but in the same breath he wants "Christian identity" removed? Headscarves are an Islamic symbol as much as wearing a crucifix. Sounds 'bout right though.

Wibbs

Pseudorandom wrote: »

I mean there's a bunch of massively Christian African countries where homosexuality is illegal if that's what you're looking for. Uganda for one.

Uganda is a good example. Nigeria is another. Closer to home, being gay is no picnic in Russia. But let's look at a world map of countries where being gay is illegal and punishable up to and including the death penalty..

Now where are is vast majority of the current mass immigration into Europe coming from? The orange parts in that above map.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you address the issue without limiting the numbers gaining entry? Doesn't it makes sense to resolve the issues we currently have with the current population of immigrants without allowing more in? [Yes, yes, there will always be problems, but we can reduce the more obvious areas of conflict]

You see, I don't understand the logic that says we should keep ourselves open to immigration without having measures in place to restrict that immigration, and a solid plan to resolve the problems/tensions that currently exist. And those tensions/problems definitely exist.

Isn't objecting to measures to limit immigration ignoring the issue? That we are not equipped to deal with the problems that are facing western culture by Islamic immigrants, and we don't have a clue how to deal with them.

Think you have me confused with someone else. I never said immigration should be unlimited. My issue is with the criteria used to limit it.

Wibbs wrote: »

I have no such issue. Name them. Name the Christian countries with severely regressive laws. And no, before you even draw breath, Ireland is not one of them. No matter how much you would like it to be in your cultural equivalence universe.

El Salvador, Malta, Vatican and Nicaragua all have poor rights for women. Peru, Venezuela and Bolivia all have poor rights for homsexuals. And, yes, Ireland too has regressive laws. We have an article in the constitution about women working in the home.

Wibbs wrote: »

Da fuq? OK I see where you're going with this. And yet for all this influence and propaganda with each passing year since the mid 80's their "practical" influence has been washed away by a wave of youth, satellite TV and a look behind the curtain. Only to be mulled over and railed against today by kids on the interwebs. Those who feel late to a party their older brothers and sisters and parents invited themselves to and wishing they weren't late to the game. Though it's easy to be a rebel and truth teller after the fact. The plain fact is a goodly majority of those decrying the Catholic Church today would have been daily communicants polishing rosaries in the past. I would suspect the more fervent the decrying, the more likely that would be the case. I know, I knew them at the end of the church's nonsense. Annnyway...

So why do you think immigrants won't succumb to the same influences that changed everyone else?

Wibbs wrote: »

Again I suspect you would still not be happy if it were a slim majority. You're hellbent on your image of a cassocked Ireland mired in the past with laundries and kiddie fiddlers. Knock yourself out, it's very popular, even when it's as plain as the nose on one's face it's a nonsense. Tell it to our biracial Irish-Indian openly gay loved up with a partner Taoiseach

40% of our voters still appear to be stuck under the thumb of the Catholic Church. It's a minority but a sizeable one. And they still have great influence nationally and locally.

Wibbs wrote: »

Christ it's like playing football with a golfist.

I don't play golf.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yeah, we get it. I'm a racist. That's an easy if obvious out when your debate falls flat. *slow handclap* Here's a gedankenexperiment for you... Imagine you're walking down a deserted street at two in the AM. A group of people are walking towards you. which one are you more worried about?



Or



Exactly. You're prejudiced(or dishonest). Welcome to the human race. On both points.

I never said I didn't have prejudices though. I just try not let them influence me as best I can.

Wibbs wrote: »

Still didn't answer my question. Is Ireland dealing with immigrant social issues to the same degree as any other European state that has "embraced" multiculturalism to a medium or large degree. I'll save you foostering around for a reply; you can't answer that too honestly.

Much like the other poster, your question assumes a state of affairs that I don't agree with.

Wibbs wrote: »

So to take my example earlier of finding out 80% of local snakes will kill you stone dead with a single bite, you'd walk around unburdened by prejudice thinking of the 20% that are harmless? I suspect you probably would. Which is laudable by the way. I am not questioning your heart. Far from it. I wish your heart reflected the head of reality, but I hate to break it to you it usually doesn't and human history is littered with the well meaning disappointments of those who thought it did.

People aren't snakes though.

jmayo wrote: »

Ehh who was affectively running Egypt during war and remind us again how near were Afrika korp to The Suez and Cairo?
Jordan, actually Trans Jordan, was also British protectorate until it became independent in 1946.
And yes Iran accepted Poles lots of them Jews to pass through from USSr and indeed the pro German Shah had told the Germans that he considered Iranian Jews to be Iranian. But you also failed to point out that the Shah was replaced after British and soviets invaded to protect oilfields from Germans.

I said they had different types of governmental control. They were still Muslim countries though.

jmayo wrote: »

No you are trying to create an equivalency between the worst that Christianity has to offer and the worst that Islam has to offer. And as I showed their is a huge order of magnitude in difference.
You are a spoofer as also evidenced by you trying to equate Irish security situation to that in likes of France or the place of the Catholic Church in Ireland to the place of Islam in a huge chunk of Islamic dominated states.

I used one example of the WBC. But there are many other Christian groups out there that do ****ty things in the name of God.

Hellrazer wrote: »

Of course were now a liberal country. Probably one of the most liberal in the world.

Law of the land if it was 51% to 49% in favour it would still be legal. And as its now legal that makes us a fairly liberal country.

I find it hard to call a country with 40% against homosexual marraige as liberal. The laws my be going that way but that alone doesn't make a country liberal.

Hellrazer wrote: »

Not for much longer. The legislation of abortion will be the final nail in the coffin of catholic run Ireland.

No it won't. They still run the schools and hospitals and many many community groups. The constitution still recognises God as the divine. Blasphemy laws are still a thing.

Hellrazer wrote: »

But that too is changing with most schools now not having any church members on their actual board of management. Most of the hospitals in the state are now government run but the land is still owned by religious groups. There are very few state run hospitals that have any church member on their board of management.

I think you're a bit naive about their influence.

Deleted User wrote: »

Here is the thing, you are morally 100% right here on an individual scale.
The problem is we are talking about macro level changes. Its a moral dilemma we don`t need to have. Refugees can go to a number of middle eastern/north african countries to escape war. Western money goes further in these countries than here anyway. Apart from that our modern societies/economies are structured so its very expensive to have kids and get accommodation (housing crisis anyone?) - adding more people will makes us poorer in gdp per capita in real terms.

Using an extreme exaggeration to illustrate the societal point:
If we dumped 4 million Saudi Arabians in Ireland what way would our society change? Would they be a great bunch of individuals or would we end up with a bunch of people trying to ram Sharia down our throats?

I've never said not to restrict numbers though.

weldoninhio

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's just nonsense though. I'm an Irishman but I neither drink nor practice religion. By your standard I can be assumed to do both and be treated as if i do.

If it was based on facts rather than stereotypes, Ireland wouldn’t be seen as having a drink culture, we rank mid-table by European standards.

weldoninhio

Belfast wrote: »

Question?
Are you talking about Islam becoming a more popular religion with Irish residents or immigration from Islamic counties?

More non drinkers in the country would be a good start.

Ireland ranks mid table in comparison to European countries regarding alcohol consumption and it is dropping year on year.

weldoninhio

RustyNut wrote: »

Did you manage to find out which school Ali Salim dictated the dress code to? I had a quick Google but couldn't find it. I don't think it actually happened, I awate you proving me wrong or are you just a purveyor of fake news?

I answered this pages ago, along with quotes from the man himself. He wants Muslim girls to be segregated.

Wibbs

Captain Obvious wrote: »

El Salvador, Malta, Vatican and Nicaragua all have poor rights for women. Peru, Venezuela and Bolivia all have poor rights for homsexuals.

None of which is Europe importing millions of people from.

And, yes, Ireland too has regressive laws. We have an article in the constitution about women working in the home.

Jesus you just won't quit with the hairshirt nonsense about Ireland will you? Even though actual daily reality is at such odds with a view.

So why do you think immigrants won't succumb to the same influences that changed everyone else?

How's that working in other European nations?

40% of our voters still appear to be stuck under the thumb of the Catholic Church. It's a minority but a sizeable one. And they still have great influence nationally and locally.

And yet divorce, gay rights, same sex marriage, women's rights and soon enough the abortion debate have all gone against the same boogyman that you see is the Church. They're not doing this malevolent influence thing very well.

Much like the other poster, your question assumes a state of affairs that I don't agree with.

You do know a belief is not automatically a reality? You can choose to ignore things you don't want to see, but it doesn't make them magically disappear.

People aren't snakes though.

You

---

Country mile

---

point. Of course, again you don't want to travel that country mile.

I find it hard to call a country with 40% against homosexual marraige as liberal. The laws my be going that way but that alone doesn't make a country liberal.

It's become quite clear that you're one of those who will never be satisfied. You ignore the seismic shift in attitudes and laws over the last 30 years, you ignore the demonstrable fact that we are living in one of the most liberal and free countries on earth and you ignore the cultural norms of the millions of people flooding into Europe over the last few years that in poll after poll demonstrate that they would be happier in the "Old Ireland" you rail so hard against and are convinced still exists. Behold the modern "liberal" mind and worldview in all its ironies and cognitive dissonance, with the usual side order of self hatred and imagined oppression.

Hellrazer

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I find it hard to call a country with 40% against homosexual marraige as liberal. The laws my be going that way but that alone doesn't make a country liberal.

You mind find it so but with regards to actually being called a liberal country we are ranked 9th in the world for being a liberal country.Whether 40% disagree with the law of the land or not,if that law is a liberal one then so be it.

No it won't.

Yes it will because we have become so intolerant of religions dictating to us that it will be passed.

They still run the schools and hospitals and many many community groups. The constitution still recognises God as the divine. Blasphemy laws are still a thing.

The constitution needs to be changed to reflect current modern Ireland.
The blasphemy laws are a joke and I don't think anyone has been prosecuted under this law since it was enacted.
Show me some examples where a catholic ethos has over ruled a hospitals ethos.
The only one I can find is one Dublin hospital that cancelled patients cancer treatments because the women involved had to be on contraception and that went against their catholic ethos.
That's a ****ed up way of thinking and put patients lives at risk.

I think you're a bit naive about their influence.

See above.

James 007

weldoninhio wrote: »

Ireland ranks mid table in comparison to European countries regarding alcohol consumption and it is dropping year on year.

I didnt need tables to tell me this. I have seen alot of young people out jogging, cycling, the internet has also changed things. Even one time recently i was walking on oconnell street late at night after been out on a rare night and some 5-6 years ago there used to be garda vans outside supermacs, not so recently.

CalamariFritti

I really wonder about people.

I mean there are hardly any muslims in Ireland. No more than what would be normal these days with the natural fluctuation across countries owed to globalisation. The few that are here seem to live a quiet life. There is certainly no hint of extremism except maybe an eejit or two that you will get in any walk of life. And there has never been an extremist attack in any case.

And yet there seem to be people pre-occupied with this Islam thing - something that most likely doesn't affect or concern their actual lives whatsoever - to such an unhealthy degree that they must start threads on boards all the time that always seem to descent into some hate fiiled going-in-circles rigmarole.

It really stands out to me and I find it in fact much more disturbing than any potential threat that Islam may actually pose on us - perceived or real.

So what it is with people? Whats that unhealthy obsession all about? Hanging out on facebook too much? Or did anyone slaughter your goat lately?

TomSweeney

Wibbs wrote: »

None of which is Europe importing millions of people from.
Jesus you just won't quit with the hairshirt nonsense about Ireland will you? Even though actual daily reality is at such odds with a view.

How's that working in other European nations?

And yet divorce, gay rights, same sex marriage, women's rights and soon enough the abortion debate have all gone against the same boogyman that you see is the Church. They're not doing this malevolent influence thing very well.

You do know a belief is not automatically a reality? You can choose to ignore things you don't want to see, but it doesn't make them magically disappear.

You

---

Country mile

---

point. Of course, again you don't want to travel that country mile.

It's become quite clear that you're one of those who will never be satisfied. You ignore the seismic shift in attitudes and laws over the last 30 years, you ignore the demonstrable fact that we are living in one of the most liberal and free countries on earth and you ignore the cultural norms of the millions of people flooding into Europe over the last few years that in poll after poll demonstrate that they would be happier in the "Old Ireland" you rail so hard against and are convinced still exists. Behold the modern "liberal" mind and worldview in all its ironies and cognitive dissonance, with the usual side order of self hatred and imagined oppression.

Fantastic post.

Close the thread.

Wibbs wins.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Wibbs wrote: »

None of which is Europe importing millions of people from.
Jesus you just won't quit with the hairshirt nonsense about Ireland will you? Even though actual daily reality is at such odds with a view.

How's that working in other European nations?

And yet divorce, gay rights, same sex marriage, women's rights and soon enough the abortion debate have all gone against the same boogyman that you see is the Church. They're not doing this malevolent influence thing very well.

You do know a belief is not automatically a reality? You can choose to ignore things you don't want to see, but it doesn't make them magically disappear.

You

---

Country mile

---

point. Of course, again you don't want to travel that country mile.

It's become quite clear that you're one of those who will never be satisfied. You ignore the seismic shift in attitudes and laws over the last 30 years, you ignore the demonstrable fact that we are living in one of the most liberal and free countries on earth and you ignore the cultural norms of the millions of people flooding into Europe over the last few years that in poll after poll demonstrate that they would be happier in the "Old Ireland" you rail so hard against and are convinced still exists. Behold the modern "liberal" mind and worldview in all its ironies and cognitive dissonance, with the usual side order of self hatred and imagined oppression.

I don’t think he wants to be satisfied. He’s more or less an “Ireland sucks” guy. Of course 60% of people supporting gay marriage is a liberal outlier compared to the rest of the world.

( Historically in fact catholic countries have been benign on homosexuality compared to Protestant countries and are now — though his list of bad countries to be homosexual was all catholic.)

So it’s basically enemy of my enemy stuff except the enemy of his religious enemy is a more religious and more radical religion than catholicism, and more hostile to the supposed liberal order he pretends to defend.

Captain Obvious

Wibbs wrote: »

None of which is Europe importing millions of people from.

And?

Wibbs wrote: »

Jesus you just won't quit with the hairshirt nonsense about Ireland will you? Even though actual daily reality is at such odds with a view.

Perhaps your daily reality might be different than it is for others.

Wibbs wrote: »

How's that working in other European nations?

Seems to be fine overall.

Wibbs wrote: »

And yet divorce, gay rights, same sex marriage, women's rights and soon enough the abortion debate have all gone against the same boogyman that you see is the Church. They're not doing this malevolent influence thing very well.

Don't get me wrong. I'm proud of the changes being made in Ireland. But there is still a very sizeable proportion of the population fighting against these changes. And the church is still very influential in local communities.

Wibbs wrote: »

You do know a belief is not automatically a reality? You can choose to ignore things you don't want to see, but it doesn't make them magically disappear.

Nothing is being ignored. You blame immigration for some issues, I d o not.

Wibbs wrote: »

You

---

Country mile

---

point. Of course, again you don't want to travel that country mile.

I simply think your analogy is poor. People are more complex than animals.

Wibbs wrote: »

It's become quite clear that you're one of those who will never be satisfied. You ignore the seismic shift in attitudes and laws over the last 30 years, you ignore the demonstrable fact that we are living in one of the most liberal and free countries on earth and you ignore the cultural norms of the millions of people flooding into Europe over the last few years that in poll after poll demonstrate that they would be happier in the "Old Ireland" you rail so hard against and are convinced still exists. Behold the modern "liberal" mind and worldview in all its ironies and cognitive dissonance, with the usual side order of self hatred and imagined oppression.

Why would I be satisfied that half the country is accepting of homosexuals? Why would I be satisfied with anything less than 100%? Are you?

Hellrazer wrote: »

You mind find it so but with regards to actually being called a liberal country we are ranked 9th in the world for being a liberal country.Whether 40% disagree with the law of the land or not,if that law is a liberal one then so be it.

Yes, on legal matters we are getting better. FG have been very good in that regard. But even though you can get married you still have to live with knowing 40% of the people you meet think you are lesser.

Hellrazer wrote: »

Yes it will because we have become so intolerant of religions dictating to us that it will be passed.

We haven't really though. They still do it all the time.

Hellrazer wrote: »

The constitution needs to be changed to reflect current modern Ireland.
The blasphemy laws are a joke and I don't think anyone has been prosecuted under this law since it was enacted.

The blasphemy laws are a constitutional requirement. You're right though. The constitution needs major reform.

Hellrazer wrote: »

Show me some examples where a catholic ethos has over ruled a hospitals ethos.
The only one I can find is one Dublin hospital that cancelled patients cancer treatments because the women involved had to be on contraception and that went against their catholic ethos.
That's a ****ed up way of thinking and put patients lives at risk.

I'll look for more examples.

TomSweeney

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I really wonder about people.

I mean there are hardly any muslims in Ireland. No more than what would be normal these days with the natural fluctuation across countries owed to globalisation. The few that are here seem to live a quiet life. There is certainly no hint of extremism except maybe an eejit or two that you will get in any walk of life. And there has never been an extremist attack in any case.

Ireland's Muslim Population is exponentially increasing, how do you think it will look in 20 years time ?
Will they still be living a quiet life ?
or will they be demanding their own laws and customs to be respected here - just look at the UK and France.

masculinist

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I find it in fact much more disturbing than any potential threat that Islam may actually pose on us - perceived or real.

You just told us that you find people exercising their free speech more disturbing than acts of terror and increased illiberal authoritarianism, censorship , increased social segregation, honor killings , acid attacks , misogyny and so on. For those are the very real not just perceived risks and realities of being unfree and unable to discuss this whole issue .
It's thanks to our freedoms that we know where you stand . Knowing where you stand is highly useful to those of us who are truly classically liberal because it's all the motivation we need to wake up and exercise our freedoms before we lose them .

TomSweeney

masculinist wrote: »

You just told us that you find people exercising their free speech more disturbing than acts of terror and increased illiberal authoritarianism, censorship , increased social segregation, honor killings , acid attacks , misogyny and so on. For those are the very real not just perceived risks and realities of being unfree and unable to discuss this whole issue .
It's thanks to our freedoms that we know where you stand . Knowing where you stand is highly useful to those of us who are truly classically liberal because it's all the motivation we need to wake up and exercise our freedoms before we lose them .

Spot on !!

Omackeral

Captain Obvious wrote: »

El Salvador, Malta, Vatican and Nicaragua all have poor rights for women. Peru, Venezuela and Bolivia all have poor rights for homsexuals.

Wibbs wrote: »

None of which is Europe importing millions of people from.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

And?

Read the thread title, guy. Such a misnomer that username of yours is.

EdgeCase

To be quite honest, I found the way the same sex marriage debate was conducted here was (at least for the most part) very grown-up, civilised and shows that Ireland is far more open-minded and willing to discuss things than many places around the world.

Compared to some of the debates in the USA for example, most of the "no" side was pretty mild-mannered and more just traditionalist / conservative than homophobic. I would even think that many of the softer "no" voters may have come around to the notion that it was actually not a bad thing at all.

I was in France ahead of their legislation to introduce same sex marriage and the level of vitriolic protest was depressing to see. I know it's a big population and I know there's a French political tradition of "dans la rue" style political protest as a form of expression but, the site of over 100,000 turning up in Paris, clad in pink to do what amounted to the anti-pride parade was quite shocking to me.

Ireland isn’t as narrow minded as some people make out. It certainly was decades ago but I think things have changed enormously and people are willing to listen to other perspectives and put themselves into other people’s shoes and generally be actually open minded.

Even with the 8th Ammendement, so far it seems like it’s also not turning into a dogmatic shouting match. People have radically different views on it but I’m seeing discussion rather than a pointless yelling match.

I wouldn’t just write 2018 Ireland off as being locked in its 1950s past. Places change, cultures change and people become more willing to discuss things.

In the USA for example I think the opposite has happened. It was a more progressive place after the civil rights movement. I’m seeing a lot of slide back to dogmatic shouting matches on a wide variety of topics. It looks like it’s regressed rather the moved forward but hopefully it’s just a case of two steps forward and one step back and the current admin causes enough of a reaction to wake up the more enlightened side of American society, because it does exist. It was just asleep at the wheel.

But anyway, I don’t want to derail the thread. I would hate to see Ireland slip into a “us” vs “them” debate on immigration or religion. We’ve had enough religious identity politics here in the past to know it’s highly toxic and self-destructive and we still (worryingly) have it institutionalised into the structure of the primary and secondary school system. That’s one area I think we need to urgently shake up as the society is becoming so much more diverse both due to immigration and also Irish people not being as religious. If you don’t deal with that it could be the incubator for bunkers and bubbles and future social strife. Schools play a huge role in socialising kids but also parents too.

Some institutions here are doing really well at this - I’d actually give the GAA and other sports organisations a serious thumbs up. I’ve noticed them as being very inclusive and very good at integrating people into Irish society.

I think basically what’s “good for Ireland” is growing towards being a secular society where you can buy into Irish values that are enshrined in how we create and debate social policy. If nothing else, these big constitutional debates show that you can have a national set of values that is endorsed by the people and isn’t actually burried in religious dogma. Maybe we are finally growing towards being a genuine republic? It’s just taken a while to really bed in.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Why would I be satisfied that half the country is accepting of homosexuals? Why would I be satisfied with anything less than 100%? Are you?

You’ve really gone off into the weeds defending Islamic immigration with that argument. I say “argument” but it’s perhaps too strong a word.

Maybe it makes sense to you.


As I said before I’m in between stools on the immigration of Muslims. I’ve met plenty who have largely integrated, though I doubt they are pro gay marriage.

However if you want a 100% compliance
with the liberal order on homosexuality probably importing people from countries where not only does gay marriage not exist but homosexuality is illegal or punishable by death and this is a part of the religious beliefs that are not discarded (nor should we expect them to be) when said immigrants arrive is probably not the best policy.

CalamariFritti

CalamariFritti wrote: »

And yet there seem to be people pre-occupied with this Islam thing - something that most likely doesn't affect or concern their actual lives whatsoever - to such an unhealthy degree that they must start threads on boards all the time that always seem to descent into some hate fiiled going-in-circles rigmarole.

It really stands out to me and I find it in fact much more disturbing than any potential threat that Islam may actually pose on us - perceived or real.

So what it is with people? Whats that unhealthy obsession all about? Hanging out on facebook too much? Or did anyone slaughter your goat lately?

Okay. I'll bite. You see, I'm sick to death of our society reacting to problems rather that preparing for them to arrive. We had warnings of the economic crash years before it happened, and nothing was done about it. We had warnings about the state of the health service, and nothing was done about it. We had warnings about the weaknesses of the welfare state and nothing was done about it. In each case, we waited... until it became a problem and then applied ourselves to them. And our track record of dealing with problems after they occur is abysmal.

The problems with Islam in Europe are clear, and we've had warnings about the conflict between Islamic culture and western culture long before the immigration issue arose. We have seen the economic power of Europe shrink drastically within the last twenty years along with the rise of social instability within our own culture, and we have basically waited until it became a problem before even looking for solutions. Half the time we/they're not even looking for solutions and simply seeking someone to blame. Even the drop in our population rate across Europe isn't a concern when everywhere else outside of the West is seeing a massive growth in population.

I am tired of Europe reacting to problems after they become sizable issues. The immigration issue is still a relatively small one. There is friction between European culture and Islamic culture but it's manageable. For now. Once we allow in another couple of million, that will change.

And there will be another couple of million coming to Europe. There will be a lot more than a few million coming to Europe, because the M.East continues to destabilize with or without western influence. Africa isn't in a good spot either, with rising birth rates, and economic shortages across the board. We're also going to see immigration rising from Asia, as China has removed the one child policy, and no longer prevents it's citizens from leaving, as they once did. Other Asian countries are following suit since they can't manage their existing populations.

So... why should we wait for it all to go down the toilet? We can implement small steps to ensure that our culture, values, and system of governance remains stable in the face of rising immigration of peoples who do not like our culture, values or system of governance.

I don't understand how people don't see this. The immigrants coming into Europe are not coming here because they love western culture and want to embrace the freedoms available. They're coming here because their own countries have imploded. There is little to no belief that their system, culture or values aren't better than ours. In fact, most muslims cling to the belief that their systems are better than everywhere else, simply because they will it to be so. It doesn't matter that in every muslim country there are massive levels of corruption, or inequalities. They still believe that an Islamic rule is best for them, and they will seek to change our culture and laws to suit their ideal way of life.

We can deal with the problems now while they are manageable or we can wait until they're huge issues. We can deal with them now by managing the limited immigrant population that we currently have and determining the best way to solve the issues of integration. Multiculturalism has consistently failed. It's time to deal with these problems now.

Or would you rather that your children have to deal with them? Because in all honesty, I suspect the next generation will be cursing us far more than any other generation has.

Captain Obvious

Omackeral wrote: »

Read the thread title, guy. Such a misnomer that username of yours is.

Read the question i was responding to, guy.

Name the Christian countries with severely regressive laws.

quintana76

weldoninhio wrote: »

I answered this pages ago, along with quotes from the man himself. He wants Muslim girls to be segregated.

He "recommended" it as a "gesture" to make Muslims feel more "welcome" in Ireland. He did not specify how he planned to reciprocate. The reason for that was that he wanted us to adapt to the neanderthal ways of ungrateful newcomers. If he had not been a Muslim he would have lost his job in Trinity over his comments in support of FGM. Different standards due to identity politics.

Omackeral

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Read the question i was responding to, guy.

I'm not your guy, buddy.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Read the question i was responding to, guy.

He literally went to the trouble of listing the sequence replies that got to your illogical answer.

It was interesting that you only named catholic countries by the way.

Captain Obvious

EdgeCase wrote: »

To be quite honest, I found the way the same sex marriage debate was conducted here was (at least for the most part) very grown-up, civilised and shows that Ireland is far more open-minded and willing to discuss things than many places around the world.

Compared to some of the debates in the USA for example, most of the "no" side was pretty mild-mannered and more just traditionalist / conservative than homophobic. I would even think that many of the softer "no" voters may have come around to the notion that it was actually not a bad thing at all.

I was in France ahead of their legislation to introduce same sex marriage and the level of vitriolic protest was depressing to see. I know it's a big population and I know there's a French political tradition of "dans la rue" style political protest as a form of expression but, the site of over 100,000 turning up in Paris, clad in pink to do what amounted to the anti-pride parade was quite shocking to me.

Ireland isn’t as narrow minded as some people make out. It certainly was decades ago but I think things have changed enormously and people are willing to listen to other perspectives and put themselves into other people’s shoes and generally be actually open minded.

Even with the 8th Ammendement, so far it seems like it’s also not turning into a dogmatic shouting match. People have radically different views on it but I’m seeing discussion rather than a pointless yelling match.

I wouldn’t just write 2018 Ireland off as being locked in its 1950s past. Places change, cultures change and people become more willing to discuss things.

In the USA for example I think the opposite has happened. It was a more progressive place after the civil rights movement. I’m seeing a lot of slide back to dogmatic shouting matches on a wide variety of topics. It looks like it’s regressed rather the moved forward but hopefully it’s just a case of two steps forward and one step back and the current admin causes enough of a reaction to wake up the more enlightened side of American society, because it does exist. It was just asleep at the wheel.

But anyway, I don’t want to derail the thread. I would hate to see Ireland slip into a “us” vs “them” debate on immigration or religion. We’ve had enough religious identity politics here in the past to know it’s highly toxic and self-destructive and we still (worryingly) have it institutionalised into the structure of the primary and secondary school system. That’s one area I think we need to urgently shake up as the society is becoming so much more diverse both due to immigration and also Irish people not being as religious. If you don’t deal with that it could be the incubator for bunkers and bubbles and future social strife. Schools play a huge role in socialising kids but also parents too.

Some institutions here are doing really well at this - I’d actually give the GAA and other sports organisations a serious thumbs up. I’ve noticed them as being very inclusive and very good at integrating people into Irish society.

I think basically what’s “good for Ireland” is growing towards being a secular society where you can buy into Irish values that are enshrined in how we create and debate social policy. If nothing else, these big constitutional debates show that you can have a national set of values that is endorsed by the people and isn’t actually burried in religious dogma. Maybe we are finally growing towards being a genuine republic? It’s just taken a while to really bed in.

Ireland has an advantage in it's size. It's a lot harder to be openly bigoted in such a small country.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You’ve really gone off into the weeds defending Islamic immigration with that argument. I say “argument” but it’s perhaps too strong a word.

Maybe it makes sense to you.

You're just mixing up two different arguments is all.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

As I said before I’m in between stools on the immigration of Muslims. I’ve met plenty who have largely integrated, though I doubt they are pro gay marriage.

However if you want a 100% compliance
with the liberal order on homosexuality probably importing people from countries where not only does gay marriage not exist but homosexuality is illegal or punishable by death and this is a part of the religious beliefs that are not discarded (nor should we expect them to be) when said immigrants arrive is probably not the best policy.

And anyone who believes such things should be made to feel unwelcome.