Islamic Law comming to a European Nation near you.

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.islamonline.org/English/News/2006-02/15/article04.shtml
Well, what do you guys think? I see this as one step closer to Eurabia. What's your opinion?

[Sjakihata]

Nothing new. Denmark also has a paragraph (§) about blasphemy and a racism paragraph. people have been convicted for both. that's why it is not called unlimited freedom of speech, but freedom of speech within the framework of the legislation. You are simply not allowed to say _whatever_ you want, I believe the same is true in USA, for example insulting the president or threating anyone. Illegal - does it conflict with FoS, I do not think so.

[Fragony]

I see this as one step closer to Eurabia. What's your opinion?

Exactly that.

[LeftEyeNine]

I have come up with the question right now : Being Europeans or Americans or Canadian etc. do you think unawareness of Islam in your societies before 9/11 disaster has any contribution into this "booming , flashing and burning" relations between ? Or am I wrong about the unawareness part ?

[Ser Clegane]

Nothing new. Denmark also has a paragraph (§) about blasphemy and a racism paragraph. people have been convicted for both. that's why it is not called unlimited freedom of speech, but freedom of speech within the framework of the legislation. You are simply not allowed to say _whatever_ you want, I believe the same is true in USA, for example insulting the president or threating anyone. Illegal - does it conflict with FoS, I do not think so.

Same here in Germany - the laws existed for a long time and ahev nothing to do with "Eurabia" or Islam

[Fragony]

Or am I wrong about the unawareness part ?

Yup. Untill 9/11 those that now so religiously defend 'freedom of speech' would prosecute you for saying anything bad about islamic culture and immigration in general.

[Devastatin Dave]

I have come up with the question right now : Being Europeans or Americans or Canadian etc. do you think unawareness of Islam in your societies before 9/11 disaster has any contribution into this "booming , flashing and burning" relations between ? Or am I wrong about the unawareness part ?
Not really. Looking at the recent history of "Islamic" terrorism (please don't take offense, because i know that this is done by ass holes and not people of true faith, disclaimer ended) many took notice of the booming, flashing, and burning long before 911. Look, again no offense, but Islam and Western society has many differences. And at that point so does many other Faiths with Western thought, but their is indeed a larger gap between Islam and the West.
I don't like this law. I think its the endorcement of a religion which a secular society, such as most European countries, should not do. With the European lack of testicular fortitude, it will be only a matter time before radical elements of Islam will gain a strong footing within the European theater.

[Adrian II]

Nothing new.What is relevent is that Norway had an old law from the 1930's that outlawed blasphemy, but was never used since the war. This is a clear signal that criticising, let alone ridiculing a religion in Norwaywill be very difficult from now on. Worldly convictions such as mine may of course be ridiculed, as always. Obviously this law only protects superst... religious sensitivities.

Shame on Norway's parliament. :no:

[Fragony]

Worldly convictions such as mine may of course be ridiculed, as always. Obviously this law only protects superst... religious sensitivities.


Wow AdrianII, you are catching up on this game pretty fast, now can I as an anti-immigration barbarian please feel sorry for myselve?

[Adrian II]

Wow AdrianII, you are catching up on this game pretty fast, now can I as an anti-immigration barbarian please feel sorry for myselve?No, because you hate immigrants and promote irrational views bordering on fascism. That is inexcusable. Wash your mouth, put on a decent shirt with no racist slogans on it, and we may do business if you keep behaving.

Thought so.. :no:

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

What is relevent is that Norway had an old law from the 1930's that outlawed blasphemy, but was never used since the war. This is a clear signal that criticising, let alone ridiculing a religion in Norwaywill be very difficult from now on. Worldly convictions such as mine may of course be ridiculed, as always. Obviously this law only protects superst... religious sensitivities.

Shame on Norway's parliament. :no:

Adrian, do you reckon that will apply to valid criticism too?
Like the association of "honour killings" with Islamic immigrant groups; rampant homophia within said groups; calls for destruction of western society by elements within these groups etc.?

[Navaros]

Nice to see censorship being done for a productive reason this time. As opposed to censoring thoughts about "homosexuality" - which is usually the case when censorship comes up - at least this time the censorship is for a good cause. For that reason for the sake of providing some balance to the censorship madness which has already been happening elsewhere, I say thumbs up to this new censorship. :2thumbsup:

[Byzantine Prince]

You guys shouldn't worry about the western countries, and the (atheist) europeans living in them. You should worry about the muslims. Eventually things will go out of hand and these people will suffer the consequances, such deportation. Oil will run out in the middle east and these people will be have to go back to even more poverty.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The law is fine in theory but this bothers me:


and clearly prohibits despising others or lampooning religions in any form of expression, including the use of photographs

There is nothing wrong with a little general mocking. Under this law Dave Allen would have spent much of his adult life in jail. (He was an Irish Comic who made a lot of fun of the Catholic Church, very funny too)

[Fragony]

No, because you hate immigrants and promote irrational views bordering on fascism. That is inexcusable. Wash your mouth, put on a decent shirt with no racist slogans on it, and we may do business if you keep behaving.

Thought so.. :no:

If it is inexcusable they should stop giving me excuses. I don't hate them mind you, I hate the politicians that screw everything up because they feel that good intentions are a quality of it's own. I am a child of the seventies mia muca.

[Adrian II]

Adrian, do you reckon that will apply to valid criticism too?
Like the association of "honour killings" with Islamic immigrant groups; rampant homophia within said groups; calls for destruction of western society by elements within these groups etc.?The future will tell. I don't think calls for terrorism, honour killings or violence against homosexuals will be judged more lightly in Norway. On the other hand, I do think it will become more difficult to address the endemic homophobia and misoginy in much of Islam (and in Catholicism and other religions which are also protected by this law).

I think we need to file Socialism as a religion from now on. The moment some imam or bishop says anything 'offensive' about Karl Marx or Proudhon, slam! :laugh4:

[Adrian II]

Under this law Dave Allen would have spent much of his adult life in jail. (He was an Irish Comic who made a lot of fun of the Catholic Church, very funny too)Well, there you have it. 'Oh, but this is nothing new!' they say. You bet it is. It is not the end of free speech, not by a long stretch. It is not even the beginning of the end of free speech. But it is the beginning of a tenacious and at times very tedious and irritating rearguard fight. The first victims of this trend are independent Muslims, ex-Muslims, half-Muslims and 'cultural Muslims' in Europe, some of whom have fled the theocratic hell-holes of the Islamic world only to see the same fanatic idiots popping up on their doorstep in Berlin, London or Verona. I know a few of them. They have a good mind to set fire to mosques, I tell you. Which they won't do, because they are civilised (and because they are my friends for a reason, haha).

[rory_20_uk]

Not the proper Islam?? Why label the followers who are violent as "not proper" Muslims? The Quran preaches many times that unbelievers should die and that True Muslims are should not even talk to them! Far more focuses on killing than it does on being nice to small animals for example.

What about "not PC Islam" or "not modern Islam", or "Islam as we wished it was"?

There apears to be no "new testament" in the new bible to explain away the other parts. The Quran tell Muslims straight from God's mouth that killing carte blanche is allowed.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

Not the proper Islam?? Why label the followers who are violent as "not proper" Muslims? The Quran preaches many times that unbelievers should die and that True Muslims are should not even talk to them!
Source please.

Al this stuff is just small but vocal religious groups (muzzas and xtos), political extremists (fascists and xenophobes) and the media getting together for a big circle jerk.

The rest of us just get on with our lives.

[Duke Malcolm]

Ach, I must muster my merry band of men to make our opposition to this apology clear... Freedom of Speech! Freedom of Speech!



Source please.

Al this stuff is just small but vocal religious groups (muzzas and xtos), political extremists (fascists and xenophobes) and the media getting together for a big circle jerk.
Linky (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html) I recommend clicking on "Intolerance"

[Fragony]

Source please.


The quran.

[Idaho]

Ach, I must muster my merry band of men to make our opposition to this apology clear... Freedom of Speech! Freedom of Speech!



Linky (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html) I recommend clicking on "Intolerance"
Good source that. Nice one.

Pretty much sticks it to all the books.


Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

[master of the puppets]

so do you think norway will be the first islamic europeans? or are you just gonna let in the turks.:laugh4:
any way i need to ask is there a single muslim country out there that does have free speech?
mabey norway should do to the muslims what China did. nice chinese muslims, quite oppressed, never bother anyone...

[Idaho]

More Absurdities from the Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm)

Koranic absurdities (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/abs/long.html)

[Devastatin Dave]

My point was that this sort of law does not help the Muslim immagrants assimulate into thier new countries, it only segregates them more. I believe this will only assist the more radical elements of Islam be shielded from criticism and survalience. All over cartoons, amazing.:no:

[Goofball]

Laws banning blasphemy are about the stupidest things I could possibly think of (and I think of a lot of stupid things), so I say the following in protest of any of these proposed or existing laws:

Jesus was a wimp, Mohammed was a diddler, Buddha was a fat bastard, Confuscious didn't know what the hell he was talking about, and Yahweh is a mean, spiteful old bugger.

And one other thing: if Muslims want us to be more sympathetic to their feelings, maybe they should stop referring to the rest of the world as "infidels."

[Sjakihata]

Jesus was a wimp, Mohammed was a diddler, Buddha was a fat bastard, Confuscious didn't know what the hell he was talking about, and Yahweh is a mean, spiteful old bugger.


This is not blasphemy, in the sense that you would be convicted for it.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

What a ridiculous law. Aside from the freedom of speech issue, how can you ban blasphemy in general? I'm fairly sure that most religions believe things that other religions find blasphemous. Are we going to find Christians prosecuted for blasphemy against Islam by preaching that Jesus was the son of God, or vice versa?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

About the Koran, there's a special exemption for Christians and Jews, we're not Infidels because we worship Allah.

[Goofball]

This is not blasphemy, in the sense that you would be convicted for it.

Perhaps not convicted, but if I hung that on a sign in the front of my house it would probably be enough to eventually get me murdered...

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I have come up with the question right now : Being Europeans or Americans or Canadian etc. do you think unawareness of Islam in your societies before 9/11 disaster has any contribution into this "booming , flashing and burning" relations between ? Or am I wrong about the unawareness part ?
Yes, a few of my good friends are Muslims. However, unlike Turkey (my favorite muslim nation, has some of the best food at least) et cetera, they do not constitute even a considerable percentage of the population and no special legislation should exist to honor them. That goes against equality, there should be NO special laws for different religions and all, laws and crap should be universal. I didn't read the article yet, but I suggest all Europeans pack up and move to Taiwan.

[Ser Clegane]

I didn't read the article yet

That explains your post... :shifty:

[Proletariat]

You are simply not allowed to say _whatever_ you want, I believe the same is true in USA, for example insulting the president or threating anyone. Illegal - does it conflict with FoS, I do not think so.

Anything pretty much goes over here. Not quite sure how you got the impression that 'insulting the president' is a crime over here. Our jails would be bursting at the seams.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Read over the article. Nothing really interesting. Let's get a debate on illegal immigration or racial profiling going, that'd be fun (and firey)

[Lemur]

Apologizing is a two-way street, and it's nice to see a few private muslims expressing their sorrow at what's going on. (http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/)

[Leet Eriksson]

What the hell, that SAQ website :dizzy2:

Way to go on partial translations and butchery of the quran there. It does sound like a humourus take on the religious books though.

[Papewaio]

So if you have a thought system that tacks on the term religion it gets the following benefits:

1) It is not allowed to be made fun of.
2) It is not allowed to be critically examined.
3) It can call blasphemy on another thought system that opposes its beliefs and does not have the political clout or does not have the religion appendage.
4) It can be racist or homophobic or criminal or murderous but that is okay because it has the religion tag.
5) It also gets tax exemptions.

All of the above have been seen one time or another when religous groups have been treated with a special reverance above and beyond other groups.

[Proletariat]

Is evolution taught in Norwegian schools? Are innocent religious children subjected to this?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

OMG OHNOES TEH EVOLUTIONZ! lol I win.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

So if you have a thought system that tacks on the term religion it gets the following benefits:

1) It is not allowed to be made fun of.
2) It is not allowed to be critically examined.
3) It can call blasphemy on another thought system that opposes its beliefs and does not have the political clout or does not have the religion appendage.
4) It can be racist or homophobic or criminal or murderous but that is okay because it has the religion tag.
5) It also gets tax exemptions.

All of the above have been seen one time or another when religous groups have been treated with a special reverance above and beyond other groups.



I'm going to start a religion.

:2thumbsup:

it'll be beautiful:laugh4:

except if you disagree with me...
:skull:

[AquaLurker]

Why don't the European nations just make a laws that will prevents people from making public statements and publications which may contain elements that would provoke or promote religious and racial intolerance?:idea2: It would be sensible then introducing religious law of any specific group.:shame:

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Why don't the European nations just make a laws that will prevents people from making public statements and publications which may contain elements that would provoke or promote religious and racial intolerance?:idea2: It would be sensible then introducing religious law of any specific group.:shame:

so that would be banning all but the most mundane speech then...

[Soulforged]

Same here in Germany - the laws existed for a long time and ahev nothing to do with "Eurabia" or Islam
The same here, and as far as I know all Latin America.:idea2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why don't the European nations just make a laws that will prevents people from making public statements and publications which may contain elements that would provoke or promote religious and racial intolerance?:idea2: It would be sensible then introducing religious law of any specific group.:shame:

Tried that in the UK, didn't work, Blair lost by one vote, his.

You should have leeway when talking about religion because unlike race you are dealing with an intangible belief system and you should be able to question other's beliefs.

[Adrian II]

Why don't the European nations just make a laws that will prevents people from making public statements and publications which may contain elements that would provoke or promote religious and racial intolerance?:idea2: It would be sensible then introducing religious law of any specific group.:shame:If we did, we would have to ban all religions first. Capice?

[master of the puppets]

no way, it is my right to chose my beliefs (and burn if i must) and to mock each and every god for the fun of it:idea2: .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You don't have the right to mock people for the fun of it but you do have the right to question something seriously.

[BDC]

Doesn't Britain still have a blasmaphy law?

Which is clearly used a lot...

[bmolsson]

The basics of Islamic laws are not much different from other religious laws. They give instructions on how to live and protects the powerstructure within the religion itself.
Europe are trying to find a compromise to co-exist with Islam, US don't. The right solution is somewhere in the middle. It is hard to compromise with Islam as well as it's impossible to confront it and win without genocide.
The laws on blasmephy is merely a small unimportant part of the whole discussion. There are many other issues that are more important and less easy. In the end, I believe that Europe will be accomodating a new more secular version of Islam which will benefit Europeans as well as muslims....

[Proletariat]

Europe are trying to find a compromise to co-exist with Islam, US don't.

Have you ever visited the US?

[AntiochusIII]

You know, of all this, I find it hilariously ironic that my Muslim friend seems to be absolutely unaware of the "crisis" in Europe-Middle East relations due to the cute cartoons from the best cookiemakers of the world and malicious will on the Danish Imams' (read: arseholes and basically traitors) part. I had tried to probe in a little bit to check and perhaps raise his awareness, but had to be careful not to insult Islam in the process and unnecessarily breach the friendship. Therefore, he, I believe, remains unaware that his religion, according to the far-righters of the world, is about to engulf Europe.

But hey, this is America. We don't care about anyone else; sometimes this can be good.

[GoreBag]

You don't have the right to mock people for the fun of it

He has the right to attain and maintain anything he desires so long as he can.

[Adrian II]

The basics of Islamic laws are not much different from other religious laws. They give instructions on how to live and protects the powerstructure within the religion itself.
Europe are trying to find a compromise to co-exist with Islam, US don't. The right solution is somewhere in the middle. It is hard to compromise with Islam as well as it's impossible to confront it and win without genocide.
The laws on blasmephy is merely a small unimportant part of the whole discussion. There are many other issues that are more important and less easy. In the end, I believe that Europe will be accomodating a new more secular version of Islam which will benefit Europeans as well as muslims....I read you, Brother Molsson, and I share your hope. Although I think the word genocide is unnecessarily heavy in the context. And the U.S. is getting a bit of a bad rap in your post.

What Americans don't realise is that until the 1990's Islam was not a political rallying-point for immigrants in Europe. I remember the organisations of immigrants in the 1970's and 1980's -- they were all purely political, divided between left and right, and focused on their nation of origin. They didn't look to Mecca, and there was nothing resembling the elusive Internet-Islam that inspires young western Muslims to radicalise these days.

Only in the 1990's Islam began to be heavily politicised because of the islamist 'victories' in Iran and Sudan, the preaching of the Egyptian Brotherhood and the Pakistani Mawdudi-followers, the global network of well-financed Saudi Wahhabi madrassas, the outside financing of Hamas that gradually 'islamicised' the Palestinian cause, etcetera.

Due to these developments, we are now looking at an interesting 'grid' so to speak. The columns are Europe and the Islamic world, the rows are secularism and islamism.

In Europe, the first row consists of radical or pietistic Muslim immigrants who allow themselves to be inspired by outside forces from the Middle East and Asia. The second row consists of (ex-)Muslim immigrants who want to live in a secular society and who respect democracy (and who stand up for it as well). Among the latter we find the largest Turkish islamic organisation in The Netherlands, the leader of which, Hari Karacaer, has recently stated that Islamic culture is totally primitive and has a five-hundred year backlog of social and intellectual development to catch up on.

In the Islamic world the division is the same, although the circumstances and political shades are widely divergent of course.

The fascinating thing about this grid is that while the pious Muslims in Europe are looking to the Middle East and Asia for inspiration, the secularist groups in the Islamic world are looking to Europe for inspiration. So the apparent 'closing of ranks' in East and West, symbolised by the idiotic row over a cartoon, is concealing a very real 'breaking of ranks' among Muslims in East and West.

A German journalist wrote an interesting piece last week in which he stated that the anti-European sentiment that is now being orchestrated by Middle-Eastern governments reflects their fear of being gradually infiltrated and undermined by this democratic European Islam which is imported by returnig migrants and exchange students, books, newspapers, media images, cultural intermingling (yes, think of Haifa or Natacha Atlas), etcetera.

The hundred dollar question for me is whether Islam has the force to reform itself, or the capacity to be reformed by these outside forces. I think the answer is that no, it has no inner drive or capacity to reform, but yes, it can be reformed under outside influence and the pressure of circumstance. European political and cultural intervention are mainly fulfilling the former role at the moment, they provide the impetus for islamic reform both in Europe and in the Islamic world. The U.S. is fulfilling the latter role of putting pressure on islamic leaders and countries and providing some stark choices and coercive circumstances for them.

But Europe is certainly the main intellectual battleground in this fight, and it will be a while before this battle is won.

[Slyspy]

I do not believe that you can force reformation upon a religion. You may influence its financial backers politically, but a religion itself must be reformed from within. Otherwise what is the point?

[Fragony]

As it is now it is just no use, dialogue with islam is like talking sense to your woman; we don't think alike and that is why we can't communicate. In Europe you can mock the believes, but not the person, and with muslims it is the other way around. It just goes in circles.

[Adrian II]

I do not believe that you can force reformation upon a religion. You may influence its financial backers politically, but a religion itself must be reformed from within. Otherwise what is the point?I understand, and I don't want to give the impression this is all clear-cut and simple to me. But I have been influenced by reading Sadik al-Azm, a modern Syrian philosopher who was one of the few Muslim thinkers to oppose the Rushdie hysteria at the time. In an essay called Islam and secularisation (not available on the Web as far as I know) he states that Islam has gone through many religious and political changes under the influence of circumstance and outside pressure. And this from the earliest days on. The 'simple', egalitarian early Islam was not suited to its own expansion, which lead to the conquest of huge empires that had to be run on complex principles and required a hereditary caliphate. Islam adapted very fast to those new circumstances and teh hereditary caliphate lasted till Ataturk put an end to it. In the same way it went through considerable changes after the Napoleanic occupation of Egypt, and again at the end of the nineteenth century under the influence of colonialism and imperisliam. The doctrine always says NO to any change, but daily practice always says YES and doctrine follows reality, according to Sadik al-Azm.

So doctrine is not the engine for change, but it can be geared to change by outside forces. Migration is a powerful force in today's world. Hence my views above. I am open to suggestion though.

[KukriKhan]

Here is a US academic paper on Islamic Reformation:
http://www.cesnur.org/2004/waco_mcdaniel.htm

The author seems to be saying: "Don't hold your breath waiting for the secularization of Islam."

So, is there anything any non-Muslim can do to bring on the liberalisation of Islam, or must it be internal - a Martin Luther moment?

[Devastatin Dave]

Europe are trying to find a compromise to co-exist with Islam, US don't.
**looks outside and does not see Muslims burning cars, rioting, burning down buildings, etc**

**looks at CNN and sees Muslims burning cars, rioting, burning down buildings in Europe**

Interesting. Does co-existing with Muslims means "burning cars, rioting, burning down buildings" because if it is then we must not be co-existing with the Muslims here in the States as well as our tolerant European friends.:laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Dave, this might be something of a shock, but CNN isn't a reflection af all Europe... :fainting:

~:smoking:

[Devastatin Dave]

Dave, this might be something of a shock, but CNN isn't a reflection af all Europe... :fainting:

~:smoking:
No, my point was that bmolsson made the statement that the US has not found a way to co-exist with Islam unlike Europe which is making the attempt yo comprimise. Well the US isn't having the riots and burnings that Europe is having and you can find that on CNN, BBC, or where ever the hell you want to look for your news. Smoke that.~:smoking:

[Fragony]

No, my point was that bmolsson made the statement that the US has not found a way to co-exist with Islam unlike Europe which is making the attempt yo comprimise.

And that is why you see burning cars here in soon to become Eurabia. European leaders never miss a chance to suck up on our muslim communities, madness if you ask me. The last thing you should do when dealing with violent cultures is showing weakness but our leaders are just civil servants that like to play politician. When the shit hits the fan they just look away and continue to pretend they disagree, and afterwards those that so fiercily debated unimportant details smoke a few cigars in the salon.

[Reenk Roink]

Europe are trying to find a compromise to co-exist with Islam, US don't.

Errm..No. The US actually treats its muslims much better than European nations and is more compromising. While their image has taken a hit with the invasions and deaths, Abu Ghraib, and other scandals, muslims and Islam IN the US are much better off and much better tolerated than in Europe.

Muslims in the US are generally well to do, and have much lower crime rates than the average of the US, while muslims in Europe are largely poor, confined in ghettos, victims of institutionalized racism to a degree, and have higher rates of crime. The American populace also has a much more favorable opinion of Islam and Muslims than the Europeans do.

Say what you want about the US government, policy, media, etc... they all suck, but the American people are still some of the nicest you'll find on the planet...

[Quietus]

It's obvious that religion is exempt from criticism from its practitioners. And they want to include non-practitioners as well. :no: :skull:


He also urged the European Union to criminalize blasphemy against any religion, including pagan religions.

1) Including the Flying Spaghetti Monster? :laugh4:

2) Religion X has a set of arbitrary and questionable rules that cannot be changed EVER. That's degenerate.

WE don't want to follow these baseless rules! It's called Freedom of Expression!!

[Meneldil]

Errm..No. The US actually treats its muslims much better than European nations and is more compromising. While their image has taken a hit with the invasions and deaths, Abu Ghraib, and other scandals, muslims and Islam IN the US are much better off and much better tolerated than in Europe.

Muslims in the US are generally well to do, and have much lower crime rates than the average of the US, while muslims in Europe are largely poor, confined in ghettos, victims of institutionalized racism to a degree, and have higher rates of crime. The American populace also has a much more favorable opinion of Islam and Muslims than the Europeans do.

Say what you want about the US government, policy, media, etc... they all suck, but the American people are still some of the nicest you'll find on the planet...

Pointless arguing. The latinos are treated much better in Europe than in the US. It's related to the size of the community. I don't know how large is the latinos community in the US, but I'd say larger than 10%, just like there's more than 10% muslims inhabitants in France.
Ask the ghetto-ised black and latinos if they think white americans are that nice. I'm fairly sure their answer will be 'they're racist, they treat us like shit'. Ask the european ghetto-ised arab/turks, and they'll likely have the same feeling.

Another point is that the American culture is quite open to religions, while most europeans think that religion is either a, a waste of time or b, a total crap. We've been fighting our way until the achievement of a secularized state, and we see people who think their (foreign) religion is more important than everything else. Obviously, these 2 points of view can't get along.

[Adrian II]

Pointless arguing. The latinos are treated much better in Europe than in the US. It's related to the size of the community. I don't know how large is the latinos community in the US, but I'd say larger than 10%, just like there's more than 10% muslims inhabitants in France.That sums it up. And another aspect is that in most Muslim countries the U.S. is hated outright and has an image much worse than the European image. Hence '9/11' and so on.

We can discuss these issues. Or we can descend to the Dev Dave level of going 'Your cars are burning! No, your Twin Towers are burning! Nja nja nananjaa!'

I know what I prefer. :mellow:

[Reenk Roink]

Pointless arguing. The latinos are treated much better in Europe than in the US. It's related to the size of the community. I don't know how large is the latinos community in the US, but I'd say larger than 10%, just like there's more than 10% muslims inhabitants in France.
Ask the ghetto-ised black and latinos if they think white americans are that nice. I'm fairly sure their answer will be 'they're racist, they treat us like shit'. Ask the european ghetto-ised arab/turks, and they'll likely have the same feeling.

Muslims are either the second largest religious group in America, or are in the passing lane of Jews...

My "pointless arguing" was against the notion the Europe is somehow more welcoming to Muslims and Islam than America. It is not. And I'm talking about certain countries in particular, others like Spain, are quite tolerant of their muslim minorities.

But I digress...or is it you? :huh:


Another point is that the American culture is quite open to religions, while most europeans think that religion is either a, a waste of time or b, a total crap. We've been fighting our way until the achievement of a secularized state, and we see people who think their (foreign) religion is more important than everything else. Obviously, these 2 points of view can't get along.

Yep, you hit the nail on the head with that one...


That sums it up. And another aspect is that in most Muslim countries the U.S. is hated outright and has an image much worse than the European image. Hence '9/11' and so on.

We can discuss these issues. Or we can descend to the Dev Dave level of going 'Your cars are burning! No, your Twin Towers are burning! Nja nja nananjaa!'

I know what I prefer.

Oh poop... :sad: I bolded and italicized that word for nothing... :no:

[Proletariat]

Pointless arguing. The latinos are treated much better in Europe than in the US. It's related to the size of the community. I don't know how large is the latinos community in the US, but I'd say larger than 10%, just like there's more than 10% muslims inhabitants in France.

That sums it up. And another aspect is that in most Muslim countries the U.S. is hated outright and has an image much worse than the European image. Hence '9/11' and so on.


That sums up nothing. In America anyone's welcome who generates some money. The entire country was made of immigrants, so we don't suffer from the same cultural and ethnic vanity you all do.

There's nothing multicultural about America. We have one culture, which is work hard and make money. Anyone may feel free to apply. Comparing the two groups is silly. Latinos are integrating the same slow way the Italians did way back when. They're not trying to rewrite our Constitution, either.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/61480B70-88BC-48EA-997B-9D24ABD29218.htm

[Adrian II]

Muslims are either the second largest religious group in America, or are in the passing lane of Jews...There are about 5 million Muslims in the United States, nearly half of whom are African American Muslims, in other words: Muslims who were born and raised in the U.S. and fully imbibed its culture. Between 17 and 30 percent of American Muslims are only recent converts to the faith.

Immigration from Muslim countries to the U.S. has long been restricted. Until the 1980's the trickle of Muslim immigrants who made it through were on average much higher educated than Muslim immigrants in Europe because that was the main immigration requirement since Johnson scrapped the country of origin quotas.

Once in the U.S. these Muslim immigrants encountered such discrimination that they often changed their names and scrapped any practices that made them appear 'different'. It is only recently that Muslims in the U.S. make themselves heard as such, and many of their demands are similar to those of pious Muslims in Europe.

Really, the whole notion of the U.S. being more favourable to Muslim immigrants (and particularly conducive to reform of Islam) than Europe falls apart on closer inspection.

Of course these are only facts.

[Reenk Roink]

There are about 5 million Muslims in the United States, nearly half of whom are African American Muslims, in other words: Muslims who were born and raised in the U.S. and fully imbibed its culture. Between 17 and 30 percent of American Muslims are only recent converts to the faith.

Immigration from Muslim countries to the U.S. has long been restricted. Until the 1980's the trickle of Muslim immigrants who made it through were on average much higher educated than Muslim immigrants in Europe because that was the main immigration requirement since Johnson scrapped the country of origin quotas.

Once in the U.S. these Muslim immigrants encountered such discrimination that they often changed their names and scrapped any practices that made them appear 'different'. It is only recently that Muslims in the U.S. make themselves heard as such, and many of their demands are similar to those of pious Muslims in Europe.

Really, the whole notion of the U.S. being more favourable to Muslim immigrants (and particularly conducive to reform of Islam) than Europe falls apart on closer inspection.

Of course these are only facts.

The first paragraph has facts in it...maybe the second, but I'll have to confirm that...

The rest and especially the last, who are you trying to kid...?

And remember, In Spain, after the Madrid bombings, a fatwa was released declaring Bin Laden an apostate (very hard to do in Islam), and since it was a time of war, the fatwa called for :hanged:.

I guess the show of solidarity by the people helped the Muslim organizations see that they were welcomed, and that Bin Laden wasn't fighting for the muslims...or Islam.

[Proletariat]

Immigration from Muslim countries to the U.S. has long been restricted. Until the 1980's the trickle of Muslim immigrants who made it through were on average much higher educated than Muslim immigrants in Europe because that was the main immigration requirement since Johnson scrapped the country of origin quotas.


Just curious, why did your governments let all the morons in, then? Sounds like Fragony had it right with his description of self-righteous officiousness from your politicians.

[Adrian II]

The first paragraph has facts in it...maybe the second, but I'll have to confirm that...Forget, it, it's game, set and match. And the whole thing has nothing to do with fatwa's in Spain. Your must be mixing up your posts.

[Adrian II]

Just curious, why did your governments let all the morons in, then?They were let in because they were needed as labourers. And they were (or are) not morons. Maybe your language reflects current American attitudes towards Latinos?

[Proletariat]

They were let in because they were needed as labourers. And they were (or are) not morons. Maybe your language reflects current American attitudes towards Latinos?

No, I work side by side with quite a few Latinos and Muslims and I'm not a labourer. :shrug: You brought up the difference between our 'sophisticated' Muslims and the ones immigrating to your continent.

[Reenk Roink]

Forget, it, it's game, set and match. And the whole thing has nothing to do with fatwa's in Spain. Your must be mixing up your posts.

No it's not...

Europeans are generally more intolerant of Muslims than Americans...

Muslims in America have better lives than in Europe...

Now, I'll break down your post...

There were around 3 million - 7 million muslims in America as of 2001. The 3 million figure coming from the Kosmin study, which is a survey aimed at finding the Jewish population of America. The 7 million figure comes from the ambassador to Pakistan, Millam.

As for the percentage of African American muslims, this ranges from less than a third (according to Yvonne Haddad and Adair Lummis who state that 2/3 of American Muslims are immigrants or direct descendants...) to 42%, as given by the American Muslim Council.

What is this BS about horrible discrimination that muslims changed their name or what not? Can you even find an anecdote?

And of course:

"Really, the whole notion of the U.S. being more favourable to Muslim immigrants (and particularly conducive to reform of Islam) than Europe falls apart on closer inspection."

This is your thesis (which you presume to be a fact). It is incorrect.

Here is a poll which compares American dislike of Latinos and Blacks, to some European dislike of people in muslim countries:

https://img471.imageshack.us/img471/6784/views9vy.gif (https://imageshack.us)


They were let in because they were needed as labourers. And they were (or are) not morons. Maybe your language reflects current American attitudes towards Latinos?

Heh, I could swear that some of your adjectives to describe muslims (aside from the fact that you seem to enjoy posting offensive cartoons directed at them) would reflect your attitude towards muslims...

To be continued...

[Adrian II]

No it's not...LOL. All your numbers just confirm what I wrote. Game, set and match.
What is this BS about horrible discrimination that muslims changed their name or what not? Can you even find an anecdote?Just as I thought, another own goal. This 'BS' comes from your own government, Roink, just like the numbers I quoted.

Read here (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/muslimlife/immigrat.htm).

[Adrian II]

No, I work side by side with quite a few Latinos and Muslims and I'm not a labourer. :shrug:Then maybe Proletariat is not the navel of the universe after all.

Poverty levels of Hispanic Americans (HA), on average, are twice as high as whites. 60% of all families are headed by a female, 40% of these females don't have a high school diploma. Only about 6% of the population attend college. In terms of earnings HA average is about 60% of the white income average. HA live in segregated communities, but they are also a highly mobile group. An individual may have multiple addresses, children live with another family with a different name, 'latchkey' children are common.
HA homes are burglarised 25 times the Anglo-Saxon rate. They are the most difficult group to involve in community policing. HA have one of the highets fertility rates on earth, housing tends to be overcrowded, trends and forecasts in population growth are due to fertility and not illegal immigration. Because of their low levels of education, bilingual education was introduced specially for them. HA are politically underrepresented at all levels of goverment. Less than 20% of them are registered to vote. American culture is replete with negative stereotypes about HA. They are portrayed as lazy, shiftless, lawless, thieving, immoral, or violent.

Sounds a lot like the 'morons' (your terminology) whom the Europeans let in from Turkey, the Middle East and Northern Africa, dont it?

Now can we cut the crap and recognise that Europe and the U.S. have similar immigration issues and that maybe, just maybe we can learn a little from each other?

[Reenk Roink]

LOL. All your numbers just confirm what I wrote. Game, set and match.

Ahh, so I finally see the game you play II. Lets just look at numbers and ignore these:

Europeans are generally more intolerant of Muslims than Americans...

Muslims in America have better lives than in Europe...

But I'll indulge you in your flawed conclusions...

As for this:


Just as I thought, another own goal. This 'BS' comes from your own government, Roink, just like the numbers I quoted.

Read here.

Coudn't you just give me this part II?:


Seldom, however, did Muslims find life in America to be easy. The United States is often said to be "a nation of immigrants," a "melting pot" for all races and ethnic identities, but racial prejudice, particularly in the era before the civil rights movement of the 1960s, certainly existed.

For many years, then, the response of many Muslim immigrants was to attempt to hide their religious and ethnic identities, to change their names to make them sound more American, and to refrain from participating in practices or adopting dress that would make them appear "different" from the average citizen. Gradually, as the Muslim immigrant community became much larger, much more diversified, much better educated, and much more articulate about its own self-understanding, attempts to blend into American society have given way to more sophisticated discussions about the importance of living in America but, at the same time, retaining a sense of one's own religious culture. Part of the context for such discussions has come from the formation of Muslim communities, Sunni and Shi'ite, across rural and urban America, and in more recent years of national Islamic organizations representing religious, political, professional, and social forms of association.

Interesting...

Lets look at this part from the same document:


The fourth and most recent wave of Muslim immigration has come after 1965, the year President Lyndon Johnson sponsored an immigration bill that repealed the longstanding system of quotas by national origin. Under the new system, preferences went to relatives of U.S. residents and those with special occupational skills needed in the United States. The new law was a signal act in American history, making it possible for the first time since the early part of the 20th century for someone to enter the country regardless of his or her national origin. After 1965, immigration from Western Europe began to decline significantly, with a corresponding growth in the numbers of persons arriving from the Middle East and Asia. In this era more than half of the immigrants to America from these regions have been Muslim.

Racism was dwindling then, so I doubt that the recent muslim immigrants (by far the bulk of the current populations) faced this...

But please try to stay in the present II. As I've said many times before:

Europeans are generally more intolerant of Muslims than Americans...

Muslims in America have better lives than in Europe...

Think about it, immigrant muslims in Denmark have to shipped back home to be buried but dogs have their own cemetery...

In America, there are laws prohibiting discrimination in work or jobs related to race, religion, etc..., not in Denmark...

[Reenk Roink]

Then maybe Proletariat is not the navel of the universe after all.

Poverty levels of Hispanic Americans (HA), on average, are twice as high as whites. 60% of all families are headed by a female, 40% of these females don't have a high school diploma. Only about 6% of the population attend college. In terms of earnings HA average is about 60% of the white income average. HA live in segregated communities, but they are also a highly mobile group. An individual may have multiple addresses, children live with another family with a different name, 'latchkey' children are common.
HA homes are burglarised 25 times the Anglo-Saxon rate. They are the most difficult group to involve in community policing. HA have one of the highets fertility rates on earth, housing tends to be overcrowded, trends and forecasts in population growth are due to fertility and not illegal immigration. Because of their low levels of education, bilingual education was introduced specially for them. HA are politically underrepresented at all levels of goverment. Less than 20% of them are registered to vote. American culture is replete with negative stereotypes about HA. They are portrayed as lazy, shiftless, lawless, thieving, immoral, or violent.

Sounds a lot like the 'morons' (your terminology) whom the Europeans let in from Turkey, the Middle East and Northern Africa, dont it?

Now can we cut the crap and recognise that Europe and the U.S. have similar immigration issues and that maybe, just maybe we can learn a little from each other?

And yet the American populous tends to think more highly of Hispanics than the Germans of Turks, or French of North Africans...

https://img471.imageshack.us/img471/6784/views9vy.gif (https://imageshack.us)

And like I've stated before, these anti Muslim sentiments are smelling awfully like anti-Semetic sentiments:

In the 1930s the Danish government was sending German Jews and members of the Communist Party back to Germany if they could not make enough money to support themselves. Now with this new proposal, the same rules are coming back to hit the immigrants of today. A refugee or an immigrant who wants his wife to come to Denmark must prove to the authorities that he earns enough money to support two people, he must be over 24 years of age and must prove that he has stronger "bonds" to Denmark than the country he fled from. It is common for a family that flees for the husband to go first, and then he can get the rest of the family out later. It is clearly a cruel proposal that will let people be tortured, brutally oppressed and even left to die.

[Strike For The South]

And yet the American populous tends to think more highly of Hispanics than the Germans of Turks, or French of North Africans...


Man if the mexicans here were to riot we would see the same thing probably worse. Adrian is right the USA has its problems as well.

[Reenk Roink]

Man if the mexicans here were to riot we would see the same thing probably worse. Adrian is right the USA has its problems as well.

Ermm.. These polls were taken much before the cartoon incident, or the riots in France...

Check Pew Global Attitudes...

I'd imagine they'd be lower now...

[Duke Malcolm]

Europeans intolerant of Muslims are so because many Muslims do not really want to fit in with the nation. People of a Negroid or Oriental persuasion are usually more accepted than Muslims because the Muslims habitually speak their native language instead of English, whereas Chinese immigrants seem to often speak English and Black people mostly speak English anyway. Muslim people also wear their native dress, which they often refer to as "Traditional dress", for not only formal events but often as every day clothes when they are terribly impractical (why wear a flowing robe and hat in blustering gales and snow? They may be more useful in the desert...). Muslims also often protest for some inexplicable reason and often against something quite rational but against Muslim teachings and spout out the neologism of "Islamophobia" whenever anyone opposes them. They seem less concerned with becoming part of a new nation than the nation becoming a part of Islam...

[Reenk Roink]

Europeans intolerant of Muslims are so because many Muslims do not really want to fit in with the nation. People of a Negroid or Oriental persuasion are usually more accepted than Muslims because the Muslims habitually speak their native language instead of English, whereas Chinese immigrants seem to often speak English and Black people mostly speak English anyway. Muslim people also wear their native dress, which they often refer to as "Traditional dress", for not only formal events but often as every day clothes when they are terribly impractical (why wear a flowing robe and hat in blustering gales and snow? They may be more useful in the desert...). Muslims also often protest for some inexplicable reason and often against something quite rational but against Muslim teachings and spout out the neologism of "Islamophobia" whenever anyone opposes them. They seem less concerned with becoming part of a new nation than the nation becoming a part of Islam...

It then, seems to me, that some nations have had better success assimilating muslims into their tossed salad, than others...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3514590.stm

[Strike For The South]

Ermm.. These polls were taken much before the cartoon incident, or the riots in France...

Check Pew Global Attitudes...

I'd imagine they'd be lower now...

Facts can be misleading. For the USA it needs to be done state by state.

Edit: Many European countries have a higher population of muslims and MUCH higher muslim per capita. The USA just dosent all that many. Not to mention muslims in America were born here rather than some where else

[Meneldil]

Muslims are either the second largest religious group in America, or are in the passing lane of Jews...

Given that Jews represent 2% of the US population, it doesn't seem that great, no ? From Wiki figures, it looks like Muslims made up 0.6% of the total population in 2001. That's still far from 10%.



My "pointless arguing" was against the notion the Europe is somehow more welcoming to Muslims and Islam than America. It is not. And I'm talking about certain countries in particular, others like Spain, are quite tolerant of their muslim minorities.


Yeah, Europe might not be more welcoming. I never claimed so. If people don't want to integrate, we aren't nice to them. In the US, things tend to be different, as all foreigners gather in a place that will be called 'Chinatown', 'Latinos-town' or whatever, and will create their petty ethnical/religious community. It seems to be pretty common in the US, but here in Europe, that's something we really don't like.

Apart from that, Spain is more tolerant simply because massive immigration started only a few years ago and because the muslim community isn't nearly as large as in France or UK. That's mainly why most spanish try to slow down immigration while they still can handle the issue.


Latinos are integrating the same slow way the Italians did way back when. They're not trying to rewrite our Constitution, either.

Muslims are integrating the same slow way the Polish did way back. They're not trying to rewrite our Constitution, either. :juggle2:
But then, some latinos would like Spanish to be the official language in the US. That sounds a bit harsher than rewriting a piece of paper. They have they own TV channels, and so on.

I won't go on explaining that there's also a much bigger cultural gap between an european and a muslim than between a mexican and an american.


That sums up nothing. In America anyone's welcome who generates some money. The entire country was made of immigrants, so we don't suffer from the same cultural and ethnic vanity you all do.

Well, great. In France anyone who suffered during his life is welcome. I find it silly, but heh, it's the very basis of our revolutionnary and human rights tradition.
Through the 19th and 20th century and for various reasons, we welcomed many people from Spain, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, as well as Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Lebanon, and the list goes on. As far as I know, most of them now live like the average french.
On a sidenote, we don't have any notion like WASP, you know the completly racist acronym still nowadays used to refers to true americans, and we're also trying (with little success I admit) to create a kind of Federal State including countries that spent centuries fighting eachothers. When it comes to cultural and ethnical vanity, I don't think the US are entitled to teach anything to Europe (and vice-versa).


You brought up the difference between our 'sophisticated' Muslims and the ones immigrating to your continent.

Yeah, we obviously don't have any sophisticated muslim here. Actually, they're all just a bunch of religious nutjobs wanting to behead me and stone my girlfriend to death. :dizzy2:
sarcasm off/
Actually, a lot of muslims are glad to be living in France. They love this country, even if it does not always pay back. They work hard, make money, write books, play in movies, create companies. Mind you, I even saw people manifesting against the caricatures of Muhammad telling me they would never thank France enough for what the country offered to them.

[Reenk Roink]

Facts can be misleading. For the USA it needs to be done state by state.

Edit: Many European countries have a higher population of muslims and MUCH higher muslim per capita. The USA just dosent all that many. Not to mention muslims in America were born here rather than some where else

Ermm, 2/3 of muslims are immigrants or first or second generation children...

BTW, your "Facts can be misleading" quote is going on my sig list...:laugh2:


Given the fact the 3 Religions of the Book make up half of the world population, it doesn't sound that weird, no ?

??? I was just about to respond to a black comment here ???

Anyway, I never said it was weird, I merely responded to you assumption that Muslims aren't sizable in America...

*passes the doobie to the left*

I gotta get my head out of the backroom :confused:

[Adrian II]

Europeans are generally more intolerant of Muslims than Americans...

Muslims in America have better lives than in Europe...Sure, because the two Muslim populations are totally different in composition. We've been there, we've seen the numbers. Get over it.

[Adrian II]

Edit: Many European countries have a higher population of muslims and MUCH higher muslim per capita. The USA just dosent all that many. Not to mention muslims in America were born here rather than some where elseWell yeah, that's about it.

And it is no use making lame comparisons of 'our' Muslims with 'your' Hispanics and say 'Oh look, we did better!' either. We didn't. Only the global repercussions of a large Muslim immigration in Europe are different -- culturally, politically, linguistically and religiously -- from the large Hispanic influx in the United States. Maybe we can learn from each other (and each other's mistakes) but since this is really a matter of comparing Muslim apples and Hispanic oranges, a serious comparative study of issues and politices would be very difficult. Certainly too difficult for me.

[Meneldil]

I was just about to respond to a black comment here ???

Anyway, I never said it was weird, I merely responded to you assumption that Muslims aren't sizable in America...

*passes the doobie to the left*



My point (which wasn't that clear, and I edited my last post) is that half of this planet (US included) is mostly inhabited by people who are either Jews, Christians or Muslims. Since 87% of Americans are Christians, 2% Jews and 0.6% Muslims, then Muslims aren't sizable in America.
Since your point was more or less "Muslims are treated better in America than in Europe" (and that might be true), I thought it would be reasonable to explain you that there was absolutely no point in comparing both issues, and brought the latinos counter-example.
No, if you still don't understand, that's not my problem anymore.

[Papewaio]

The connection between viruses on PCs vs the lack of viruses on Macs and why Muslims hate USA more then NZ.

Network popularity. The idea that something has a force of presence not in linear regards to its members put as a power function.

A network of ten members will have a hypothetical force of presence of 10^2
While a network of 100 members will have a presence of 100^2.

Viruses are written for the network with the largest presence. PCs have numbers of members orders of magnitude larger then Macs. The attaction to write viruses for these PCs is in turn even larger. Macs have such a small prescence that it does not stick out compared with the PC world. Also the isolation of Mac communities vs PCs. Infect a hub of PCs and they will in all likely hood be connected by servers with the same architecture and the same virsus flaws. Macs on the other hand will not have a server farm from the same manufacturer... they are far easier to quarantine... this is why the only virus made for Macs is on the Apple Messenger... the effective network prescence for that virus is the largest compared with isolated office networks.

====

People know about the USA, it has a prescence that is far larger due to its large economic clout and large population. It took a concerted effort by people to get Denmark on the Madar (Muslim radar not to be confused with the Gaydar). Even after that effort by its own Imans inflamming as much sympathy for their imagined plights as possible the reaction was to burn Norwegian flags in confusion, and then after a short time to start blaming the USA and Britain for the cartoons and burn their flags.

Hatred is just like popularity, the bigger the presence the far more likely you will be one or the other.

"It is hard to smell the shit from ants when an elephant has farted."

[Adrian II]

"It is hard to smell the shit from ants when an elephant has farted."Soo.. how was your weekend, Papewaio? Things are rather dull around here at the moment. Dial 1 for Iraq, 2 for Mohammed and 3 for anal intercourse. That's about it.
:juggle2:

[Papewaio]

OT

My weekend was nice, went to the pools with the baby, he loves paddling around.

Nice to see the full spectrum of Australian people at the pools... couple weeks back saw a young muslim lady in a head to toe swimming suit and head scarf, lots of iconic bronzed blonde aussies, east asians, south east asians, indians, the entire spectrum of mums, dads and kids all enjoying the facilities together.

Went to Sydney city yesterday, first time with a pram... I have a totally different feeling for the city and how difficult it would be for someone with a disability to get around. Had Japanese food for lunch... rather good. Went to Kinokuynia to look for books, popped into EB to check out games.

In short had enjoyed the fruits multiculutral weekend. It is all to easy to get tense about some of the tiny differences between cultures and forget to enjoy the many differences that are nice.

[Proletariat]

American culture is replete with negative stereotypes about HA. They are portrayed as lazy, shiftless, lawless, thieving, immoral, or violent.


Boy, your intimate knowledge of the American social climate is just amazing. I wonder just how many websites it took you to read to gather this deep knowledge.



Sounds a lot like the 'morons' (your terminology) whom the Europeans let in from Turkey, the Middle East and Northern Africa, dont it?
?

No. Get back to me when 40% of the Latinos in this country want to change the laws here to suit their culture.




Maybe we can learn from each other (and each other's mistakes) but since this is really a matter of comparing Muslim apples and Hispanic oranges, a serious comparative study of issues and politices would be very difficult. Certainly too difficult for me.


Reading that, after reading this:



Pointless arguing. The latinos are treated much better in Europe than in the US. It's related to the size of the community. I don't know how large is the latinos community in the US, but I'd say larger than 10%, just like there's more than 10% muslims inhabitants in France.

That sums it up.

Well, I LOLed. Sums it up, eh? It's been summed up for me now, I reckon.

Apparently I'm a racist who believes the entire universe revolves around her, so I think I'll go and lay down and think about how I am all that matters and how much I hate those dirty Arubs and Mexicans. Adieu!

[Soulforged]

Apparently I'm a racist who believes the entire universe revolves around her, so I think I'll go and lay down and think about how I am all that matters and how much I hate those dirty Arubs and Mexicans. Adieu!Not around you, but more around your country, it's easy to lose perspective when you live in a country wich is portrayed day after day as the greatest. Now about this quote:
Pointless arguing. The latinos are treated much better in Europe than in the US. It's related to the size of the community. I don't know how large is the latinos community in the US, but I'd say larger than 10%, just like there's more than 10% muslims inhabitants in France.For what I know that's false. Latinamericans are treated bad indiferently in both parts of the world in social sense of the expression, as they are massivelly excluded for the better paid activities, even when having a title and knowning the language of the country in question, and sent to "wash the dishes". This is not a phenomenum exclusive to USA, it happens in Europe and in Oceania, I don't remember the stadistics very well, but the media passed something about the %80 of argentinians (for example) overseas working as "dishwashers" (we call them "sudacas"), many didn't even got a job and returned here after trying again and again on both Europe and USA (cannot speak for Canada). The situation, however, appears to be atenuated in Australia.

[AquaLurker]

Just wondering.

How much effort was put by the European communities and their goverments to help the muslim or other immigrants integrate into their societies? Instead of introducing specific religious laws, IMO a neutral law to prevent random and blantant mocking of each other beliefs and culture would be better.

If the goverment of a European country decides to introduce religous laws to their state, I think (and hope) that it may just be a first step towards easing cultural and religious tension, paving a basic foundation for future effort of helping these people to integrate.

It took alot of years for most multi-cultural countries to achieve a good level of understanding and tolerance, effort must comes from both side along with constant goverment support and responsible media publications.

Questioning and mocking a belief is two different thing.

[bmolsson]

Have you ever visited the US?

Yes.... :2thumbsup:

[bmolsson]

No, my point was that bmolsson made the statement that the US has not found a way to co-exist with Islam unlike Europe which is making the attempt yo comprimise. Well the US isn't having the riots and burnings that Europe is having and you can find that on CNN, BBC, or where ever the hell you want to look for your news. Smoke that.~:smoking:

The problem with violence is in middle east countries and not Europe itself. The European police forces do have teeth..... ~;)

[bmolsson]

It's not the mocking itself that is the problem here. It's the purpose of the mocking. Nobody is trying to defend outdated islamic laws, it's just that cartoons used for blasphemy is un-necessary and don't help anyone in creating a better world. Why not making articles and discussions on the subject instead ? Question the religious laws instead of mock them will help the reformation of islam, which we all, including muslims, want to see.....

[Adrian II]

Boy, your intimate knowledge of the American social climate is just amazing. I wonder just how many websites it took you to read to gather this deep knowledge.Amazing, isn't it? First of all, the info on discrimination comes from your own government, just like all the other data I used. But a mere look at this forum should be enough. We regularly see posts from (or about) Americans calling for more walls and patrols along the Mexican border, accompanied by expose's of how 'they take away our jobs, they don't speak the language and they are parasites on our wealth'. The exact same language we hear from Europeans about (illegal) Muslim immigrants in Europe.
Get back to me when 40% of the Latinos in this country want to change the laws here to suit their culture.Get back to me once African Americans stop demanding ever new policies that put an end to job discrimination, racial prolifing and a whole lot more. See, two can play that game. But it is fruitless.

My point is that the U.S. has similar integration problems as Europe, only not with Muslims, but with Latinos and African Americans and maybe some other groups.

The main difference between the position of Latinos in the US and that of Muslims in Europe is in their religion. Islam has become heavily politicised. Catholicism has not, or if it has, then its tenets are not radically different from that of mainstream American society. In the case of Islam they are at odds with mainstream society and particularly with democracy.

Even so, a majority of Muslims in Europe do not belong to the morons who protest against freedom of speech.

[Adrian II]

My weekend was nice, went to the pools with the baby, he loves paddling around.Heh. ~:pat:

Kids change the whole pace of your life, don't they? BTW I have the same sort of multicult experience in Amsterdam parks, when I take the kids to play there. Mums and Dads come from all over the world, they speak seventeen languages, wear nineteen kinds of dress and eat seventy-five different dishes, but the kids are just kids and play together as if their lives depend on it. In a way, they do depend on it.

[Duke Malcolm]

Just wondering.

How much effort was put by the European communities and their goverments to help the muslim or other immigrants integrate into their societies? Instead of introducing specific religious laws, IMO a neutral law to prevent random and blantant mocking of each other beliefs and culture would be better.

If the goverment of a European country decides to introduce religous laws to their state, I think (and hope) that it may just be a first step towards easing cultural and religious tension, paving a basic foundation for future effort of helping these people to integrate.

It took alot of years for most multi-cultural countries to achieve a good level of understanding and tolerance, effort must comes from both side along with constant goverment support and responsible media publications.

Here, the Scottish Executive does quite a lot to help immigrants integrate, but Muslims resist efforts. Instead of trying integration, the Local Authorities fork up a few million pounds to build mosques in an alien eastern style to bow to the will of the Muslim minority and ruin efforts at integration all for a few muslim votes at the polling stations... Introducing religious laws is a step back to the days when the canon laws of the Church were on par with the laws of the state and the Inquisition ran rampant... Perhaps if they do that then a new police force can be formed to hunt down offenders and they could be called inquisitors and they can burn people at the stakes... If religious tension is to be eased, the onus should be on the imams and senior clerics and most importantly the average muslim worshipper who want reform to go about reforming the more archaic laws, just like John Calvin and Martin Luther (I think)...


Questioning and mocking a belief are two different things.

That may be so, but in the modern world people should be able to do both without facing prosecution as long as they do not lie, something already covered by libel and slander, I think. If one reacts violently to a little bit of mockery of one's beliefs then it is no better than a 14 year old boy who knifes an elderly man for telling the hypothetical boy to pick up rubbish he has dropped on the ground...

[Slyspy]

I wish people would stop using that Telegraph poll to say "40% of your Muslims want sharia law in your country". Polls are bunkum, this one was commissioned by a newspaper with a sample of 500. So we can confidently sate that, when asked a question framed I know-not how, 200 Muslims stated a preference for sharia law. Big deal.

As a point of interest it is amazing how so many people speak of Muslims as a race on this board (I noticed a "good" example by Malcolm earlier).

[Reenk Roink]

I wish people would stop using that Telegraph poll to say "40% of your Muslims want sharia law in your country". Polls are bunkum, this one was commissioned by a newspaper with a sample of 500. So we can confidently sate that, when asked a question framed I know-not how, 200 Muslims stated a preference for sharia law. Big deal.

Good point, the polls I used were much larger in scale (38000 people), and used many statistical properties such as SRS to eliminate variablility.

Besides, I found intersting tidbits in the article:


Four out of ten British Muslims want Sharia, or Islamic law, introduced in predominantly Muslim parts of the country, a poll has showed.


But 91% of British Muslims said they feel loyal to the United Kingdom.

Really now, I think if a poll was to be done for British Christians, the loyalty to the country would be the same...

[rory_20_uk]

So although the UK is trying to make an inclusive society, there are Muslims that want not only to greate Ghettos for themselves, but then have different sets of laws for themselves and the rest of the coutry.

How does this work? Corporal / capital punishment in certain boroughs? I drink down the wrong road and I can get fined? Different schools? What?

And can people be convited of crimes in a borough that were committed outside, or vice versa?

Everyone is has the same laws (in principle) before the Monarch, and people can't opt in and out as they see fit.

So Muslims are "significantly disloyal"... Aha! ~;)

~:smoking:

[AquaLurker]

Is there any articles regarding the type of Islamic laws that may be introduce?

What kind of effort were used to improve the relations ship between the Islamic immigrants and the locals? It would shed some light in their approach regarding intergration policy, if building mosque or temples alone could actually help ease tension, the world would have been a eaiser place to live.

The usual reactions of "we are bowing down to muslim minority" when it comes to goverment effort in easing tensions, shed some light regarding Europeans community and their mind set. It does hints that the refusal to intergration comes from both side.


"That may be so, but in the modern world people should be able to do both without facing prosecution as long as they do not lie, something already covered by libel and slander, I think. If one reacts violently to a little bit of mockery of one's beliefs then it is no better than a 14 year old boy who knifes an elderly man for telling the hypothetical boy to pick up rubbish he has dropped on the ground..."

And also in an ideal world...
Individuals too, would react violently when the button is pushed too often, not that I support violence by the way, but people are still people. If only the racial/religious tension happening in Europe is relevent to the hypotheical example...things would have been easier.

[rory_20_uk]

When is the last time the government built a church? Not for some time, I'd wager. No, these things are the remit of individuals to fund. Why should mosques be any different? If Muslims want them, a community can fund one, or get a sponsor. The added benefit is they can rightly say that they've done it themselves and no one is bowing down to anyone.

Integration can easily mean different things to different people. I would say integration is that other integrate to the society they are joining, not that the society they want to join has to expend money to make the newcomers happy.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

When is the last time the government built a church? Not for some time, I'd wager

There is a beautifull old church in Amsterdam that needed renovation, sorry no $$$ for you. 150 meters from there the biggest mosk in europe is currently being build with taxpayers money :wall:

[AquaLurker]

Like I say, the problems may lies with the goverment approach towards intergration and mindset of both locals and Islamic immigrant community. By building the mosque, the goverment shows it good will towards the Islamic immigrants...but It would have been great if building a Mosque can also improve the relation between the two communities...:juggle2:

[Fragony]

Like I say, the problems may lies with the goverment approach towards intergration and mindset of both locals and Islamic immigrant community. By building the mosque, the goverment shows it good will towards the Islamic immigrants...but It would have been great if building a Mosque can also improve the relation between the two communities...:juggle2:

Well I didn't find the words of the imam : 'the minarettes are our bajonettes, the (round roofs) are our helmets, the mosques are our barracks and our believers our soldiers' much reason for such optimism to be honest.

why show goodwill for that kind of trash.

[rory_20_uk]

No, by building a mosque, the government is showing favoritism to one religion over another.

If a youth center had been built that all youth can enjoy then that would possibly help integration; aiding only one side causes the divide to increase.

The day human nature says "Oh, look at that! They're getting a new mosque whereas our church is falling down. That's nice - I think we should pay more taxes to build another one. Fancy a pint? Oh, better not, this area 's governed under Sharia Law... Isn't it great how well we're integrated..."

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

No, by building a mosque, the government is showing favoritism to one religion over another.


shut up and kiss me.

[Crazed Rabbit]

American culture is replete with negative stereotypes about HA. They are portrayed as lazy, shiftless, lawless, thieving, immoral, or violent.

Amazing, isn't it? First of all, the info on discrimination comes from your own government, just like all the other data I used. But a mere look at this forum should be enough. We regularly see posts from (or about) Americans calling for more walls and patrols along the Mexican border, accompanied by expose's of how 'they take away our jobs, they don't speak the language and they are parasites on our wealth'. The exact same language we hear from Europeans about (illegal) Muslim immigrants in Europe.

Well stupid ole racist me. I've actually worked long hours with Hispanic migrant workers in one of the whitest, Protestant, and conservative towns in my state. Did I see any racism? Did I hear the managers running the operation make derisive comments? Absolutely not. I have never heard anything of what you describe anywhere in the USA.
I'm sure the majority of immigrants are liked the ones I worked with; hard working. But I, along with many other people who value national soveriegnty, want a way to keep people from illegally entering the country. That doesn't make me racist.

Crazed Rabbit

[rory_20_uk]

~:shock: ~:pat: ~:cheers: :knuddel: :laugh4:

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

It makes you a Nationalist, and I'm proud to say so am I: I've no interest in what colour your skin is, your sexual preference or where your ancestral home is. If you want to be a part of my country, are proud to be here then Great! If you don't well then you'd better be on a work permit, as I've no desire for you to stay here.

That doesn't mean you agree with whatever the latest government is saying / doing of course, as in a democracy that might mean the population has to emmigrate every 5 years or so...

~:smoking:

[AquaLurker]

My point is just by building a Mosque does not help both communities to improve relationship...

Its about "approach":juggle2: and "constant effort":book: from the goverment part... which may help in building a healthy "Mindset":inquisitive: between both communties...

If the goverment accepted these immigrants they are responsible with the wellfare of these immigrants. If the "democratic" people of the country helps in making that decision, they are equally responsible to help them intergrate into the society, or else "Democracy" is nothing more then a word.

Well I oppose the idea of introducing religious law into any nation or state, I do support any law the prevents people from irresponsible behaviour that may promotes intolerance.

[Duke Malcolm]

Like I say, the problems may lies with the goverment approach towards intergration and mindset of both locals and Islamic immigrant community. By building the mosque, the goverment shows it good will towards the Islamic immigrants...but It would have been great if building a Mosque can also improve the relation between the two communities...:juggle2:

The Problem lies with the minority not wishing to integrate, not with the government going about integration the wrong way. The government has better things to do than to make the citizens accept immigrants and children thereof. The native folk generally do not ostracise and discriminate against immigrants, rather they ignore the fact that they are immigrants and treat them as they would a native. Some take an active part in trying to help immigrants integrate. The native mindset is fine, and that of most immigrants is fine. It is the majority muslim mindset which guards against integration.


As a point of interest it is amazing how so many people speak of Muslims as a race on this board (I noticed a "good" example by Malcolm earlier).

I was referring to Muslims as followers of a religion. Few muslims embraced the national culture. Most, even though considerable number were born here and a few are the children of Anglo-saxon converts to Islam, stay in cliques, socialise mostly with other muslims with whom they go to the mosk. Hindis, Sikhs, Christians, Athiests, and other religious immigrants all seem to integrate fine. Muslims habitually stick with muslims out of choice, not because the government does not help them mix with the native community. In Glasgow, muslims are even asking that a State School be made into a Muslim State School. Here, an Islamic Centre is going to be built on the site of my school's annex which will provide a gathering and socialising place for muslims.

[AquaLurker]

The Muslim mindset to guard against intergration does not form by itself. Instead of insisting that "they are the problem", maybe its better to review where what went wrong from past efforts...

Articles regarding these aspects the "communities effort (local/immigrants)", "goverment effort" and "reactions" would definately shed some lights.

"The government has better things to do than to make the citizens accept immigrants and children thereof."

This is part of the "better things to do".

[Duke Malcolm]

The Muslim mindset to guard against intergration does not form by itself. Instead of insisting that "they are the problem", maybe its better to review where what went wrong from past efforts...

Articles regarding these aspects the "communities effort (local/immigrants)", "goverment effort" and "reactions" would definately shed some lights.


"The government has better things to do than to make the citizens accept immigrants and children thereof."

This is part of the "better things to do".

No, "better things to do" referred to welfare, defence, schools, immigration, hospitals, transport and such infrastructure, the environment, rural affairs, foreign affairs, the Commonwealth, fisheries, Scottish culture, I could go on...

Her Britannic Majesty's Government and Scottish Executive have measures for integration which seem to help all other immigrants fine, only Muslim immigrants and their children seem to be reluctant to follow. They want special treatment and, according to you, they should get special integration measures also.

[rory_20_uk]

Where does it come from? It doesn't appear to be based on where the person is from, their age or skin colour.

It is probably something to do with their values are quite different from those typically found in the UK: we let our women do what they want, relationships are not forced on couples, speech is free as are the majority of people's actions. Other religions are not as prescriptive, and so have little trouble adapting.

~:smoking:

[AquaLurker]

No, "better things to do" referred to welfare, defence, schools, immigration, hospitals, transport and such infrastructure, the environment, rural affairs, foreign affairs, the Commonwealth, fisheries, Scottish culture, I could go on...

How about social stability?

Her Britannic Majesty's Government and Scottish Executive have measures for integration which seem to help all other immigrants fine, only Muslim immigrants and their children seem to be reluctant to follow. They want special treatment and, according to you, they should get special integration measures also.

Instead of reviewing past efforts and form more suitable approach, you prefer your goverment to go down the same road and fail again? I do hope that your views dose not represent that your goverment.

[Duke Malcolm]

Instead of reviewing past efforts and form more suitable approach, you prefer your goverment to go down the same road and fail again? I do hope that your views dose not represent that your goverment.

Instead of sticking with successful efforts, you think that millions of taxpayers' sterling should be spent on helping a minority of immigrants integrate where most other immigrants are fine? I hope that your views do not represent those of Her Majesty's Government.

[rory_20_uk]

I feel that Duke Malcolm listed many measures that could fit under the category of "social stability".

What is a more suitable approach? Equality doesn't seem to be working, what is next? There are many thousands of people immigrating to the UK that have no trouble in integrating. Perhaps ensuring that we maximise people prepared to integrate whilst politely but firmly not admitting those that are known to cause severe difficulties would be a much more sensible method of ensuring social stability.

People can see what the UK is like very easily. Virtually all can visit if they want. Why come here and then decide what they want is what they left?

If a guest is present at a party is causing a fuss, they are asked to leave. The party does not focus on them until they are happy to the exclusion of everyone else.

~:smoking:

[LeftEyeNine]

Where does it come from? It doesn't appear to be based on where the person is from, their age or skin colour.

It is probably something to do with their values are quite different from those typically found in the UK: we let our women do what they want, relationships are not forced on couples, speech is free as are the majority of people's actions. Other religions are not as prescriptive, and so have little trouble adapting.

~:smoking:

in Turkey :

We let women do what they want, relationships are not forced on couples, freedom of speech is better compared to the past. And we are a 95-percent majority of Muslim community.

Remove your glasses.

[rory_20_uk]

Turkey: one country. Known to be one of the most "Western" of Middle East states. Currently trying to gain EU membership. Currently trying to digest the massive tome that are the insane number of laws the EU is forcing Turkey to agree to (yeah, I'm a Eurosceptic).

Freedom of speech is better... yeah, hardly a great record is it? The EU had to get firm recently over arresting one person I seem to recall.

Your point is... Turkish integrate well? If that's it, great! As I said, anyone that integrates is welcome (just try to to fight with the Greeks, OK?)

Can you say the same about Iranians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Iraqis?

Walking down Edgeware Road in London the only ones that catch my eye are the poor women dressed head to toe in black cloth. Fashion victim? Die hard Goth? No, another Muslim women - although if they're lucky they're allowed to be by themselves!!! :fainting: Now, I don't even see why it's required, as many Muslims just wear a headscarf, which is far more tollerable.

~:smoking:

[Duke Malcolm]

Turkey is a lot better than most other Muslim-Majority countries, possibly because of the greater liberal-minded European influence, and, while there are not many turkish immigrants here, the few that are integrate well and adopt the new society and mainly run kebab shops. The reluctance to integrate seems to come from the society whence the immigrants came, the more enforced and ingrained in their mind the more archaic parts of Islam are, then the less they integrate.

[Reenk Roink]

Turkey: one country. Known to be one of the most "Western" of Middle East states. Currently trying to gain EU membership. Currently trying to digest the massive tome that are the insane number of laws the EU is forcing Turkey to agree to (yeah, I'm a Eurosceptic).

Freedom of speech is better... yeah, hardly a great record is it? The EU had to get firm recently over arresting one person I seem to recall.

Your point is... Turkish integrate well? If that's it, great! As I said, anyone that integrates is welcome (just try to to fight with the Greeks, OK?)

Can you say the same about Iranians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Iraqis?

Walking down Edgeware Road in London the only ones that catch my eye are the poor women dressed head to toe in black cloth. Fashion victim? Die hard Goth? No, another Muslim women - although if they're lucky they're allowed to be by themselves!!! :fainting: Now, I don't even see why it's required, as many Muslims just wear a headscarf, which is far more tollerable.

~:smoking:

With the exception of Saudi Arabia and Iran, most governments in the middle east are secular dictatorships...Might as well quit trying to point the finger at Islam at every freakin' possibility...

[Duke Malcolm]

But in many other Middle-eastern countries the society is quite devout, and follows the Kuran considerably for the societal rules. It is not the government enforcement but the societal indoctrination of Islam, and in particular those parts incompatible with more liberal European ways...

[AquaLurker]

"Instead of sticking with successful efforts, you think that millions of taxpayers' sterling should be spent on helping a minority of immigrants integrate where most other immigrants are fine? I hope that your views do not represent those of "

I feel that Duke Malcolm listed many measures that could fit under the category of "social stability".


If the effort where successful then why the religious/cultural tension exist/buidling between these communities (certain European and Islamic immigrants)?
Errh...I don't try to represent any goverment but stating my opinnions, but you sure make it sounds like your views represent "Her Majesty's Government".

If a guest is present at a party is causing a fuss, they are asked to leave. The party does not focus on them until they are happy to the exclusion of everyone else.

If only they are guest... but they are immigrants, they are here to stay.

What is a more suitable approach? Equality doesn't seem to be working, what is next? There are many thousands of people immigrating to the UK that have no trouble in integrating. Perhaps ensuring that we maximise people prepared to integrate whilst politely but firmly not admitting those that are known to cause severe difficulties would be a much more sensible method of ensuring social stability.

Thats what most country do, but in any way if your are to accept these immigrants, you are responsible.

Again I would like to state my opinnion...I do not think implemment any specific religious laws is a good idea because it would only start accussations of special threatment and favourtism between groups. Neutral laws that helps protect all groups from any sentitive issues would be more desirable in the long run.

"IF" for some reason should a European goverment decides to implement religious law to help bridge the gap between communities...it would be better to, IMHO, review the content of the law before reacting. If every effort made by the goverment to help improving Islamic immigrants relation is viewed as "We are bowing to Islamic minority", will the relation between these communities ever improve, how long will it take to escalate into something undesirable?

[Duke Malcolm]

"Instead of sticking with successful efforts, you think that millions of taxpayers' sterling should be spent on helping a minority of immigrants integrate where most other immigrants are fine? I hope that your views do not represent those of "

I feel that Duke Malcolm listed many measures that could fit under the category of "social stability".


If the effort where successful then why the religious/cultural tension exist/buidling between these communities (certain European and Islamic immigrants)?
Errh...I don't try to represent any goverment but stating my opinnions, but you sure make it sounds like your views represent "Her Majesty's Government".

I do not knowingly represent Her Majesty's Government nor the Scottish Executive. If their views are the same then it is entirely co-incidental.
The measures in place work well for the majority. It is only a minority, albeit a mostly Muslim minority, which is reluctant to integrate and causes tension.




Again I would like to state my opinnion...I do not think implemment any specific religious laws is a good idea because it would only start accussations of special threatment and favourtism between groups. Neutral laws that helps protect all groups from any sentitive issues would be more desirable in the long run.

"IF" for some reason should a European goverment decides to implement religious law to help bridge the gap between communities...it would be better to, IMHO, review the content of the law before reacting. If every effort made by the goverment to help improving Islamic immigrants relation is viewed as "We are bowing to Islamic minority", will the relation between these communities ever improve, how long will it take to escalate into something undesirable?

But if it the main supporter of the law is the Islamic minority then it is bowing to the will of the Islamic minority. In the case with the recent Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill, many people opposed it, both athiest and religious, christians, comedians, freedom-fighters, liberals, conservatives. The main backer of the bill was the Muslim minority. Will this ease tensions? No, not if whenever we might criticise religions we face prosecution. It will increase tensions because people will face the threat of prosecution if they criticise Islam and if Muslims criticise Christianity they might face the same, although not many police constables would investigate the Muslims for it...

[AquaLurker]

I do not knowingly represent Her Majesty's Government nor the Scottish Executive. If their views are the same then it is entirely co-incidental.
The measures in place work well for the majority. It is only a minority, albeit a mostly Muslim minority, which is reluctant to integrate and causes tension.

So they should be held with full responsibility whenever a situation arise and reviewing past effort for a better approach to help ease tension is not less desirable?


But if it the main supporter of the law is the Islamic minority then it is bowing to the will of the Islamic minority. In the case with the recent Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill, many people opposed it, both athiest and religious, christians, comedians, freedom-fighters, liberals, conservatives. The main backer of the bill was the Muslim minority. Will this ease tensions? No, not if whenever we might criticise religions we face prosecution. It will increase tensions because people will face the threat of prosecution if they criticise Islam and if Muslims criticise Christianity they might face the same, although not many police constables would investigate the Muslims for it...

If the bill is pass with support, it will ease tension. But the bill is rejected with only muslim minority backing it, so wheres the "Bow to muslim minority" sentiment coming from?

[rory_20_uk]

If only they are guest... but they are immigrants, they are here to stay.

Yes, my point basically. Why are they here to stay if they patently don't want to be in the country as it is. They should be guests with their right to remain reviewed, rather than once they are in be allowed to demand several changes.

If efforts are not successful, why should the onus be on the government to help an extremely small non-native minority? If you don't like it, then feel free to leave. I hear Pakistan has banned the type of protests that have been in Trafalgar Square...

I wish that we had a system closer to that of the USA: learn the language, swear allegiance to the Queen and fit in, work hard, and don't cause trouble. We've got enough lazy useless natives causing trouble without importing other countries' waste.

There are many groups in the UK that feel strongly on issues. Laws are not changed merely as they are extremely vocal. Why should the for Muslims?

And considering that in the UK the Monarch is the "defender of the faith" i.e. we are still a Christian country if anything laws should be to protect the Christians (oh, I'm agnostic by the way).

~:smoking:

[Duke Malcolm]

I do not knowingly represent Her Majesty's Government nor the Scottish Executive. If their views are the same then it is entirely co-incidental.
The measures in place work well for the majority. It is only a minority, albeit a mostly Muslim minority, which is reluctant to integrate and causes tension.

So they should be held with full responsibility whenever a situation arise and reviewing past effort for a better approach to help ease tension is not less desirable?

What? I don't understand what you are trying to saying here.


But if it the main supporter of the law is the Islamic minority then it is bowing to the will of the Islamic minority. In the case with the recent Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill, many people opposed it, both athiest and religious, christians, comedians, freedom-fighters, liberals, conservatives. The main backer of the bill was the Muslim minority. Will this ease tensions? No, not if whenever we might criticise religions we face prosecution. It will increase tensions because people will face the threat of prosecution if they criticise Islam and if Muslims criticise Christianity they might face the same, although not many police constables would investigate the Muslims for it...

If the bill is pass with support, it will ease tension. But the bill is rejected with only muslim minority backing it, so wheres the "Bow to muslim minority" sentiment coming from?

Either you did not read what you quoted or perhaps do not grasp the British Parliamentary System. The Bill was voted down (or amended, I can't remember) by the House of Lords, and the House of Commons voted for the Bill. The former House does not have to follow the party line since the peers' seats are secure -- they judge laws mainly on how they compare constitutionally, with human rights, with existing laws and with their own principles as well as taking some party advice. The latter House, whilst the MPs primary allegiance should be their constituents, most follow the party line to secure good favour with the Constituency Party and the Parliamentary Party and the Cheif Whip. The Labour (government) party line was to vote for the bill, but every other party voted against the bill. The will of the House of Commons does not reflect the will of the people, rather the will of the party with the largest majority, because the MPs follow party line. The First Lord of the Treasury just has to kow-tow to the Muslim wish, as he has done, and the party line is set as he wants it, so the House of Commons passes the Bill. The House of Lords is much weaker than the House of Commons and often just provides amendments (but occassionally votes bills down for good) so it can be ignored. Hence the passing of the Bill follows nothing but the will of the First Lord of the Treasury who may have bow to Islamic pressures...

[AquaLurker]

So the bill was passed even with objections? ...Never the less I think(IMO) it may work well to prevent people from mocking each other beliefs and stir unwanted sentiment, for a start. Still it will help ease tension in its own way, if a person decides to go against the law and try to start "stiring things" (muslims, christian or whoever) he is going to get it from the law.

Like I say, other than introducing laws, other efforts to bring "muslim immigrant community" together with the rest, (which seems to be "the trouble") need more effort then just passing laws and building mosque.


And considering that in the UK the Monarch is the "defender of the faith" i.e. we are still a Christian country if anything laws should be to protect the Christians (oh, I'm agnostic by the way).

I don't see why a law that may be beneficial to social stability can be seen as a reason for "bowing to muslim minority" sentiments.
Why the different treatment and stero typing the said minority when there are similiar native so to speak to be "lazy" and "Useless". Why accept them into the country in the first place?

Anyway I am agnostic too. (not that the infomation is of any relevence to the disccusion.)


anyway... Reqoute

Edit: Ammendments on the original qoute
I do not knowingly represent Her Majesty's Government nor the Scottish Executive. If their views are the same then it is entirely co-incidental.
The measures in place work well for the majority. It is only a minority, albeit a mostly Muslim minority, which is reluctant to integrate and causes tension.

So they(muslim immigrants) should be held with full responsibility whenever a situation(riots, out right accusations etc.) arise and reviewing past effort for a better approach to help ease tension is less desirable?

[AntiochusIII]

Now, I don't have much to add to the topic and I'm not particular fond of the European nationalism on a small boost lately due to the stupidity that is the Middle East govs, but, really, why can't I mock another person's beliefs?

That's the very basis of Freedom of Speech, no? Laws aren't supposed to force people to be nice to each other, just that they don't beat each other to death, or steal their stuff.

[Papewaio]

I think we should be allowed to mock within reason... insulting might be going a bit far (might).

Blasphemy is a stupid thing to codify in law... why?

Because there are plenty of religions that following what they normally do will be blashpemous to another and vice a versa.

Also why have a special set of laws for religion? What about the secular component of peoples lives?

I really don't think one set of ideas is automatically more worthy then another just because it has the title religion added to it (nor do I think that anti-religion is any better because of that tag)...

[AquaLurker]

If every individual have self control, mature, socialy responsible and the right mindset, such laws wouldnn't be needed. The law is there to prevent people or groups who "may" have the "intention to stir emotions" and create further tension between "groups/communities".

Such laws had already been present in some multi-cultural nations for decades, of course there are also constant effort have been made to educate its people regarding such issues.

Lack of sensitvity from press or any incidents related to religious/racial groups can easily be exploited by religious extremist/nationlist/racist groups to further escalate the situation into a regional (if not gobal) incident, as we have seen in the recents months. Further more, in a situation where Islamic terrorist is still threatening social stability all over the world, social cohesive must be maintain. IMO such law is still meaningless if there is no constant effort made by the goverment to help minorities (who are conviently subjected to such issues by the majority) to "become part of the majority".

Especially when the notion of "Freedom of Speech" varies from the moral and intellectual understandings of individuals, it has been used too often as an excuse to further complicate the situation (stiring emotion in the process) everytime should such situation arise, usually lacking in spirit of the notion and idea.
We don't have go into detail regarding this topic, just visit the recent "Freedom of Speech" related topics in forums and newspapers to get a clearer picture.

[Adrian II]

Further more, in a situation where Islamic terrorist is still threatening social stability all over the world, social cohesive must be maintain.Wrong. Freedom must be maintained above all else, it is the oxygen of social life.

[rory_20_uk]

Freedom is always curtailed, it is just that in many cases we are unaware as the bars have gone into our minds and so none are required.

I am not free to walk down the street naked just because I want to. I can't play loud music just because I want to. I can't even paint what I want on my own property, or give my money to whoever I want. In my job I am even further constrained in what I can and can not say, wear, and leave.

In fact, my total freedoms are limited to a large extent, but I don't mind; indeed I view it as normal.

Extremes that bend social conventions to too great an extent are liable to be labelled with a mental disorder, which in extremis can lead to the person being detained against their wishes as they are viewed as being a danger to themselves (extreme and unusual I concede).

~:smoking: