Islamic Law comming to a European Nation near you.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prole

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prole

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prole

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

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

---

Well 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

"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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by French Frie

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

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:

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Have you ever visited the US?

---

Yes.... :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

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..... ~;)

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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)...

Quote:

---

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...

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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...

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:

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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:

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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

---

shut up and kiss me.

Quote:

---

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

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

~:smoking:

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

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.

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Quote:

---

"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.

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AquaLurker

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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...

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...

"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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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".

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

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?

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

Quote:

---

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...

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?

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.

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)...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AquaLurker

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.

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: