The problems in europe

[Argus]

Argus,

That's exactly the point: what are the anti-Muslims on this board advocating ?

We need to severely restrict the immigration of Muslims, for one. We can't do anything about the fact "Canadian" Muslims have a far higher birth rate than we do, but at least we can hope that as the generations click over they will moderate their views without a continued large-scale inflow of Muslims from the middle east and Pakistan - places where Islam takes after the culture; harsh, unforgiving, and intolerant. We know that it is more difficult to assimilate Muslims, but it becomes almost impossible when large numbers of them send their children "home" for a "proper" wife or husband when they become of marriageable age.

And, many hard leftists actually do think that they're threatened by the "growing" Christian right. My guess is that has more to say about the general paranoia of those with more extreme political views.

The Christian right isn't really growing. The size of the Muslim population in Canada, however, is doubling every five years.

[Argus]

I'm not saying let's open the floodgates with more Muslim immigration

They've been open for some time. That is why the Muslim population is doubling every five years.

As for Muslims' views on gays and the 'left' being conflicted about the two, your point is well taken. Admittedly, I have a hard time reconciling the issue, I won't lie. Blacks too, but to a lesser degree. However, casting all blacks or Muslims as homophobic does nothing to resolve the issue. Creating more divisions in a society never helps to mend the differences. Only education can do that.

You are not going to change the cultural attitudes of the Canadian Muslim population as almost all of them derive their attitudes from their native lands. The only way to help ameliorate them is to better integrate and assimilate the Muslims, and the best way to do that is to tightly restrict further immigration from Muslim countries. Otherwise their attitudes will be continually reinforced by more with the same, and the Muslim population, with its inherently intolerant attitudes will grow larger and further apart from the Canadian mainstream.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Argus

[Oleg Bach]

There are no Christians in Canada - the Muslims have got that part figured out - we don't. Fundamentalism is not Christianity...Christians would not put up with injustice. But those of the Paulist faith do...something about excepting bad government - because it was put in place by God...I can't imagine God installing a bad gov....so there you go - we have a creepy government with out moral law - and the Muslims know that also - they just have to wait till we de-breed ourselves out of existance.

[BC_chick]

They've been open for some time. That is why the Muslim population is doubling every five years.

You are not going to change the cultural attitudes of the Canadian Muslim population as almost all of them derive their attitudes from their native lands. The only way to help ameliorate them is to better integrate and assimilate the Muslims, and the best way to do that is to tightly restrict further immigration from Muslim countries. Otherwise their attitudes will be continually reinforced by more with the same, and the Muslim population, with its inherently intolerant attitudes will grow larger and further apart from the Canadian mainstream.

I don't dispute any of the things you say about assimilating Muslims into our society. However, you seem to keep avoiding my initial point on this thread, that being.... in spite of abhorrent beliefs/actions by SOME Muslim people, it is not okay to discriminate against a Muslim person solely as a result of their religious beliefs or their dress.

The things being said about Muslims in open circles would be frowned upon if you substitute "Muslim" with any other ethnic background.

Oh, and btw, I'm no psychologist, but I can pretty much assure you that calling their religion the work of the devil is most likely not going to help improve the assimilation process.

Edited December 14, 2008 by BC_chick

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

We need to severely restrict the immigration of Muslims, for one. We can't do anything about the fact "Canadian" Muslims have a far higher birth rate than we do, but at least we can hope that as the generations click over they will moderate their views without a continued large-scale inflow of Muslims from the middle east and Pakistan - places where Islam takes after the culture; harsh, unforgiving, and intolerant. We know that it is more difficult to assimilate Muslims, but it becomes almost impossible when large numbers of them send their children "home" for a "proper" wife or husband when they become of marriageable age.

You must realize by now that this just isn't going to happen. Harper's government is looking to continue our economic growth, which means immigration will continue. There isn't much doubt of that, at least in the near term.

And "it is more difficult to assimilate Muslims" than - who ? The 'sending the children home for a proper wife' story was floated on here once, as I remember, and found to be another falsehood. It was, as I recall, based on a magazine story that (intentionally ?) misprinted a statistic to seem that this was happening in a significant number of cases.

The Christian right isn't really growing. The size of the Muslim population in Canada, however, is doubling every five years.

The hard-left types will argue that the Christian right is continuously growing in power and size, and that they're REALLY REALLY SCARY. Exactly like the anti-Muslims on this board.

The world has changed. There's no reason to think that Muslims won't integrate. My best advice is get used to it.

[Oleg Bach]

No point in making the dog growl and sticking your hand in it's mouth. Insulting generates mistrust and anger...as mummy used to say about cranky people - stoke them...why piss them off? People of all religions have to realize one thing - GOD is almighty...it created good as well as the evil - God controls all in the universe - the negative and positive forces. There is no war between the "devil" and God...God made the devil...It is our duty to sort out the good from the evil. It gives us something interesting to do while on earth. So if you want to demonize someone you are messing with a force you can not control - so give it up...in the end....best to diseminate goodness. Instead of telling a Muslim that they are evil - tell them that you love them and they are good - better chance of a better outcome that way - Logic.

[Michael Hardner]

Here's an article from the "New Straits Times" - fresh from today's Google search.

Dated Dec 1, 2008:

The growing strength of fundamentalism in the Muslim world is matched by the growing strength of the conservative Christian right, which increasingly controls the countries of the West. In the United States, there are serious problems with fundamentalist Christian sects, whose practices do not conform to the laws of the land

nst online

There are plenty of bogeyman around.

[White Doors]

Here's an article from the "New Straits Times" - fresh from today's Google search.

Dated Dec 1, 2008:

nst online

There are plenty of bogeyman around.

Drop me a PM when they advocate killing people for not believing what they do.

Thanks

[Michael Hardner]

Again, the 'which is the worst religion game' is entirely subjective. And again, those who see religions as threats, and who don't want to do a 'live and let live' approach tend to be extremists.

[White Doors]

Again, the 'which is the worst religion game' is entirely subjective. And again, those who see religions as threats, and who don't want to do a 'live and let live' approach tend to be extremists.

Never confuse smarmy PC talk of 'live and let live' with reasoned, intellectual debate.

Any reasonable person viewing current events would have to describe Islam as a world-wide problem right now.

Islam is NOT a force for good change in the world at this time.

People who refuse to see that Islam is not a positive influence in our world - are simply idiots.

[Michael Hardner]

WD,

Never confuse smarmy PC talk of 'live and let live' with reasoned, intellectual debate.

Any reasonable person viewing current events would have to describe Islam as a world-wide problem right now.

Islam is NOT a force for good change in the world at this time.

People who refuse to see that Islam is not a positive influence in our world - are simply idiots.

If you could substitute some thought and comprehension for name-calling, and use those skills to review the many posts on this topic here you would see that you're wrong. In fact, there's no objective way to assess religions. What is claimed here to be an objective assessment is often just a list of terrorist crimes.

If you want to engage in intellectual debate about that, then go ahead. But reasoned debate means throwing in the towel when you're wrong, agreeing to disagree about unprovable facts, and saying "I don't know" when you don't know.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Michael Hardner

[White Doors]

WD,

If you could substitute some thought and comprehension for name-calling, and use those skills to review the many posts on this topic here you would see that you're wrong. In fact, there's no objective way to assess religions. What is claimed here to be an objective assessment is often just a list of terrorist crimes.

If you want to engage in intellectual debate about that, then go ahead. But reasoned debate means throwing in the towel when you're wrong, agreeing to disagree about unprovable facts, and saying "I don't know" when you don't know.

Well first Hardner, we would have to agree what a 'problem' is.

For example, I don't view the events of 9/11 as an 'isolated incident' especially in light of how it was viewed in the Arab world as either a joyous occasion or a Jewish conspiracy to point blame their way - either outcome is not painting a pretty picture of the Islam mindset in my eyes.

That is a problem, however, I doubt it is from your 'perspective' of holding hands and singing carols.

I willingly admit when I am wrong and will defintely let you know when I don't know - but really, the whole issue is wether you can take the PC glasses off and put the kool-aid down long enough to objectively talk about the subject.

[Michael Hardner]

WD,

Well first Hardner, we would have to agree what a 'problem' is.

For example, I don't view the events of 9/11 as an 'isolated incident' especially in light of how it was viewed in the Arab world as either a joyous occasion or a Jewish conspiracy to point blame their way - either outcome is not painting a pretty picture of the Islam mindset in my eyes.

That is a problem, however, I doubt it is from your 'perspective' of holding hands and singing carols.

You say you want intelligent debate, yet you start out by telling me MY perspective and insulting me to boot.

I willingly admit when I am wrong and will defintely let you know when I don't know - but really, the whole issue is wether you can take the PC glasses off and put the kool-aid down long enough to objectively talk about the subject.

Again, you will also have to agree not to make assumptions on me, or insult me if you can stand that. Then we can begin.

[White Doors]

WD,

You say you want intelligent debate, yet you start out by telling me MY perspective and insulting me to boot.

Again, you will also have to agree not to make assumptions on me, or insult me if you can stand that. Then we can begin.

You don't want to be called an idiot, don't act like one - same goes with moron etc etc..

no free passes for anyone Hardner. If you don't have thick enough skin to debate me, very well.

If MLW permits people here to insult active CF personnel you certainly don't get a free pass.

[Michael Hardner]

Great WD,

Never confuse smarmy PC talk of 'live and let live' with reasoned, intellectual debate.

I've never heard of an intellectual debate where one guy gets to call the other a 'clod'.

I guess, though, it will allow me to call you a bigot, a racist, and a klansman right ?

You're ok with that ?

[Michael Hardner]

I'm really not sure what to make of an intellectual who reserves the right to insult the opponent in the discussion.

Kind of like a cross between William F Buckley and Don Rickles...

[White Doors]

I'm really not sure what to make of an intellectual who reserves the right to insult the opponent in the discussion.

Kind of like a cross between William F Buckley and Don Rickles...

So you are taking your ball and going home?

You are looking for Internet sympathy points?

Stop grovelling and tell me why you think there are no problems with Islam.

[White Doors]

Great WD,

I've never heard of an intellectual debate where one guy gets to call the other a 'clod'.

I guess, though, it will allow me to call you a bigot, a racist, and a klansman right ?

You're ok with that ?

You never heard a heated intellectual debate? Pity.

They are much more efficient and exciting than the usual strutting and preening of PC credentials that passes for debate these days.. Much like Peacocks in heat.

Yes, you can call me what you like.

If the insults do not match the post referenced, however, then it will be you looking like the fool, not I.

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, sure, whatever you HOCKEY PUCK ! *rim shot*

Stop grovelling and tell me why you think there are no problems with Islam.

Islam is like any other religion. They follow a holy book that describes a religious life. The book influences the actions of the group, but is not the primary influence. The primary influence is the culture, in my opinion.

People who say that Islam is different from other religions conveniently ignore all kinds of other tribal and religious violence. The violence that happens in the name of Islam is often just another form of tribal violence, against the west. As such, the groups that participate in it - and the word in general - would benefit from the mingling of cultures.

Our culture tends to break down inter-group violence, rather than promote it.

ps. I don't think you know what 'grovel' means. How was I grovelling ? Do you understand what I'm saying ?

[AngusThermopyle]

Islam is like any other religion. They follow a holy book that describes a religious life. The book influences the actions of the group, but is not the primary influence. The primary influence is the culture, in my opinion.

People who say that Islam is different from other religions conveniently ignore all kinds of other tribal and religious violence. The violence that happens in the name of Islam is often just another form of tribal violence, against the west. As such, the groups that participate in it - and the word in general - would benefit from the mingling of cultures.

Actually you are wrong. Islam is not like any other religion as you claim. Have you read the Khoran? Perhaps you should before you make such sweeping and false generalizations. Deny it all you want but it repeatedly calls for the forced conversion or outright enslavement or destruction of "infidels"

Now you might attempt a little moral relevatism in this case by claiming other religions do the same. In so doing what you would be conveniently forgetting is the fact that other religions do not publicly glorify such acts and openly encourage them. Other religions are also quick to condemn such actions and attempt to distance themselves from the people perpetrating them.

Just take a straight non radical interpretation of the Khoran and you'll see that its still very extreme in what it purports to be gods will and the way followers should live. Restrictive is a very mild way of stating the principles that are the core of this ideology.

[White Doors]

Actually you are wrong. Islam is not like any other religion as you claim. Have you read the Khoran? Perhaps you should before you make such sweeping and false generalizations. Deny it all you want but it repeatedly calls for the forced conversion or outright enslavement or destruction of "infidels"

Now you might attempt a little moral relevatism in this case by claiming other religions do the same. In so doing what you would be conveniently forgetting is the fact that other religions do not publicly glorify such acts and openly encourage them. Other religions are also quick to condemn such actions and attempt to distance themselves from the people perpetrating them.

Just take a straight non radical interpretation of the Khoran and you'll see that its still very extreme in what it purports to be gods will and the way followers should live. Restrictive is a very mild way of stating the principles that are the core of this ideology.

Agreed. And one of the most important problems with Islam is that their holy book also describes how government should be run. I think it is one of the main reasons that this religion has kept their adherants in the dark ages compared to so many others major religions that have moved past the 6th Century in thought and actions.

[White Doors]

Ok, sure, whatever you HOCKEY PUCK ! *rim shot*

Islam is like any other religion. They follow a holy book that describes a religious life. The book influences the actions of the group, but is not the primary influence. The primary influence is the culture, in my opinion.

People who say that Islam is different from other religions conveniently ignore all kinds of other tribal and religious violence. The violence that happens in the name of Islam is often just another form of tribal violence, against the west. As such, the groups that participate in it - and the word in general - would benefit from the mingling of cultures.

Our culture tends to break down inter-group violence, rather than promote it.

ps. I don't think you know what 'grovel' means. How was I grovelling ? Do you understand what I'm saying ?

I do agree that culture is also a factor Hardner. But that is a chicken/egg argument for the most part.

Which was shaped by which? Either way, the results speak for themselves.

Yes, I am aware of what the word grovel means. Begging me to not insult you can be interpreted as groveling from Merriam Webster:

to creep with the face to the ground : crawl

2 a: to lie or creep with the body prostrate in token of subservience or abasement b: to abase oneself

3: to give oneself over to what is base or unworthy : wallow <groveling in self-pity>

Your case fit's best in with #3.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually you are wrong. Islam is not like any other religion as you claim. Have you read the Khoran? Perhaps you should before you make such sweeping and false generalizations. Deny it all you want but it repeatedly calls for the forced conversion or outright enslavement or destruction of "infidels"

Now you might attempt a little moral relevatism in this case by claiming other religions do the same. In so doing what you would be conveniently forgetting is the fact that other religions do not publicly glorify such acts and openly encourage them. Other religions are also quick to condemn such actions and attempt to distance themselves from the people perpetrating them.

Just take a straight non radical interpretation of the Khoran and you'll see that its still very extreme in what it purports to be gods will and the way followers should live. Restrictive is a very mild way of stating the principles that are the core of this ideology.

AT,

Are you saying that the bible doesn't tell people to commit violence ? In fact, it does.

How does Islam glorify acts of violence ? I don't think that Muslims generally do this. There are some individual examples, yes, but so are there examples of others who justify violence.

[Michael Hardner]

WD,

I don't beg you not to insult, I command you. Bow to my will.

I do agree that culture is also a factor Hardner. But that is a chicken/egg argument for the most part.

Which was shaped by which? Either way, the results speak for themselves.

If you agree, then you can't blame the religion on its own. You can blame the culture but how does that help ? Even a place like Pakistan doesn't have a monoculture across the entire nation. If you restrict all Pakistanis from coming to Canada, (which isn't politically supportable anyway - ask our PM about that) you will prevent desirable immigrants from coming.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The idea of "multi culturalism" as it were, supports the separation of cultures to some degree, and encourages cultures to flourish as they are inside Canada.

Isn't this a problem if a culture / religion carries with it many values that don't coincide with Canadian calues?

MH, as I have stated previously, the issue here is about posture and dialogue.

One internation observer once wrote "Canada is the world's largest hotel".

Is that what we want to be? To be a husk of a nation, a shell, into which other cultures can come and "set up shop" to practise as THEY see fit?

OR do we have an overriding set of values.

If we do, then how we address cultural conflict is important. If we address it through acqueiscance - ie "don't bother them, never criticize another culture or religion...it's intolerance and racist", then the stronger, confident cultures such as Islam will steamroll over us given enough time.

This isn't about dividing religions or cultures into "bad" or "good" camps.

But part of our society, arguably the greatest and most important part, is that we debate and talk openly about issues, even difficult ones. We self criticize. And if a new culture or religion is to be a fully functuning member of that society, to be truly equal, than they too must be a part of that self criticism.

In fact, to coddle a new religion and refuse to speak out about things in their religion or culture that don't coicie with our values - to stay silent - is to exclude that culture from one of the most important aspects of what it is to be Canadian.

Edited December 16, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld