The problems in europe

[AngusThermopyle]

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.

I find your answer very interesting in that I anticipated it correctly before you even answered. Hence my comment about other religions calling for violence and moral reletavism being used to defend the indefensible.

So I don't have to ask again if you have read the Khoran, your refusal to answer and the actual answer that you gave clearly indicate that you have not.

How does Islam glorify acts of violence? Well for starters it repeatedly states that those who commit violence in gods name will be the chosen of god, they will be revered by their fellow man and placed at a higher level than all others. Thats just to start, if you took the time to actually read what you so stridently defend you may just be shocked, I know I was.

Show me some examples of other religions that justify violence based upon a fairy tale and do so en mass. Bet you can't. Don't fall back on the old saw of Christianity because you will not find any official doctrine that promotes genocide, slavery and forced conversion as part of their accepted operating methods.

Really, before you decide to argue something you should at least go to the trouble of learning about what you are defending. I find it ludicrous that one who has not even bothered to learn about the religion he is defending should expect to be taken seriously or with anything more than a grain of salt. In effect all you are doing is offering opinion based upon nothing more than your own idealised form of wishfull thinking.

[Michael Hardner]

AT

I find your answer very interesting in that I anticipated it correctly before you even answered. Hence my comment about other religions calling for violence and moral reletavism being used to defend the indefensible.

So I don't have to ask again if you have read the Khoran, your refusal to answer and the actual answer that you gave clearly indicate that you have not.

I don't read Arabic. I have read excerpts on the web, though.

How does Islam glorify acts of violence? Well for starters it repeatedly states that those who commit violence in gods name will be the chosen of god, they will be revered by their fellow man and placed at a higher level than all others. Thats just to start, if you took the time to actually read what you so stridently defend you may just be shocked, I know I was.

Ok, so if you're saying that the holy book calling for violence against sinners is the standard here - Judaism and Christianity are in the same boat.

Show me some examples of other religions that justify violence based upon a fairy tale and do so en mass. Bet you can't. Don't fall back on the old saw of Christianity because you will not find any official doctrine that promotes genocide, slavery and forced conversion as part of their accepted operating methods.

En mass ? Do you mean 'en masse' or 'in mass' ?

You want to slice and dice what is condoned in the holy books according to what you know is already in the Koran. The bible tells you to cut off limbs too.

Really, before you decide to argue something you should at least go to the trouble of learning about what you are defending. I find it ludicrous that one who has not even bothered to learn about the religion he is defending should expect to be taken seriously or with anything more than a grain of salt. In effect all you are doing is offering opinion based upon nothing more than your own idealised form of wishfull thinking.

Really the question is about causation, and although I understand that, I wouldn't force you to study statistics in order to discuss this.

[DogOnPorch]

Islam claims to be the final word...and that's always a problem. It also promises glory in heaven to those who die for the cause...also a problem. Muslims are on a case by case basis for me (I'm non-religious) but Islam itself can take a big leap off of a high cliff.

---------------------------------------------

If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, His forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches...

---Surah 3:156

[White Doors]

WD,

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

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.

Agreed. The culture, religion and state sponsored education systems are poisoning multiple generations of people. They teach that Jews are Primates and Infidels are swine. Islam is not the only issue, it just makes an efficient vessel in which to deliver the hate. It needs to be taken back from this but I am afraid it is too late.

I have never advocated cutting immigration off from any cultures or countries. An individual test on values may be appropriate however.

[Michael Hardner]

WD,

If that's what you're proposing, then I'm all for it.

I'll admit to being liberal, but I won't deny reality like some. Religion is, in general, a good thing but it is often grafted to a form of tribalism or nationalism that is destructive. It falls primarily on new Canadians from these groups to help us instill tolerance and a belief in tolerance.

Such a test might ask people if they're religious and if so, ask them to swear an oath to commit to the articles of our constitution.

Even a liberal couldn't disagree with that, right ?

[AngusThermopyle]

Ok, so if you're saying that the holy book calling for violence against sinners is the standard here - Judaism and Christianity are in the same boat.

You just don't get it do you, or you don't want to. Okay, show me the last time any western Christian cleric exhorted his congregation to go forth and commit murder in the name of god. Give me an example more recent than the fifteenth century AD. You can't, but please try, there may actually be one oddball out there doing so.

En mass ? Do you mean 'en masse' or 'in mass' ?

You want to slice and dice what is condoned in the holy books according to what you know is already in the Koran. The bible tells you to cut off limbs too.

Ah, the final effort of the defensless, pick up on a typo and trumpet it as some sort of victory. Nice try, not.

Unlike you I have read both, not just some "fast food" web excerpts. Yet despite admitting you don't know what the book says you still argue with those who have actually taken the time to read it, you do know how that makes you look don't you?

Really the question is about causation, and although I understand that, I wouldn't force you to study statistics in order to discuss this.

Nice try but once again a non starter. The question is specifically about Islam,the results of causation are merely a manifestation of the root principles of this particular religion. As for your rather innefectual comparison to a discussion of statistics...well I would at least take the time to learn something about the subject before attempting to discuss it with those who do know something about it. Obviously that is where we differ as illustrated by your posts in this thread.

[Michael Hardner]

AT,

You just don't get it do you, or you don't want to. Okay, show me the last time any western Christian cleric exhorted his congregation to go forth and commit murder in the name of god. Give me an example more recent than the fifteenth century AD. You can't, but please try, there may actually be one oddball out there doing so.

How about this - you explain to me why you can blame the Koran for the words of a crazy cleric when there are other holy books with similar pronouncements that are ignored by adherents ? And there are Muslims who ignore the extreme readings of the Koran too.

You can't draw the line between the religion and the craziness - it's not that simple.

Ah, the final effort of the defensless, pick up on a typo and trumpet it as some sort of victory. Nice try, not.

Ahh... quoting Wayne's World eh ? Nicely played.

Unlike you I have read both, not just some "fast food" web excerpts. Yet despite admitting you don't know what the book says you still argue with those who have actually taken the time to read it, you do know how that makes you look don't you?

You have read both ? Both what ? Be specific here. Again, I don't think that one has to read the whole document to have an opinion on this. You're just looking for a way you can pronounce yourself an 'expert' and therefore declare yourself winner of the argument.

Nice try but once again a non starter. The question is specifically about Islam,the results of causation are merely a manifestation of the root principles of this particular religion.

What ? The question is causation, period. Is the religion causing bad behavior or not ? If you're arguing that a pervasive culture of violence exists, that includes the religion then I won't disagree with you.

As for your rather innefectual comparison to a discussion of statistics...well I would at least take the time to learn something about the subject before attempting to discuss it with those who do know something about it. Obviously that is where we differ as illustrated by your posts in this thread.

Again, you keep crowning yourself the king of all knowledge so as to avoid discussion.

I say that it is extremely difficult to establish that a religion causes someone to behave badly. I have never read a study that was able to divorce a religion from the cultural setting. If you think otherwise - that Islam causes a problem - then the theory is yours. Prove it.

[White Doors]

WD,

If that's what you're proposing, then I'm all for it.

I'll admit to being liberal, but I won't deny reality like some. Religion is, in general, a good thing but it is often grafted to a form of tribalism or nationalism that is destructive. It falls primarily on new Canadians from these groups to help us instill tolerance and a belief in tolerance.

Such a test might ask people if they're religious and if so, ask them to swear an oath to commit to the articles of our constitution.

Even a liberal couldn't disagree with that, right ?

Very well then, but you are still an idiot.

[Michael Hardner]

Thanks for the intellectual debate, then.

[Argus]

Again, the 'which is the worst religion game' is entirely subjective.

Not really, no. There is no objective question that a religion whose people, including clerics, preach hatred and often resort to violence against those who are seen as acting against the interests or dictates of that religion is "worse" than a religion where this virtually never happens, and where tolerance of other beliefs is a common refrain.

You can say what you will about American fundamentalist Christians but they're not setting homos afire in the church yards or hanging teenage girls for having sex outside of marriage.

[Argus]

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.

I don't think there's any question that Islam has been shaped by the culture of its adherents. The fact the majority of its adherents have been from the middle east - not a land of tolerance by any stretch of the imagination - is almost certainly a major cause of the violence associated with Islam. But the two questions - how Islam has been shaped by the culture of its followers, and how the culture of its followers has been shaped by Islam - are secondary to the reality we in the West face today. The followers of Islam are, to a growing degree, comfortable witt the notion that forcing others to follow the strictures of their religion is acceptable.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

Argus,

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 have been a number of questions of late as to just what contribution, if any, immigration is making towards economic growth. Note that I'm not speaking of simply expanding the overall size of the economy by expanding the number of those in it. That is not a growth model which provides any real benefit to people here.

In any event, even if you presume we require large scale immigration, that is no reason why we should be bringing in Muslims.

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.

I don't believe anyone has actually done enough of a study on the subject in Canada to say one way or another whether this is a falsehood. Canada shies away from studying such things. However, data in Europe is not encouraging.

[Oleg Bach]

I don't think there's any question that Islam has been shaped by the culture of its adherents. The fact the majority of its adherents have been from the middle east - not a land of tolerance by any stretch of the imagination - is almost certainly a major cause of the violence associated with Islam. But the two questions - how Islam has been shaped by the culture of its followers, and how the culture of its followers has been shaped by Islam - are secondary to the reality we in the West face today. The followers of Islam are, to a growing degree, comfortable witt the notion that forcing others to follow the strictures of their religion is acceptable.

Where is western tolerance? Look at what multi-culturalism really is. Who ever origninated the idea of multi-culturalism must have had a long term plan. Any agenda that pushes the idea that we can live as seperate cultures but at the same time be the same culture does not seem honest. In my estimation the long term goal of multi-culturalism is to slowly melt away the walls and destroy all distinct cultures - in other words it's a culture destroyer - just very incrimentally applyed - that's all - so in truth we are totally intollerant of other cultures..but just don't fully understand the concept of mulit-culturalism...by design it is very UNish...and by design it attempts to fulfill some sort of utopian foolishness that will never come....we should be more tolerant and not expect anyone to assimulate....either that or boldly enforce total assimulation through cultural destruction - one or the other - but incrimentalism is a better plot - by the time you inch the sword into the culture ever so slowly - that culture will be dead and not even notice...nasty!

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

Not really, no. There is no objective question that a religion whose people, including clerics, preach hatred and often resort to violence against those who are seen as acting against the interests or dictates of that religion is "worse" than a religion where this virtually never happens, and where tolerance of other beliefs is a common refrain.

You can say what you will about American fundamentalist Christians but they're not setting homos afire in the church yards or hanging teenage girls for having sex outside of marriage.

There is an objective question if that religion has nothing to do with the reasons for this.

Think about it this way - you could easily frame the question in terms of race, and your response would be the same. When you're looking at race, religion and the most obvious things you're only looking at the surface.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus, with regards to your other posts we've been over this before.

You acknowledge the role of the culture, which means the religion isn't entirely to blame. To restrict immigration based on religion would be unfair, and wouldn't be supportable. And immigration grows an economy.

Luckily, Mr. Harper is continuing the way of past governments so you will have to take up your issues with him.

[Argus]

Argus,

There is an objective question if that religion has nothing to do with the reasons for this.

Think about it this way - you could easily frame the question in terms of race, and your response would be the same. When you're looking at race, religion and the most obvious things you're only looking at the surface.

To a degree, but you're taking a western, secularized view of things. From what I understand Islam is not - as Christianity is for most Westerners, merely a convenient coat you put on now and then, on holidays, or perhaps, once a week on Sunday morning. It is your very skin, a part of you and everything you do, or think. I mean, how many people do you know who get down on their knees for a formal prayer session 5 times a day? Yet this is the norm for Muslims.

[Argus]

Argus, with regards to your other posts we've been over this before.

You acknowledge the role of the culture, which means the religion isn't entirely to blame. To restrict immigration based on religion would be unfair, and wouldn't be supportable. And immigration grows an economy.

We have no duty or responsibility to be "fair" to foreigners who want to come to Canada. Our only purpose ought to be to get those immigrants most likely to be a benefit to Canada. And immigration doesn't do much of a job of growing an economy when a large chunk of immigrants wind up on welfare, on UIC, or in subsistence level jobs.

[Michael Hardner]

To a degree, but you're taking a western, secularized view of things. From what I understand Islam is not - as Christianity is for most Westerners, merely a convenient coat you put on now and then, on holidays, or perhaps, once a week on Sunday morning. It is your very skin, a part of you and everything you do, or think. I mean, how many people do you know who get down on their knees for a formal prayer session 5 times a day? Yet this is the norm for Muslims.

Argus,

Ok but what you're doing is looking at the surface reason for a situation, and then looking for a rationalization why that surface reason may be the cause then declaring that the rationalization is the reason for your initial (false) conclusion.

You see terrorism happening, and the terrorists are Islamic. You declare the religion the reason for the problem, then go and look for 'why is religion the reason'. You find their holy book as the root cause. But you didn't prove that religion was the reason in the first place.

People have done this in the past with races just as convincingly.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

We have no duty or responsibility to be "fair" to foreigners who want to come to Canada. Our only purpose ought to be to get those immigrants most likely to be a benefit to Canada. And immigration doesn't do much of a job of growing an economy when a large chunk of immigrants wind up on welfare, on UIC, or in subsistence level jobs.

You don't really have a duty to be fair to Canadians either. But isn't fairness a good thing to strive for ?

[DogOnPorch]

Religion is part of culture...not seperate from it.

---------------------------------------

Before all else, be armed. For among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible; which is one of those disgraceful things which a prince must guard against.

---Niccolo Machiavelli

[Michael Hardner]

Great. So you also acknowledge that religion, on its own, is not the problem.

I think that the best way to address a cultural problem is to offer an alternative. In this case, that would be allowing our pluralistic society to grow and thrive.

[DogOnPorch]

Great. So you also acknowledge that religion, on its own, is not the problem.

I think that the best way to address a cultural problem is to offer an alternative. In this case, that would be allowing our pluralistic society to grow and thrive.

...and where is Islam from??

Re: pluralistic societies growing and thriving. In your opinion, what was wrong with Canada's society that it needed to 'grow and thrive'? Seemed pretty nice to me as a kid. You do know that growth in a finate system is self-defeating...right?

--------------------------------

Every town has the same two malls: the one white people go to and the one white people used to go to.

---Chris Rock

[DogOnPorch]

Great. So you also acknowledge that religion, on its own, is not the problem.

To be fair, the entire culture of the entire region is the problem. Taking you daughter for female circumcision? Perhaps we could attend the hangings and beheadings together as a group...

------------------------------------------------------------

Here's Johnny!

---Ed McMahon

[Canadian Blue]

Perhaps we should differentiate fundamentalist Islam as it's practiced in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and secular Islam as it's practiced in Turkey and Albania.

At the moment fundamentalist Islam is a threat, and we should take preventative actions to ensure that ideology does not seep into the western world. We've already seen the effects of being weak kneed on this issue in both Great Britian and the Netherlands. I would support a values test for new immigrants, just to ensure that those who come here will be able to fully accept our traditions of individual liberty and democracy. Even in Canada we've seen some Muslim organizations which are considered "moderate" throw their full support behind Hezbollah and Hamas.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Michael Hardner]

DOP,

To be fair, the entire culture of the entire region is the problem. Taking you daughter for female circumcision? Perhaps we could attend the hangings and beheadings together as a group...

I think that's fair.

So what to be done ? Take the best of them and eventually the returning expatriates will make the locals look bad ?

We can see that banning Muslims from entering Canada isn't it.

Basically try not to be like them seems like the approach.

Re: pluralistic societies growing and thriving. In your opinion, what was wrong with Canada's society that it needed to 'grow and thrive'? Seemed pretty nice to me as a kid. You do know that growth in a finate system is self-defeating...right?

What's wrong is that people don't have children so the society is in danger of stagnation.

If you don't believe in growth then go join the green party and help them figure out how a non-growing economy will work.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Michael Hardner