Jump to content

Islamification of Toronto?


Shwa

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. Quebec has been part of Canada fir centuries now.  How long until you would call this a success?

7. If you meet some of the immigrants who are making things happen, creating products and bringing new ideas, you could change your mind.

8. The world is open now, so money, people, ideas move freely between borders.  Canada, has a small and traditionally risk-averse country, could advance itself very well in this new world.

5. Would you call Quebec a shining example of the success of multiculturalism that the world should admire and follow?

7.  I've met and spoken to more immigrants than most people on this forum.  I'm not anti-immigrant, I have no problems with them.  I'm just asking questions, and heeding warnings.  My warning is:  we need to be very careful, and manage this multiculturalism project properly if it is to work at all, because it could easily blow up into something ugly if we're not careful.  I'm not saying it can't work, i'm saying we can't have blind faith that it will no matter what.  We need to UNITE as a nation as Canadians, not DIVIDE into sub-national groups opposing one another and in-fighting.  You can be a Quebecois and a Canadian at the same time, but if you feel you're a Quebecois and NOT a Canadian then we have a big unity problem.  We need to feel we are all a part of a family, which is Canada, and accept one another as a part of that family, no matter how different we seem in other ways.  People in Texas vs New York are very different, and have pride being Texans and New Yorkers, and disagree on many issues, but they're all Americans at the end of the day.  We need to build/maintain social trust together, and feel we are all apart of a nation where everyone belongs.  No in-group out-group stuff.

I'm not saying i'd be against a Muslim-majority city or province, I'm asking what would Canadians think?  How would we react and adapt to that?

8.  Yes Michael we could.  But we have to manage the Canadian project in the right way in order to do very well.  We have to create a national narrative where everyone is included, and everyone feels they belong and respected and feel everyone else belongs to. This is called "a nation", and ours will be called "Canada".  Quebec nationalism is very strong, they're fiercely proud of who they are and extremely protective of that, and good for them!  Is Quebec going to be ok with that?  Will they feel they belong?  How many do now?  Would they be ok with tons of Muslims in Montreal, or many english speakers in Quebec City?  Clearly not yet.  What Quebec is doing is protecting their nation from domination or cultural extermination from non french, non Quebecois.  They want to prosper as a culture, they want to control their destiny, they want to remain as a unique francophone society, and have self-determination to control that destiny as Quebecois francophones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

5. Would you call Quebec a shining example of the success of multiculturalism that the world should admire and follow?

7.  I've met and spoken to more immigrants than most people on this forum.  I'm not anti-immigrant, I have no problems with them.  I'm just asking questions, and heeding warnings.  My warning is:  we need to be very careful, and manage this multiculturalism project properly if it is to work at all, because it could easily blow up into something ugly if we're not careful.  I'm not saying it can't work, i'm saying we can't have blind faith that it will no matter what.  We need to UNITE as a nation as Canadians, not DIVIDE into sub-national groups opposing one another and in-fighting.  You can be a Quebecois and a Canadian at the same time, but if you feel you're a Quebecois and NOT a Canadian then we have a big unity problem.  We need to feel we are all a part of a family, which is Canada, and accept one another as a part of that family, no matter how different we seem in other ways.  People in Texas vs New York are very different, and have pride being Texans and New Yorkers, and disagree on many issues, but they're all Americans at the end of the day.  We need to build/maintain social trust together, and feel we are all apart of a nation where everyone belongs.  No in-group out-group stuff.

I'm not saying i'd be against a Muslim-majority city or province, I'm asking what would Canadians think?  How would we react and adapt to that?

8.  Yes Michael we could.  But we have to manage the Canadian project in the right way in order to do very well.  We have to create a national narrative where everyone is included, and everyone feels they belong and respected and feel everyone else belongs to. This is called "a nation", and ours will be called "Canada".  Quebec nationalism is very strong, they're fiercely proud of who they are and extremely protective of that, and good for them!  Is Quebec going to be ok with that?  Will they feel they belong?  How many do now?  Would they be ok with tons of Muslims in Montreal, or many english speakers in Quebec City?  Clearly not yet.  What Quebec is doing is protecting their nation from domination or cultural extermination from non french, non Quebecois.  They want to prosper as a culture, they want to control their destiny, they want to remain as a unique francophone society, and have self-determination to control that destiny as Quebecois francophones.

I wouldn't be against a Muslim-majority city or province, as long as they kept the separation between church and state absolute.  Allowed freedom of expression when it came to editorial cartoons, allowed gay marriage, abortion and adultery, and didn't break any pre-existing noise bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Would you call Quebec a shining example of the success of multiculturalism that the world should admire and follow?

2.   ,,, manage this multiculturalism project properly if it is to work at all, because it could easily blow up into something ugly if we're not careful.  I'm not saying it can't work, i'm saying we can't have blind faith that it will no matter what.   

3. I'm not saying i'd be against a Muslim-majority city or province, I'm asking what would Canadians think?  How would we react and adapt to that?

4.  But we have to manage the Canadian project in the right way in order to do very well.  We have to create a national narrative where everyone is included, and everyone feels they belong and respected and feel everyone else belongs to. This is called "a nation", and ours will be called "Canada".  Quebec nationalism is very strong, they're fiercely proud of who they are and extremely protective of that, and good for them!  Is Quebec going to be ok with that?  Will they feel they belong?  How many do now?  Would they be ok with tons of Muslims in Montreal, or many english speakers in Quebec City?  Clearly not yet.  What Quebec is doing is protecting their nation from domination or cultural extermination from non french, non Quebecois.  They want to prosper as a culture, they want to control their destiny, they want to remain as a unique francophone society, and have self-determination to control that destiny as Quebecois francophones.

1. Actually, Quebec is NOT covered under multiculturalism because their culture is Canadian.  Multiculturalism is about accommodating newcomers...

2. Agreed.  But Multiculturalism is really not that different from the melting pot despite the publicity.  That, to me, is part of managing it.

3.  I don't think there can be a majority religious group in a single city moving forward.

4.  I agree, but well, Quebec is a special situation that needs to be paid attention to.  Harper contributed to the quiescing of the nationalism by ceding to it in a certain way.  I agree with managing the Canadian project but English Canada is more unified than it seems IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Goddess said:

According to some here, the problem in this scenario is ME - I should not be judging him or the stone-age religious belief that inspires his treatment of his wife.

This is wrong.  Of course you should judge him.  What you are criticized for is using his behavior to judge all Muslims guilty of the same behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I have no disagreement with what you said there TBH, I just don't agree with the farcical belief that islam doesn't churn out violent religious bigots at a much higher rate than any other religion or culture. 

indeed and I have no disagreement with that rather obvious fact

I would add the caveat that the source of Islamic extremism being inherently Islamic in origin is only true in part

MH does make a good point when he points to geopolitics being part of that mix, though he takes the assertion too far to shift too much of the blame from the cultural underpinings that are inherently Islamic and problematic

the British guerilla warfare that brought down the Ottoman's straight from T.E. Lawrence and Japanese kamikaze culture, filtered through an Islamic lens, clearly are large building blocks of the strain of Islamic fundamentalism that is Wahhabism

Wahhabism in particular punches well above it's weight, relative to it's adherents population as compared to wider Islam at large, in the Islamic terrorism game, to the point where they are the face of it

Edited by Yzermandius19
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Goddess said:

I somewhat disagree with this part.

Yes, people should be judged on their own merits.  But if you choose to openly attach yourself to a questionable group, it is natural for others to assume certain things about you.  If you're wearing a KISS t-shirt, I'm going to assume you like that band.

For instance - could I join the KKK, only because I enjoy their fellowship and agree with "some" of their beliefs, am attached to their style of dress, live in a predominantly KKK area or whatever - and then claim I'm not part of the violent aspects of the group?  If I choose to dress as a KKK member, should I really be surprised and offended when others associate me with that group?  If a "large part" (as you say) of a group holds violent, misogynistic, barbaric beliefs - why on earth would someone want to associate themselves with that group?  

Like it or not, we are judged by others for the groups we attach ourselves to. 

there are billions of Muslims

many Muslims aren't associating with the barbaric beliefs held by other Muslims, simply the belief in the same god

they do not view the two as inseparably linked to the point where they have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, just to disassociate from the bad apples

they don't think the bad apples should have the monopoly on defining what it is to follow Islam or be a Muslim, just because some people think the entire brand is sullied by association with bad apples who claim to be the true believers and misguidedly believe the false claims of the bad apples

Edited by Yzermandius19
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

 1. ...would add the caveat that the source of Islamic extremism being inherently Islamic in origin is only true in part

2. MH does make a good point when he points to geopolitics being part of that mix, though he takes the assertion too far to shift too much of the blame from the cultural underpinings that are inherently Islamic and problematic

 

2. I wouldn't even shift the blame here, but would leave the question of the cause to be ultimately uncertain.  We can certainly say that what you said in 1. is likely.  "In part"

What is wrong is the dehumanizing campaign that paints innocent humans as a menace, fit for extermination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

what is wrong is the dehumanizing campaign that paints innocent humans as a menace, fit for extermination.

indeed, but you are too quick to jump to the conclusion that this is occuring if someone merely disagrees with you

hence you accusing me of supporting the murder of Muslim families in another thread

just because some others are using an overly broad brush to paint Muslims with doesn't mean you should use an overly broad brush to paint critics of Islam with

don't stoop to their level

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Goddess said:

At times, we all do.  Of course we do. We must.

My neighbour who constantly cuffed his wife across her head....you bet I judged his belief that women are trash who need to be cuffed across the head.

Sorry, not getting this. You saw someone behaving wrongly and make some generalizations about beliefs other people may have while guessing but could not be sure what he was thinking? Why make it so complex and unrealistic? Easier to say I like this and don't like that. Just happen to, arbitrarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Why wouldn't you judge people by their beliefs?  There are those on here who think Trump was robbed by fraud.  I judge them all the time. (no offence meant)

Do we need to mix up beliefs and acts? How could one know what other people believe? One has to act on their guess of what others believe. Wouldn't it be easier and more reliable to act on the act?

There's nothing wrong with discussing facts and acts, like religious services in publicly funded schools. I think it's a real question that needs to be discussed, rather than swiped under multiculturalism carpet. Extreme gender-discriminating attire when in a public role is another. Right to blasphemy, certainly.

These are different questions though from is this religion good or that evil that have no rational answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

Do we need to mix up beliefs and acts? How could one know what other people believe? One has to act on their guess of what others believe. Wouldn't it be easier and more reliable to act on the act?

There's nothing wrong with discussing facts and acts, like religious services in publicly funded schools. I think it's a real question that needs to be discussed, rather than swiped under multiculturalism carpet. Extreme gender-discriminating attire when in a public role is another. Right to blasphemy, certainly.

These are different questions though from is this religion good or that evil that have no rational answers.

Absolutely.  I have no problem with people having beliefs.  They are entitled to them.  I certainly wouldn't advocate any sanction on them for their beliefs.  Nor their expression of them.

Only their actions, as you rightly say.

But I do judge them on them. 

Edited by bcsapper
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

It's simple.

3) The truth is always relevant, and when people make false claims like 'islam is the religion of peace' ... 

Is there one religion that is a religion of peace? Buddhism may come very close in teaching but look at the parts of the world where its taught ("As much as 90% of the Burmese population practice Buddhism, making it the main religion in Myanmar")

Maybe the problem is confusing an abstract statement that cannot be verified in principle, and an individual's own and private view and interpretation of religion? Sure an individual can claim that it's a religion of peace, for them. And the only way to disprove it would be to show that they break that commitment in their behavior. This is factual, and only with facts it can be proven. So if someone claims peace and then goes to fight for Isis there's no question, it's a lie. But generalizing it to entire population, or religion is pointless. What was Catholic religion in 1500-s (inquisition); 1900 (residential schools); and is now? The book is same, is it the same religion?

The OP asked a factual, real question. The society as a whole would benefit from discussing it and finding if not consensus then answers and clear positions. Nothing is gained however from distracting to general venting with no possibility of rational outcomes like good and bad religions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. indeed, but you are too quick to jump to the conclusion that this is occuring if someone merely disagrees with you hence you accusing me of supporting the murder of Muslim families in another thread, just because some others are using an overly broad brush to paint Muslims with doesn't mean you should use an overly broad brush to paint critics of Islam with

2. don't stoop to their level

1. I think that the quality of the argument and the specific language defines whether I speak against the opinion.  People who share my politics are also critical of Islam, and that is fine with me.  I am not going to go back and look at it, but I was angry at a certain body of posters here who are irresponsible posters.  If that's not you I apologize.
2. Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

This is wrong.  Of course you should judge him.  What you are criticized for is using his behavior to judge all Muslims guilty of the same behavior.

Which I do not.

My stance has always been that Islam condones and promotes misogyny, which leads to mistreatment of women.  More so than other religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What is wrong is the dehumanizing campaign that paints innocent humans as a menace, fit for extermination.

There's no 'dehumanizing campaign' going on. The truth is not dehumanizing: being a terrorist, supporting terrorism and justifying terrorism are self-dehumanizing actions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, then try to state an objective principle or rule that can be applied to assess the relative worth of a religion or philosophy. 

C'mon.

Do I really need to explain to you why a religion that churns out humans who behead for blasphemy, burns alive other humans, mistreats women/girls and is currently wreaking havoc all over the world would turn a lot of other humans off?  Do you really need an objective principle or rule to say these things are wrong?  

Quote

It's important because otherwise one can only view things through a cultural lens.

I absolutely will judge a culture on its beliefs.  Especially when they are harmful.

These things are not "culture".

They are harmful religious teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, myata said:

Is there one religion that is a religion of peace? Buddhism may come very close in teaching but look at the parts of the world where its taught ("As much as 90% of the Burmese population practice Buddhism, making it the main religion in Myanmar")

Maybe the problem is confusing an abstract statement that cannot be verified in principle, and an individual's own and private view and interpretation of religion? Sure an individual can claim that it's a religion of peace, for them. And the only way to disprove it would be to show that they break that commitment in their behavior. This is factual, and only with facts it can be proven. So if someone claims peace and then goes to fight for Isis there's no question, it's a lie. But generalizing it to entire population, or religion is pointless. What was Catholic religion in 1500-s (inquisition); 1900 (residential schools); and is now? The book is same, is it the same religion?

 

I never said that there was actually 'a religion of peace', I don't think that's actually a thing. I also don't think that atheism is the 'culture of peace'.

No large group of humans is ever free from warmongers, racists, or turds of every kind. 

Quote

The OP asked a factual, real question. The society as a whole would benefit from discussing it and finding if not consensus then answers and clear positions. Nothing is gained however from distracting to general venting with no possibility of rational outcomes like good and bad religions.

No one should be 'venting', and no one should be offended by the truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, myata said:

while guessing but could not be sure what he was thinking? Why make it so complex and unrealistic?

Excuse me?

A man who feels entitled to beat on his wife in public, obviously has certain beliefs about women.  That is not complex or unrealistic.

4 hours ago, myata said:

Easier to say I like this and don't like that. Just happen to, arbitrarily.

I don't "arbitrarily" dislike wife-beaters.

Your comments are weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Which I do not.

My stance has always been that Islam condones and promotes misogyny, which leads to mistreatment of women. 

I agree, and have said so many times.

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

More so than other religions.

Disagree with this.  In the Western world, those teeth have been largely pulled.  In other areas of the world, they have not, but as the media doesn't cover those stories with the same enthusiasm as they cover the same things involving Muslims, you think they don't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Excuse me?

A man who feels entitled to beat on his wife in public, obviously has certain beliefs about women.  That is not complex or unrealistic.

I don't "arbitrarily" dislike wife-beaters.

Your comments are weird.

I can only return the sentiment. No point in continuing this weird discussion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

C'mon.

1. Do I really need to explain to you why a religion that churns out humans who behead for blasphemy, burns alive other humans, mistreats women/girls and is currently wreaking havoc all over the world would turn a lot of other humans off? 

2. Do you really need an objective principle or rule to say these things are wrong?  

3. I absolutely will judge a culture on its beliefs.  Especially when they are harmful. These things are not "culture".

4. They are harmful religious teachings.

1.  No
2. No
3. Seems like a contradiction here but ok.
4. Right.

Still doesn't make Muslims irredeemable or worthy of condemnation based on their religion alone.  People are born into the culture with no blame for its past wrongs, just like Canadians and Catholics are.  Don't demonize them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Disagree with this.

Yes, I know you do not agree that misogyny is more prevalent in Islam than in other religions.

Until I see another religion - on the same world-wide scale as Islam - that beats and kills women for not dressing how they proscribe, who performs FGM on the same scale, who denies women basic human rights in every country ruled by the religion, kills women in the name of "honour", with explicit teachings in their holy book about how and with what they may beat their wives,......I will likely never understand your reasons for disagreeing.  But I respect your right to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,537
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    mercurygermes
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...