posted
An often heard discussion-subject in Europe; which culture is based on Jewish/Christian background: Because there are so many Muslims living there, does Islam has to get part of their culture? And; because of the fact that the immigrants once will return to their homecountry, the mixed relationships, and the influence of media: Does Western culture has to get part of Islamic culture?
Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
They all fall over a member of gouvernment who stated this weekend that she looks positively at the jewish/christian/islamic culture we will be living in over here. Although she added that it might take some centuries.
Posts: 1419 | From: Amsterdam, Netherlands | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Demiana: They all fall over a member of gouvernment who stated this weekend that she looks positively at the jewish/christian/islamic culture we will be living in over here. Although she added that it might take some centuries.
Demiana (hoi, alles goed?), one of the things that puzzle me is the fact that the Dutch government is not telling its people the whole truth about what is going to happen to Holland.
Once we had a big shot politician from the EU under the influence of narcotic medications when he revealed some secrets, not only about his personal life- like they all do , but also about state security information, including the fact that Holland will be under water in 50 years. He said that the government is not telling the people anything because it would be bad for the economy.
And it's all because of the global warming
En natuurlijk de klote files op de A2!!
Posts: 8756 | From: Tax-Free Zone | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
HHEHEHEEHEHEHEH altijd MK ik vind files klotter ook, ik ben zo saai in de auto Alles goed met jou ook? Het gaat goed met mij ook wow under the water in 50 years
Don't believe anything a drunk politician says. In a documentary of Frans Bromet, filmdirector in Waterland (!:-) we will need to get concerned once the big companies will move out of the Amsterdam area and they don't. But still, some individuals already are moving to higher grounds. And some consider floating homes, factories and hospitals!:-)
Posts: 1419 | From: Amsterdam, Netherlands | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Western culture does not need to change to appease foreign cultures, just like Islamic cultures do not need to change to appease cultures foreign to it. If you aren't happy with the culture, go back home. Don't start harassing the natives, that will just get you persecuted as an ungracious foreign minority. The burden of change is on the immigrant.
Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Graf_Genn: No, Western culture does not need to change to appease foreign cultures, just like Islamic cultures do not need to change to appease cultures foreign to it. If you aren't happy with the culture, go back home. Don't start harassing the natives, that will just get you persecuted as an ungracious foreign minority. The burden of change is on the immigrant.
Excellent post.
Posts: 8756 | From: Tax-Free Zone | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Graf_Genn: No, Western culture does not need to change to appease foreign cultures, just like Islamic cultures do not need to change to appease cultures foreign to it. If you aren't happy with the culture, go back home. Don't start harassing the natives, that will just get you persecuted as an ungracious foreign minority. The burden of change is on the immigrant.
It's not that simple. In some western countries the number of immigrants are so large that they influence public policy and slowly change the their community to one that resembles their homeland. Those immigrants, as they become citizens, have the same rights the native do and that to some seem like a "threat to their way of life".
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Auto's right here. Especially in America where immigrants make up the population, you either assimilate to include that culture or it is YOU who will be persecuted. There is always the exception to this rule, but overall they DO influence public policy and rightly so. Posts: 13440 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
American culture is a good exapmple. It is build on mixed cultures. And, as AFTP is stating, this happens slowly, just because the people start to behave, think, act in just that little different as before. No Western society has the culture that it had 100 yrs ago. It is developing, changing by in- and outside influences. When people are holding to a certain point that is developing and chaging, you`ll get problems...
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
However, immigrant populations are typically only tolerated/embraced aslong as they are beneficial to the host Society.
If they prove to be a hindrance on the other hand, then they will no longer be tolerated.
We see this happening in both the U.S and Europe.
America has a massive immigrant population, and a significant percentage of them are here illegaly.
Illegal immigrants were tolerated in the past because they were mostly beneficial, but because there are MILLIONS of them now, they are straining our social, justice and education systems.
Now the U.S gov't is under immense pressure to control illegal immigration.
In Europe, the problem is slightly different.
The immigrants in Europe are more likely to be from Asia or Africa rather than Central and South America.
They are also more likely to be Muslim.
Islam plays a large role in European acceptance of immigrants. Because Islam penetrates all levels of Society in Muslim countries from the social to the legal to the domestic, having large numbers of Muslim immigrants in Europe has the potential to drastically alter the very fabric of European Society.
I think many Europeans are now realizing this, and have reacted by seriously limiting immigration from Muslim nations.
Some nations are even paying immigrants to leave..
Europe is not nearly as efficient when it comes to absorbing immigrants as the U.S, because it's cultures are monolithic and resistant to change.
While immigration has drastically shaped the landscape of America, it is WAR that has shaped Europe.
And because most immigrants in Europe come from a culture that is drastically different from the host nation, this does not bode well for the future of immigration in Europe.
posted
In first instance, it have been the Europeans that occupied America by that same wars. Otherwise there still would be the Indians. America like it is now has been build on immigrants! I`ve read a dairy once, from the first immigrants in, what`s now called, New York, its was before that time. Who they were, how they entered, where they went, and why... America has been devided by civil wars, by the North and the South, by black and whites, by masters and slaves,rich and poor etc., just as Europe has. I think the non-accepting-attitude against foreigners in common, like we see in Europe, is purely because gouvernments always have been acting in the presumption that all the muslim-workers should stay temporary and once would leave to their homelands. At the same time these homelands slided down in economic circumstances, and Europe offered them far more, so they stayed. They stayed, but didn`t integrate. The second and third generations are the ones who are causing trouble, they are the ones who are balacing on the small edge on two really different cultures. Add the common situation in the Middle East, the also down-sliding economic circumstances in Europe, and the rising non-acceptance of the ordinary people, and you`ll get commotion. But, I think it will change rapidly. The people from the former East European countries as Poland, Romania, Bulgaria etc. are the new trouble-makers. Western Europe is covered with that workers, and because majority is very different as West-Europeans, and a lot are having criminal records and don`t have the intention to work, but to steal, ro swindle, to rob, this will be the new "muslims"....
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haha, well asking America to adopt Muslim culture is not even worth debating to begin with. I was responding to the question as it faces Western Europe, where this actually has some relevance in contemporary times. Like Alistair said, in America it is a question of South and Central Americans (whom are overwhelmingly Christians, fear them! ) but that is not the question originally posed.
Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it will change rapidly. The people from the former East European countries as Poland, Romania, Bulgaria etc. are the new trouble-makers. Western Europe is covered with that workers, and because majority is very different as West-Europeans, and a lot are having criminal records and don`t have the intention to work, but to steal, ro swindle, to rob, this will be the new "muslims"....
hello ?????
I disagree with this observation. I worked with a lot of Polish and other eastern people and I have to stay that most of them are honest and truly hard worker. they often take small job such as waiter, sales assistance and get paid half of the normal wages and this is why they are seen as a thread, as they accept to work double which is something that local people would never accept to do. I understand what you mean but most of them do not have any criminal records and do not steal. However I have met a few from various (Russian speaking ) communities who temp to be sometimes like you described the Polish to be, but again is a small minority among a big majority who live in Europe peacefully.
In regard to the Muslim culture, I see Islam more as a religion than a culture, there are a lot of Muslims from all over the world who follow the same rules of Islam and who come from different culture. For example an American European and African Muslims would probably follow the same rules but would have different approach of how to follow them. Many problem that some Muslims encouter while living in Europe are more likely to be cultural issues based on their own culture than a Muslim culture issue.
Posts: 1182 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Souri, this criminal-record-rate was a detail out of the latest statistics that have been published here.I was shocked!
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
You know when i was living in UK I heard a lot of local people complaining about the same issue you have brought up, but the reality is different.
There are now massive populations of Eastern European people who take the small job and get paid half as they should be paid and this is why they are blamed by local people to be criminal and others things. But the truth is very different believe me. European countries just use those migrant to do the dirty job, and now they start to publish some criminality records about them just because they start to notice that there are too many and that soon they will not able to control the flow of those immigrant? why don't they publish a records criminalitiy about their own people too ? Sorry but this is disgusting you can’t use people and then slanders some criminalities records when they are not needed anymore
Posts: 1182 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With regard to Muslim culture in the Uk, Muslim immigrants have been free to practice their religion and culture because that freedom is central to the British way of life. They have been allowed to build Mosques, form religious societies and follow their culture. The problem that is now arising is that second generation Muslims that have been born and educated in the UK now want to impose their culture and religion on the whole country and many refuse to show the same tolerance in return for that which has been shown to them. The indoctrination of this new generation is frightening and will lead to rising terrorism and ultimately a hardening in the West against Muslims in general.
Posts: 3809 | From: Paradise | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
History shows us what happens when a minority people aggressively advocate an ideology foreign to the country they inhabit.
So, without polluting the topic with the United States and the issues it has with Mexicans and South Americans... if you want an Islamic society, simply move to one. Even if you were born and raised in a secular one. If you start advocating that all societies should be Islamic (or any other religion foreign to the majority) then be prepared for the concentration camps Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ?????: American culture is a good exapmple. It is build on mixed cultures. And, as AFTP is stating, this happens slowly, just because the people start to behave, think, act in just that little different as before. No Western society has the culture that it had 100 yrs ago. It is developing, changing by in- and outside influences. When people are holding to a certain point that is developing and chaging, you`ll get problems...
I love the mix. Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Graf_Genn: ... if you want an Islamic society, simply move to one. Even if you were born and raised in a secular one. If you start advocating that all societies should be Islamic (or any other religion foreign to the majority) then be prepared for the concentration camps
I think the problem Graf is that the sort of Islamic society these people want does not exist anywhere is the world and that is what is at the route of all the problems today. If the trouble makers were truly Muslim then they would integrate and live alongside the people in their chosen country and work for the good of everybody in that country.
Posts: 3809 | From: Paradise | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Graf_Genn: History shows us what happens when a minority people aggressively advocate an ideology foreign to the country they inhabit.
So, without polluting the topic with the United States and the issues it has with Mexicans and South Americans... if you want an Islamic society, simply move to one. Even if you were born and raised in a secular one. If you start advocating that all societies should be Islamic (or any other religion foreign to the majority) then be prepared for the concentration camps
You mean something like the attitude of the Australian gouvernment?
Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Graf_Genn: History shows us what happens when a minority people aggressively advocate an ideology foreign to the country they inhabit.
So, without polluting the topic with the United States and the issues it has with Mexicans and South Americans... if you want an Islamic society, simply move to one. Even if you were born and raised in a secular one. If you start advocating that all societies should be Islamic (or any other religion foreign to the majority) then be prepared for the concentration camps
I'm not sure if you're stating your opinion or worries, cause it is awful dumb.
Most if not all western countries offer certain freedoms to all their citizens including freedom of religion. You can not prevent Muslims from exercising their right and allow Christians.
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure if you're stating your opinion or worries, cause it is awful dumb.
Most if not all western countries offer certain freedoms to all their citizens including freedom of religion. You can not prevent Muslims from exercising their right and allow Christians.
I am not sure what has happened to your reading comprehension, because your response has nothing to do with what I have written Nowhere did I suggest that Muslims should be denied their rights to practice their religion. I suggested the dangers of trying to aggressively advocate change in a society which Muslims are foreign to, regardless of their citizenship. I guess I *am* the dumb one for assuming people would respond to what I actually wrote?
Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure if you're stating your opinion or worries, cause it is awful dumb.
Most if not all western countries offer certain freedoms to all their citizens including freedom of religion. You can not prevent Muslims from exercising their right and allow Christians.
I am not sure what has happened to your reading comprehension, because your response has nothing to do with what I have written Nowhere did I suggest that Muslims should be denied their rights to practice their religion. I suggested the dangers of trying to aggressively advocate change in a society which Muslims are foreign to, regardless of their citizenship. I guess I *am* the dumb one for assuming people would respond to what I actually wrote?
I would say your point was pretty clear. And also a good one. In a Western country, the minority will have their freedoms protected under the law, however if they wish the government to change to suit their way of thinking, this is simply not possible since they are in the Minority of the populations beliefs. Therefore your point being that if they wanted a certain societal norm to fit their beliefs such as an Islamic government, then they should move to said government and not attempt to change their host country to bend it to their way of thinking.
Posts: 35 | From: Rising From The Ashes | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Graf_Genn: [QUOTE] Nowhere did I suggest that Muslims should be denied their rights to practice their religion.
quote:Originally posted by Graf_Genn: if you want an Islamic society, simply move to one. Even if you were born and raised in a secular one.
Part of practicing one's religion may in fact mean a change in the community. It may require change in Law to allow them to do certain things. I think it is Punjabis who wear Turbans and they managed to convince the Canadian Parliament that they have the right to wear on as part of their freedom to practice religion. I think there was a ruling with regard to wearing a dagger as well. The courts found that preventing them from wearing Turbans would amount to violating their right to freedom of religion.
quote:Originally posted by Graf_Genn: I suggested the dangers of trying to aggressively advocate change in a society which Muslims are foreign to, regardless of their citizenship.
You wrote "advocate" and now you changed it to "aggressively advocate".
Definitions of aggressive on the Web: having or showing determination and energetic pursuit of your ends;
Based on that definition, I stand by my claim that Muslims have th absolute right to practice their religion as well as "aggressively advocate" a change in their community. After all a community is made up of its own citizens. You can't deny a segment of the population their rights under the law based on religious beliefs.
quote:Originally posted by Graf_Genn: [QUOTE]I guess I *am* the dumb one for assuming people would respond to what I actually wrote?
You're dumb for thinking that people will reply to anything but what you wrote, particularly the following which borders on being racist.
quote:Originally posted by Graf_Genn: If you start advocating that all societies should be Islamic (or any other religion foreign to the majority) then be prepared for the concentration camps
quote:I'm not sure if you're stating your opinion or worries, cause it is awful dumb.
Most if not all western countries offer certain freedoms to all their citizens including freedom of religion. You can not prevent Muslims from exercising their right and allow Christians.
I am not sure what has happened to your reading comprehension, because your response has nothing to do with what I have written Nowhere did I suggest that Muslims should be denied their rights to practice their religion. I suggested the dangers of trying to aggressively advocate change in a society which Muslims are foreign to, regardless of their citizenship. I guess I *am* the dumb one for assuming people would respond to what I actually wrote?
I would say your point was pretty clear. And also a good one. In a Western country, the minority will have their freedoms protected under the law, however if they wish the government to change to suit their way of thinking, this is simply not possible since they are in the Minority of the populations beliefs. Therefore your point being that if they wanted a certain societal norm to fit their beliefs such as an Islamic government, then they should move to said government and not attempt to change their host country to bend it to their way of thinking.
New member?
Well in any case, she did not say it was not possible she said something about concentration camps. But the problem here is that the Law applies to everyone or at least it should and if your argument worked in the case of religion it will not be possible to apply it to other minority groups. So using your "logic" Gays should find another country of their own too..............
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
I think you are missing the point. The conclusion I believe that HE (Graf_Genn) was trying to make, and forgive me for taking some liberties here MISTER Genn. He was trying to say that while a minority can change and adapt to their new surroundings, perhaps even affecting minor changes in the political climate there is NO way, short of military coup that they can COMPLETELY change the government of the majority into what they as the minority want it to be. Unless they somehow become the Majority in which case the arguement is still valid.
Posts: 35 | From: Rising From The Ashes | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Order of the Phoenix: Graf_Genn is a man.
I never said I was a "new" member. So
I think you are missing the point. The conclusion I believe that HE (Graf_Genn) was trying to make, and forgive me for taking some liberties here MISTER Genn. He was trying to say that while a minority can change and adapt to their new surroundings, perhaps even affecting minor changes in the political climate there is NO way, short of military coup that they can COMPLETELY change the government of the majority into what they as the minority wants it to be. Unless they somehow become the Majority in which case the arguement is still valid.
OK I have to admit, I can read her (it's a girlie name) post a million times and will never and I mean absolutely NEVER come up with what you just wrote. If what she wrote about " if you want an Islamic society, simply move to one." and "be prepared for the concentration camp" is in fact what you just described then I suggest you should be regarded as the great mind reader that you obviously are.
It also does NOT explain her earlier post unless it was not suppose to be read in English though it looked like it was written in English!
"Don't start harassing the natives, that will just get you persecuted as an ungracious foreign minority. The burden of change is on the immigrant.
Now again that is racist. She considered minority exercising their rights to be "harassing the natives"
AND all that does NOT explain YOUR earlier post that talked about:
" Therefore your point being that if they wanted a certain societal norm to fit their beliefs such as an Islamic government, then they should move to said government and not attempt to change their host country to bend it to their way of thinking."
They have the right to "attempt to change their host country" and not be sent to concentration camps for doing so. They have the right to "attempt to change their host country" and not be asked to move somewhere else.
Any chance you're sy....whatever his names is cause you're just as mindless as he is Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree Auto that Muslims have the right to try and change the politics of the host country provided that is done by the legal and political system of that country. In most European countries that means they must accept a secular society and for many modern day muslims that is a big problem. So I would modify what Graf is saying and say if you can't live in a secular society then it would be better to move elsewhere.
Posts: 3809 | From: Paradise | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Auto you have truly completely missed the point because you are being sensitive about so-called racism. Firstly, I am a man. So you are wrong there, and just about everything else about me. I will guess that you are being rude simply because you think I am being racist. The reality is, I am Egyptian, I have both Muslims and Christians in my family, and I usually reside in England although I have work in other countries frequently. I don't hate my own kind, I don't hate my family, and I don't want to see myself persecuted in England
You quoted me saying these two things, but then your comprehension failed you:
quote:Nowhere did I suggest that Muslims should be denied their rights to practice their religion.
quote: if you want an Islamic society, simply move to one. Even if you were born and raised in a secular one.
When I said Islamic society, I was referring to the terms of policy, not community. Muslims are free to enjoy a minority Islamic community but I persist in my view that being aggressive about advocacy for Islamic policy is only going to further marginalize Muslims in Western Europe. Where does saying "move to an Islamic society" equate to denying them their rights? If they want an Islamic *community* (and this is you being inconsistent with the terminology but I hope you don't need to reach for your dictionary to try and twist the vernacular ) they are free to assemble and live how they want. Returning to the context of the topic: Changing Western European society to be sympathetic to the minutiae of Islamic society is a different matter, and that is the very least of what these "aggressive advocates" want. Western Europe has constitutional guarantees of secular policy, and that is contrary to the wish for Islamic society. Others seem to understand what I am getting at, but you appear blinded by your mistaken perception of me being racist. (And since you have been choosy about what aggression means, shall I point out that Islam is a religion rather than a race, and is practiced by all races? Don't be ridiculous intentionally, it doesn't behoove you.)
quote:You wrote "advocate" and now you changed it to "aggressively advocate".
Actually, I initially said "aggressively advocate" in an earlier post, the first one mentioning it. I had expected that you would have read that. Anyway, you once again ignored context and chose the most innocuous form of "aggression" from the dictionary You know full well what I mean by aggressive advocacy: Violent protests, burning the flag of the host nation, extremist rhetoric, calling for the deaths of those that disagree with Islam, public and vehement disdain for the habits and beliefs of the host society, bombing of airports, bombing of train stations, etcetera. That is the contemporary context of aggressive Muslims in the West. Christians that behave like that are no more welcome in Western society. Or any other religion, which I also stated plainly. The statement
quote:if you start advocating that all societies should be Islamic (or any other religion foreign to the majority) then be prepared for the concentration camps [Frown]
happened to follow this statement
quote:History shows us what happens when a minority people aggressively advocate an ideology foreign to the country they inhabit.
So, I again wish to tell you that I am not being racist, I am giving us a warning from history. Since you take what I write out of context, I can see you being upset with what I said. In the proper context, however, you should see what I am saying is true and cautionary. To further clarify, I do not think people *should* be sent to the concentration camps, I think that they *will* be sent to them. Emergency laws are enacted against extreme and aggressive segments of the population, which we have seen repeatedly throughout history but most importantly we see it happening now. There is already a concentration camp in operation for Muslims, which we know as Guantanamo Bay. The people there have no protection under the constitution, and what goes on there is kept secret. France electing Sarkozy indicates many things, the case in point being their population is also moving towards further marginalizing Muslims. German politicians are looking to strengthen ties with the Bush administration (wtf?????) and their Neo-Nazi ranks are swelling. England I know more intimately, and I have heard among the well-heeled that they are ready to put more money behind politicians that will "do something about these Muslims." So, please understand that it is not something that I wish, it is that I see the writing on the wall. Hopefully this clarifies things for all those that haven't been getting me.
Despite you thinking I am dumb, perhaps if you can forgive me for being so awful I can forgive you for being rude and taking my statements out of context, and we can end up being friendly from here on? Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow! I didn't realize I had written so much, good thing I did this before checking my work schedule Forgive me if I cannot further reply for a while.
Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should like to ask a question, if I am able to make my meaning clear, because my English is not by far as good as yours is. I wanted to know how do you feel about this changing attitude in the European countries against all what`s Islamic. Because it is changing, you can feel it, you can see it, you can hear it. Although majority is nothing more then a herd of bleating sheep following that big politician that is speaking out loudly what they never dared to say.Since a few years it is allowed, so they spread out their thoughts openly. It is not fair, in fact many times it is just dumb and stupid, but you shall have to deal with them. How do you feel about it? Doesn`t it worry you? Doesn`t it makes you think? You`re a negative subject of a changing society while (hopefully) you didn`t do anything wrong...You`re a Muslim and that`s why...
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Graf_Genn: Auto you have truly completely missed the point because you are being sensitive about so-called racism. Firstly, I am a man. So you are wrong there, and just about everything else about me. I will guess that you are being rude simply because you think I am being racist. The reality is, I am Egyptian, I have both Muslims and Christians in my family, and I usually reside in England although I have work in other countries frequently. I don't hate my own kind, I don't hate my family, and I don't want to see myself persecuted in England
You quoted me saying these two things, but then your comprehension failed you:
quote:Nowhere did I suggest that Muslims should be denied their rights to practice their religion.
quote: if you want an Islamic society, simply move to one. Even if you were born and raised in a secular one.
When I said Islamic society, I was referring to the terms of policy, not community. Muslims are free to enjoy a minority Islamic community but I persist in my view that being aggressive about advocacy for Islamic policy is only going to further marginalize Muslims in Western Europe. Where does saying "move to an Islamic society" equate to denying them their rights? If they want an Islamic *community* (and this is you being inconsistent with the terminology but I hope you don't need to reach for your dictionary to try and twist the vernacular ) they are free to assemble and live how they want. Returning to the context of the topic: Changing Western European society to be sympathetic to the minutiae of Islamic society is a different matter, and that is the very least of what these "aggressive advocates" want. Western Europe has constitutional guarantees of secular policy, and that is contrary to the wish for Islamic society. Others seem to understand what I am getting at, but you appear blinded by your mistaken perception of me being racist. (And since you have been choosy about what aggression means, shall I point out that Islam is a religion rather than a race, and is practiced by all races? Don't be ridiculous intentionally, it doesn't behoove you.)
quote:You wrote "advocate" and now you changed it to "aggressively advocate".
Actually, I initially said "aggressively advocate" in an earlier post, the first one mentioning it. I had expected that you would have read that. Anyway, you once again ignored context and chose the most innocuous form of "aggression" from the dictionary You know full well what I mean by aggressive advocacy: Violent protests, burning the flag of the host nation, extremist rhetoric, calling for the deaths of those that disagree with Islam, public and vehement disdain for the habits and beliefs of the host society, bombing of airports, bombing of train stations, etcetera. That is the contemporary context of aggressive Muslims in the West. Christians that behave like that are no more welcome in Western society. Or any other religion, which I also stated plainly. The statement
quote:if you start advocating that all societies should be Islamic (or any other religion foreign to the majority) then be prepared for the concentration camps [Frown]
happened to follow this statement
quote:History shows us what happens when a minority people aggressively advocate an ideology foreign to the country they inhabit.
So, I again wish to tell you that I am not being racist, I am giving us a warning from history. Since you take what I write out of context, I can see you being upset with what I said. In the proper context, however, you should see what I am saying is true and cautionary. To further clarify, I do not think people *should* be sent to the concentration camps, I think that they *will* be sent to them. Emergency laws are enacted against extreme and aggressive segments of the population, which we have seen repeatedly throughout history but most importantly we see it happening now. There is already a concentration camp in operation for Muslims, which we know as Guantanamo Bay. The people there have no protection under the constitution, and what goes on there is kept secret. France electing Sarkozy indicates many things, the case in point being their population is also moving towards further marginalizing Muslims. German politicians are looking to strengthen ties with the Bush administration (wtf?????) and their Neo-Nazi ranks are swelling. England I know more intimately, and I have heard among the well-heeled that they are ready to put more money behind politicians that will "do something about these Muslims." So, please understand that it is not something that I wish, it is that I see the writing on the wall. Hopefully this clarifies things for all those that haven't been getting me.
Despite you thinking I am dumb, perhaps if you can forgive me for being so awful I can forgive you for being rude and taking my statements out of context, and we can end up being friendly from here on?
OK, I don't have time to read you post. I skimmed parts of it and you are incompetent.
People regardless of their religious beliefs have the ABSOLUTER right to try to change their community or their government within the law. It is that simple, that plain. Any MORON who recommends concentration camps for them is simply a racist idiot and by that I mean YOU
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You HAD time to say what you want, and when somebody took all that trouble to give you an answer that makes sense, you simply cut it off. This is no way to discuss...
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ?????: You HAD time to say what you want, and when somebody took all that trouble to give you an answer that makes sense, you simply cut it off. This is no way to discuss...
Totally agree, and Auto there is nothing racist in what Graff wrote, read what has been written not what you want to think he has written.
Posts: 3809 | From: Paradise | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK, I don't have time to read you post. I skimmed parts of it and you are incompetent.
People regardless of their religious beliefs have the ABSOLUTER right to try to change their community or their government within the law. It is that simple, that plain. Any MORON who recommends concentration camps for them is simply a racist idiot and by that I mean YOU
A childish response isn't entirely surprising.
I give the benefit of the doubt in order to satisfy my own standards of respecting others, even though occasionally it ends up with me having to deal with people that don't like to meet a similar standard.
I am sure Auto would like us to believe he didn't read my response; so he could have us think he doesn't know that he has been humbled . Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę: People regardless of their religious beliefs have the ABSOLUTER right to try to change their community or their government within the law. It is that simple, that plain. Any MORON who recommends concentration camps for them is simply a racist idiot and by that I mean YOU
As usual Auto, you're being ridiculous and completely out of touch with reality.
What Graf is saying is right.
YOU don't understand that RIGHTS CAN BE TAKEN AWAY at the drop of a hat.
I said earlier that immigrants are only welcome aslong as they benefit the host Society.
If however they stop being a benefit, or even worse become a threat, then the host Society will react accordingly and move to restrict their "rights."
The greater a threat they become, the more they will have their "rights" taken away.
You are thinking within the confines of the law, but the Law isn't Supreme.
Laws can be changed, or completely disregarded in the right circumstances; especially when it comes to matters of security or safety.
During WWII for instance, U.S citizens of Japanese descent were locked up in prison camps because they were perceived as a threat. Their rights as citizens were completely flouted.
If Muslim radicals continue to aggressively advocate their brand of Islam in Europe (especially by using violence), then Europeans will become more and more hostile to not just them, but ALL Muslims.
It's not fair, but who said Life was?
More than anything, European politicians fear that Muslims will bring the violence and unstability of their own nations to the relatively peaceful streets of Europe.
And unfortunately, recent events have started to make Europeans wonder whether allowing Muslims to emigrate to their nation is a good decision.
Thats the reality of the situation, and if you don't like it, then too bad.
posted
I read the rest of it and you are obviously running around in circles. I commented on you stupid posts referring to concentration camps and asking citizens to leave their countries. That is dumb. What you wrote in your long and boring post is somewhat more reasonable though still lacking in principals. What you described as "aggressive" is in fact criminal nd should be dealt with within the confines of the LAW. You do not kick them out of the country unless it is allowed by LAW. You do not put them in concentration camps. That is how it is suppose to work.
Now I honestly don't have the time or the inclination to get into these type of idiotic discussions and it would've been simpler if you apologized for your earlier comments.
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę: People regardless of their religious beliefs have the ABSOLUTER right to try to change their community or their government within the law. It is that simple, that plain. Any MORON who recommends concentration camps for them is simply a racist idiot and by that I mean YOU
As usual Auto, you're being ridiculous and completely out of touch with reality.
What Graf is saying is right.
YOU don't understand that RIGHTS CAN BE TAKEN AWAY at the drop of a hat.
I said earlier that immigrants are only welcome aslong as they benefit the host Society.
If however they stop being a benefit, or even worse become a threat, then the host Society will react accordingly and move to restrict their "rights."
The greater a threat they become, the more they will have their "rights" taken away.
You are thinking within the confines of the law, but the Law isn't Supreme.
Laws can be changed, or completely disregarded in the right circumstances; especially when it comes to matters of security or safety.
During WWII for instance, U.S citizens of Japanese descent were locked up in prison camps because they were perceived as a threat. Their rights as citizens were completely flouted.
If Muslim radicals continue to aggressively advocate their brand of Islam in Europe (especially by using violence), then Europeans will become more and more hostile to not just them, but ALL Muslims.
It's not fair, but who said Life was?
More than anything, European politicians fear that Muslims will bring the violence and unstability of their own nations to the relatively peaceful streets of Europe.
And unfortunately, recent events have started to make Europeans wonder whether allowing Muslims to emigrate to their nation is a good decision.
Thats the reality of the situation, and if you don't like it, then too bad.
~Alistair
Interesting post. I will get back to it tonight and deals directly with my first post in this thread.
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is illustrating historical precedent for contemporary reality "lacking in principals?" Also, many of the terms I used under "aggressive advocacy" are NOT criminal. You are just playing games and not even attempting to honestly respond. You understand what I have been saying, but your pride prevents you from admitting it, so you don't even address anything I have actually written (unless you can take it grossly out of context.) You aren't fooling anyone else, so have fun fooling yourself. Even kindness gets nowhere with you Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę: I read the rest of it and you are obviously running around in circles. I commented on you stupid posts referring to concentration camps and asking citizens to leave their countries. That is dumb. What you wrote in your long and boring post is somewhat more reasonable though still lacking in principals. What you described as "aggressive" is in fact criminal nd should be dealt with within the confines of the LAW. You do not kick them out of the country unless it is allowed by LAW. You do not put them in concentration camps. That is how it is suppose to work.
Now I honestly don't have the time or the inclination to get into these type of idiotic discussions and it would've been simpler if you apologized for your earlier comments.
You`re using words as Stupid..... Dumb.... Boring.... Idiotic....and you ask the other who still has the decency to be polite to apologise?????
Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę: I read the rest of it and you are obviously running around in circles. I commented on you stupid posts referring to concentration camps and asking citizens to leave their countries. That is dumb. What you wrote in your long and boring post is somewhat more reasonable though still lacking in principals. What you described as "aggressive" is in fact criminal nd should be dealt with within the confines of the LAW. You do not kick them out of the country unless it is allowed by LAW. You do not put them in concentration camps. That is how it is suppose to work.
Now I honestly don't have the time or the inclination to get into these type of idiotic discussions and it would've been simpler if you apologized for your earlier comments.
You`re using words as Stupid..... Dumb.... Boring.... Idiotic....and you ask the other who still has the decency to be polite to apologise?????
They all apply but having said that a retraction is what is appropriate not an apology.
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę: People regardless of their religious beliefs have the ABSOLUTER right to try to change their community or their government within the law. It is that simple, that plain. Any MORON who recommends concentration camps for them is simply a racist idiot and by that I mean YOU
YOU don't understand that RIGHTS CAN BE TAKEN AWAY at the drop of a hat.
Taken away from whom?
All these laws guaranteeing rights and freedoms ,in the UK for example, were enacted tens or hundreds of years ago for the benefit of the British people. According to their laws, those rights apply also to new citizens. So the question remains, take away rights from whom?
1- New citizens only: Have something like in Kuwait where there's differnent classes of citizenship.
For example "true" British have the right for Freedom Of Speech and new citizens don't!
2-Eveyone:
And end up with an oppressive and closed society.
Now the problem with option one is :
-It leaves a loop hole regarding "true" British who may want to change the government to let's say an Islamic one. Unless you come up with the Law specifically banning speech regarding Islam. Then you will need to do that with the right to peacfull assembly and so on
-The UK then can no longer advocate freedom of speech to other countries. For example, Egypt would be free to limit the rights of Copts (which in some ways it already does) to protect our way of life. Right?
You get my point. The problem is however you change the laws it will affect the "true" citizens just as it will the new citizens.
quote:Originally posted by Prince of Nothing:
During WWII for instance, U.S citizens of Japanese descent were locked up in prison camps because they were perceived as a threat. Their rights as citizens were completely flouted.
And the lesson should be not to ever repeat this type of crime.
quote:Originally posted by Prince of Nothing: And unfortunately, recent events have started to make Europeans wonder whether allowing Muslims to emigrate to their nation is a good decision.
I guess that's another option, isolation!
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
European gouvernments are doing what they are able to do within the law, to handle the "European Muslim" problem. That`s difficult, because the ones who are causing trouble often are second generation immigrants with a double nationality. Newcomers are very limited, because they changed immigrationlaws several times. So, what can you do against people with a double nationality? Interprete several laws more strictly to them as they do to another, for instance. Constantly controlls. In labour,in religion, organisations,books, all in- and outside the house. Bad housing. Low income. Just make life difficult. Make problems about hijabs, burqa`s, etc. Negative opinions in media.
So, many Muslims have the feeling that the have to work twice as hard as another European, to prove themselves.And they are right, because it`s true.
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have more confidence and respect that the legal & political systems in the UK will stand the test of the current Muslim problem. In no way is it necessary to split society and have different laws for different sectors. That would go against the very essence of the British way of life. Hopefully in time the young second generation Muslims that are at the centre of the problems will eventually come to respect those laws and freedoms. You have to have faith in god that eventually they will find their way back to their true religion and understand there is no such thing as an Islamic state, and even if there was it would never work. One of the biggest mistakes the UK has made is to allow activists that have been throw out of their own countries to be given asylum in the UK. The mistake has been learned and is now being dealt with, here is were new laws can be made for the good of the whole society.
In the Uk no Muslim needs to work twice as hard as any other citizen. Education and employment rights ensure that, if anything things are balance more in their favour as institutions strive for political correctness. When my nephew applied to the police force he was refuse...why? because they had an Asian quota to fill, despite the fact he had just served his country in the forces and would have made a fantasic policeman.
Posts: 3809 | From: Paradise | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the Uk no Muslim needs to work twice as hard as any other citizen. Education and employment rights ensure that, if anything things are balance more in their favour as institutions strive for political correctness. When my nephew applied to the police force he was refuse...why? because they had an Asian quota to fill, despite the fact he had just served his country in the forces and would have made a fantasic policeman.
Why are those quotas needed to begin with? Because historically, the Asians would have not been hired otherwise due to ethnic prejudice. (I personally would not call it racism, because in my experience, when given the choice, people want to work with people they know for the long work day.) Also, the relatively small amount of positions reserved for Asians makes it a much more competitive situation for Asians themselves, therefore they do indeed end up working harder to get the same position. Here too, I feel the system is created to be fair and I don't begrudge the imbalances when it is the best that can be done. Sometimes it cuts both ways, as in the case with your nephew. With the Glasgow attacks I have encountered a growing surge of... I will call it: suspicion of Muslims, from people in England. Currently the UK is handling it better than the US and France, but if you ask Pakistanis and Arabic people in London if they feel a difference in attitude toward them, a great many of them will say "yes" The larger problems are just beneath the skin.
Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę: Taken away from whom?
All these laws guaranteeing rights and freedoms ,in the UK for example, were enacted tens or hundreds of years ago for the benefit of the British people. According to their laws, those rights apply also to new citizens. So the question remains, take away rights from whom?
1- New citizens only: Have something like in Kuwait where there's differnent classes of citizenship.
For example "true" British have the right for Freedom Of Speech and new citizens don't!
2-Eveyone:
And end up with an oppressive and closed society.
Now the problem with option one is :
-It leaves a loop hole regarding "true" British who may want to change the government to let's say an Islamic one. Unless you come up with the Law specifically banning speech regarding Islam. Then you will need to do that with the right to peacfull assembly and so on
-The UK then can no longer advocate freedom of speech to other countries. For example, Egypt would be free to limit the rights of Copts (which in some ways it already does) to protect our way of life. Right?
You get my point. The problem is however you change the laws it will affect the "true" citizens just as it will the new citizens.
History shows that in the right circumstances, peoples' rights can easily be taken away.
My example of what happened to Japanese American citizens in WWII shows this.
Same goes for the Jews in Nazi Germany, except this was far more extreme.
I severely doubt the British gov't would put it's Muslim citizens in concentration camps without very SERIOUS consideration.
Something terrible would have to occur, ie a War with the entire Middle East, or a Nuclear attack on the U.K by Islamic radicals.
Anyway, lets play out a scenario of what could plausibly happen if the U.K is struck by a terrorist attack similar in scale to 9/11, as this is far more likely to occur than a Nuclear attack or War with the entire Middle East.
First of all, there would be massive paranoia concerning Muslims. Native Britons' hostility towards Muslims and Islam would increase a hundred fold, far more than it is today.
Secondly, emergency powers would be granted to the Prime Minister, similar to how Bush was granted powers after 9/11.
And thirdly, here's where it gets hairy.
The British National Party's popularity would increase DRAMATICALLY.
The BNP have no qualms about proclaiming their hatred for Muslims, and after the theoretical attack on British soil, their party would receive a major boost in support.
This is an extreme right, racist, pro-British party that would have no problems implementing something similar to your number (1) possibility wherein native Britons receive rights that other citizens of foreign descent do not get.
I could see them paying immigrants (especially Muslim ones) to leave, or even worse, making life for them so difficult and hostile that British Muslims leave of their own accord.
Sarkozy is doing something like this in France at the moment; paying immigrants to leave.
Besides, after such a terrorist attack, the environment in the U.K will be so hostile towards Islam and Muslims that many of them would not even need to be prompted to leave.
So all it takes is the right situation to occur. At the moment, the majority of Britons may tolerate Muslims and Islam, but this could easily change.
Graf himself has acknowledged that the mood against Islam in the U.K has darkened due to the attack in Glasgow and those car bombs in London which never detonated.
quote:I guess that's another option, isolation!
Isolation, combined with a very hostile environment would drive many Muslims to leave the U.K of their own accord.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
, but also about state security information, including the fact that Holland will be under water in 50 years. He said that the government is not telling the people anything because it would be bad for the economy. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) but that is not the question originally posed.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic