Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Sharia law in UK


itsnotoutthere
 Share

Recommended Posts

No. But what you're doing here is deliberately confounding issues. There is no Sharia law in America; there will not be. The American system of jurisprudence is unlikely to be overturned. That said, any discussion of me being xenophobic is ipso facto a straw man argument. There is no issue of it being xenophobic or not since it has nothing to do other than to cast dispersions on your interlocutor and shy away from the topic at hand. The same thing applies in Britain. This whole idea of there being Sharia law there is a straw man as an excuse to nail Muslims.

In my own defence...I think I was trying to simplify the issue...not confound it. Fancy words and

going on about 'staw men' is confounding the issue.

I think you are trying to shy away from the topic at hand. I'm actually confused as to what you

think about all this.

You appear to be saying that the spread of Sharia law in the West is not a problem...and anyone

getting uptight about it.....are just using it as an excuse to 'nail muslims'. Is that right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • jaylemurph

    9

  • bee

    13

  • ships-cat

    9

  • questionmark

    13

I wonder if collecting votes for the BNP is not what is on the agenda of his unholiness bishop Dr Rowan Williams. Every time he opens his mouth out comes something that drives more people there.

I don't get it... in which kind of country can 4% of the population set the total agenda?

Dr Rowan Williams is a heretic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr Rowan Williams is a heretic.

Ouch...

There's been lots more on the news tonight about all this.

No sign of Rowan Williams....it is said that he and his supporters are hoping the whole

thing will just be yesterday's headlines. But it won't. He's in deep trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my own defence...I think I was trying to simplify the issue...not confound it. Fancy words and

going on about 'staw men' is confounding the issue.

I think you are trying to shy away from the topic at hand. I'm actually confused as to what you

think about all this.

You appear to be saying that the spread of Sharia law in the West is not a problem...and anyone

getting uptight about it.....are just using it as an excuse to 'nail muslims'. Is that right?

Yes. Exactly. It's a virtual certainty that neither America or Britain is going to have a mandatory Sharia law put over them. That being the case, what the people saying that could happen are really doing is dealing out pointless racism. Their concern about Sharia law is really an distraction to allow them to say things about Muslim people but make it look like they have valid political concerns.

That's why I said someone like Syd Boggle -- who's clearly an old-fashioned racist and not afraid to say so -- is much more honest than many people here. He doesn't need an excuse to say derogatory things or to hide them.

--Jaylemurph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to recant some of my claims earlier. Apparently, the Orthodox Jewish Courts do two things. First, they perform marriages (although for it to be legal, you still have to get the government marriage license). Second, they arbitrate disputes - but only if both parties agree to the arbitration, and the religious courts have no ability to physically enforce their rulings (plus, larger offenses still end up in the British legal system).

That said, the problem with the Archbishop's proposal is, at least from what I've heard, he wants to give coercive power to the Islamic courts. The above (available to Orthodox Jews) is already available for muslims; they can sign for arbitration by an Imam or whatnot as long as both parties agree. But handing them coercive power is a bad idea - it undermines the secular authority of the state.

And I don't recant for criticizing the Archbishop's idiotic statement about "one state, one law" being a "reaction to despotism" and that a modern democracy should coddle religious individuals with problems with the secular law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think When in Rome. It's unfair that they're changing a culture to fit in another minor culture. They CAME to Britain so they should act LIKE BRITISH CITIZENS (this is coming from an American). I only think it's fair, and it's insulting to the culture, demands hard work, and for what--so you feel you're being respected, even though it's obvious you already are? I think that after they let you into their country, the least you could do is become accustomed.

I'm not sure if I understand the situation, so correct me if I'm wrong please :P!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think When in Rome. It's unfair that they're changing a culture to fit in another minor culture. They CAME to Britain so they should act LIKE BRITISH CITIZENS (this is coming from an American). I only think it's fair, and it's insulting to the culture, demands hard work, and for what--so you feel you're being respected, even though it's obvious you already are? I think that after they let you into their country, the least you could do is become accustomed.

I'm not sure if I understand the situation, so correct me if I'm wrong please :P!

I think the root of this issue is how involved with a culture you have to be when you go to a new country. And that's different in the US and the UK -- it always has been different. Historically, England has not been afraid to throw out whole groups of people -- like the Jews or rebellious Scots. But the US historically has welcomed all comers, and has yet to throw a whole social group out.

I'm not sure this goes in this thread, but how much can you reasonably force someone to partake in a culture? And does every group have to do it equally? Do groups that separate out of mainstream culture have fewer rights if they have greater autonomy? Look at the Amish -- they school their own and in some ways police their own so that their teenagers can do more than I could (for a time, anyway). How does that square with the basic Constitutional facts of the same law for every one?

--Jaylemurph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the root of this issue is how involved with a culture you have to be when you go to a new country. And that's different in the US and the UK -- it always has been different. Historically, England has not been afraid to throw out whole groups of people -- like the Jews or rebellious Scots. But the US historically has welcomed all comers, and has yet to throw a whole social group out.

I'm not sure this goes in this thread, but how much can you reasonably force someone to partake in a culture? And does every group have to do it equally? Do groups that separate out of mainstream culture have fewer rights if they have greater autonomy? Look at the Amish -- they school their own and in some ways police their own so that their teenagers can do more than I could (for a time, anyway). How does that square with the basic Constitutional facts of the same law for every one?

--Jaylemurph

The difference between the Amish and the Islamic community is that the Amish don't inflict their way of life on you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Exactly. It's a virtual certainty that neither America or Britain is going to have a mandatory Sharia law put over them.

OK....thanks for the reply.....I don't think your average, non-muslim British (or US) citizen is about to

have Sharia law put over them.....in the near future....but this isn't the point.

To have a huge, religious group....with political aspirations....being openly allowed to function

as a separate entity within the host nation....including what amounts to having their own laws...is

a recipe for disaster.....for future generations. It is tantamount to an unarmed invasion.

I'm not sure if you're just sitting on the fence, or whether you genuinely don't believe that Islam

is a threat.? (to Western culture)

You evidently don't think that global Islam is a threat to yourself personally...or your chosen life-style...

and perhaps living in New York...you can relax.... :) (until the next terrorist attack??)

That being the case, what the people saying that could happen are really doing is dealing out pointless racism. Their concern about Sharia law is really an distraction to allow them to say things about Muslim people but make it look like they have valid political concerns.

The way I see it....is that wheeling out accusations of racism....is a gift to Islamic Jihad. How they must love to

hear that....and IMO....they would see it as a weakness in 'the enemy' and exploit it for all it's worth.

You only have to read the political posts on this forum to see that.....spreading division and suspicion...is part

of the politically active, wider Islamic movement.

You don't think that there are valid political concerns...regarding the Islamic influence gaining strength

in the West..?....Europe especially....but what if you're wrong?

The unpleasant business of reality and the struggle of various patriarchies for dominance...is a pain in the

you-know-what....but that's what we have. Which patriarchy do you support?

Which patriarchy supports you best?

As the latest 'struggle' hots up..the 'fence' may be an intellectually comfortable place to be...but...is it the right place to be?

Standing room only on the fence pretty soon.... :yes::tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ouch...

There's been lots more on the news tonight about all this.

No sign of Rowan Williams....it is said that he and his supporters are hoping the whole

thing will just be yesterday's headlines. But it won't. He's in deep trouble.

He couldn't speak last night as when asked he was busy praying on his prayer mat whilst facing towards Mecca.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waste of a perfectly good tomato !

Err... if you're not going to THROW that tomato, could I have it ? It will go well with my Sarnies tomorrow :)

Rowan Williams should look to his OWN Church, and stop trying to promote OTHER religions.

Meow Purr.

Yes but always remember old chinese proverb. ''Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, Wisdom is knowing not to put one in a fruit salad''

Link to comment
Share on other sites

once you give an inch they'll take a mile, thin end of the wedge, watch whats going on in the UK, watch undercover mosque, its shows no lies, http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...h&plindex=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between the Amish and the Islamic community is that the Amish don't inflict their way of life on you!

Again, with the scare-mongering. Just exactly how have yo had Islam pushed onto you?

OK....thanks for the reply.....I don't think your average, non-muslim British (or US) citizen is about to

have Sharia law put over them.....in the near future....but this isn't the point.

To have a huge, religious group....with political aspirations....being openly allowed to function

as a separate entity within the host nation....including what amounts to having their own laws...is

a recipe for disaster.....for future generations. It is tantamount to an unarmed invasion.

I'm not sure if you're just sitting on the fence, or whether you genuinely don't believe that Islam

is a threat.? (to Western culture)

Well, again, I have to stress that as much as you either don't see it or don't want to believe it, not all Islam is an active personal threat to you. It seems to me you (not the specific you, Bee, the general second person plural) confounding all Islam with its vastly smaller but vastly more visible radical arm. While I agree with you, I think it's true about religion in general, not Islam in specific. I mean, would you say the same thing but mean it about Christians? Because you could. That exactly describes the Christian right, at least here in the US, but I don't think you'd go so far as to call them an army preparing to invade. (And if you don't describe the Christians like that when they are essentially the same, it /is/ prejudice...)

You evidently don't think that global Islam is a threat to yourself personally...or your chosen life-style...

and perhaps living in New York...you can relax.... :) (until the next terrorist attack??)

I'm not sure where in the UK you live, Bee, so I don't know if you were in London for 7/7. But I was in New York for 9/11. And I knew people who died there. And someone who died on 7/7. And someone who died in Madrid. I'm not ignorant of the threat of terrorism. But I'm also not ignorant enough to mistake a part for a whole. I don't think those terrorists who killed my friends represent the totality of Islam. I'm not ignorant that the laws of my country are designed to give everyone a fair shake, and that I should, too. And I'm not ignorant of how to be nice to people, either.

The way I see it....is that wheeling out accusations of racism....is a gift to Islamic Jihad. How they must love to

hear that....and IMO....they would see it as a weakness in 'the enemy' and exploit it for all it's worth.

You only have to read the political posts on this forum to see that.....spreading division and suspicion...is part

of the politically active, wider Islamic movement.

As I said, quite frankly, it's the active political agenda of Christians in my country that I see as a more direct threat to the basic construction of the government. If you want to demonise Muslims, please do, but don't ask me to be a party to it.

You don't think that there are valid political concerns...regarding the Islamic influence gaining strength

in the West..?....Europe especially....but what if you're wrong?

Clearly not. The world changes. It always has. It always will. Nor does the wringing of hands stop it. I might point out that Spain was completely dominated by Islam at one time. It survived. But for that time, it was the cleanest, most advanced and most tolerant place in Europe. It was only after the Reconquesta that the Inquisition began...

The unpleasant business of reality and the struggle of various patriarchies for dominance...is a pain in the

you-know-what....but that's what we have. Which patriarchy do you support?

Which patriarchy supports you best?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you somehow suggesting I like Islam because it supports my own prejudices? If so, that's utterly absurd. I don't particularly like Islam, but I don't particularly dislike it any more than any other religion. I just don't like seeing it used as a hobby horse for racists who are disguising their hate with politics.

As the latest 'struggle' hots up..the 'fence' may be an intellectually comfortable place to be...but...is it the right place to be?

Standing room only on the fence pretty soon.... :yes::tu:

Please. I'm not "on the fence".

--Jaylemurph

Edited by jaylemurph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the root of this issue is how involved with a culture you have to be when you go to a new country. And that's different in the US and the UK -- it always has been different. Historically, England has not been afraid to throw out whole groups of people -- like the Jews or rebellious Scots. But the US historically has welcomed all comers, and has yet to throw a whole social group out.

--Jaylemurph

Did America take in the jews expelled from England? and was the rebellious scots the very same who had invaded with intent of stealing the throne and ruling England.

Edited by hetrodoxly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm not ignorant of how to be nice to people, either. The sort of cheap scare-mongering you're party to here is profoundly ignorant and based on fear.

If you want to demonise Muslims, please do, but don't ask me to be a party to it.

That's me told off then. :( Actually....I did get a bit carried away with that post...

....sorry.... :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did America take in the jews expelled from England? and was the rebellious scots the very same who had invaded with intent of stealing the thrown and ruling England.

No, as there was no America (well, there were people and the continent, but not the same nation-state as today) in the 13th Century, obviously not.

Later on, though, America /did/ take in groups shunned by the English, like the Catholics in Maryland, or the various religious nuts that founded most of New England, or the Quakers throughout the Mid-Atlantic states.

And your point is quite right (even if your grammar and spelling aren't): some -- most even -- of the Scotch Irish were the ones who made the push into England.

That's me told off then. :( Actually....I did get a bit carried away with that post...

....sorry.... :cry:

As did I. I went back and edited the more extreme parts of the above post.

But I think it's important to realize that in tarring all Muslims with the extremists' brush, and letting our ignorance and fear to fester into a hate that makes our decisions for us, we are doing exactly the same thing those extremists do to us in the West. It will solve nothing and only make the world less pleasant to live in. [insert speech about the importance of Enlightenment values of rationality here.]

And I think that hate deserves no better than to be consistently and loudly pointed out for what it is, especially when it goes in disguise. (Not that I'm accusing you of that, Bee)

--Jaylemurph

Edited by jaylemurph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a Great Country being brought to its knees by political weakness, and shower of sh** who run it, who have never done a decent days work in their lives and the only thing they've managed is their student fees, it no wonder they are a pile of crap.

Amen brother.

if at the next election the government doesnt add a box on the ballot paper with, no cofidence, or none of the above am going to vote BNP as a protest vote, to get the other parties to wake up an listen to the people, because the way things are going now, if we dont give them a quick sharp shock, we're all ****ed,

Amen brother.

It's not unavoidable.

It will take some politically incorrect decisions to stop letting muslims (all of them-until they get their stupid religion under control) in the country and to not be afraid to send these people (and their entire families back) from where they came from after they get here and screw up (and that includes talking trash about the country you are in)...

But politicians are too weak minded and weak willed and disinterested to do such..

Won't happen. The Government can't send them back because they're afraid of being called Nazis or some such. Political correctness is nothing more than political weakness and our Government and all the idiot politicians in it are nothing if not politically correct.

Which is why neo-nazism will be on the rise in Europe soon..The disenfrachised populace will strike back at some time or another..

Marvellous bloody marvelous, well, we're getting into a sorry state of affairs here, when we'll end up having one law for one and one for another, :wacko: the Aussies are starting a new campaigne to get Britons to emigrate to Oz, it does make you think, B)

Let me know when you go dude and I'll be right there with you.

I'm not sure this goes in this thread, but how much can you reasonably force someone to partake in a culture? And does every group have to do it equally? Do groups that separate out of mainstream culture have fewer rights if they have greater autonomy? Look at the Amish -- they school their own and in some ways police their own so that their teenagers can do more than I could (for a time, anyway). How does that square with the basic Constitutional facts of the same law for every one?

--Jaylemurph

Go to a muslim country and get drunk, then stagger down their main street singing songs. Then see just how much you can be forced to partake in their culture. This is one of my major bugbears with muslims in my country. They 'expect' to be able to come here and live according to the dictates of their culture. Yet I'm not allowed to do the same in their country. Surely, if we're not going to make a racist issue out of this, what's good for one is good for the other? So, I ask you, with that in mind, who is the racist? Me, for allowing them to come here and bringing their culture with them and walking around as they please? Or them for me taking my culture over there and being arrested and publicly whipped for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, with the scare-mongering. Just exactly how have yo had Islam pushed onto you?

Why should one actually wait until a hot-headed, paranoid, vocal immigrant culture (not a race-that it undeniably pressing its values upon other societies) starts wanting to implement their rules upon you, before doing something about it? How about patching the leaks before the levee breaks? Evidently with 30% of muslims in the UK want some sort of sharia law (earlier thread here on UM-look it up if you want) imposed on ALL Britons, along with the EUROPEAN muslims (you know; the supposed modern, tolerant ones) riot whenever a simple picture of mohammed is printed, which of course is right next to the Australian imam calling women pieces of meat. Right now, there is a movement (just like a bowel) amongst international muslims to have the illustration of muhammed taken off of wikipedia. All because they have a problem with it. Screw what we want. It's a little bit more each and every day with these guys. Drops of water will fill a bathtub given enough time.

I wonder what the friends and neighbors of the two Texas girls killed by their muslim father because they were obviously choosing their own path in life instead of one of islamic servitude..They have lost something because of this jerk's religious insecurities.

Well, again, I have to stress that as much as you either don't see it or don't want to believe it, not all Islam is an active personal threat to you.

You don’t live in London. How do you know?? Obviously, these people that live there do feel the threat. Its not imaginary.

It seems to me you confounding all Islam with its vastly smaller but vastly more visible radical arm. While I agree with you, I think it's true about religion in general, not specific. I mean, would you say the same thing but mean it about Christians? Because you could. That exactly describes the Christian right in the US,

Absurd. The last time I looked, no Christian right group was flying planes into buildings or blowing up cars outside of nightclubs or blowing up buses full of ‘infidels’ or blowing up trains full of commuters or killing movie directors or trying to light off shoe bombs while a 38,000 feet etc, etc, etc…(All of which was caused by muslims and happened in western civilizations and no, Tim McVeigh was not part a p***ed off Christian group.)

I'm not sure where in the UK you live, Bee, so I don't know if you were in London for 7/7. But I was in New York for 9/11. And I knew people who died there. And someone who died on 7/7. And someone who died in Madrid. I'm not ignorant of the threat of terrorism.

You are a lot more ignorant of it that you think you are. With all that terrorism hitting so close to home, just what is it going to take to make you understand that there IS something terribly wrong within THEIR society??? And the moderate muslim passivity towards the whole thing only exasperates the situation. They have to be running point and take some chances to publicly criticize their local imam or cleric. But they are not doing so. They need to walk up to the street preaching ultra-islamic nimrod on the street corner in London, tell him that they are sick of him beating their religion up with extremism and then beat the crap out of him for good measure...(Just the same way that the police have to protect that ultra-right Christian picketers from getting the crap beat out of them by other Christians). Along with starting infiltration and destruction of radical groups... (and they can do it in the name of Allah too...)

But I'm also not ignorant enough to mistake a part for a whole. Unfortunately the radicals do not wear buttons, so one has to lump them together when a certain element of society is causing trouble.

Well the part that isn’t talking, infiltrating and destroying the part that is hijacking the rest of the religion needs to be talking, infiltrating and destroying the part that is hijacking the rest of the religion. Instead of pointing fingers and whining at the FBI and Scotland Yard for racial profiling and such, they need to be pointing fingers at mosques, imams and mullahs that harbor this hateful xenophobic BS. And then send them back from where they came.

I don't think those terrorists who killed my friends represent the totality of Islam.

You’re right. The don’t represent the totality of islam. They only represent the part that is currently talking. I have not read of a whole lot of muslims in Britain (feel better?) that are outspoken against sharia law implementation in Britain. I hear muslims cry that they are against terror, but let me ask you this: How come that the US and the UK armies and intelligence services are having a difficult time getting Farsi and Arabic speaking agents and linguistic people?? They should be lining up at the door, ready to kick terrorism’s ass. But sadly, they are not.

The sort of cheap scare-mongering you're party to here is profoundly ignorant and based on fear.

No..It’s not..It’s based on the reality that many muslims move to the west and then have a problem with the freedom the west offers in complete opposition to their backward superstitions…Mohammed Atta (and others) was here for a couple of years…living as a westerner..going to go-go bars of all places…and then still capable of flying a fully loaded plane wide-eyed into a building of innocent people. It would be easier if they wore buttons, but since they don’t we have to rely on moderates to do the investigative work for us ‘infidels’. As I have said...They need to do the right thing and pick up the ball (and their religion) and run with it.

As I said, quite frankly, it's the active political agenda of Christians in my country that I see as a more direct threat to the basic construction of the government. If you want to demonise Muslims, please do, but don't ask me to be a party to it.

Your hatred of the Christian right is making you do exactly what you are accusing us of doing...Besides I really don't see any Christian nation (maybe the Vatican but even then that is a stretch) on the planet approaching anywhere near Saudi Arabia intolerance..So you (more like your grandchildren) have a lot more to lose under islam than under Christianity.

I really have no problem with muslims.. It’s when they start not handling pork in the grocery line and won’t pick me up at the airport in the taxi they are hired to drive because I have alcohol with me, etc, etc, is where is I start having an annoyance with them. I really start having a problem with them when they move here and start babbling about the ‘one true religion’ nonsense and discussions of implementing sharia law in western societies, and/or then kill their children because the kids are beginning to be a true Americans and asserting personal rights-and have chosen (as free-thinking individuals) not to be a muslim.

I have a hard time getting over the muslim SOB in Texas who killed both his daughters because they were too western and had the unforgivable sin to date non-muslims. Ditto SOB to his crappy son-who then had the gall to come on TV and say (this is after his sisters had been murdered by his dad):

Islam Said, the brother of Amina and Sarah, has denied that the murders had anything to do with Islam at all. “It’s not religion,” he insisted. “It’s something else. Religion has nothing to do with it.”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24329

He is a stinking liar…period…

And to be sure, the Qur’an or Islamic tradition does not sanction honor killing. Muslim spokesmen have hastened, after the recent killing in Canada of another teenage Muslim girl, Aqsa Parvez, by her father to tell the public that honor killing has nothing to do with Islam, but is merely a feature of Islamic culture in some areas. Aqsa Parvez was sixteen years old; her father, Muhammad Parvez, has been charged with strangling her to death because she refused to wear the hijab.

This one was in Canada…Even in the far-west of North America, there is an extremist muslim element that undeniably here amongst the moderates...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019431.php

Clearly not. The world changes.

Yeah…People start saying “that’s enough!” and start writing stuff like this.

It survived... and for that time, it was the cleanest, most advanced and most tolerant place in Europe. It was only after the Reconquesta that the Inquisition began...

So what? That was a millenia ago… By this reasoning, Iran and Saudi Arabia should be hotbeds of technology innovation and tolerance…but they ain’t (in my best Chris Rock voice)..

I just don't like seeing it used as a hobby horse for racists who are disguising their hate with politics.

1. Islam is not a race. In it's pure form (i.e: Saudi Arabia) it's an oppressive religion and culture. Negro and Caucasian are examples of race.

2.These guys are worse…They are disguising hate with religion.

Just don't mistake yourself for being fair or tolerant.

I’m not. I’m tired and angry about having a paranoid religion do more and more slow inroads towards invading my style of life…After the dumb-asses move here...

And as far as 'fair' goes…I’ll start being that when Saudi Arabia gets Bibles or perhaps the occasional Torah. Not a minute sooner.

Edited by Pinky Floyd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ALL Britons, along with the EUROPEAN muslims (you know; the supposed modern, tolerant ones) riot whenever a simple picture of mohammed is printed,

Not so long ago (I believe it was '72) I went to see JC Superstar because I wanted to know why the Bible thumpers were forming a picket line in front of the theater. That kind of attitude is not unique to Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, as there was no America (well, there were people and the continent, but not the same nation-state as today) in the 13th Century, obviously not.

Your statement was a bit misleading to say the least, Britain has steam engines but America has computers.

Later on, though, America /did/ take in groups shunned by the English, like the Catholics in Maryland, or the various religious nuts that founded most of New England, or the Quakers throughout the Mid-Atlantic states.

Did America really take them in, or did they just turn up?

And your point is quite right (even if your grammar and spelling aren't): some -- most even -- of the Scotch Irish were the ones who made the push into England.

'some -- most even -- of the Scotch Irish were the ones who made the push into England'.

Do you consider this good grammar?

Scotch is a drink :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen brother.

Let me know when you go dude and I'll be right there with you.

Go to a muslim country and get drunk, then stagger down their main street singing songs. Then see just how much you can be forced to partake in their culture. This is one of my major bugbears with muslims in my country. They 'expect' to be able to come here and live according to the dictates of their culture. Yet I'm not allowed to do the same in their country. Surely, if we're not going to make a racist issue out of this, what's good for one is good for the other? So, I ask you, with that in mind, who is the racist? Me, for allowing them to come here and bringing their culture with them and walking around as they please? Or them for me taking my culture over there and being arrested and publicly whipped for it?

I meant that post to be part of a different discussion -- which is why I said it should be its own topic. I'm not going to continue that discussion in this thread as it's OT and (as you prove) likely not to be sufficiently separated from the actual topic of this thread.

Why should one actually wait until a hot-headed, paranoid, vocal immigrant culture (not a race-that it undeniably pressing its values upon other societies) starts wanting to implement their rules upon you, before doing something about it?

Chiefly because both American and British law hinge on the fact the people have to /do/ something before their punished for it, singularly or collectively. Besides, your view of that culture may not -- and notice the subjunctive there, since I'm willing to concede it could me true -- be the correct one.

You don’t live in London. How do you know?? Obviously, these people that live there do feel the threat. Its not imaginary.

True, I do not now live in London. But I have. And unfortunately, terrorism isn't new to London. They have a long history with Irish terrorists there, so I do have experience with a London concerned about terrorists, just not Muslim ones. And I do -- and have lived in New York during and after 9/11, so I think I have some room to speak. More, possibly, than you.

Absurd. The last time I looked, no Christian right group was flying planes into buildings or blowing up cars outside of nightclubs or blowing up buses full of ‘infidels’ or blowing up trains full of commuters or killing movie directors or trying to light off shoe bombs while a 38,000 feet etc, etc, etc…(All of which was caused by muslims and happened in western civilizations and no, Tim McVeigh was not part a p***ed off Christian group.)

What about bombings of Abortion Center? The Federal Building in Oklahoma City (you say McVeigh wasn't part of a Christian group, but I disagree)? Ruby Ridge? Waco? Look at Westboro Baptist Church and tell me they're not fueled with rage and hate. Granted, the last two weren't caused by religious nuts alone, but it certainly changed the situation negatively.

You are a lot more ignorant of it that you think you are. With all that terrorism hitting so close to home, just what is it going to take to make you understand that there IS something terribly wrong within THEIR society???

First of all, I'm always willing to admit my opinion and reality aren't one and the same. I'm willing to admit that people who disagree with me are in complete possession of facts and faculties and have merely arrived at a different opinion. That being said, I don't sense that from you. And with that said, there is nothing that's going to make me believe every Muslim means me personal harm and that every Muslim has something wrong with himself or his society in toto.

Well the part that isn’t talking, infiltrating and destroying the part that is hijacking the rest of the religion needs to be talking, infiltrating and destroying the part that is hijacking the rest of the religion. Instead of pointing fingers and whining at the FBI and Scotland Yard for racial profiling and such, they need to be pointing fingers at mosques, imams and mullahs that harbor this hateful xenophobic BS. And then send them back from where they came.

I think each person is responsible for himself, not his culture or his nation. Maybe you need to listen better (there's a good story about something on this topic on an episode of This American Life that aired a week or two ago -- maybe you need to download and listen to it.). If you're a Christian, maybe you should practice what you preach and start decrying abortion clinic bombers.

Your hatred of the Christian right is making you do exactly what you are accusing us of doing...Besides I really don't see any Christian nation (maybe the Vatican but even then that is a stretch) on the planet approaching anywhere near Saudi Arabia intolerance..So you (more like your grandchildren) have a lot more to lose under islam than under Christianity.

I don't hate the Christian right, I dislike them and their politics. That distinction seems to be one you don't quite grasp. This is just something else we disagree on. Personally, I think the laws enacted at the creation of this country and later by the adoption of the Constitution effectively stop a lot of what Christians would -- and indeed did, in the early New England colonies -- do, given the opportunity.

I really have no problem with muslims.. It’s when they start not handling pork in the grocery line and won’t pick me up at the airport in the taxi they are hired to drive because I have alcohol with me, etc, etc, is where is I start having an annoyance with them. I really start having a problem with them when they move here and start babbling about the ‘one true religion’ nonsense and discussions of implementing sharia law in western societies, and/or then kill their children because the kids are beginning to be a true Americans and asserting personal rights-and have chosen (as free-thinking individuals) not to be a muslim.

Just so we get this straight -- you don't mind Muslims as long as they don't make you think they're Muslims. That's scarcely toleration.

So what? That was a millenia ago… By this reasoning, Iran and Saudi Arabia should be hotbeds of technology innovation and tolerance…but they ain’t (in my best Chris Rock voice)..

Quite frankly, I don't want to discuss the ebb and flow of history with you. Not that I don't think you're intelligent enough, but I don't think you're up to it, to be honest.

I’m not. I’m tired and angry about having a paranoid religion do more and more slow inroads towards invading my style of life…After the dumb-asses move here...

What right do you have to a life that doesn't change?

Did America really take them in, or did they just turn up?

Well, certainly it took them in by the time of the Catholics in Maryland (hence the name) and some of the later, European groups. The point is debatable about some of the earlier New England colonies, though, definitely.

'some -- most even -- of the Scotch Irish were the ones who made the push into England'.

Do you consider this good grammar?

Scotch is a drink :D

And quite a good one. I lived for several years in Glasgow, so I know all about the subtle differences between "Scotch", "Scots" and "Scottish". However, Scotch-Irish is the traditional term for those people of which I spoke (notice the position of the prepositional phrase, just for you):

"Scots-Irish" is the modern form of the term for these same people who emigrated to the United States; Scotch-Irish is the traditional form, and is not to be confused with Irish-Scots, i.e., recent Irish emigrants to Scotland.

(emphasis mine) Source

As a historian, I do tend to use traditional forms of words. I think that's understandable. But other than that, my sentence is completely grammatical.

--Jaylemurph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chiefly because both American and British law hinge on the fact the people have to /do/ something before their punished for it, singularly or collectively. Besides, your view of that culture may not -- and notice the subjunctive there, since I'm willing to concede it could me true -- be the correct one.

I know one thing..That regressing to a society that chops homosexual's heads off and call for the executions of apostates (among other great things) is not the direction to head. Not even a little bit..Not that I’m saying that would happen anytime soon..but give it 50-75 or so years and us a bad case of denial…it could happen in some sense.

We just need to have some keep an active eye on this.

True, I do not now live in London. But I have. And unfortunately, terrorism isn't new to London. They have a long history with Irish terrorists there, so I do have experience with a London concerned about terrorists, just not Muslim ones. And I do -- and have lived in New York during and after 9/11, so I think I have some room to speak. More, possibly, than you.

You say nothing here…

And you might know possibly less...a great deal less than I...You tell me…

From your last post, you have friends dropping right and left from islamic terrorism and you say there is no problem within islam? Again; WTF is it gonna take?? Are you so liberal (or brainwashed) to that anyone calling themselves a muslim can do NO wrong??

What about bombings of Abortion Center? The Federal Building in Oklahoma City (you say McVeigh wasn't part of a Christian group, but I disagree)? Ruby Ridge? Waco? Look at Westboro Baptist Church and tell me they're not fueled with rage and hate. Granted, the last two weren't caused by religious nuts alone, but it certainly changed the situation negatively.

Except for the Abortion clinic bombings in Florida, the rest had nothing to do with 'Christian terrorism'. Tim McViegh was in a anti-government organization (3 people is all they can figure-Him, Terry Nichols and a possible 3rd shadowy character) and nothing to do with a church whatsoever (let me know if you can dispute that with some evidence). Ruby Ridge and Waco were not elements of terrorism, rather society reigning in extremism. Waco was a dominating cult and Ruby Ridge was an anti-government group of interstate money defrauders. Westboro Baptist is vilified and under the threat of continuous attack from other Christian groups (as well as plenty of other non-Christian groups) for their stupidity. Mindless nonsense as this will die out. It has no backing outside of the walls of one single church.

The abortion clinic bombings are of no comparison to Islamic terrorism. Ok...Maybe that both were bad and were driven by religious extremism…But in scope? None what-so-ever. I really doubt if you could get 19 Christian men (even really, really stupid ones) to do a 9/11 over abortion or anti-gay rights...

First of all, I'm always willing to admit my opinion and reality aren't one and the same. I'm willing to admit that people who disagree with me are in complete possession of facts and faculties and have merely arrived at a different opinion. That being said, I don't sense that from you

And what made you think that?? Is there a reason to be insulting? (and yes it is insulting.).

(Actually I thought the same at your hack-step attempt at writing as well so I guess we are even..)

And with that said, there is nothing that's going to make me believe every Muslim means me personal harm and that every Muslim has something wrong with himself or his society in toto.

I never said that..How and where did you make such a conclusion? I did say that there is undeniably something wrong within their society and have tried to maintain that they will have to clean it up from within and join the 21st century. Otherwise, they will have to deal with the fact that there will always be a stigma of terrorism and intolerance from outside of islam. To say that "everything is just the west's fault" on this clash of civilizations is just wrong. They have some tolerance to learn and compromises to make if they are to move here and live amongst us. Let them run their societies the way they see fit.

I could have been more proper to say that there was a problem within an element of their society but I didn't- so what?

I think each person is responsible for himself, not his culture or his nation. Maybe you need to listen better

There is a saying about glass houses and people who live in them...

If you're a Christian, maybe you should practice what you preach and start decrying abortion clinic bombers.

And I do condemn abortion bombings. And if I knew of one being planned, I would narc those guys out to the cops in a heartbeat; first time, every time.

BTW. I’m a Deist. A belief with no religion. I believe in a God that doesn't give a crap. That's about it. I reject all books of faith. Although some do have good advice on how to be a good person..(help the poor, be good, don’t lie..etc..)

I don't hate the Christian right, I dislike them and their politics. That distinction seems to be one you don't quite grasp.

I don't hate all muslims, I dislike the extremists and their politics. That distinction seems to be one you don't quite grasp

That's a two bladed sword there pal.

This is just something else we disagree on. Personally, I think the laws enacted at the creation of this country and later by the adoption of the Constitution effectively stop a lot of what Christians would -- and indeed did, in the early New England colonies -- do, given the opportunity.

Irrational conclusion. You’re going to the nth degree and embracing as fact. Limiting abortions and keeping gays from calling it marriage is hardly comparable to hanging a 16 year old girl in Tehran-excuted for moral terpitude and adulterers being beheaded and stoned to death (not the good kind either) in Saudi Arabia.

Just so we get this straight -- you don't mind Muslims as long as they don't make you think they're Muslims. That's scarcely toleration.

I don't mind muslims as long as when they come here, they realize that we do things a different way and even our children when they become adults (and women in general) are allowed to make their own choices.. I fully admit that I do have a problem when they move their miserable asses here to the west (knowing damn well how it is) and then after getting here, start complaining about the immorality and rampant ‘infidel-ness’ here in the west…Yeah..I have a problem with them. Why did they come here and why did they leave wherever they are from if it is so great and morally pure? “When in Rome”…applies to them as well as us when we go to their backwards societies. So if they are going to be here in ours…deal with it or go home.

So why should we be so tolerant to them here, while when we go there, we have to be just like them?? Remember the western woman arrested just last week for talking to a man in a Starbucks in Riyadh?? Why this double standard? Why does social tolerance only go one way to the islamic society??

Quite frankly, I don't want to discuss the ebb and flow of history with you. Not that I don't think you're intelligent enough, but I don't think you're up to it, to be honest.

And what makes you think that? Did I insult you (not that I know of) so why do you feel the need to insult me??

Let's see…

I have an MBA from Norfolk State University (a majority black college so you can drop the racial nonsense with me).

I have a BA degree from ODU (Accounting)

Have 4 Associate Degrees- including Horticulture and Geology

Been on Television as an actor many times (minor rolls-but nevertheless there I am.!)

Stood at the South Pole (did two tours in Antarctica)

Been to every Continent

Moderately successful real estate investor and broker

And a trained boxer (not bad..not good..but not bad..)

Oh yeah..

I defeated cancer as well.

All in 38 years..

Gee…Sorry I don’t meet your standards..

What right do you have to a life that doesn't change?

Whiskey..Tango..Foxtrot...??? WTF? What right (and please be specific-not that I think you are up to it-on rights and rights specifically) do they have to even be here?

Anyways, a hell of a lot more right to keep the western way of life, especially here in the west, than they have a right to come here and then try to change it to mirror a dark-age society that they are leaving...

LET THEM STAY HOME.

I'm done..I'm barking at a stone at this point...

Besides..You don't answer anything..You just continually ask questions and make baseless comparisons as a deflection for lacking in overall substance..

Edited by Pinky Floyd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the root of this issue is how involved with a culture you have to be when you go to a new country. And that's different in the US and the UK -- it always has been different. Historically, England has not been afraid to throw out whole groups of people -- like the Jews or rebellious Scots. But the US historically has welcomed all comers, and has yet to throw a whole social group out.

I'm not sure this goes in this thread, but how much can you reasonably force someone to partake in a culture? And does every group have to do it equally? Do groups that separate out of mainstream culture have fewer rights if they have greater autonomy? Look at the Amish -- they school their own and in some ways police their own so that their teenagers can do more than I could (for a time, anyway). How does that square with the basic Constitutional facts of the same law for every one?

--Jaylemurph

Well, that's a bad comparison, seeing as how the Amish will meet halfway with other cultures in order to insure the best for themselves AND the other culture. Instead of meeting halfway, you are trying to create a separation, which is the same as diverting the problem, instead of mending it. To move into another culture and not adopt their values (which wouldnt even be religious, at least not anymore) is kind of rude, especially sense it isn't really asking for much. I guess that's easier for an American to say, as the whole country is basically other countries, but every culture does it entirely by accident, and you can't say Britain isn't a part of that.

True, I do not now live in London. But I have. And unfortunately, terrorism isn't new to London. They have a long history with Irish terrorists there, so I do have experience with a London concerned about terrorists, just not Muslim ones. And I do -- and have lived in New York during and after 9/11, so I think I have some room to speak. More, possibly, than you.

You say nothing here…

And you might know possibly less...a great deal less than I...You tell me…

From your last post, you have friends dropping right and left from islamic terrorism and you say there is no problem within islam? Again; WTF is it gonna take?? Are you so liberal (or brainwashed) to that anyone calling themselves a muslim can do NO wrong??

(addressed to Pinky Floyd)

WHAT? That's like saying there's a problem with Christians because of the crusades. You're GENERALIZING. If anything, I'd say there's no problem with the Muslims because I don't know EVERY MUSLIM and therefore cannot GENERALIZE and say there's is something wrong with the group as a whole. I could say that there is a problem with SOME MUSLIMS, in which case it would be an OPINION (which that person is entitled to, by the way) because the people who you consider the "problem" may think their actions are quite justified.

To say there's a problem with them is to say there's a problem with flawed humans, which is to say there's a problem with humanity itself--including you. In which case, you'd only be half-wrong (and I don't think there's a problem with every human).

Edited by Chicken Lickin'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And quite a good one. I lived for several years in Glasgow, so I know all about the subtle differences between "Scotch", "Scots" and "Scottish". However, Scotch-Irish is the traditional term for those people of which I spoke (notice the position of the prepositional phrase, just for you):

No? i can't see a prepositional term linking the word Scotch.

(emphasis mine) Source

As a historian, I do tend to use traditional forms of words. I think that's understandable. But other than that, my sentence is completely grammatical.

Scotch isn't a traditional term for describing people from Scotland.

--Jaylemurph

If your link does say Scotch-Irish? your link is grammatically incorrect, and id imagine it's been written by a yank, if you'd called one of the inhabitants of Glasgow "scotch" while you were living there you'd have probably got yourself a Glasgow kiss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT? That's like saying there's a problem with Christians because of the crusades. You're GENERALIZING. If anything, I'd say there's no problem with the Muslims because I don't know EVERY MUSLIM and therefore cannot GENERALIZE and say there's is something wrong with the group as a whole. I could say that there is a problem with SOME MUSLIMS, in which case it would be an OPINION (which that person is entitled to, by the way) because the people who you consider the "problem" may think their actions are quite justified.

I don't think I am generalizing. Undoubtedly, there is an element of islam that will (to this day):

Publicly behead and stone adulterers, fornicators and homosexuals (consenting adults making whoopie in the privacy of thier bedrooms.)

Treat women as property and chattel.

Burn Bibles and other religions text at borders (i.e: Saudi Arabia-please tell me of a Christian or Jewish or Hindu or whatever nation that does that to the koran??)

Execute ex-muslims for having the nerve to want to leave the religion-apostasy (Not necessary go to another religion-just to leave islam).

Riot (50 people died last time-that's a hell of a lot more than simply picketing a concert or movie about Jeebus..) when a simple picture of mohammed (p*** be upon him) is printed...

etc.etc.etc...

These are examples of the more primitive elements of islam that are practiced world-wide..

I repeated stated that I have no problems with moderates. I just think they need to take their religion away from the dark-agers.

Edited by Pinky Floyd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.