"I'm a gay man and mass Muslim immigration terrifies me"

[2hoots]

Breadvan72 said:

PS: note also the bizarre rescue mechanism that God uses to cancel his own edict of eternal damnation. He could just say "I have changed my mind, you are all forgiven", but instead he stages an elaborate performance in which a humanised version of himself is tortured to death.

Ah yes, Adam's 'Original Sin' and all of our guilt by association for eternity, what a wonderful concept that is.

I love the absolutely flawless morality of collectively punishing with sinful and corrupt natures, pain, suffering and mortality (aka death) all subsequent human and animal descendants for an action for which they could have had absolutely no conceivable responsibility.

What a fairly weighted judgement and punishment that was.

[Smiler.]

Breadvan72 said:

don4l said:

Do you think that the OP is being irrational with his fears?

I think that the generalised fear and suspicion of "Islam" and "Muslims" that we see in this thread and many similar threads are irrational.

Would you say that not wanting certain Muslim clerics to be involved in the education of children is an irrational, given the context that such clerics hold the opinion that the death penalty for apostasy is acceptable in Muslim countries?

[Rovinghawk]

Smiler. said:

Breadvan72 said:

I think that the generalised fear and suspicion of "Islam" and "Muslims" that we see in this thread and many similar threads are irrational.

Would you say that not wanting certain Muslim clerics to be involved in the education of children is an irrational, given the context that such clerics hold the opinion that the death penalty for apostasy is acceptable in Muslim countries?

IOW some of the fears can easily be rationalised.

[JagLover]

chris watton said:

I guess it could be argued, and with some truth, that in the 1930's, most Germans were not Nazi's, most Italians weren't fascist etc. Yet look what happened.

To say fears are irrational, despite evidence to the contrary is plainly daft!

Godwins law alert

But yes a majority of Germans never voted for the Nazis in a free election and if you had toured Germany in 1939 I'm sure you would have found many decent people wanting to get on with their lives in every town and village and yet by 1945 tens of millions were dead.

We have this tendency to think our enemies need to be evil and must surely show their evil (some horns would be nice) and yet people are just people and aside from a few psychopaths the vast majority of the atrocities of the third Reich were carried out by ordinary people.

What matters is the potential for conflict based on fundamentally differing values. Not some cartoon bad guys like ISIS.

[anonymous-user]

2hoots said:

Breadvan72 said:

PS: note also the bizarre rescue mechanism that God uses to cancel his own edict of eternal damnation. He could just say "I have changed my mind, you are all forgiven", but instead he stages an elaborate performance in which a humanised version of himself is tortured to death.

Ah yes, Adam's 'Original Sin' and all of our guilt by association for eternity, what a wonderful concept that is.

I love the absolutely flawless morality of collectively punishing with sinful and corrupt natures, pain, suffering and mortality (aka death) all subsequent human and animal descendants for an action for which they could have had absolutely no conceivable responsibility.

What a fairly weighted judgement and punishment that was.

It is utterly, utterly insane, and really horrible and life hating tosh. This is what lies at the core of all forms of Christianity, so even your soft and gentle local vicar believes in scary, hateful nonsense. Or, if he/she doesn't, what the Hell (oops) does he/she believe in? If it's just a general code of being decent to others, no need for any supernatural actor to help with that.

[don4l]

Breadvan72 said:

don4l said:

Do you think that the OP is being irrational with his fears?

I think that the generalised fear and suspicion of "Islam" and "Muslims" that we see in this thread and many similar threads are irrational. There is no one Islam and there is no monolithic group called Muslims. Most Muslims are not working for world domination. We should be concerned (not scared, but concerned) about the radical forms of Islam and how they operate in the Middle East and in developed societies. We should be concerned about lack of integration by some groups of migrants, and the preservation of repellent attitudes to women, gay people, and to liberal values in general. We should be bold about trumpeting and reinforcing our civilisational values, and should resist the weak idea that any form of religious thought has any special claim to be respected. Any set of ideas must be subject to critique and must stand or fall on its own merits or lack of merits. I don't think that we should give in to panic, fear, or repressive measures.

I broadly agree with what you have written.

Although I am not religious, I have no problem respecting other people's religious beliefs - so long as they are within the law. I support both freedom of expression, and freedom of thought.

You have suggested that no special consideration should be given to religions.
If I were to publish a book that called for the murder of homosexuals, wouldn't I be prosecuted? Why should someone be allowed to do the same just because their religion says that it is OK?

[anonymous-user]

Smiler. said:

Breadvan72 said:

don4l said:

Do you think that the OP is being irrational with his fears?

I think that the generalised fear and suspicion of "Islam" and "Muslims" that we see in this thread and many similar threads are irrational.

Would you say that not wanting certain Muslim clerics to be involved in the education of children is an irrational, given the context that such clerics hold the opinion that the death penalty for apostasy is acceptable in Muslim countries?

Allowing any form of cleric to be involved in the education of any child is irrational. Mad Muslim ones even more so.

As for saying that it is repressive to ask people to accept modern and tolerant values, that's obvious bks. The notion that is widely suggested here that we are not allowed to say that extreme Islam and many aspects of traditional Islamic beliefs and cultural practices (some of which are associated more with undeveloped societies than specifically with Islamic texts, FGM being one such practice) is, I suggest, a mistaken notion. We can and should speak out against crappy ideas and practices.

That isn't racist. What is racist (using that term very broadly and loosely, and perhaps I should instead say prejudiced or discriminatory, and drop the old fashioned and inappropriate notion of race altogether, even leaving aside the obvious point that Muslims belong to many ethnicities) is assuming that all Muslims are extremists or unwilling to embrace modernity, or hating and fearing all Muslims because of the odious statements in some of the texts and the odious beliefs and practices of some believers.

I hate the hate filled texts of the Christian churches as much as I hate the hate filled texts of Islam, but the only Christians whom I hate are the hatey ones, and ditto the Muslims.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 27th November 11:06

[anonymous-user]

don4l said:

I broadly agree with what you have written.

Although I am not religious, I have no problem respecting other people's religious beliefs - so long as they are within the law. I support both freedom of expression, and freedom of thought.

You have suggested that no special consideration should be given to religions.
If I were to publish a book that called for the murder of homosexuals, wouldn't I be prosecuted? Why should someone be allowed to do the same just because their religion says that it is OK?

I am a First Amendment purist (almost) and have grave reservations about criminalising ANY form of speech, even hate speech, but no religious speech should have any more protection than any other form of speech. If we are to criminalise speech that incites violence, then its religious character should give it no protection. There have indeed been some prosecutions of hate speakers who call for violence under the cloak of religion.

[2hoots]

Breadvan72 said:

2hoots said:

Breadvan72 said:

PS: note also the bizarre rescue mechanism that God uses to cancel his own edict of eternal damnation. He could just say "I have changed my mind, you are all forgiven", but instead he stages an elaborate performance in which a humanised version of himself is tortured to death.

Ah yes, Adam's 'Original Sin' and all of our guilt by association for eternity, what a wonderful concept that is.

I love the absolutely flawless morality of collectively punishing with sinful and corrupt natures, pain, suffering and mortality (aka death) all subsequent human and animal descendants for an action for which they could have had absolutely no conceivable responsibility.

What a fairly weighted judgement and punishment that was.

It is utterly, utterly insane, and really horrible and life hating tosh. This is what lies at the core of all forms of Christianity, so even your soft and gentle local vicar believes in scary, hateful nonsense. Or, if he/she doesn't, what the Hell (oops) does he/she believe in? If it's just a general code of being decent to others, no need for any supernatural actor to help with that.

Just to compound matters he then sends himself down to earth (disguised as a pauper in a village in a middle-eastern desert) to die on the cross in order to 'forgive' us all for Adam's sin. Not to remove it from us you understand, oh no , we must all carry on being born with original sin for eternity, but it's good to know that should we be baptised we are at least 'forgiven'.

Of course, the eternal punishment of pain, death blah blah blah still stands, which is fair enough.

[anonymous-user]

chris watton said:

Breadvan72 said:

I think that the generalised fear and suspicion of "Islam" and "Muslims" that we see in this thread and many similar threads are irrational. There is no one Islam and there is no monolithic group called Muslims. Most Muslims are not working for world domination.

I guess it could be argued, and with some truth, that in the 1930's, most Germans were not Nazi's, most Italians weren't fascist etc. Yet look what happened.

To say fears are irrational, despite evidence to the contrary is plainly daft!

This is rather silly Godwinism, I think. Millions supported and even voted for the tyrants of the 1930s. We are miles away from that scenario. We do not do ourselves any favours by panicking and treating the current threat as equivalent to the threat posed by the totalitarian ideologies and political entities of the mid C20. I think that we should take comfort from our civilisation's victory over those ideologies and entities in facing down the significant but less coherent threat that we now face. I reiterate the view that a generalised fear of all Muslims and all forms of Islam is by its nature irrational.

[JagLover]

Breadvan72 said:

This is rather silly Godwinism, I think. Millions supported and even voted for the tyrants of the 1930s. We are miles away from that scenario. We do not do ourselves any favours by panicking and treating the current threat as equivalent to the threat posed by the totalitarian ideologies and political entities of the mid C20. I think that we should take comfort from our civilisation's victory over those ideologies and entities in facing down the significant but less coherent threat that we now face. I reiterate the view that a generalised fear of all Muslims and all forms of Islam is by its nature irrational.

Err no it is very relevant

A minority so bound up in the ideology they are willing to commit mass murder (a few per cent of Germans based on recruitment to the SS, a few per cent of Muslims based on opinion polls)

A larger chunk of people supporting the aims of the first group but by less violent or extreme means (around 33% of Germans in the 1933 election less the proportion of Muslims who want Sharia law)

The remainder carried along by the first two groups without much attempt to put a stop to it.

[Smiler.]

Breadvan72 said:

Smiler. said:

Breadvan72 said:

don4l said:

Do you think that the OP is being irrational with his fears?

I think that the generalised fear and suspicion of "Islam" and "Muslims" that we see in this thread and many similar threads are irrational.

Would you say that not wanting certain Muslim clerics to be involved in the education of children is an irrational, given the context that such clerics hold the opinion that the death penalty for apostasy is acceptable in Muslim countries?

Allowing any form of cleric to be involved in the education of any child is irrational. Mad Muslim ones even more so.

As for saying that it is repressive to ask people to accept modern and tolerant values, that's obvious bks. The notion that is widely suggested here that we are not allowed to say that extreme Islam and many aspects of traditional Islamic beliefs and cultural practices (some of which are associated more with undeveloped societies than specifically with Islamic texts, FGM being one such practice) is, I suggest, a mistaken notion. We can and should speak out against crappy ideas and practices.

That isn't racist. What is racist (using that term very broadly and loosely, and perhaps I should instead say prejudiced or discriminatory, and drop the old fashioned and inappropriate notion of race altogether, even leaving aside the obvious point that Muslims belong to many ethnicities) is assuming that all Muslims are extremists or unwilling to embrace modernity, or hating and fearing all Muslims because of the odious statements in some of the texts and the odious beliefs and practices of some believers.

I hate the hate filled texts of the Christian churches as much as I hate the hate filled texts of Islam, but the only Christians whom I hate are the hatey ones, and ditto the Muslims.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Friday 27th November 11:06

So that's a "no" then.

[AJS-]

Breadvan
The trouble with that orthodox liberal view is that it basically assumes all rational ideas are equal and only the degree of implementation determines how dangerous they are. This leads naturally to the assumption that the degree of implementation of the irrational ideas is determined by poverty and education.

This is just not so. Islam is demonstrably violent and intolerant, and it is inherently political. This isn't some superficial cherry picking tgat has flared up in response to current events or policies. It is woven through it's core texts, backed up by history and visible today.

I agree completely about the need to vigorously defend our own culture and values, but that is far easier if you know what you're defending it from. Our current insistence on not understanding Islamism at all and taking an entirely uncritical view of it is far less rational than the well supported view that with mass Muslim immigration will come an increase in intolerance and violence. For gays, and also Jews, women and ultimately pretty much everyone.

[anonymous-user]

Your figures about Sharia law look highly suspect, based perhaps on one of those Sun style surveys, using some modest population sample and weighted questions and/or questionable methodology or analysis. Contrast an actual election in Germany with an actual third of the voting population buying the Nazi nonsense, for many reasons to do with the historical conjuncture at that time.

Those of you who are panicking about OMG Moooooosleeeeems are, I suggest, immune to reasoned argument on this topic because you have allowed yourselves to give in to fear (sometimes - not always but sometimes- underpinned by an edge of visceral distrust of the stranger), and have sometimes succumbed to manipulation by irresponsible media outlets. Just like the Germans did back in the day.

[Smiler.]

Breadvan72 said:

Your figures about Sharia law look highly suspect, based perhaps on one of those Sun style surveys, using some modest population sample and weighted questions and/or questionable methodology or analysis. Contrast an actual election in Germany with an actual third of the voting population buying the Nazi nonsense, for many reasons to do with the historical conjuncture at that time.

Those of you who are panicking about OMG Moooooosleeeeems are, I suggest, immune to reasoned argument on this topic because you have allowed yourselves to give in to fear (sometimes - not always but sometimes- underpinned by an edge of visceral distrust of the stranger), and have sometimes succumbed to manipulation by irresponsible media outlets. Just like the Germans did back in the day.

On the other hand, your somewhat overblown reply to a simple question countering your seeming suggestion of xenophobia betrays a sense of intellectual superiority which equally pervades the subject whilst refusing to answer the question.

Amongst the muslim demographic, there are increasing numbers of young people who are actively engaging with the more odious side of Islam. That's not just been "made up by the Sun of the Wail".

And yet you continue to tar any questions with "panicking about OMG Moooooosleeeeems" brush when questions about the education of children are posed.

I also think that your "all sky faeries are evil" stance is ducking the issue.

[longblackcoat]

Breadvan72 said:

Those of you who are panicking about OMG Moooooosleeeeems are, I suggest, immune to reasoned argument on this topic because you have allowed yourselves to give in to fear (sometimes - not always but sometimes- underpinned by an edge of visceral distrust of the stranger), and have sometimes succumbed to manipulation by irresponsible media outlets. Just like the Germans did back in the day.

Yep. I'd add that there's a rather unpleasant whiff of justification; it's OK to dislike them muzzies - they're violent and they can't help it, 'cos that's what being a muzzy's all about.

Unlike those lovely well-behaved Christian types.

[Smiler.]

longblackcoat said:

Breadvan72 said:

Those of you who are panicking about OMG Moooooosleeeeems are, I suggest, immune to reasoned argument on this topic because you have allowed yourselves to give in to fear (sometimes - not always but sometimes- underpinned by an edge of visceral distrust of the stranger), and have sometimes succumbed to manipulation by irresponsible media outlets. Just like the Germans did back in the day.

Yep. I'd add that there's a rather unpleasant whiff of justification; it's OK to dislike them muzzies - they're violent and they can't help it, 'cos that's what being a muzzy's all about.

Unlike those lovely well-behaved Christian types.

Last time I looked, Christian clerics weren't calling for the death of those renouncing their their faith.

I'd suggest that the stench of apologist eclipses this whiff you talk of.

[JagLover]

Breadvan72 said:

Your figures about Sharia law look highly suspect, based perhaps on one of those Sun style surveys, using some modest population sample and weighted questions and/or questionable methodology or analysis. Contrast an actual election in Germany with an actual third of the voting population buying the Nazi nonsense, for many reasons to do with the historical conjuncture at that time.

Multiple surveys-here is one http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Pol...

What some need to realise is that most people think they are good people with justification for their actions. Whether they be a mass murdering Islamic radical or not. It is their background that tells them what is right or wrong. If they fundamentally believe that it is the duty of all "good" people to kill adulterers, apostates, gays and unbelievers then they will do so with a clear conscience.

Extreme violence starts with extreme beliefs as it is a necessary precursor for it.

[s1962a]

If there are so many of these extremists, how come i've never met any of them, or people with extreme islamist views? I've been in London all my life.

[Rovinghawk]

Breadvan72 said:

Those of you who are panicking about OMG Moooooosleeeeems are, I suggest, immune to reasoned argument on this topic because you have allowed yourselves to give in to fear........ and have sometimes succumbed to manipulation by irresponsible media outlets.

I spend most Ramadans on a muslim island & work with a lot of the locals, some of whom are good friends. This island is a textbook case of how muslims, hindus & other religions should co-exist in harmony.

Nevertheless, I see potential problems with admission to UK of lots of people who do not wish to integrate or obey local laws & customs.

By comparison, the Chinese community aren't great at integration & tend to keep themselves to themselves. However, they don't cause any problems to the host community & don't try to impose their views on others. The interactions they have are overwhelmingly positive ones so they are generally well regarded on the rare occasions they're thought about.

If we do have to have immigration & they do have to have imaginary friends then IMHO they should be forced to accept that the rules of the host country must prevail.