"I'm a gay man and mass Muslim immigration terrifies me"
Discussion
AJS- said:
Fine. But how much of what exactly should we 'tolerate' lest we drive moderate secular people into the arms of genocidal nihilists who wish to wipe us off the face of the earth?
I'm reminded of this...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wveW9Tw2JKE
AJS- said:
This is what's particularly odd and contemptible about the pro-Islamist left. All the decent things 'the left' have stood for over the last century from female suffrage and women's rights to gay rights, racial equality, the fight against anti-semitism, racial and religious equality, self governance and the end of imperialism have all been thrown out. Radical Islam stands directly against every single one of them.
I think it's a form of cultural masochism. People with an essentially slave or subordinate mentality now have their freedom and they don't know what to do with it. It scares them. They now have to think for themselves, make moral judgements or drift around in a relativist quagmire clutching at fashionable ideas which later turn out to be wrong.
They hate the culture they have created and find the certainty and moral absolutism of radical Islam appealing. They can still have the same old enemy of the stodgy old conservative white men who disapprove. Their more repellent attitudes can be blamed on their poverty and lack of education, which is our fault. Their radical and violent tendencies towards us can be blamed on our support for Israel and our imperialism a century ago. The continued failure of many Muslims to integrate into secular western democracies is our fault because we're racist.
They couldn't possibly, with a very few exceptions, go back to the culture they hated and I don't suppose most people now would have any real working memory of life before the cultural revolution of the 1960s, nevermind before the post WW2 welfare boom, or the certainties of a bold and confident British empire, run by white protestants.
Nor should we look to go back to these things. They were already out of date when they were overthrown.
What we have failed to do is create or evolve any sort of alternative which is both inspiring and inclusive enough to really motivate people to defend it, let alone evangelise it or wish to see it spread in the wider world. Instead we have a sort of loose buffet of ideas about a welfare state which is already essentially collapsed, freedom of expression so long as it doesn't go too far or cause any real offence, multiculturalism which is fragmented and divisive and gives no central values which all people living here can be expected to share.
We 'tolerate' everything without really standing for anything.
To me, we have many things that are worth standing for. We have had them for centuries, but they have become tarnished by imperialism, militarism and national, religious and racial chauvinism of a long gone era, and we have essentially thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
People like 'midenginedcoupe' label themselves as left wing because it's a way of appearing intelligent and compassionate, and 'right on' . They probably think most of the public are knuckle draggers, when the reality is very grey, not black and white. Very specific questions are batted aside, it's just about being seen as a 'good person'. I think it's a form of cultural masochism. People with an essentially slave or subordinate mentality now have their freedom and they don't know what to do with it. It scares them. They now have to think for themselves, make moral judgements or drift around in a relativist quagmire clutching at fashionable ideas which later turn out to be wrong.
They hate the culture they have created and find the certainty and moral absolutism of radical Islam appealing. They can still have the same old enemy of the stodgy old conservative white men who disapprove. Their more repellent attitudes can be blamed on their poverty and lack of education, which is our fault. Their radical and violent tendencies towards us can be blamed on our support for Israel and our imperialism a century ago. The continued failure of many Muslims to integrate into secular western democracies is our fault because we're racist.
They couldn't possibly, with a very few exceptions, go back to the culture they hated and I don't suppose most people now would have any real working memory of life before the cultural revolution of the 1960s, nevermind before the post WW2 welfare boom, or the certainties of a bold and confident British empire, run by white protestants.
Nor should we look to go back to these things. They were already out of date when they were overthrown.
What we have failed to do is create or evolve any sort of alternative which is both inspiring and inclusive enough to really motivate people to defend it, let alone evangelise it or wish to see it spread in the wider world. Instead we have a sort of loose buffet of ideas about a welfare state which is already essentially collapsed, freedom of expression so long as it doesn't go too far or cause any real offence, multiculturalism which is fragmented and divisive and gives no central values which all people living here can be expected to share.
We 'tolerate' everything without really standing for anything.
To me, we have many things that are worth standing for. We have had them for centuries, but they have become tarnished by imperialism, militarism and national, religious and racial chauvinism of a long gone era, and we have essentially thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
WolfAir said:
you do realise FGM and honour killings are not an "Islamic" problem? FGM is predominantly African and honour killings a world wide problem.
Sharia Law is law based around Quranic and Muhammad's teaching, not including verdicts already passed, such as (always a favourite) the severing of limbs when caught stealing... or (another sure favourite) the stoning to death of people engaged in extra marital affairs. But these have conditions they have to fulfil before sentencing is enforced. It is not allowed to go around chopping peoples hands off or chucking a rock at your next door neighbour.
As for radical clerics... I have been going to mosques for the past 30 years and I have never met a radical preacher, or heard a radical sermon.
Maybe you should drop in to a mosque on a Friday around 1pm... check it out for yourself
Are you saying that it is OK to physically punish adulterers once these conditions have been satisfied?Sharia Law is law based around Quranic and Muhammad's teaching, not including verdicts already passed, such as (always a favourite) the severing of limbs when caught stealing... or (another sure favourite) the stoning to death of people engaged in extra marital affairs. But these have conditions they have to fulfil before sentencing is enforced. It is not allowed to go around chopping peoples hands off or chucking a rock at your next door neighbour.
As for radical clerics... I have been going to mosques for the past 30 years and I have never met a radical preacher, or heard a radical sermon.
Maybe you should drop in to a mosque on a Friday around 1pm... check it out for yourself
Einion Yrth said:
TTwiggy said:
I don't get the outrage over the limb-severing punishments. Plenty of people on here think that travelling in the middle lane of a motorwy, when the left is free, should be punishable by fiery death.
No, I really don't think that they do.Presumably nobody on PH is actually as 'tough on crime' as they claim to be then? And they don't REALLY want to see the sort of barbaric punsihments handed out in the ME – they just SAY they do. Can I also presume that many members of PH aren't really as misogynistic as they appear, and that women's rights are actually on their minds all the time, not just when those women are wearing burkas?
WolfAir said:
you do realise FGM and honour killings are not an "Islamic" problem? FGM is predominantly African and honour killings a world wide problem.
Sharia Law is law based around Quranic and Muhammad's teaching, not including verdicts already passed, such as (always a favourite) the severing of limbs when caught stealing... or (another sure favourite) the stoning to death of people engaged in extra marital affairs. But these have conditions they have to fulfil before sentencing is enforced. It is not allowed to go around chopping peoples hands off or chucking a rock at your next door neighbour.
As for radical clerics... I have been going to mosques for the past 30 years and I have never met a radical preacher, or heard a radical sermon.
Maybe you should drop in to a mosque on a Friday around 1pm... check it out for yourself
So how many Muslims would say that beheading, amputation and stoning someone to death is always and everywhere wrong?Sharia Law is law based around Quranic and Muhammad's teaching, not including verdicts already passed, such as (always a favourite) the severing of limbs when caught stealing... or (another sure favourite) the stoning to death of people engaged in extra marital affairs. But these have conditions they have to fulfil before sentencing is enforced. It is not allowed to go around chopping peoples hands off or chucking a rock at your next door neighbour.
As for radical clerics... I have been going to mosques for the past 30 years and I have never met a radical preacher, or heard a radical sermon.
Maybe you should drop in to a mosque on a Friday around 1pm... check it out for yourself
How many would defend the right of Muslims to renounce Islamwithout facing violent consequences?
How many would accept that states should be secular humanist institutions which treat people of all religions and none as equals? Or that Quranic law must operate within the confines of, and be subordinate to British law?
I don't know the answers but I am interested.
From what I have read and heard I understand that these fairly modest notions would require at least a tacit acceptance that the Quran is not in fact the supreme and eternal word of God but a man made document relating to a specific time and place which is not relevant to modern western life.
You may believe it is superior to modern western life but you would have to recognise the right of others to disagree. Perhaps vehemently. And to even ridicule this notion.
How many Muslims can really accept that? I see and hear very few.
To do so would then open the door to two possibilities. One is a revised Quran consciously designed to allow peaceful coexistence on an equal basis with those who do not share your faith. The other is an explicit recognition that the Quran, like the Bible is a historical document the teachings of which must be interpreted in the light of the conditions of the time.
Either one of these outcomes could lead to a far less menacing form of Islam than the one we have currently which seems to be getting more violent and more at odds with the modern world.
TTwiggy said:
Well, maybe they shouldn't post things they don't mean then?
Presumably nobody on PH is actually as 'tough on crime' as they claim to be then? And they don't REALLY want to see the sort of barbaric punsihments handed out in the ME – they just SAY they do. Can I also presume that many members of PH aren't really as misogynistic as they appear, and that women's rights are actually on their minds all the time, not just when those women are wearing burkas?
You will have a point when all of PH is silent on someone standing on a motorway bridge with a rifle picking off lane hogs, or a group of radical PHers (what a thought) protest their arrest for doing so.Presumably nobody on PH is actually as 'tough on crime' as they claim to be then? And they don't REALLY want to see the sort of barbaric punsihments handed out in the ME – they just SAY they do. Can I also presume that many members of PH aren't really as misogynistic as they appear, and that women's rights are actually on their minds all the time, not just when those women are wearing burkas?
markcoznottz said:
People like 'midenginedcoupe' label themselves as left wing because it's a way of appearing intelligent and compassionate, and 'right on' . They probably think most of the public are knuckle draggers, when the reality is very grey, not black and white. Very specific questions are batted aside, it's just about being seen as a 'good person'.
What generally happens is that people post things contrary to the majority PH view (at least the views on NP&E) and are then labelled as left-wingers. I've only ever voted Tory but I'm considered to be one of the biggest lefties on here.AJS- said:
To do so would then open the door to two possibilities. One is a revised Quran consciously designed to allow peaceful coexistence on an equal basis with those who do not share your faith. The other is an explicit recognition that the Quran, like the Bible is a historical document the teachings of which must be interpreted in the light of the conditions of the time.
Either one of these outcomes could lead to a far less menacing form of Islam than the one we have currently which seems to be getting more violent and more at odds with the modern world.
This turn of events would be the only way forward in my view which is why I'm so exasperated by the ludicrous "It's nothing to do with Islam" nonsense spouted after each and every atrocity.Either one of these outcomes could lead to a far less menacing form of Islam than the one we have currently which seems to be getting more violent and more at odds with the modern world.
Of course these nutters don't represent the Islam of the majority but in denying the issue lies within Islam at all means nothing will ever change.
The immutable word of god needs to become considerably more mutable before we get anywhere.
Einion Yrth said:
TTwiggy said:
You've been on here too long. NP&E is not representative of the wider world. Not by a long shot.
This is irrelevant, the Tory party is at its rightmost pretty centrist, this is demonstrably the case.Derek Smith said:
The problem exists. The answer is not, surely, to exacerbate the situation by posting xenophobic rants but dealing with the problem, coming up with solutions and pressuring those at the top to follow what we want.
The one thing the bigoted religious nutters fear is education. That is why they tend to stick their kids in their religious enclaves. We must remove publicly funded religious schools and have all kids educated to a specific syllabus which includes comparative religions. If the parents don't like it then the parents don't have to go to school.
We should respect everyone's rights to believe what they hell they want. If their weird ways do not conflict with modern morals then there is no problem. We should not ban religions but if their habits block the rights of anyone, then they should be stopped from doing it. How can one respect a belief that someone flew to the Moon on a horse? That all the graves in Israel and the dead rose again, that a meteor is holy, that a god is so partial as to have a chosen race?
Female and male children should, must, be treated the same up until they have the sense to make the decision for themselves if they want to opt for segregation and hatred of any of the long list of inferiors of the religionists.
Modern accepted morals must prevail in all schools.
Private schools must be required to teach comparative religion, to treat kids the same regardless of gender, and if they refuse then there are all sorts of concessions that can be withdrawn.
As ever we will not be able to educate every child, but if we get a high percentage then the tide will turn against the hatred of the bigots.
Moaning about what exists doesn't help. Wishing for an Eden that never was is pointless. Let's change the situation we are in for the better, and the betterment of children at risk of being indoctrinated.
Education is the great equaliser. The western catholic church limited education for centuries, even to their own workers, and that didn't turn out so well. So let's learn from that and ensure that we treat children as children and not as victims of stupids beliefs.
I've just had a divide by zero moment.The one thing the bigoted religious nutters fear is education. That is why they tend to stick their kids in their religious enclaves. We must remove publicly funded religious schools and have all kids educated to a specific syllabus which includes comparative religions. If the parents don't like it then the parents don't have to go to school.
We should respect everyone's rights to believe what they hell they want. If their weird ways do not conflict with modern morals then there is no problem. We should not ban religions but if their habits block the rights of anyone, then they should be stopped from doing it. How can one respect a belief that someone flew to the Moon on a horse? That all the graves in Israel and the dead rose again, that a meteor is holy, that a god is so partial as to have a chosen race?
Female and male children should, must, be treated the same up until they have the sense to make the decision for themselves if they want to opt for segregation and hatred of any of the long list of inferiors of the religionists.
Modern accepted morals must prevail in all schools.
Private schools must be required to teach comparative religion, to treat kids the same regardless of gender, and if they refuse then there are all sorts of concessions that can be withdrawn.
As ever we will not be able to educate every child, but if we get a high percentage then the tide will turn against the hatred of the bigots.
Moaning about what exists doesn't help. Wishing for an Eden that never was is pointless. Let's change the situation we are in for the better, and the betterment of children at risk of being indoctrinated.
Education is the great equaliser. The western catholic church limited education for centuries, even to their own workers, and that didn't turn out so well. So let's learn from that and ensure that we treat children as children and not as victims of stupids beliefs.
Nigel Farage gave a speech in Basingstoke last night in which he said all of the above.
Derek, you haven't become a script writer for UKIP, have you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH9fvLiGTXI
TTwiggy said:
markcoznottz said:
People like 'midenginedcoupe' label themselves as left wing because it's a way of appearing intelligent and compassionate, and 'right on' . They probably think most of the public are knuckle draggers, when the reality is very grey, not black and white. Very specific questions are batted aside, it's just about being seen as a 'good person'.
What generally happens is that people post things contrary to the majority PH view (at least the views on NP&E) and are then labelled as left-wingers. I've only ever voted Tory but I'm considered to be one of the biggest lefties on here.In the meantime I am sitting hear feeling angry because I think Conservatives have become far too left wing since they were elected, whilst at the same time being accused of being a communist every two minutes because I'm not terrified of muslims.
blindswelledrat said:
Exactly the same for me. Anyone who doesn't dislike muslims must be left wing. What is the logic there?
In the meantime I am sitting hear feeling angry because I think Conservatives have become far too left wing since they were elected, whilst at the same time being accused of being a communist every two minutes because I'm not terrified of muslims.
You might get called left wing when being an a discussion about what should be done, the extent of a threat or the level of the problem etc if people feel you're being particularly weak of gullible. You and anyone else is not called it for saying you don't dislike all Muslims or that you are not terrified by Muslims. Once again you go totally OTT in your analogy to try and prove a point to where it's totally false. In the meantime I am sitting hear feeling angry because I think Conservatives have become far too left wing since they were elected, whilst at the same time being accused of being a communist every two minutes because I'm not terrified of muslims.
AJS- said:
Derek
Unfortunately it's not as simple as education. In what could almost be a parody of the oft used line about refugees, the two terrorists who attacked Glasgow Airport were.... A doctor who was brought up in Buckinghamshire and an engineer, studying a PhD in computational fluid dynamics. Not a TV aerial engineer.
Highly educated men. Yet they decided to launch a terrorist attack on innocent civilians which neither expected to survive.
I accept what you say. It is bewildering that someone technically educated should believe in religious guff. However, it is hardly unique to islam. Look across the Atlantic and see that graduates of high quality universities believe, or profess belief, in creationism. Unfortunately it's not as simple as education. In what could almost be a parody of the oft used line about refugees, the two terrorists who attacked Glasgow Airport were.... A doctor who was brought up in Buckinghamshire and an engineer, studying a PhD in computational fluid dynamics. Not a TV aerial engineer.
Highly educated men. Yet they decided to launch a terrorist attack on innocent civilians which neither expected to survive.
There's a thesis waiting to be written on the matter, although I think it has something to do with the fact that we share half our DNA with bananas.
I think, though, that if we concede, directly or by implication, that myths and magic are real then we encourage kids to accept dogma without challenge. This increases the catchment.
We have Cameron suggesting that the BBC should increase the number of religious programmes on a Sunday (Sunday?). He and other leaders meet with religious lobbyists without apparent embarrassment. Yet all the leaders of the religions fundamentally disagree with one another, albeit on rather silly levels. But where is the agnostic, the atheist, the non-partial?
Certainly the queen should cease to be pope of the CoE, although to be fair she keeps out of it to a great extent. But it is wrong. As are the lords mythical.
We should indulge religions and the religious in the same way as we do halloween. Inconsequential and to be patronised. We should challenge the religious when they say something faith based and against logic.
We must change acceptance of the silly.
don4l said:
I've just had a divide by zero moment.
Nigel Farage gave a speech in Basingstoke last night in which he said all of the above.
Derek, you haven't become a script writer for UKIP, have you?
I write for a living and will write about almost anything. I have a self image so draw the line at lies. I have no politics in the sense of supporting a political party or ideology so I'd write for the UKIP as long as it wasn't against something I believe in. Nigel Farage gave a speech in Basingstoke last night in which he said all of the above.
Derek, you haven't become a script writer for UKIP, have you?
I'm not claiming anything, but speech writers peruse onine forums and lobbying websites for inspiration. I knew a researcher who used to go to Fleet Street back in the 70s. She would read letters to the papers that weren't published. So much easier now, but so much more along the wheat/chaff process.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff