EU immigration row / time to get out

[AndySir]

And the lack of separation of state and church, more generally, is also not one of them.

Um... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27099700

UE, you should at least read the link if you're not familiar with the history. SC at least did me that courtesy. The crimes referred to were the part of the British genocide in Kenya.

Islam is a very large, hetrogeneous phenomenon with many different and contradictory interpretations. Not a monolithic bloc - static and unresponsive to change. Taking the crimes of a group of people who belong to a culture and holding the whole culture responsible as if is were a homogeneous entity is pretty much the definition of prejudice.

As a counter example, Christianity can be said to advocate the death penalty for homosexuality as well as numerous other bizarre crimes. You will certainly find it in the text and you will find Christans who believe it even within our own, possibly Christian (or Post-Christian) culture. Should be condemn Christianity for the crimes committed in it's name (and the letter)?

[extractorfan]

I should add, none of the above is something I dwell on at particular length. For me, my problem with the levels of immigration to this island are to do with economic and social upheaval in the short term and ecological unsustainability in the longer term. The cultural flash points, where they occur, tend to do so largely on the back of competition for scarce economic resources. However, all of the above has been further exacerbated by a lack of exertion of cultural pressure by successive governments on incoming ethnic groups who have not, as a consequence of a lack of said cultural pressure, made any significant attempt to culturally integrate. So much so that there are now whole swathes of northern cities where English is approaching a second language and is certainly a second culture. This is not idle talk on my part. I know this because I have taught in them. To a significant extent, I do not blame those groups who have come to this island and have not integrated. The fact is, that takes a lot of effort and if there is no pressure to do so, then people will stuck with what they know. The English were no better when they colonized, by force, much of the east in previous centuries. And pretty ugly it was too. In the end, a lack of cultural assimilation ends badly for one group or another and that is something to be avoided at all costs. Finally, of course, none of the above is helped by successive military adventures in the Middle East and elsewhere leading to many in those incoming groups to quite correctly assume that our authorities consider their blood to be cheaper than ours.

It's a mess.

None of which changes the argument, however, about economic and ecological sustainability

Let me first say I don't think you are a racist. I however think that the influence of eastern europeans is a positive thing, whether they be polish or from further east like Ukraine or Romania, I onliy say this because I've met them and like them, I like their work ethic and honestly beilieve they can add back to the british culture.

Economic and ecological sustainablitly is never going to happen, we (the whole human race) are going to burn every last drop of fossil fuel, we'll milk the planet dry, we have to because to do otherwise willfully consiegns billions to death. I don't think it's morally right, just what's going to happen.

Edit: I don't know how to spell "consigne?"???

[UndercoverElephant]

UE, you should at least read the link if you're not familiar with the history. SC at least did me that courtesy. The crimes referred to were the part of the British genocide in Kenya.

What has that got to do with anything I've said? I don't remember claiming that no atrocities were ever carried out by the British during the days of the empire? I'm very well aware of that history, and it has bugger all to do with this argument. What are you trying to say? Because our some members of our great-great-grandfathers generation seriously mistreated people in far off places, that that means it is wrong for us to condemn Islam for things happening today?? Are you seriously asking people to accept this line as reasonable?? Hey...guess what...not so long ago, women in England weren't allowed to vote and homosexuality was illegal! Therefore, we'd be hypocrites for condeming Islamic cultures for stoning rape victims, wouldn't we!

Islam is a very large, hetrogeneous phenomenon with many different and contradictory interpretations. Not a monolithic bloc - static and unresponsive to change.

What f***ing planet are you living on? "Islam is not a monolithic bloc"?? So, erm, it's not very heavily based on a text written in the 6th century then? "Islam is not unresponsive to change"? REALLY??? I have some news for you: Islam is about the only thing on this sorry planet that is even less "responsive to change" than the Roman Catholic Church.

Taking the crimes of a group of people who belong to a culture and holding the whole culture responsible as if is were a homogeneous entity is pretty much the definition of prejudice.

Ah, so all those crimes committed by muslims in Islamic countries who are just doing what the Quran tells them to do have nothing to do with Islam, right?

As a counter example, Christianity can be said to advocate the death penalty for homosexuality as well as numerous other bizarre crimes.

And, as already pointed out on numerous occasions, in the culture of north-western, protestant Europe, a very long and difficult ideological battle was fought with the Christian, especially the Catholic, authorities. Eventually after four centuries and countless small steps forwards, European Christianity was forced to change. It was forced to PROGRESS. You understand what "progressive" means, right?? You understand that Christianity only changed because of pressure put on it by people who wanted their society to progress, right?

So what's your f***ing "counter-example" supposed to prove, AndySir?

Why hasn't the same thing happened to Islam, AndySir?

WHY????

Should be condemn Christianity for the crimes committed in it's name (and the letter)?

For crimes being committed now? Yes, of course. For crimes committed in a previous era, yes, but with the acknowledgement that that was then and this now and that inbetween there has been.....CULTURAL f***ing PROGRESS.

[Little John]

And the lack of separation of state and church, more generally, is also not one of them.

Um... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27099700

UE, you should at least read the link if you're not familiar with the history. SC at least did me that courtesy. The crimes referred to were the part of the British genocide in Kenya.

Islam is a very large, hetrogeneous phenomenon with many different and contradictory interpretations. Not a monolithic bloc - static and unresponsive to change. Taking the crimes of a group of people who belong to a culture and holding the whole culture responsible as if is were a homogeneous entity is pretty much the definition of prejudice.

As a counter example, Christianity can be said to advocate the death penalty for homosexuality as well as numerous other bizarre crimes. You will certainly find it in the text and you will find Christans who believe it even within our own, possibly Christian (or Post-Christian) culture. Should be condemn Christianity for the crimes committed in it's name (and the letter)?

I do condemn Christianity for those crimes and there's the thing. I can do that whilst understanding that people may very loosely and vaguely describe themselves as culturally of a Christian historical tradition and that my condemnation of Christianity, in particular it's more virulent strains, is entirely separable from my view of those people. You on the other hand, appear to consider the terms Islam and Muslim to be synonymous and so cannot apparently countenance a criticism of the one without an implication of it being a criticism of the other. If speaks from every sentence. The reason is essentially because the Islamic world did not (for the most part) have an enlightenment while the Christian world (for the most part) did. I'm guessing you are Muslim, Andysir, as I can see no other rational explanation for your lack of capacity, or willingness, to separate the two.

And therein lies the core of the problem of assimilation for some, but by no means all, Muslims. A problem which seems to be due to geography as much, if not more, as it is due to religion

[AndySir]

It seems you are incapable of following the most basic of threads, UE, as well as incapable of reading links. My comments on the Kenyan genocide were directed at Catweasel. Despite your claim, you are obviously not familiar with the history as that happened in the 1950s - not in our great-great-grandfathers generation (I'd hope) but in ours or at least our parents.

It seems that both you and SC agree that the Enlightenment, and the separation of church and state are good things. I would suggest then that the problem you have is with Theocracy or totalitarianism and not Islam.

Here is a brief except of different approaches to one of the more controversial pillars of Islam: Jihad, which in itself only occurs in the seven pillars of Ismailism.

Jihad "Struggle": The definition of jihad is controversial as it has two meanings: "the Greater Struggle" and the "The Lesser Struggle", the latter of which means a confrontation with the enemies of the faith. The Nizari are pacifist and interpret "adversaries" of the faith as personal and social vices (i.e. wrath, intolerance, etc.) and those individuals who harm the peace of the faith and avoid provocation and use force only as a final resort only in self-defense. The Druze have a long history of military and political engagement, but refer to this pillar solely as Rīda "Contentment" – the war to fight that which removes you from the ease of the Divine Presence, a meaning similar to that of the Nizari. In addition, the 'Uqqāl "Wise Ones", the religious cadre of the Druze, are pacifists.

Here is a brief wiki article on liberal Islamic movements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_mo ... thin_Islam

[biffvernon]

The worst possible thing that a culture can be guilty of must be the genocide of millions of unarmed civilians. Any culture that condones the holding of nuclear weapons must be held to account for accepting that they may commit such an act.

Oh, that's us. Bother.

[Little John]

The worst possible thing that a culture can be guilty of must be the genocide of millions of unarmed civilians. Any culture that condones the holding of nuclear weapons must be held to account for accepting that they may commit such an act.

Oh, that's us. Bother.

Hand-wringing, limp-wristed, bleeding-heart, western-liberal Strawman

This culture does not condone our authorities' holding of nuclear weapons any more than the Iraqi Muslim culture condoned the holding of chemical weapons by its authorities.

[Little John]

....It seems that both you and SC agree that the Enlightenment, and the separation of church and state are good things. I would suggest then that the problem you have is with Theocracy or totalitarianism and not Islam....

Yes, indeed, I do have a problem with theocracy/totalitarianism. Of which radical Islam is an example of both. The problem is that Islam in general terms, has not been contained to anywhere nearer the extent that Christianity has. Though, I am bound to concede that point to some extent with regards to the nutty US evangelists as well as portion of the Catholic tradition. However, all of the above are secondary problems and are certainly diversions from the original thrust of this thread which was far more to do with economic and ecological sustainability. You have now, on several occasions, been responsible in dragging the thread away form a rational discussion about these issues. I can only assume it is because you are incapable (or unwilling) of separating concerns with population and consequent immigration controls and your own need to defend immigration at all costs. In particular, it seems, immigration of those of a Muslim background and the way in which you have done this is to smear any rational discussion about immigration with accusations of racism. It's a cheap debating tactic and is now wearing threadbare thin Andysir. So give it up. I've taken the time to respond to your diversions as much as I intend to.

[jonny2mad]

It seems you are incapable of following the most basic of threads, UE, as well as incapable of reading links. My comments on the Kenyan genocide were directed at Catweasel. Despite your claim, you are obviously not familiar with the history as that happened in the 1950s - not in our great-great-grandfathers generation (I'd hope) but in ours or at least our parents.

It seems that both you and SC agree that the Enlightenment, and the separation of church and state are good things. I would suggest then that the problem you have is with Theocracy or totalitarianism and not Islam.

Here is a brief except of different approaches to one of the more controversial pillars of Islam: Jihad, which in itself only occurs in the seven pillars of Ismailism.

Jihad "Struggle": The definition of jihad is controversial as it has two meanings: "the Greater Struggle" and the "The Lesser Struggle", the latter of which means a confrontation with the enemies of the faith. The Nizari are pacifist and interpret "adversaries" of the faith as personal and social vices (i.e. wrath, intolerance, etc.) and those individuals who harm the peace of the faith and avoid provocation and use force only as a final resort only in self-defense. The Druze have a long history of military and political engagement, but refer to this pillar solely as Rīda "Contentment" – the war to fight that which removes you from the ease of the Divine Presence, a meaning similar to that of the Nizari. In addition, the 'Uqqāl "Wise Ones", the religious cadre of the Druze, are pacifists.

Here is a brief wiki article on liberal Islamic movements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_mo ... thin_Islam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krvCQbzPKiI if people have time they ought to watch this

[AndySir]

The worst possible thing that a culture can be guilty of must be the genocide of millions of unarmed civilians. Any culture that condones the holding of nuclear weapons must be held to account for accepting that they may commit such an act.

Oh, that's us. Bother.

Hand-wringing, limp-wristed, bleeding-heart, western-liberal Strawman

This culture does not condone our authorities' holding of nuclear weapons any more than the Iraqi Muslim culture condoned the holding of chemical weapons by its authorities.

I think that was the point.

I have posted quite a few refutations of the ecological and economic arguments against immigration, but here they are again in summary form.

- Immigration and unemployment are negatively correlated. British workers don't lose their jobs to European workers. It's more likely job availability spurs migration.

- You can't treat any geographical area as an isolated system ecologically, so the idea of a sustainability applied to Britain makes about as much sense as arbitrarily drawing a border round Tottenham and examining it's ability to feed itself in the event it could not import food. Environmental concerns are global, and the most powerful force for effecting change on a global scale is the EU.

- The most convincing argument we might make against EU expansion is that it promotes economic growth, which we might view as a bad thing on this forum. However to take that view strike yourself off the list of supporters of the working man - you're almost certainly condemning millions to inescapable poverty. Possibly inevitable, but I've yet to hear anyone make THAT case.

- Immigrants seem to contribute more to the economy than they take in social services. If undue pressure is being put on social services / housing in your area (and I know there are many where that is true) someone else is clearly profiting. This is a problem with our own corruption and not with immigration.

- And yes, with so many of the arguments against immigration based on fantasy, when the presentation of contradictory facts in ignored, when all rational basis for holding an anti-immigration position is exhausted and the position is still held I do wonder at the source of such strength of feeling. There is little doubt that my fears have been justified in this thread.

[biffvernon]

Wot 'e said. Precisely.

[UndercoverElephant]

Why AndySir should be deeply ashamed of himself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-riz ... 15218.html

As of this writing, the National September 11 Memorial Museum still hasn't caved in. But the pressure is building, and it feels very familiar.

The problem is a seven-minute film being shown at the soon-to-open museum called The Rise of Al Qaeda. Narrated by NBC's Brian Williams, it uses words like "Islamist," "Islamic," and "jihad" in reference to the 9/11 hijackers and their motives.

Some Muslim groups, and others like the Interfaith Center of New York, want the film edited to remove those terms. They don't want the public to think that Islamism or jihad had anything to do with Al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks, because that could foster "Islamophobia." We've so been down this road before.

***

As a brown-skinned person with a Muslim name, I can get away with a lot more than you'd think. I can publicly parade my wife or daughters around in head-to-toe burqas and be excused out of "respect" for my culture and/or religion, thanks to the racism of lowered expectations. I can re-define "racism" as something non-whites can never harbor against whites, and cite colonialism and imperialism as justification for my prejudice.

And in an increasingly effective move that's fast become something of an epidemic, I can shame you into silence for criticizing my ideas simply by calling you bigoted or Islamophobic.

For decades, Muslims around the world have rightly complained about the Israeli government labeling even legitimate criticism of its policies "anti-Semitic," effectively shielding itself from accountability. Today, Muslim organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) have borrowed a page from their playbook with the "Islamophobia" label -- and taken it even further.

In addition to calling out prejudice against Muslims (a people), the term "Islamophobia" seeks to shield Islam itself (an ideology) from criticism. It's as if every time you said smoking was a filthy habit, you were perceived to be calling all smokers filthy people. Human beings have rights and are entitled to respect. But when did we start extending those rights to ideas, books, and beliefs? You'd think the difference would be clear, but it isn't. The ploy has worked over and over again, and now everyone seems petrified of being tagged with this label.

The phobia of being called "Islamophobic" is on the rise -- and it's becoming much more rampant, powerful, and dangerous than Islamophobia itself.

[continues]

AndySir's views are all about himself. He doesn't give a shit about the real suffering of other people.

[UndercoverElephant]

It seems you are incapable of following the most basic of threads, UE, as well as incapable of reading links. My comments on the Kenyan genocide were directed at Catweasel.

Don't blame me for your inability to communicate clearly. You said "At least you could do me the justice of reading the link", without making it clear which link you were talking about. Now you are blaming me for not knowing which link you were talking about.

It seems that both you and SC agree that the Enlightenment, and the separation of church and state are good things. I would suggest then that the problem you have is with Theocracy or totalitarianism and not Islam.

I have a problem with all three.

Here is a brief except of different approaches to one of the more controversial pillars of Islam: Jihad, which in itself only occurs in the seven pillars of Ismailism.

Jihad "Struggle": The definition of jihad is controversial as it has two meanings: "the Greater Struggle" and the "The Lesser Struggle", the latter of which means a confrontation with the enemies of the faith. The Nizari are pacifist and interpret "adversaries" of the faith as personal and social vices (i.e. wrath, intolerance, etc.) and those individuals who harm the peace of the faith and avoid provocation and use force only as a final resort only in self-defense. The Druze have a long history of military and political engagement, but refer to this pillar solely as Rīda "Contentment" – the war to fight that which removes you from the ease of the Divine Presence, a meaning similar to that of the Nizari. In addition, the 'Uqqāl "Wise Ones", the religious cadre of the Druze, are pacifists.

Here is a brief wiki article on liberal Islamic movements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_mo ... thin_Islam

And I have to concur with Steve. I think you're a muslim, and that this is the only explanation that explains your bizarre posts in this thread.

[UndercoverElephant]

The worst possible thing that a culture can be guilty of must be the genocide of millions of unarmed civilians. Any culture that condones the holding of nuclear weapons must be held to account for accepting that they may commit such an act.

Oh, that's us. Bother.

Which has got F--k all to do with the debate happening in this thread.

[UndercoverElephant]

The worst possible thing that a culture can be guilty of must be the genocide of millions of unarmed civilians. Any culture that condones the holding of nuclear weapons must be held to account for accepting that they may commit such an act.

Oh, that's us. Bother.

Hand-wringing, limp-wristed, bleeding-heart, western-liberal Strawman

This culture does not condone our authorities' holding of nuclear weapons any more than the Iraqi Muslim culture condoned the holding of chemical weapons by its authorities.

Wot 'e said. Precisely.