| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Combating Islamism in the UK
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Combating Islamism in the UK

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Combating Islamism in the UK
    Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 18:19
In addition to the security threat posed by adherents of certain Islamist cults to the internal security of the country, Islam poses a far greater threat; what currently sits as a blot on the UK's cultural identity is increasingly threatening to change it entirely... for the worst.  The purpose of this thread is to discuss ways of combating the Un-British Muslim contagion.

For some unknown reason, the UK opened its borders to mass immigration of uneducated and unqualified individuals from deprived countries in Africa and Asia in the mid-90s and had a very lax enforcement of immigration laws until very recently.  This has resulted in a complete change in the cultural character of once British areas, in particular Muslims from culturally or economically deprived countries are particularly guilty of non-conformity to the British way of life, which is of course, the most tolerant to change in Europe.  But even it has limits.  So how should this cultural invasion be tackled?

My solution is to play Islam at its own game.

Muslims (and other non-conforming groups) could be given incentive to become British or face statutory economic and social disadvantage.  A kind of Jiziyah tax to encourage Britishness. Conditions for lifting of this tax should be to:

1. Learn English up to a certain academic level (paid for by the individual).
2. Either renounce Islam or adhere in a legally binding way to less offensive and obtrusive interpretations of the religion.
3. Along with all foreign looking religious garb, ban pyjamas, burkas and headware in public, excepting Hijabs in a western style.
4.  Learn British etiquette - politeness, queueing, personal hygiene etc.

In addition national policies such as what follows could be enforced:

1.  All Mosques to be state controlled or controlled by an Islamic version of the Church of England/Scotland etc.
2.  All foreign religious investment in the country to be made illegal (thinking specifically of Wahhabi infiltration from Saudi Arabia)
3.  All religious preaching on politics and foreign policy outlawed.


Edited by Zagros - 11 Sep 2011 at 18:23
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 19:18
Hitler died but his spirit still alive and kicking. Tell me again Zag why did you flee Iran?
 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 19:37
I've never fled anything.  I was 4 when I left Iran on an Iran Air flight to West Germany.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 19:45
Call it what ever you want, all the conditions you want to impose on others apply to you as well and you are just as unwanted as a bearded taxi driver from Pakistan. Are you willing to pay "jizyah" for the church of England?
 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 20:18
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

In addition to the security threat posed by adherents of certain Islamist cults to the internal security of the country, Islam poses a far greater threat; what currently sits as a blot on the UK's cultural identity is increasingly threatening to change it entirely... for the worst.  The purpose of this thread is to discuss ways of combating the Un-British Muslim contagion.


x = threat.

y = solution to threat. (Involving extreme and unnecessary repression and over-reaction)

xy = Ultimate victory for the threat.

Quote
For some unknown reason, the UK opened its borders to mass immigration of uneducated and unqualified individuals from deprived countries in Africa and Asia in the mid-90s and had a very lax enforcement of immigration laws until very recently.  This has resulted in a complete change in the cultural character of once British areas, in particular Muslims from culturally or economically deprived countries are particularly guilty of non-conformity to the British way of life, which is of course, the most tolerant to change in Europe.  But even it has limits.  So how should this cultural invasion be tackled?


Says the immigrant.

Quote
My solution is to play Islam at its own game.

Muslims (and other non-conforming groups) could be given incentive to become British or face statutory economic and social disadvantage.  A kind of Jiziyah tax to encourage Britishness. Conditions for lifting of this tax should be to:


Please define 'British' or 'Britishness'. A special kind of 'Jew Tax' (Sorry to invoke Godwin's Law, but you're just being silly) is just the kind of idea that will lead to a harmonious and inclusive society.

Quote
1. Learn English up to a certain academic level (paid for by the individual).


Reasonable enough.

Quote
2. Either renounce Islam or adhere in a legally binding way to less offensive and obtrusive interpretations of the religion.


Batsh*t insane. Read Locke.

Quote
3. Along with all foreign looking religious garb, ban pyjamas, burkas and headware in public, excepting Hijabs in a western style.


Lol. I agree. Police are spending way too much time as it is trying to prevent robberies, murders and rapes. Lets get them to enforce national fashion standards.

Quote
4.  Learn British etiquette - politeness, queueing, personal hygiene etc.


At least its quickly becoming obvious you're taking the piss here...

Quote
In addition national policies such as what follows could be enforced:

1.  All Mosques to be state controlled or controlled by an Islamic version of the Church of England/Scotland etc.
2.  All foreign religious investment in the country to be made illegal (thinking specifically of Wahhabi infiltration from Saudi Arabia)
3.  All religious preaching on politics and foreign policy outlawed.


Please read George Orwell. He had these ideas before you. Or did he satirise them? I forget.

Its pretty obvious that you're trolling though. I can't blame you, its nice to have a controversial thread every now and again.




Edited by Parnell - 11 Sep 2011 at 20:23
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 20:21
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Call it what ever you want, all the conditions you want to impose on others apply to you as well and you are just as unwanted as a bearded taxi driver from Pakistan. Are you willing to pay "jizyah" for the church of England?
 
 
Al-Jassas


I'm reminded of some British pamphlet circa 1828/29 warning of the dangers of Catholic emancipation and the potential deluge of evil papists and conspirators into the hallowed civility of essential British decency.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 20:58
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

My solution is to play Islam at its own game.
It's sad but I go along with some of this.
Quote
Muslims (and other non-conforming groups) could be given incentive to become British or face statutory economic and social disadvantage.  A kind of Jiziyah tax to encourage Britishness. Conditions for lifting of this tax should be to:
It shouldn't be limited to Muslims, but to all residents who are not yet citizens. Not only Islamism is a threat.
Quote
1. Learn English up to a certain academic level (paid for by the individual).
With the qualification above, OK. Though Idon't mind the State subsidising/financing it, as here in Luxembourg which has a similar law for application for citizenship.
Quote
2. Either renounce Islam or adhere in a legally binding way to less offensive and obtrusive interpretations of the religion.
I would substitute for this that religion is neither a reason for privilege not obligation. E.g. in deiermining whether or not animals shoul be slughtered in a certain way religious arguments should not even be heard, let alone paid any attention. If Muslims see this as anti-Muslin or Hindus see it as anti-Hindu or Jews as anti-Jewish so be it. The law should be unconcerned.
Quote
3. Along with all foreign looking religious garb, ban pyjamas, burkas and headware in public, excepting Hijabs in a western style.
I would exempt ministers of religion in the act of conducting a service (though may you meant the same by saying 'in public').
Quote
4.  Learn British etiquette - politeness, queueing, personal hygiene etc.
I don't think that works. It would be nice to have compulsory politeness but you'd never enforce it.
Quote
In addition national policies such as what follows could be enforced:

1.  All Mosques to be state controlled or controlled by an Islamic version of the Church of England/Scotland etc.
I thought religious institutions were subject to state regulation already?
Quote
2.  All foreign religious investment in the country to be made illegal (thinking specifically of Wahhabi infiltration from Saudi Arabia)

3.  All religious preaching on politics and foreign policy outlawed.

I don't like the last one. I suspect the law on inciting hatred is strong enough already.
 
But I'd add one fundamental one: No laws should apply or be unforceable in Britain except those passed by Parliament in the constitutional manner, or reckoned as part of the Common Law of England, whether or not they have a religious basis. 
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 11 Sep 2011 at 21:01
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 21:05
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Call it what ever you want, all the conditions you want to impose on others apply to you as well and you are just as unwanted as a bearded taxi driver from Pakistan. Are you willing to pay "jizyah" for the church of England?
 
 
Al-Jassas


This isn't about me or any one individual.  It is about a cultural invasion completely at odds with the values of the people of the UK. 

Saudi Arabia isn't tolerant of anything that isn't Wahhabi now, is it?  You treat even fellow Muslims of different sects as second class citizens.  My suggestions don't convey anything like the intolerance of the Wahhabi.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 21:12
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

In addition to the security threat posed by adherents of certain Islamist cults to the internal security of the country, Islam poses a far greater threat; what currently sits as a blot on the UK's cultural identity is increasingly threatening to change it entirely... for the worst.  The purpose of this thread is to discuss ways of combating the Un-British Muslim contagion.


x = threat.

y = solution to threat. (Involving extreme and unnecessary repression and over-reaction)

xy = Ultimate victory for the threat.

Quote
For some unknown reason, the UK opened its borders to mass immigration of uneducated and unqualified individuals from deprived countries in Africa and Asia in the mid-90s and had a very lax enforcement of immigration laws until very recently.  This has resulted in a complete change in the cultural character of once British areas, in particular Muslims from culturally or economically deprived countries are particularly guilty of non-conformity to the British way of life, which is of course, the most tolerant to change in Europe.  But even it has limits.  So how should this cultural invasion be tackled?


Says the immigrant.

Quote
My solution is to play Islam at its own game.

Muslims (and other non-conforming groups) could be given incentive to become British or face statutory economic and social disadvantage.  A kind of Jiziyah tax to encourage Britishness. Conditions for lifting of this tax should be to:


Please define 'British' or 'Britishness'. A special kind of 'Jew Tax' (Sorry to invoke Godwin's Law, but you're just being silly) is just the kind of idea that will lead to a harmonious and inclusive society.

Quote
1. Learn English up to a certain academic level (paid for by the individual).


Reasonable enough.

Quote
2. Either renounce Islam or adhere in a legally binding way to less offensive and obtrusive interpretations of the religion.


Batsh*t insane. Read Locke.

Quote
3. Along with all foreign looking religious garb, ban pyjamas, burkas and headware in public, excepting Hijabs in a western style.


Lol. I agree. Police are spending way too much time as it is trying to prevent robberies, murders and rapes. Lets get them to enforce national fashion standards.

Quote
4.  Learn British etiquette - politeness, queueing, personal hygiene etc.


At least its quickly becoming obvious you're taking the piss here...

Quote
In addition national policies such as what follows could be enforced:

1.  All Mosques to be state controlled or controlled by an Islamic version of the Church of England/Scotland etc.
2.  All foreign religious investment in the country to be made illegal (thinking specifically of Wahhabi infiltration from Saudi Arabia)
3.  All religious preaching on politics and foreign policy outlawed.


Please read George Orwell. He had these ideas before you. Or did he satirise them? I forget.

Its pretty obvious that you're trolling though. I can't blame you, its nice to have a controversial thread every now and again.



You got me in terms of some of the ideas but there is an underlying issue with assimilation and integration which is a bit of a time bomb, better to diffuse it now lest it blow up in our face.


Edited by Zagros - 11 Sep 2011 at 21:15
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 21:35
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


Quote
Muslims (and other non-conforming groups) could be given incentive to become British or face statutory economic and social disadvantage.  A kind of Jiziyah tax to encourage Britishness. Conditions for lifting of this tax should be to:
It shouldn't be limited to Muslims, but to all residents who are not yet citizens. Not only Islamism is a threat.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but immigrants do pay taxes even though they are not represented not citizens so why should they pay more?

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Quote
1. Learn English up to a certain academic level (paid for by the individual).
With the qualification above, OK. Though Idon't mind the State subsidising/financing it, as here in Luxembourg which has a similar law for application for citizenship.
 
Haven't seen a British citizen who can't speak English. Plus what the immigrant lives in Angelsey (I know a Saudi guy who is married to a woman there and speak welsh) and knows only Welsh, can he be part of that privilaged class?
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Quote
2. Either renounce Islam or adhere in a legally binding way to less offensive and obtrusive interpretations of the religion.
I would substitute for this that religion is neither a reason for privilege not obligation. E.g. in deiermining whether or not animals shoul be slughtered in a certain way religious arguments should not even be heard, let alone paid any attention. If Muslims see this as anti-Muslin or Hindus see it as anti-Hindu or Jews as anti-Jewish so be it. The law should be unconcerned.
 
Good in principle. The problem is where does state intervention stops? Should the state decide which religious positions is acceptable to it? Should we also let the state determine a list of acceptable names for society since Muhammad and Manmohan are "foreign"? Why not let the state choose our politicians for us too, they are more "informed" than us and always have owr best interest at heart.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Quote
3. Along with all foreign looking religious garb, ban pyjamas, burkas and headware in public, excepting Hijabs in a western style.
I would exempt ministers of religion in the act of conducting a service (though may you meant the same by saying 'in public').
 
Back in the 60s women in France were banned from wearing jeans because it was "unacceptable" by society. Are you willing to accept a ban on skirts because last time I checked "society" won't mind such a ban (miniskirts above the knee are an obvious exception).
 
 
Quote
4.  Learn British etiquette - politeness, queueing, personal hygiene etc.
 
 
The minorities that were most affected and least participated in the riots were the South Asians, I think it should be the other way around Zagros.
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 11 Sep 2011 at 21:37
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 21:36
What you have done is take a reasonable concern over immigration and created a poorly thought out template for bigotry, racism and intolerance that any far right whackjob would be proud of. There is nothing more counterproductive or downright stupid than an extreme reaction to a reasonable grievance.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 21:53
I was not presenting an anti-immigration argument.  Immigration is largely good if it is controlled and the right kind of people in terms of qualification, attitude and beliefs are allowed in.  Namely, people who are prepared to adapt and conform to British culture. If this is too much for them then why bother letting them in since they will only cause tension?


Edited by Zagros - 11 Sep 2011 at 21:57
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 21:53
@ Zigi: It will help you to find better ways to counter fanaticism if you read about US history of 17 and 18 century.
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 22:00
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

I was not presenting an anti-immigration argument.  Immigration is largely good if it is controlled and the right kind of people in terms of qualification, attitude and beliefs are allowed in.  Namely, people who aren't prepared to adapt and conform to British culture. If this is too much for them then why bother letting them in since they will only cause tension?


I said concerns about immigration, which are reasonable. There has always been whiners about a lack of integration associated with any great influx of foreigners. Despite its reputation as being a true 'melting pot', the US had its own problems with immigrants. The Know Nothing party and the like didn't emerge from nowhere. Nativism has a very rich tradition in the US and it never ceases to look a little silly, when the broader scope of history is taken into account. By the way you can keep your British culture and bugger right off; a culture unwilling to adapt and change might as well belong in a museum. Cultures are almost by definition something transient and unknowable, in constant flux, upheaval and change. The idea of the State trying to protect and defend something that only exists in the minds of people (And even at that its never a uniform idea, it varies from person to person) is doomed to failure. Good luck in trying to legislate for every thought and idea that enters someone's mind... Good luck with that.


Edited by Parnell - 11 Sep 2011 at 22:00
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 22:05
Quote The minorities that were most affected and least participated in the riots were the South Asians, I think it should be the other way around Zagros.


This point embodies your knee jerk reaction.  Asians are largely conforming British subjects. What you are citing here is the scenario in Birmingham where Asian businesses were attacked largely by members of another significant minority with a long standing grudge against them.

Actually these Asians are a good example of how immigrants should be.  They engage with society at large and have added positive new aspects to British culture.  As opposed to the Wahhabi fanatics who have started coming onto the scene in the last 15 years.


Edited by Zagros - 11 Sep 2011 at 22:07
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 22:06
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

I was not presenting an anti-immigration argument.  Immigration is largely good if it is controlled and the right kind of people in terms of qualification, attitude and beliefs are allowed in.  Namely, people who aren't prepared to adapt and conform to British culture. If this is too much for them then why bother letting them in since they will only cause tension?


I said concerns about immigration, which are reasonable. There has always been whiners about a lack of integration associated with any great influx of foreigners. Despite its reputation as being a true 'melting pot', the US had its own problems with immigrants. The Know Nothing party and the like didn't emerge from nowhere. Nativism has a very rich tradition in the US and it never ceases to look a little silly, when the broader scope of history is taken into account. By the way you can keep your British culture and bugger right off; a culture unwilling to adapt and change might as well belong in a museum. Cultures are almost by definition something transient and unknowable, in constant flux, upheaval and change. The idea of the State trying to protect and defend something that only exists in the minds of people (And even at that its never a uniform idea, it varies from person to person) is doomed to failure. Good luck in trying to legislate for every thought and idea that enters someone's mind... Good luck with that.


See above post.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 22:11
Zagros has raised an issue of reasonable concern, though the issue he raises is certainly not a new one. The discussion is long overdue and i suggest everybody clear their heads, think the issue over, take a deep breath and then reply with reasonably respectful pro and con thoughts.

Instead of ridiculing his ideas, discuss the issue he raised; Uncontrolled immigration from impoverished regions with inflexible religious beliefs,  the transfer of these beliefs from one place to another, the lack of a discussion for the issue (political correctness), what the state should and should not do and whatever role a concerned citizen has in it?
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 22:17
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Zagros has raised an issue of reasonable concern, though the issue he raises is certainly not a new one. The discussion is long overdue and i suggest everybody clear their heads, think the issue over, take a deep breath and then reply with reasonably respectful pro and con thoughts.

Instead of ridiculing his ideas, discuss the issue he raised; Uncontrolled immigration from impoverished regions with inflexible religious beliefs,  the transfer of these beliefs from one place to another, the lack of a discussion for the issue (political correctness), what the state should and should not do and whatever role a concerned citizen has in it?


I'm not motivated by political correctness. I'll call a spade a spade. I think religion in general and Islam in particular is all a little silly and insulting of a person's intelligence. But thats by the by. I'd be as worried by an influx of white Americans from Mississippi bringing their silly creationist beliefs over to Ireland as I would be by a group of Pakistani's from some hill somewhere with some odd notion that gay people should be stoned to death. You see, I hate all extremists equally.

Anyway...

The point is that there is some merit to controlling immigration and perhaps even demanding a certain level of co-operation with local social mores. But I'd also argue that sometimes social mores could do with a shakeup. I think back to what Ireland was like in the 80s and shudder. Give me a dynamic society and culture over a static one any day of the week.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 22:39
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:



I'm not motivated by political correctness. I'll call a spade a spade. I think religion in general and Islam in particular is all a little silly and insulting of a person's intelligence. But thats by the by. I'd be as worried by an influx of white Americans from Mississippi bringing their silly creationist beliefs over to Ireland as I would be by a group of Pakistani's from some hill somewhere with some odd notion that gay people should be stoned to death. You see, I hate all extremists equally.

Anyway...


Whether any of us are aware of it or not, most of us have had the political correct thought processes hammered into us for several decades now and are in a lot of ways, controlled by by those who have been consumed by it. Parnell, your going out on a limb surprises me. Bush himself caled a spade a spade, and just look at the all consuming ridicule he was subjected too, ya' bigotWink

Quote
The point is that there is some merit to controlling immigration and perhaps even demanding a certain level of co-operation with local social mores. But I'd also argue that sometimes social mores could do with a shakeup. I think back to what Ireland was like in the 80s and shudder. Give me a dynamic society and culture over a static one any day of the week.


I don't see how immigration can be controlled, much less discussed if charges of bigotry are flying fast and loose? Nobody takes a concerned citizens point of view seriously once these types are charges are issued. Just look at the tea party, they have different ethnic groups who subscribe to the tea party views, but as far as the rest of the world knows the tea party is a racist organization and no one can tell a  anti-tea party person different! So the discussion is ended, any further conversation on their ideas are out of the question and marginalized in the within the mainstream simply because, well who wants to be called a racists bigot, even when they are not?
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 23:06
I wouldn't call the tea partiers bigots... Now a few terms spring to mind but I realise I'm in polite company so I should at least attempt to maintain a veneer of courtesy, my right wing friend Wink

I think the term 'bigot' is appropriate when a specific ethnicity/religion are going to be victimised by a specific tax. A Jew Tax, a Muslim Tax, a Christian tax, a Gay tax... What a lovely precedent! Oh wait, there is a precedent. There was a Jew Tax and there was a Christian Tax (In many Muslim countries in the middle ages and beyond) Bigotry is the only word that adequately describes such a proposal. Again, calling a spade a spade, the exact opposite of political correctness.

http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2011 at 23:12
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Zagros has raised an issue of reasonable concern, though the issue he raises is certainly not a new one. The discussion is long overdue and i suggest everybody clear their heads, think the issue over, take a deep breath and then reply with reasonably respectful pro and con thoughts.

Instead of ridiculing his ideas, discuss the issue he raised; Uncontrolled immigration from impoverished regions with inflexible religious beliefs,  the transfer of these beliefs from one place to another, the lack of a discussion for the issue (political correctness), what the state should and should not do and whatever role a concerned citizen has in it?
 
No he didn't.
 
He went on a rant directed towards a group he doesn't like (religious muslims following a certain school) making them more dangerous than Nazis or paedophiles while leaving other groups with similar teachings alone.
 
As for the issues, there are none. Last time I checked you can't simply enter the UK or any other country and get a pass. You need a visa and if you want to live there there are rules and regulations and nearly all those immigrants he rants about are legal immigrants imported (not forced upon) by the British because Britons don't have enough babies. As for their "inflexible" religious beliefs, I believe all countries guarantee freedom of religion. not so long ago Catholicism was considered a "foreign" and "inflexible" religion. W.E. Gladstone, the famous liberal, even wrote a pamphlate denouncing it and shedding doubt over the loyalties of the crown's catholic subjects.
 
If there is any PC rhetoric in this thread it comes from the people "defending" the native culture and giving it a privilage over other cultures. Asking to be treated on equal footing is not and will never be PC, in fact it is quite the exact opposite.
 
Al-Jassas 
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3326
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Sep 2011 at 00:14
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


You need a visa and if you want to live there there are rules and regulations and nearly all those immigrants he rants about are legal immigrants imported (not forced upon) by the British because Britons don't have enough babies.


Are you serious about that?
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Sep 2011 at 00:19
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

What you have done is take a reasonable concern over immigration and created a poorly thought out template for bigotry, racism and intolerance that any far right whackjob would be proud of. There is nothing more counterproductive or downright stupid than an extreme reaction to a reasonable grievance.



Sometimes, a little bit of bigotry, racism and intolerance is necesary at the frontiers, to prevent the savages from the world to invade your country.

Chinese, a people a lot smarter than British, I am afraid, discovered that thousand of years ago. And that's why they build the Chinese Wall. Without that protection against savages that country would never had become a "civilization".

Look at the message of the Bible when it talks about the Babel tower and the confusion of languages.

Look at your Christian ancestors, that didn't tolerate foreigners to invade Europe and that fought for it.

If countries need immigration, it is necesary to do screening, and to make sure paleolitic mentalities didn't start to erode local society.



 
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Sep 2011 at 04:50
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

I wouldn't call the tea partiers bigots... Now a few terms spring to mind but I realise I'm in polite company so I should at least attempt to maintain a veneer of courtesy, my right wing friend Wink


That's right! Bow down... I say, bow down to the majesty of my easily ruffled sensibilities. Ya' namby-pamby!Tongue

Quote
I think the term 'bigot' is appropriate when a specific ethnicity/religion are going to be victimised by a specific tax. A Jew Tax, a Muslim Tax, a Christian tax, a Gay tax... What a lovely precedent! Oh wait, there is a precedent. There was a Jew Tax and there was a Christian Tax (In many Muslim countries in the middle ages and beyond) Bigotry is the only word that adequately describes such a proposal. Again, calling a spade a spade, the exact opposite of political correctness.


I took it as he was just throwing out ideas for discussion and not as if he was trying to channel the ghost of Hitler with some on-line Ouija experiment?

 Oh wait a sec...!? Something is coming through right now on the screen...

Hallo - hallo-hallo ... Der Führer spricht aus der Hölle. In meinem Hintern ist eine Wurst!


Okay... Uh-huh, just great! Thanks a lot Zagros. Because of your careless comment, the doorway to hell has been opened and we all now know Hitler has a sausage stuffed up his cavity. Yuck!!!
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Sep 2011 at 05:31
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
No he didn't.
 
He went on a rant directed towards a group he doesn't like (religious muslims following a certain school) making them more dangerous than Nazis or paedophiles while leaving other groups with similar teachings alone.


Are you denying they exist? Do the other groups operate within the United Kingdom?

 
Quote
As for the issues, there are none. Last time I checked you can't simply enter the UK or any other country and get a pass. You need a visa and if you want to live there there are rules and regulations and nearly all those immigrants he rants about are legal immigrants imported (not forced upon) by the British because Britons don't have enough babies. As for their "inflexible" religious beliefs, I believe all countries guarantee freedom of religion. not so long ago Catholicism was considered a "foreign" and "inflexible" religion. W.E. Gladstone, the famous liberal, even wrote a pamphlate denouncing it and shedding doubt over the loyalties of the crown's catholic subjects.
 


Come now... Immigration and i mean the illegal one, the last i checked, is a legitimate issue effecting most of the developed countries. How they got there or why is not important currently. The citizenry in the UK can and have felt that they had this forced upon them with very little say in this, while their government goes around brown-nosing to the EU and patting itself on the back for their good deed they have done for the day.

As for freedom of religion, yes they do exist here in the West. However, there is a line drawn that includes any liberal government not being subverted via back door policies, secular or religiously. Some point this out and are subjected to cat calls and or being labeled racists or fascists, while others simply ignore it or deny that there is an issue here, at their own peril of irrelevancy with an electorate. My dream is to see the discussion progress from a knee jerk reaction to one of rational discourse. Maybe we will get there yet?

Quote
If there is any PC rhetoric in this thread it comes from the people "defending" the native culture and giving it a privilage over other cultures. Asking to be treated on equal footing is not and will never be PC, in fact it is quite the exact opposite.
 
Al-Jassas 


You do realize a contradiction here. How can anyone here be defending a native culture while also including the very alien culture you claim is being excluded. As far as i am aware, he has not made such a claim for excluding minorities. His concern is for the mosques and Imams who preach hatred and death to everything that they cannot control, and the willingness in carrying out said violent beliefs in attaining that end; In which, includes Zagros and other ethnicity in the UK, not just the white population.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Sep 2011 at 08:01
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
No he didn't.
 
He went on a rant directed towards a group he doesn't like (religious muslims following a certain school) making them more dangerous than Nazis or paedophiles while leaving other groups with similar teachings alone.


Are you denying they exist? Do the other groups operate within the United Kingdom?
 
 
I didn't deny the existence of anyone, I just pointed out the absurdity of singling them out as the greatest danger facing society when they are so few in number they have no influence in their own society. Racism is far more dangerous than any threat by any "Islamist group" or other terrorist groups.

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

 
Quote
As for the issues, there are none. Last time I checked you can't simply enter the UK or any other country and get a pass. You need a visa and if you want to live there there are rules and regulations and nearly all those immigrants he rants about are legal immigrants imported (not forced upon) by the British because Britons don't have enough babies. As for their "inflexible" religious beliefs, I believe all countries guarantee freedom of religion. not so long ago Catholicism was considered a "foreign" and "inflexible" religion. W.E. Gladstone, the famous liberal, even wrote a pamphlate denouncing it and shedding doubt over the loyalties of the crown's catholic subjects.
 


Come now... Immigration and i mean the illegal one, the last i checked, is a legitimate issue effecting most of the developed countries. How they got there or why is not important currently. The citizenry in the UK can and have felt that they had this forced upon them with very little say in this, while their government goes around brown-nosing to the EU and patting itself on the back for their good deed they have done for the day.

As for freedom of religion, yes they do exist here in the West. However, there is a line drawn that includes any liberal government not being subverted via back door policies, secular or religiously. Some point this out and are subjected to cat calls and or being labeled racists or fascists, while others simply ignore it or deny that there is an issue here, at their own peril of irrelevancy with an electorate. My dream is to see the discussion progress from a knee jerk reaction to one of rational discourse. Maybe we will get there yet?
 
No, he means legal migrants. His position on illegals (just as my own) is to deport them regardless of excuse.
 
As for freedom of religion, everyone would love to draw a line to protect his/her turf. The problem is, where should that line starts and where should it end? Most importantly who has the right and power to draw that line.
 
Of the +2 million muslim Britons some 200k are natives who converted out of their own free will and some of those are 4th or even 5th generation muslims. If we "draw a line" as you want what will be their position? Are they going to be given the choice, that is a Sophie's style choice?

 
 
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Quote
If there is any PC rhetoric in this thread it comes from the people "defending" the native culture and giving it a privilage over other cultures. Asking to be treated on equal footing is not and will never be PC, in fact it is quite the exact opposite.
 
Al-Jassas 


You do realize a contradiction here. How can anyone here be defending a native culture while also including the very alien culture you claim is being excluded. As far as i am aware, he has not made such a claim for excluding minorities. His concern is for the mosques and Imams who preach hatred and death to everything that they cannot control, and the willingness in carrying out said violent beliefs in attaining that end; In which, includes Zagros and other ethnicity in the UK, not just the white population.
 
There is no contradition to what I said. He attacked a certain group he disliked in the name of defending the native culture from the "invaders" as he called immigrants.
 
As for concerns with Imams and what not, easy. Give a reasonable suggestion that can be discussed. His suggestions were nothing of the sort.
 
 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Sep 2011 at 12:58
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Zagros has raised an issue of reasonable concern, though the issue he raises is certainly not a new one. The discussion is long overdue and i suggest everybody clear their heads, think the issue over, take a deep breath and then reply with reasonably respectful pro and con thoughts.

Instead of ridiculing his ideas, discuss the issue he raised; Uncontrolled immigration from impoverished regions with inflexible religious beliefs,  the transfer of these beliefs from one place to another, the lack of a discussion for the issue (political correctness), what the state should and should not do and whatever role a concerned citizen has in it?
 
No he didn't.
 
He went on a rant directed towards a group he doesn't like (religious muslims following a certain school) making them more dangerous than Nazis or paedophiles while leaving other groups with similar teachings alone.
 
As for the issues, there are none. Last time I checked you can't simply enter the UK or any other country and get a pass. You need a visa and if you want to live there there are rules and regulations and nearly all those immigrants he rants about are legal immigrants imported (not forced upon) by the British because Britons don't have enough babies. As for their "inflexible" religious beliefs, I believe all countries guarantee freedom of religion. not so long ago Catholicism was considered a "foreign" and "inflexible" religion. W.E. Gladstone, the famous liberal, even wrote a pamphlate denouncing it and shedding doubt over the loyalties of the crown's catholic subjects.
 
If there is any PC rhetoric in this thread it comes from the people "defending" the native culture and giving it a privilage over other cultures. Asking to be treated on equal footing is not and will never be PC, in fact it is quite the exact opposite.
 
Al-Jassas 


Of course native culture should have privilege over foreign cultures.  It is preposterous to suggest otherwise.   If Muslims (or others) want to live in the west then they should be forced to westernise.  Simple as that.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Teaman to the Society of Dilettanti

Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: Lindalino
Status: Offline
Points: 2766
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Sep 2011 at 14:46
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:



I'm not motivated by political correctness. I'll call a spade a spade. I think religion in general and Islam in particular is all a little silly and insulting of a person's intelligence. But thats by the by. I'd be as worried by an influx of white Americans from Mississippi bringing their silly creationist beliefs over to Ireland as I would be by a group of Pakistani's from some hill somewhere with some odd notion that gay people should be stoned to death. You see, I hate all extremists equally.

Anyway...

The point is that there is some merit to controlling immigration and perhaps even demanding a certain level of co-operation with local social mores. But I'd also argue that sometimes social mores could do with a shakeup. I think back to what Ireland was like in the 80s and shudder. Give me a dynamic society and culture over a static one any day of the week.


I wonder if you really believe what you say sometimes Denis.. It would be foolish to hate all extremists equally as all extremists do not pose the same threat. Each extremist problem should invoke a tailored response.

As to your second point, I really don't see what you're getting at. What do you mean by dynamic and static? I've never heard of a Sharia-esque ideology referred to as dynamic, that's for sure. We've only just started to truly emerge from the Catholic hegemony, which the cultural changes you recognise today are in spite of. Why do you think that importing more conservative religious foolishness is going to do you or your culture any good?


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Sep 2011 at 15:00
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


Quote
Muslims (and other non-conforming groups) could be given incentive to become British or face statutory economic and social disadvantage.  A kind of Jiziyah tax to encourage Britishness. Conditions for lifting of this tax should be to:
It shouldn't be limited to Muslims, but to all residents who are not yet citizens. Not only Islamism is a threat.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but immigrants do pay taxes even though they are not represented not citizens so why should they pay more?
Because they are visitors? Look at it more as citizens having a special privilege (as indeed they do already in the way of getting jobs, residing in the country, and so on.)
 
Also I did NOT say immigrants, I said all resident non-citizens. On reflection though that's wrong, because it should not apply to resident citizens of other EU countries. At the moment resident non-citizens don't pay as much (income) tax because they frequently have offshore income, but the situation becomes complicated because I'm not using 'resident' here in the same sense as the tax authorities do.
 
Certainly when I was living in France (pre-Maastricht) I was legitimately paying less tax than a French citizen would.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Quote
1. Learn English up to a certain academic level (paid for by the individual).
With the qualification above, OK. Though Idon't mind the State subsidising/financing it, as here in Luxembourg which has a similar law for application for citizenship.
 
Haven't seen a British citizen who can't speak English. Plus what the immigrant lives in Angelsey (I know a Saudi guy who is married to a woman there and speak welsh) and knows only Welsh, can he be part of that privilaged class?
Welsh I'll grant you: I should have said one of the UK's official languages. Luxembourg is tougher though - you have to speak Luxembourgish, even though there are two other official languages. 
 
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Quote
2. Either renounce Islam or adhere in a legally binding way to less offensive and obtrusive interpretations of the religion.
I would substitute for this that religion is neither a reason for privilege not obligation. E.g. in deiermining whether or not animals shoul be slughtered in a certain way religious arguments should not even be heard, let alone paid any attention. If Muslims see this as anti-Muslin or Hindus see it as anti-Hindu or Jews as anti-Jewish so be it. The law should be unconcerned.
 
Good in principle. The problem is where does state intervention stops? Should the state decide which religious positions is acceptable to it? 
Yes.
Quote
Should we also let the state determine a list of acceptable names for society since Muhammad and Manmohan are "foreign"? Why not let the state choose our politicians for us too, they are more "informed" than us and always have owr best interest at heart.
I haven't even suggested that 'foreign names' should be banned. They are in France, but I don't see any reason for it, except that I'm glad neither of my granddaughters is named Beverley.
 
Also you seem to have a totally different view than I do of what 'the state' is. The 'state' is just the community. The community should undoubtedly choose its politicians. I really don't know what you are talking about here. I'm certainly not advocating any kind of totalitartian government.
Quote
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Quote
3. Along with all foreign looking religious garb, ban pyjamas, burkas and headware in public, excepting Hijabs in a western style.
I would exempt ministers of religion in the act of conducting a service (though may you meant the same by saying 'in public').
 
Back in the 60s women in France were banned from wearing jeans because it was "unacceptable" by society. Are you willing to accept a ban on skirts because last time I checked "society" won't mind such a ban (miniskirts above the knee are an obvious exception).
Could I have a reference for that 'ban' in France? Personally I wouldn't mind a ban on wearing jeans (either sex) though I don't feel all that hopeful about it. I'd vote against a ban on women (or men) wearing skirts, but I'd go along with it if the majority was for it. Or I'd move to another country if I felt really strongly about it.
 
Certainly as a visitor to a country I would not insist on breaking existing laws, or feel I had any right to take pat in legislation. Nor would I as an applicant for admission.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Sep 2011 at 15:07
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

My dream is to see the discussion progress from a knee jerk reaction to one of rational discourse. Maybe we will get there yet?
But we won't as long as some people get all confused between 'immigrants', 'citizens', 'applicants for  citizenship', and 'aliens' on the one hand and 'muslims' or any other religious group on the other. The important issue here is what rules immigrants and applicants for citizenship should be required to follow. 
 
At base, I have a perfect right to decide who is alllowed in my house, and a perfect right to set limits to their behaviour. That basic right extends to the members of any jurisdiction, though its exercise throughout the jurisdiction should be set democratically and constitutionally.
 
Outsiders residing in the jurisdiction are subject to those laws at least until they can achieve sufficient political power to change them democratically and constitutionally.
 
Religion should be completely immaterial and irrelevant to any of this, just as religion should be irrelevant to the criminal law (or indeed civil law). So should race. All that is important is how people behave and how they relate to other members of the community - the citizenry in general.
 
And you won't get the discussion you are hoping for while religious groups get off on - complaining they are being discriminated against unfairly.


Edited by gcle2003 - 12 Sep 2011 at 15:53
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.