Why in Ireland is being pro- multi-culturalism seen as 'odd'

markopantelic

Just curious. I mean I honestly feel diversity is a good thing, thats just how I feel, but some people when you say you like it, mention the 'mess france or england is in' and look at you if you are insane.

silverwater

It's because it's never happened before.
Ireland has never had to deal with multi-culturalism, so it's bound to be a rough start, like in any society.
I'm all for it too, I think it's great for the country.
Give it ten or twenty years and the difference in welcome and perception of multi-culturalism will be phenomenal in comparison, I suspect.

The Corinthian

markopantelic wrote: »

Just curious. I mean I honestly feel diversity is a good thing, thats just how I feel, but some people when you say you like it, mention the 'mess france or england is in' and look at you if you are insane.

Well, they do have a point. Multiculturalism is a nice idea in theory, unfortunately in practice it has resulted in ghettoization, rather than diversity, more often than not. This is not to say that it is not possible, but to date (and in particular where the cultures are vastly different) there have been serious issues with it, that simply have not been addressed by proponents of multiculturalism.

And I say this as someone who comes from a multicultural background.

Gemini Sister

The British are turning away from 90s style multi culturalism and starting to get it right e.g. now you're not just a muslim living in Britain, (just another diverse fruit in the saladbowl), - now you're a British muslim.
Inclusion is alot more important that diversity.

InFront

Inclusion and diversity are not mutually exclusive and should not be treated so.

I have lived in a lot of different places, and have never seen so much attention paid to the multiculturalism debate as in the UK and Ireland. In places like Pakistan you get huge ethnic clashes, and yet there is never this debate about multiculturalism, it doesn't come into it because people realise that there is always a deeper vein of political unrest that is actually responsible, for the trouble, not "culture" in itself. When the Pashtoon speakers and Urdu speakers clashed in Karachi a few weeks ago, they weren't clashing over linguistics.

I can understand the British situation quite easily, because of Britain being engaged in two wars in the middle east as well as being a large player in international relations at a global level. This is going to cause a lot of conflict for people who live in the UK and still consider themselves affiliated more strongly to other traditions. Again, this is nothing to do with "multiculturalism", it's political of course.

I have some problems with the multiculturalism debate with regard to its application in Ireland. Ireland is a very politically benign country without imperial or racial-political baggage. Discrimination at political level is a non issue. Ireland treats its immigrants fairly, there are no ghettos and no history of ethnic tensions (amongst immigrants at least) and no sign that there is ever any prospect of same. This is not Paris of the 1960s, it isn;t even anything like London or Bradford of 2009.

People should just be clear that culture and diversity amounts to strange smelling foods, men in turbans, Polish foodstores and a Feis Ceoil. Politics that divides a country's ethnic components and turns one against the other such as has happened on occasion in Paris and London, is another issue entirely

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dreamlogic

markopantelic wrote: »

Just curious. I mean I honestly feel diversity is a good thing, thats just how I feel, but some people when you say you like it, mention the 'mess france or england is in' and look at you if you are insane.

If it is seen as odd, it's because it is more of a class issue than anything else.
The ruling class love to see the lower classes quarrelling amongst themselves about foreigners taking their jobs etc. You can see how this sort of "debate" is sold and encouraged by the media(corporate owned).
It distracts people from the real issues that they should be concerned with - namely that of questioning/undermining the power and dominance of this ruling class.

InFront

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Where are you getting this idea from? You're basically just taking neo marxism and calling it multiculturalism.
Multi culturalism is a far simpler, naked concept. It does exactly what it says on the tin. Many cultures, one locality, co-existence. It's been around far longer than neo-Marxism too, there's no need to try and complicate it.

For multiculturalists, the artistic, literary, and philosophical heritage of the West is ridden with oppression and depredation.

There are elements within western societies which try to further the cultural aims of minority groups against that of the majority, sure. But this exists in every multicultural society and you can be sure the opposite occurs in many parts of Asia and Russia, for example.
Have you ever been to India? Wouldn't you describe that country as enormously multicultural, and very successfully so given its enormous and enormously diverse population? I find your definition quite bizarre to be honest. Multiculturalism does not belong to any particular global region... surely that's the very central philosophy of multiculturalism!

They see Islam as a "religion of peace," but they hold Christianity responsible for endless bloodshed and tyranny.

Who does? All people in favour of multiculturalism? Can you give some examples or back some of this up at all?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

InFront

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No it does not. Where are you getting that idea from? You are right to an extent that the western peoples have altered their thinking on coexistence with different cultures but you are incorrect with regard to the genesis of this shift.
In fact, the two issues which most effected the birth of modern multiculturalism were (1) the birth of progress in philosophy in the 18th century and (2) globalisation. The two are related.

Globalisation from the end of the second world war, for example, has brought about a change in migration patterns - increased mobility and social awareness mean that migration to the west no longer occurs for reasons of seeking out a superior civilisation, but rather for economic reasons. Economic progress in turn also detracts from a sense of cultural inferiority, and people cling more fervently to their old cultures in their new land.

I am sorry but in no way can I agree, nor would most people, that neo marxism is a realistic player in the advent of modern multiculturalism and I would really like to hear your reasoning for suggesting so.

I think you'll find that 99 times out of 100, the concept of multiculturalism is invoked with reference to minorities living within a Western nation. It is rarely used with reference to countries such as Malaysia.

Maybe that's because you live in Donegal and not Malaysia. In fact I can see why multiculturalism could be quite a big issue in Malaysia.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

InFront

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are providing a false history to suit your own position. Commentators and historians do not trace a direct between the neo-Marxism you are talking about and the birth of modern multiculturalism.

In his paper "Multiculturalism, Political Correctness and The Politics of Identity" (Sociological Forum Jr; 1994) Martin Spencer shares your distaste for the idea of multiculturalism, describing it as a sort minority nationalism, having aspirations of superiority and calls it "seperatist pluralism with a vengeance".

However, he would disagree with your version of the genesis of multiculturalism (in this case American) - instead relating it back to the 1880s and a surge in immigration into the USA and localisation of ethnic communities, "race pessismism" and the decline in Nativism after the Spanish-American War, and then the cosmopolitan liberalism and globalisation of World War Two and its aftermath which opposed the idea of mass nationalism and encouraged more liberal thinking, and the death of identity anxiety.

Furthermore, Amir Ali in his "Chicken Tikka Multiculturalism" (Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 26. No. 30) and Randall Hansen in "Citizenship and Immigration in Post-War Britain (Oxfor University Press) cite globalisation, increased mobility, increased living standards, a move away from nativism and higher education leading to a breakdown of "cultural inferiority" and later the birth of Thatcherism as the genesis of Britain's multiculturalism.

Canadian reasons for positively endorsing a government policy of multiculturalism followed on the coat tails of an economic boom and increased globalisation and migration in the 1960s. They saw multiculturalism as being a significant unifying factor in a country teaming with ethnic diversity.

"National unity, if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense must be founded in confidence of one's own individual identity, out of this can grow respect for that of others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes, and assumptions. A vigorous policy of multiculturalism will help create this initiial confidence"
-Canadian PM Pierre Trudea, Canada House of Commons Debates, October 8, 1971

Your version of events simply do not stand up to any scrutiny and I would be very interested in seeing any substantial documentary evidence that supprts what you put forward as a "well established link" between neo Marxism and multiculturalism.

The case of France, as an aside, is very interesting when it comes to mutliculturalism. France is a nation which has always been strongly opposed to multiculturalism where it is seen as a distinctly American and foreign idea.

Yet multiculturalism works in the USA and republicanism is not working well in France. Indeed, it is quite ironic that some people put forward the issue of race riots in France as proving that multiculturalism doesn't work when France is distinctly opposed to multiculturalism as a matter of policy over that past thirty or forty years. There, an aggressive attempt at national unity is having a fragmenting effect whereas in the US, a more pluralist approach is proving alluringly inclusive.

markopantelic

markopantelic wrote: »

some people when you say you like it, mention the 'mess france or england is in' and look at you if you are insane.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, they do have a point. Multiculturalism is a nice idea in theory, unfortunately in practice it has resulted in ghettoization, rather than diversity, more often than not.

But don't you think the history of immigration in Ireland is different from the history of immigration in France and the UK?

The post-war influx of (mainly) colonials to these two countries were from a limited number of nations, primarily from Africa and India. The social structure and attitudes at the time almost automatically led to ghettoization which, among other things, led to the "mess".

Under half a million immigrants from over two hundred different nationalities have immigrated to Ireland and, as far as I can tell, are pretty spread out geographically even looking at immigrants as one group rather than individual nationalities.

This of course may bring it's own different problems to the ones experienced in France and the UK.

I've just moved back to Ireland having been away for several years so my impression could be wrong but it seems to me the ghettos here are class rather than culture related.

CiaranC

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Where is this idea expressed in Marx?

Or is this just another case of you taking something distasteful and labelling it Marxist to suit your agenda. Youll be telling us that paedophilia is a Marxist concept next.

RealEstateKing

The current idea of Multiculturism, does not simply mean "Pro-Immigration"

It is a philosophy about the type of society we should have once the immigration has taken place:

The old way of thinking about this was that immigrants should assimilate into the host society, to such an extent that their origin is reasonably invisible: This is what happened to a large extent in America in the past, immigrants generally became "Americans" in terms of Hamburgers, baseball, and whatever else, even if they spoke a little Russian with their parents, and had a little Borscht in their lunchbox.

Multiculturism is the idea that immigrants should retain their culture completely once within the host country: Which is fine as far as it goes, but tends to work better with people whose basic culture is the same as the host nations: Look at the Polish in Ireland, for example: Culturally they are basically the same: Catholic, heavy-drinking, cynical battlers who've been screwed over by history: They fit right in.

However, it is obvious enough to see that a Muslim immigrating from one of the more conservative corners of Pakistan is gonna find it a lot harder to fit in: He doesnt drink (An absolute cornerstone in Ireland), his life is entirely centred around his immediate family, his wife is not allowed leave the house without him, and he probably wouldnt let his daughter socialise, never mind marry an Irish man.

Its plain to see, that if theres only a few of such people in the society, its not gonna be a problem, its the equivalent of the boring guy at a party who sits in the corner not talking to anyone. However, it is of course a problem if their is a large number of people who have no interest in particpating in the culture of their host country. England has this problem, though Ireland doesnt, yet.

The difference in the Irish situation as well, is that this is the first time in history that people have been emigrating TO a post-colonial country. Normally immigration is about people from post-colonial poor countries emigrating to America or one of the big European colonial powers.

Thus there is a potential problem in Ireland: Ireland has its own ex-colonial low-self-esteem issues to deal with, it complicates things quite a bit, for those most effected by it (the underclass) to deal with an influx of immgration from people who are soberer, more hard-working, better looking and with securer family ties than they have themselves.

Furthermore, one of the major ways that America has been reasonably successful as a melting pot, was by providing an "ideal" at the front door that immigrants could sign up to - in other words, they invented Americaness as an abstract idea that anyone participate in, whether they were born there or not. The idea was: "Speak Yiddish at home, Go to synagogue on Saturday, but send your kid to little league and beleive in democracy and free enterprise and all the rest."

Ireland does not have this narrative, Irishness is largely based on being born in Ireland, without a higher minded 'ideal' tacked on that a non-Irish person can sign up to. Furthermore, as an 'Old World' culture, Ireland's culture does not have the custom-designed universality that American culture does, being as it was largely designed by and for poor immigrants that never wanted to be hungry, broke or oppressed ever again.

For us, this does create something of a problem: In America, immigrants usually want to become Americans as quickly as they can - in Ireland, many Immigrants are actually fairly unimpressed by Irish culture (understandably so I might add) many of them dont want to give up their traditions to wind up face down in puke on a Saturday night singing Lady GaGa's 'Poker Face' at the top of their lungs. They are probably from a country that has a better culinary tradition, subtler sexual mores and a more adult attitude to alcohol than we do.

I work with many immigrants on a daily basis, and their attitude to Irish people is kind of "God, they're lovely people, so friendly, but God they drink too much, and eat terrible food and dress like peasants." This is something that could cause us difficulty in the future especially now that the fake money has all ran out. Granted none of it will make a difference in South County Dublin where the clever people live, but elsewhere things could get nasty.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

philologos

Is it seen as odd? It's inevitable that Ireland like many other EU states can either have an inclusive or an exclusive approach to who they can consider Irish. I personally take a very inclusive approach, in that it is possible to be Irish if you are living in the country and interacting and socialising as a key member of society. Genetic, racial, ethno-religious barriers are not going to matter so much in the future. Cultural barriers will still exist to an extent but no doubt they will have to be extended to stop nonsense going on here like has happened in other European countries.

When people lose the idea that a nation is anything more than a place which guarantees our freedoms, and a place which we share as a community society will be a lot more accomodating. The Irish are the people who live in Ireland to me, no other need of definition is really necessary.

magick

multi-culturalism does not work, multi racial does

InFront

RealEstateKing wrote: »

However, it is obvious enough to see that a Muslim immigrating from one of themore conservative corners of Pakistan is gonna find it a lot harder to fit in: He doesnt drink (An absolute cornerstone in Ireland), his life is entirely centred around his immediate family, his wife is not allowed leave the house without him, and he probably wouldnt let his daughter socialise, never mind marry an Irish man.

Ok easy with the generalisations, a lot of what you say elsewhere is accurate and I appreciate you're making a wider point but this is a bit contentious.

Its plain to see, that if theres only a few of such people in the society, its not gonna be a problem, its the equivalent of the boring guy at a party who sits in the corner not talking to anyone. However, it is of course a problem if their is a large number of people who have no interest in particpating in the culture of their host country. England has this problem, though Ireland doesnt, yet.

Does England have this problem? I'm not so sure. I think it exists in pockets of London and Bradford and some large urban centres but most other British cities actually mirror the Dublin situation.
A couple of points. All may be Muslim (or not), but in practical terms Arabs and Iranians and Pakistanis and Indians Indonesians tend to socialise in seperate circles, even where uniting cultural or religious features exist such as masjid/ mosque or foodstores or even I have seen it in universities. This is particularly the case in Ireland which, I'm sorry to say, is very segregated at times.
Anyway, this is similar to the situation between the Irish and the Poles so perhaps this must be considered in light of the term Muslim.

Furthermore, I respect a lot of what you're saying here and don't wan to sem like it's all disagreement. But I take issue with your perception of Ireland as being completely alcohol centered. Without wanting to sound like a kids-ed VHS cassette for schools, Pakistanis can have fun too. Ireland doesn't actually revolve around the pub if you really focus, or certainly not in Dublin. I am of the opinion that this 'quiet man at the party' metaphor is pretty/ very alien to the real situation certainly in my experiences.

Furthermore, one of the major ways that America has been reasonably successful as a melting pot, was by providing an "ideal" at the front door that immigrants could sign up to - in other words, they invented Americaness as an abstract idea that anyone participate in, whether they were born there or not. The idea was: "Speak Yiddish at home, Go to synagogue on Saturday, but send your kid to little league and beleive in democracy and free enterprise and all the rest."

Ireland does not have this narrative, Irishness is largely based on being born in Ireland, without a higher minded 'ideal' tacked on that a non-Irish person can sign up to.

I think there is a certain amount of truth in this but while there may not be a particular 'culture' there is a tangible Irish 'identity'. This is not dressed up in race or creed so much as personality and character.

RealEstateKing

Ok easy with the generalisations, a lot of what you say elsewhere is accurate and I appreciate you're making a wider point but this is a bit contentious.

Yes, obviously, its a generalisation. I was merely taking an example of people from certain South Asian cultures -Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, and people from the Indian Subcontinent , are more likely to practice a form of social conversativism that has died out almost everywhere else. Its not strictly a Muslim thing.

But lets not pretend that it isnt the extremely conservative way of life that predominates in that swathe of the world from the Muslim Africa, to the Middle East to India, that cause the most problems with integration.

People from all other cultures have far less problems integrating, cause they have no moral imperatives not to do so. In any country the Chinese , for example, will have intermarried within a generation - and sure doesnt your one Ming Hua work in the local Spar - but the probability is that poor old Rani from Bangladesh wont be allowed to work in a Spar, but her brother Naseem will. This all affects integration in different ways. Lets not pretend that it doesnt.

As I see it, integration is not some abstract thing - its people bumping into each other in pubs, shopping in the same shops and socialising with each other. With people from very conservative cultures (We could add Hasidic Jews to this too) this is less likely to happen.

Does England have this problem? I'm not so sure. I think it exists in pockets of London and Bradford and some large urban centres but most other British cities actually mirror the Dublin situation.

I agree, Im not trying to suggest its 'rivers of blood' out there or anything. But there are problems.

But I take issue with your perception of Ireland as being completely alcohol centered.

Well, to be honest it kind of is. Ever tried getting Irish people to do something on a Saturday night that doesnt involve drinking? Alcohol is birth, death, love, marriage, commiseration, celebration and death in this country. It is the Alpha and Omega of Irish life.

there is a tangible Irish 'identity'

I agree. But our identity is a local thing, it is not bound up with any abstract ideas like 'freedom' , 'democracy' , 'the American Dream' or whatever. So its more difficult to buy into it, if you see what I mean.

philologos

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Yes, obviously, its a generalisation. I was merely taking an example of people from certain South Asian cultures -Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, and people from the Indian Subcontinent , are more likely to practice a form of social conversativism that has died out almost everywhere else. Its not strictly a Muslim thing.

Social conservatism has died out everywhere else? Do you live in Europe? There are conservative Governments in quite a few countries including Sweden. This conservative Government criminalised prostitution and has been fighting against it rather heavily in Stockholm and in other cities.

Likewise in Ireland, social conservatism is still quite strong. Certainly in the USA, social conservatism is quite strong, and in the UK with the Conservative party who are set to regain Government following the 2010 elections take a rather conservative stance on a lot of things from public finances, to marriage (in that they claim that we should be incentivising marriage more than single parents).

RealEstateKing wrote: »

But lets not pretend that it isnt the extremely conservative way of life that predominates in that swathe of the world from the Muslim Africa, to the Middle East to India, that cause the most problems with integration.

What do you define as extremely conservative? Or is this "extremely conservative" coming as a comparison to an extremely liberal mindset? If social conservatism is the problem for integration, then even I as an Irish person am a problem for integrating into what people see as "Irish society". You're going to have to give better reasons why Muslims cannot be considered Irish. I personally have encountered no problems with my Muslim and Sikh neighbours yet in this respect.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

People from all other cultures have far less problems integrating, cause they have no moral imperatives not to do so. In any country the Chinese , for example, will have intermarried within a generation - and sure doesnt your one Ming Hua work in the local Spar - but the probability is that poor old Rani from Bangladesh wont be allowed to work in a Spar, but her brother Naseem will. This all affects integration in different ways. Lets not pretend that it doesnt.

There are moral imperatives not to do so? Where in particular? Are you claiming that this is a part of Islam? You'll find in many religions people ask people to remain separate from the majority and to keep themselves from sin. For example in Judaism:

Psalm 1:1-2 wrote:

Happy are those
who do not follow the advice of the wicked,
or take the path that sinners tread,
or sit in the seat of scoffers;
2but their delight is in the law of the Lord,
and on his law they meditate day and night.

Christianity:

Colossians 3:5 wrote:

Put to death, therefore, whatever in you is earthly: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed (which is idolatry).

And this could be a huge issue for integration.

Romans 12:2 wrote:

Do not be conformed to this world,[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL] but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect.

How come the Jew or the Christian is not as much of a threat to integration as the Muslim is? Surely I although being Irish already am being just as much as a problem if I am to hold Christian and Jewish scripture as a part of my belief system.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

As I see it, integration is not some abstract thing - its people bumping into each other in pubs, shopping in the same shops and socialising with each other. With people from very conservative cultures (We could add Hasidic Jews to this too) this is less likely to happen.

You could add a lot of Irish people into this "integration problem". You think it's down to conservatism, an that you can only meet and discuss over alcohol? I think that's a sorry reflection on Irish society if anything. I think if anything can bring people together it is sporting events. When you get people interested in the same type of sports and going to the same type of games together you will get friendships between various different groupings. There are other ways too but this would be the most effective. Your attitude to conservatism is actually going to isolate rather than join together.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

I agree, Im not trying to suggest its 'rivers of blood' out there or anything. But there are problems.

Or is the problem with the British who are intolerant of Islamic life such as the BNP?

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Well, to be honest it kind of is. Ever tried getting Irish people to do something on a Saturday night that doesnt involve drinking? Alcohol is birth, death, love, marriage, commiseration, celebration and death in this country. It is the Alpha and Omega of Irish life.

There are plenty of other things that people can do which enables them to socialise with others.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

I agree. But our identity is a local thing, it is not bound up with any abstract ideas like 'freedom' , 'democracy' , 'the American Dream' or whatever. So its more difficult to buy into it, if you see what I mean.

That's going to have to change if we want to be a pluralistic society. Sometimes I think it's not minorities problem in changing, but rather in societys lack of will to tolerate them, and to put rigid barriers on what is "Irish".

RealEstateKing

Social conservatism has died out everywhere else? Do you live in Europe? There are conservative Governments in quite a few countries including Sweden. This conservative Government criminalised prostitution and has been fighting against it rather heavily in Stockholm and in other cities.

Likewise in Ireland, social conservatism is still quite strong. Certainly in the USA, social conservatism is quite strong, and in the UK with the Conservative party who are set to regain Government following the 2010 elections take a rather conservative stance on a lot of things from public finances, to marriage (in that they claim that we should be incentivising marriage more than single parents).

I didnt say social conservatism has died out everywhere else. But the type of social conservatism that exists in India and the Middle East has no parallel in the Western World any more - we are talking far, far, more socially conservative than Ireland was in the 1950s.

To give you an example: After her Big Brother appearance Shilpa Shetty was caught on camera kissing Richard Gere on the cheek - this caused a scandal and demonsrations among Hindu fundamentalists, in 2007. To cause a similar level of scandal in Western Europe, she'd have to have sucked him off.

If you think social conservatism is strong in Ireland you obviously havent been to the Middle East or India - their may be some extreme religious conservatives in Ireland who dont let their wives leave the house, who cut their daughters clitorises off, who force their wives to wear clothes that show no flesh, but they would be considered fringe wierdos. In much of rural India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and many Middle-Eastern countries, this would be pretty much mainstream behaviour (80 % of young girls in Indonesia are given the snip). That's all Im saying.

And dont get me wrong, their are of course many brave, strong courageous Indians and Middle-Easterners who resist this behaviour, but regualar people are used to a level of social conservatism that anybody in the West would consider extreme, yes.

You're going to have to give better reasons why Muslims cannot be considered Irish.

Um, wow, are you jumping to conclusions there! I did not say, nor have you any cause to infer, that Muslims shouldnt be considered Irish. I am merely pointing out the plain fact that integration happens more easily with people from some cultures than it does with others. And that I beleive the difference in how conservative we are, is the major cause of this. Dont put racist statements in my mouth.

There are moral imperatives not to do so? Where in particular? Are you claiming that this is a part of Islam? You'll find in many religions people ask people to remain separate from the majority and to keep themselves from sin. For example in Judaism:

Absolutely. These prohibitions exist in Christianity and Judaism, as you rightly point out, the difference of course being, that very few people in the Western World pay attention to such non-sense anymore. Im sure there are passages in the Bible that say its OK to stone women to death for adultery too, but you'd have to go to Afghanistan to find people who still take that seriously.

Or is this "extremely conservative" coming as a comparison to an extremely liberal mindset?

Yes it is. The liberal mindset that informs what Western society is now. Does your wife/Girlfriend have a job? This is because of modern liberal Western values. Are you able to go to a bar and meet a member of the opposite sex and talk to her? Modern Liberal values again.

Or is the problem with the British who are intolerant of Islamic life such as the BNP?

Thats certainly a problem too. But it's not the whole answer, thats my point. Irish/British people are going to find it far easier to Integrate with somebody from Poland, say, than they are with a deeply Islamic Immigrant from the North West Frontier Province. This is nothing to do with intolerance or bigotry, its simply a much more different culture to their own.

How come the Jew or the Christian is not as much of a threat to integration as the Muslim is?

Um, largely because very few educated people in Europe are actually Christians anymore. Christianity, like all religions, is of course full of cretinous stone-age garbage and childish reliance on a sacred text cobbled together over centuries and so on, but in Europe at least - very few actually beleive in it anymore. Even the ones that would call themselves 'Catholics' turn out not to be when you delve deeper. This is not the case in much of the rest of the world.

And , please stop putting words into my mouth, I didnt day Islamic people are a 'threat' , I said that they will prove more difficult to integrate than people from some other cultures, thats all.

There are plenty of other things that people can do which enables them to socialise with others.

True. Pity Irish people have so little interest in them, isnt it?

philologos

RealEstateKing wrote: »

I didnt say social conservatism has died out everywhere else. But the type of social conservatism that exists in India and the Middle East has no parallel in the Western World any more - we are talking far, far, more socially conservative than Ireland was in the 1950s.

To give you an example: After her Big Brother appearance Shilpa Shetty was caught on camera kissing Richard Gere on the cheek - this caused a scandal and demonsrations among Hindu fundamentalists, in 2007. To cause a similar level of scandal in Western Europe, she'd have to have sucked him off.

Fair enough.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

If you think social conservatism is strong in Ireland you obviously havent been to the Middle East or India - their may be some extreme religious conservatives in Ireland who dont let their wives leave the house, who cut their daughters clitorises off, who force their wives to wear clothes that show no flesh, but they would be considered fringe wierdos. In much of rural India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and many Middle-Eastern countries, this would be pretty much mainstream behaviour (80 % of young girls in Indonesia are given the snip). That's all Im saying.

It is strong enough still. Please just take a look at our Constitution even when it has been revised it is still a highly socially conservative document. You'll find social conservatism playing in Irish politics too. Of course not in relation to female circumcision or any type of circumcision due to Christian teaching concerning circumcision and non-Jews which emerged during the 1st century AD.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Um, wow, are you jumping to conclusions there! I did not say, nor have you any cause to infer, that Muslims shouldnt be considered Irish. I am merely pointing out the plain fact that integration happens more easily with people from some cultures than it does with others. And that I beleive the difference in how conservative we are, is the major cause of this. Dont put racist statements in my mouth.

I don't think this type of integration works. You say "This is our country, you have to change to fit in here". Rather we should be saying, if something eventually becomes a large part of Irish life, Irish society will most likely change as the demographics change. I'd support rather a shift of values as people change in a nation. It's the only way we'll avoid nonsense like in the UK or on continental Europe.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Absolutely. These prohibitions exist in Christianity and Judaism, as you rightly point out, the difference of course being, that very few people in the Western World pay attention to such non-sense anymore. Im sure there are passages in the Bible that say its OK to stone women to death for adultery too, but you'd have to go to Afghanistan to find people who still take that seriously.

You have to be kidding me. Many people in the West still believe in Christianity and many don't consider it to be nonsense.

As for the passages on stoning to death for adultery that only pertains to Judaism, death penalties are incompatible with Christianity for the following reason and it's made clear in the New Testament (if you request I can even quote them, I don't have a Bible to hand right now).

If Jesus died for our sins, and if we have received mercy for our sins, we must forgive the sins of others. The main difference between Judaism and Christianity is, in Judaism High Priests decide over the Torah (Jewish law), in Christianity Jesus decides over the Torah, and He has decided mercy in relation to death penalties. I'd advise you to read the Gospels again.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Yes it is. The liberal mindset that informs what Western society is now. Does your wife/Girlfriend have a job? This is because of modern liberal Western values. Are you able to go to a bar and meet a member of the opposite sex and talk to her? Modern Liberal values again.

I share liberalism in respect to job equality, freedom of speech and other things, there are parts of Western social liberalism I have a huge problem with however and I don't feel I can belong to this mindset entirely. I'd consider my mindset to be more motivated by Judeo-Christianity by what one decrees "Irish values" to be.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Thats certainly a problem too. But it's not the whole answer, thats my point. Irish/British people are going to find it far easier to Integrate with somebody from Poland, say, than they are with a deeply Islamic Immigrant from the North West Frontier Province. This is nothing to do with intolerance or bigotry, its simply a much more different culture to their own.

I disagree with your notion of "integrating". I think that people should be allowed to be whoever they want to be, but after time in a country interaction between people should be encouraged by sports and other things. If Irish values mean drinking, you are not going to get any Muslim to drink unless they lose their faith because of the decrees of Muhammad. Have you ever thought about your ease to integrate with a Pole rather than a Muslim is because you may have an inherent fear towards them due to Western stigma?

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Um, largely because very few educated people in Europe are actually Christians anymore. Christianity, like all religions, is of course full of cretinous stone-age garbage and childish reliance on a sacred text cobbled together over centuries and so on, but in Europe at least - very few actually beleive in it anymore. Even the ones that would call themselves 'Catholics' turn out not to be when you delve deeper. This is not the case in much of the rest of the world.

Can't agree with you here. There are quite a lot of educated people in Europe who are Christians, infact in studies carried out in many other parts of the Western world such as the USA, and Australia the amount of university graduates who regularly attend churches is much higher than the average. I have no reason to doubt that this is the case in Europe. At my congregation we have university lecturers, politicians, software developers, nurses, really a whole fold of people with different jobs and of different nationalities. So I call you out on the educated people in Europe one.

As for "childish reliance". I actually think that being willing to improve your life and become a better person is more mature than thinking that you always have it right as is the secular way, I think that is outright childish.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

And , please stop putting words into my mouth, I didnt day Islamic people are a 'threat' , I said that they will prove more difficult to integrate than people from some other cultures, thats all.

You haven't shown one solid reason for it though. Is it really because they don't drink? Quite a few people in Ireland don't either, are they a problem in relation to integration.

I have no reason why the Muslim is any more a problem to "integration" into your Ireland than I am for holding Christian values, or the Jew is for holding Jewish values. Then again I'm not entirely sure if I want to integrate into your Ireland in the first place.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

True. Pity Irish people have so little interest in them, isnt it?

Perhaps they should start

RealEstateKing

You have to be kidding me. Many people in the West still believe in Christianity and many don't consider it to be nonsense.

Well, some still do, but I certainly wouldnt say many. And it is polar in comparison to the Middle-East or India, where EVERYBODY is religious and it would be dangerous not to be in many cases.

Most Mainland European countries are essentially post-Christian at this stage, in the sense that something like 80% of people are not Christian in any meaningful way. Ireland is a little behind in this, of course, but certainly Christianity in no way informs the behaviour or thinking of most people under the age of about 60 in this country.

If my personal experience counts for anything, I have never met anybody Irish of my age (early thirties) or younger, who attends church outside of Christmas and Easter, who consults the Bible or a priest for guidance on anything, or who wouldnt collapse in helpless laughter if you suggested to them that sex before marriage was a sin. Of course , if you asked them what religion they were they'd say "Um, Catholic, I guess." , but they're not, no more than I am.

I don't think this type of integration works. You say "This is our country, you have to change to fit in here".

Well, thats the type of Integration that America has used, and its served them reasonably well. Its not a question of saying that you have to change everything about yourself - but we do not want a society made of of disparate groups that dont interact with each other - that, by definition, is not a society.

As for the passages on stoning to death for adultery that only pertains to Judaism, death penalties are incompatible with Christianity for the following reason and it's made clear in the New Testament

Fair enough if that's your outlook on it, and sounds like a nice form of Christianity to me, but of course many Christian Texans would disagree with you, as did the Spanish Inquisition and most European countries before humanism began to gain a foothold and so on...

I dont want to get into a Biblical debate here, but suffice it to say, that the Bible makes very few clear statements about any subject whatsoever - which is why it is the founding document of a religion - it allows people to project whatever opinion they already have onto it and claim it is sanctioned by God.

We could just as easily use the Bible as justification for a brutal Taliban- like theocracy as a groovy-beardy-Guitar-playing hippy commune. Its a large book that says many completely contradictory things on many subjects, and the bulk of it is made up of parables and old legends that can be interpreted to fit whatever worldview you like. You'd get more cohreent moral guidance out of one of those Little Books of Calm you pick up at the cash register in Waterstones, in my honest opinion.

As for "childish reliance". I actually think that being willing to improve your life and become a better person is more mature than thinking that you always have it right as is the secular way, I think that is outright childish.

Well to be honest, those sound far more like like secular values to me than religious ones. The very definition of being secular/scientific is that you openly and constantly acknowledge that you dont have it right, dont know the answer, and are willing to revise anything you beleive if new evidence comes to light.

Religiousity is the polar opposite: "I beleive that Jesus died for my sins, wrote a big book to tell me what to do, and nothing you can or could ever say will change my mind about that."

Its plain that one of those is a mature, adult way of looking at the world and the other , well, isn't.

It constantly irks me to see Christians claim things like Empathy, Tolerance, and loving your fellow man to be "Christian" values. Most of Christian history was spent burning unbeleivers at the stake, enslaving women, and fighting progress at every turn...(You can fill in this list yourself Im sure) , it is precisely because of the advance of secular humanism that we live in the nice tolerant, open, empathetic society that we now do. It has got absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.

This is quite literally like hearing an alchemist claiming that they invented the theory of relativity, when actually it was only when people had given up alchemy and taken up proper science that the theory of relitivity could be developed.

There are quite a lot of educated people in Europe who are Christians

Oh of course your correct there. They seem to have found a way to bend their intelligence 'around' their Christianity. It seems to work about the same way as being an alcoholic does - We like to assume that only ill-educated fools become alchos - but of course it tends to strike across all levels of intelligence - and we think "Wow, the guy has a PHd from Harvard and he cant see the harm his drinking is doing him." In the same way, it is possible to be a doctor , a lawyer or a U.S. President , and still beleive in things that a ten-year-old can see are false.

However one thing that is clear, time and time again, is that the more literate and intelligent that societies become, the less religious they are: Scandinavia tops the list in every turn. European countries follow on their heels.

And the converse is true as well - the more deeply religious societies are, the more mired in poverty, misery, want, corruption and war they tend to be. - You won't find many secular unbeleivers in sub-Saharan Africa I can assure you.

philologos

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Most Mainland European countries are essentially post-Christian at this stage, in the sense that something like 80% of people are not Christian in any meaningful way. Ireland is a little behind in this, of course, but certainly Christianity in no way informs the behaviour or thinking of most people under the age of about 60 in this country.

How do you assess 80% if you don't mind me asking?

RealEstateKing wrote: »

If my personal experience counts for anything, I have never met anybody Irish of my age (early thirties) or younger, who attends church outside of Christmas and Easter, who consults the Bible or a priest for guidance on anything, or who wouldnt collapse in helpless laughter if you suggested to them that sex before marriage was a sin. Of course , if you asked them what religion they were they'd say "Um, Catholic, I guess." , but they're not, no more than I am.

Well it counts so far as what you have experienced. I personally have also seen this and the opposite being true it depends on what segment of the population you are referring to. I know people as you describe, and I know quite a lot people who consult the Bible, and who wouldn't "collapse in helpless laughter" at Christian teaching in Ireland.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Well, thats the type of Integration that America has used, and its served them reasonably well. Its not a question of saying that you have to change everything about yourself - but we do not want a society made of of disparate groups that dont interact with each other - that, by definition, is not a society.

No it isn't. America started off as a migrant nation to begin with. They came to their values together rather than apart and other nations informed their values as they arrived. I would see that as being a much more co-operative model to what you are describing.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Fair enough if that's your outlook on it, and sounds like a nice form of Christianity to me, but of course many Christian Texans would disagree with you, as did the Spanish Inquisition and most European countries before humanism began to gain a foothold and so on...

No, it's a mainstream theology. People aren't to punish for sins that others have committed against another. However the State does have the authority to use it in law enforcement (Romans 13:1). Christians are not meant to punish others with death for committing adultery (John 8), also we are meant to forgive others if we are to be forgiven. Many Texans may disagree with me on the State using the death penalty as a result of law enforcement, but if they are in any way knowledgeable about Christian theology they will not advocate death for sins. The New Testament explains why this is the case rather clearly.

The Spanish Inquisition went against Christ's teaching hence I can regard it as being a crime, and an act in error that never should have happened in the name of Christianity, and it was an error of the Catholic Church.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

I dont want to get into a Biblical debate here, but suffice it to say, that the Bible makes very few clear statements about any subject whatsoever - which is why it is the founding document of a religion - it allows people to project whatever opinion they already have onto it and claim it is sanctioned by God.

I think the Bible makes a lot of clear statements concerning morality.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

We could just as easily use the Bible as justification for a brutal Taliban- like theocracy as a groovy-beardy-Guitar-playing hippy commune. Its a large book that says many completely contradictory things on many subjects, and the bulk of it is made up of parables and old legends that can be interpreted to fit whatever worldview you like. You'd get more cohreent moral guidance out of one of those Little Books of Calm you pick up at the cash register in Waterstones, in my honest opinion.

You could abuse the Bible as justification. It certainly isn't a valid use of the Scriptures given a Christian understanding of the text however.

You say it is a large book that says many completely contradictory things on many subjects. I'd argue, many things are in common between the Old and New Testaments, and there is a clear development that takes place from Old to New. It's rather simple. We follow Jesus' judgement on the Torah, and where Jesus has not fulfilled any passages of moral Torah they apply as before.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Well to be honest, those sound far more like like secular values to me than religious ones. The very definition of being secular/scientific is that you openly and constantly acknowledge that you dont have it right, dont know the answer, and are willing to revise anything you beleive if new evidence comes to light.

I don't think they do. They were never intended as "secular" when I said it. By becoming a better person, I mean by taking into account trying to be more like Jesus Christ, or trying to adhere to the moral commands of the Biblical text. One can easily deceive themselves saying that they are already as good as they can be without having a means of assessment or a means to test if it is truly the case. Hence why I personally would see the Biblical text as being an important moral framework.

I don't think that secular and scientific are one and the same and I think that is an incorrect way to deal with the subject.

Religiousity is the polar opposite: "I beleive that Jesus died for my sins, wrote a big book to tell me what to do, and nothing you can or could ever say will change my mind about that."

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Its plain that one of those is a mature, adult way of looking at the world and the other , well, isn't.

I'd agree with you. I'd see basing your morals on the Biblical text as a mature and adult way to deal with moral issues.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

It constantly irks me to see Christians claim things like Empathy, Tolerance, and loving your fellow man to be "Christian" values.

They certainly are values that are encouraged by the Bible.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Most of Christian history was spent burning unbeleivers at the stake, enslaving women, and fighting progress at every turn...(You can fill in this list yourself Im sure) , it is precisely because of the advance of secular humanism that we live in the nice tolerant, open, empathetic society that we now do. It has got absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.

You have it wrong. Christianity has nothing to do with those acts in any respect. People abuse religion all the time. I'm personally glad that Christianity has managed to redeem itself from corruption through various movements of renewal such as the Reformation, and Vatican II in relation to Catholicism. I'm also glad that many people are living fulfilled lives because of the Gospel.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Oh of course your correct there. They seem to have found a way to bend their intelligence 'around' their Christianity. It seems to work about the same way as being an alcoholic does - We like to assume that only ill-educated fools become alchos - but of course it tends to strike across all levels of intelligence - and we think "Wow, the guy has a PHd from Harvard and he cant see the harm his drinking is doing him." In the same way, it is possible to be a doctor , a lawyer or a U.S. President , and still beleive in things that a ten-year-old can see are false.

I don't think they do any bending. An intelligent man can realise that there is merit in Christianity to live a fulfilling life.

The main question though. Why don't you oppose native born Christians who advocate Christian values to be as much a problem for integration as Muslims?

However one thing that is clear, time and time again, is that the more literate and intelligent that societies become, the less religious they are: Scandinavia tops the list in every turn. European countries follow on their heels.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

And the converse is true as well - the more deeply religious societies are, the more mired in poverty, misery, want, corruption and war they tend to be. - You won't find many secular unbeleivers in sub-Saharan Africa I can assure you.

Explain the wealth of Christian Europe then if we look back in history? Also the wealth of the Islamic Caliphate. Secularism does not have a direct correlation in any of these things. Infact many atheists in the world live in poverty. Just look at China and many other places in the Far East.

The Corinthian

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Oh of course your correct there. They seem to have found a way to bend their intelligence 'around' their Christianity.

Don't think it's as simple as that. Social and peer pressures are a factor; that religion is a component of ethnic identity is something that should not be forgotten. In some countries, degree level of those who attend church is well above the national average, but this does not mean that they actually believe in the religion. With cults, in particular, the 'need' to fit in is even more acute.

Also, it's not simply a question of belief in God or not - the leap of faith required for Deism (i.e. "there is/was some sort of supreme God-creator is all we can assume") is far smaller than that for a complex religion such as Christianity and Islam, where you have to make far greater 'leaps of faith'.

And of course there are the agnostics, who in many respects treat religion in the same way as many of us treat walking under a ladder. We know it's probably superstitious rubbish, but what's the cost of going around the ladder - just in case?

Finally, intellect does not may one immune to your humanity. Some, I have found, desperately need to believe in something. Anything. This is particularly true of fundamentalists, be they evangelical Christians, militant Muslims or those who convert to Eastern and New Age religions.

Anyhow, isn't this discussion about multiculturalism rather than religion?

RealEstateKing

Anyhow, isn't this discussion about multiculturalism rather than religion?

Yes, but my point was that the largest clash between cultures that we see today is between the predominantly secular, liberal inhabitants of Western societies, and those coming from more tradiotional deeply religious backgrounds.

Thats why we ended up talking about religion.

philologos

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Yes, but my point was that the largest clash between cultures that we see today is between the predominantly secular, liberal inhabitants of Western societies, and those coming from more tradiotional deeply religious backgrounds.

Is it a culture clash at all if you are to phrase it that way? Anyone who is conservative, or holds a belief in a higher power but yet remains Irish is not going to be a part of "Irish culture" under your definition. Looks like a lot of Irish people don't want to integrate either then

The Corinthian

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity has nothing to do with those acts in any respect. People abuse religion all the time. I'm personally glad that Christianity has managed to redeem itself from corruption through various movements of renewal such as the Reformation, and Vatican II in relation to Catholicism. I'm also glad that many people are living fulfilled lives because of the Gospel.

So Christianity, or any other religion that made 'mistakes' in the past, has it right now? Had it occurred to you that they were as convinced that they had the truth as you are?

I don't think they do any bending. An intelligent man can realise that there is merit in Christianity to live a fulfilling life.

I suspect that an intelligent man can realise that there is merit in most religions and even secular ideologies, to live a fulfilling life. Does that mean that he can take the best from each and discard the rest?

Explain the wealth of Christian Europe then if we look back in history? Also the wealth of the Islamic Caliphate.

I hate to mention it, but the Islamic Caliphate would be considered a third world nation in today's terms.

Secularism does not have a direct correlation in any of these things. Infact many atheists in the world live in poverty. Just look at China and many other places in the Far East.

China isn't actually atheist. And what other poor nations are atheist in the Far East? Vietnam, nope - quite religious. North Korea - well, they have their own special religion there...

RealEstateKing

How do you assess 80% if you don't mind me asking?

I dont, its a guestimate. 60 per cent of French dont attend church for example. And about half of those are probably only doing it for the ritual of it, or to please relatives. Im sure you're aware however that commited religious beleif is very much on the wane in Western Europe though. Im sure you wouldnt dispute that. Heres an article you could read though

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-10-europe-religion-cover_x.htm

I know people as you describe, and I know quite a lot people who consult the Bible, and who wouldn't "collapse in helpless laughter" at Christian teaching in Ireland.

Oh of course, Im not trying to suggest there are no religious people in Ireland. But truly religious people, as opposed to those who merely go to church to please their parents, are definitely a minority in all Western European countries,

No, it's a mainstream theology. People aren't to punish for sins that others have committed against another. However the State does have the authority to use it in law enforcement (Romans 13:1). Christians are not meant to punish others with death for committing adultery (John 8), also we are meant to forgive others if we are to be forgiven. Many Texans may disagree with me on the State using the death penalty as a result of law enforcement, but if they are in any way knowledgeable about Christian theology they will not advocate death for sins. The New Testament explains why this is the case rather clearly

Ok, great. Its nice that you beleive that, and it shows that you're probably a fairly decent human being. I am also against the death penalty. However in the 2000 years of Christian and Catholic history - most Christians took the opposite view, and most Christian societies had a death penalty. In fact it is only recently (Since the 1960s or thereabouts) that any significant amount of people began to agitate against the Death penalty and it began to be abolished - except of course in deeply religious places like Texas. How do you explain this if the Bible is so 'clear' on this point?

The Spanish Inquisition went against Christ's teaching

Well so YOU say. But a huge amount of Christians considered them great defenders of the faith. I simply find it a lot easier to view the Bible for what it is: A collection of historically interesting stories and fables, which was never intended to have any internal coherence. You choose to beleive it is the word of God, and so you end up in all sorts of logical muddles as a result.

You could abuse the Bible as justification. It certainly isn't a valid use of the Scriptures given a Christian understanding of the text however.

And what on earth, pray tell is this 'valid Christian' understanding ? Is it a Catholic one, a Mormon one, a Lutheran one, or an Anabaptist one? Jehovahs Witnesses beleive that Blood Transfusions are immoral based on a text in the Bible. On what basis do you disagree with them? I would argue on none at all, you form your moral opinion using your own human intelligence (the same way I do) and then you take the extra step of finding a text in the Bible that justifies this.

You are deciding that one reading of the Bible is closer to the truth of the Bible and others are perversions or abuses of it, on the basis of nothing except your own beleif that this is so.

I'd agree with you. I'd see basing your morals on the Biblical text as a mature and adult way to deal with moral issues.

Well, obviously thats where we differ. I beleive that human beings base their morals on using their intellect and intelligence to design decent ways to live. Probably a candidate for the most tolerant, decent, empathetic human beings in the world lis Denmark - a country in which atheists make up between 43 and 80 per cent of the population. And you will notice that there has been an inverse relationship between religious beleif and basic human decency in human history:

In Mediavel times EVERYONE was religious and nobody even questioned the existence of God - and everywhere was sickness, famine, death, war, and misery. And the more religion came under attack, the more tolerant, decent and caring people became.

I think the Bible makes a lot of clear statements concerning morality.

Well it has some. And it has some which contradict it. But people like you never quote those parts, it's usually some vaguely poetic part that could mean virtually anything depending on how you look at it. I remember once confronting a bunch of Jehovahs about their barbaric refusal to accept blood transfusion. The next day they were at my door with a barrage of quotes, which they felt 'proved' they were right.

For some reason, it never takes the form of John xx: yy

"God said that blood transfusion is wrong. Dont do it, ever."

Its always some vague sentence like a bad horoscope reading:

"And the waters of the river shall not be mingled with those of the sea, for twould be an abomination against JAH-WEH."

or some such guff. You cant really expect 21st Century minds to take that sort of thing seriously.

Explain the wealth of Christian Europe then if we look back in history?

Um, the wealth of Christian EUrope was based (a) on people using their intelligence to invent things that made our lives better and (b) The plain fact that we invented better weapons than anyone else at a certain time of history and spent a couple of centuries kicking the living bleeding **** of everybody else and stealing as much of their stuff as we possibly could. (Ireland exempted from this of course!) In fact we stole so much of their stuff (usually using Christianity and the Bible as our justification) that we continue to be hundreds of times wealthier than the poor bastards who we stole all this stuff off. Only now we dont use swords, we use 'trade agreements.'

Infact many atheists in the world live in poverty. Just look at China and many other places in the Far East.

Ok, there is one country in the world where Atheists live in Poverty - China, and to a far lesser extent Vietnam (Vietnamese people are overwhelmingly religious, but their communist masters officially deny this. And this, as your are well aware has got nothing to do with anything essential about atheism, but is the result of a 19th century beleif system called Communism which proscribed religion as it was a threat to itself.

The Chinese poor are in the miserable state that theye are not because they have a surfeit of secular, free-thinking, humanist vales. Quite the opposite in fact: Chinese communism works in much the same rigid, stultifying way that religion does, with its Holy Books (Das Kapital, Mao's Little Red Book, It's prophets - Chairman Mao, its sins "Capitalist Revisionism, its confession box "Self-criticism", its heretics "Dissidents" and its omnipresent Big Brother in the sky watching your every move. I'd be careful against using it as an example. So the tired old arguement of "But Hiler and Stalin were atheists" doesnt wash. If their was one thing Hitler and Stalin had plenty of, it was wide-eyed, unshakable, unreasoning faith. And lots of it. And where you have lots of faith, you will also find lots of corpses, stultified human beings, and blighted intellectual landscapes.

c_o_ck p_i_ss chillage

Good discussion guys I'm enjoying it a lot.

P,

philologos

RealEstateKing wrote: »

I dont, its a guestimate. 60 per cent of French dont attend church for example. And about half of those are probably only doing it for the ritual of it, or to please relatives. Im sure you're aware however that commited religious beleif is very much on the wane in Western Europe though. Im sure you wouldnt dispute that. Heres an article you could read though.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-10-europe-religion-cover_x.htm

I'd suggest that you leave your "guesstimates" out of the discussion if they don't have any basis to substantiate them.

As for 60% of French not attending church? So? Just because you do not attend church does not mean that you do not believe in a higher power.

As for about half, is that another guesstimate?

I would agree with you that religion is on the decline in Western Europe, but funnily enough is on the advance in most other regions of the world.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Oh of course, Im not trying to suggest there are no religious people in Ireland. But truly religious people, as opposed to those who merely go to church to please their parents, are definitely a minority in all Western European countries

What kind of adult goes to church "merely to please their parents"? Seriously?

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Ok, great. Its nice that you beleive that, and it shows that you're probably a fairly decent human being. I am also against the death penalty. However in the 2000 years of Christian and Catholic history - most Christians took the opposite view, and most Christian societies had a death penalty. In fact it is only recently (Since the 1960s or thereabouts) that any significant amount of people began to agitate against the Death penalty and it began to be abolished - except of course in deeply religious places like Texas. How do you explain this if the Bible is so 'clear' on this point?

The death penalty by the State isn't forbidden (Romans 13:1) in Christianity. Laws which are drawn to punish people by death are acceptable. However, I do not agree with the death penalty at state level personally.

However, the death penalty for sin, is an absolute no no in Christianity, particularly if we have the chance to be saved through the blood of Jesus Christ. If Jesus has mercy on us for our sins, we as Christian individuals are not permitted to punish for the sins of others. The State has authority however.

In the USA, the death penalty falls under category 1, not category 2. It's rather easy to explain actually.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Well so YOU say. But a huge amount of Christians considered them great defenders of the faith. I simply find it a lot easier to view the Bible for what it is: A collection of historically interesting stories and fables, which was never intended to have any internal coherence. You choose to beleive it is the word of God, and so you end up in all sorts of logical muddles as a result.

You say "what it is" as if you know what the Bible is more than the average adherent. I could easily say this. I prefer to assess the Bible for what it really is divine revelation from God unto prophets, and through the Son of God Jesus Christ in order for Christians to live a fulfilled life through Him. However, I am not going to claim that this is the only view people are going to have of the Scriptures.

As for "logical muddles", I don't think I do. I hold it as the inspired word of God written by prophets. That doesn't cause me to arise at any "logical muddle". It gives me a source by which to live my life thanks to Jesus Christ. It may differ from the sources that other people might use to live their lives but it is the one I hold to.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

And what on earth, pray tell is this 'valid Christian' understanding ? Is it a Catholic one, a Mormon one, a Lutheran one, or an Anabaptist one? Jehovahs Witnesses beleive that Blood Transfusions are immoral based on a text in the Bible. On what basis do you disagree with them? I would argue on none at all, you form your moral opinion using your own human intelligence (the same way I do) and then you take the extra step of finding a text in the Bible that justifies this.

On what basis do I disagree with Mormons, Catholics, Lutherans, Anabaptists, and Jehovahs Witnesses? I think I would need an entire thread for each, I can tell you exactly on what issues I disagree with most of these. I don't think I'd disagree very much with Lutherans or Anabaptists however as I see a lot of merit in both of those. Indeed I also find merit in Catholicism. I'd disagree the most with the Mormons and the Jehovahs Witnesses with clear grounds.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

You are deciding that one reading of the Bible is closer to the truth of the Bible and others are perversions or abuses of it, on the basis of nothing except your own beleif that this is so.

Don't jump to conclusions please.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Well, obviously thats where we differ. I beleive that human beings base their morals on using their intellect and intelligence to design decent ways to live. Probably a candidate for the most tolerant, decent, empathetic human beings in the world lis Denmark - a country in which atheists make up between 43 and 80 per cent of the population. And you will notice that there has been an inverse relationship between religious beleif and basic human decency in human history:

I use my intellect equally to anyone else in applying moral precepts to my life. I merely find value in the Judeo-Christian system of morals, hence why I am aiming to live by them.

Oh, and I can show you several societies who made up atheists who supported horrific acts during the 20th century. People always mess up, and I disagree with you strongly given what happened in the 20th century that there is necessarily a negative relationship between religious belief and basic human decency.

A minority of religious people do horrible things distorting the Scriptures they use for their own benefit.

A minority of atheists have done horrible things based on their desire to destroy religion.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

In Mediavel times EVERYONE was religious and nobody even questioned the existence of God - and everywhere was sickness, famine, death, war, and misery. And the more religion came under attack, the more tolerant, decent and caring people became.

This is really nonsense. The Dechristianisation of France? That was a lovely event. Massacring the faithful for the sake of a secular France. Seriously, do your homework before you start claiming stuff like this.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Well it has some. And it has some which contradict it. But people like you never quote those parts, it's usually some vaguely poetic part that could mean virtually anything depending on how you look at it. I remember once confronting a bunch of Jehovahs about their barbaric refusal to accept blood transfusion. The next day they were at my door with a barrage of quotes, which they felt 'proved' they were right.

I consider the New Testament to supersede previous scriptures as do most Christians. What has not been commented on in the New Testament still stands however. For example, moral teachings from the Old Testament. Reading what the actual New Testament says concerning the Jewish law is how we gain this view.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

For some reason, it never takes the form of John xx: yy

"God said that blood transfusion is wrong. Dont do it, ever."

It actually never says that in the Bible. It says in Acts 15, and in the book of Leviticus that people are forbidden to eat blood. The Jehovahs Witnesses goes as far as saying that taking a blood transfusion is the very same as if you are eating it yourself, which of course is based on assumption.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Its always some vague sentence like a bad horoscope reading:

"And the waters of the river shall not be mingled with those of the sea, for twould be an abomination against JAH-WEH."

?? If that is an actual reference please cite?

RealEstateKing wrote: »

or some such guff. You cant really expect 21st Century minds to take that sort of thing seriously.

Am I a 21st century mind? I'd argue so considering that I'm 20 years old.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Um, the wealth of Christian EUrope was based (a) on people using their intelligence to invent things that made our lives better and (b) The plain fact that we invented better weapons than anyone else at a certain time of history and spent a couple of centuries kicking the living bleeding **** of everybody else and stealing as much of their stuff as we possibly could. (Ireland exempted from this of course!) In fact we stole so much of their stuff (usually using Christianity and the Bible as our justification) that we continue to be hundreds of times wealthier than the poor bastards who we stole all this stuff off. Only now we dont use swords, we use 'trade agreements.'

You said that religious countries are poorer. I proved you wrong saying that Christian Europe prospered. Would you contend with that point? This is irrelevant to the point why I referred to Christian Europe.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Ok, there is one country in the world where Atheists live in Poverty - China, and to a far lesser extent Vietnam (Vietnamese people are overwhelmingly religious, but their communist masters officially deny this. And this, as your are well aware has got nothing to do with anything essential about atheism, but is the result of a 19th century beleif system called Communism which proscribed religion as it was a threat to itself.

There are quite a lot in the Far East. I think you are sorely wrong with correlating religion with poverty as in my previous assessment. Poverty has nothing to do with religion either, so why did you bring it up?

RealEstateKing wrote: »

The Chinese poor are in the miserable state that theye are not because they have a surfeit of secular, free-thinking, humanist vales. Quite the opposite in fact: Chinese communism works in much the same rigid, stultifying way that religion does, with its Holy Books (Das Kapital, Mao's Little Red Book, It's prophets - Chairman Mao, its sins "Capitalist Revisionism, its confession box "Self-criticism", its heretics "Dissidents" and its omnipresent Big Brother in the sky watching your every move. I'd be careful against using it as an example. So the tired old arguement of "But Hiler and Stalin were atheists" doesnt wash. If their was one thing Hitler and Stalin had plenty of, it was wide-eyed, unshakable, unreasoning faith. And lots of it. And where you have lots of faith, you will also find lots of corpses, stultified human beings, and blighted intellectual landscapes.

The tired old arguments:
1) Countries are poor because of religion.
2) Religion has caused wars.
are as fallacious as the one concerning Hitler and Stalin.

They were atheists none the less and if you bring up examples like the Crusades which had actually nothing to do with what Jesus Christ commanded, I have the right to bring up Hitler and Stalin who had nothing to do with most of the secular values people hold.

Could you please answer my previous question. If you don't answer anything else on this thread. I'd like you to answer this:

Is it a culture clash at all if you are to phrase it that way? Anyone who is conservative, or holds a belief in a higher power but yet remains Irish is not going to be a part of "Irish culture" under your definition. Looks like a lot of Irish people don't want to integrate either then

RealEstateKing

I'd suggest that you leave your "guesstimates" out of the discussion if they don't have any basis to substantiate them.

This from a guy that beleives the Bible is the Word of God on the basis of what rigorous scientific analysis exactly? You beleive it because you do. Glass houses/stones. I made a guestimate early on in this discussion, and acknowledged it to be so, and when asked backed it up with a poll that showed it to be quite close for a guestimate.

Can you please provide me with something similar regarding your far more outlandish and far-reaching claim that the Bible is the Word of God, God created the World and Jesus is his Son - I would appreciate it.

What kind of adult goes to church "merely to please their parents"? Seriously?

Um millions of them do, I would argue its one of the major reasons why anybody under 60 still goes. That and for the ritual and the social element.

I merely find value in the Judeo-Christian system of morals, hence why I am aiming to live by them.

I see some value in them too, but I see the Bible as one book among many, you see it as The Word of God, thus you're being a little modest in your claims for it there. You beleive that the Bible is the absolute last word on morals, as you have to, being a Christian - dont try and pretend that you just happen to find value in it.

I prefer to assess the Bible for what it really is divine revelation from God unto prophets, and through the Son of God Jesus Christ in order for Christians to live a fulfilled life through Him

Fair enough. You beleive this, and you have no evidence for it. My belief, which I freely acknowledge could be wrong (which you would never say of yours) , is that the Bible is a collection of stories written by many different people over several centuries containing elements of many stories, cults, fables, and morality tales common at the time as well as a little new stuff.

The historical, archealogical and literary weight of evidence is resoundingly on my side on that score, to roughly the same degree as it would be if I said that "Ullyses" was a book written by an Irishman called James Joyce in the early teens of the 20th Century. If somebody chooses to beleive that "Ullyses" is the Word of God, well they're welcome to beleive it. Just lets not pretend its any more respectable or rigourous to do so than beleiving in the tooth fairy.

I hold it as the inspired word of God written by prophets. That doesn't cause me to arise at any "logical muddle".

Yes it does, as the Bible is a very long very complicated book that says a lot of things on many subjects, many of which do not cohere with each other. You have to twist logic at every turn to maintain the absurd view that it is the Word of God.

You are deciding that one reading of the Bible is closer to the truth of the Bible and others are perversions or abuses of it, on the basis of nothing except your own beleif that this is so. Dont jump to conclusions please.

If we were talking about any subject other than religion, what I said would not be regarded as jumping to conclusions. It would be regarded as stating the obvious. Because you belong to a set (religious people) which is given special exemption from the rules which govern all other discourse, you are allowed to beleive whatever you like whether it has any cohrenece or not and we are expected to respect it. Well I dont. No more than I would respect a 30 year old man who beleived in Santa Claus.

This is really nonsense. The Dechristianisation of France? That was a lovely event. Massacring the faithful for the sake of a secular France. Seriously, do your homework before you start claiming stuff like this.

You seem to think that Im claiming all religious people are evil and all atheists/secularists are saintly and tolerant. Thats not what I said: What I said is that the less influence religion has in any given society, and the more influence free-thinking, secularist, humanist, values have, the better the societies are. You welcome to go to Afghanistan to see how fun it is to live in the wonderful world where religion is blooming. Ill be in Denmark if you need me.

"And the waters of the river shall not be mingled with those of the sea, for twould be an abomination against JAH-WEH."
?? If that is an actual reference please cite?

This is not a reference, its a parody of the sort of guff people quote from the Bible to justify their claims. Surely that was obvious.

Am I a 21st century mind? I'd argue so considering that I'm 20 years old.

Well, I dont mean to be rude, but on the basis of many of the things you've been saying, I would say that a significant part of your mind is not 21st century no. If you really beleive the things you are saying above then I would have to place you somewhere between the Decline of the Roman Empire and the 15th Century, before the Enlightenment began to take hold.

The tired old arguments:
1) Countries are poor because of religion.

No, they are usually religious because they are poor: Though certainly the stultifyling insistence religion has that one single book is the absolute truth (Koran, Bible, et al) , does not tend to produce the sort of independant minds that lead to economic development. Pakistan would be an example of a country that has been led to almost complete ruin by following religious precepts. There are many others.

2) Religion has caused wars.

Well this is quite obviously a historical fact. Do you actually need to hear a list of something as obvious as this? I mean you live in Ireland for goodness sake. Look 100 miles up the road.

The Isreal/Palestine problem is made intractable by both sides unbendable belief that God gave them the same peice of land in their respective Holy Books. As this is not a rational claim, there can be no earthly solution to it. And so on it drags.

There are quite a lot in the Far East.

THere are precisely 3 and no more.

(1) China (previously discussed)
(2) North Korea. Again, to call a country that considers the (dead) Kim Il Sung , to be the official leader of the country and his Son, Kim Jong Il to be his living avatar on Earth, to be atheist, is surely missing the mark somewhat. If anything North Korea's celestial dictatorship from beyond the grave, rather reminds one of another holy family we know and love, dont you think?
(3) Vietnam. (Previously discussed)

There are no other countries in Asia with a significant Athiest majority. All the rest are Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Taoist and Shintoist with pockets of Christianity, Animist and tribal beleifs.

They were atheists none the less

Hitler most certainly wasn't an atheist, and in fact made use of religious dogma in his speeches. Heres' one from Mein Kampf:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Now I wouldnt suggest he was a Christian either, he was probably just being politically expedient. That said, a huge percentage of the people who followed him were Christians and saw no conflict between their National Socialist beliefs and their Christian ones. This of course is not an indictment of Christianity, except that it is anecdotal eveidence that Christianity's claims to make people behave better might be spurious.

Furthermore, Nazism was most certainly a religion in all but name. Not a Christian one, I grant you, but one that had all the blind faith, prophetic leaders, eternal kingdoms that set it apart from rational discourse. Ditto Communism.

and if you bring up examples like the Crusades which had actually nothing to do with what Jesus Christ commanded,

- again you have no proof of this, you simply beleive that Jesus wouldnt have wanted it. I'd like to think you're right. And we could take some of his nicer sayings to make us feel good about this beleif.

But the Bible is not clear on this point, there is plenty of stuff in it about putting unbeleivers to the sword, and plenty of barborous savagery about massacre , rape and pillage in it too. You say that we are to supercede those parts by what it says in the New Testament. Great. Sounds like a good idea to me. About 1900 years of Christianity would disagree with you there, though.

Heres the rub however, the actions of the adherents of a doctrine are the ultimate test of the doctrine: Stalin was the not an abberation , he was the logical extension of blind belief in the writings of Marx - much as the Crusades are the logical extension of blind belief that a single, contradictory ancient book is the Word of God. That the world we now live in (in Western Europe at any rate) is as cosy and comfortable as it is, is due to the modern dearth of people willing to make such logical extensions.

Could you please answer my previous question. If you don't answer anything else on this thread. I'd like you to answer this:[/

Well as you say, there is a small amount of culture clash within Ireland too, as you rightly point out: In fact we're seeing it played out on our T.V screens nightly in the wake of this abuse scandal. And as we can see, unlike even 20 years ago, nobody is aven attempting to defend the religious side on this one.

People who beleive in a higher power are not the source of that clash however: I am talking about people who beleive (strongly) in revealed religion that is based on a book which you MUST believe is the incontrovertable Word Of God. This is hardly the same thing as somebody beleiving in some sort of 'higher power' or 'life force' - a belief which is totally compatible with being a modern enlightened human being. If you state as you do, that you not only beleive in a higher power, but that he has written a Big Book, inagaurated a Church, intervenes in world affairs and sends us to Heaven when we die, you are stepping outside that definition.

Thankfully, in the Ireland of today, people who genuinely, truly beleive the above, are pretty thin on the ground in the under-60s. Obviously you and I would differ on the why's and wherefores of this state of affairs. As I mentioned before the culture clash I was worried about, was only worth worrying about if there is a large number of such people, as their bizarre beliefs would alienate them from the mainstream. If its only 2 guys in the pub, it doesnt matter. If its every 3rd person then it might. Thats all.

In other words, Im not that worried, because there are not that many of you.

If this was America my attitude would be different. And as you can see, in America, there is a huge clash of cultures between the well-educated wealthier, largely secular people and the lumpen stulfified, alienated poor in the coutryside who beleive absolutely in The Word of God. I wouldnt like to see that here.

Furthermore, fantastical though I feel you beliefs are, I can tell from most of what you say, that in your day to day morals, you're not that much different to me: You go about your day, try to work hard, look after those you love, and so on, much as I do, and as such you sound like an unlikely candidate for a seperatist movement, a suicide bombing, an honour killing, or a genital mutilating. So Im not that worried.

And yes, I do think that such deeply conervative, commited beleifs are more likely these days to be found in a certain, relatively new religion of revelation that developed in the Near East about 1400 years ago. And that idea gives me pause. Pause, no more, not alarm, nor fear. Just pause.

philologos

RealEstateKing wrote: »

This from a guy that beleives the Bible is the Word of God on the basis of what rigorous scientific analysis exactly? You beleive it because you do. Glass houses/stones. I made a guestimate early on in this discussion, and acknowledged it to be so, and when asked backed it up with a poll that showed it to be quite close for a guestimate.

I believe the Bible is an inspired word of God. I believe in it because I have adequate indication that it is the truth. If you want to find out more about how Christians generally substantiate their positions theologically or otherwise read some Christian apologetics.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Um millions of them do, I would argue its one of the major reasons why anybody under 60 still goes. That and for the ritual and the social element.

I'm not sure what you are basing this on. However, I'm starting to think that your view is based on stereotypes rather than on reality.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

I see some value in them too, but I see the Bible as one book among many, you see it as The Word of God, thus you're being a little modest in your claims for it there. You beleive that the Bible is the absolute last word on morals, as you have to, being a Christian - dont try and pretend that you just happen to find value in it.

I see the Bible as one book among many, but I believe it to be the inspired word of God. I do believe that the Bible is the absolute last word on morals, let me give you a bit of my reasoning as to why assuming that God exists this is my reasoning:

1. God created the world.
2. God is omnipotent, and omniscient.
3. God is knows everything about what He has created.
4. We do not.
5. Hence God knows best about how to live in His creation.

This is why I look to the Bible for guidance generally, and I'm always surprised in the wisdom I manage to read about humanity and our condition. If I find that I am doing something wrong, it allows me to review my behaviour and to carry on more knowledgable than I was before. I think that's always a good thing.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Fair enough. You beleive this, and you have no evidence for it. My belief, which I freely acknowledge could be wrong (which you would never say of yours) , is that the Bible is a collection of stories written by many different people over several centuries containing elements of many stories, cults, fables, and morality tales common at the time as well as a little new stuff.

People would highly disagree with you saying that there is no evidence for Christianity. Many people have presented evidence for Christianity. Evidence as in indications. You would be correct in saying that there is no absolute proof. There is no absolute proof for the opposite position either. However, if we can assess what suggests to us that there is a God, or what suggests that there isn't. That is about the best we can do before we reach proof.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

The historical, archealogical and literary weight of evidence is resoundingly on my side on that score, to roughly the same degree as it would be if I said that "Ullyses" was a book written by an Irishman called James Joyce in the early teens of the 20th Century. If somebody chooses to beleive that "Ullyses" is the Word of God, well they're welcome to beleive it. Just lets not pretend its any more respectable or rigourous to do so than beleiving in the tooth fairy.

It isn't on your "end of the score" at all You can continue thinking that it is not as substantiated as the tooth fairy, but that shows how little you've actually looked into it instead of blindly accepting assumptions and stereotypes about peoples behaviour.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Yes it does, as the Bible is a very long very complicated book that says a lot of things on many subjects, many of which do not cohere with each other. You have to twist logic at every turn to maintain the absurd view that it is the Word of God.

It's also a very useful book for assessing human behaviour. I don't think that divine revelation, or Creation is absurd. Infact I think the opposite (concerning Creation) is quite absurd indeed. I don't see how I have to twist any logic, and I don't think I have done in this entire discussion so far.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

If we were talking about any subject other than religion, what I said would not be regarded as jumping to conclusions. It would be regarded as stating the obvious. Because you belong to a set (religious people) which is given special exemption from the rules which govern all other discourse, you are allowed to beleive whatever you like whether it has any cohrenece or not and we are expected to respect it. Well I dont. No more than I would respect a 30 year old man who beleived in Santa Claus.

Well generally when you assume things without adequate reason like "guesstimates" from stereotypes you are jumping to conclusions. Generally, assuming that people don't have reasons for their beliefs without even asking them is also highly absurd. Check the link in my signature for a basic overview. PM me if you have any gripes.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

You seem to think that Im claiming all religious people are evil and all atheists/secularists are saintly and tolerant. Thats not what I said: What I said is that the less influence religion has in any given society, and the more influence free-thinking, secularist, humanist, values have, the better the societies are. You welcome to go to Afghanistan to see how fun it is to live in the wonderful world where religion is blooming. Ill be in Denmark if you need me.

I think I'm freely thinking already. I read, and then I think about what I read to see if it is reasonable. I don't consider secular and humanist to be automatically good. They should be met with skepticism as people try to abuse them for atheistic goals every day of the week. Secularism on the outset is fine. When people abuse secularism that's a problem.

As for going to Afghanistan, I don't see why I should given that I am a Christian, not a Muslim or even a Muslim of their sort (Wahabism).

RealEstateKing wrote: »

This is not a reference, its a parody of the sort of guff people quote from the Bible to justify their claims. Surely that was obvious.

Another "guesstimate" or assumption then?

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Well, I dont mean to be rude, but on the basis of many of the things you've been saying, I would say that a significant part of your mind is not 21st century no. If you really beleive the things you are saying above then I would have to place you somewhere between the Decline of the Roman Empire and the 15th Century, before the Enlightenment began to take hold.

I'll agree to disagree with you on this one. I'm absolutely certain that I don't want to integrate with your Ireland. Christianity has a place in the 21st century whether people like it or not

RealEstateKing wrote: »

No, they are usually religious because they are poor: Though certainly the stultifyling insistence religion has that one single book is the absolute truth (Koran, Bible, et al) , does not tend to produce the sort of independant minds that lead to economic development. Pakistan would be an example of a country that has been led to almost complete ruin by following religious precepts. There are many others.

Assumption. Explain why religion has such a huge role in the USA, and South Korea in particular.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Well this is quite obviously a historical fact. Do you actually need to hear a list of something as obvious as this? I mean you live in Ireland for goodness sake. Look 100 miles up the road.

Northern Ireland's conflict was based on political alignment. Religious affiliation was a handy tool to suggest why they were so different from eachother. Not the primary cause however

RealEstateKing wrote: »

The Isreal/Palestine problem is made intractable by both sides unbendable belief that God gave them the same peice of land in their respective Holy Books. As this is not a rational claim, there can be no earthly solution to it. And so on it drags.

I'm glad you have raised this one. I've read quite a few books on the Israel-Palestine conflict and is a particular area of my interest. Again religion wasn't the primary problem here, Jews and Muslims got on fine in the British Mandate of Palestine up to about 1920.

What happened was the indigenous Arab population started getting annoyed at the rapid immigration of the Jews, and the plans of the Jews to create a Jewish state in a predominately Gentile (non-Jewish) land. Now when I use Jew in this sense, I am referring to the ethnic group not the religion. Many of these Jews were atheists and agnostics.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Hitler most certainly wasn't an atheist, and in fact made use of religious dogma in his speeches. Heres' one from Mein Kampf:

Hold the press here:

“You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

One senior member of the U.S. prosecution team, General William Donovan, as part of his work on documenting Nazi war crimes, compiled large amounts of documentation that the Nazis also planned to systematically destroy Christianity.[43] Donovan's documents include almost 150 bound volumes currently stored at Cornell University after his death in 1959; these documents state

"Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion," said an OSS report in July 1945. "The best evidence now available as to the existence of an anti-Church plan is to be found in the systematic nature of the persecution itself.

They also show the different steps involved in the persecution, including the campaign to suppress denominational and youth organizations, denominational schools, and the use of defamation against the clergy, orchestrated to started on the same day over the Reich and supported by the press, Nazi Party meetings and by traveling party speakers.The documents show that the Nazis early on wanted the churches neutralized because they feared that the Churches would oppose Nazi plans based on racism and aggressive wars. The Nazis planned to infiltrate churches and use defamation, arrest, assault and/or kill pastors, and "re-educate" church congregations. They also suppressed denominational schools and Christian youth organizations.

Yes, he sounds very Christian doesn't he? Plans to destroy Christianity after WW2, fully documented. Anyone can be a con-artist in public.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Furthermore, Nazism was most certainly a religion in all but name. Not a Christian one, I grant you, but one that had all the blind faith, prophetic leaders, eternal kingdoms that set it apart from rational discourse. Ditto Communism.

This is just a cop out.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

- again you have no proof of this, you simply beleive that Jesus wouldnt have wanted it. I'd like to think you're right. And we could take some of his nicer sayings to make us feel good about this beleif.

Yes I do. Look at what Jesus commanded in the Biblical text, and then tell me if it coherent with the Crusades. Use your brain please!

RealEstateKing wrote: »

But the Bible is not clear on this point, there is plenty of stuff in it about putting unbeleivers to the sword, and plenty of barborous savagery about massacre , rape and pillage in it too.

I think that was divine retribution, and I think you are referring to the post-Mosaic conquest of Israel by Joshua. If these people hadn't transgressed against God, and if these people hadn't tried to stop the Israelites trying to settle in Israel by force I would have understood your grievance. However, let's keep on the topic of integration.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

You say that we are to supercede those parts by what it says in the New Testament. Great. Sounds like a good idea to me. About 1900 years of Christianity would disagree with you there, though.

Well, as Christians, we are meant to follow Christ. I also think you are being a bit disingenous. I never said we were meant to rub out that section of the Biblical text. However post-Christ, punishment is meant to be left to God, not to mankind for sins.

The Bible is a developing text from the earliest in Genesis when people were only starting to know God, to Revelation when people have finally seen the hidden glory of the Messiah (which is discussed in Isaiah) in Revelation. Now, if you are to hold the understanding that they knew just as much about God in the start as in the end, your point would be perfectly valid, since that isn't the case it is invalid.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Heres the rub however, the actions of the adherents of a doctrine are the ultimate test of the doctrine: Stalin was the not an abberation , he was the logical extension of blind belief in the writings of Marx - much as the Crusades are the logical extension of blind belief that a single, contradictory ancient book is the Word of God. That the world we now live in (in Western Europe at any rate) is as cosy and comfortable as it is, is due to the modern dearth of people willing to make such logical extensions.

Excuses and pure nonsense. His wars were to pursue state atheism so that his persona could be glorified.

The Crusades had nothing to do with God at all, but were about selfish gain and conquest in the Middle East for most people according to Steven Runciman's History of the Crusades volume 1, and there was a secondary goal to keep Islam out of Europe. I can argue this until the sun goes down.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Well as you say, there is a small amount of culture clash within Ireland too, as you rightly point out: In fact we're seeing it played out on our T.V screens nightly in the wake of this abuse scandal. And as we can see, unlike even 20 years ago, nobody is aven attempting to defend the religious side on this one.

I don't see how this is so considering that most Christians harshly disagree with the abuse, and the abuse has nothing to do with the Christian faith itself. It's not the "religious side", it's the abusive, perverse side. Mind you there has been just as much abuse if not more outside the Catholic Church that aren't held to the same account. I personally think it is the culmination of the celibacy restrictions which isn't to be expected of any minister in the Bible (1 Timothy, Titus).

RealEstateKing wrote: »

People who beleive in a higher power are not the source of that clash however: I am talking about people who beleive (strongly) in revealed religion that is based on a book which you MUST believe is the incontrovertable Word Of God. This is hardly the same thing as somebody beleiving in some sort of 'higher power' or 'life force' - a belief which is totally compatible with being a modern enlightened human being. If you state as you do, that you not only beleive in a higher power, but that he has written a Big Book, inagaurated a Church, intervenes in world affairs and sends us to Heaven when we die, you are stepping outside that definition.

I don't believe that God has inaugurated the Catholic Church above all others as a non-Catholic. I strongly believe in revealed religion because it well, makes sense I don't see myself as a threat to society, and you shouldn't either. It's ridiculous that you have such a phobia of religion, infact hilarious if you don't mind me saying so.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Thankfully, in the Ireland of today, people who genuinely, truly beleive the above, are pretty thin on the ground in the under-60s. Obviously you and I would differ on the why's and wherefores of this state of affairs. As I mentioned before the culture clash I was worried about, was only worth worrying about if there is a large number of such people, as their bizarre beliefs would alienate them from the mainstream. If its only 2 guys in the pub, it doesnt matter. If its every 3rd person then it might. Thats all.

Greed, and wealth generally lead to the downfall of belief. It happened in Ancient Israel, as much as it will happen here. However I have no reason to believe that there is anything special about this, religion declines and grows in several stages throughout history. This has been particularly true from the 18th century until present.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

In other words, Im not that worried, because there are not that many of you.

Why should I worry you at all?

RealEstateKing wrote: »

If this was America my attitude would be different. And as you can see, in America, there is a huge clash of cultures between the well-educated wealthier, largely secular people and the lumpen stulfified, alienated poor in the coutryside who beleive absolutely in The Word of God. I wouldnt like to see that here.

This is nonsense. Educational attainment amongst church-goers in the USA is above average.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Furthermore, fantastical though I feel you beliefs are, I can tell from most of what you say, that in your day to day morals, you're not that much different to me: You go about your day, try to work hard, look after those you love, and so on, much as I do, and as such you sound like an unlikely candidate for a seperatist movement, a suicide bombing, an honour killing, or a genital mutilating. So Im not that worried.

I don't consider suicide bombings, honour killings or genital mutilating to be in anyway coherent with Christianity, and neither does the majority. Not even the majority of religious people do. You're just coming across as paranoid, assuming because I believe in God I must also buy into these.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

And yes, I do think that such deeply conervative, commited beleifs are more likely these days to be found in a certain, relatively new religion of revelation that developed in the Near East about 1400 years ago. And that idea gives me pause. Pause, no more, not alarm, nor fear. Just pause.

Conservative beliefs are actually the fastest growing in the Western world within Christianity and Islam.

The Corinthian

Jakkass wrote: »

I see the Bible as one book among many, but I believe it to be the inspired word of God. I do believe that the Bible is the absolute last word on morals, let me give you a bit of my reasoning as to why assuming that God exists this is my reasoning:

1. God created the world.
2. God is omnipotent, and omniscient.
3. God is knows everything about what He has created.
4. We do not.
5. Hence God knows best about how to live in His creation.

I don't want to be rude, but while the reasoning is fine as long as you accept the assumptions made in points 1 and 2, those assumptions are pretty big ones - leaps of faith, as they are better known.

If either are incorrect or even inaccurate, the rest of your reasoning collapses. Given the magnitude of those assumptions, you can hardly ask us to accept your conclusions to be sound.

This is why I look to the Bible for guidance generally, and I'm always surprised in the wisdom I manage to read about humanity and our condition. If I find that I am doing something wrong, it allows me to review my behaviour and to carry on more knowledgable than I was before. I think that's always a good thing.

Like the daily horoscopes.

philologos

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't want to be rude, but while the reasoning is fine as long as you accept the assumptions made in points 1 and 2, those assumptions are pretty big ones - leaps of faith, as they are better known.

If either are incorrect or even inaccurate, the rest of your reasoning collapses. Given the magnitude of those assumptions, you can hardly ask us to accept your conclusions to be sound.

I don't expect you to come to my reasoning on God. I'm merely trying to demonstrate how it isn't ridiculous for me to appeal to God's authority as a legitimate guide for my daily life or to at least gain somewhat of an insight into how God wants me to live even if I screw up monumentally along the way.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Like the daily horoscopes.

For some people the daily horoscopes might serve this purpose yes. I don't believe that horoscopes provide the truth but that is neither here nor there. I can see why you raised it into the discussion.

The main point is I think it's quite ridiculous to suggest that to be a meaningful part of Irish society, you have to dismiss belief in God, you have to dismiss following by whatever religious morality system you want. Points have been made against the Islamic way of life, that could be easily be made against the Jewish or Christian way of life that has been the foundation of European societies. Even secular thinkers during the Enlightenment drew on some of the Christian values that had existed beforehand.

I think it's absurd to suggest that people who have lived in Ireland their entire lives are not integrated into Irish society. I have a friend of mine who is a Sikh and his family live on that general lifestyle. Sure, they may live differently to others, yet he is about as Irish as anyone else I know in his accent, diallect and in general behaviour. Why does his being a Sikh detract from him being Irish according to RealEstateKing? Why does my Christianity detract from me being Irish according to RealEstateKing?

This merely shows that it is absurd reasoning to suggest that we somehow must lose our respective religions to be truly Irish.

The Corinthian

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't expect you to come to my reasoning on God. I'm merely trying to demonstrate how it isn't ridiculous for me to appeal to God's authority as a legitimate guide for my daily life or to at least gain somewhat of an insight into how God wants me to live even if I screw up monumentally along the way.

Well, putting it diplomatically, whether it is ridiculous or not is a matter of opinion.

Less diplomatically, it is the scope of your first two points that can be viewed as ridiculous, as they are pretty far ranging axioms to base your logic on - to the point that much of your logic becomes inductive rather than deductive.

Additionally, they at best argue for Deism, as accepting a codified religion would require additional leaps of faith (after all, saying there is a God is one thing, saying that the Bible is its interpreted Word is another thing again).

Even secular thinkers during the Enlightenment drew on some of the Christian values that had existed beforehand.

No one denies that Christianity or any other religions have good ideas - they simply would not have survived for so long without them. Of course, anthropologically, successful religions likely adopted such ideas for this reason. Social concepts, such as charity, pre-dated Christianity, after all.

This merely shows that it is absurd reasoning to suggest that we somehow must lose our respective religions to be truly Irish.

Of course religion is part of being 'Irish' - at least 'Irish' in the present day. It is part of our ethnic identity. But this does not mean that it will remain part of our ethnic identity in the future, or that Christianity will not be displaced by another religion of belief system, such as Islam or Atheism.

Ethnic identities evolve, after all, and what it meant to be an Irishman in 1000 A.D. differs greatly to that of 1000 B.C or today, or even in a few hundred or a thousand years.

Guitareaxe

I'm not a proponent of multiculturalism but I am also not a right wing nationalist, I'm a realist and internationalist I suppose, And although I believe everyone is born equal, An upbringing and education can change that equality very much. Globalization is an inevitability however.

I think everything in moderation can be a good thing, but too much of anything is always bad.

Just with immigration.

If you go to stay in someones house, and that person lets you live there, then you must respect their rules and ways, you can express yourself culturally and have your own language, religion, morals and cultural Identity, but you cant shove it down the homeowners neck. you must assimilate and compromise, become part of that home.
That's my opinion.

take nationals of Muslim country's for example, No problem with them living and working here, but start trying to convert the country to Islam and your pushing it, its our house, our country, live here , work here, celebrate your religions , speak your language, but respect the country's heritage and ways.
The Irish declaration says this country and its lands belong to the Irish, cant argue with that now can we?

No problem with people coming here and becoming upstanding members of society, from any part of the world , any race. But assimilation is the key, not division and ghettoisation.

Anyway stick a few Irish family's into a block of flats anywhere and it becomes obvious were pretty good at making ghettos ourselves.

RealEstateKing

Sorry to go off topic a bit, but I couldn't accept this when reading it.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Ok, there is one country in the world where Atheists live in Poverty - China, and to a far lesser extent Vietnam (Vietnamese people are overwhelmingly religious, but their communist masters officially deny this. And this, as your are well aware has got nothing to do with anything essential about atheism, but is the result of a 19th century beleif system called Communism which proscribed religion as it was a threat to itself.

I've liked a lot of what you've written previously, but tbh I think you're off the mark when it comes to China or that you've been reading books written in the 60's. There are quite a few religions and spiritual beliefs running throughout the backbone of that country, depending on ethnic and social divisions. Lord knows, I was dragged by three Chinese families to Christmas Mass in Xi'an when they found out i wasn't going.

The only real difference is that religious acceptance is a relatively new thing. Previously the state didn't know how to handle it, and now they're turning a blind eye. In many ways similar to the way communist Russia started accepting religious beliefs in their own country.

As a Catholic, I had the choice of three Churches to go to in Xi'an. I know that there was a protestant church, and also quite a few churches/places of faith for other religions spread around the place. And lets not forget that Islam has a rather strong hold on western border regions in China.

The Chinese poor are in the miserable state that theye are not because they have a surfeit of secular, free-thinking, humanist vales. Quite the opposite in fact: Chinese communism works in much the same rigid, stultifying way that religion does, with its Holy Books (Das Kapital, Mao's Little Red Book, It's prophets - Chairman Mao, its sins "Capitalist Revisionism, its confession box "Self-criticism", its heretics "Dissidents" and its omnipresent Big Brother in the sky watching your every move. I'd be careful against using it as an example. So the tired old arguement of "But Hiler and Stalin were atheists" doesnt wash. If their was one thing Hitler and Stalin had plenty of, it was wide-eyed, unshakable, unreasoning faith. And lots of it. And where you have lots of faith, you will also find lots of corpses, stultified human beings, and blighted intellectual landscapes.

Wow. Simply wow. The Chinese are in a poor state because of history. Its called progress. I always find it amazing that Europeans/westerners seem to forget that their own countries weren't places of paradise a hundred years ago. Considering the problems that have faced Asia in the last hundred years both from domestic and foreign threats, they're doing pretty well.

China will change, and they'll change in their own way.

Now, as for multi-culturalism itself... The problem I see is that posters are linking Ireland with the UK or other European countries. However the fact is that Ireland is, for the most part, starting off with a clean slate. We don't have the numbers of immigrants in this country to suggest that we have anything similar to European countries. Yet. But that will change, especially once the economy picks up again.

Religion itself isn't such an issue for me when it comes to multi-culturalism. Its the practices which seek to separate and isolate that bother me. What is done in the privacy of their own homes is perfectly acceptable within the limits of the law. They have the same rights as the rest of us for privacy, and such. And yet, the problem grows with the concept of the Ghetto system which plagues most of Europe to some degree. I cam still remember living in Frankfurt, and walking through the Arab sections with some German Friends. It wasn't Germany anymore. Gone was the German language both spoken, and written. It was like stepping into any M.Eastern city block, except for the obvious architecture, and weather differences.

Do we really need that in this country? Its not like we have the population or size to swallow up the differences that many of the larger countries do.

And lastly, there have been comparisons with multi-culturalism in Asia. They don't fly here. Simply because in any Asian country you will always be a foreigner. Your practices will always keep you apart. Your appearance will always keep you apart. There are families of chinese living in Japan for four generations and are still seen as foreigners. And that goes for all the other countries. There is no real integration, and its not expected. I've lived in two countries in Asia, have traveled a dozen more, and while I love it, and will probably move back to China, I will always be a foreigner.

However being a western nation there is the expectation of integration. Of being accepted not based on color, sex or such. That is a rather large distinction.

AudreyHepburn

I think multi-culturalism is a great thing personally but unfortunatly an awful lot of people in this country are extremely intolerant and afraid of cultures and people they don't know. Change isn't something a lot of people take to well.

You only need to look at the threads on boards about things like Asylum Seekers, foreign workers, banning burkhas etc to see how intolerant and close minded a lot of people are when it comes to cultural diversity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.