Moslems in Western Society

peakpilgrim

Hi

Is there a problem with Moslems adapting to Western Society and what can be done to assist Moslems to do so?

wes

Muslims aren't a singular group firstly. We are talking about many different groups.

We also see Muslims actually integrate better in the US, than parts of Europe. So another question that could be asked, is Europe doing enough to integrate Muslims, considering that Muslims integrate just fine in the US?

Mark Hamill

wes wrote: »

Muslims aren't a singular group firstly. We are talking about many different groups.

We also see Muslims actually integrate better in the US, than parts of Europe. So another question that could be asked, is Europe doing enough to integrate Muslims, considering that Muslims integrate just fine in the US?

Isn't intergrating something the Muslims themselves should do, as they are visitors? Europe should make sure to welcome them and make them feel wlecome and free to live as Muslims (as its supposed to do as a secular group of nations), but why would Europe be expected to change itself for Muslims when a Muslim nation would not be expected to change for any non-Mulsim visitors?

wes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Isn't intergrating something the Muslims themselves should do, as they are visitors? Europe should make sure to welcome them and make them feel wlecome and free to live as Muslims (as its supposed to do as a secular group of nations), but why would Europe be expected to change itself for Muslims when a Muslim nation would not be expected to change for any non-Mulsim visitors?

Maybe Europe isn't as welcoming as immigrants as the US is? I was just wondering why Muslims don't seem to have as many problems as the US? Perhaps the problem isn't soley with Muslims, but with Europe as well? For all the bluster of the American right wing, and the dodgy anti-terror laws, by all accounts Muslims do far better in the US.

What you fail to understand, is that integration is a 2 way street, for instance, if someone of Arab descent in France, make an effort to integrate, gets a good education etc, they are still half as likely to get a job, when compared with the majority population. This is hardly welcoming now is it? Shouldn't this person have the same chance of a job, as anyone from the majority community? I don't expect Europe to change or anything like that, but to give people who make the effort to integrate a fair go at things, just like everyone else, surely that isn't asking to much, to be treated like everyone else?

Also, again it should be noted that Muslims aren't a single population. One group may have trouble integrating, where as another group of Muslim may do just fine.

Mark Hamill

wes wrote: »

Maybe Europe isn't as welcoming as immigrants as the US is? I was just wondering why Muslims don't seem to have as many problems as the US? Perhaps the problem isn't soley with Muslims, but with Europe as well? For all the bluster of the American right wing, and the dodgy anti-terror laws, by all accounts Muslims do far better in the US.

Source?

wes wrote: »

What you fail to understand, is that integration is a 2 way street, for instance, if someone of Arab descent in France, make an effort to integrate, gets a good education etc, they are still half as likely to get a job, when compared with the majority population. This is hardly welcoming now is it?

Source?

peakpilgrim

wes wrote: »

Maybe Europe isn't as welcoming as immigrants as the US is? I was just wondering why Muslims don't seem to have as many problems as the US? Perhaps the problem isn't soley with Muslims, but with Europe as well? For all the bluster of the American right wing, and the dodgy anti-terror laws, by all accounts Muslims do far better in the US.

What you fail to understand, is that integration is a 2 way street, for instance, if someone of Arab descent in France, make an effort to integrate, gets a good education etc, they are still half as likely to get a job, when compared with the majority population. This is hardly welcoming now is it? Shouldn't this person have the same chance of a job, as anyone from the majority community? I don't expect Europe to change or anything like that, but to give people who make the effort to integrate a fair go at things, just like everyone else, surely that isn't asking to much, to be treated like everyone else?

Also, again it should be noted that Muslims aren't a single population. One group may have trouble integrating, where as another group of Muslim may do just fine.

Hi

Yes it is a two way street, most definitely, and I am not suggesting otherwise.

What worries me is that there have been some problems with integration in Holland, France ( as you mention ) and the U.K.

In the U.K. there are two problems that need to be addressed:

1. Some Moslems, born and bred in the U.K, in some northern cities feel totally isolated from society.

2. The growth in support for the B.N.P.

What is the best way to diffuse these two problems?

The Moslem population in Ireland is, currently, quite small; how do we avoid mistakes here, that have been made in other countries, for the next generation?

wes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Source?

From Al Jazeera English:
European Muslims feel 'isolated'

Muslims living in European countries feel far more isolated than those living in the United States, according to a survey on coexistence, with a lack of access to education and jobs reinforcing a sense of ostracism.

At the same time, Muslims in France, Britain and Germany feel far more loyalty to their country than they are perceived to feel, and express a strong willingness to integrate.

The findings by pollsters Gallup tend to suggest that a longer period of migration to the US and economic growth there has helped foster integration.

Click here for full article

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Source?

French Muslims face job discrimination

There you go, no more than a couple quick searches on Google.

wes

peakpilgrim wrote: »

The Moslem population in Ireland is, currently, quite small; how do we avoid mistakes here, that have been made in other countries, for the next generation?

Well, I don't know how to sort things in the rest of Europe, but look at how the US integrates there immigrants. There system seems to be superior to the one used in Europe. So, I would reckon for Ireland is to follow how the US does things, as both the immigrants and there kids do a lot better and everything works out for the better for all involved.

Mark Hamill

wes wrote: »

Well, I don't know how to sort things in the rest of Europe, but look at how the US integrates there immigrants. There system seems to be superior to the one used in Europe. So, I would reckon for Ireland is to follow how the US does things, as both the immigrants and there kids do a lot better and everything works out for the better for all involved.

Well from the first article you gave me above it says:

It found 38 per cent of Muslims in Germany, 35 per cent of those in the UK and 29 per cent of those in France were found to be "isolated" in their countries,

That figure stood at just 15 per cent in the US and 20 per cent in Canada.

Mogahed said: "This can be explained by the historical importance of immigration in the development of Canada and the United States as modern nations."

So it seems like America is doing it better because its been doing it longer and because they have, historically, relied on immigration more. So for Ireland to do better at integrating in the same way, it would need to develop a reliance on immigrants to function, thus completely changing its economy, which seems a bit mad.

Personnally, I think the best way for Muslims to be intergrated anywhere is to have all the schools mixed. No more Muslim schools, no more Christian schools, all the schools run by the state with religion either taught in the general sense or not at all (with kids attending private or extra curricular religious studies on their specific religion) to keep everyone happy. If all the children can get used to each other, then as adults they should be able get along equally too.

wes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well from the first article you gave me above it says:


So it seems like America is doing it better because its been doing it longer and because they have, historically, relied on immigration more. So for Ireland to do better at integrating in the same way, it would need to develop a reliance on immigrants to function, thus completely changing its economy, which seems a bit mad.

Personnally, I think the best way for Muslims to be intergrated anywhere is to have all the schools mixed. No more Muslim schools, no more Christian schools, all the schools run by the state with religion either taught in the general sense or not at all (with kids attending private or extra curricular religious studies on their specific religion) to keep everyone happy. If all the children can get used to each other, then as adults they should be able get along equally too.

Why, don't Europeans look at the US and Canada to see how they integrated the populations? They clearly have a system that works, why not emulate the best aspects of it? It isn't just a attitude thing, they have honed there system so that it works really well.

I agree that state schools should be secular, but if people want to make there own Religous schools from there own money, then they should have that choice. I still reckon that the vast majority will send there kids to the normal schools either way.

Mark Hamill

wes wrote: »

Why, don't Europeans look at the US and Canada to see how they integrated the populations? They clearly have a system that works, why not emulate the best aspects of it? It isn't just a attitude thing, they have honed there system so that it works really well.

I thought I explained it in my last post. From your own link, America intergrates so well because of a history of needing immigrants. Europe doesn't really need immigrants in the same, so it doesn't feel the need to bend over backwards to make everyone feel equally welcome. To change Europe to the American way would require a large economic change, its unfeasable. What needs to happen is for people to stop building up walls around cultures, for racial groups to be open amongst each and for everyone to see that everyone is pretty much the same. I think schools would be a big help in this, in that if you've grown up learning and playing with different ethnic groups, you're not likely to suddenly develop a bias at adulthood.

wes wrote: »

I agree that state schools should be secular, but if people want to make there own Religous schools from there own money, then they should have that choice. I still reckon that the vast majority will send there kids to the normal schools either way.

I wouldn't support preventing any type of religious school from opening, but I think, in a society of predominantly secular schools, being put into a specialised school will just go to building up the adult distrust of the unknown that causes the lack of integration we see today. I think in the long, it will work against the kids more than help them.

wes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I thought I explained it in my last post. From your own link, America intergrates so well because of a history of needing immigrants. Europe doesn't really need immigrants in the same, so it doesn't feel the need to bend over backwards to make everyone feel equally welcome. To change Europe to the American way would require a large economic change, its unfeasable. What needs to happen is for people to stop building up walls around cultures, for racial groups to be open amongst each and for everyone to see that everyone is pretty much the same. I think schools would be a big help in this, in that if you've grown up learning and playing with different ethnic groups, you're not likely to suddenly develop a bias at adulthood.

Again, I am going to have to disagree. The US has some great methods of handling immigration and its seems to me that the European methods are a massive failure. I am not saying we adopt what they do wholesale, but I find it hard to believe we can't learn from there clearly superior experience on this subject.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I wouldn't support preventing any type of religious school from opening, but I think, in a society of predominantly secular schools, being put into a specialised school will just go to building up the adult distrust of the unknown that causes the lack of integration we see today. I think in the long, it will work against the kids more than help them.

Well, I honestly doubt most parents would send there kids to religious schools, and I wouldn't send my own child to one. They can learn about Islam in the mosque just fine.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I wouldn't support preventing any type of religious school from opening, but I think, in a society of predominantly secular schools, being put into a specialised school will just go to building up the adult distrust of the unknown that causes the lack of integration we see today. I think in the long, it will work against the kids more than help them.

To be in keeping with our Constitution a choice of secular vs religious schools should be at the forefront. A balance for the free choice of parents is what is fair. Imposing an atheist viewpoint on a majority theist population isn't fair, and freedom of conscience is also codified in our constitution.

Article 42:1 wrote:

The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

I trust parents to make the choice which they feel is best for their children. If they feel that imparting their faith to another generation is what is best, that is their perogative.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

To be in keeping with our Constitution a choice of secular vs religious schools should be at the forefront. A balance for the free choice of parents is what is fair. Imposing an atheist viewpoint on a majority theist population isn't fair, and freedom of conscience is also codified in our constitution.

I never said anything about taking free choice from parents, just that the best thing to fully integrate their kids into a local community is to have them in a school with the local kids. Its not an atheist thing, if you want people of multiple faiths to have their choldren together in the same school, the easiest sollution is have religion as a seperate entity, either discussed in extracurricular classes or seperate institutions entirely (like mosques etc)

Jakkass wrote: »

I trust parents to make the choice which they feel is best for their children. If they feel that imparting their faith to another generation is what is best, that is their perogative.

I never said they shouldn't.

Hobbes

peakpilgrim wrote: »

The Moslem population in Ireland is, currently, quite small;

Muslims have been in Ireland for around 50 years. I haven't seen any problems. Have you?

Also your thread seems to be more directed at immigration then muslims in general.

I trust you have read the charter.

peakpilgrim

Hobbes wrote: »

Muslims have been in Ireland for around 50 years. I haven't seen any problems. Have you?

Also your thread seems to be more directed at immigration then muslims in general.

I trust you have read the charter.

Do you not think that this is an honest question and an important topic for discussion?

Do you not think that there have been problems with integration in Holland, France and the U.K. and should we not make every effort here, in Ireland, as the Islamic population increases and more Irish born Muslims grow up in our society, to avoid the mistakes that have been made in those countries?

If so: then the first thing to do, surely, is to discuss the topic in a calm and mature manner; is it not?

Hobbes

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Do you not think that this is an honest question and an important topic for discussion?

Read the charter.

Do you not think that there have been problems with integration in Holland, France and the U.K...

As I said you are equating Muslim with an Immigrant. Wrong forum.

Incidentally the spelling "Moslem" is not the correct usage and is normally used in a derogatory fashion.

peakpilgrim

Hobbes wrote: »

Read the charter.



As I said you are equating Muslim with an Immigrant. Wrong forum.

Incidentally the spelling "Moslem" is not the correct usage and is normally used in a derogatory fashion.

I apologise for my spelling of the word Muslim; I am not a Muslim myself and I didn't realise that it could be interpreted as an insult.

I have read the charter and I cannot see that there is anything that could be contrary to it in my question; which is a sincere one.

devereaux17

I don't think so, Ireland doesn't have any natural connections with any Muslim countries like France and the UK. France and the UK social problems with Muslims were created in unique circumstances, I think Irelands Muslim immigration(and immigration in general) mirrors Sweden or Norway rather than those 2 nations.

Apparently the reports of Muslims in Norway are great exaggerated by the media.

Sonic_exyouth

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Isn't intergrating something the Muslims themselves should do, as they are visitors? Europe should make sure to welcome them and make them feel wlecome and free to live as Muslims (as its supposed to do as a secular group of nations), but why would Europe be expected to change itself for Muslims when a Muslim nation would not be expected to change for any non-Mulsim visitors?

But Europe is constantly changing.
Why shouldn't it?

Look at ireland now, compared with 10, 20, 30 years ago.

Of course Europe will change, and if you don't like the direction it's changing in, you have a democratic voice to use to stop the trend.

Further, Muslims are not "visitors" to Europe, comprising as they do of 5% of the French population between 5-10% of the dutch, the majority of Bosnians, the majority of Albanians, over two Million Brits. etc.
They are every bit as European as any Catholic.

Mark Hamill

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

But Europe is constantly changing.
Why shouldn't it?

Look at ireland now, compared with 10, 20, 30 years ago.

Of course Europe will change, and if you don't like the direction it's changing in, you have a democratic voice to use to stop the trend.

I wasn't saying Europe shouldn't change, more why it should change specifically for Muslims as opposed to anyone else.

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

Further, Muslims are not "visitors" to Europe, comprising as they do of 5% of the French population between 5-10% of the dutch, the majority of Bosnians, the majority of Albanians, over two Million Brits. etc.
They are every bit as European as any Catholic.

For your own information muslims make up 38.8% of Albanians, 40% of bosnians and 7% of europeans overall.
Muslims are a minority in europe and, in western europe they are only a recent addition (fewer than three generations) so what sort of changes do you think europe should make to integrate them better

Sonic_exyouth

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I wasn't saying Europe shouldn't change, more why it should change specifically for Muslims as opposed to anyone else.


For your own information muslims make up 38.8% of Albanians, 40% of bosnians and 7% of europeans overall.
Muslims are a minority in europe and, in western europe they are only a recent addition (fewer than three generations) so what sort of changes do you think europe should make to integrate them better

Right, the idea that the "World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001" should be taken as a more reputable source that the CIA world factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/AL.html) shows a hilarious bias to your 'research', and while I shouldn't have said 'majority', even your own link says that Muslims constitute the single biggest religious group.

The idea that Muslims have only been in Albania and Bosnia, or indeed europe "for 3 generations" or fewer shows an ignorance, perhaps wilfull, or European history.
Look at this:

Its an english coin from the year 757, just 194 years after the Irish, through Colmcille and the Iona monestary began the mission for christianity in the British Isles, and it bears the Shahada - The Islamic testimony of faith.
Also, llok at this:

It's a map of the Ottoman Caliphate, at it's height. Indeed, til 1915, a reasonably large chunk of Europe was still under the figure-head control of the last remaining Muslim Caliph.

Islam has been a European for religon thusly for centuries.

Now,moving toward western Europe, nations like Germany, Holland and some scandanavians invited immigrants into their lands to complete the great reconstructive miracle in the wake of the second world war.
In every case, the majority of these immigrants were Muslim, and happy enough to endure whatever they did for the sake of a better life. Their grandchilden, in the wake of the greatest slaughter in europe since the second world war - the mass slaughter of Muslims in Yugoslavia, including the Srebrenica massacre where they were supposed to be protected by the Dutch - folowed by war after war on muslim nations and the blatent disregard for palestinian humanity, do not assume that they are not entitled to the same rights afforded others. If a nun can teach in a school in a habit, why not a Muslim woman in a Hijab. If a Jewish community can live by the halakah, why not a muslim community by the shariah. If a sikh can grow a long beard and wear religiously mandated clothing, why not a Muslim man. Churches, with spires containing bells are present in most every town, why not a purpose built Mosque with minarets.
Young muslims are demanding equal rights, the same rights afforded others, but rights their parents were afraid to ask for.
Allowing these equal rights to be afforded to all, including Muslims, are the 'changes do I think europe should make to integrate better'.

Sesshoumaru

wes wrote: »

Well, I don't know how to sort things in the rest of Europe, but look at how the US integrates there immigrants. There system seems to be superior to the one used in Europe. So, I would reckon for Ireland is to follow how the US does things, as both the immigrants and there kids do a lot better and everything works out for the better for all involved.

Wes it's not so black and white. People in the US are also very religious. An evangelical christian can relate to a muslim better than a secular European. In fact when it comes to being creationist, anti evolution and dictating what people can and can't do I really don't see any difference between the hard core in either camp.

So sorry but integration is always going to be more difficult in Europe! Our secular culture is much further from Islam than US Christians are and if you're idea of imitating the US is to allow religion to dominate politics as it does there.... then no thanks. I don't plan on going back to 1960's Ireland with the only exception being Islam in place of the Catholic church.

We can learn from America though. You are more accepted there if you adopt American values and try to become a good citizen. Your ethnic group is less relevant as long as you're a good American citizen.

wes

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Wes it's not so black and white. People in the US are also very religious. An evangelical christian can relate to a muslim better than a secular European. In fact when it comes to being creationist, anti evolution and dictating what people can and can't do I really don't see any difference between the hard core in either camp.

Well, this would hardly apply to Canada? Where Muslims are also doing fine btw.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

So sorry but integration is always going to be more difficult in Europe! Our secular culture is much further from Islam than US Christians are and if you're idea of imitating the US is to allow religion to dominate politics as it does there.... then no thanks. I don't plan on going back to 1960's Ireland with the only exception being Islam in place of the Catholic church.

Except this isn't my idea. The US has a strict seperation of Church and State, and while people who live there are generally more Religous, this doesn't change the essentially character of there state, which is definetly secular.

Again, look at Canada, who have similar success in integration to the US, and they are not nearly as Religous.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

We can learn from America though. You are more accepted there if you adopt American values and try to become a good citizen. Your ethnic group is less relevant as long as you're a good American citizen.

Now the above is what I want to emulate. If I work hard, pay my taxes and obey the law of the land etc, then I expect to be treated like everyone else.

Mark Hamill

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

Right, the idea that the "World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001" should be taken as a more reputable source that the CIA world factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/AL.html) shows a hilarious bias to your 'research', and while I shouldn't have said 'majority', even your own link says that Muslims constitute the single biggest religious group.

No bias, when looking for numbers I searched for Albania first and that was the first number I saw. The website was called religiousfreedom.lib and I thought nothing more of it, I only came to the CIA website later and didn't think of double checking my numbers (I should have, my apologies).

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

The idea that Muslims have only been in Albania and Bosnia, or indeed europe "for 3 generations" or fewer shows an ignorance, perhaps wilfull, or European history.

I said western europe, ie Ireland, England, France, Germany, Scandanavia.

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

Look at this:

Its an english coin from the year 757, just 194 years after the Irish, through Colmcille and the Iona monestary began the mission for christianity in the British Isles, and it bears the Shahada - The Islamic testimony of faith.

Its not an english coin, its a European dinar. It has a picture of the Christian King of Mercia who conquered part of England and the coin was believed to have been minted either to trade with Spain (which does have a strong Islamic history) or as part of the anual payment to Rome. I dont think it has quiote the implication you think it has.

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

Also, llok at this:

It's a map of the Ottoman Caliphate, at it's height. Indeed, til 1915, a reasonably large chunk of Europe was still under the figure-head control of the last remaining Muslim Caliph.

If you cross reference that map with a map of the current states of the european union you see that the chunk isnt as big as the map makes it seem (greece, hungary, romania, slovakia and bulgaria).

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

Islam has been a European for religon thusly for centuries.

Islam has a history, certainly, with some parts of Europe, but its mostly Eastern Europe and like I already said, I was talking about Western Europe.

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

Now,moving toward western Europe, nations like Germany, Holland and some scandanavians invited immigrants into their lands to complete the great reconstructive miracle in the wake of the second world war.
In every case, the majority of these immigrants were Muslim, and happy enough to endure whatever they did for the sake of a better life.

Source?

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

If a nun can teach in a school in a habit, why not a Muslim woman in a Hijab.

Agreed.

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

If a Jewish community can live by the halakah, why not a muslim community by the shariah.

I dont know the specific of either set of laws so all I will say is that in either case both laws should still be subject to the law of the country they are in.

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

If a sikh can grow a long beard and wear religiously mandated clothing, why not a Muslim man.

Agreed (have never really heard of an issue with this, its normally what the women are "made" wear that people seem to have a problem with)

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

Churches, with spires containing bells are present in most every town, why not a purpose built Mosque with minarets.

Agreed, if people want to build them, and there is a place to do so.

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

Young muslims are demanding equal rights, the same rights afforded others, but rights their parents were afraid to ask for.

I cant help but read this as being a bit hypocritical though. "Young muslims" are demanding equal rights that others have, and yet Islam itself does not afford equal rights among men and women. A women must wear ahijab, yet a man doesn't. In some Islamic countries, even non-muslims women are forced to do so.

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

Allowing these equal rights to be afforded to all, including Muslims, are the 'changes do I think europe should make to integrate better'.

I agree that everyone should have the same rights. If this "lack of intergration" is about muslims being actively discriminated against in all aspects of their life then it should just be called what it is - Racism, and the people doing so should be suitably punished.

Mark Hamill

wes wrote: »

Again, look at Canada, who have similar success in integration to the US, and they are not nearly as Religous.

What should Europe learn from Canada then?

wes wrote: »

Now the above is what I want to emulate. If I work hard, pay my taxes and obey the law of the land etc, then I expect to be treated like everyone else.

Agreed.

Sesshoumaru

wes wrote: »

Now the above is what I want to emulate. If I work hard, pay my taxes and obey the law of the land etc, then I expect to be treated like everyone else.

No issue from me, this is the part of American culture I respect the most. As someone with a mixed race family you could say I have a personal stake in creating a system like this!

wes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What should Europe learn from Canada then?

What methods they use to successfully integrate immigrant communities and then figure out if any of those methods will work in trouble spots in Europe.

getz

you can not compare the USA with the EU,the US population is about 307,212,123 the estimated number of muslim there is about 4 million a lot of them converted black people --in the UK alone with a population of 61,113,205 there are 1,176,000 muslims,most of them with ethnic and culture backgrounds, in the US there are people who have never even met a muslim,

Mark Hamill

wes wrote: »

What methods they use to successfully integrate immigrant communities and then figure out if any of those methods will work in trouble spots in Europe.

I found this article at Settlement.org, which describes Canadas process and aims, might be interesting if dont actually know what they are.
Accoding to the article they use settlement programs with the following policies driving them:

The policy underpinnings on which the settlement programs rest include the following principles:
· Integration is a two-way process that involves commitment on the part of newcomers to adapt to life in Canada and on the part of Canadians to adapt to new people and cultures.
· The ability of newcomers to communicate in one of Canada's official languages is key to integration.
· The contributions of newcomers to the economic and social fabric of Canada are valued. It is important for newcomers to become financially self-sufficient and be able to participate in the social dimensions of life in Canada. It is important for members of communities in Canada to help ensure that newcomers have opportunities to participate in and contribute to all the positive aspects of Canadian life.
· It is important to share with newcomers the principles, traditions, and values that are inherent in Canadian society such as freedom, equality, and participatory democracy.
· Settlement and integration services will be directed at assisting newcomers to become self-sufficient as soon as possible. Priority will be given to those facing significant barriers to integration and who are deemed most in need within the community.
· Settlement and integration services across the country will be flexible, responsive, and reasonably comparable.

Seems fairly logical: have newcomers able to speak a local language, make them financially independent and have them contributing to the local economy and society.

wes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Seems fairly logical: have newcomers able to speak a local language, make them financially independent and have them contributing to the local economy and society.

Yeah, seems like a simple enough system that benefits everyone.

ocianain

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Hi

Is there a problem with Moslems adapting to Western Society and what can be done to assist Moslems to do so?

Yes there is.

Nothing really. Islam has been warring against the West for near 1400 years. After their crushing defeat at Second Vienna (Sept 11, 1683) the were reduced to piracy in the Med until thie recent spate of attacks on the West marked their return. Alas, the West is fractured and lost in narcissistic belly button gazing introspection. We'll see if the West wins this one

wes

ocianain wrote: »

Yes there is.

Nothing really. Islam has been warring against the West for near 1400 years. After their crushing defeat at Second Vienna (Sept 11, 1683) the were reduced to piracy in the Med until thie recent spate of attacks on the West marked their return. Alas, the West is fractured and lost in narcissistic belly button gazing introspection. We'll see if the West wins this one

If you want to view the world in those terms, then the "West" has been at war with everyone else on the planet for just over 2000 years then, when the Roman empire first began.

Also, plenty of Western countries hired pirates, the British were well known for this for example.

As for the recent attacks, well look no further than the war of aggression that was the Iraq war, launched to find imaginary WMD's.

Every single thing you said, is easily turned around and can be squeezed in to the same simple frame.

philologos

wes: I'm in total agreement with you on America. The difference between America and Europe is that discussions about faith are welcomed in the public sphere instead of frowned upon. The State has no role in religion, and religion has no direct role in the State. Rather the policy seem to be, to encourage people to set up their own stall and allow whoever wants to join whatever religion to join. In Europe that kind of model does not currently exist.

Very good article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/18/religion-america-first-amendment

Some people seem more interested in restricting religion than actually freeing society up to have a free choice.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

Some people seem more interested in restricting religion than actually freeing society up to have a free choice.

Its true that this is happening to an extent in Europe (France trying to ban the burqa) but the biggest group, by far, who can be accused of doing this is the muslims themselves in their own countries. If muslims cant allow people in their own countries to freely choose their religion, is it not hypocritical for them to expect the same in other countries?

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its true that this is happening to an extent in Europe (France trying to ban the burqa) but the biggest group, by far, who can be accused of doing this is the muslims themselves in their own countries. If muslims cant allow people in their own countries to freely choose their religion, is it not hypocritical for them to expect the same in other countries?

This is true, but if we are to claim the moral high ground on issues of religious freedom we shouldn't be too concerned with comparing life here with life in Saudi Arabia, we should always aim for better.

BTW, this doesn't just concern Muslims, it concerns all people of faith.

wes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its true that this is happening to an extent in Europe (France trying to ban the burqa) but the biggest group, by far, who can be accused of doing this is the muslims themselves in their own countries. If muslims cant allow people in their own countries to freely choose their religion, is it not hypocritical for them to expect the same in other countries?

So Muslims who live in Europe are responsible for the actions of Muslims in other countries?

I honestly fail to see the hypocrisy of a Muslim in Europe complaining about say the Burqa ban in France. Its hardly there fault that some of the co-religionists elsewhere are acting like idiots now is it? It would also be equally silly for someone of French descent living in say Algeria or Egypt to be held in anyway responsible for the proposed Burqa ban.

Also, there are plenty of Muslims, who were born and lived in Europe all there lives, so a 3rd or 4th generation French Muslim of Algerian descent (or a native convert), is hardly responsible for the actions of some dictator in Algeria and has every right to complain about the proposed Burqa ban just like any other French citizen. Basically France is there country and not Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or whatever other place.

Now, Muslims in other countries where they don't have equal rights for all Religions are in no position to complain, but if Europe starts to emulate them, then they are very much in the same position.

wes

Jakkass wrote: »

wes: I'm in total agreement with you on America. The difference between America and Europe is that discussions about faith are welcomed in the public sphere instead of frowned upon. The State has no role in religion, and religion has no direct role in the State. Rather the policy seem to be, to encourage people to set up their own stall and allow whoever wants to join whatever religion to join. In Europe that kind of model does not currently exist.

Very good article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/18/religion-america-first-amendment

Some people seem more interested in restricting religion than actually freeing society up to have a free choice.

From a personal freedom stand point, the US gets a lot of things right and there is a lot that we here in Europe (and elsewhere) can learn from them and of course this applies the other way round as well.

Mark Hamill

wes wrote: »

So Muslims who live in Europe are responsible for the actions of Muslims in other countries?

I honestly fail to see the hypocrisy of a Muslim in Europe complaining about say the Burqa ban in France. Its hardly there fault that some of the co-religionists elsewhere are acting like idiots now is it? It would also be equally silly for someone of French descent living in say Algeria or Egypt to be held in anyway responsible for the proposed Burqa ban.

While the european muslims are not responsible for what other muslims do, the hypocrisy is there because they share the same beliefs. The belief systems that govern muslim ruled countries are the same that rule over eurpean muslims lives, and while you can say the european muslims may not be as fundamentalist as some of the middle eastern contries, even the "secular" muslim countries are notorious for having poor human rights in relation to non-muslims (eg Hindus in Malaysia).
Basically, what I'm saying is that if european muslims where running europe according to their beliefs, I don't think that they would allow other religious ideals an equal foothold. (NB, Its not that I don't believe that muslims should be allowed live anyway they want in a secular country, they should, I just see it as hypocritical for them to demand it when if the tables where turned, they wouldn't allow other people their religious freedom of choice)

wes wrote: »

Also, there are plenty of Muslims, who were born and lived in Europe all there lives, so a 3rd or 4th generation French Muslim of Algerian descent (or a native convert), is hardly responsible for the actions of some dictator in Algeria and has every right to complain about the proposed Burqa ban just like any other French citizen. Basically France is there country and not Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or whatever other place.

But islam is their religion. And when even supposedly secularist islamic nations completely disregard freedom of religious choice for non muslims and even ex-muslims, then I see some hypocrisy in their complaints when they are tied to these other countries by having the vast majority of the same beliefs.

wes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

While the european muslims are not responsible for what other muslims do, the hypocrisy is there because they share the same beliefs. The belief systems that govern muslim ruled countries are the same that rule over eurpean muslims lives, and while you can say the european muslims may not be as fundamentalist as some of the middle eastern contries, even the "secular" muslim countries are notorious for having poor human rights in relation to non-muslims (eg Hindus in Malaysia).

You will find that most 3rd world countries have miserable Human Rights records e.g. Indian Administered Kashmir. So should we hold all Indians as hypocrites if they complain about the treatment of Hindu's in Malaysia then? Or how about American's, the US has funded terrorists the world over, so are they hypocrites when they complains about the likes of Al Qaeda? If we are to apply your standard to all, then everyone is bascially a hypocrite.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Basically, what I'm saying is that if european muslims where running europe according to their beliefs, I don't think that they would allow other religious ideals an equal foothold. (NB, Its not that I don't believe that muslims should be allowed live anyway they want in a secular country, they should, I just see it as hypocritical for them to demand it when if the tables where turned, they wouldn't allow other people their religious freedom of choice)

So there being hypocrtical, based on something they would hypotetcially do? Sorry, thats a massive stretch imho.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But islam is their religion. And when even supposedly secularist islamic nations completely disregard freedom of religious choice for non muslims and even ex-muslims, then I see some hypocrisy in their complaints when they are tied to these other countries by having the vast majority of the same beliefs.

Again, the Muslims in Europe are not responsible for these things and as such are not hypocrtical. If we are to apply your standard fairly then pretty much every single person on this planet is a hypocrite.

Irish people are now hypocrites if we complain about Religous fundamentalists, as we have a blasphemy law, if we are to adhere to your standard. Basically, what your saying about Muslims, should equally apply to you and me. Btw, it doesn't matter if you disagree with it, as with the standard you apply to Muslims, you don't consider whether they would disagree with such actions or not. After all, we are Irish and we did elect are government.

Mark Hamill

wes wrote: »

You will find that most 3rd world countries have miserable Human Rights records e.g. Indian Administered Kashmir. So should we hold all Indians as hypocrites if they complain about the treatment of Hindu's in Malaysia then? Or how about American's, the US has funded terrorists the world over, so are they hypocrites when they complains about the likes of Al Qaeda? If we are to apply your standard to all, then everyone is bascially a hypocrite.

Indians all around the world are only connected by nationality (likewise americans). What an indian born in another country does is no refelction on any other indian as they won necessarily hold to the same ethics and ideals. Muslims, however, are connected by the same set of ideals, what one muslim does is based on the ideals that are held by all and while there are a few black sheep who go way further thatn rest would withe these ideals, even the moderate ones hold to an incredibly biased and skewered world view.

wes wrote: »

So there being hypocrtical, based on something they would hypotetcially do? Sorry, thats a massive stretch imho.

Why? Do you think if muslims somehow just started ruling western european countries, even the muslims who were born in those countries, that they wouldn't rule under islamic law?

wes wrote: »

Again, the Muslims in Europe are not responsible for these things and as such are not hypocrtical. If we are to apply your standard fairly then pretty much every single person on this planet is a hypocrite.

I never said they are responsible, just that they are hypocritical because its their very own ideals that are being used in islamic countries and commiting the same crimes against non-muslims that they are complaining about being committed against themselves.

wes wrote: »

Irish people are now hypocrites if we complain about Religous fundamentalists, as we have a blasphemy law, if we are to adhere to your standard. Basically, what your saying about Muslims, should equally apply to you and me. Btw, it doesn't matter if you disagree with it, as with the standard you apply to Muslims, you don't consider whether they would disagree with such actions or not.

What I'm saying about Muslims should apply to all people who hold to the same ideals and beliefs. If Ireland was not a secular country, then we would be hypocritical complaining about fundamentalism when we have our very own fundamentalist law, however, Ireland is secular, nearly everyone has complained about the law.

wes wrote: »

After all, we are Irish and we did elect are government.

The people who voted for the current government are hypocritical for complaining about them.

wes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Indians all around the world are only connected by nationality (likewise americans). What an indian born in another country does is no refelction on any other indian as they won necessarily hold to the same ethics and ideals. Muslims, however, are connected by the same set of ideals, what one muslim does is based on the ideals that are held by all and while there are a few black sheep who go way further thatn rest would withe these ideals, even the moderate ones hold to an incredibly biased and skewered world view.

So all those Hindu God statues in Indian government buildings are figments of my imgination? Basically, India is secular depending on who is in charge in a particular state, if a Hindu Nationalist party is running the show, then Dalits, or anyone else will have a hard time.

Seems to me you have a ridiculous double standard going imho.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why? Do you think if muslims somehow just started ruling western european countries, even the muslims who were born in those countries, that they wouldn't rule under islamic law?

So Bosnia, Albania, Turkey and Kosova are all ruled under Islamic law?!?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I never said they are responsible, just that they are hypocritical because its their very own ideals that are being used in islamic countries and commiting the same crimes against non-muslims that they are complaining about being committed against themselves.

Why does this only apply to Muslims? Why not to everyone else? If you believe in Secular Democracy and the US (a secular democracy) decides to engage in a war of aggression, then there all hypocrites right? They must share some common beliefs?

Basically, you are assuming all Muslims the world over, only ever complain about there own lot. I must have imagined those candle light vigils in Iran, for the victims of 9/11 (a country the US has threatened to attack numerous times and got rid of there secular democratic government), and feck there were even some in occuiped East Jerusalem, Palestine (a place where the US has provided billions to the people murdering Palestinians and stealing Palestinian land). Western News would rather show the few nutters who were celebrating and ignore the candle light vigils as per usual. You seem to think that Muslims have no empathy for no one else, which is just bizar.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What I'm saying about Muslims should apply to all people who hold to the same ideals and beliefs. If Ireland was not a secular country, then we would be hypocritical complaining about fundamentalism when we have our very own fundamentalist law, however, Ireland is secular, nearly everyone has complained about the law.

Secular countries do not have blasphemy laws. Its goes against the whole concept imho, at best we are quasi-secular.

Also, as I pointed out before, whether people in Ireland disagree or not is irrelevant by your standard, as you aren't bothered by this possibility with Muslims.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The people who voted for the current government are hypocritical for complaining about them.

No, by your standard every single one of us are hypocrites, as we all will vaguely agree on this whole concept of Ireland.

Mark Hamill

wes wrote: »

So all those Hindu God statues in Indian government buildings are figments of my imgination? Basically, India is secular depending on who is in charge in a particular state, if a Hindu Nationalist party is running the show, then Dalits, or anyone else will have a hard time.
Seems to me you have a ridiculous double standard going imho.

I think you are having a hard time understanding my point. My point was that people who share the same belief systems are far more connected than people who share the same birth place. Someone being american or indian (ar anything else)is a result of being born there, so the acts others from america, india, etc are no reflection on them. However if that someone is a muslim, hindu or any other religion, they are that religion out of choice and the acts of the vast majority of other people of that religion(not necessarily the fundamentalists mind) do reflect on them.

wes wrote: »

So Bosnia, Albania, Turkey and Kosova are all ruled under Islamic law?!?

I said western europe, you know the part where muslims are demanding equal rights. Here's an article describing how Irish muslims want ireland to be ruled under shariah law.

wes wrote: »

Why does this only apply to Muslims? Why not to everyone else?

Again it applies to any group of people who hold to same ideologies. It doesn't apply to groups of people purely for being born in the same country because being born in the same country doesn't automatically imply that the ideologies are the same.

wes wrote: »

If you believe in Secular Democracy and the US (a secular democracy) decides to engage in a war of aggression, then there all hypocrites right? They must share some common beliefs?

Its not just some common beliefs, its the extent of the beliefs. Keeping to a secular democracy is not like keeping to a religion. Besides, america didn't go to war out of any ideologies that come from its secular democracy.

wes wrote: »

Basically, you are assuming all Muslims the world over, only ever complain about there own lot. I must have imagined those candle light vigils in Iran, for the victims of 9/11 (a country the US has threatened to attack numerous times and got rid of there secular democratic government), and feck there were even some in occuiped East Jerusalem, Palestine (a place where the US has provided billions to the people murdering Palestinians and stealing Palestinian land). Western News would rather show the few nutters who were celebrating and ignore the candle light vigils as per usual. You seem to think that Muslims have no empathy for no one else, which is just bizar.

I never said individual muslims have no empathy for others, the laws of islam however do not.

wes wrote: »

Secular countries do not have blasphemy laws. Its goes against the whole concept imho, at best we are quasi-secular.

I agree it goes against the concept, apparently Ahern acknowledges this but claims that its a result from having a constitution (written before ireland became secular) which makes provisions for it and the country not really being able to afford a referendum to remove it though (its a weak excuse I know, but secularism is slow moving in this country, there are plenty of kinks to work through)

wes wrote: »

No, by your standard every single one of us are hypocrites, as we all will vaguely agree on this whole concept of Ireland.

No it depends on the scope and complexity of the ideologies that people hold to.

Sonic_exyouth

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think you are having a hard time understanding my point. My point was that people who share the same belief systems are far more connected than people who share the same birth place. Someone being american or indian (ar anything else)is a result of being born there, so the acts others from america, india, etc are no reflection on them. However if that someone is a muslim, hindu or any other religion, they are that religion out of choice and the acts of the vast majority of other people of that religion(not necessarily the fundamentalists mind) do reflect on them.

Thats utter craziness..

The mass slaughter of Muslims carried out by Christians in Bosnia in the 1990's do not, and should not reflect on me.
The actions of the shankill butchers do not, and should not, reflect on nigerian protestants.

The idea that they do is insane.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I said western europe, you know the part where muslims are demanding equal rights. Here's an article describing how Irish muslims want ireland to be ruled under shariah law.

Thats a poorly worded article, but, if a majority of people demand a law, should it not be enacted.
Think of abortion when considering your answer.
Does the anti-abortion will of the majority of Irish people outweigh the freedom of a womanto decide that she simply does not want a baby?
Which is more democratic in this isle of ours?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Again it applies to any group of people who hold to same ideologies. It doesn't apply to groups of people purely for being born in the same country because being born in the same country doesn't automatically imply that the ideologies are the same.


Its not just some common beliefs, its the extent of the beliefs. Keeping to a secular democracy is not like keeping to a religion. Besides, america didn't go to war out of any ideologies that come from its secular democracy.

You really are going to have to explain the difference between going to war to ward off fictitious weapons of mass destruction, and going to war because god told the prophet david that a genocide was in order?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I never said individual muslims have no empathy for others, the laws of islam however do not.

Then you've interperated the Shariah differently from Mahmoud II, Saladin and Abu Mansur to name but 3 - and frankly I'd trust their knowledge of Islamic law over yours?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I agree it goes against the concept, apparently Ahern acknowledges this but claims that its a result from having a constitution (written before ireland became secular) which makes provisions for it and the country not really being able to afford a referendum to remove it though (its a weak excuse I know, but secularism is slow moving in this country, there are plenty of kinks to work through)

Nonsense.. it would be effectively free to tag on a 'secular' amendment to the pending referendum on October 2nd. Fact is we are not secular. We are a democratic nation with freedom of religion and a clear catholic majority, including a state funded broadcaster that pumps out a religious message specifily designed for the majority religion, despite being funded in equal part by all, including Muslims. Effectively, Muslims are paying to broadcast the angelus.

wes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think you are having a hard time understanding my point. My point was that people who share the same belief systems are far more connected than people who share the same birth place. Someone being american or indian (ar anything else)is a result of being born there, so the acts others from america, india, etc are no reflection on them. However if that someone is a muslim, hindu or any other religion, they are that religion out of choice and the acts of the vast majority of other people of that religion(not necessarily the fundamentalists mind) do reflect on them.

I am going to have to disagree, Nationalism can (and is in some countries) a extremely powerful way for people to be connected. Take the first World War, largely caused by chauvinistic nationalism.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I said western europe, you know the part where muslims are demanding equal rights. Here's an article describing how Irish muslims want ireland to be ruled under shariah law.

Your article quotes one guy. How exactly does he equal all Irish Muslims? Does he some how magically know what the Irish Muslim are thinking? The guy was clearly expressing his personal opinion, he didn't even claim that what he was saying was something all Irish Muslim are thinking.

The guy is basically engaged in a lot of wishful thinking, and it is hardly evidence to prove your point. You taking some vague wishful thinking from a single Muslim, as evidence of hypocrisy is a massive stretch.

Now on the other hand, in Albania, Bosnia, Kosova and Turkey, we have Muslims who are in a large enough position to actually put Sharia into the law and they haven't. While, they might not be in Western Europe, I still think the fact that these guys haven't put Sharia into law, show's not all Muslims will do that the first chance they get.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Again it applies to any group of people who hold to same ideologies. It doesn't apply to groups of people purely for being born in the same country because being born in the same country doesn't automatically imply that the ideologies are the same.

Again, Nationalism can be very very strong and unite a majority in a country.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not just some common beliefs, its the extent of the beliefs. Keeping to a secular democracy is not like keeping to a religion. Besides, america didn't go to war out of any ideologies that come from its secular democracy.

There was this cold war business, where the world was split into 2 camps, authoritarian communism and democratic (and authoritarian) capitalism, which thankfully didn't result in a full blown world war, but did result in several proxy war's. Also, the US has launched war's (albeit retroactively) in the name of democracy as well btw.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I never said individual muslims have no empathy for others, the laws of islam however do not.

Law's aren't living things, so they can't possibly have any kind of empathy for anyone ever. I really don't understand what your getting at here.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I agree it goes against the concept, apparently Ahern acknowledges this but claims that its a result from having a constitution (written before ireland became secular) which makes provisions for it and the country not really being able to afford a referendum to remove it though (its a weak excuse I know, but secularism is slow moving in this country, there are plenty of kinks to work through)

I don't think he is a fanatic or anything, just a bloody idiot. Still regardless, the country isn't really secular and with the new law, it has actually taken a step backward. We still have the Catholic church running most of our state schools for example. Now I have no issue with Catholic schools or anything, but in a secular country, no religious group should be running most of the state schools.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No it depends on the scope and complexity of the ideologies that people hold to.

Nationalism, can unite people in a similar way to Religion. In the case of being Irish, we have people who have never set foot on this Island, who identify with it and that is a fairly benign form of nationalism. In extreme cases it rivals Religion for how people identify with one another.

Mark Hamill

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

Thats utter craziness..

The mass slaughter of Muslims carried out by Christians in Bosnia in the 1990's do not, and should not reflect on me.
The actions of the shankill butchers do not, and should not, reflect on nigerian protestants.

The idea that they do is insane.

If the actions carried out by the bosnian christians or shankill butchers was carried out according to an exact ideology that is strongly held by other christians or protestants then it does reflect. (Note however that it depends on what the ideology actually is, ie if the common ideology of christians in is that being muslim is wrong, then what happened in bosnia doesnt apply to them, as the ideology doesnt necessarily imply that muslims need to be murdered, however if the ideology states that non christians are to be treated as enemies then the implication is there. This is obviously very simplified to get across my point)

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

Thats a poorly worded article, but, if a majority of people demand a law, should it not be enacted.
Think of abortion when considering your answer.
Does the anti-abortion will of the majority of Irish people outweigh the freedom of a womanto decide that she simply does not want a baby?
Which is more democratic in this isle of ours?

Large groups of people tend to be quite easily moved by emotive reasoning as opposed to objective logic, so having laws in because the majority of people want them isnt necessarily a good thing. Think of ignorant most irish people are of other religions, particularly islam. Most people, inspired by what the media shows them probably would want islam banned in ireland.

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

You really are going to have to explain the difference between going to war to ward off fictitious weapons of mass destruction, and going to war because god told the prophet david that a genocide was in order?

I dont get your question.

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote:

I never said individual muslims have no empathy for others, the laws of islam however do not.

Then you've interperated the Shariah differently from Mahmoud II, Saladin and Abu Mansur to name but 3 - and frankly I'd trust their knowledge of Islamic law over yours?

Oh really, so shariah law would support the marriage of a muslim woman to a non muslim man? Would it support a non muslim woman keeping her children if the muslim husband divorce or passed away? There are even muslim countries where the muslims themselves are forbidden by law to change their own religion

Sonic_exyouth wrote: »

Nonsense.. it would be effectively free to tag on a 'secular' amendment to the pending referendum on October 2nd. Fact is we are not secular. We are a democratic nation with freedom of religion and a clear catholic majority, including a state funded broadcaster that pumps out a religious message specifily designed for the majority religion, despite being funded in equal part by all, including Muslims. Effectively, Muslims are paying to broadcast the angelus.

I agree that we are not secular yet, I was only stating Aherns excuse.

Mark Hamill

wes wrote: »

I am going to have to disagree, Nationalism can (and is in some countries) a extremely powerful way for people to be connected. Take the first World War, largely caused by chauvinistic nationalism.

Yes, but this just reaffirms what i said earlier about how its the extent to which ideologies are shared. In the WW1, very complicated and fundamental national ideologies were shared by people, it wasn't just that one nation thought they where better than other at sports or whatever, its that one nation thought they where so good that no other nation should be under their rule.

wes wrote: »

Your article quotes one guy. How exactly does he equal all Irish Muslims? Does he some how magically know what the Irish Muslim are thinking? The guy was clearly expressing his personal opinion, he didn't even claim that what he was saying was something all Irish Muslim are thinking.

The guy is basically engaged in a lot of wishful thinking, and it is hardly evidence to prove your point. You taking some vague wishful thinking from a single Muslim, as evidence of hypocrisy is a massive stretch.

That one guy is Secretary-General of the Irish Council of Imams Ali Selim, so hardly just some random muslim off the street. Its also supported by the opinion poll done be the irish independant in 2006 which shows that a third of the muslim population want ireland run under Sharaih law and a third want it governed as islamic state.

wes wrote: »

Now on the other hand, in Albania, Bosnia, Kosova and Turkey, we have Muslims who are in a large enough position to actually put Sharia into the law and they haven't. While, they might not be in Western Europe, I still think the fact that these guys haven't put Sharia into law, show's not all Muslims will do that the first chance they get.

Fine, I concede that saying all muslims would is too big a generalixation, there a some who wouldn't.

wes wrote: »

There was this cold war business, where the world was split into 2 camps, authoritarian communism and democratic (and authoritarian) capitalism, which thankfully didn't result in a full blown world war, but did result in several proxy war's. Also, the US has launched war's (albeit retroactively) in the name of democracy as well btw.

America might have claimed those wars were in the name of spreading democracy, but they were really about power.

wes wrote: »

Law's aren't living things, so they can't possibly have any kind of empathy for anyone ever. I really don't understand what your getting at here.

Empathy is a bad choice of words, I mean fairness and equality.

wes wrote: »

I don't think he is a fanatic or anything, just a bloody idiot. Still regardless, the country isn't really secular and with the new law, it has actually taken a step backward. We still have the Catholic church running most of our state schools for example. Now I have no issue with Catholic schools or anything, but in a secular country, no religious group should be running most of the state schools.

I agree, he's an idiot and the coun try isn't really secular, but it is on its way (very slowly though).

wes wrote: »

Nationalism, can unite people in a similar way to Religion. In the case of being Irish, we have people who have never set foot on this Island, who identify with it and that is a fairly benign form of nationalism. In extreme cases it rivals Religion for how people identify with one another.

I agree, but when someone label themselves with a particular religion there is a much more defined uniting wth other people of that relgion than if you label yourself with a particular nation. Two muslims or christians or jews etc will have be more likely to have more unifying ideologies than two Irish people or two french people or two brits etc.

wes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, but this just reaffirms what i said earlier about how its the extent to which ideologies are shared. In the WW1, very complicated and fundamental national ideologies were shared by people, it wasn't just that one nation thought they where better than other at sports or whatever, its that one nation thought they where so good that no other nation should be under their rule.

Which is no different than people who want to spread democracy by invading a country for instance.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That one guy is Secretary-General of the Irish Council of Imams Ali Selim, so hardly just some random muslim off the street. Its also supported by the opinion poll done be the irish independant in 2006 which shows that a third of the muslim population want ireland run under Sharaih law and a third want it governed as islamic state.

I am going to go out on a limb and assume the same 30% voted for both the Shariah and Islamic state stuff, seeing as those things are basically the same thing asked slightly differently. Which shows the quality of the poll, when there asking the same question twice, but in a slight different way.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Fine, I concede that saying all muslims would is too big a generalixation, there a some who wouldn't.

Alright.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

America might have claimed those wars were in the name of spreading democracy, but they were really about power.

True enough, and when you get down to it. Most wars are about power, be it over land ideology or what have you.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Empathy is a bad choice of words, I mean fairness and equality.

Alright, I get what your saying now.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I agree, he's an idiot and the coun try isn't really secular, but it is on its way (very slowly though).

Well, the blaspehemy law is a massive step backwards, but hopefully one that doesn't last too long. Luckily the law seems next to impossible to enforce, without having everyone sueing everyone else almost.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I agree, but when someone label themselves with a particular religion there is a much more defined uniting wth other people of that relgion than if you label yourself with a particular nation. Two muslims or christians or jews etc will have be more likely to have more unifying ideologies than two Irish people or two french people or two brits etc.

Nowadays, in Western Europe that is true, but if you go say North Korea or China where Chavanistic Nationalism is far more common, you will see a huge reversal in what you say.

Treora

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Isn't intergrating something the Muslims themselves should do, as they are visitors?

Isn't that like giving a car to a guy who can't drive?

[It is not a perjorative analogy on the matter, but on the logic of the post]

Bottle_of_Smoke

To be honest I'm sceptical about the US making more effort with Muslim immigrants than European.

Perhaps you have to have a lot more financial backing to get to the USA as a Muslim. Having this backing you have a higher chance of being an English speaker and other reasons to leave you less prone to isolation.

Also a good point made about Black converts to Islam, they're making up a sizable amount of the Muslim population and are going to have a lot more family connections than the average Muslim in European countries.

One road I wouldn't go down however is saying we shouldn't accommodate Muslims because Muslim countries wouldn't accommodate us. That's completely unfair on individual Muslims, they're not making the rules in their home/ancestral countries.

Mark Hamill

Treora wrote: »

Isn't that like giving a car to a guy who can't drive?

[It is not a perjorative analogy on the matter, but on the logic of the post]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.