Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Mr Myers sets a poser....again.
-
06-01-2011 10:28pm#1Is Kevin Myers OTT in this piece from Today`s Indo..?
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-muslim-girls-are-covertly-prepared-for-forced-marriage-yet-the-feminists-stay-silent-2485661.html
In the course of this piece Kevin Myers makes the following point....Now aside from "refugees" from one Muslim country to its neighbour, there's little sign of mass-population movement from one Islamic country to another. Bangladeshis, Pakistanis. Afghans, Somalis, may operate as guest workers in Saudi Arabia, where they have no rights, but if they seek a brighter economic future, they move their families to the Christian/secular countries of Greater Europe, which includes North America and Australasia.
A little further on he makes another point....This is simply not true of Muslim immigration. Not merely is there not a single stable, prosperous Muslim democracy in the world, free of terrorism and fundamentalism, there is no society that has received large numbers of Muslims that has not soon been confronted by an Islamic defiance of existing societal norms. This defiance can be cultural, in which dissident dress code is sought as a religious right; or educational, in which Muslims are raised within their own autonomous school system; or legal, with a demand for Sharia law; or insurrectionary, in which local Muslims opt for terrorist jihad against the state which admitted them.
No European country -- not one -- that has admitted large numbers of Muslims has been spared any of these outcomes.
No European country -- not one -- that has admitted Hindus has had to face any comparable problem.
As a reader,but not necessarily an admirer of Mr Myers,I do find myself somewhat challenged by many of his points and I`d suggest they do merit some reasoned consideration.......
That Hindu-Muslim comparison is not one we see being made with any great regularity round these parts ?
Worth discussing ?....or is it just his accent that provokes such opprobrium amongst the Gael...?
Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
Tagged:0
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
If he cannot think of a stable, prosperous, and democratic state, then obviously he has never heard of Turkey. Or, in terms of relative global prosperity, Indonesia. .
Perhaps,although I`m less than flaithuleach about holding Turkey up as a model of stability and democracy unless one is prepared to factor in the Military quotient into those definitions.
Indonesia too,although admittedly prosperous,is only now beginning to understand the elements of the Surhato years and it`s emergence from them.
Mind you,I suppose both countries have not as yet managed to engineer a 21st Century Property Bubble yet ,so therefore have`nt really understood the true benefits of Prosperity and Democracy..?
Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bit of a "only true scotsman"
AS has the US with Christian fundies for example . Your point being?
my point being exactly the same as myers'Not merely is there not a single stable, prosperous Muslim democracy in the world, free of terrorism and fundamentalism, there is no society that has received large numbers of Muslims that has not soon been confronted by an Islamic defiance of existing societal norms.
that is true as far as i can tell and your two examples dont contradict it because they are both fundamentalistWhen you cant deal with an issue do you always resort to trying to attack the person nd claim that whether they are or are not religious is changing the fact about atheistic regimes? I'm not aware of any atheistic countries which didn't have a controlling regime in charge which suppressed and slaughtered those that challenged their atheistic regime.
its very simple, how many people have been killed in the name of atheism? how many people have been killed in the name of one religon or another? the regimes you mentioned were not communist or totalitarian because they were atheist, they were atheist because they were totalitarian and didnt want to share any power or control with any type of church. they didnt carry out any atrocities in the name of atheism, they carried them out in the name of their particular totalitarian regime and to suggest otherwise is total and absolute crap
as has been said by bottle_of_smoke most western nations are atheistic in that they do their best to not involve any religions viewpoints or anything about god in the decisions they make (its even written into at least one constitution).I suppose it comes down to
Believers think it matters that people believe.
Some atheists don't think it matters if people believe. Believers would disagree with these atheists and view them as bad for society but would not wish to harm them in any way.
way to state the obvious, most people who believe in religon but are also rational people so dont want to force anyone else to believe in it (accept their kids and anyone else they directly control i suppose) most atheists are exactly the same. they dont believe in god, they feel that people who do and everything that goes with that is detrimental to society but they dont try and force their beliefs on anyone else(accept those that they directly control)Other atheists believe that everyone should be atheist and it is a superior way.
so they are just as arrogant as the religious, this is probably more a human characteristic then anything to do with either religion or atheismThey also think that belief should be curtailed by law and atheism should be promoted.
not once have i ever heard an atheist suggest this, have you any links?it is these other atheists who set up regimes with atheism as a central principle of the regime. These type of fundamentalists atheists have caused hundreds of millions of deaths.
that is simply untrue as explained aboveFundamentalist religions (which are a small minority and are not mainstream) have also caused deaths but religion has also contributed to developing society. What has atheism contributed? What great atheist civilization ever existed?
while im not convinced by the scale of this graph if we take it at face value, we are roughly 1000 years behind technically and scientifically as a result of the dark ages. the dark ages, which was suprisingly enough, the time when religious control and conflict reigned supreme and was considered more important than anything else
1. atheistic ones caused mare death then all the others
2. Atheistic regimes contributed less then the others
3. Non atheistic regimes were sometimes benign.
just because you repeat something over and over again dosnt make it any less wrongAnd the FACT is that people like Dawkins for example DO VIEW atheism as a "better way" and want religious people removed from any authority. Maybe some atheists couldnt care less and want to sit on their hands and do nothing, which can be criticised in itself but I am specifically talking here about evangalising fundamental atheists such as those like Dawkins who subscribe to scientism.
replace dawkins with the name of any religious leader and atheism with whatever religon that leader leads, what is your point? dawkins has his beliefs, religous people have theirs.
the world is so diverse now that no one religion has any place in a position of authority over people who dont share their beliefs.If you promote atheism as a better way for society and you promote removing religious believers from positions of authority then you are one of these people.
religous people can of course remain in positions of authority as long as they dont try to enforce one single law of their religion on the masses. if they cannot seperate their personal beliefs from their job as a lawmaker or person in control then they have no business being there. they can get a job with their church and preach to people who want to be preached atIf Myers is drawing attention to fundamentalists
so you are saying that it is only a coincidence that when any sort of population of muslims(for example) move to an area or a country, demands for their views to supercede the indiginous cultures start being heard? and you are saying that it must be because fundamentalists follow these moderate populations around and make the demands pretending to talk on thier behalf?then we should all note the wider picture fundamentlists atheistic regimes caused far more damage and contributed nothing of note to society.
:rolleyes:0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Perhaps,although I`m less than flaithuleach about holding Turkey up as a model of stability and democracy unless one is prepared to factor in the Military quotient into those definitions.
Indonesia too,although admittedly prosperous,is only now beginning to understand the elements of the Surhato years and it`s emergence from them.
Mind you,I suppose both countries have not as yet managed to engineer a 21st Century Property Bubble yet ,so therefore have`nt really understood the true benefits of Prosperity and Democracy..?PeakOutput wrote: »he specifically said
both the examples you give have large fundamentalist elements
I think the above two posts are evidence of the double standards that some people, sometimes unwittingly, sometimes purposefully, apply to Islam. When an example of a a democratic Muslim nation is demanded, it has to be of the purest form, a very paragon of democratic virtue, without blemish or taint. The fact that there are no such democracies in the world, doesn;t stop people from denigrating Turkey and Indonesia for perceives failings, whilst ignoring the same in Western Christian or secular democracies they champion in opposition to Islamic examples. Yes, Turkey has had problems with military intervention over the years. But if one is to use those relatively minor interventions to question Turkish democracy, then one would have to do the same regarding Spain, Portugal, Greece, Germany, most of estern Europe, and all of Latin and South America. Turkish had a far more democratic 20th century than any of the latter examples, yet its foibles are constantly dredged up, and the others' ignored.
As for Indonesia, the major point is that it has emerged from the Suharto era. His rule can't be ignored, but neither can it be used to deny the legitimacy of Indonesian democracy as its currently constituted. If that were the democratic benchmark, then there'd be precious few democracies in the world.
PeakOutput is right when he states that both countires are home to a fundamentalists who seek to undermine democracy in the name of Islam. It's a problem, but again it doesn't alter the fact that they are democracies. Fundemantalists come in all shapes and sizes, and exist in all manner of democracies. On this island for example, we had a form of political/religious fundamentalism for years in the North, which saw the Catholic minority actively discriminated against for decades. India is having hige problems containing a Maoist insurgency, Columbia faces the threat of FARC, whilst Mexico risks becoming a failed, narco-state if the government doesn't get a grip on the situation there. All of these represent(ed) a threat to the democratic ideal, yet noone suggests that theese countries are or were less democratic because of these issues. And yet, when it's an Islamic nation, the very fact that Muslim fundamentalists array themselves against the democratic structures and the rule of law, somehow negates those very democratic institutions. It's a perverse double standard.Nonsense, Sharia in England is voluntarily practiced and does not in any way supercede British law; neither can any judgement made in these informal settings carry any weight if it is in contradiction to British civil law. Even the articles you posted state that fact, your post is alarmist rubbish.
I fairness, I don't think that ANY form of law, secular of religious, should be allowed to stand as an alternative to the law of the land in a democratic state.PeakOutput wrote: »
as has been said by bottle_of_smoke most western nations are atheistic in that they do their best to not involve any religions viewpoints or anything about god in the decisions they make (its even written into at least one constitution).
Turkey is actually one of the most secular political systems in the world. Its prohibitions against religious iconography in government institutions, universities etc, would make the French blush. And yet, when the Turkish government wish to rescind some of these restrictions, and give rights to Turks that are commonplace in the EU, people like Myers scream about Islamification and theocracy.while im not convinced by the scale of this graph if we take it at face value, we are roughly 1000 years behind technically and scientifically as a result of the dark ages. the dark ages, which was suprisingly enough, the time when religious control and conflict reigned supreme and was considered more important than anything else
I'm sorry, but as any student of medieval history would attest to, this is a gross oversimplification of the causes of the s0-called Dark Ages. I'm an atheist myself, and so have no bias in stating this other than an interest in historical fact and accuracy, but the decline in literacy, innovation, and practically every other barometer of human achievement in the "Dark Ages" had precious little to do with the Church. People seem to omit the massively traumatic impact of the dissolution of the Roman Empire and the transformation of Europe from a single, stable, political entity, into a chaotic patchwork of squabbling tribal states, when discussing the "Dark Ages". Effective communication, the sine qua non of widespread learning and innovation was truncated by the collapse of Rome, and the wars amongst the barbarian sucessor states. It was this, along with the disappearance of effective political patronage, the collapse of the economy, and the huge political instability of the period, that saw the decline in learning in the period. If anything, the Church was instrumental in limiting the decline in education and preserving Roman heritage. The Carolingian Renaissance for example, was driven very much by ecclesiastical advisers to Charlemagne, his predecessor, and his sucessors. Monastic and other Church sciptoria preserved not just literacy, but improved standards in the written word, and crucially saved Classical works that would otherwise have been lost. Church scholars produced histories of the world, and learned commentaries on earlier writers, were active in astronomy and in promoting science, and worked to prevent futher political disintergration after the fall of Rome, and after Charlemagne's death. There are, of course, reasons to criticise Church policy, especially in the later Middle Ages when dogmatic intolerance came more to the fore, but it's both lazy and uninformed to claim that the Church was, in any meaningful way, responsible for the European "Dark Ages".
Incidentally, I notice your graph leaves out the huge strides in science and other spheres, made by Islamic scholars in Spain, North Africa, and across the Middle East in early medieval period. Were it not for their efforts, and indeed, the activities of the Church scholars mentioned above, then the much lauded Renaissance would never have occurered.just because you repeat something over and over again dosnt make it any less wrong
My sentiments exactly.
so you are saying that it is only a coincidence that when any sort of population of muslims(for example) move to an area or a country, demands for their views to supercede the indiginous cultures start being heard? and you are saying that it must be because fundamentalists follow these moderate populations around and make the demands pretending to talk on thier behalf?
Well, in fairness, European Christians done such a good job of that over the centuries, that they not only superceded the indigenous populations, but in many cases, wiped them out. And quite often in the name of their God too.
In saying that, I know where you're coming from, but would point out that the vast majority of Muslims have no problem living according to the laws of their adopted country. To analogise, Irish travellers cause huge problems in Britain, and cause an awful lot of legitimate resentment. Yet, were anyone to equate the minority Irish travellers with the rest of Irish society living in the UK, and then draw negative conclusions from that, people would be outraged. Yet that is exactly what is happening re Muslims. Again, a double standard is being applied.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
funny.Perhaps,although I`m less than flaithuleach about holding Turkey up as a model of stability and democracy unless one is prepared to factor in the Military quotient into those definitions.
Indonesia too,although admittedly prosperous,is only now beginning to understand the elements of the Surhato years and it`s emergence from them.
Mind you,I suppose both countries have not as yet managed to engineer a 21st Century Property Bubble yet ,so therefore have`nt really understood the true benefits of Prosperity and Democracy..?
as it happens they've a different lending approach, enshrined in their beliefs actually referred to as the Islamic banking model (it's used outside Islamic worlds as well). It basically involves taking only enough interest from a loan to cover inflation and running costs. (and also recognising a strong moral responsibility for lending actions - you know like what we had, but the opposite )
weird people.
good info below on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking
ah Kevin, cant you find love still?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
ArtSmart ;69950288]funny.
as it happens they've a different lending approach, enshrined in their beliefs actually referred to as the Islamic banking model (it's used outside Islamic worlds as well). It basically involves taking only enough interest from a loan to cover inflation and running costs. (and also recognising a strong moral responsibility for lending actions - you know like what we had, but the opposite )
This,I presume is the Hawallah model ?
It`s always quite instructive to see how humanity always manages to find ways around "Principles" or "Beliefs".
I rather suspect that you`ll search long and hard to find a poverty stricken Islamic Banker,a sub-species equally absent from Christian,Jewish,Hindu.....or,come to think of it,any organized religion...including AtheismNodin;69926621]...Despite his rather selective use of the facts and rabble rousing.
I was under the impression this was a discussion board, not a cheer leading site for right wing opinion pieces.
....?
Thankfully,as the posts in this thread go towards proving,Nodin`s first impression is indeed correct.
The discussion is ongoing .....
Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
-
funny.
as it happens they've a different lending approach, enshrined in their beliefs actually referred to as the Islamic banking model (it's used outside Islamic worlds as well). It basically involves taking only enough interest from a loan to cover inflation and running costs. (and also recognising a strong moral responsibility for lending actions - you know like what we had, but the opposite )
weird people.
good info below on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking
ah Kevin, cant you find love still?
Yes and haven't they advanced with this banking model which by the way is a concocted 20th century system that has no basis in history.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement