Should Dublin ban Burqas and Hijabs?

Dannyriver

Wibbs wrote: »

Since 09 it's been removed as an official thing, but it's quite easy to leave the Catholic Church and it hasn't been exactly an execution offence for many centuries.

Here's an explanation of it.

When was the last time a Catholic court handed down a verdict of apostasy? When was the last time an ex Catholic was killed for it. You can witter on to your hearts content here about Catholicism being a danger and stain on Ireland and its history. Try doing the same with Islam in Egypt, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia or... well you get the picture. Hopefully.

No it is not. The majority are assumed to be of Catholic/Christian extraction, but the census is far more reliable.

Yep and it was the usual blundering ignorant of history stuff and current realities we see in these debates. With a side order of self hatred going on. While nigh all faiths have a murderous past, which faith today is criticism most likely to attract violence? It ain't the Sikhs. Or did you somehow sleep through the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris, or Theo van Gogh's murder on the streets of Holland, or... well we'd be here all bloody day.

I lived through the IRA bombings of the 70's lived in London during the late 80's and early 90's and I swear to **** , the amount of people who would visibly shrink when they heard my accent was infuriating. Everyday another letter to the papers saying to curtail the movement of Irish into the UK as they cannot be trusted. I used to think what kind of thick ****s could possibly define such a large population by the actions of so few. Then I see this bollox coming from my fellow country men. As an aside Did you know that there are people who wouldn't send their kids to university in Limerick in case they might be stabbed....can you ****ing believe that ... like we re all cowering in our rooms afraid to walk out after dark. Unbelievable.

cfuserkildare

Funny you should mention it,
But One of the worst actions of the Catholic church was instigated by a monk ( Dominic de Guzman ) whose sect ( Dominicans) murdered huge amounts of innocent men women and children, hailed from a Former Islamic territory ( Spain).

Odd how the same scheme keeps occurring throughout history??

wp_rathead

"Women must be forced to wear this"

"Women must be banned from wearing this"

Let women wear what they want, it's surely not a hard concept to grasp?

jmayo

biko wrote: »

OP location: Cork
Thinks Dublin is best


My mind officially blown

You don't get it
It would be akin to advising a comic you don't like to do mohammad gags in his stand up routine.
Sit back and watch the mayhem ensue.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Neighbour and good friend of mine switched over to Mormonism about 15 years ago, his choice but not once has he ever bought the subject up or tried to convert me. No leaflets no knocking on my doors, unlike the American ones i used to get every bloody summer.

When was the last time any mormons were a global security threat?
When was the last time any mormons advocated suicide bombing?
When was the last time any mormons tried to establish, through pure violence and force, a separate state based on their beliefs and put to death anyone that didn't convert?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why? What would change for you if 5000 people in your area suddenly changed religion? How would it affect you and your family?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What if say 5000 white catholic people in your area suddenly decided to turn your back on the RCC and convert to Islam?

Would you still be as upset about it or would it only be the darker foreign ones you wouldnt want in your back yard?

You are either wilfully acting the wally or you seriously have one rosey fooked up view of the modern world.

If 5,000 people in a small geographic area, say an Irish town, converted to islam the effects on the area would be dramatic.
As others have stated converts are always the most vehement and often the most militant when it comes to religion.

Pubs and off licenses would be gone because local custom would dry up. So much for dropping in for a pint to watch a PL match or even the GAA on Sky.
No trips to the gastro pub to have sunday lunch.

The local butchers would disappear to be replaced with something selling just halal meats.

The local centra would no longer be offering your pulled pork or ham sandwiches.
Why would they when they wouldn't be selling and they may even face demonstrations and eventually threats over it.

Local sports clubs would no longer be attracting females or at least not females competing in front of males.
Local schools would be getting demands to cater for segregation between the sexes in cases of PE.

Little by little girls and women would begin to feel uncomfortable and would avoid the area because they would, and this has been played out throughout Europe, face harassment for the way they dressed or the fact they had no male chaperone in tow.

But you probably know all this and are just trying to show how liberal you are. :rolleyes:

BTW 5,000 converted locals who would most likely to be white would be just as bad as 5,000 black or "brown" converts.

Unlike you, with the continous habit of trying to make this about race, I and others can see the issue is about ideology and mindset.
Race doesn't matter.

Wibbs wrote: »

When was the last time a Catholic court handed down a verdict of apostasy? When was the last time an ex Catholic was killed for it. You can witter on to your hearts content here about Catholicism being a danger and stain on Ireland and its history. Try doing the same with Islam in Egypt, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia or... well you get the picture. Hopefully.

No it is not. The majority are assumed to be of Catholic/Christian extraction, but the census is far more reliable.

Yep and it was the usual blundering ignorant of history stuff and current realities we see in these debates. With a side order of self hatred going on. While nigh all faiths have a murderous past, which faith today is criticism most likely to attract violence? It ain't the Sikhs. Or did you somehow sleep through the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris, or Theo van Gogh's murder on the streets of Holland, or... well we'd be here all bloody day.

Wibbs arguing with them is futile.
They will drag you down to their level and beat with their experience.

Dannyriver

jmayo wrote: »

You don't get it
It would be akin to advising a comic you don't like to do mohammad gags in his stand up routine.
Sit back and watch the mayhem ensue.



When was the last time any mormons were a global security threat?
When was the last time any mormons advocated suicide bombing?
When was the last time any mormons tried to establish, through pure violence and force, a separate state based on their beliefs and put to death anyone that didn't convert?





You are either wilfully acting the wally or you seriously have one rosey fooked up view of the modern world.

If 5,000 people in a small geographic area, say an Irish town, converted to islam the effects on the area would be dramatic.
As others have stated converts are always the most vehement and often the most militant when it comes to religion.

Pubs and off licenses would be gone because local custom would dry up. So much for dropping in for a pint to watch a PL match or even the GAA on Sky.
No trips to the gastro pub to have sunday lunch.

The local butchers would disappear to be replaced with something selling just halal meats.

The local centra would no longer be offering your pulled pork or ham sandwiches.
Why would they when they wouldn't be selling and they may even face demonstrations and eventually threats over it.

Local sports clubs would no longer be attracting females or at least not females competing in front of males.
Local schools would be getting demands to cater for segregation between the sexes in cases of PE.

Little by little girls and women would begin to feel uncomfortable and would avoid the area because they would, and this has been played out throughout Europe, face harassment for the way they dressed or the fact they had no male chaperone in tow.

But you probably know all this and are just trying to show how liberal you are. :rolleyes:

BTW 5,000 converted locals who would most likely to be white would be just as bad as 5,000 black or "brown" converts.

Unlike you, with the continous habit of trying to make this about race, I and others can see the issue is about ideology and mindset.
Race doesn't matter.



Wibbs arguing with them is futile.
They will drag you down to their level and beat with their experience.

No-ones dragging you anywhere, calm down will you. Re mindset that s exactly the point and you are projecting the extreme and rigid mindset of the few on the majority just like I experienced in the UK during the IRA campaigns of the 70's and 80's and that s where you are patently wrong...to do so is exactly what extremists want ... Trump/Bannon/writers like Douglas Murray/Farage and the anti immigration movement across the world is exactly what those pushing for a jihad want.

Wibbs

Dannyriver wrote: »

I lived through the IRA bombings of the 70's lived in London during the late 80's and early 90's and I swear to **** , the amount of people who would visibly shrink when they heard my accent was infuriating. Everyday another letter to the papers saying to curtail the movement of Irish into the UK as they cannot be trusted. I used to think what kind of thick ****s could possibly define such a large population by the actions of so few. Then I see this bollox coming from my fellow country men.

I don't separate the two just because I'm Irish. I can well understand why many British people would be suspicious, particularly of those with Northern Irish accents. If you're seeing all too regular examples of car and pub bombs going off targeting your population and set by a subsection of a particular demographic, yes it's an overreaction, if an understandable one to assume every member of that group is a terrorist, or terrorist sympathiser. Though let's face facts here, quite the number of Irish people in the 70's, here and abroad, would have been somewhat sympathetic to the Republican cause, even if they baulked at some of the methods. That conflict in the North and overseas costs thousands of lives and affected many thousands more on the back of ideology.

Again my question is and always has been, why risk importing that kind of nonsense into a country like Ireland that has been so far free of it in ways that many parts of Europe have not? The plain faction of the biggest reasons that we haven't had Brixton type riots or the 2011 riots or the tube bombing or the Manchester Arena bombing and a list of other incidences across the EU is because we have a small multicultural population. That and not being seen as directly imperial. Monocultural nations have a strong tendency to be safer and less fractious. Though I'd personally not be fan of going fully monocultural either. Multiculturalism is like a fire, at the right level it warms your house, too high and it risks being a fire hazard.

Grayson

wp_rathead wrote: »

"Women must be forced to wear this"

"Women must be banned from wearing this"

Let women wear what they want, it's surely not a hard concept to grasp?

I know! I think all the people trying to ban it are just as weird as someone who would make someone wear it. What a woman chooses to wear is up to her and no-one else.

Wibbs

jmayo wrote: »

Race doesn't matter.

Actyally I would disagree here J, on a few levels. "Race" certainly does matter and is a large part of the issues faced in multiculturalism. Tell a Black lad from London who gets stopped by police at far higher rates than his White mates that race doesn't matter. It is my view that xenophobia and tribalism is a strong tendency in the human animal. A view that history and current affairs back up. "Race" makes identifying "The Other" much easier. And it doesn't matter from what side. In The Troubles the tribalism relied on subtle things like neighbourhood, surnames and the like to work out who was the Other, the Enemy. Imagine if Loyalists had been White and Republicans had been Black. More mayhem.

suicide_circus

Wibbs wrote: »

Actyally I would disagree here J, on a few levels. "Race" certainly does matter and is a large part of the issues faced in multiculturalism. Tell a Black lad from London who gets stopped by police at far higher rates than his White mates that race doesn't matter. It is my view that xenophobia and tribalism is a strong tendency in the human animal. A view that history and current affairs back up. "Race" makes identifying "The Other" much easier. And it doesn't matter from what side. In The Troubles the tribalism relied on subtle things like neighbourhood, surnames and the like to work out who was the Other, the Enemy. Imagine if Loyalists had been White and Republicans had been Black. More mayhem.

agreed. fear of "the other" appears to be a pretty universal human characteristic given it's obvious basic evolutionary benefits and the fact that we all have to emphatically deny that we've ever had even the faintest glimmer of a xenophobic notion is harmful because it means we don't have honest conversation. I'm not saying we should embrace it or act on it but we should at least recognise it.
it's like people who claim never to have masturbated.

dennispenn

Dannyriver wrote: »

No-ones dragging you anywhere, calm down will you. Re mindset that s exactly the point and you are projecting the extreme and rigid mindset of the few on the majority just like I experienced in the UK during the IRA campaigns of the 70's and 80's and that s where you are patently wrong...to do so is exactly what extremists want ... Trump/Bannon/writers like Douglas Murray/Farage and the anti immigration movement across the world is exactly what those pushing for a jihad want.

For those that don't know who Douglas Murray is. He's a columnist with the spectator,a political commentator and an author who's latest publishing is The strange death of Europe. He's also gay,openly gay. And to call this man an extremist couldn't be further from the truth and is absurd.
The group that Danny boy is trying today defend would have Murray and his kind thrown off a buildings or beheaded because of his sexual preferences. At the very least in Britain the majority of Muslim community want homosexuals locked up. ....

Is this the type of society that you want to live in Danny and Co? Is this what the gay community fought for,to allow a culture that sees them as lesser humans?

I saw your comment on the ira. I too lived in London when the ira tried to bomb downing street,bishopsgate,canary warf and so on. Lived there a long time. Never ever had a word said against me because of my accent.
Your experience and perception of your experiences is extremely rare.

Dannyriver

Wibbs wrote: »

I don't separate the two just because I'm Irish. I can well understand why many British people would be suspicious, particularly of those with Northern Irish accents. If you're seeing all too regular examples of car and pub bombs going off targeting your population and set by a subsection of a particular demographic, yes it's an overreaction, if an understandable one to assume every member of that group is a terrorist, or terrorist sympathiser. Though let's face facts here, quite the number of Irish people in the 70's, here and abroad, would have been somewhat sympathetic to the Republican cause, even if they baulked at some of the methods. That conflict in the North and overseas costs thousands of lives and affected many thousands more on the back of ideology.

Again my question is and always has been, why risk importing that kind of nonsense into a country like Ireland that has been so far free of it in ways that many parts of Europe have not? The plain faction of the biggest reasons that we haven't had Brixton type riots or the 2011 riots or the tube bombing or the Manchester Arena bombing and a list of other incidences across the EU is because we have a small multicultural population. That and not being seen as directly imperial. Monocultural nations have a strong tendency to be safer and less fractious. Though I'd personally not be fan of going fully monocultural either. Multiculturalism is like a fire, at the right level it warms your house, too high and it risks being a fire hazard.

So can I but there were many also who didn't succumb to that fear and became friends of mine to this day albeit on social media now. As for the Northern accent, they knew one Irish accent and they called it an Irish accent

Grayson

Wibbs wrote: »

I don't separate the two just because I'm Irish. I can well understand why many British people would be suspicious, particularly of those with Northern Irish accents. If you're seeing all too regular examples of car and pub bombs going off targeting your population and set by a subsection of a particular demographic, yes it's an overreaction, if an understandable one to assume every member of that group is a terrorist, or terrorist sympathiser. Though let's face facts here, quite the number of Irish people in the 70's, here and abroad, would have been somewhat sympathetic to the Republican cause, even if they baulked at some of the methods. That conflict in the North and overseas costs thousands of lives and affected many thousands more on the back of ideology.

Again my question is and always has been, why risk importing that kind of nonsense into a country like Ireland that has been so far free of it in ways that many parts of Europe have not? The plain faction of the biggest reasons that we haven't had Brixton type riots or the 2011 riots or the tube bombing or the Manchester Arena bombing and a list of other incidences across the EU is because we have a small multicultural population. That and not being seen as directly imperial. Monocultural nations have a strong tendency to be safer and less fractious. Though I'd personally not be fan of going fully monocultural either. Multiculturalism is like a fire, at the right level it warms your house, too high and it risks being a fire hazard.

Because you're talking about banning someone based on a generality, not a specific. You're talking about getting a billion people and deciding they're all the same. I'd have no trouble saying that we should have criteria based on a persons criminal history or membership of a proscribed organisation. But picking a billion people and lumping them all in with the very worst of that billion is just wrong.

And this thread specifically is about banning a woman from choosing the clothes she wants to wear because some people don't like her choice. We cannot and should not make cultural laws. We especially can't do it based on a a clothing choice.

I'm not sure why you mentioned the riots in 2011. They started because the local community protested the police killing a man but the vast majority of the riots were not related.Studies found that the primary motivation was theft. And in general the race of the arrested rioters reflected the areas where they were arrested. (In Merseyside for example 80% of the rioters were white). The riots weren't caused by friction between races or anything like that. And they certainly didn't primarily involve muslims. I believe something like 7% of the rioters were asian which in the UK translates to Indian, Pakistani etc.. So they might not even be muslim. or The common trend between the rioters was that they were young, male and without higher education

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/05/who-were-the-rioters

Dannyriver

dennispenn wrote: »

For those that don't know who Douglas Murray is. He's a columnist with the spectator,a political commentator and an author who's latest publishing is The strange death of Europe. He's also gay,openly gay. And to call this man an extremist couldn't be further from the truth and is absurd.
The group that Danny boy is trying today defend would have Murray and his kind thrown off a buildings or beheaded because of his sexual preferences. At the very least in Britain the majority of Muslim community want homosexuals locked up. ....

Is this the type of society that you want to live in Danny and Co? Is this what the gay community fought for,to allow a culture that sees them as lesser humans?

I saw your comment on the ira. I too lived in London when the ira tried to bomb downing street,bishopsgate,canary warf and so on. Lived there a long time. Never ever had a word said against me because of my accent.
Your experience and perception of your experiences is extremely rare.

well then you either had your head firmly planted up your hole or you are gas-lighting the whole Irish experience to suit your needs . The first isn't likely because you are clearly suspicious of others by nature so I'm guessing it's the second...and I'd doubt if anyone else on here believes you either, if anyone wants to correct me on that apologies.

dennispenn

Dannyriver wrote: »

well then you either had your head firmly planted up your hole or you are gas-lighting the whole Irish experience to suit your needs . The first isn't likely because you are clearly suspicious of others by nature so I'm guessing it's the second...and I'd doubt if anyone else on here believes you either, if anyone wants to correct me on that apologies.

Or perhaps you were just an asshole when you were about town. You wouldn't have been alone a culture of drunkenness and mainly being a menace was commonly seen around Irish areas. Why didn't you just leave the country then if your presence there wasn't wanted? I wouldn't have stayed. ..

I digress. Nice work in avoiding the Douglas Murray extremist bit.

Dannyriver

dennispenn wrote: »

Or perhaps you were just an asshole when you were about town. You wouldn't have been alone a culture of drunkenness and mainly being a menace was commonly seen around Irish areas.

I digress. Nice work in avoiding the Douglas Murray extremist bit.

I didn t call him an extremist you said I did

dennispenn

Dannyriver wrote: »

I didn t call him an extremist you said I did

My apologies. Danny.

I can assume that you dont believe neither are Trump, Farrage and Bannon extremist as you lumped Murray in among them.


😂

Dannyriver

dennispenn wrote: »

My apologies. Danny.

I can assume that you dont believe neither are Trump, Farrage and Bannon extremist as you lumped Murray in among them.


��

Apology accepted now read the post again, I didnt call any of the above extremists, I said that they are playing into the hands of extremists by tarnishing the majority by the actions of the few. Second apology accepted in advance .

Taytoland

Douglas Murray book Strange Death of Europe is a masterpiece which will be read for generations.

dennispenn

Dannyriver wrote: »

Apology accepted now read the post again, I didnt call any of the above extremists, I said that they are playing into the hands of extremists by tarnishing the majority by the actions of the few. Second apology accepted in advance .

The majority..... Ah yes... That old rubbish. As Bridget Gabriel said in that famous YouTube clip seen by millions of people, the majority are irrelevant. 19 hijacker's..... 3000 dead. Etc etc etc

Wibbs

Grayson wrote: »

Because you're talking about banning someone based on a generality, not a specific.

I'm not talking about banning anyone. I am saying that multiculturalism as a credo is a failing one.

You're talking about getting a billion people and deciding they're all the same.

Nope, I didn't say that either.

But picking a billion people and lumping them all in with the very worst of that billion is just wrong.

Nor that. Three for three.

And this thread specifically is about banning a woman from choosing the clothes she wants to wear because some people don't like her choice. We cannot and should not make cultural laws. We especially can't do it based on a a clothing choice.

We make "cultural" laws all the time. About clothing too. Walk down Dublin's O'Connell street tomorrow afternoon naked. See what happens.

I'm not sure why you mentioned the riots in 2011.

So ignore the others that were as a result of frictions between non "native" demographics and the "native".

The common trend between the rioters was that they were young, male and without higher education

And what is the common trend of those "refugees" numbering in the millions coming into Europe over the last 8 years? A majority are "young, male and without higher education". And they stand apart because of culture and "race" so will face more pushback, all the way up to open hostility than young, male, without higher education Whites. Ah sure what could possibly go wrong with importing a demographic that's likely to cause more social issues.

Danzy

Wibbs wrote: »

. That conflict in the North and overseas costs thousands of lives and affected many thousands more on the back of ideology.

Again my question is and always has been, why risk importing that kind of nonsense into a country like Ireland that has been so far free of it in ways that many parts of Europe have not?

The war in the North was the down to the same thing, importing an ideology, a fundamentalist one, one that had a supremacist core. That worked out problematic for us to say the least.

Yet they had a stricter version of Christianity, compared to the relaxed semi pagan Christianity of Gaelic Ireland, any version would have been stricter, even the modern Pope would be stricter, that is neither here nor there.

While religiously different, as a people the Scots are the closest to the Irish, Scotus being old latin for Irish.

Ideology matters.

This ultimately is down to Multiculturalism, unworkable in practice. You can have a functioning multiracial society but Multicultural, not a hope.

Multiculturalism thrived in the Neoliberal belief that there is no such thing as society. The Left ran with it from their own point of view but it is a concept that would never have been practised with the ascendancy of Thatcher/Reaganite economics.

Culture and belief matters more than colour, that is a line that the Left have to understand. Its failure to do that is one of the main reasons the left is collapsing across Western Europe as a political force.

It may already be too late though.

(So iz you saying them Orange men iz Muslims)

Danzy

Taytoland wrote: »

Douglas Murray book Strange Death of Europe is a masterpiece which will be read for generations.

It probably won't be, which ironically is why it is a masterpiece.

jmayo

Dannyriver wrote: »

No-ones dragging you anywhere, calm down will you. Re mindset that s exactly the point and you are projecting the extreme and rigid mindset of the few on the majority just like I experienced in the UK during the IRA campaigns of the 70's and 80's and that s where you are patently wrong...

As other poster commented on Brigitte Gabriel, she put it brilliantly about how the majority do not matter when you have a group within it that have such ideals and will stop at nothing to achieve their twisted aims.
She likened it to commenting on how the majority of Germans in 1930s were probably grand.
And the thing is a huge chunk of the muslim world have beliefs and opinions diametrically opposed to modern day Western world and the numbers that support or at least give tacit approval to the fundamentalists goals is frightening.

Dannyriver wrote: »

to do so is exactly what extremists want ... Trump/Bannon/writers like Douglas Murray/Farage and the anti immigration movement across the world is exactly what those pushing for a jihad want.

Ehh what is wrong with Douglas Murrary and what is wrong with anti immigration movement.
Mass immigration now, and we all know it basically means African and from certain parts of Asia, does not bring benefits but just strive and costs at this stage.
We in Europe cannot afford all the immigrants that some want to bring in.

Wibbs wrote: »

Actyally I would disagree here J, on a few levels. "Race" certainly does matter and is a large part of the issues faced in multiculturalism. Tell a Black lad from London who gets stopped by police at far higher rates than his White mates that race doesn't matter. It is my view that xenophobia and tribalism is a strong tendency in the human animal. A view that history and current affairs back up. "Race" makes identifying "The Other" much easier. And it doesn't matter from what side. In The Troubles the tribalism relied on subtle things like neighbourhood, surnames and the like to work out who was the Other, the Enemy. Imagine if Loyalists had been White and Republicans had been Black. More mayhem.

Actually I was just talking about islam and muslims.
I do know there are race issues, especially in countries such as US and even in UK & France.

But the thing is I find islam the ideology repugnant no matter who is believing in it. To me it is equivalent to 10th century christianity.
islam is not a colour, it is not a race.
It is a religion and an ideology.

Now of course you will get the ones that hate islam because they see it as the dominant religion practiced by the so called brown people (as some posters label some people from certain parts of the world).
Those same people probably would have hated jews in the past, and in the case of the US historically would have hated catholics as well.

You even find some people and the odd poster here who hate all immigrants be they black African, brown Middle Eastern or even a white blue eyed gent from Eastern Europe, be they catholic, muslim or protestant.

One of the things I have wondering of late around here is ...
Why is it ok to hate catholicism and have a go at catholic believers (as was majorily evident on threads about the pope's visit), but try doing the same with islam and muslims ?

What would the reaction be if a poll in the UK found that 52% of catholics thought homosexuality should be made illegal ?

What would the reaciton be if 47% of catholics said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher?

What would the reaction be if 23% of catholics thought canon law, ala the inquisition, should supercede the state legal system ?

There would be no amount of wailing and the media would be overrun with celebrities trying to outdo each other in showing their distain.

But no one bats an eyelid when the same number in the muslim community have those opinions.

It is another one of those double standards now in play in our society.

PS if anyone wants to check my opinion of catholicism just in case you think you can throw the old catholic defender mullarkey back.

Dannyriver

dennispenn wrote: »

The majority..... Ah yes... That old rubbish. As Bridget Gabriel said in that famous YouTube clip seen by millions of people, the majority are irrelevant. 19 hijacker's..... 3000 dead. Etc etc etc

Why do you say that s rubbish?

dennispenn

Dannyriver wrote: »

Why do you say that s rubbish?

It is a reference to that Brigitte Gabrielle video. The one where the peaceful Muslim asks her a question and instantly regrets it.

Danzy

jmayo wrote: »

As other poster commented on Brigitte Gabriel, she put it brilliantly about how the majority do not matter when you have a group within it that have such ideals and will stop at nothing to achieve their twisted aims.
She likened it to commenting on how the majority of Germans in 1930s were probably grand.
And the thing is a huge chunk of the muslim world have beliefs and opinions diametrically opposed to modern day Western world and the numbers that support or at least give tacit approval to the fundamentalists goals is frightening.



Ehh what is wrong with Douglas Murrary and what is wrong with anti immigration movement.
Mass immigration now, and we all know it basically means African and from certain parts of Asia, does not bring benefits but just strive and costs at this stage.
We in Europe cannot afford all the immigrants that some want to bring in.





Actually I was just talking about islam and muslims.
I do know there are race issues, especially in countries such as US and even in UK & France.

But the thing is I find islam the ideology repugnant no matter who is believing in it. To me it is equivalent to 10th century christianity.
islam is not a colour, it is not a race.
It is a religion and an ideology.

Now of course you will get the ones that hate islam because they see it as the dominant religion practiced by the so called brown people (as some posters label some people from certain parts of the world).
Those same people probably would have hated jews in the past, and in the case of the US historically would have hated catholics as well.

You even find some people and the odd poster here who hate all immigrants be they black African, brown Middle Eastern or even a white blue eyed gent from Eastern Europe, be they catholic, muslim or protestant.

One of the things I have wondering of late around here is ...
Why is it ok to hate catholicism and have a go at catholic believers (as was majorily evident on threads about the pope's visit), but try doing the same with islam and muslims ?

What would the reaction be if a poll in the UK found that 52% of catholics thought homosexuality should be made illegal ?

What would the reaciton be if 47% of catholics said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher?

What would the reaction be if 23% of catholics thought canon law, ala the inquisition, should supercede the state legal system ?

There would be no amount of wailing and the media would be overrun with celebrities trying to outdo each other in showing their distain.

But no one bats an eyelid when the same number in the muslim community have those opinions.

It is another one of those double standards now in play in our society.

PS if anyone wants to check my opinion of catholicism just in case you think you can throw the old catholic defender mullarkey back.

There are other polls, by reputable and State wide polling companies in Britain that give even worse percentages on those issues.

28% of young Muslims in Britain say it is justifiable to kill for the faith, same % roughly, said the murder of the Charlie Hebdo activists was justified.

In France there is about 30% as well with those views.

This is not a small problem.

On average the Islamic community is more conservative than the host community, but many are to the right of the inquisition.

Armed extremism is small but extremist views are not small.

On those %s it will not take much for armed extremism to become a serious issue in large parts of England.

That is another issue though, it does not take from the Islamic community have a severe regressive belief system.

If a third of Catholics had views that were at home in Franco's Spain it would be a major story and rightly so, when near the same of the Islamic community in much of Europe have views that are of many magnitudes more extreme, it is a down played.

They only time a modern Left wing politician will shake hands with a person who calls for Jews and gays to be killed, who advocates wife beating, who will sit in gender segregated meetings is if that person is from the Islamic Community.

The modern Left looks at the skin, many of us look at the culture and beliefs behind this.

Dannyriver

dennispenn wrote: »

It is a reference to that Brigitte Gabrielle video. The one where the peaceful Muslim asks her a question and instantly regrets it.

Oh right I thought you were saying it. Gabrielle has been found out to be a Charlatan but lets ignore that shall we.

Giraffe Box

Dannyriver wrote: »

Oh right I thought you were saying it. Gabrielle has been found out to be a Charlatan but lets ignore that shall we.

I thought I knew all the members of that band, she must be........ the only one I 'don't' know.

thebull85

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNOZS9fcWJo

Its prayer time, so f**k everyone else on the road.

Corduffistan

Galwayguy35

Of course they should be banned, it's ridiculous to have someone going around the place like they are a walking postbox.