Isn't multiculturalism great...

Deleted User wrote: »

...today I brought my daughter to the playground to meet Slovakian friends with their kids. Also met my cousin and his African partner and their little daughter. After that, I went to my Turkish Muslim barber and to her delight he produced a lollipop.

And I thought, she'll grow up experiencing diversity and cultures that I could only dream of when I was a child in white Catholic Ireland in the late '70s and '80s. And it felt good.

Conor now just to fully round out your nice little story for completeness like, would you mind telling us the religion of your Slovak friends and the lady from Africa (I presume it is a lady or keeping in the spirit of your past -should that be someone who right now considers themselves female).

BTW what you experienced was a thing called integration.

Your Slovak friends meet you and your children to play, the African lady (I presume lady) is in a relationship with your cousin (who I presume is Irish) so she integrated into Irish family and culture.
Oh and you tell us later the Turkish barber is married to an Irish lady and it appears the kids are being raised as normal Irish kids so also integrated very well.

Now what multiculturalism has actually come to mean in modern day Europe is that your Turkish friend just lives and mixes with other fellow muslims, his kids are being raised in the religion and customs of their father and his wife definitely doesn't mix with any other males not closely related.

Multiculturalism is the term now being bandied about to actually describe the fact that certain groups of people are no long integrating into their host country, but actively living apart from it.

And I don't just mean they live in ghettos, hang out together, eat their traditional food, play their traditional sports or music.
I mean they see themselves and more especially their children see themselves as not being from the state in which they were born and brought up, but being from the old country with all that entails.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

JW's simply don't hold any allure because they're generally not as obvious in society as adherents of Islam. I'd never condemn either JW or Islam.

I think people will cherry-pick what they will to suit their particular reasons, so I wouldn't see JWs as another weird cult, I'd see it as the guy who used sit beside me in math class annoying the shìt out of me to go to one of their prayer meetings! But that's one individual, same as my sister is one Individual who converted to Islam. She's grand... for the most part :pac:

But again - individuals. I'd be silly were I to tar them a whole group in society as Conor appeared to have alluded to with his "white Catholic Ireland" nonsense.

Yes, people are individuals and I always have and will evaluate them for their own strengths and weaknesses and always treat them with exactly the respect they deserve, but I can't ignore it if they're members of a cult.This was posted by a friend this morning and she welcomed shares...it is a cult and a dangerous one, and those good people within it were brought into it by parents or partners, or indoctrinated at a weak moment by sympathetic members as is usually the case with cults, and given the choice right from the start, I think most of them probably would not have chosen it for themselves:

''In the Jehovah's Witness religion, if you have any kind of sexual contact with someone you are not married to, anything from touching to full sex, you will have to attend a Judicial Committee meeting with three elders (always men) who will decide your fate.
The accused will not be allowed anyone in with them. The accused could be any age, below or above 16. They could be male or female. The accused will be made to tell the elders in explicit detail what happened. So much detail that you could create an exact movie of the event. The accused will have to describe the underwear the girl/woman was wearing including the colour and fabric of it.
I have heard people as young as 12 being made to go through this. I have heard that teens went through this and then were told years later by one of the judicial committee elders that they'd 'enjoyed' what they said. In many cases, the elders will hold a briefcase, or a large book on their laps while the young teen girl will explain in graphic detail what her and her boyfriend did together consensually. Some people have said that elders have had to leave the room to go to the bathroom. Girls have even been made to demonstrate how far apart their legs were.
This even happens to abuse and rape victims. Victims have even been made to attend meetings with the elders and the accused abuser and describe what happened and then be questioned by the abuser himself.
This all, as you can imagine, is very traumatising. And it can take years of therapy to deal with.
Sometimes the media will talk about this when it happens to abuse victims. But I think we need more publicity about it, and focus on that it happens to underage people who engaged in consensual activities with a partner of their age. I feel this is a form of sexual abuse. Being forced to tell these graphic sexual details when a person is under age (even when older, it's abuse), should be criminal in my opinion. If they do not tell these details to the elders they risk being disfellowshipped. If they are disfellowshipped, none of their friends will be allowed to talk to them anymore. Their family will not be allowed to talk to them in most cases as well. Most will not have friends outside of the religion, so they will end up completely isolated. And if they do tell the elders, and are found guilty, then this will still happen.
Do you think people could sue the religion for this kind of abuse?
I have made this public in case anyone would like to share this.''


Oh and keep buying your chips, you can't catch religion from food. I'm sure the owners are fine. But as religions go there are many bad apples in that barrel.

Deleted User wrote: »

So far my favourite reactions are (i) I hope your head is crushed under a rock. Dunno who that was, but it was dramatic and (ii) you've made it all up, Slovakia cannot possibly have more liberal abortion laws than us...

I love the one justifies racism because migrants only spread disease

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don't appear to appreciate Irish laws yourself there HP, they're too slow to catch up to your views, but they're too liberal for your views in other areas.

I appreciate them completely. I don't approve of people seeking abortions breaking the law in this jurisdiction; I approve of changing the law, and I have no problem with "jurisdictional tourism" if you will, IE travelling to other jurisdictions specifically for the purposes of doing something which is illegal in Ireland.

Yet you object to people who do not share your views even though they are law abiding citizens of our country?

Again, I am advocating for changing the law; Specifically, to include indoctrination into, and enforcement of, suppressive ideologies in the definition of child abuse.

Sounds like a severe case of double standards.

Again, not at all. I am advocating for two changes in the law. I am not suggesting that it's ok for anybody to break those laws before they have been changed.