nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

RyanthePirate

I would like to see a Boards.ie Consensus.

Economists agree that immigration has a net positive on the economy and this immigration is surely a wonderful thing for the county.

Agree/Disagree?

Mod:

I have updated the OP of this thread with a list of threadbanned users, I would advise posters to check on this before posting in the thread again or a forum sanction will be imposed for breaching same.

If you want to discuss your threadban feel free to PM the banning mod (or myself if you can't remember who that is and I'll point you in the right direction).

Threadbanned Users:
DelaneyIn
TheCitizen
V8 Interceptor
Hamachi - lifted 14/03/22, reinstated 28/03/22
Effects
biko
Kivaro
Eric Cartman
Swindled
Gradius
RobbieTheRobber - lifted 25/08/21 - reinstated 27/08/21
Cordell - lifted 16/08/21
Gangster Yippin
blindjustice
Eircom_Sucks
TomSweeney
Wojtek the Bear
Cordell
klaz
0ph0rce0
tonium22
tonycascarino
Real Donald Trump
Star Bingo
Nuts102
TomTomTim
Nosler
Absolute Zero
Hungry Burger

Find more posts tagged with

racism

i-am-a-racist-but...

we're-not-racist

Quick Links

Comments

Arthur Daley

Not honouring your commitments is one of the definitions of default. Changing the pension age is a default to millions of taxpayers.

This is the backdrop to all this woke splurge including open borders that we are subjected to daily.

Previous generations wouldn't have had it.

Strumms

The only thing that is going to be forcing people to work longer will be the fact that the state will be wishing to raise the age that you can retire and be eligible to receive the state pension...

In other words, having worked say from the age of 18 say part time to full time and all in between up to retirement, say that averages about 45 years to retirement... with the odd gap in employment to study, or career break... your state reward / assistance will be limited by your government spending 65-70 million on average on asylum seekers and the asylum system per year, of taxpayers money.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/in-20-years-direct-provision-has-cost-ireland-1-3bn-is-there-a-better-alternative-1.4089971

[Deleted User]

Bobtheman wrote: »

But a lot of posters here ignore that the age demographic in Ireland is going up not down. We have failed to encourage people to have more kids for various reasons and are thus shooting ourselves in the foot.

And you're ignoring that people live longer, and can remain productive for longer periods. The belief in retiring at 60-65 is likely to change soon, both due to costs of living, but also since many older groups can continue working for longer periods... especially with the advent of further technological progress.

The fact is we don't need a large population in Ireland to be successful. Ideally, we wouldn't grow bigger than we are today, and could actually do with decreasing the population somewhat to lower the demands on services. We don't have much of a manufacturing base, and our farming sector is easily managed as it is. Our economy is based around services, and technology, both of which can be managed without a large population, and remain competitive. Automation is only the surface big change coming. RPA is the next huge thing, and it will affect jobs across the board... and there's nothing really to prevent someone in their 70s/80s from designing, creating, or managing such systems. In all likelihood, people will need to work longer anyway, because the costs of living in a first world nation consistently increase over time...

[Deleted User]

Bobtheman wrote: »

A very long text and too complicated to deal with all your points.

There's nothing complicated in what I said...

So just a few. We need immigrants. One clear area is medical staff. Other times care staff. There is no evidence and I mean no evidence that the 60k muslims in Ireland have presented a serious problem. Give me the evidence if there is any.

First off, I have no idea where you got the claim that Muslims in Ireland present a problem as things stand right now. Where did I claim any such thing?

Second, we actually don't need immigration. We have a native population fully capable of meeting the country's employment needs, with companies bringing in highly specialised staff to make up any shortfalls. On top of that, we are a member state of the EU, with access to a large employment market where immigration can occur... if we needed it, which we don't.

As for medical workers, during the Pandemic, Irish workers came home from abroad to help out and in many cases, weren't able to obtain work. We have a large resource of Irish people living abroad, who could be enticed to return, if needed.... and based on the performance of the health services during the Pandamic, we don't actually need much to perform at a time of crisis... The issues with the Medical service rest more with management and the agreements made with doctors, than any real shortage. Simply put, medicine in Ireland is too much of a business, with those involved wanting their cut of the pie.

Lastly, employment conditions are changing in first world nations. It's becoming more and more about being highly skilled to work in positions, especially as automation comes in to touch in small ways throughout all industries. So we don't need more bodies. We need highly skilled bodies capable of meeting the market demands... and we can train up the existing population (who will become less capable with their existing skillsets) to meet those needs.. especially since with modernisation comes a decrease in labor needs, as one person does the work of two.

Secondly as to democracy being only suitable for the west . Pure bull****. India is a functioning democracy as is japan. It takes time. Yes there is a strong undercurrent towards autocracy in the middle east and elsewhere. But as winston churchill said democracy is the least worse system among them all.

I didn't say it was only for the west, but that an authortarian influence affects "most" democracies outside of the west. India is a caste society with glaring problems with it's implementation of democracy... can't believe you'd be willing to put them up as a poster child of democratic success. But sure, Japan. Ok. Who else?

BTW, you haven't actually argued my points.. you deflected.

There are dictatorships like china that overall govern well but have appalling human rights abuses. It depends what people want.

It depends on who can maintain the focus of power and maintain stability. Outside of western nations, virtually all countries which were poor and became prosperous (in comparison) did so through methods other than democracy.

Anyway, you seem to see democracy as being a single system with the same meaning for every country...

The East is right to criticise the west in various places .

I didn't say they weren't. The west is rather messed up.

Our worship of individual worship has lead us to marital breakdowns and kids without father's. Then we **** ourselves about bringing anybody into line and fail to take moral responsibility.

Huh? How is this addressing any of my points? Individualism? err.. you do like to head off on very strange tangents.

However nobody wants the cultural misgynoy of islam. The readings of the Quran have been abused . There is nothing in the Quran that permits head to toe coverings of the female body or female circumcision. Nothing.

The koran hasn't been abused.. it's a relatively simple book. Sure, people can twist themselves into knots to find alternative interpretations but... nah. I don't buy your reasoning. With Islam, culture and religion go hand in hand.

We will need immigrants but integration is key. Unfortunately that has two handicaps . Lack of funding for services and the PC crowd who won't allow any interference

And... back to immigration. Integration is a vague concept rarely successfully applied, and even more rare, repeated by intentional design. Which is the problem really. There's too much wishful thinking involved in the whole idea, and not enough practical application with measurable results. Although, you can take this one to the bank. People of comparable cultures, and values, integrate far more easily and successfully, than those with far different beliefs. Strange isn't it?

As for lack of funding... I'm guessing you're a believer in the mystical money tree that is just there to supply, small countries with limited growth potential (that's us), with endless funds to boost services... no?

Wibbs

Bobtheman wrote: »

You have not cited one example to prove your point in Ireland

With less than twenty years of diversity under our belts we already have more Africans on social welfare than background. We already have the beginnings of ghettoisation and "White flight". In the latter case you can't legislate against human nature and human nature means people will quite naturally want to live around people like them.

Bobtheman wrote: »

A very long text and too complicated to deal with all your points. So just a few. We need immigrants. One clear area is medical staff. Other times care staff.

And they can come here legally. They already have and do. And why aren't there drives to bring in people from other EU states who have higher unemployment, have the same educational standards and have backgrounds that can be checked? As I noted before "diversity" is remarkably focused on "race" and White Europeans are invisible. Not diverse enough apparently.

However nobody wants the cultural misgynoy of islam. The readings of the Quran have been abused . There is nothing in the Quran that permits head to toe coverings of the female body or female circumcision. Nothing.

I'm afraid you're not up to speed on how Islam and its traditions and duties work. That stuff comes from Hadith for the most part. To quote from wikipedia on the matter: [Hadith] in Islam refers to what Muslims believe to be a record of the words, actions, and the silent approval of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Hadith have been called "the backbone" of Islamic civilization,[5] and within that religion the authority of hadith as a source for religious law and moral guidance ranks second only to that of the Quran[6] (which Muslims hold to be the word of God revealed to his messenger Muhammad). Scriptural authority for hadith comes from the Quran which enjoins Muslims to emulate Muhammad and obey his judgments (in verses such as 24:54, 33:21). While the number of verses pertaining to law in the Quran is relatively few, hadith give direction on everything from details of religious obligations (such as Ghusl or Wudu, ablutions[7] for salat prayer), to the correct forms of salutations[8] and the importance of benevolence to slaves.[9] Thus the "great bulk" of the rules of Sharia (Islamic law) are derived from hadith, rather than the Quran.[10][Note 2]

There has been a small minority of Quran only Muslims, but for the vast majority of how one's life is lived and in what way is in the Hadith. That includes men and women covering up(the degree is up for debate) and male circumcision is a given, which though more acceptable to our culture is still genital mutilation for no medical reason. Female circumcision like the male predates Islam(and Judaism), but there are Hadith that recommend it, with one caveat in one that the instruction is to not cut away too much. EG: Abu al- Malih ibn `Usama's father relates that the Prophet said: "Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women." and Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.

You quite naturally come from a position of "Christian", post Reformation and Enlightenment European thought, but are making the mistake of imposing that upon a quite different philosophy and religion and politic and viewing it in a similar way. It is not.

[Deleted User]

Bobtheman wrote: »

You have not cited one example to prove your point in Ireland

Example of which bit, specifically? We haven't quite hit a tipping point yet but it will happen.

Bobtheman wrote: »

I agree this issue has taken place in England France and perhaps Germany but not everywhere. The Brits and french in particular made a bags of it because of colonial guilt but it's not that big an issue here. I'd also note that the EU as a whole are politically aware that refugees and immigration itself is unpopular. They could have allowed the Brits to put a break on it from eastern europe but didn't. Result brexit
But a lot of posters here ignore that the age demographic in Ireland is going up not down. We have failed to encourage people to have more kids for various reasons and are thus shooting ourselves in the foot.

Germany has had Islamic attacks for what reason exactly? The Koln NYE debacle was caused by what exactly? The recent wave of Islamic immigration hasn't had time to full bear its fruit yet.
Let's look at Sweden, sure why not? In the 5 years to ~August 2018 58% of convictions for rape and attempted rape were people born outside Sweden. Do we really have to pretend that that's just a weird statistical quirk or coincidence?
In my town there's a street that is around 90% non-European residents. The area around the Primary school I went to has some direct provision and is probably over half African. The school is probably around 50% Black kids and 20% White. Where there was 1 teacher per class there are now support staff for the kids with no English starting out. Most of the other schools in the town would be 90+% White. There's obvious, partly self-imposed segregation happening and everyone who could have done something about it will be publicly surprised at the fallout in a decade or two's time. This was already a working class area and was probably seen as somewhat dispensable. I'm sure the people seeing their area getting run down further are all just racist though.

Bobtheman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why do we cultivate intergenerational welfare dependency while claiming that we need immigration to staff many of the lower-paid sectors in our economy?
It really is gas that the supposed Left is so in favour of large-scale immigration. The only effect of increased labour supply will be a depressing effect on real wages. The corporatists (traditionally those on the Right) love it. In America somehow the Right have managed to convince voters that they will fight illegal immigration while they're the ones who benefit most from it and will continue to take advantage of it.

On the wider European (western anyway) scale the denial of there being an issue with incompatible cultures growing in size is really baffling. The only people who will say much about it tend to be very far right while anyone even right of centre knows if they say anything they will be branded as far right or, worst of all, racist (OMG). People see their neighbourhoods become ghettos for a culture they have no relation to and no stake in and they're told it's their fault. The self-loathing really is something else and we've unfortunately already reached the point that too many people have just accepted the fate we're heading for and plenty of others are sick of being brow-beaten for noticing reality. Was it a decade ago we had International Draw Muhammed Day? Where are they now? Well I know a couple of really right-on people I know mentioned on Facebook that that teacher in France really shouldn't have shown that picture and shown more awareness. I've seen more than one of them losing their **** when someone finds printed advice that women should avoid walking alone at night in certain areas of a city as being victim-blaming.

But yeah, the game's already over, we're just in a very long pre-credit cutscene now.

I agree this issue has taken place in England France and perhaps Germany but not everywhere. The Brits and french in particular made a bags of it because of colonial guilt but it's not that big an issue here. I'd also note that the EU as a whole are politically aware that refugees and immigration itself is unpopular. They could have allowed the Brits to put a break on it from eastern europe but didn't. Result brexit
But a lot of posters here ignore that the age demographic in Ireland is going up not down. We have failed to encourage people to have more kids for various reasons and are thus shooting ourselves in the foot.

Bobtheman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why do we cultivate intergenerational welfare dependency while claiming that we need immigration to staff many of the lower-paid sectors in our economy?
It really is gas that the supposed Left is so in favour of large-scale immigration. The only effect of increased labour supply will be a depressing effect on real wages. The corporatists (traditionally those on the Right) love it. In America somehow the Right have managed to convince voters that they will fight illegal immigration while they're the ones who benefit most from it and will continue to take advantage of it.

On the wider European (western anyway) scale the denial of there being an issue with incompatible cultures growing in size is really baffling. The only people who will say much about it tend to be very far right while anyone even right of centre knows if they say anything they will be branded as far right or, worst of all, racist (OMG). People see their neighbourhoods become ghettos for a culture they have no relation to and no stake in and they're told it's their fault. The self-loathing really is something else and we've unfortunately already reached the point that too many people have just accepted the fate we're heading for and plenty of others are sick of being brow-beaten for noticing reality. Was it a decade ago we had International Draw Muhammed Day? Where are they now? Well I know a couple of really right-on people I know mentioned on Facebook that that teacher in France really shouldn't have shown that picture and shown more awareness. I've seen more than one of them losing their **** when someone finds printed advice that women should avoid walking alone at night in certain areas of a city as being victim-blaming.

But yeah, the game's already over, we're just in a very long pre-credit cutscene now.

You have not cited one example to prove your point in Ireland

Strumms

As much as the EU has done for Ireland and Europe in general. The open borders and immigration and asylum policies have failed its member states. And will continue to do so.

EVERY EU country should be of the ability to decide who can come into their country and stay there..NOT words written in some rule book on a shelf in Brussels, rules devised by people in gated mansions with state sponsored security and a large pay check. ... EVERY EU country needs to be of the ability to say.. “ ok , sorry, for now, enough, hold off...” just because your country is in the shît, you may be in danger, civil war, financial ruin, it doesn’t mean we need to risk or plunge our own state into a situation where we are becoming overrun with a massive bill that means we cannot support our own citizens to get the likes of rehabilitative medical treatments etc. that THEIR taxes should enable paying towards.

[Deleted User]

Immigration is the mother of all pyramid schemes.

Invasive species are universally regarded as a bad thing for the native flora and fauna. They compete for resources and displace the native species. Why should humans be any different?

Rather than encouraging migration (Iand I've yet to hear a good reason - other than the moral need to help those genuinely fleeing persecution), we should seek to develop their countries, educate women, control population growth, trade fairly and encourage sustainable resource use. Do more with less, not more with more and more.

Global population growth cant keep going the way it is. It needs to come down, not move the people around. The world can afford a first world life style for everyone at current growth levels.

[Deleted User]

Why do we cultivate intergenerational welfare dependency while claiming that we need immigration to staff many of the lower-paid sectors in our economy?
It really is gas that the supposed Left is so in favour of large-scale immigration. The only effect of increased labour supply will be a depressing effect on real wages. The corporatists (traditionally those on the Right) love it. In America somehow the Right have managed to convince voters that they will fight illegal immigration while they're the ones who benefit most from it and will continue to take advantage of it.

On the wider European (western anyway) scale the denial of there being an issue with incompatible cultures growing in size is really baffling. The only people who will say much about it tend to be very far right while anyone even right of centre knows if they say anything they will be branded as far right or, worst of all, racist (OMG). People see their neighbourhoods become ghettos for a culture they have no relation to and no stake in and they're told it's their fault. The self-loathing really is something else and we've unfortunately already reached the point that too many people have just accepted the fate we're heading for and plenty of others are sick of being brow-beaten for noticing reality. Was it a decade ago we had International Draw Muhammed Day? Where are they now? Well I know a couple of really right-on people I know mentioned on Facebook that that teacher in France really shouldn't have shown that picture and shown more awareness. I've seen more than one of them losing their **** when someone finds printed advice that women should avoid walking alone at night in certain areas of a city as being victim-blaming.

But yeah, the game's already over, we're just in a very long pre-credit cutscene now.

Sand

Bobtheman wrote: »

A very long text and too complicated to deal with all your points. So just a few. We need immigrants. One clear area is medical staff. Other times care staff.

From your own example what we need is medical staff, not immigrants.

We will need immigrants but integration is key.

Integration is impossible in the context of mass migration. As numbers go far beyond what can be assimilated, ethnic enclaves form and ethnic strife follows. The same story has been repeated across the world and throughout time. Why should Ireland be any different now?

TomTomTim

Bobtheman wrote: »

A very long text and too complicated to deal with all your points. So just a few. We need immigrants. One clear area is medical staff. Other times care staff. There is no evidence and I mean no evidence that the 60k muslims in Ireland have presented a serious problem. Give me the evidence if there is any.
Secondly as to democracy being only suitable for the west . Pure bull****. India is a functioning democracy as is japan. It takes time. Yes there is a strong undercurrent towards autocracy in the middle east and elsewhere. But as winston churchill said democracy is the least worse system among them all.
There are dictatorships like china that overall govern well but have appalling human rights abuses. It depends what people want.
The East is right to criticise the west in various places . Our worship of individual worship has lead us to marital breakdowns and kids without father's. Then we **** ourselves about bringing anybody into line and fail to take moral responsibility. However nobody wants the cultural misgynoy of islam. The readings of the Quran have been abused . There is nothing in the Quran that permits head to toe coverings of the female body or female circumcision. Nothing.
We will need immigrants but integration is key. Unfortunately that has two handicaps . Lack of funding for services and the PC crowd who won't allow any interference

This is the greatest lie of the modern world. We don't need immigrants. You may want them, but we don't need them.

Bobtheman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And it's not going to happen because we (Christianity) are held up as the poster child for decadent systems... we're shown as a religion that has lost it's way, and Islam (and Judaism for that matter) aren't going to follow that same descent into decadence. Just look at the numbers of believers worldwide. Islam is increasing over time, while Christianity ebbs and surges, but is generally declining.

Ahh no... The bible has been altered many times throughout the centuries. The text released by the original Christians would be quite different to that of the Church three centuries later because the focus had changed.

The RCC is a political entity, originally, married to expansion and control. As such, the bible was "revised" many times to make it more suitable to the changing times. Just look at the number of "Black" books, or removed sections.. even editing of how sentences were done to conform to translation could easily have changed meaning depending on circumstances.

Actually, no. Quite a few people believe in the Bible (whichever edition) as being "Gospel".. and follow it to the letter. I can introduce to you a variety of people here in Ireland who do so. They're not nutcases... they're simply very black/white in their perceptions. There are many sects or groups like Opus Dei spread around the world.

Organised religion. Hierarchy. Diffusion of authority. Throughout history, we've seen priests, and others who don't follow the "teachings" of the RCC, and that extends to homosexuality.. and even without being directly involved, many priests will interpret the teachings of the church or the rules of the Church depending on their own sense of morality.

For example, I attended a seminary when I was a teenager, where I had a Jesuit instructor who was very open minded about sexuality, believing that it was the priests role to support others in their lives. There was a disconnect between the rulings of the Pope or cardinals and how people behaved in their lives... and that reflected in how he treated others. I spent a lot of time with him when I was very confused about my own sexuality, and my place in Irish society.. he wasn't intent on converting me to the "normal" way to be.

And that's where the difference becomes important. Having a central authority and a hierarchy means that commandments can be interpreted or ignored. When such commandments come from God and a particular text, then it's much more difficult to ignore... especially when there's a common understanding applied from a group mentality, which is what tends to happen with Islam.

I disagree completely. Democracy is a system based off western historical change, and moralistic movements. It's suitable for the western societies that have emerged, but other nations have a different system of cultures, especially when the importance of strong leaders is strong. You can see that with Russia who dabble with democracy but ultimately revert to more authoritarian systems. The same can be seen in Asia where experiments with democracy have generally been "modified" to be more authoritarian in nature.

In any case, after a century of democracy, western nations are facing serious problems with maintaining democratic systems, and there are many cracks emerging. Holding democracy up as the best and only form of governance, is premature. The M.East typically wants a strong leadership with serious control over the population, and national interests... anything else simply opens them up to social unrest and extremism.

That's nice, but what are they qualified to work at? and do we have the jobs to provide that the native population don't need themselves?

I've snipped, because this is already getting too long.

A very long text and too complicated to deal with all your points. So just a few. We need immigrants. One clear area is medical staff. Other times care staff. There is no evidence and I mean no evidence that the 60k muslims in Ireland have presented a serious problem. Give me the evidence if there is any.
Secondly as to democracy being only suitable for the west . Pure bull****. India is a functioning democracy as is japan. It takes time. Yes there is a strong undercurrent towards autocracy in the middle east and elsewhere. But as winston churchill said democracy is the least worse system among them all.
There are dictatorships like china that overall govern well but have appalling human rights abuses. It depends what people want.
The East is right to criticise the west in various places . Our worship of individual worship has lead us to marital breakdowns and kids without father's. Then we **** ourselves about bringing anybody into line and fail to take moral responsibility. However nobody wants the cultural misgynoy of islam. The readings of the Quran have been abused . There is nothing in the Quran that permits head to toe coverings of the female body or female circumcision. Nothing.
We will need immigrants but integration is key. Unfortunately that has two handicaps . Lack of funding for services and the PC crowd who won't allow any interference

[Deleted User]

I'm with the Dali lama on this one.
Theres a guy who know his onions

[Deleted User]

Bobtheman wrote: »

I can't disagree about the need for the Quran to go through the same level of critical analysis the bible went through. No sign of this yet

And it's not going to happen because we (Christianity) are held up as the poster child for decadent systems... we're shown as a religion that has lost it's way, and Islam (and Judaism for that matter) aren't going to follow that same descent into decadence. Just look at the numbers of believers worldwide. Islam is increasing over time, while Christianity ebbs and surges, but is generally declining.

The bible hasn't so much been altered as analysed as a historical document.

Ahh no... The bible has been altered many times throughout the centuries. The text released by the original Christians would be quite different to that of the Church three centuries later because the focus had changed.

The RCC is a political entity, originally, married to expansion and control. As such, the bible was "revised" many times to make it more suitable to the changing times. Just look at the number of "Black" books, or removed sections.. even editing of how sentences were done to conform to translation could easily have changed meaning depending on circumstances.

Even true believers rarely believe it all to be literally true bar a few small fundamentalist groups.

Actually, no. Quite a few people believe in the Bible (whichever edition) as being "Gospel".. and follow it to the letter. I can introduce to you a variety of people here in Ireland who do so. They're not nutcases... they're simply very black/white in their perceptions. There are many sects or groups like Opus Dei spread around the world.

Thankfully the church teaching on homosexuality is largely ignored but it still holds sway in many third world countries. I'm talking about the church of christianity in the broad sense.

Organised religion. Hierarchy. Diffusion of authority. Throughout history, we've seen priests, and others who don't follow the "teachings" of the RCC, and that extends to homosexuality.. and even without being directly involved, many priests will interpret the teachings of the church or the rules of the Church depending on their own sense of morality.

For example, I attended a seminary when I was a teenager, where I had a Jesuit instructor who was very open minded about sexuality, believing that it was the priests role to support others in their lives. There was a disconnect between the rulings of the Pope or cardinals and how people behaved in their lives... and that reflected in how he treated others. I spent a lot of time with him when I was very confused about my own sexuality, and my place in Irish society.. he wasn't intent on converting me to the "normal" way to be.

And that's where the difference becomes important. Having a central authority and a hierarchy means that commandments can be interpreted or ignored. When such commandments come from God and a particular text, then it's much more difficult to ignore... especially when there's a common understanding applied from a group mentality, which is what tends to happen with Islam.

Democracy is obviously needed in Islamic countries. Doesn't help when the west helps over throw it in Egypt. Even if that government was heading in wrong direction.

I disagree completely. Democracy is a system based off western historical change, and moralistic movements. It's suitable for the western societies that have emerged, but other nations have a different system of cultures, especially when the importance of strong leaders is strong. You can see that with Russia who dabble with democracy but ultimately revert to more authoritarian systems. The same can be seen in Asia where experiments with democracy have generally been "modified" to be more authoritarian in nature.

In any case, after a century of democracy, western nations are facing serious problems with maintaining democratic systems, and there are many cracks emerging. Holding democracy up as the best and only form of governance, is premature. The M.East typically wants a strong leadership with serious control over the population, and national interests... anything else simply opens them up to social unrest and extremism.

I'm not in favor of mass immigration of muslims to Ireland or Europe until we do a decent study on integration etc but I'd still believe most just want to work etc Nothing else.

That's nice, but what are they qualified to work at? and do we have the jobs to provide that the native population don't need themselves?

I've snipped, because this is already getting too long.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Except, Islam doesn't have a comparable history that we have with both the RCC and the Bible. Organised religion. That's a rather strong factor here. A centralised leadership, where the religions influence spread outwards affecting the countries of the faithful, but whose kings/emperors typically resisted. Whereas with Islam, there wasn't a similar system.. there was no focus for religious change, religious authority, etc, and as such, no focus from which change could manifest.

+1000. There is a very common misconception afoot that holds "ah Islam is like Christianity with some small differences. They all worship the same god" kinda thing. There are fundamental differences between the two. Take the separation of church and state as one biggie. Although it was certainly subverted over the centuries that is built into Christianity from the get go. To quote from the main man himself: My kingdom is not of this Earth", "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's". So after the GrecoRoman world absorbed that faith and changed it to their local culture and purpose that was retained. When its main propagator Rome fell in the West as a political entity, the Roman Catholic Church(clue being in the name) kept going as another separate entity. Until the Reformation there was essentially two systems in play in Western Europe, a "Roman" empire of the faith and a collection of political entities squabbling among each other, but mindful and kowtowing to that empire of faith. The rule of law evolved from the influence of both. The Reformation itself couldn't have come about if there wasn't a large chunk of the Christian faith that was questioned and was questionable.

None of this is or was present within Islam and from the get go. The faith is the politic, the church is the state. There can be no Reformation possible because agreement on the main tenets of the faith are not questioned and are not questionable. The word of the Quran is final(Hadith have more questions and debate going on). Even with the Shia Sunni split that can descend to open rancour they agree with each other 99% of the time and certainly are fully in agreement on the church/state being as one.

Bobtheman wrote: »

I can't disagree about the need for the Koran to go through the same level of critical analysis the bible went through. No sign of this yet.

To ask the question of critical analysis is itself a major no no. There is some freedom to debate certain aspects of what is written and how it is to be interpreted, but analysis of the texts themselves, oh very much no. Something that is very different in European Christian thought. Unlike in Islam from very early on, from the start really, there was open and critical analysis of all the various texts they had at their disposal and many, if not most were discarded to form the "correct" texts that come down to us. Even then those texts are considered inspired by God, not written directly by him. We can see even at two thousand year remove how Christianity evolved over time.

The evolution of Islam is hidden for the first circa two centuries of its forming. The first biography of Muhammed only comes along something like 150 years after his reported death(and that one is lost IIRC). The name itself (Praiseworthy)seems to have been a descriptor in the early days rather than of a particular person. He doesn't show up in the earliest Islamic coinage and he's only mentioned four times in the Quran itself. There are pretty much zero contemporary accounts of him and what there is is extremely dubious. Some of the same accounts also say this new faith carried the Cross before them in battle.

In the West you can discuss and write books along the lines of "Did Jesus exist? Probably not", yet "Did Muhammed exist? Probably not" would get you in serious trouble even in the West and you'd get no life insurance if you wrote that in a Muslim country. To even suggest that the faith evolved over time would land you in hot water. Even though the evidence for the existence of a Jesus figure is more compelling than for Muhammed.

TL;DR?(and I'd not blame you) we cannot hope to compare the two faiths and how the came to be and how they evolved and how they might evolve. They're fundamentally different in very important ways for those questions.

It would help if the west stayed the hell out of the middle east . We are still dealing with the fallout of the 2003 invasion of IRAQ

+1 and it goes way back further than that. Iran ended up with the Mullahs in charge largely because of that Shah moron and western support for him. The Cold War was played out by proxy in many ME states and that's before the breakup of the Caliphate and carving up the ME in Europe's imperial times. I can certainly fully understand the Islamic world's attitude to the Christian West.

Bobtheman

I can't disagree about the need for the Quran to go through the same level of critical analysis the bible went through. No sign of this yet
The bible hasn't so much been altered as analysed as a historical document. Even true believers rarely believe it all to be literally true bar a few small fundamentalist groups. Thankfully the church teaching on homosexuality is largely ignored but it still holds sway in many third world countries. I'm talking about the church of christianity in the broad sense.
Democracy is obviously needed in Islamic countries. Doesn't help when the west helps over throw it in Egypt. Even if that government was heading in wrong direction.
I'm not in favor of mass immigration of muslims to Ireland or Europe until we do a decent study on integration etc but I'd still believe most just want to work etc Nothing else.
If you went into the bars in Ireland you'd find all sorts of ridiculous beliefs that no bar fly intended to act upon. Thankfully it was the same as the IRA. Lots of songs - little actual support.
The refugee and immigration service in Ireland is in need of reform. I don't accept that a guy can skip ten nation's and claim to be a political refugee.
I still hold that the vast majority of muslims in Ireland are fine. Just want to work. Indoctrination into various nefarious groups does happen in the UK and is a worry . A serious worry but part of the issue there is that those indoctrinated are british natives not recent arrivals . They are often alienated young men . Just like alienated young men floated into the IRA.
It would help if the west stayed the hell out of the middle east . We are still dealing with the fallout of the 2003 invasion of IRAQ

Strumms

statesaver wrote: »

Douglas Murray tells Andrew Neil that other western countries should stand by President Macron as he battles with Islamist extremism in France.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXqez68Cchk&app=desktop

I’ve lived in France, i found it a seriously free, open, inclusive, friendly, fair and opportunity rich experience.

Why the fûck they are repeatedly the victims of these attacks is mind boggling.

Going back decades there have been mosques in France, one was 5 minutes from where I lived, grand Mosque De Paris https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpg4HXI5Iyc# . there was a big open door, an information desk, gift shop etc...everyone welcome, no problem... mosques all over the country. So not as if the faith there is being stifled.

Problem is, it’s not Muslims kicking up over oppression, it’s wanting their rules, terms, ideals, laws to become France’s.

[Deleted User]

Bobtheman wrote: »

You could have said the same thing about the bible but here we are !

Except, Islam doesn't have a comparable history that we have with both the RCC and the Bible. Organised religion. That's a rather strong factor here. A centralised leadership, where the religions influence spread outwards affecting the countries of the faithful, but whose kings/emperors typically resisted. Whereas with Islam, there wasn't a similar system.. there was no focus for religious change, religious authority, etc, and as such, no focus from which change could manifest.

The Koran hasn't been allowed to change, except in extremely minor details which are still argued over to today. Whereas the Bible... has been altered so many times, in multiple languages, etc to the point where the message has shifted to adapt to circumstances.

Look at Christianity, and Islam. For the most part, Christianity absorbed other religions/faiths, to encourage the spread of it's power. At least, until the religion was faced with the danger of splintering due to clerical abuse of power, and interpretation... and then, they dug in their feet on what Christianity represented... but even then, there was an element of "forgiveness" to the religion (except for those who betrayed it)

Islam, dominated other religions and cultures. You won't find any presence of other religions, faiths, or cultures as being additions to the Koran after Mohammad supplied it.

You want to draw parallels between Islam and other religions... well... you can't... because, well, history. We've seen the difference between Islam and other religious groups. Throughout the Western world, and post colonial nations, you will find a wide range of religious faiths, including those from well before the arrival of Christianity. When you look at Islamic nations.. you won't be able to do the same, unless they are an extreme minority.. far more so, than you would find in Westernized nations.

[Deleted User]

Bobtheman wrote: »

I'd agree with you there about saudi. However you won't convince me that all muslims are nuts . Personally I don't provoke lunatic fringes whether they are the muslim terrorists or Irish terrorists.

I really wish posters would drop this line of apparent defense against criticism directed towards Muslims and Islam. It's a discussion forum, and considering the scope of any such debate, generalisations will be made. People will say "Muslims" do this or that, but there is a natural common sense which suggests that we don't need to place a disclaimer against every statement made.

No. Not all Muslims are nuts. In fact, very few are likely to be nuts. Indoctrinated due to culture, and religion, doesn't mean that they are nuts. No more than some Americans who genuinely believe that US democracy is the best example of democracy and that they're still the land of the free. The last bastion of hope for freedom and bla bla bla. I've met them. They exist, and they're not nuts. They just believe in something that most other people don't believe...

Muslims, (yup, mass generalisation) are deeply connected to their religion, and the rules (and cultural shifts) connected with that religion will greatly influence their behavior, and their perception towards the western way of life. Changes happening externally to Europe in Islamic nations, will affect the perceptions of Muslims living inside European borders, because they're still connected through their religion... and national cultures, which most will have retained. That has relevance.

There is a streak in the Muslim religion that's nuts and armed. But I would not dismiss the 99% of european muslims who are not nuts.

It's not a streak, since they've consistently been armed and dedicated to their faith from before the crusades, and haven't moved much beyond that. Regardless of whether you focus on a national level, or the myriad number of paramilitary groups which, often, co-exist within a national structure, but remain the "defenders" of the faith, and traditional behavior.

As for European Muslims... Considering the taboo against criticism or investigation of Islam in Europe, due to the claims of Islamophobia, we're sadly lacking any comprehensive idea of what they believe. Surely, we should be researching that? Rather than just assuming that everything is peachy, until terrorism raises it's ugly head, and then, acting without solid details about the population that exists within European borders...

The saudi regime is dysfunctional and oil rich. There is your problem

Okie dokie. Point to three Islamic nations that have managed to westernise in terms of human rights, freedoms for it's peoples, and a tolerance of other religions/cultures... It's not as if there aren't a fair number of countries with majority Islamic populations, to choose from. I suspect Jordan will be in your list... but you might want to check any other countries for internal/domestic changes over the last two decades, because the vast majority of Islamic nations have turned traditionalist, and more aggressively religious.

Thirdly let's not pretend that white Europeans are tolerant creatures who never did anything nuts. The IRA were fascists who only used democracy when it dawned on them that the Brits or unionists were not leaving. But look you want to pretend to be part some enlightened race now and in the past hundred years or so -go for it man !

The IRA never received any huge support in the Republic for what went on in the North (especially when the shift moved away from purely military targeting), so the comparison you desperately want to repeat doesn't work very well. Even going by the Gallop and other polls done in Europe, regarding Islamic terrorism, and the introduction of Sharia law, would suggest far more support for Islamic extremism, than the IRA ever received..

And the IRA would have been closer to communists than fascists although they would have bent over to receive any kind of support. In any case, the IRA are a fragment of what they were, and what they were, was never all that impressive...

I'm all in favor of deporting and stripping those who don't want to play by the rules of newly acquired citizenship.

Great. That's a good first step. How do you feel about the thousands of migrants waiting at European borders, who don't have paperwork, or have falsified their details to improve their chances of gaining entry? How do you feel about future immigration, and would you curtail the numbers?

jmreire

( and in the past

Gervais08 wrote: »

We’ve a relative on the father’s side who left the IRA after being jailed in the 70s.

Just lost the “calling” or whatever you want to name it. Wanted to marry and have kids, stable life and that.

Had a chat with someone (would never say who apparently) and that was that.

I imagine leaving ISIS - if these monsters ever want to - is not as easy.

In Al-Hasakah prison camp in Syria, the isis prisoners, men, women and children are separated into two groups, the hardcore isis fanatics, and those isis member's which are less fanatical. Between the two groups, armed guards continuously patrol the area between the enclosure's. These are not the ordinary camp perimeter patrols, but internal ones for the protection of the camp inmates who are seen by the isis fanatics as backsliders, and who they will kill, and have in the past killed when given the chance.

jmreire

Bobtheman wrote: »

You could have said the same thing about the bible but here we are !

Not quite ...Its true that Islam has its roots in the old Testament, and still clings to the eye for an eye, stoning of Adulterers, chopping of of head's etc. Yes, and even in this age, 2020, they still do these things and all approved by Sharia Law.
But for Christians, 2'000 years ago Christ changed all of that, and gave us the new testament,which completely reformed the old Testament, which is what Christians world wide still follow to this day. An so the Bible was reformed. Islam has never reformed. Islam is locked into the same laws that Mohammad made 1'400 years ago, and still has to have its reformation. In the last 50 years or so, Ireland has changed almost out of recognition, in terms of secularity, ( and everything else too) and England and the rest of Europe had passed the same point way longer than 50 years ago. So just forget about the Church and Christian's or other non Islamic religions. in your comparisons. It was not Christianity which gave rise to the taliban, al-qaeda or isis. In this part of the world, Christianity ( or indeed Jehovah Witnesses, Jew's, Hindus Hare Krishnas, Atheisms etc ) as a religion is a personal choice.

Gervais08

jmayo wrote: »

You see there you go again with the whataboutery.

Oh PIRA/INLA/IRA/ETA/FARC, etc are not equivalent to al-qeada, and most definitely the latest one ISIS.
All the Western terrorist organisations had some sort of political goals, they had specific enemies that weren't just people who happened to be a different religion and usually from the West.
And AFAIK they never encouraged ordinary people to just go out and kill totally random people.

Why oh why is this always trotted out to try make us naysayers sound the very unreasonable ones and that the only issue with growth of islam in Europe is outright terrorists.
What about the fact that even though a low percentage of European muslims are terrorists, there are quite a few more that condone their terrorism.
Or perhaps you don't remember how terrorists were hidden in Moleenbeek and that when mass murderer was arrested some of the locals rioted?
Or perhaps you don;t remember those marches in London with lads carrying ISIS flags ?

And even if we discount the terrorists, the terrorist supporters you totally disregard the huge numbers that engage in harrassing women, that engage in sexual assaults on women and girls, the ones that back sharia, the ones that see homosexuality as a crime.

Nah you don't want to count those because that 1% suddenly grows to more like 50% that really have issues with our way of life and our secular norms.

Ahh FFS can you give it a rest with the IRA.
Yes we know all about them, the catholic church, yada, yada, yada

All we are getting from you is what-about, what-about, what-about.

It is fooking childish and shows you don't have an argument that will stand up.

Head in sand.

Just look at pictures of Kabul today, even after Taliban has been out of power nearly 20 years and what it was like in early 1970s.

Just look where Bosnia or Kosovo are heading with fundamentalism on the rise.

Once semi secular muslims are going more and more towards fundamentalism.
And yes it is thanks to like of Saudis.

We’ve a relative on the father’s side who left the IRA after being jailed in the 70s.

Just lost the “calling” or whatever you want to name it. Wanted to marry and have kids, stable life and that.

Had a chat with someone (would never say who apparently) and that was that.

I imagine leaving ISIS - if these monsters ever want to - is not as easy.

Bobtheman

jmreire wrote: »

No, they won't secularise, ever. To do so would mean abandoning the Quran, and there fore Islam. Its just not going to happen, all that will happen is that different shades of Islam ( and yes there are different versions ) will be in charge at different times and different places, with different results. Yes, they will live in secular Country's , the EU for example, but even here they will follow the Quran as much as they possibly can, but they will work actively to change their adopted Country to as near Islamic Life as they can. Just google "Germany accepts certain Sharia Law's " you might be surprised at what they have achieved . The Religion itself has not changed in the 1'400 years of its existence because the Quran itself cannot be changed as it's the literal word of God, and can only be changed by God. And so Muslims live by laws that were made 1'400 years ago by Mohammad.

You could have said the same thing about the bible but here we are !

jmayo

Bobtheman wrote: »

I'd agree with you there about saudi. However you won't convince me that all muslims are nuts . Personally I don't provoke lunatic fringes whether they are the muslim terrorists or Irish terrorists.

You see there you go again with the whataboutery.

Oh PIRA/INLA/IRA/ETA/FARC, etc are not equivalent to al-qeada, and most definitely the latest one ISIS.
All the Western terrorist organisations had some sort of political goals, they had specific enemies that weren't just people who happened to be a different religion and usually from the West.
And AFAIK they never encouraged ordinary people to just go out and kill totally random people.

Bobtheman wrote: »

There is a streak in the Muslim religion that's nuts and armed. But I would not dismiss the 99% of european muslims who are not nuts.

Why oh why is this always trotted out to try make us naysayers sound the very unreasonable ones and that the only issue with growth of islam in Europe is outright terrorists.
What about the fact that even though a low percentage of European muslims are terrorists, there are quite a few more that condone their terrorism.
Or perhaps you don't remember how terrorists were hidden in Moleenbeek and that when mass murderer was arrested some of the locals rioted?
Or perhaps you don;t remember those marches in London with lads carrying ISIS flags ?

And even if we discount the terrorists, the terrorist supporters you totally disregard the huge numbers that engage in harrassing women, that engage in sexual assaults on women and girls, the ones that back sharia, the ones that see homosexuality as a crime.

Nah you don't want to count those because that 1% suddenly grows to more like 50% that really have issues with our way of life and our secular norms.

Bobtheman wrote: »

The saudi regime is dysfunctional and oil rich. There is your problem
Thirdly let's not pretend that white Europeans are tolerant creatures who never did anything nuts. The IRA were fascists who only used democracy when it dawned on them that the Brits or unionists were not leaving. But look you want to pretend to be part some enlightened race now and in the past hundred years or so -go for it man !
I'm all in favor of deporting and stripping those who don't want to play by the rules of newly acquired citizenship.

Ahh FFS can you give it a rest with the IRA.
Yes we know all about them, the catholic church, yada, yada, yada

All we are getting from you is what-about, what-about, what-about.

It is fooking childish and shows you don't have an argument that will stand up.

Bobtheman wrote: »

They are from less developed nation's. The muslim nation's will eventually secularise . Inevitable.

Head in sand.

Just look at pictures of Kabul today, even after Taliban has been out of power nearly 20 years and what it was like in early 1970s.

Just look where Bosnia or Kosovo are heading with fundamentalism on the rise.

Once semi secular muslims are going more and more towards fundamentalism.
And yes it is thanks to like of Saudis.

statesaver

Douglas Murray tells Andrew Neil that other western countries should stand by President Macron as he battles with Islamist extremism in France.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXqez68Cchk&app=desktop

jmreire

Bobtheman wrote: »

They are from less developed nation's. The muslim nation's will eventually secularise . Inevitable.

No, they won't secularise, ever. To do so would mean abandoning the Quran, and there fore Islam. Its just not going to happen, all that will happen is that different shades of Islam ( and yes there are different versions ) will be in charge at different times and different places, with different results. Yes, they will live in secular Country's , the EU for example, but even here they will follow the Quran as much as they possibly can, but they will work actively to change their adopted Country to as near Islamic Life as they can. Just google "Germany accepts certain Sharia Law's " you might be surprised at what they have achieved . The Religion itself has not changed in the 1'400 years of its existence because the Quran itself cannot be changed as it's the literal word of God, and can only be changed by God. And so Muslims live by laws that were made 1'400 years ago by Mohammad.

Bobtheman

TomTomTim wrote: »

This really shows your ignorance. Not all societies have the same trajectory. Islam has went up and down in regard to how extreme it is throughout history, whereas Europe's path to secularism didn't have the same ups and downs.

You are right there is no one trajectory but It's just the ignorance you and the bar flies show . You group a billion people under one heading. Incredible. Like saying all Irish people are drunks etc.
As for Europe it's path wasn't totally smooth. We did a fantastic job raping and pillaging Africa and the middle east. Creating unsustainable nation's .
That doesn't mean we should take in excessive immigrants. I'm for reforming the whole system.The Irish system has no real method for tracking down visa skippers.
Anyway I'm done.
Rant away.
Islamophobics- je accusse!

Bobtheman

statesaver wrote: »

No they won't, not anytime soon.

See what is happening in Turkey, they are going backyards under Erdoğan.

Well you can hardly say what's happening in the USA is a forward step-Trump