UKC

I cannot make out if the "high migration" scenario is just a bit too far-fetched. Personally, I cannot even see the medium figures being achieved.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/29/muslim-population-in-europe-c...

In reply to Big Ger:

It's because Sweden has taken proportionally more refugees than even Germany. The pace has already slowed lots since 2015, so all their projections are worthless. By 2050 there will be a whole new batch of young 2nd generation folk born here who will say they are Muslims to please granny and wear a head scarf etc. when they visit, but the rest of time they will be like all the native Swedes they grew up with who don't really care at all about religion. There isn't any religious conditioning in schools here, no affiliation, no assemblies, no navity plays etc.. so those under 50 as a rule are atheist or agnostic, other than a few pockets of happy clappers here and there. If anything a growing group are Christian refugees from Africa, but that doesn't fit the migration line the press want to take.

Ps. There are other issues around migration, I'm just disputing those figures.

In reply to summo:

The pace may have slowed now. But I wouldn't be surprised if other crises break out in the Muslim world; oil price and demand in decline, resource crushes in Africa, unrest in central Asia.

The UK experience has been increasing conservatism amongst second generation migrants as well.

The bigger issue is that whatever the trends are, questioning and debating immigration is still seriously constrained. This means important discussion and decisions cant be reliably made.

In reply to David Martin:


Perhaps but because Sweden has reached capacity, tolerance for cases is low and refusals are on the increase. Dental checks for those claiming to be young etc.. are routine. I imagine some of the reduction will be down to word spreading that it's not so easy anymore. Not to mention being at capacity on housing, so being sent North(instead of with friends they were aiming for in the South) to where it is now pretty chilly and dark generally doesn't go down well. There have been cases of refugees refusing to get off their bus at places, goes to show they weren't so desperate after all.

The eu hasn't helped, as Sweden reintroduced passport checks on all borders, but the eu said they weren't allowed. So now they only do customs checks as a work around on the trains over from Denmark.

In reply to summo:

Do they permit faith schools or religion lessons in private schools?

In reply to Flinticus:


You can set up what is called a free school, but they should still teach to the national curriculum. Inspections have been stepped up some what and many want to ban all free schools. Which is where the current bun fight is, as it would also include any Christian stuff. There are not really any Christian schools for kids of school age (7), but there are a few nurseries with a heavy Christian slant. The paid for private school of the kind in the UK doesn't exist here. There are niche ones like english language based international, or Montessori type schools though.

I'm hoping all free schools get banned, but Swedes by nature don't rush to even simple decisions!

In reply to summo:

I don't think having an opinion about where they want to live shows that they weren't desperate. If they were choosing to return to where they escaped from instead of accepting the placement then you'd have a point.

In reply to Big Ger:


So what are *your* thoughts on that?

What compelled you to create this post, what is it you want to discuss? Sweden's efforts to forge a new national identity in a time of change? Managing the likely reaction and the counter reaction to rapid demographic change? How proud you'd be to be a Swede right now taking in refugees rather than paying lip service to your responsibilities like the UK or imprisoning them offshore like Australia? How to adjust spending plans to handle the demographic change regionally and locally so as not to stoke resentment by over pressuring services?
jk

In reply to David Martin:

"The UK experience has been increasing conservatism amongst second generation migrants as well."

What's your evidence for that? Hopefully better than a Trump tweet.

In reply to Big Ger:
People don't realise it but here in the UK we are seeing second and third generation immigrants slowly being swallowed up and integrating into the population. Eventually their genetic traits will become watered-down and we will by then be thoroughly accustomed to seeing people around who are vaguely different from what would have been called white British after the second world war. Britain is becoming a more interesting, more varied and less narrow-minded nation for it as well.

It always fascinates me to watch old black and white movies and documentaries from the 40s to 60s; people are almost universally white, slim, they wear hats, they speak in RP, many smoke and black or Asian people only appear occasionally for dramatic reasons.

In reply to Luke90:


As you can imagine a refugee is treat very well in Sweden, they'll house, feed and educate you and your family... but it doesn't chime well with the taxpayers who fund it if they then decide they only want to live in certain places.

That's why they reintroduced passport checks. They wanted to locate the asylum seekers at the border, assess their claim then house them in parts of the country that had the housing, but also the local services to cope. Some places have seen their school population double in the last 5 years, it's just a matter of practicalities you can't live where you want, if you are genuinely fleeing in fear.

In reply to Big Ger:

So what? People want to be Muslim. So 30% of Europe might be... and...?
As long as we are not talking about countries degrading women's rights and so on, I say live & let live in terms of religion. Some of them might be immigrants - are there enough resources to support them in the right place? A different issue I think.

In reply to stubbed:

And... that would be a big problem, because many Islamic values directly conflict with western values. For example: the status of women, the degree of respect accorded religion generally and Islam in particular, the influence of religion over the law, and freedom of religion. Not rocket science, really.

In reply to Thrudge:


I think you are confusing Western Secular Values with western values as a whole. The catholic church is pretty much a western establishment but has a woeful record on equality

In reply to Thrudge:
And... that would be a big problem, because many Islamic values directly conflict with western values. For example: the status of women, the degree of respect accorded religion generally and Islam in particular, the influence of religion over the law, and freedom of religion. Not rocket science, really.

And... that would be a big problem, because many Jewish values directly conflict with western values. For example: the status of women, the degree of respect accorded religion generally and Judaism in particular, the influence of religion over the law, and freedom of religion. Not rocket science, really.

And... that would be a big problem, because many Christian values directly conflict with western values. For example: the status of women, the degree of respect accorded religion generally and Christianity in particular, the influence of religion over the law, and freedom of religion. Not rocket science, really.

The irony of you battering that out from a country with an established church, unelected churchmen in parliament whose monarch is protector of the faith , where sectarian civil war is never more than a couple of mistakes away from re-ignition can't have been completely missed on you, right?
jk

In reply to Rigid Raider:

I agree with your post, but it’s set me off on a tangential rant...


I couldn’t care less about their genetic traits. I could however weep at the rise in religious worship, religious belief and religious organisations associated with migration into Britain. It’s the bad side of cultural diversity - we were on a part to ridding this country of the many and varied negative influences of unaccountable, hierarchical organisations rooted in magical thinking. Christianity was slowly dying a waning death. Now we have other religions waxing and reactive attempts to invigorate the Christian influence.

I did not except the 21st century in Britain to be filled with and largely affected by the same nonsensical crap as the last one.

In reply to jkarran:

Give over James. The Muslim faith, as it is currently practiced in much of the world, has a far larger role in fermenting internecine war, stifling gender equality and refuting scientific fact, than any other major religion.

In reply to Big Ger:
Like @jkarran, I do wonder about your motivations for creating this thread. If you really are that interested in the demographics of northern European countries in the early 21st century then fair enough, but is that really it? What actually was your objective?

I get that you're one of the top posters on this site, but that seems to be mainly due to right-wing outrage-mongering rather than ever contributing anything to do with climbing or the outdoors. It's just my opinion, but this sort of behaviour makes this place much less friendly than it could otherwise be. I wish you'd stop.

In reply to Andy Johnson:


Just wondering whether you'd have a problem with someone from a left-wing perspective posting a lot about politics?

Anyhow, the "pub" and "off belay" forums are set up as about things other than climbing and the outdoors. You can take them out of your "favourites" and if you don't want to read a thread then you needn't.

In reply to Thrudge:

I think you can pick almost any religion and your statement above will be true.

Go back 34 years and it's almost certainly true.

Predictions over 34 years are very likely to be very wide of the mark, now where's my flying car?

In reply to wintertree:


It's getting worse, Flat earthers are on the rise in America, WTF!!

It doesn't have to be religion that can exacerbate.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Its not the political perspective, its the general unkindness of the posts.


I know, and I don't have them in my favourites. But they are in the default favourites, and I get the impression that quite a lot of people don't realise they can remove them. I wonder what this all looks like to a new user of these forums.

In reply to krikoman:


Indeed - also the anti-vaccination brigade, homeopathy, 101 different things.

However these things can survive and thrive because the people and money vested in organised religions have normalised into society irrational, magical, non evidenced based thinking right down to the youngest children in our schools. After all, if it’s acceptible for church, why not for medicine?

In reply to Offwidth:


It's a shame that to even mention this has me tarnished as a Trump follower. Not unlike another poster above who questions Big Ger's motivations in being concerned about the demographic issue, this does point to the immaturity and stifling of the debate.

https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/living-apart-together-british-mus...

Maybe I'm just an Islamophobe. But the following concerns me:

"59% of Muslims would prefer to live under British law, compared to 28% who would prefer to live under sharia
law. 37% of 16-24 year olds prefer sharia compared to 17% of 55+ year olds.

36% of 16-24 year olds believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death,
compared to 19% of 55+ year olds.

7% “admire organisations like Al-Qaeda that are prepared to fight the West’. 13% of 16-24 year olds agreed with this statement compared to 3% of 55+ year olds.

74% of 16-24 year olds would prefer Muslim women to choose to wear the veil, compared to only 28% of 55+ year
olds.
"

I'm not so keen to put blind faith in a reversal of this trend, or a reversal in the population demographic trends given previous projected drops have failed to emerge (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNDzuCbWkAE-5E3.jpg ). Couple high Muslim fertility rates with potential for continued religiousity isn't the risk worth considering?

In reply to jkarran:
Come on. You know that we have significantly curtailed the influence of the Church here over the last few decades. The struggle between secularism and religion is also taking place in the Islamic world but secularism seems to be losing (Pakistan, Afghanistan, even Turkey). Me, I'm a secularist and so I worry. I worry too about the situations in 'Islamic' countries and wish their people that are engaged in moderating religion well: a lot of good people, who are Muslim too, want the same as I do. A safe place to live where following the tenets of any religion, or none, is an individual option pursued withour fear.

The North, by the way, is not really RC V Protestant but rather indigenous V (in historical terms) new comers riding on the back of an invading army. Religion in the South is not an issue because it is independent.

In reply to stubbed:


A lot of them might not want to be (and never chose to be), but can't pack it in because that can have some unpleasant consequences.

In reply to David Martin:

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't trust Policy Exchange's research on Islam in the UK. They may have a smidge of previous: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2008/05/policy_exchange_dispute_update...

In reply to GrahamD:

A fair and accurate correction. Thank you.

In reply to Stichtplate:

youtube.com/watch?v=SNdFMTDCfy8&

I give you the great Neil Degrasse Tyson on the subject, probably the most charismatic scientist on the planet.

He has a great body of work on the web, by the way, well worth a few hours of your time.

In reply to jkarran:
It's hardly fair or accurate to imply that Jewish and Christian values as they are currently implemented in the west are no different from Islamic values. I take a very dim view of all religions, but to claim that they are comparable to Islam is demonstrably false.

On your final point, I partially agree but with some hefty qualifications:

1) We do indeed have an established church, but the Church of England is more cake and kindness than it is death to apostates or stoning women.

2) Unelected churchmen in parliament - I'm with you there.

3) Monarch as the head of the church - woeful, I agree, but it hardly makes us a theocracy. Elizabeth is not Khamenei, and the UK is not Iran.

4) Sectarian civil war is never more than a couple of mistakes away? If you mean Ireland, that was at least as much a case of 'in the UK or out of it' as it was a religious divide. Britain as a whole is in no way on the brink of civil war.

I think you're trying to blur lines that most people can see very well. Islam *is* different to Christianity and Judaism, and it is worse; particularly, it is worse when you consider the current forms of those religions.

In reply to Flinticus:

I'm no fan of organised religion whatever the creed but we can't just wish it away so we accept it, deal with the consequences and leave them exposed to the same pressures which have diminished the influence of the CoE in the past decades. There's no need to demonise one over others, we've seen where that leads. The teachings of all can range from utterly abhorrent to mostly harmless depending upon the aims of the teacher (usually political).

Scapegoating Muslims and stereotyping them as Trudge tends to is a big part of the problem. Excluded people seek new identities which leaves them vulnerable. I suspect this in large part accounts for the reports of a trend toward 'de-secularisation' in 2nd/3rd generation imigrants. We've blocked them out of 'our' identity and they're a step removed from the identities their families carried with them so they seek and in some cases are offered another.

I'm aware that NI's issues are more complex than simple sectarianism, it's more colonial conflict than religious but the religious identities still matter as in Scotland too.
jk

In reply to Stichtplate:

Muslims are 2 billion of world totality meaning most peaceful people without world war or nuclear weapons drop on civilian city centres or not using chemical weapons other than one of Saddam Hussein-who is CIA asset-given by United States to attack the Iran but not thousands of ton like United States in frequent conflicts did use.
Current war promotion in Levant from Saudi Arabia is the source and promotion of intolerance through Islamic world using most hateful Imams,this is not'Muslim faith' but one or two nation of Arabian gulf uses worst kind of Muslim faith.Comparable as worst kind of Christainity come from Vatican and United States.
Large lobby in United States of Christian fundamentals to retreat science and woman rights,President Trump speech continual reference points to a God with United States is'God chosen country'.Your nation here depends on loyalty to Queen who is head of a church and Prime Minister May like Putin believes in silly idea God

Delusionals from United States fundamentalist Christian to Britain leaders and EU Vatican unite with counterpart delusionals from Saudi Arabia and country it indoctrinate leaders and Muslim community with money and hateful islamofascist Imam in new mosques to fuel wars via willing brainwashed terrorist army of extreme brutal who fear no death for to have quota of virgins in their heaven.

Moment,look at Levant and see Arabia at terrible war to Yemen before this it finance war on Syria now seek war on Iran or Lebanon.Is Iran starting war in Syria or finishing war Arabia start with United states on Syrians?Furthermore United States and Britain are military forces of Saudi Arabia to protect perhaps no formal treaty only handshake one however very warm allies in all international and domestic affair.

Analysis summary-power is in hands of brutal people using beliefs of speciality from God to facilitate unimaginable terror to people who do not follow a god and people who don't follow proscribed interpretation of religion of these people in power if they Muslim fanatic or Christian fanatic.

What you think?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

You could. Yet, while the "The Hijacking of British Islam" report was disputed on forensic inspection of its evidence, this report appears not to be challenged. I'm sure if its contents were in dispute it would have been subject to similar investigation in the blink of an eye.

Can you find serious links disputing it? If not, wouldn't it be better to consider it might be accurate?

In reply to David Martin:


Are you saying that is what BigGer is concerned about? How do you know? Because that's all I asked him, "what is his take, what interests him in the story enough to start a thread?". That isn't an attack, it's a simple reasonable question. Don't be so thin skinned especially not on someone else's behalf!


There are different ways of interpreting those statistics. Perhaps it's a consequence of exclusion, perhaps people become less rash, less drawn to the phony glamour of conflict and come to value stability with age rather than reflecting a concerted organised effort to radicalise the young. Likely in reality is's a complex mix of factors which once unpicked can be addressed.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


I'm all for criticising Christianity, but in the UK today it really is fairly benign. That's because nearly all Christians accept the difference between individual belief and the proper role of the government, and because they generally accept free speech and the right to criticise Christianity and to stop being a Christian.

Mainstream Islam is not like that. It really is worse than other religions in its effects. Trying to pretend that it isn't is not helpful. And saying that we should avoid criticising Islam because it upsets adherents is just exacerbating the problem.

Would it be for society if we all had to abide by the idea that we shouldn't criticise government policies because doing so upsets people who voted for them? No, that would be contrary to the whole basis of a free society.

Agree with this but the higher the numbers coming in, the longer integration and / or acceptance takes - 'ghettos' arise and interactions with the host people reduces (I don't want a monocultural society (stultifying and dull) at all, by the way: I am a multiculturalist but I don't think you can rush these things): immigrants may feel excluded and the natives, especially those struggling economically have new scape goats. However I realise that most refugees are escaping dire situations and need sanctuary / help and are people like you and me, just less fortunate. Its clearly a huge problem that seems impossible to resolve.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


You're too clever to actually think that's what jkarran meant in the text you've quoted.

In reply to summo:

I'm not denying the practicalities or suggesting that they should have a right to choose where the government puts them up. I can only find reference to one single bus incident of the type you refer to but if your argument was that those particular people were being selfish and ungrateful then I might agree with you. Your argument that they must be fraudsters is what I object to, especially as there's an implication that the same suspicion extends to all the refugees not just the fourteen involved in this single case.

There are entitled pricks in all races and in all communities. I'm sure refugees are no exception to that. Especially once they're in a safe country and any immediate danger they were in has long passed. The fact that fourteen out of tens of thousands made headlines by being demanding doesn't show that they aren't genuine refugees.

In reply to David Martin:

I'd expect if you want to show increasing conservatism amongst second generation migrants you need to show what it was once and that it is now larger, and from sources most independent experts would trust. I think you mean that the second generation now are more conservative than their parents generation now,... and from rather dubious sources.

The Trump thing was a joke.. its worrying you took offence.

In reply to jkarran:

I think a big part of the problem is willful blindness. This often takes the form of dismissing any criticism of Islam as 'scapegoating' or 'stereotyping'. Some even go so far as to call it racism. It's a standard response to having the evidence favour your opponents views - attack the man not the argument, cry foul and hope nobody notices you dodged the argument.

In reply to Luke90:

I never said they were fraudsters. But once in Europe their motives change, it isn't no longer about safety, it's about getting to where the perks are highest. Sweden with exception of Norway is furthest away and should in theory have minimal asylum seekers.

The biggest problem is their sense of entitlement, many don't want to learn Swedish, don't want to work and the culture of most means that women just stay at home and have 4 or 5 kids... The cost on local services is mounting up. Socially many young lads have no respect for women and this causes problems in schools as they don't listen to female teachers. The work ethic seems to rub off on the kids too, we have 2 or 3 parent meetings a year at school and the parents of the migrant kids rarely ever show up.


Of course, there are some very deserving cases, I'm know some personally, but there are no shortage of people who aren't from a country that's high risk etc.. But strangely arrive without documentation, they say they want to be in city X because a friend or relative is there. Then when question go strangely quiet as this might prove they aren't from the country they claim.

There are plenty examples over the years of asylum seekers refusing to move, some have deliberately burnt down their hostel type accommodation as they want something better. Plus various stabbings and other incidents.

tens of thousands .... try a few hundred thousand. There will be problems ahead for sure, until 2050/60 when the first generation come through and old guard die hopefully taking their ethics with them.

I should emphasis I'm not anti migration I moved to the wrong country if I was, but would prefer that the system had the resources to vet people better and then those deserving could be helped much more and not get tarred with the same brush as the lazy fraudsters.

There are not many Jewish or Christian no - go zones in Europe like there are the Muslim ones in Duisburg, Berlin, Koln, Hamburg and many other Europian cities. There are hardly any Jewish mass rapes or Christians attacking Jews and threatening them with death.

It seems to me there is some difference in the way Muslim values conflict with western values and the way Jewish and Christian (or Buddhist lets say) do so

In reply to jkarran:

I was referring to Andy Johnson. I didn't see your post. My point being that Big Ger's OP, a fair one in my view and pretty transparent in what he's implying, gets challenged with a sort of "how dare you post that" response. The double whammy of questioning both immigration and Islam I guess.

There seems to be a cultural cringe when discussing Islam. I get the impression that, having rightly identified much of the War on Terror rhetoric as thinly veiled bigotry, too many mistake strenuous, provocative, and entirely justified, criticism of mainstream Islam and its growth as bigotry too.

I'm not aware of other religions so regularly justifying death threats in response to being challenged, or demands for censorship we don't grant to others. The illiberal views of its youth (and evenly outwardly liberal or secular adherents) are hardly markers of good citizenship in secular states. Continuing to import more of it, while studiously avoiding confronting these shortcomings (1% of the population support the BNP and there's an outcry, 59% of Muslims would seemingly vote for Sharia and...shhhhh) doesn't strike me as smart


That would be a hopeful reading. But this evidence simply points to positive attitudes we ascribe to the young being surprisingly absent from Muslim youth; secular values, excluding conservative religious doctrine from public life, rights to apostasy, freedom of sexual behaviour, opposition to capital punishment, etc. It might then be fair to assume that they won't necessarily follow values or trajectories expected in later life.

I'm sure we all want it to be the case that Islam doesn't represent a problem. But I value secular values. I value freedom of expression. I value separation of the Church/Mosque and state. I value heresy. I'm not going to pretend that Islam doesn't represent the biggest threat to this and therefore shouldn't therefore be tiptoed around. It should be ridiculed every bit as much as Scientology.

In reply to summo:


I hear this a lot. I simply don't see how it is possible to produce that much in the way of resources. Various anthropologists, and no doubt other academics, in our institution were regularly producing reams of expert evidence to support/refute applications. They were just one tiny cog in the the dozens that must make up a single asylum application. The cost and administrative burden to vet every case to a reasonable level of assurance, to separate out the signal from the noise of "I walked barefoot 10,000 miles and everyone I know was killed, I simply cannot be sent home" seems all but impossible.

In reply to summo:


Isn't that pretty understandable though? Once safety is dealt with, it's only human to move up the hierarchy of needs. You surely can't hold that against the individuals concerned. People are going to seek the best outcome for themselves and their family. If Sweden's offering that, you can't reasonably expect them to decline it. If Sweden can't cope, they'll have to make themselves less attractive one way or another.


My understanding is that the whole "must stop in first safe country" principle isn't as cast iron as people think. Either way, as you've argued yourself on other issues, practicality has to be considered. It's not really feasible for the vast numbers of refugees that are floating around right now to be supported by any single country, or even a small handful. The load is unbearable if it's not spread around.

I don't disagree with lots of the problems you identify in the rest of your post. Their existence is undeniable, though objectively assessing the true extent and severity of them is very difficult.

In reply to Luke90:


I would have thought people have every right to be aggrieved by that. It points to nothing but greed after having been granted a huge amount of charity.

You are essentially saying that the Swedes should lower their living standard so people who have been granted rights not accorded to 99.9999% of the rest of the world's population (ie. permission to settle in Sweden) stop asking for so much.

Is it really too much to expect a semblance of good-behaviour and adherence to broadly agreed to norms of conduct from recent arrivals?

In reply to David Martin:

So if you ran away from war in Syria with your family, you wouldn't be at all tempted to aim for Sweden in preference to a tented refugee camp in, say, Turkey? Or, at least, when you were tempted, you'd be disgusted with yourself for being so greedy?


Well, no, I'm not. I'm saying that IF what the Swedes currently offer to refugees is unsustainable for them then they might be forced to reduce what they offer to refugees to a more sustainable level. I'm saying that blaming the migrants for being tempted shows a distinct lack of empathy. I don't think making themselves less tempting for refugees inherently implies making life worse for Swedes themselves.


I don't recall giving anyone a pass on bad behaviour. What bad behaviour or norm-breaking do you think I've condoned? (Unless you're saying that travelling to Sweden rather than stopping earlier is the bad behaviour, in which case we simply disagree on that.)

On rereading, I wonder whether you've read my defence of refugees travelling to Sweden as a defence of demanding to be settled in a specific location or type of housing within Sweden? Or a defence of the fourteen people refusing to get off the bus. I wasn't defending either of those things.

In reply to Luke90:


But that would also mean denying help to those who really need it, that's the UK or USA model.


Objectively assessing in Sweden is very easy. Everyone has a personal number from birth, or arrival, you can't function without it. It's directed linked to work, tax, benefits, buying anything that requires an agreement or credit. It's easy to assess what people do, when they do it etc.. data on your tax, who owns what car is publicly available. There was a guy in the local city to us had 100 cars registered in his name, he was registering them for all his refugees 'friends' for fee as they didn't have a licence and didn't want to show the state that they had funds to afford a car or were driving illegally.

If you want to assess their integration objectively, why not Google about how many cars were burnt out my refugees in 2016 in protest against their mistreatment by the evil Swedish state. Or the on going fights between Jews and Muslims in Malmö, which usually involves shooting and bombs in the doors of places of worship.

In reply to David Martin:

You know that Canon law applies to Catholics in the same way as Sharia law applies to Muslims right? Why is there outrage over one and not the other?

In reply to summo:

But if you're insisting on "first safe country" then who ARE the legitimate refugees? Only those who Sweden specifically invites and flies in?

Once again, I'm not denying the integration problems you bring up. Being able to read about specific cases in the media isn't the same thing as being able to judge what proportion of the refugees are causing problems.

Some determined Europeans:'I want the freedoms do what I want to not be told I must have family large when I have (insert pastime)to do in this my life'
Same determined Europeans:'To many of Muslims here have children this must be stopped'

If it such the problem why spend so much of the time on computer and not having breed big family of 6 childrens?

Is Britain first correct to British population attitude perhaps?

In reply to Ciro:


Because there is bugger all equivalency . For a start Sharia is supposed to be the word of God, even the nutters in Opus Dei aren't making that claim for Canon law.

In reply to Tanke:

Spot on Tanke. Lets all get off the computer and have 6 kids, then we can sit back and see what the world looks like in 10 years time with a 20 billion plus population.

Pretty bloody grim I would imagine, but hey, maybe God will intervene ?

In reply to Luke90:


Sweden does also offer in country asylum and fly people out of homelands to sweden, not just those who arrive here themselves. I'm not insisting, I'm pointing out huge discrepancies in the eus handling of migrant and the motives of many refugees.

Legitimate refugees are those who are genuinely fleeing because of risk to life and limb, method of arrival etc. is largely irrelevant.


It is if you know that Sweden places refugees in all corners of the country, so what you see, hear and read locally is likely to represent an average across a nation? I think you have a very fluffy view of things, sadly the world ain't like that. For every person in need, there is a chancer just waiting to sneak along.

In reply to Thrudge:

I think that these lines that "most people can see very well" are illusory.

Within all of the major religions, there is a great diversity of belief and values. Within Judaism, for example, you get huge numbers who hardly even believe in god, they do a few anachronistic rituals, but their religion is much more like a club. It's pretty hard to object to these kind of Jewish values, because they aren't really values at all. On the other hand the Hasidic guys with the ludicrous get-up are mad and evil. The way they treat apostates is unbelievable: they will destroy their lives. These are values that we do not want in our society. This degree of diversity lies within all the major religions.

Certainly in UK Christianity, the statistical balance is hugely weighted away from the appalling, regressive types and towards the more-or-less secular, friendly jumble sales and carol singing types who I have no beef with. And unfortunately in Islam the proportion of conservatives - those with the regressive values about women, and gays and all the rest - is much higher.

But it's outright wrong to say that these conservative Muslim values, which are awful, are what typify Islam in the UK as a whole - because we have a huge Muslim middle class, full of doctors and lawyers and teachers and dentists and the rests, who don't subscribe to the regressive conservative values being taught in the mosques and madrasas of inner city Bradford.

Your assertion that there is a difference between what Islam in modern Britain is like compared to other religions is an oversimplification. I agree that it is "worse" - but not because Muslim values are regressive whereas Jewish and Christian values are not. What is worse is that within Islam, a higher proportion are conservative compared to the other religions, but there is still a huge middle class, modern, moderate Muslim population. For this reason, calling for "fewer Muslims" - or policies to achieve that - comes across as bigoted. What we want are policies that shift the balance of conservative Muslims towards an overwhelmingly moderate Muslim population.

By arguing for "fewer Muslims", and characterising Muslim values as regressive, you're stirring up alienation, distrust and division. It pushes the moderate Muslim population away from the cause, when they're the people you need on side if you want to see less of the regressive conservative Muslim values.

I'm not an apologist conservative Islam, which is a real force for evil in our society. But by saying "we want fewer Muslims in our society", you're going to make the situation worse, not better. What we want is more Muslims to ditch the conservative values and join the moderate, integrated Muslims whose values we have no problems with.

In reply to Stichtplate:
Ok alternative is you need fuel the economic growth imperative-capitalism requirements-which require increase people correct? which you not desire to facilitating from breeding-concern as to many people not only to many of muslim- so must import people but they have more children that oppose culture of this Sweden or Britain than you want them to have.

Answer to stop muslim entry have more of own children so quota is made full.

Ask why big refugee exodus anyway?perhaps is root of problem I say they would happier stay in own lands if they safe from brutal leaders who start wars and spread brand of hate which come back to my reply back some bit.Look at United States EU British and partner Arabia for this problem.

I work in south of Sweden for a 3 months 2016 near Gothenburg people not so concern about muslim as people in Poland example.

In reply to jkarran:

My thoughts are that if it is managed properly, you'll probably get to a situation similar to ours in Aus, where a quarter of the population is Asian, but consider themselves Australian. Indian and Pakistani integration in UK society is evidence.

However, if managed badly...

You can untwist your knickers at someone daring to raise "immigration" now.

In reply to Andy Johnson:


Why did the ultra-hard-right Guardain report it?


There you have it folks, adding quotes from the Guardian, without adding anything which could even be considered provocative, is now considered "right-wing outrage-mongering".

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I await the "you're always doing this" and "your past history of starting threads" accusations to start soon, with a great deal of ennui. What I'm not hanging on, is any proof that I do so.

In reply to Andy Johnson:


Go on, break your duck, point out the "unkindness"!

I won't hold my breath on you doing so.

In reply to Tanke:



You completely misunderstand me Tanke. I am opposed to the idea of economic growth at all costs, I see Capitalism as a deeply flawed system and I would prefer a planet with half it's current population, not double it.

As to this "have more of our own children" thing, I don't know where you're going with this but if by "our" you mean British, well British people come in all shapes and colours.

If by "our" you mean white European well, to be blunt, piss off.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Bugger all equivalency? The muslims claim sharia is the word of god, the catholics claim god send his son down, and that he gave them authority to write canon law... slightly different routes to exactly the same position - god says you have to do X.

In reply to Stichtplate:

General debate goes in direction of other contributers writing of concern they feel to many of Muslim in Europe nations. My answer to them who feel that way as I do not. I am looking always at larger worldview of situation being more proper analysis to find cause.

In reply to Thrudge:
That is a very naive stereotypical view on the matter. No doubt issues and challenges will arise. But for example, young Saudi women who travel will remove their hijab, don 'western' clothes, and wholeheartedly accept western culture when they are visiting western nations on holiday, in fact they love the culture. They feel quite denigrated by the current US policy which ranks them like cattle.

I think as Sunmo pointed out at the start of the thread, the stereotypical conservative view on Islam is mostly held by the older Muslims, much the same as older Christians here in the UK (young people generally don't go to church). Young and educated Muslims, especially those who have the ability to travel, have a very different outlook. They abide and accept their countries' conservative traditions but essentially are outward looking individuals, much the same as a 25 year old educated European. We see the same here in the UK. Very generally speaking, under educated individuals from impoverished backgrounds are not as outward looking as their peers, this is not true for all.

I would gain experience dealing with these people before you make sweeping accusations and judgements.

In reply to Lamb:


So what stops them for campaigning for equality at home, where they are compelled to wear the hijab / dress conservatively (and until recently couldn't drive themselves)?

Maybe we need to start targeting Wahhabism, rather than Islam in toto

In reply to Lamb:

I also think the UK is not in a great position to pick fault in others, when most schools, i.e. places of 21st century education, still have morning assemblies filling kids heads full of fiction and there are unelected bishops in the house of lords. The religious influence in the USA is even worse, or Catholic churches influence in many countries. There is still an awful lot of my fictional deity is better than yours. The world still has some distance to cover in leaving medieval nonsense behind.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Because their husband would beat them and saudi police or courts will back the man?

In reply to Big Ger:

Are Western Values the same as Country and Western Values?

In reply to Big Ger:

The great irony of all this discussion is that a good number of Islamophobes are members of the most murderous, domineering, acquisitive, greedy, corrupt faith ever - Roman Catholicism. I was a Catholic, before anybody accuses me of hate crimes.

In reply to Rigid Raider:


You say that - with reference to the roman catholic church - as if it’s a bad thing.

I think one is allowed so have a deep loathing and disgust at an organisation that forced children from unwed mothers and ended up either abusing or neglecting the children to death and lobbing their almost countless bodies into their septic tanks.

Further, despite what some want to see, no amount of loathing and disgust against an organisation is a hate crime, evidenced and justified or not. It becomes a hate crime only when you treat an individual differently due to their membership of said organisation, unless the organisation is legally proscribed in national law. Which I strongly feel the RC church should be.

In reply to Andy Johnson:



It probably looks looks to them like a lot of people who enjoy climbing also enjoy discussing other things including politics and that sometimes things get a little heated whilst they do so. Presumably they are capable of finding the many climbing related forums and articles etc.
I can't imagine why you would single out Big Ger for "unkindness", let alone a post referencing a Graniad article.

In reply to summo:


More to the point even if their male family are decent moderate people with modern values as many Saudis are behind closed doors there is absolutely nothing they could do to protect an outspoken woman from the brutally repressive state. It's easy to conflate bad governance people are powerless to change with bad people.
jk

In reply to Ciro:


Yes, bugger all equivalency. Canon law was formulated by the church, as such it can be debated, reformed and brought into line with modern sensibilities; no more burning people to death for heresy for example.
Sharia, as the literal law of God cannot be debated, reformed and updated. So devout/extreme Muslims will always be able to use Sharia to justify ignoring secular law and murdering apostates or heretics. As you are no doubt aware many thousands have been doing this for quite some time now.

In reply to Lamb:


This sounds as if it ought to be good advice - however I hope you won't mind if I put it to the test with reference to something you yourself said in your previous paragraph:

"But for example, young Saudi women who travel will remove their hijab, don 'western' clothes, and wholeheartedly accept western culture when they are visiting western nations on holiday, in fact they love the culture. They feel quite denigrated by the current US policy which ranks them like cattle. "

Where do you get your evidence for that statement from? You're speaking on behalf of 'young Saudi women' here and appear to know how they all 'feel' so I'd be interested to know:
a) where do you get this insider knowledge? and b) if we want to focus on the kind of Muslim woman who might move to Sweden, or to this country, how far do Saudi women typify Islamic immigrants to Europe?

In reply to Stichtplate:


I'd say the equivalence is that in both cases people can and do choose to live and be judged by those rules or more normally a cherrypicked subset of them (they're not in the uk laws) all the while retaining the ultimate protection of the law of the land.


Perhaps not but it can be interpreted in culturally sensitive ways as evidence suggests it is, after all when was the last time you head of an adulterer being stoned in Luton?


Yeah. Find me a killer that doesn't cling to some some internal justification for their actions. Look at the US, how many of the daily spree killings are 'justified' by religious law? How many live their lives by the broad principals of Sharia without throwing gay people off tall buildings or stoning their womenfolk?


See my point regarding US spree killing. It's almost like it's the people more than the ideology they latch onto that might be the bigger issue.

In reply to Stichtplate:


You say that, but I strongly disagree. It’s subject to human interpretation and translation and does change (can’t quite bring myself to say ‘reform’). This is obvious when you look at the different Islamic faiths - if the law of god was so monolithic then there would be no Shia vs Sunni vs xyz. For an extreme example look to the Baha'i.

Sure, there are hard core variants of most faiths that refuse to recognise any change (except what they approve implicitly as translations track language evolution) but such a sentiment can’t and shouldn’t be applied to a whole school of faiths.

In reply to Andy Morley:
I obviously cannot speak for the entire Middle East or provide any idea how far this viewpoint extends. My work sometimes takes me to the Gulf and surrounding countries, where I have spoken at length, regarding this example, with Saudi women while they are outside of Saudi. I was as surprised as the next person about they're viewpoints and how well educated they were, likely more so than me, and notably with regards to how well aware they were about global affairs and also how well travelled (or cultured you could say) they were. This is anecdotal I know, but my point was simply that just because of all the problems in the Middle East, you cannot tar the individuals in these countries as all being medieval in their outlook. They are actually a pretty smart bunch of individuals, locked unfortunately with regional conflict mostly derived from their cultural differences which was unfortunately exacerbated by the post imperial line in the sand drawing, amongst other geopolitical issues. As I qualified at the start, I have no idea how far this viewpoint extends, but I would hazard a guess that the relationship between education/wealth and the individuals 'outward-lookingness' is pretty linear. As is the same in most countries around the world.

In reply to wintertree:

Yes, and actually many understandings of ijtihad mean that Islam is constantly going through phases of reformation in Lutheran or Tyndalian (if that's a word) sense.

Mainstream Sunni interpretations see the Qur'an as unambiguous, but that always seems like a claim not a fact as so many then fail to agree on what it is unambiguously saying...

In reply to Andy Hardy:

This was one question I couldn't quite fully understand their answers to. They state that they simply recognise and respect their countries culture, as they recognise and participate in Western culture when they visit, although were very keen to stress that women were not oppressed in Saudi. This I know in the Western viewpoint is baffling due to the obvious contradictions. Although these are maybe just contradictions in the minds of Westerners, who knows, cultures and different and there is no way around that. To further contradict matters, they stated that all Saudi women live a double life, and can do anything that you can do in the West, but it is simply underground in Saudi.

Culture is an interesting thing.

In reply to wintertree and jKarran

You may both be right, I'm obviously not an Islamic scholar and from what I can tell you could find one of those to support whatever position you want to take on the matter.

However, the point being discussed was equivalency between Catholic Canon law and Sharia and what is proven beyond doubt is that many thousands are being killed every year using Sharia as justification while no one has been murdered using canon law as justification for hundreds of years.
So how would you judge which system is doing the most harm in the real world ?

In reply to Lamb:

The reason that women are oppressed in Saudi is that it is a very hard line theocracy*, and they would be endangering their lives to protest against the "word of god" (as given to the blokes, natch).

What the far right feed on is the natural fear that our secular, liberal (and by extension, western) democratic values are under threat from a culture imported from the middle east, and south east asia. A culture that treats straight men equally and treats everyone else as inferior. The culture is not readily seperable from the religion, since the religion supports (because it was born from that culture) the oppression of women and non straight men - just like Westboro baptists for example. There is a difference though - Islam doesn't have the same management structure as the Christian church and therefore is much harder to change, there doesn't appear to be any interpreting of the koran, you can't challenge it because to do so you are challenging the word of god.


*OK, Islamic theocracy

In reply to Lamb:

Anyone who's been on a flight to Dubai will have seen the women who, having boarded the plane in 'normal' (sometimes quite glamorous) western dress, pop off to the plane toilet and come back in shayla, hijab or full niqab. It's sad in a way, but of course on the return journey it happens in the opposite direction.

Iran seems a good example of a well-educated, modern populace being governed by out-of-touch archaic institutions.

In reply to jkarran:





I've got to say James, reading back over this, your entire argument seems to be based on whataboutery. Not that I would entirely dismiss such arguments but it does seem that the UKC massive has taken against such tactics,

In reply to pavelk:

No go zones in Berlin, Köln, or Hamburg? Sure, there are hot spots of crime in the red light districts, especially at night, but Muslim neighbourhoods in German cities where you cannot go as a Christian?

What a load of rubbish, but we are used to get that from you.

What does exist, though, are areas in East Germany, e.g. in rural Saxony along the Czech and Polish borders, where I would not advise any of my colleagues at work to go on their own if they happen to look obviously non German. The risk of getting threatened or attacked by local nazis is just too high.

CB

In reply to cb294:

Have you got many reports like these related to Jews or Hindus?
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6264/no-go-zones-germany
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/berlin-police-academy-scandal-...

There are about 50 000 (mostly) Buddhist Vietnamese here in Czech and several hundred thousand Ukrainians (Christians or Atheists) and no incident like these reported. Any explanation?

In reply to pavelk:



From the article:

Berlin police chief Klaus Kandt dismissed the infiltration allegations as “patently” false and unfounded. They put all police under a cloud of suspicion, he argued, in particular efforts to recruit from migrant communities.

Berlin’s interior minister Andreas Geisel said he was alarmed – not by the allegations but their “racist tone” seething with “xenophobic resentment”.


Because there's not so much xenophobic resentment to cause false allegations against Buddhist Vietnamese?

In reply to Pete Pozman:


No, Western values have more banjo.

In reply to Big Ger:
It seems some places in Germany have taken radical steps;



https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/11/29/565747277/a-german-city-c...

In reply to pavelk:

If you are using the Gatestone Institute for a source, you should give this a listen for epistemological reasons - it's also just rather interesting in its own right. https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/621/fear-and-loathing...

In reply to Lamb:


OK - it's obviously interesting to have an understanding of countries that those immigrating to Europe come from. My experience is that the majority in the UK are from Pakistan, Bangladesh and India with various European countries bordering Turkey after that, and of course Turkey themselves. I wouldn't characterise them as 'a smart bunch of individuals' or the opposite - they vary.

But as to those living in the UK, which is perhaps more directly relevant to the wider phenomenon of those living in the UK, many of them do have one thing in common which extends to maybe 60-80% of those living here in my experience (and I've met a great many and got to know their lives in depth), and that is that their social structure is often similar to that of Western Europe 50, 100 or in some instances 200 years ago. That particularly manifests itself in the different roles of the sexes, in attitude towards socially problematic issues like sex, drink, drugs and music and in their engagement with formal religion. Language can be a big issue and frequently affects women more than men, particularly when a man living and working in the UK arranges with his family to find a wife who then comes to this country, often at a very young age with little or no English and having left her social support network behind her. For someone who has grown up in a village in say, Pakistan, it can be hugely challenging to cope with English urban life even though she may have her husband's family for a new support network. So while not being 'mediaeval in their outlook' to use your phraseology, they do have more in common with our ancestors of 200 years ago than with most modern British people as far as those particular aspects of social living, culture and upbringing are concerned.

In reply to pavelk:

Still a blown out of proportion pile of shit. Yes there are problems with the Berlin police, but they have much more to do with Berlin as a city state, which is spectacularly useless, just witness the failed attempts to get their new airport running!

Up to you, though, whether you trust a German citizen living in Germany as to conditions in Germany, or whether you believe the crap spouted by a right wing American propaganda site. Sure, there are Turkish dominated districts, like the "Chinatowns" found in every major US city, but no go zones? Not really, and everybody who claims that there are either has no idea, or more likely, lies on purpose.

But of course, the Trumpsters are always right, so there must be no go zones. Didn´t the idiot in chief even claim that the entire city of Birmingham was a no go zone for white Brits?

CB

In reply to cb294:


No, it was one of the rentagob junior idiots on Fox who did that. It did though lead to one of the funniest ever twitter threads where the good people of Birmingham showed that if nothing else, coming from Brum gives you a wicked sense of humour.

In reply to TobyA:

I stand corrected!

CB

In reply to Stichtplate:

You say whataboutery, I say offering counter examples, others are welcome to their opinions.
Jk

In reply to Andy Morley:

Sorry, wait, what percentage, from your in depth experience, of those 60-80% of British Pakistanis have "grown up in a village in Pakistan"?

In reply to jkarran:



And I’d agree. Never really understood the distinction between whataboutery and comparative evidence anyway.

In reply to cb294:

The meaning of the term no - go zones was meant no police, not no Germans zones. My personal experience from east Hamburg suggets there is something about it

The opinion I originally gave was : "It seems to me there is some difference in the way Muslim values conflict with western values and the way Jewish and Christian (or Buddhist lets say) do so" and there are some facts supporting it.

You cal it rubbish but did not give any arguments it is otherwise. It´ s easier to call everything you don´ t like right wing propaganda, isn´ t it?

In reply to Stichtplate:


Sorry, but I do believe that is total bollicks. Islamic countries have invaded how many other countries in the last 20 years? Have unilaterally bombed other countries in the last 20 years? They advocate creationism? They deny evolution? Look elsewhere!

In reply to Andy Say:

Look up "internecine" in a dictionary Andy

So here's a question - why do so many on UKC present such vigorous defences when Islam is criticized? I doubt many of them are Muslim, so we can rule out tribalism. And why do we not see equally vigorous defences (or any defence at all) from the same posters when Christianity is criticized?

Where was the protest over Gregg's "sausage in a manger" advert? When Mr Hellier let's fly at Christianity, where are the howls of "I know nice Christians" or, "That's just stereotyping"?

What is it about Islam that makes its UKC defenders feel that criticism of it is so unpalatable? It's quite a baffler, I think.

In reply to Andy Say:

You can believe whatever you want is bollocks Andy, but you seem to have missed what the Saudi Arabian coalition of 9 muslim countries has been doing in Yemen since 2015 and the heavy involvement of Iranian forces in Syria for the last 7 years. You've also missed what internecine means. Yes, a great many Western countries have, regrettably, involved themselves militarily in the Middle East over the last 20 years but you'd be hard pushed to place religion as a motivator, which is what my original post was about.

As for denying evolution and creationism, you're right we can look elsewhere in the West. America, that famous and inexplicable outlier of creationism where only around 40% are completely comfortable with evolution. But that's just one country. According to The New Scientist, acceptance of evolution in Muslim countries (including the relatively secular Turkey) runs at only 10-25 %.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16258-how-to-stop-creationism-gainin...

As for refuting scientific fact, have a look at this interesting article from an edition of this year's Gulf News.
http://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/phd-thesis-the-earth-is-flat-1.2009202

Edit: Oh.. and how come there's no defence of their stellar record on gender equality, while you were at it.

In reply to Thrudge:


Simple.

Most Muslims are not Caucasian, those on the left have a religious belief that to utter an criticism of a non-white group is blasphemy and heresy of the worse kind.

God god man, next you'll be saying things about women or gays that aren't entirely complimentary!!!!

In reply to Big Ger:



What kind of uncomplimentary generalisation might somebody make about gay people which you'd find fair enough*?

*If there aren't any, the above seems like an odd thing to post.

In reply to Timmd:


Being Muslim is not comparable to being gay or female or a ginger or whatever. Being Muslim is about adhering to a set of *ideas*. Thus it is more comparable to being a socialist or a capitalist or a vegetarian or a fascist. We do need to be able to criticise ideas!

In reply to Thrudge: perhaps it's a dislike of racism and bigotry than a love of Islam? Rather than a discussion of ideas these threads are just trolling

In reply to Big Ger:

I'll explain this to the 11 year who I teach who had a 16 year old yell "f*** off back to your own country, you f****** muslim" at him as he was walking to my class last Wednesday. I'm sure it will make him feel better.

In reply to TobyA:


That doesn’t mean Islam should be more protected from criticism than Christianity. It means gobshite racist kids and their parents need to be brought to task on their failings.


I think taking on racists at source and telling him that action has been taken will do more to both fix the problem and make him feel better than shutting down criticism of one particular religion. You don’t have to look far to see how the perceived speical treatment of Islam in the UK is used to fuel further feckless racism by the gobshites. It makes Muslims *more different* than the rest of us.

In reply to wintertree:

Of course, but where do racist kids, and possibly their parents too, get their opinions from? You can stick the offender in iso for a day, the school, can even ask parents to come in, but it's a plaster on deep and infected wound - I know kids who just add being told off for being racist, to all their other grievances - it's seems it just adds to their prejudice. It's a shame we don't live in Coel's ivory tower (apologies for the cliché but we all know what it means) where only the ball is ever played, never the man. It often feels like round here, some don't even know what the ball is, all they can do is hack the man down.

It was Big Ger who said the "left have a religious belief that to utter an criticism of a non-white group is blasphemy", (which is of course ridiculous - even if you are talking just about people in this country who would self identify as left) but the daily experience of far too many British Muslims as a result of that sort of idea, isn't a vigorous debate over the many holes in Islamic theology, it's Trump's retweets and people being racist to them.

In reply to wbo:


Here we go again with yet another variant of "I don't like what you said so I'll call you a racist".

As much as I dislike some of the values espoused by fundamentalist Muslims, I hold equal contempt for beliefs promoted by Orthodox Jews, Christian Evangelicals, Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hindus, Moonies, Harri Krishnas, Plymouth Brethren and a tonne of other prescriptive and non-sensical ideologies* predicated on a belief in the supernatural, that seemingly are seeking to pull the human race back into the dark ages.

As far as I can see, the only reason the Muslim faith is currently so often criticised is that in the current cycle of history Islam is used as a justification for more death and subjugation than all the others, but hey, Christianity certainly lead that field for a few hundred years, maybe it's just someone else's turn.

* I do have a bit of a soft spot for the Quakers, a mild and generally inoffensive bunch of lunatics, from what I can tell.

In reply to TobyA:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.


I think it’s mostly passed down in the school yard (there’s a whole parallel and perpetual culture there), the home, the community and the bottom feeding end of the media, which increasingly is most of it.

Perhaps I’m wrong but I don’t think it’s the people having a different religion that’s the root cause - even if ‘muslim’ is a handy epitaph but the fact most of them in the UK are a different colour. That’s the level of the problem from what I can tell. Fundamental bass racism + lots of opportunity.


I agree, but the point I took from Big Ger’s post is that criticism of religion is shut down on the grounds of racism.

It’s really hard to see how to move forwards fairly and productively. If the rights and protections afforded to all religious organisations (not people and their beliefs) were to be uniformly stripped away and religion was to be taught as factually uncertain and belief based in all schools (1) then many of the problems around Islam in the UK that are hijacked for casual and strong racism would be stopped. There would be no need for debate on the flaws of any religion - simply an expectation for a uniform rule of law (and taxation...) based in human rights.

There would be a lot of unhappy shit stirrers from some quarters of the Islamic community. Tough luck - and I would deploy as many riot police as needed to ensure the shit they stir is subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

It’s probably just as well I’m not in charge then!!!

Speaking of the police, was there any consideration of involving them with your racist 16 year old? I’m always torn in theory between criminalising people and reinforcing their awful behaviour by giving it no consequences of note.

(1) it’s about here where a few posters mention this was the case in their school. That’s great, shame about many others.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Hey, I'm not the one to shout at I know all that.

That's why I wondered why Big Ger brought said what he did. It's an odd thing to say.

I'm allowed to ask him about it

Have a nice Sunday...

In reply to Big Ger:

Interesting, because there does seem to be a bit of religious fervour about it, in the sense that uncomfortable facts about Islam are often swept aside by whataboutery and "it's racist/alt-right/bigoted", rather than conceding that a lot of core - and often deeply held - Islamic principles conflict with western secular ones.

Re whataboutery, it's just a deflection tactic. It's no more valid than a murderer protesting that, "Charles Manson murdered more than me, so back off". It's an approach I've often seen from Christian apologists, who like to point to socialist nations when the depredations of their faith are raised.

I've no idea where the UKC defenders of Islam are on the political spectrum, so what follows is not pointed at them. Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt (two psychologists) have made some really interesting critiques of the modern left and compared them to a religious cult. Some of the parallels are quite striking: chanting, swaying, strict orthodoxy/group-think, emotional outbursts in reaction to reasoned arguments, and the demonising of those outside the group. It's fascinating stuff, and darkly humorous that the response to their critiques is often along the lines of, "You can't trust what he says, he's a fascist".

In reply to Thrudge:




That's not exclusively leftist, it's true for anybody who can't see value in different beliefs beyond their own. The way you paint this as a trait of the the left rather than across the spectrum suggests you share this trait.

In reply to elsewhere:


It possibly suggests it, it's sometimes hard to know, but you're right that it's a universal trait.

In reply to elsewhere:

That's not exclusively leftist, it's true for anybody who can't see value in different beliefs beyond their own.

Aspects of 'Western' religion have been criticised and the subject of humour for decades. Initially, the various churches had some success in supressing this via blasphemy laws, etc. Fortunately, as the UK becomes more secular, such criticisms are excepted for what they are and there seems to be an attitude now that the Christian/Catholic churches have to live with the humour no matter how negative or blatant in the piss taking of some of their traditions.
We seem to be starting this whole process again with the Islamic religion and to make matters worse, it seems to be being defended by people who aren't actually Muslims, but are just doing it because defending minorities is the right thing to do.
As for it being a Left/Right thing, well, if it isn't a Left thing, then I suppose that anti Muslim feelings also have no Left/Right differentiation?

In reply to Stichtplate:
Spare me the over complication - poster with history of provocative , bigoted posting starts thread with provocative , racially loaded title. Why is this do you think?

In reply to wbo:

I thought we were discussing the issue raised, not your opinion of Big Ger ?

In reply to elsewhere:


Of course. But seems to be commonplace on the left, less so on the right.



Not necessarily. And in my particular case, not at all. For example, there are some Christian ideas which I view as valuable, despite my distaste for the religion.

In reply to Thrudge:
Never heard of benefit scroungers, remoaners, the tebbit cricket test , Mccarthyist abuse or sjw then?

Take the plank out of your own eye may be a bit of Christianity you've missed.

In reply to Stichtplate:


My atheist brother went to a boarding school on a scholarship, and grew to like the Quaker faith, in it's tolerance of difference. I think Buddhism is pretty good too, though it's not a religion as such.

In reply to elsewhere:
To me, all a sjw really seems to be is, ' Somebody being bothered about something happening to another person, which I don't think they have any reason to be bothered about, so I'll give them a label and write them off'

I/we were taught in school to think about people who are different, and about society, and world issues. To have some people start calling anybody who thinks about that kind of thing a 'social justice warrior' seems very odd to me.

In reply to Timmd:


I attended a Quaker wedding once, noted the lack of hierarchy, preachiness and general Hoo Ha. The heartfelt focus on the happy couple and strong recognition of the individual and their relationship with God.
It left me (atheist) rather impressed.

In reply to summo:

I seem to remember Stig Larrson (Girl with Dragon Tattoo etc) saying all in Sweden are born into a Protestant? church...Christian at any rate and you have to opt out?

In reply to elsewhere:


Yes, I've heard of all of those, but your point eludes me.


I'm afraid I have no idea what this means.

In reply to Thrudge:
The point is you sound like the classic 'I characterise, they demonise' hypocrtical idealogue when you demonise the left as demonisers.

Plank - http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-5.htm

In reply to elsewhere:

I respectfully suggest that you're extrapolating rather wildly there. I haven't demonized the left (I'm rather left-leaning myself on some issues). What I have done is point to critiques by two academics which draw close parallels between some behaviours of the left and religious adherents. And I think there's considerable substance to their claims.

I'm not sure where you're getting 'hypocrite' or 'ideologue' from. And unfortunately for you, it does tend to weaken your stance, because it's name-calling rather than engaging with the ideas.

In reply to elsewhere:

May I ask if you're a Christian? It may be that I've offended your religious sensibilities.

In reply to Thrudge:


I don't believe in God.

In reply to Big Ger:
It is the funny to see right whinger cuckolds of capitalist ruling class panic so in issue of futures demographic in Britian cocern Muslim ratio with Non-Muslims.
After war Britain use all tools with American to crush socialist national unity and the liberations movements in Egypt through Iraq and Syra evens in most populous Indonesia Muslim, these a socialist movements was enemy of islamist fundamentals.Only advantage in kill socialist movements there is for capitalist ruling class and Islamic fundamentls.
This progress currently with rapacious of ruling class empire of United States with Britain help crush Libya who fight internal Islamic fundamenalts movements as apply to Syria.
Truth is Great Britain is most warm close friend with dictatorship monarchyies who advance form of not moderate islam you hate not forget yous media create terrorist to go fight by use spectacular lies to make devils of Gaddafi Assad.
Tory conservative poltical Party needs islamist terrorist to fight proxy war calls'Moderate rebel',until come to this one and start brutal slaughter here.

British like want cakes and to eat cakes.

You collect what you sow and now is a harvest time so stop crying for you plant wrong seeds.
Make beds lie in it etcetera.

In reply to Big Ger:

Most must add funny alsos is to blame'Left' for current situation crazy.
Was'Left'who build islamist brutal armies to fight left Soviets in the Afghanistan and they disperse once conflict over?

Entirety of situations current islamisic fundamentls is create by right side politic not left so do not let thes fool you if you on'Left'please.

In reply to gilliesp:


He wrote fiction?

Anyway, there was a time in the past when you had to opt out of giving 10% of your income to the church. But that era is long gone, the absence of religion in 99% of schools etc.. decent education, perhaps equal rights to women too ... seems have given the population a high proportion of atheism.

Historically there used to be many extreme branches of Christianity in Sweden, but the state church didn't tolerate them and many left for the USA 100-200 years ago.

In reply to summo:
I thought Sweden still has church tax? Finland definitely does, if you are declared as being of certain faith at birth (Lutheran for the vast majority, but other officially recognised denominations and faiths are also allowed), the government will collect another additional quarter of a percent or something with your income tax and give it to the church. You can officially resign from your faith and stop paying the tax, and kids who are not christened or otherwise noted as joining their faith don't pay when they start earning. You used to have to go in person to your diocese offices and people said it was a hassle, but now you can do it online and the numbers resigning have gone up.

Wikipedia seems to suggest Sweden does still have it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax#Sweden

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Depends what part of the country (UK) you're talking about and what socio-economic sub group. In my experience, the percentage of women who I've encountered who have grown up in Pakistan or Afghanistan or somewhere like that might be 10% at a very rough estimate. That overall sample of people would be skewed as those I have encountered are likely to have included more people from such a background as they are some of the ones who might seek help of a certain kind, though to be fair, the more Western-educated and integrated 'Asian women' as they might describe themselves might also be over-represented for other reasons, so its hard to tell. Regardless of the percentage though, those women represent one end - an extreme end if you like - of one particular spectrum.

In reply to Andy Morley:

10%. And the other 50-70% are living how we did 50-200 years ago?

In reply to TobyA:
http://www.begravningar.se/english
Only the burial tax, which as you say is minimal and covers the absolute basics of a funeral.

I was referring to the 10%ers, which yes is literally a dying tradition that only the happy clapper groups pay.

Edit. I think the tie between church and state was stopped in 2000. The burial tax is shared between all religions proportionally.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Are you being deliberately obtuse?

In reply to summo:

I was referring to a biography not fiction. He was born into the state religion from which one had to opt out of. And yes things have somewhat changed to the draw of religion in Sweden these days.

In reply to Andy Morley:


I'm just querying what you wrote. Why would you think I'm being obtuse?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


I'll take that as a 'yes'.

In reply to Thrudge:


Are there any Islamic ideas you'd consider valuable despite your apparent distaste for the religion?
jk

In reply to Thrudge:


The behaviors you describe have nothing to do with being on the left or having a faith, they are (among other things) to do with affirming identity and displaying solidarity with a group whether that group be bound by their shared political ideas, religion or their football team.
jk

In reply to Andy Morley:


Take it as a 'no' and answer my question.

In reply to jkarran:
Hospitality.

Are there any Islamic values you'd take issue with?

In reply to Thrudge:

Hospitality is good.


Values. Trickier to answer than had you said teachings, writings or traditional practice in which case the answer would be an unequivocal yes. As it would be were you to substitute Christian for Islamic*. As I understand things people have values, religions and religious teachings inform those values, different people with different teachers living in different cultural contexts can develop very different values despite nominally sharing a faith so I'm not willing to condemn all for the very disagreeable values of some.

*Indeed any faith since I take issue with the idea of faith itself, its demand for belief in spite of evidence.
jk

In reply to Thrudge:


The principle of 'submission' which is what the word 'Islam' itself means.

In reply to summo:

Member are states are allowed to introduce checks as long as they are a temporary, proportional response to a live issue. It does rather - or should at least - make the member states focus on solving the issue rather than papering over it. There was a fear that Sweden's and Denmark's restrictions undermined Schengen and its purpose. I've been checked between Italy and France - an episode that clearly stands out because I'd accidentally brought my husband's passport instead of mine.

In reply to Andy Morley:
So your ok with:

Psalms 40:8
I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart.

Job 22:21-30
Submit to God and be at peace with him; in this way prosperity will come to you...

Matthew 6:10
Thy will be done...

Ephesians 5:21
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ

Ephesians 6:6
not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.

1 Peter 2:13-3:7
- Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution...
- Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable...
- In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any...

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


If the eu got a grip of the refugee problem, then Sweden wouldn't have needed to reintroduce full border control again. Brussels obviously didn't see it that way.

Now it's fairly route for 5 or 6 customs officers, as many police and couple of dogs to board every train at the first stop here. Strictly customs checks of course, they identify the owners of any bags and any other 'random' people they decide.

I'd rather full border checks, as open borders are loved by eastern bloc theives who are having a field day again as there are limited checks on exit.

In reply to summo:

The refugee problem isn't just the EU's problem to solve - more attention has to be paid on why people are leaving their countries in the first place, and finding solutions to those problems. All things considered - most people would prefer to stay near their roots, culture and family. We need leaders who can take a radical and completely new approach to the problem. Some with actual historical, linguistic, religious, and cultural understanding to the areas where there is a problem would help.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

Yes it is. If over million asylum seekers travel across the whole of Europe before claiming asylum, or The eu bribe to Turkey. Yes there are problems to fix in beyond Europe, but that's a different argument. The eu needs to kick out the nations which refuse to help asylum seekers, hungary, Poland, Austria, etc..


Is some cases yes, in others no.


That's pretty words, but it doesn't fit with reality in many towns in northern europe which have seen huge hikes in their population in a very short space of time.

In reply to summo:

What do we do then? Let people die? Let them suffer? There has been success with programmes where communities adopt refugees to help them integrate (my own family has done this informally in the past).

Having many Jewish and Armenian friends, I reflect not infrequently these days on refugees, genocides - knowing the personal stories of my friends and family allows me to be empathetic to the pain and fear of those experiencing violence, war, starvation, losing everything but one's life, and ultimately, even that. I often think of those people travelling on the St Louis - 28% of them subsequently lost their lives in the Holocaust.

Out of curiosity, what small things do you do on a daily basis to make the world a kinder, more humane place for us all to live in?

I don't understand why people who don't have faith care so much about or have issues with faith.

Nobody tries to make me join a religion. I have no interest in joining a religion. Beyond cultural/historical interest and making conversation, why should I care about faith?

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


I pay a small fortune in tax in sweden, which goes directly to the local council which then feeds, clothes and houses literally thousands of refugees. 50% of the kids in our 8yr olds class came from overseas in the last 3 years. I sell nothing used online, I give it all to the local red cross shop etc etc..

In reply to summo:


Because more conflict and instability will definitely help.


Shit happens. Respond to it, invest in the stressed public services, manage the change rather than pretending it can be prevented or ignored.
jk

In reply to elsewhere:


People who don't 'have faith' are either indifferent to the religious beliefs of others, or they can take an interest. One can very well be indifferent, but I would suggest it behoves even the most indifferent person to at least be slightly conversant in the beliefs of ~ 84% of the world's humans. To the extent that those beliefs inform their actions, they are relevant to the rest of us.

Further, given the near-ubiquity of religious belief globally, most of us are affected in some way(s), large or small, by the beliefs of others. Whether it's in the UK where I can't send my children to a good local school unless I'm willing to pretend to be a Christian for long enough to get them a place; where my children could be at some small risk of being blown up at a concert, of being mowed down by a truck, in a religiously motivated attack; where antisemitism is at record levels; where a Glaswegian shop keeper can be murdered for being the wrong kind of Muslim.... or abroad, where you don't have to look very far to see the problems religious beliefs can cause, it's not difficult to see why people might care about faith.

You might think 'that's nothing to do with me, and the effects on me are so vanishingly small that I honestly don't really care - it doesn't affect me,' and that's OK, but for many, a sense of fraternity with and concern for the homosexuals persecuted in Uganda, Palestine, Saudi Arabia (I could go on, and on, and on) as a result of daft religious belief and how it informs culture, the women oppressed in the middle east likewise, the little girl taken to be 'cut' in her summer holidays etc etc etc could motivate one to care.

From not getting your kids into a school you want, to being thrown off buildings because of who and how you love, there is a massive spectrum of seriousness to the effects of religious belief on those who may or may not share those beliefs. I think it behoves one to care.


See above

In reply to ChrisBrooke:
Far better and more concrete reasons than "submission" or a general concern about the faith of those who don't interfere with our lives.

In reply to elsewhere:

My concern about people's beliefs is proportional to the (negative) effect they can have on the world. If you want to practice a quiet faith where you care for others, volunteer at a hospice, take food to the homeless, avoid lying, avoid theft, act with kindness and good humour to those you meet etc on account of your beliefs, I'm all for it. My parents would be examples of that. I suppose even if you want to stand on the high street and rant your crazy proselytising at strangers, I don't really object (I think you have the right and I believe in free speech and the 'marketplace of ideas'), although I think your time could be better spent.

Likewise, if someone believes in a flat earth, that's fine.....unless they're put in charge of the RGS or something. We should all be free, but I do think that beliefs inform our actions. I want my internal model of reality to match objective reality as closely as possible, and I think harm can come from discrepancies between the two. Potential harm to myself and to others. So, as a basic principle I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. I also would like everyone else to share the same principle, but I respect everyone's right to believe what they want. And of course, the argument over the nature of objective reality is where the fun is to be had

In reply to summo:

I'm more curious about what you do in interactions with other humans. It's easy to give stuff that we already have a lot of, donate money, pay taxes - much harder make an emotional investment. By and large, in an amongst the analysis, humour, horseplay, debating etc. on UKC - there is a deficit of empathy, compassion and kindness when it comes to discussing the great humanitarian issues of our day - there are a number of regular posters who are frequent and notable exceptions.

It would be foolish to assume that people's online personas reflect directly their real life ones - and I certainly hope in most cases this is true, for the better.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


Oh dear... you have swallowed a very fluffy dictionary!

Most Swedes(and other nationalities) are too busy working, paying tax and spending time with their own families to go out looking for refugees to hug and engage with.

On a quick trip today to the local hardware store , supermarket, thrn kids school I've conversed with an Afghan, two Syrians and a Hungarian plus other natives.. but these are the motivated intergrated migrants who've learnt the lingo, studied, got a job etc.. Unlike many parts of the UK it's pretty impossible to go about daily life here and not engage with say ten different nationalities. I dropped the eldest at football training just now, there are probably several nationalities there, not sure though, as it's just part of life and not something people analyse.

Your welcome to come over and invest emotionally in the many others who are unwilling to intergrate, good luck.

In reply to jkarran:

Because eu tells countries they have to take x number, then countries ignore them, what's the point in the eu also giving Poland, hungary etc massive development grants. There are taking the pi $$. It breeds anti eu and migrant resentment.


Manage the change!!! So bad it's funny. The number of migrants arriving in Sweden in the past 2 to 3 years would be the equiv. of many millions reaching the UK. How well do you think the UK would cope in managing and funding the change? You can't build houses, schools, doctors etc in just a few months.

In reply to summo:

So you're still contending kicking EU members out for not taking refugees would make a better world? Explain how, extra credit if you can square the idea of your vote for sovereignty with what you're proposing.

As for the rest of it, yes the scale of the challenge in accomodating and integrating refugees is huge for Sweden but imagine Jordan or Lebanon's difficulty. They're there, there's precious little you can do but make the best of it. Anyway, my dig was mainly aimed at the tossers running the UK rather than Sweden.
Jk

In reply to jkarran:


What do suggest? Another strongly worded letter from Brussels?

Many eastern bloc nations are benefiting from grants, cheap loans, mobile work force... what exactly are they giving back to the eu. It's all take and no give.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


Rather than a deficit of empathy I imagine that it actually represent a deficit in the sort of hypocrisy notable amongst those more commonly found on the wider public stage.
The "family values" politician who's a serial adulterer. The" eco warrior" pop star with a liking for private jets and super yachts. The famous actor and advocate for refugees, urging people to take in an asylum seeker while keeping the doors of his own multiple homes firmly shut.

In my experience, most of the genuinely compassionate don't tend to crow about it.

In reply to summo:


Basically, yes. Why is the EU's limited power a threat to Britain but something that should be used more assertively on behalf of Sweden?


Rapidly growing markets, politically and economically stable buffers, reduced Russian influence in Europe.
Jk

In reply to jkarran:


I think Brexiteers say pretty much the same thing about leaving the EU. It doesn't mean 'managing' the negative without trying to prevent it is a good thing.

In reply to elsewhere:


Because beliefs have consequences.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

Two points here:

1) If people are leaving their countries because of problems, the solution to those problems needs to come from the countries in question. It does not automatically follow that problems in country X should be solved by the west.



2) Given the mass immigration into the EU, the evidence is that millions wouldn't, and that their families often join them once they successfully immigrate.


That would indeed be a big help, particularly if those leaders were indigenous to the problematic countries.

In reply to Ridge:

I'm all for preventing refugee flows and I'd like all nations to take their responsibilities as seriously as Sweden. Doesn't make it possible or mean they will so instead we work with the reality we have.
Jk

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

Certainly not. We have a moral responsibility to assist refugees, not to mention a legal one under the Geneva Convention. We have no such responsibilities to those who are not refugees.


To the best of my knowledge, no country is currently perpetrating a holocaust, although there are plenty of oppressive regimes. I think it's over-egging the pudding to make that comparison.

I also think it's important not to conflate genuine refugees with economic migrants.

In reply to jkarran:


Fair point.

In reply to Thrudge:


If you are talking about Syria - we've been waiting 6 years for the Syrian government to solve the problem - free and fair elections would have been a start along with the current monarch (for want of better word) stepping down. But they've shown they would prefer to bomb millions of Syrians out of the country than try anything else.

In reply to TobyA:

Think we have to factor Putin into the proceedings there.

In reply to Thrudge:

Myanmar

In reply to TobyA:


After our decades of experience in Iraq and Afghanistan it's about time we spread our wonderful ability to nation build a little wider.

In reply to Stichtplate:


There was a classic comment on r2 yesterday during a NI discussion "so many problems in the world have been started by an Englishman drawing lines on map".

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

[...long list of biblical references half of which common to all three Abrahamic religions and all in a similar vein...]

No I'm not OK with any of them. Point is though, Islam, as the latest of the three took that particular aspect of their joint heritage and really made it its own. So where the main theme of Judaism is the book and the law and the main theme of Christianity is love (in theory at least), the main theme of Islam is 'submission'. It's what's written on the tin after all.

In reply to jkarran:

Sorry, I don't understand. Could you expand on that, please?

In reply to Andy Morley:


Like the crusades kind of love? The love that lasted for nearly 200 years, that kind of love.

I don't see any love there, rather submission, which is pretty much the same as what you're accusing Islam of.

Or the Spanish Inquisition kind of love, nobody expected that.

In reply to Thrudge:

Sure, sorry, I'd assumed it would be clear enough.


Myanmar is currently exterminating its Muslim population.
jk

In reply to krikoman:



The crusades were wars between two expansionist religions - not an unprovoked attack by awful Christians on quiet peaceful Muslims.

The fact that 'Islam' means 'submission' is a fact, not an accusation - there is a difference.

The Spanish Inquisition was indeed evil, but it does nothing to excuse similar evils (such as slavery and religious persecution) on the part of the Islamic world during the same period in history.

More relevantly, contemporary expressions of extremist Islam such as terrorism and the demand for subservient 'respect' are not matched in the west by Christian terrorism or demands. And the wrongs of the crusades are not a valid excuse for current Islamic extremism, despite Osama bin Laden's contention that they are.

In reply to jkarran:
That one had escaped me, thanks for pointing it out.

In reply to krikoman:


Tell it to the Pope.

In reply to Thrudge:


Merely trying to point out that to equate "Christianity" with love is bullshit, people might like to think this is true but there are plenty of example of Christianity being anything but love. Worse still to try and equate this with being better than the others because of this, is a fallacy.

Killing people out of love, or for the sake of love, is still killing people.

In reply to krikoman:


Oh FFS - all religion is bullshit - anyone with half a brain should know that.

In reply to Big Ger:
Probably by 2050 you’ll see a similar shift from Islam to atheism that you’ve already seen from Christianity imo, and with any luck a similar shift towards multicultural societies values....

In reply to CurlyStevo:

2050?...

In other news, the Israel/Palestine conflict will be resolved early next year and Brexit will be done and dusted by Tuesday.

Nothing wrong with being a born optimist.

In reply to Luke90:

Really???? So its ok for a desperate person to stipulate where they settle???

I cant afford to live in London so guess what, I dont!!! So what gives an immigrant the right to ‘in a desperate state’ refuse help???? Surely anywhere but their place of persecution should be fine.

In reply to summo: the line drawing on maps was generally all european nations, french, german, dutch etc

In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Thats right the bible is full of this tosh, however most “christian” nations are well educated enough to not follow a made up book to the word, the indoctination of “christians” is minimal to zero in europe anyway!

In reply to Andy Morley:


And yet you still seem to have a favourite.

In reply to payney1973:


Test this statement out in the US and see how it goes, or even Italy or Greece for that matter.

I think in some countries you only have to scratch the surface to see just how deep that indoctrination goes.

In reply to payney1973:


I think it's important that people who've lost control of their lives be helped as best we can to regain as much control as possible as quickly as possible, also that existing bonds of family and friendship are not needlessly disrupted. Some or none of that may be the case in each individual story of refugees with 'demands' but what is common to all those stories is their propaganda value.
jk

In reply to krikoman:


Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about.

In reply to krikoman:


You can add in bits of Spain, Poland, Ireland, NI.....

In reply to Andy Morley:


Well that's me convinced then, well done.

In reply to summo:


Exactly!

In reply to krikoman:


You were convinced before you ever engaged in this debate.

In reply to jkarran:



I don't think even the most committed Muslimist is claiming extermination, the point is they've moved to Bangladesh, not that they've been exterminated.

Proves the point that no situation is so bad that it can't be distorted.

In reply to winhill:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42234469

Why have they 'moved' Winhill and how many didn't make it to Bangladesh?
jk

In reply to winhill:


To the committed virtue-signaller (which probably includes the person you're arguing with) such questions of fact are irrelevant to the point they are trying to get across.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Fact or fiction: Myanmar's military been systematically attacking villages, men, women and children of the Rohinga, a Muslim minority group resident but stateless within Myanmar. Some, likely now most have fled mainly to Bangladesh, many have died. Until today the UN has referred to this somewhat euphemistically (though clearly) as 'ethnic cleansing'. Today the word genocide is being used.

Now unless you want to go out on a limb and call fiction you can call that whatever you want, I'm sure you can imagine how interested I really am in your opinion but me, if I had to describe what I see, hear and read going on in Myanmar I'd say genocide probably fits the bill. Same I'd say if asked what happened to Syria and Iraq's religious minorities a few years back at the hands of Daesh and others.

As to winhill, for someone taking issue with the accuracy of my statement he's been rather careless, subtly but quite significantly changing what I said before attacking his version of it.

If not being cool with genocide, whoever it is inflicted upon makes me a 'virtue signaller' then so be it, if you have a problem with that then frankly you can go fu*k yourself.
jk

In reply to winhill:




In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

From article II of the UN Genocide Convention.

Pretty clear cut with regard to the genocide being committed in Burma surely ?

In reply to jkarran:


Seriously, you read that and came up with 'exterminated'?

In reply to jkarran:


Utter rubbish you miserable liar I quoted your entire post.

In reply to krikoman:

As I said in Europe, I know they do
In the states hences not mentioning it, however Greece and Italy even though conservative christianity is practiced i dont see it as agressive indoctrination to the same level as madrasses its just
Ingrained in their culture.

In reply to jkarran:
I agree but in times of crisis just being away from the danger should be enough, then once the person or family is resident they should have the freedom to try to establish themselves anywhere, stockholm, London, Paris etc.
However when someone is refusing a safe house outside their place of choosing I believe this is potentially straying into the possibilty that they are economic migrants NOT fleeing persecution?

In reply to winhill:


Yes, you then changed tenses and created a straw man. Now you’re calling people names.

Well done for keeping your standards up to their usual level.

In reply to jkarran:


So apart from signaling your own virtue by highlighting this particular issue, what has this got to do with the question under discussion, other than having Muslims involved in it?

In reply to winhill:

No, I listened to and read more than a year of reports of ethnic cleansing with escalating death tolls. That link was simply top of google today for 'Rohinga UN'.

Don't like exterminating? You pick a word to describe what the military is doing to Rohinga. Murdering perhaps or maybe your more a fan of weasel words when women and children are burned in their homes like collateral damage?


You did and yet your response is to me implies I'd claimed the Rohinga have been 'exterminated', past tense. Exterminating is an ongoing process of targeted killing, do you deny that is happening? Exterminated implies a total and complete process of eradication. Do you believe that has happened because I don't. It's your embellishment which you then argue against.
jk

In reply to Andy Morley:


I was providing Thrudge with some information in light of his obviously uncertain statement you prick!


It's entirely coincidental that the genocide in the news this week is *of* muslims you wally.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


Of course you were, of course

But isn't calling me a prick a trifle superfluous given that you've already established your own sanctity as being up their with Saint Bob Geldorf by mentioning 'Rohinga' lots and lots, relevant or not? Whereas I, unholy as I am, had not thought to find some way to introduce them into the conversation by whatever means, only having mentioned them here in a very ideologically unsound way. I would have thought that it would be so obvious to one so clearly in touch with the zeitgeist as you, that you are a holy one and I am one of the untermenschen! So why did you even need to spell it out in so vulgar a fashion? Ah... but then I suppose the other untermenschen might not realise that and might need to have their attention drawn in more crude a way than would be needed for you, the enlightened one. Truly, is there no end to your greatness?

In reply to Andy Morley:


No it was your thoughtful and reasoned debate that convinced me, thanks.

I now know, assuming I've got this right, all religion is bad, Jews like laws and words, Christians are all about love, and Islam is bad and all about submission.

How'm I doing?

There does seem to be a bit of an overlap in the submission stakes though, especially when you consider Christian nuns and monks who submit their lives to God.

Maybe I got that bit wrong.

In reply to winhill:


What would you call it then, massacre, murder or skirmish.

Considering whole villages have been destroyed, all the men and women killed, babies thrown on fires, etc. I don't think exterminated is too powerful a word to use.

Or can you only say that if there's no one left?

Isn't nitpicking on which words are used, detracting from the suffering being inflicted?

In reply to krikoman:


In your terms, you're up there with the blessed Saint Bob, peace be on him. In my terms, you're talking crap. 'Twas ever thus on the internet:


I would say so, mainly because you have so very large an axe to grind that it distracts your attention from the even larger sword that hangs above all our heads. You are so very busy are parading the Rohinga as a foil for your virtue, like a dog lifting its leg against the corpse of a refugee child that you have missed the real relevance of their case to these questions...

If you were really to put your money where your mouth is (and it would take a lot of money), taking your point above, about the place of other religions and applying it to your example of the Rohinga (for real this time) the 'bad guys' in that example are in fact Buddhists. Of course that's an 'inappropriate' and probably 'offensive' thing to say to those trendy Westerners who like to romanticise Eastern religions (of which Christianity is one, dare I say, just as much as Islam and Judaism). But Buddhism, beloved as it is of said romantics, could not possibly be to blame could it? So here's a challenge for you - to put the blame elsewhere for that one, which will be easy and require no logic at all if we leave it there, simply requiring an appeal to the emotions of all true bunny-hugging London Buddhists. That lets you off too lightly, so let me increase the level of challenge by mentioning the WW2 Japanese Kamakaze pilots who used Zen Buddhist meditation practices to prepare themselves for their imminent deaths. I'll leave you to fudge and bluster over that one, but it does make the point that religion and mass delusion in general are the root cause of these issues, which in no way detracts from the impact of the individual foibles of each variant, which makes their own particular brand of violence special.

I don't disagree with your point about Christian nuns and monks by the way, except in as far as it's kind of stating the obvious since, if you go back to Plato who wrote the blueprint for all religions including Christianity and Islam, imposing submission is a key part of that. But each religion has its theme and Islam has taken 'submission', which is common to nearly all religions, and really made it its own, so much so that it has named itself after that value or principle or whatever you want to call it. Which actually, brings us back to what was originally one of the major questions raised early on in this debate.

In reply to Andy Morley:

I think it's time for a nice cup of tea and a sit down somewhere quiet Andy. That ^ is a car crash.

Before you do though, I'd like to know so I can understand the rules, is it only virtue signalling to discuss genocide perpetrated against Muslims or is it still virtue signaling to discuss genocide perpetrated by them?

I presume though I may be wrong (you're getting really hard to follow) that 'white-genocide' or cultural takeover at the very least is what you're alluding to with your metaphorical big sword? Isn't that virtue signalling if we're to apply your 'rules', you're just signalling different virtues.

FWIW I thing the concept and accusations of virtue signalling is mostly a load of old bollocks and that you're making a fool of yourself.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


Lol - have you ever read Freud?

In reply to Andy Morley:

You're doing that thing you do where you can't answer an honest question so you try and change the subject.

In reply to Andy Morley:

No I haven't read Freud.

Is it only virtue signalling to discuss genocide perpetrated against Muslims or is it still virtue signaling to discuss genocide perpetrated by them?
jk

In reply to jkarran:




Yes. It’s just another variety of ad hominem. And a tacit admission by the poster that they don’t have any actual argument.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Possibly because there are no answers to questions like these. In fact the problem comes from the people who think they know the answers - if only people could admit that the certainties that religion upholds are illusory, there would be less bloodshed in this world.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Some questions don't have answers Andy but most do, many have very simple answers. There's a binary answer to this question which couldn't be simpler so I'll ask it again:

Is it only virtue signalling to discuss genocide perpetrated against Muslims or is it still virtue signaling to discuss genocide perpetrated by them?

You're right by the way, calling you a prick was totally superfluous, there's clearly no need.
jk

In reply to Andy Morley:


There's definitely an answer to jkarran's question, but I think you've realised you can't answer it without looking like a berk.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


The only questions he asked were rhetorical ones. If he wants those itches scratched I'm sure he's more than capable of doing it himself.

In reply to Andy Morley:

There's nothing rhetorical about "Is it only virtue signalling to discuss genocide perpetrated against Muslims or is it still virtue signaling to discuss genocide perpetrated by them?" It's the obvious question to ask after you labeled his concern on the Myanmar Muslims virtue-signalling. Go on: answer it.

In reply to Andy Morley:
We I have to say, you've totally lost me there.

About the only thing I can ask you in relations to you post is, what axe have I got to grind?

As far as I was aware I was merely pointing out the similarities of many religions in terms of submission. It not exactly an uncommon theme in plenty of religions or their variations.

In fact you don't even have to be a religion, there's plenty of sects that demand submission, it's their modus operandi in most cases.

You seem to think I'm a spokesman for Buddhists I don't really understand why I should be defending any religion, unless you're reading a different thread.

>"I don't disagree with your point about Christian nuns and monks by the way, except in as far as it's kind of stating the obvious since, if you go back to Plato who wrote the blueprint for all religions including Christianity and Islam, imposing submission is a key part of that. But each religion has its theme and Islam has taken 'submission', which is common to nearly all religions, and really made it its own, so much so that it has named itself after that value or principle or whatever you want to call it. Which actually, brings us back to what was originally one of the major questions raised early on in this debate.

Surely this is a circular argument which, eventually, states what I've been saying all along - all religions (just about) require submission as part of their tenet.

Or is your objection, that it's just too obvious?
If it's that obvious then why try and argue with it?

This is a very strange thread.

It would be nice to know which axe I'm grinding though

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


It's a false dichotomy. He claims it's a binary question whereas in fact it's not. Virtue-signaling, like stupidity and a great many other things can be found in many, many different contexts.

In reply to krikoman:


It really wasn't at all difficult to do!

In reply to Andy Morley:

have you got anything to contribute other than ad hominems?

its not looking like it.

and your failure to answer the question is noted, will be interesting to see if jkarran will paxman you and ask it another 16 times.

In reply to Andy Morley:


Ok. In the specific context of this thread would it have been virtue signalling had I pointed out a genocide currently being perpetrated by Muslims, not on them?
Jk

In reply to jkarran:


It would depend on how you went about it, but since the term seems to confuse you, 'virtue signalling' was traditionally known as 'posturing'. It's possible to have a sensible, relevant question about genocide and it's equally possible to have one that's driven by posturing. The test would be how far genocide relates to the topic under discussion - Islamic immigration to Sweden in this case.

You can tell when a debate has degenerated into posturing - it's when one of the participants seeks to make that debate overtly or covertly about themselves rather than about topics of more general interest. 'Covertly' is when they pursue a particular agenda, not because it relates to the topic but because they think it says something about themselves or their image. 'Overtly' is when they ask persistent, irrelevant questions relating to themselves rather than the subject at hand - that's the moment where it becomes clear what their agenda actually is.

In reply to Andy Morley:

And by that response you've shown that you've not even scrolled up to see what resulted in the post you're criticising, you divvy.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


If that's the case it's probably because the last third of this thread is about as relevant or interesting as much of the glossy paper that comes through my letterbox these days. Do you actually have anything to say about the issues that were originally under discussion, or are you only interested in jkarran and how misunderstood he is?

In reply to Andy Morley:

Yes, you've totally derailed a formerly interesting thread. Well done.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


OK, so given that you found it interesting, if you could bear to put the finger-pointing (much the same as virtue-signalling) to one side just for one moment, what would you say was the summary position of said thread before it got diverted into a discussion of the virtue (or otherwise) of jkarran. Where were we at wrt Swedish Muslim immigration?

In reply to Andy Morley:


Given your extensive posting over the last third of this thread, you appear to be telling us you find junk mail remarkably stimulating.

Which is very revealing, and explains a lot...

In reply to Andy Morley:


That they would rather take an extra million Muslims than be involved in an online discussion with you. We're all sympathetic to their position.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Profound indeed.

In reply to Andy Morley:

What's my agenda Andy?

You've accused me of inappropriately shoehorning a story of genocide against Muslims into the thread. If you weren't such a hothead and you'd actually read the thread you'd have probably realised it wasn't shoehorned in and it wasn't about the fact they're Muslim, it was about the fact they're being deliberately killed for their identity by a state's military. It flowed from conversation. I have no control over which racial or religious minority is being slaughtered at any one time, it happens that the story currently in the news is of the Rohinga's plight. I didn't choose that, that is a coincidence, in six months time it'll be another group's nightmare making news and if appropriate at that time I might mention them in a conversation. You accuse me of liberally spraying about the word Rohinga but at the point you made that accusation I'd used the word 4 times, the very first instance being in my response to you being an arse, the remaining three instances in a single post to winhill, in response to him being an arse. You have made this thread all about you and your posturing and your railing against your misunderstood version of my motivations.

You still haven't answered my question. I'm asking about your opinion in the specific context of this thread, it does have a yes or no answer. I hand on heart promise I'll drop it if I get my answer, I'm just genuinely interested to understand what was going on in your head when you got stuck into me the virtue signalling nonsense.
jk

In reply to Andy Morley:


And yet you've still managed to avoid any of the questions I asked you.

Writing bullshit remarks is little more than trolling, if you ever had a point, you've lost the argument.

In reply to jkarran:



Right now, your agenda appears to be having conversations about you rather than about the OP or points related to it. I'd be interested to hear what light, if any, the above debate throws on the situation in Europe vis-à-vis immigration from Muslim counties in your evaluation.

In reply to krikoman:


If you want to tell me what your question(s) is/are, I will consider them. But I have to say (as I already did a while back) that I find it bizarre that in debating issues as difficult and complex as this, you should a) think that there are concrete answers to be had and b) that you should consider one individual here holds the key to them. I mean, I'm touched and honoured and all that, that you should look to me to provide you with answers on these great and weightly matters, but I mean, really..?

In reply to Andy Morley:

You can read my thoughts on that, they're in the thread before we derailed it. Any specific questions, ask away, if I have an answer or a view I'll share it with you.

Answer my question. In the specific context of this thread would it still be virtue signalling had I highlighted a genocide perpetrated by Muslims, not on them? This should be simple, it's something you apparently had quite strong feelings about a few days ago, in the context of this thread.
Jk

In reply to jkarran:


That would depend on how it arose within this thread and how it might fit in with everything else - as you seem to realise, context is what makes a point relevant or not. But the underlying phenomenon going on here is posturing in general which is the thing that actually derails conversations on this topic and usually makes meaningful discussion impossible. Posturing can be introducing certain topics and parading views on those topics just for the purpose of earning 'brownie points', which is a more old-fashioned way of describing 'virtue-signalling'. Posturing can also be continuously asking strings of meaningless rhetorical questions and then demanding answers to them as you are doing here. All of these things are different ways in which meaningful debate is avoided, whether intentionally or not. And that is pretty much universal when it comes to this subject

In reply to Andy Morley:

Jesus wept! Yes or No.

If in the posts you took issue with instead of "Myanmar" I'd said "Islamic State" then if by way of further explanation when asked instead of "Myanmar is exterminating its Muslim miniority" I'd said "Islamic State are exterminating Syrian and Iraqi Christians". Would that have been virtue signaling?

The context is already crystal clear, this thread, the posts you took issue with and those which preceded and lead to them, it's all there in black and white. You made the accusation, I'm just trying to understand on what basis because according to your posts it appears to have something to do with Muslims rather than genocide but I can't figure out your logic and you won't explain it.

Yes, I am posturing now by repeatedly asking you the same question and I'm rather enjoying it but I also want my answer, it really is a very simple question. "I misunderstood and said something which is in hindsight silly, I retract the accusation" would be a viable third option since I presume you'd like this to end. I'm still several questions short of a full Paxman so I'm not fussed either way
jk

In reply to jkarran:


Dude, yours is a hypothetical question about your own behaviour. 'Would it still be...' is how you began.... 'had I...' is how you continued. You need to answer that one not be because a) you ought to know best and b) you are not sufficiently interesting a person for me to want to try to get inside what passes for your head!

In reply to Andy Morley:

In your opinion would it be virtue signalling, all other things in this thread being equal, language choice included had I highlighted a genocide by Muslims instead of of Muslims? That's all the context you could possibly need so enough with that waffle.

In my opinion the answer is 'no', it wasn't to begin with nor would it be if I had a different example of ongoing genocide to offer. Now I'm interested in your opinion, you've been more than willing to offer it unbidden previously.
jk

In reply to Andy Morley:


and yet, here you are, 4 days after telling us that you found your junk mail more interesting than this thread, still sufficiently interested to stick around posting on it, yet failing to answer a straightforward question.

we'll all draw our own conclusions as to what that tells us....

In reply to Andy Morley:

Go on then I'll give it a go,
You: and the main theme of Christianity is love (in theory at least)...

Like the crusades kind of love? The love that lasted for nearly 200 years, that kind of love.

"I would say so, mainly because you have so very large an axe to grind that it distracts your attention from the even larger sword that hangs above all our heads.

What axe have I got to grind?

As for your charge of my posts being all about me, I'm puzzled, as I can't see any that relate to me, except for my opinion, which is the whole point of the threads in the first place, isn't it? (sorry there's another question for you to ignore )

In reply to krikoman:



So there is a difference between theory and practice. Do you know of any political ideology or any religions where there isn't any gap between theory and practice? Assuming you can't come up with an example, what is your point?

As to what axe you have to grind, that's not my problem, except insofar as it might distract you from the more relevant line of discussion that you've just embarked on, so let's give the above a try.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Virtually all the questions I've seen here are rhetorical, hypothetical or otherwise irrelevant to the OP. And yes, there is a particularly high noise-to-signal ratio in almost any conversation about this subject that I've come across apart from the Beeb and other such media. However, the actual topic is one of the real big ones of our time, regardless of which way you look at it.

So are you just noise or do you have any signal? Like for example, do you have a view on the scale or the nature of migration to Europe, particularly Islamic migration to give a nod to the OP? If so, how would you like our politicians to respond to it?

In reply to Andy Morley:

Still no answer for me Andy, you're suddenly devoid of opinions?

Do you have this trouble with other simple yes no questions? Would you like some chips with that sir? Well...er, ar, erm... this is obvious showboating, have you even read Plato's Republic or Jurassic Park, why are you making this all hypothetically about different frameworks in which we're not blah blah blah talking about dinner but about you and chips, none of this is relevant, I came in here to buy lunch and now we're arguing about food, I don't even like food, especially not chips. Ooh look, a squirrel!

Incidentally, the big sword in your post to Krikoman, what's that a metaphore for?
jk

In reply to the thread:

Just stop it. "Virtue Signalling" is a bullshit term deployed to give a veneer of fake objectivity to matters that are really just opinions. It's designed to sound clever and academic, like the accuser has some kind of psychological insight into the accused's motivations, but in reality its just a made-up term used by people who are too lazy to construct an actual argument. Use of this term in an argument means you've already lost.

Now let battle resume.

In reply to Andy Morley:

the specifics of the OP have not been the topic of the thread for days, Andy- threads move on, like conversations do.

and this one is currently about whether your accusations of virtue signalling would have been made had the ethnic groups involved been different. this is still entirely on topic, and its important, because use of ad hominem tactics such as you have used are part of the reason that its hard to have discussion on this sort of issue. calling such tactics out, and trying to highlight the motivations of those that use them, are entirely legitimate subjects for debate.

so, come on, stop being so evasive, and answer the man's question. or we'll be forced to conclude, like the audience did when Michael Howard failed to answer Paxman's questions, that its because the real answer is one you don't want to stand behind in public.

In reply to Andy Johnson:

yes, indeed.... we know this- well, apart from Mr Morley (though i suspect he does too, which is why he's going to such excruciating lengths to avoid dealing with the issue!)

In reply to Andy Morley:


If I can just get this straight, you accused me of having and axe to grind, yet you're STILL refusing to answer my "What axe I have to grind?" question after posting the "If you want to tell me what your question(s) is/are, I will consider them." post above.

To be honest it's like talking to a very poor AI computer, you've certainly failed the Turing test, and I demand my £5.

What's my axe? Not a rhetorical question!!