Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The beginning of the jihad in Europe?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 91 of 301 (258041)
11-09-2005 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Omnivorous
11-08-2005 3:51 PM


Re: Almost all immigrants to West discriminated against
My understanding is that France lacks the antidiscrimination employment laws we have in the U.S.
I could be wrong, but France has to abide by European legislation such as Employment Equality (which includes sex, race, religion, belief, and sexual orientation). I'm not saying that this makes France a non-discrimatory place, but the laws are in place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Omnivorous, posted 11-08-2005 3:51 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Omnivorous, posted 11-09-2005 8:55 AM Modulous has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 92 of 301 (258063)
11-09-2005 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Modulous
11-09-2005 6:52 AM


Re: Almost all immigrants to West discriminated against
Thanks, Modulous: another corner of my dusty attic of ignorance is cleaner now.
It would not surprise me to learn that what is lacking is not a good law, but the good will to enforce it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2005 6:52 AM Modulous has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 93 of 301 (258100)
11-09-2005 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by bobbins
11-08-2005 10:18 PM


Re: No,yes,no,no - read the initial post
You're quite right that the background of these people should have been mentioned. While many are Algerian as you say, and came to France after the frech left Algeria, many others are from different former french colonial states, like Tunisia and Morocco.
But I think it's wrong to blame the state for their economic and socila ills. First, the state has provided very, very generous social programs and subsidized housing. So they have not been neglected. Second, other visible minority groups have done very well economically. So, their inferior status cannot be attributed to pervasive discrimination. As i posted earlier, the state's job is not to provide jobs. It is to run the economy in such a way that people and corporations create jobs. France's socialism deters job creation, but it is also Capitalist enough such that, despite being economically sluggish, nor is the economy moribund. All of which means the individual is responsible for himself, not the state. These kids have the same access to education as other french kids. But theya re not availing themselves of educational possibiliites nearly as much as other immigrant groups. They can start businesses as can others, but do so far less than other immigrant groups. (This is also true of Muslims in other European countries as well.) The explanation for their being disadvantaged is not found in either discrimination or state policies.
So where is it?
Far too many Arabs and other Muslims came in too short a time. This prevented assimilation. There is also that, despite their not being Islamists as you note, and many not even religious, their culture and Islamic civilization preaches strongly against assimilation into non islamic societies. Non assimilated Muslims maintain terrible abuse of women. Unveiled women, even non Muslim women, are subject to gang rape and slashed faces. Women are not allowed by their Muslim society to attend post secondary school, and sometimes not high school either. They are not allowed to work. While this is a blatant factor in why these immigrants are failing, there are other, more subtle, cultural reasons as well. If you check my links in previous posts, perhaps especially to an essay written by the psychiatrist, Dalrymple, you'll read what these are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by bobbins, posted 11-08-2005 10:18 PM bobbins has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 94 of 301 (258102)
11-09-2005 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by bobbins
11-09-2005 4:20 AM


Solutions for the disenfranchised masses
Yes...I know you are right! I get angry when people destroy stuff! It seems unfair that just because some people don't have what others do...they have to wreck everything and cost all of us money! You don't see me blowing up Bill Gates or Donald Trumps houses....and I am plenty angry that all the wealthy C.E.O types have stolen my rightful wages as well! If I were any poorer, I would probably be starting a Jihad against wealthy Capitalists myself! (Unless God stopped me! Which He probably would...at least in my conscience )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by bobbins, posted 11-09-2005 4:20 AM bobbins has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 95 of 301 (258107)
11-09-2005 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Yaro
11-08-2005 7:53 PM


Re: How about MLK,jr?
Ghandi said he was following the principles of Jesus in the gospels, and the fact that some believers disagreed with MLK is a moot point.
But that seems to be something you guys have a very difficult time with. It's hard for you to accept that MLK as a preacher, as a minister of the gospel, who believed part of the gospel message and work was to motivate people in their religion towards religious activism, was religiously motivated by his Christian beliefs because hey, some other people used the Bible to say something else. It shows a very childish and uneducated mind that cannot realize that is a complete moot point, and it is frustrating here to even think college educated people would be that way.
Same thing happens often whenever the subject of freedom of religion comes up, which totally stemmed originally from Christians, and yet because Catholics killed those Christians for that, you guys cannot mentally grasp that not all "Christians" were the same religion basically. It's really weird, in fact.
But the bottom line is MLK, jr was far more politically active and used religion as a basis for seeking to enact legislation than the anyone in the religious right has ever been, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Yaro, posted 11-08-2005 7:53 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 11:10 AM randman has replied
 Message 109 by Jazzns, posted 11-09-2005 2:33 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 96 of 301 (258109)
11-09-2005 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Yaro
11-08-2005 7:44 PM


Re: Why the Islamic world, and not the Christian one
Your form of secularism is clearly anti-religion. You say so yourself. You think all religious belief and sentiment is non-objective, false, etc,...and has no place in influencing a man's mind.
Yep, what you are expressing is nothing more than anti-religious bigotry, and totally unAmerican thoughts alien to the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to seek to have their values reflected in legislation and policy. That's what a democratic republic is all about.
What you seek to do is denigrate a portion of the electorate based on their religion and seek to demonize them and their values in favor of your values.
That's bigotry, plain and simple.
Separation of Church and State, a term not in the Consitution by the way, was not meant to keep religious values out of the government, but to keep the government from legislating religion. That doesn't mean civil law and policy should not be affected and influences by religion, nor by ministers of the gospel such as Martin Luther King.
What it does mean is the government cannot govern in ecclesiastical affairs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Yaro, posted 11-08-2005 7:44 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 11:16 AM randman has replied
 Message 110 by Jazzns, posted 11-09-2005 2:38 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 97 of 301 (258110)
11-09-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by CanadianSteve
11-08-2005 10:02 PM


Re: The Jerusalem Post's take on the french riots
great post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by CanadianSteve, posted 11-08-2005 10:02 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 98 of 301 (258112)
11-09-2005 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by randman
11-09-2005 10:52 AM


Re: How about MLK,jr?
Ghandi said he was following the principles of Jesus in the gospels, and the fact that some believers disagreed with MLK is a moot point.
Ghandi was not inspired by Jesus's teachings. He was inspired by ancient hindu beliefs. He mentioned respect for Jesus later on in life, but his philosophy of non-violence was based on hindu ideas.
Mahatma Gandhi - Wikipedia
The concept of nonviolence (ahimsa) and nonresistance has a long history in Indian religious thought and has had many revivals in Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Christian contexts. Gandhi explains his philosophy and way of life in his autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth.
Gandhi's words on christianity contain some cool quotes
"The only people on earth who do not see Christ and His teachings as nonviolent are Christians".
The rest of your post is unsuported rambling.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-09-2005 11:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 10:52 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 1:03 PM Yaro has not replied
 Message 105 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 1:24 PM Yaro has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 99 of 301 (258113)
11-09-2005 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by randman
11-09-2005 10:58 AM


Re: Why the Islamic world, and not the Christian one
Your form of secularism is clearly anti-religion. You say so yourself. You think all religious belief and sentiment is non-objective, false, etc,...and has no place in influencing a man's mind.
Yes, and am I wrong?
If you want to pass a law simply because your particular holy book says things should be such, and not because its to the benifit of the people, wouldn't you say that was wrong?
Say we had a muslem majority in congress. And they start trying to pass laws forcing women to wear head-cover... say they weasle it into a decencey bill, and get the FCC to crack down on tv shows that show womens hair etc.
Whats wrong with that? After all, the muslems in this sittuation are the majority.
See what I mean? It's non-pluralistic. You want to pass laws based on your personal OPINION of whats right and wrong, not on your objective analasys. The Jimmy Carter thing I told you about is the perfect example.
The rest of your post is a missrepresentation of my possition. If you want to continue this conversation, adress the point above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 10:58 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by CanadianSteve, posted 11-09-2005 12:55 PM Yaro has not replied
 Message 102 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 1:11 PM Yaro has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 100 of 301 (258130)
11-09-2005 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Yaro
11-09-2005 11:16 AM


Re: Why the Islamic world, and not the Christian one
I agree that faith per se cannot be the basis of legislation. However, the judeo-Christian moral ethic is consistent with, and often the the basis of, our legal foundation. This goes not only for fundamental laws, like those against theft and murder (from The Ten Commandments), but also in that everyone, irrespective of power and wealth, is subject to the same laws. That is, the Ten Commandments applies to all, including monarchs - and so do our secular laws.
Similarly, many views attributed to faith are, in fact, consistent with human nature. People as individuals and society itself are emotionally healthier when practising sexual modesty, for example. Thus, laws and regulations enforcing standards serve the psychological health of society and individuals, rather than just serving religious standards.
For these reasons I, a very liberal Jew and a career counsellor, find much in common with evangelical Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 11:16 AM Yaro has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 101 of 301 (258133)
11-09-2005 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Yaro
11-09-2005 11:10 AM


Re: How about MLK,jr?
The fact MLK was a minister, used sermons during religious services as his primary place to preach to motivate people for political activism is mere unsupported ramblings, but let a conservative Christian dare point out his opposition to abortion, and somehow we have a separation of Church and State issue.
Sorry, but the unsupported ramblings stem from you. You seem to fail to recognize that it was the Reverend Martin Luther King, jr., that his political action was all done as part of his ministry of the gospel, as he interpreted the gospel message for that situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 11:10 AM Yaro has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 102 of 301 (258139)
11-09-2005 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Yaro
11-09-2005 11:16 AM


Re: Why the Islamic world, and not the Christian one
The idea you think Jimmy Carter's example is meaningful here is absurd. Every democratic politician says the same thing, that they are personally against abortion but don't feel the government should legislate it.
Coincidentally, Carter is now saying he thinks some restrictions on abortion should be put in place and that the democrats are wrong to exclude pro-lifers.
But you really don't care regardless, I suspect, because your belief centers on hatred and bigotry of religious people.
The simple fact is trying to force religion on people using the law is wrong, but that is not what you are against. You stated you are even against religion or religious values being used to affect legislation and policy, and even religious people being in office.
That's blatant bigotry and discrimination. Moreover, it's probably hypocritical if you are like most liberal democrats. Liberal dems have no problem speaking in minority churches or using their deacons and ministers to help get their people to vote dem, but if a conservative preacher says abortion is wrong and that it is wrong to support pro-abortion politicians, you guys act like treason has been committed.
You are not being honest, and frankly, most of America is beginning to see through the type of bigotry you advocate.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with religious values and religion in general influencing legislation and policy in civil matters. The example you gave would be legislating an ecclesiastical matter and that's a different subject altogether.
The point here is whether religion and religious values and religious people should influence policy and legislation in civil matters.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-09-2005 01:14 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 11:16 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 2:16 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 103 of 301 (258143)
11-09-2005 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by bobbins
11-08-2005 10:18 PM


Re: No,yes,no,no - read the initial post
That's a good point. Let's hope that they are not being won over by the jihadis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by bobbins, posted 11-08-2005 10:18 PM bobbins has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 104 of 301 (258145)
11-09-2005 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Yaro
11-08-2005 4:37 PM


Re: How about MLK,jr?
His political activism was part and parcel of his faith-based agenda.
Btw, you do realize that Ghandi's political activism was faith-based as well, don't you? So arguing, as you did later in another post, that he was influenced by Ghandi's example, still makes it faith-based, but regardless, MLK felt to work for justice in the political arena using non-violence and love was the work of the gospel of Jesus Christ in his ministry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Yaro, posted 11-08-2005 4:37 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 2:13 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 105 of 301 (258146)
11-09-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Yaro
11-09-2005 11:10 AM


Re: How about MLK,jr?
So Ghandi was faith-based too.
Somehow, the fallacy of using him as a secularist escapes you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 11:10 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 2:09 PM randman has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024