babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Is the attached story really true about Europe?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Is the attached story really true about Europe?
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136

posted 17 February 2006 10:27 AM      Profile for libertarian        Edit/Delete Post
http://tinyurl.com/cgrtb

Maybe Canada will need to rethink multiculturalism too.


From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 10:37 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 10:38 AM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
What? A repeat of the expulsion of the Acadians?

Speaking of refusing to assimilate, what about european immigrants who refused to conform to Native Culture and Religion and went on a campaign to EXTERMINATE First Nations people (particulary in the USA)?

If your article is any example, we should all immediately embrace native culture and religion (using the "I was here first" premise).

Canada is different than Europe. Canadian culture is STILL being defined, as we are a country barely (by international standards) 24 years old (as a completely free and independent nation that is, without having to go to Britain to repatriate ANYTHING).

Europe is millenias old.

Only the arrogant WASP community in Canada opposes multiculturalism, as it defeats their monopoly on power.


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 17 February 2006 10:47 AM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When for example we have people come here with legitimate refugee claims escaping primitive theocracies in the Middle East who then begin to lobby to have elements of that very same Sharia law here, people are going to have difficulties.

It is unfortunate that the radical minority within Islam is driving what were previously welcoming nations to these extents, but it is a reality.

Simply blaming problems on the privledged W.A.S.Ps solves nothing.

I wish I knew the answer, but I dont.

Hopefully with more efforts from governments and the moderate Muslim community things will change.

As long as radicals murder artists (Van Gogh, threaten authors (Rushdie,) have mass riots over beauty pagents and cartoonists, there will be something of an image problem for Islam.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 February 2006 10:52 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Very trashy piece of writing. I didn't know Solomon had sunk that low.

Most of the European politicians he quotes there are to the right, some to the far right. The Europeans I know wouldn't agree with most of that tripe, which consists almost entirely of vast overgeneralizations anyway.

It is also true that Canada has dealt with both immigration and multiculturalism in structurally different ways. We are by no means perfect, but we haven't created some of the problems for ourselves that, say, the French and the Germans have.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136

posted 17 February 2006 11:15 AM      Profile for libertarian        Edit/Delete Post
I never read Solomon previously so am not aware of his opinions/leanings.

I do often get pissed off by Europeans who denigrate the US for being so racist and then have a smug, moralistic attitude. It looks like they are worse for being hypocrites(SP?); their true colours are now showing.


From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 February 2006 11:23 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ALL Europeans, libertarian?

You read that one badly sourced, biased article, and you conclude that you know about ALL Europeans?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 17 February 2006 11:26 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What a ridiculous generalisation about "Europeans".

The article is trash; moreover it runs counter to any serious study of migration. Already, the children of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries are far more French, German, whatever than Algerian or Turkish. They need only visit relatives in the country of their ancestors to realise that.

Everything Solomon said about the expuslion of the Moriscos also applies to the Jews. Is he Jewish? (Just wondering because of his last name, which might be Jewish). If so, he is decidedly lacking in self-awareness.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136

posted 17 February 2006 12:03 PM      Profile for libertarian        Edit/Delete Post
OK so I generalized. However I travel a great deal and do find these attitudes to be very prevelant. I also used to get smirks from British people about Canada. It is still seen as a colony.
From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 12:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But why do you generalize? What is the point of that? Is there no purpose to detailed analysis of differing trends and opinion, and being clear on whom is saying what? It seems to me such is essential if one wants to be able to devine what is going on in societies as complex as those which make up Europe.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136

posted 17 February 2006 12:41 PM      Profile for libertarian        Edit/Delete Post
Cue: I do not generalize as much as posters here claim. I did not say that ALL Europeans denigrate the US.

I have seen a great deal of generalizations on Babble about Neocons etc. So is the pot calling the kettle black?


From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 01:00 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
Only the arrogant WASP community in Canada opposes multiculturalism, as it defeats their monopoly on power.

Does the scope of your tolerance for multiculturalism include acceptance of women not being equal to men, to gays being punished (if not killed) for who they are, to growing restrictions on free speech if it offends a group’s sensibilities, to sharia law being enforced in Canada, etc., etc.? Or, should those nasty ethnocentric Western ideals be pushed aside in favor of multiculturalism?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 01:01 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
It is also true that Canada has dealt with both immigration and multiculturalism in structurally different ways. We are by no means perfect, but we haven't created some of the problems for ourselves that, say, the French and the Germans have.

Like a 10% Muslim poplulation in France?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136

posted 17 February 2006 01:02 PM      Profile for libertarian        Edit/Delete Post
Sven. You hit the proverbial nail on the head.
Canada has a tolerant culture. It could be changed horribly if imported cultures have too much influence.

From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 17 February 2006 01:03 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The only way we can remain intolerant is to become intolerant? Oh yeah. Bullseye.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 February 2006 01:08 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You haven't been reading babble much, have you, Sven? The question of sharia law being adopted in Ontario has been argued thoroughly on this site, and it is silly of you to raise it here as a bogey-man still threatening Canadian civil society. Forget the sensationalism, Sven.

And no, that isn't what I meant about the structural differences between immigration to (some) European countries and to Canada.

Different European countries, different colonial histories, different definitions and treatment of migrant workers = different problems.

Immigration to Canada has worked quite otherwise. There are arguments to be made over the justice of our system too, but since the mid-C20 we have mainly not brought people in as non-status exploitable labour.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 01:08 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
The Europeans I know wouldn't agree with most of that tripe, which consists almost entirely of vast overgeneralizations anyway.

That reminds me of the quote of attributed to Pauline Kael, then a film critic for The New York Times, after Nixon won re-election in 1972: “Nixon can't possibly have won. I don't know a single person who voted for him.”


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 February 2006 01:11 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But Sven: I have evidence on my side. I have that stupid column of Solomon's, which quotes mostly right-wing and far-right-wing European commentators.

No intelligent observer of European politics would consider that any kind of serious survey at all.

We're talking about Solomon's column, and I'm saying it is incompetent. With some confidence.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 01:14 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
You haven't been reading babble much, have you, Sven? The question of sharia law being adopted in Ontario has been argued thoroughly on this site, and it is silly of you to raise it here as a bogey-man still threatening Canadian civil society. Forget the sensationalism, Sven.

I’m fully aware of those past debates.

But, if we were talking about Muslims who accepted women as being equal to men and gays being equal to non-gays, or about Muslims who reject Sharia law as having any role in Western countries, then we really won’t be even having a debate about multiculturalism in the first place (certainly not to the extent we are now). No, it’s because there is a significant portion of Muslims who want to force those very cultural changes on their adopted Western societies that this is an issue in the first place.

That is not sensationalism, skdadl.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 01:18 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:
The only way we can remain intolerant is to become intolerant? Oh yeah. Bullseye.

So, will you tolerate growing restrictions on free speech? A decline in the rights of women and gays?

Why the hell should we tolerate that?

We’re not talking about tolerating cultural beliefs and practices that don’t impose those beliefs and practices on others.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 01:24 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please find me one post where Skdadl indicated she was willing to tollerate and limitation upon freedom of speech? Can you operate without inventing stuff about what other people think?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136

posted 17 February 2006 01:29 PM      Profile for libertarian        Edit/Delete Post
I think Sven meant the cultures which are being imported will do that as well as the current wave of political correctness. At least that is how I see it.
From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 01:35 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Please find me one post where Skdadl indicated she was willing to tollerate and limitation upon freedom of speech? Can you operate without inventing stuff about what other people think?

First of all, my comment wasn’t even directed to a post of skdadl’s (it was in response to a post by cndviking.

Second, my comment wasn’t even saying that cndviking (must less skdadl) has ever advocated that.

The point of my comment was to look at specific issue where “tolerance” of another culture may not be appropriate or in our best interests.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 01:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by libertarian:
I think Sven meant the cultures which are being imported will do that as well as the current wave of political correctness. At least that is how I see it.

Well obviously Skdadl is not willing to tollerate any limitation on the freedom of speech and has argued this point time and time again. And if Sven had been reading what she wrote he would know this, right?

So why is he asking this dumb question, when he knows what the answer will be?

Obviously the difference is that Skdadl does not believe Muslim immigration is a threat to the freedom of speech, and belives that the democratic instituions of this country are strong enough to deal with these issues as they arise.

As she so clearly exampled by her raising the clear rejection of a legal standing for Sharia in Ontario.

Where there any riots? No. Was Dalton Mgunity threatened with death? No. In fact Canadian Muslims have acted with complete civility on the issue, and entirely within the laws and on the basis of the same rights which you have.

Sorry for speaking for you Skdadl.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 01:39 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Does the scope of your tolerance for multiculturalism include acceptance of women not being equal to men, to gays being punished (if not killed) for who they are, to growing restrictions on free speech if it offends a group’s sensibilities, to sharia law being enforced in Canada, etc., etc.? Or, should those nasty ethnocentric Western ideals be pushed aside in favor of multiculturalism?


You forgot the racism bred in European societies, from anti-semitic pogroms in the east to witch burnings and such meted out to those who were DIFFERENT Sven!

Your much vaunted European settlement of this continent cost OVER 4 MILLION NATIVES!

Your argument is moot!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 01:42 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

First of all, my comment wasn’t even directed to a post of skdadl’s (it was in response to a post by cndviking.

Second, my comment wasn’t even saying that cndviking (must less skdadl) has ever advocated that.

The point of my comment was to look at specific issue where “tolerance” of another culture may not be appropriate or in our best interests.


Fine I missed whom you quoted, anyway the point is general and obvious.

I find you repeated assertions that there is something especially antidemocratic, sexist and homophobic about Muslim people to be odious, and in fact I find it bigoted.

In fact in comparison to most Muslim people I have met, I would rather be rid of people like you, if we are going to be in the business of keeping our country pure of antidemocratic ideas.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 01:42 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think immigration is a wonderful thing. It adds richness to a society’s culture.

What I object to is the idea that a society (ours) must accept aspects of another culture which are anathema to fundamental principles and characteristics underlying our society (free speech, equal rights, etc.).

It’s a matter of line-drawing.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 01:43 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
And if Sven had been reading what she wrote he would know this, right?

I'm assuming that you wrote this before you read the post of mine that immediately preceded yours?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136

posted 17 February 2006 01:43 PM      Profile for libertarian        Edit/Delete Post
Where did you get that figure of 4 million natives? Were their deaths direct, as in bullets?
Native Americans killed more Europeans by introducing them to tobbaco.

From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 01:44 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
Oh yes, Sharia Law (in Ontario) is OUT... as is ALL OTHER RELIGIOUS TRIPE when it comes to divorce and property settlements.

No need for sensationalism and fairy tales here Sven.

It is a non-issue now.

And while we are on the topic, we have a leader and a minority government who OPPOSE women's rights (abortion), gay rights and are willing to impose restrictions on Canadians to satisfy America! '

It ain't only extremist muslims dude!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 February 2006 01:45 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not at all, Cue. Feel free - well, much of the time, anyway.

Sven, if that's your notion of what multiculturalism means in Canada, then all I can say is ... No. That's not allowed on babble.

As I say, I think there is lots to criticize in the Canadian record of dealing with immigration, but we have been smart about some things. We have honoured the separation of church and state - so far, anyway - in a wise way, I think: ie, not by suppressing anyone's religion (at least, not since the 60s). We have not been defensive about the public expression of different cultural heritages in the way that some European nations have been, way beyond the need to protect basic principles of democracy.

Here's to the handsome Sikh RCMP officers, eh? (That, actually, is a British Army tradition.)


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 01:45 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
You forgot the racism bred in European societies, from anti-semitic pogroms in the east to witch burnings and such meted out to those who were DIFFERENT Sven!

Your much vaunted European settlement of this continent cost OVER 4 MILLION NATIVES!

Your argument is moot!


You are “mooting” your own argument as well, cdnviking. Presumably, if Europeans have no right to protect their culture, then I’m assuming that you would argue that FNs had no right to protect their culture?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 01:46 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by libertarian:
Native Americans killed more Europeans by introducing them to tobbaco.

Ouch.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 01:47 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
Oh yes, Sharia Law (in Ontario) is OUT... as is ALL OTHER RELIGIOUS TRIPE when it comes to divorce and property settlements.

No need for sensationalism and fairy tales here Sven.

It is a non-issue now.


Well, at least we agree that there are some appropriate limits to multiculturalism.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 01:49 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by libertarian:
Where did you get that figure of 4 million natives? Were their deaths direct, as in bullets?
Native Americans killed more Europeans by introducing them to tobbaco.

Here is a source for my comment:

quote:
European persecution of Natives started with Christopher Columbus' arrival in San Salvador in 1492. Native population dropped dramatically over the next few decades. Some were directly exterminated by Europeans. Others died indirectly as a result of contact with introduced diseases for which they had no resistance -- mainly smallpox, influenza, and measles.

Later European Christian invaders systematically murdered additional Aboriginal people, from the Canadian Arctic to South America. They used warfare, death marches, forced relocation to barren lands, destruction of their main food supply -- the Buffalo -- and poisoning. Oppression continued into the 20th century, through actions by governments and religious organizations which systematically destroyed Native culture and religious heritage. One present-day byproduct of this oppression is suicide. Today, Canadian Natives have the highest suicide rate of any identifiable population group in the world.

The genocide against American Natives was one of the most massive, and longest lasting genocidal campaigns in human history. It started, like all genocides, with the oppressor treating the victims as sub-humans. It continued until almost all Natives were wiped of the face of the earth, along with much of their language, culture and religion.


source

Have a read of that. I am sure Sven and others will be especially proud of the legacy of Europeans in the "New World".


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 01:49 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 01:52 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

You are “mooting” your own argument as well, cdnviking. Presumably, if Europeans have no right to protect their culture, then I’m assuming that you would argue that FNs had no right to protect their culture?


You are arguing, Sven, that the European "culture" we have here in Canada should take precedence over everything else.

My observation was that Europeans are the FIRST violators of their OWN STANDARDS, in that they STOLE from the FN's in order to set up this OCCUPATION that is the legacy of our country today!

The Sami suffer the same type of thing in Northern Scandinavia!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
NWOntarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9295

posted 17 February 2006 01:53 PM      Profile for NWOntarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
What I object to is the idea that a society (ours) must accept aspects of another culture which are anathema to fundamental principles and characteristics underlying our society (free speech, equal rights, etc.).

I'm sorry, but your apparent argument that it's people from another culture, another society, coming here to our society who are going to underine our prinicples of equal rights regardless of gender or sexual orientation comes across as quite feeble to me.

I'm sure any one of the posters on this thread could name off a litany of folks, members of our own society, born and bred within our culture, who are arguing to revoke those exact principles at this very moment.

They're the ones who are far more dangerous, exactly because they are from here, and know how to manipulate our power structures towards those own ends, and can manipulate our culture towards those ends.

Edited for clarity

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: NWOntarian ]


From: London, ON | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 01:54 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by NWOntarian:

I'm sorry, but your apparent argument that it's people from another culture, another society, coming here to our society who are going to underine our prinicples of equal rights regardless of gender or sexual orientation comes across as quite feeble to me.

I'm sure any one of the posters on this thread could name off a litany of folks, members of our own society, born and bred within our culture, who are arguing that exact thing at this very moment.

They're the ones who are far more dangerous, exactly because they are from here, and know how to manipulate our power structures towards those own ends, and can manipulate our culture towards those ends.


Let's start with Steven Harper and his rabble (pardon the pun)!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 01:55 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Sven, if that's your notion of what multiculturalism means in Canada, then all I can say is ... No.

Regardless of what your or my definition of “multiculturalism” is, there are people who believe that multiculturalism includes, for example, the acceptance of Sharia law. When those people define multiculturalism in that manner, then I think you and I both agree that that is multiculturalism that we cannot accept.

To reframe this a bit, I don’t think it is a matter of being for or against “multiculturalism”. It’s not a binary argument. There are aspects of multiculturalism that I accept and there are other aspects of multiculturalism (as that term may be defined by some, if not by you and me) that I do not accept.

Also, I have a pretty clear idea where you, specifically, stand on many of these issues and I think we are, largely, on the same page.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 01:57 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
You are arguing, Sven, that the European "culture" we have here in Canada should take precedence over everything else.

Ah, no I’m not, cndviking. Please read my post above to skdadl.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 01:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Even more shockingly amazing amid all this crapola about Muslim people coming to restrict our rights and freedoms, is the fact that a great deal of these rights and freedoms, were concept derived from the inculcation of ideas that originated in the Muslim world, through cross cultural intergration.

Sven, did you know for instance, that a great deal of the Greek texts which serve as the basis for our understanding of democracy were preserved by the Muslim intelligensia of the Caliphate, and if it were not for them, much of the "classic" text would not be with us today?

Even the friggin Millet system, essentially one of the first forms of institionalized mulitculturalism is an Muslim idea. Women being compensated upon divorce is another. The idea that women have rights another.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 02:05 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Even more shockingly amazing amid all this crapola about Muslim people coming to restrict our rights and freedoms, is the fact that a great deal of these rights and freedoms, were concept derived from the inculcation of ideas that originated in the Muslim world, through cross cultural intergration.

This is not about “Muslim people”, generally. It’s about a significant portion of Muslims who have beliefs that are anathema to western liberalism.

Now, I understand the argument that there are WASP Canadians who would restrict those same western liberal principles. But, pointing that out does not diminish the legitimacy of criticizing Muslim fundamentalists who wish to change fundamental western liberal principles.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 02:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And what

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 17 February 2006 02:06 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Even more shockingly amazing amid all this crapola about Muslim people coming to restrict our rights and freedoms, is the fact that a great deal of these rights and freedoms, were concept derived from the inculcation of ideas that originated in the Muslim world, through cross cultural intergration.

Sven, did you know for instance, that a great deal of the Greek texts which serve as the basis for our understanding of democracy were preserved by the Muslim intelligensia of the Caliphate, and if it were not for them, much of the "classic" text would not be with us today?

Even the friggin Millet system, essentially one of the first forms of institionalized mulitculturalism is an Muslim idea. Women being compensated upon divorce is another. The idea that women have rights another.


What's your point Cueball? I think we can all agree that in the Middle Ages Europe was a wretched miserable place subjugated by poverty, fear, and fundamentalist religion. At that time the Muslim Caliphate was the most "enlightened" and maybe even progressive state around and we do owe it a debt of gratitude for preserving a lot of the Greek knowledge. Does this still hold at this time? I think it's really hard to argue that present-day Muslim governments are in any way more "enlightened" than secular Western ones.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: cogito ergo sum ]


From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 02:07 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Even more shockingly amazing amid all this crapola about Muslim people coming to restrict our rights and freedoms, is the fact that a great deal of these rights and freedoms, were concept derived from the inculcation of ideas that originated in the Muslim world, through cross cultural intergration.

Sven, did you know for instance, that a great deal of the Greek texts which serve as the basis for our understanding of democracy were preserved by the Muslim intelligensia of the Caliphate, and if it were not for them, much of the "classic" text would not be with us today?

Even the friggin Millet system, essentially one of the first forms of institionalized mulitculturalism is an Muslim idea. Women being compensated upon divorce is another. The idea that women have rights another.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


The Christian Church, all the while Cue, was burning books and a host of other nasty things.

If it weren't for the various incarnations of Islamic "empires", as you say, the west would know NOTHING about the Greeks or Romans or anyone else.

Western "Christian Civilization" has, since its' inception, been VERY INTOLERANT of ANYTHING not Christian!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 02:10 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Sven, did you know for instance, that a great deal of the Greek texts which serve as the basis for our understanding of democracy were preserved by the Muslim intelligensia of the Caliphate, and if it were not for them, much of the "classic" text would not be with us today?

I don’t know enough about that to comment either way. But, hasn’t Islam only been around for less than a 1,000 years? Most of the Greek texts that I’m assuming you are referring to pre-date Christ.

That being said, I think it’s fair to say that Muslim societies have veered far from those early principles. I can’t think of a single Muslim-dominated society that treats gays and women, for example, in the same manner they are treated in Canada.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 17 February 2006 02:11 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems that we're all making the same point that ignorant repressive religious fundamentalism is a bad thing. Does it really matter if it's Muslim/Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/Pastafarian/whatever ignorant repressive religious fundamentalism? Isn't it all bad?

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: cogito ergo sum ]


From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 02:12 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
Western "Christian Civilization" has, since its' inception, been VERY INTOLERANT of ANYTHING not Christian!

Historically, that is probably true. But, in contemporary times, it clearly is not.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 02:13 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cogito ergo sum:

What's your point Cueball? I think we can all agree that in the Middle Ages Europe was a wretched miserable place subjugated by poverty, fear, and fundamentalist religion. At that time the Muslim Caliphate was the most "enlightened" and maybe even progressive state around and we do owe it a debt of gratitude for preserving a lot of the Greek knowledge. Does this still hold at this time? I think it's really hard to argue that Muslim governments are in any way more "enlightened" than secular Western ones.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: cogito ergo sum ]


Lunch is over and I need to get back to work! LOL!

"Enlightened" Islamic governments have been replaced by colonial rulers with government that are, basically, puppets of the Western "Powers".

Since before Napolean invaded Egypt, Western Christendom has strived to rid the world of ANY government NOT christian.

The governments one sees today in the Middle East are a legacy of Western Colonialism.

Iran, for example, is a creation of the United States, because, in the early 1950s the CIA replaced a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED IRANIAN POPULIST GOVERNMENT and restored the Shah.

The Shah went on a 20 plus year "mission" to WIPE OUT ALL OPPOSITION to his reign, SUPPORTED BY AMERICA!

The ONLY opposition in Iran to actually survive was AN EXTREMIST opposition.

The Shah had killed off all the moderates!

There are other examples of how governments in the region ended up being what they are today, but the above mentioned example should more than illustrate my point!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 02:13 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cogito ergo sum:
It seems that we're all making the same point that ignorant repressive religious fundamentalism is a bad thing. Does it really matter if it's Muslim/Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/Pastafarian/whatever ignorant repressive religious fundamentalism? Isn't it all bad?

No. And, Yes.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 02:16 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
There are other examples of how governments in the region ended up being what they are today, but the above mentioned example should more than illustrate my point!

Ah, yes. Anything that a progressive can criticize about Muslim society and culture must have been something caused or created by the west in the first place. Makes perfect sense to me.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 02:16 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Historically, that is probably true. But, in contemporary times, it clearly is not.


That isn't true Sven. The Christian fanatics that back Steven Harper CLEARLY have an agenda to restrict rights THEY DON'T AGREE WITH, like abortion and gay marriage, etc.

Look at the religious right in the states (and now they are trying, harder than ever, to export this CRAP to Canada). There are elements down there that believe it is ok TODAY to KILL an abortion provider TO ENFORCE THEIR VIEW OF THE WORLD!

These folks are different than what you are complaining about HOW?


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 17 February 2006 02:17 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Western "Christian Civilization" has, since its' inception, been VERY INTOLERANT of ANYTHING not Christian!


That would explain all those insular Christian theocracies today then eh?

Generally, Christian nations of today are the most tolerant of other religions and generally allow the most freedoms to their citizenry.

Yet Christian nations are the ones who chronically get shit upon.

I dont really care what happened in the crusades. I am concerned about today.

I see Muslim theocracies that refuse basic freedoms, oppress women to the point of cutting their clits off and stoning them to death, and demanding the destruction of entire nations (Iran).

And then I see the apologists who just wont admit that some aspects of current Islamic culture are reprehensible.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 02:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cogito ergo sum:

What's your point Cueball? I think we can all agree that in the Middle Ages Europe was a wretched miserable place subjugated by poverty, fear, and fundamentalist religion. At that time the Muslim Caliphate was the most "enlightened" and maybe even progressive state around and we do owe it a debt of gratitude for preserving a lot of the Greek knowledge. Does this still hold at this time? I think it's really hard to argue that Muslim governments are in any way more "enlightened" than secular Western ones.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: cogito ergo sum ]


Absolutely, it is relevant because it establishes that there is nothing fundamentally anti-democratic about Islam. In fact Islam preserved and even invatented some of the ides which you say you are defending.

One need only look as far as Turkey to see this fact. As for the Arab dictatorships, there is nothing so unusual about there being dictatorships. One can look all over the world and find completely secular dictaroships, and look back over the last century to see that there is nothing especially grand about the post enlightenment societies of European roots that prevents dictatorship.

Chile did not fall prey to dictatorship because a bunch of Mullahs showed up from Iran, that was the CIA, and the Chilean army.

One has to be very selective with the evidence if one wants to establish that there is something particullarly tyrranical about Muslim culture, as opposed to Taoist culture, or Bhuddist culture, or Hindu culture or Christian culture.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 02:19 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Ah, yes. Anything that a progressive can criticize about Muslim society and culture must have been something caused or created by the west in the first place. Makes perfect sense to me.



When the west sets up the circumstances for the eventual outcome, YES, the west gets some of the blame too!

Glad you agree it makes sense.

Depose a DEMOCRATICALLY elected government and replace it with a dictatorship SPONSORED by a western, christian SUPERPOWER.

Yes, it is the "west's fault".


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
NWOntarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9295

posted 17 February 2006 02:20 PM      Profile for NWOntarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Now, I understand the argument that there are WASP Canadians who would restrict those same western liberal principles. But, pointing that out does not diminish the legitimacy of criticizing Muslim fundamentalists who wish to change fundamental western liberal principles.


You've pinpointed the exact difference. "WASP Canadians" and "fundamentalists." There's a world of difference between an unorganized band of fundamentalist Muslims coming here with the primary intention of improving their lives, and just happen to hold those views, and people who already have good lives, do have real access to power, and have concocted an organized program for changing the society to suit their tastes.

One is asking for inclusion into the system and recognition that they are different. They can make demands, but there is little if anything they can do impose those demands upon the rest of us, or even see that those demands come to any kind of fruition at all. The "WASP Canadians" can and will, because they aren't distracted by such inconveniences as having to ensure there's a meal on the table tomorrow.

Shrugging off what IS so that we can worry about what MIGHT BE is myopic at best.


From: London, ON | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136

posted 17 February 2006 02:21 PM      Profile for libertarian        Edit/Delete Post
Excellent post C. Morgan. I couldn't agree more.

cdnviking: thanks for the link


From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 02:30 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

That would explain all those insular Christian theocracies today then eh?

Generally, Christian nations of today are the most tolerant of other religions and generally allow the most freedoms to their citizenry.

Yet Christian nations are the ones who chronically get shit upon.

I dont really care what happened in the crusades. I am concerned about today.


These so called freedoms are recently won C. Morgan.

Christian school prayer wasn't banned from Ontario's classrooms until the mid NINETEEN EIGHTIES.

Women weren't equal in property division in divorce (Federally) until NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR.

Women weren't "persons" under Canadian Law until NINETEEN TWENTY NINE C Morgan!

The last recorded pogrom was in 1946 against Jews in Kielce, Poland.

We AREN'T talking about Christians from the Middle Ages here bud, I am showing christian intolerance that existed right until nearly the end of THE TWENTIETH CENTURY.

All these supposed freedoms surrounding "democracy" are recent incarnations. The "average jane/joe" who didn't own property didn't get the right to vote until very early in the twentieth century!

Your suggestion that we are so much more free than others is a VERY RECENT PHENOMINON!!

It ISN'T, as you are implying, a concept that has been around for centuries!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 02:34 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

I dont really care what happened in the crusades. I am concerned about today.

I see Muslim theocracies that refuse basic freedoms, oppress women to the point of cutting their clits off and stoning them to death, and demanding the destruction of entire nations (Iran).


Mr. Morgan. Adolph Hitler was not a Muslim. Nor did he come from a Muslim culture. He was a Christian. Joseph Stalin was not a Muslim, he came from a Christian family.

Mr. Morgan, please speak with reference to the facts as opposed to common misconception. No where in the Qu'ran, or in any Hadith does it recommend removing womens clits. Therefore this has nothing to do with Islam. Nor does the Qu'ran ever suggest stoning as a punishment for a Muslim. It does in one case where Mohammed tries two Jewish people for adultery, and he punishes them per the law of Torah, not the Qu'ran. So, that has nothing to do with Islam.

Too use your logic, I could simply say: "Look the USA convicts children and then can sentence them to death, what barbarians Christians are."

So is it true Mr. Morgan, that the widespread use of the death penalty in the USA reflects upon Christianity as a whole, or not?

I am amazed that you express your ignorance with such determination, while at the same time declaiming the ignorance of otehrs.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 17 February 2006 02:35 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

(snip)
One need only look as far as Turkey to see this fact.
(snip)


But Turkey has had a militant secularism for pretty much the entire past century. If anything Turkey is a shining example of the benefits of keeping religion private and out of public life. The Turkish government has worked very hard and ruthlessly to build a secular society and keep religion at bay. I think the jury is still out on what the legacy of the current more religious Turkish government will be.

From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 17 February 2006 02:35 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now you are splitting hairs.

There are some freedoms that have only been gained by predominantly Christian nations in the last 100 years and still are more to gain.

In comparison with most Islamic nations though, we are centuries ahead.

Millenia if we take ritual stonings of infidels into account.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 02:37 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where is the stoning of infidels in the Qu'ran Mr. Morgan?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 02:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Have you read it Mr. Morgan?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 17 February 2006 02:39 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is a "Christian nation"; is it a theocracy run by Christians? Or a nation with a state religion that is favoured over other religions in that nation? Canadian and the US would not be Christian nations under these criteria.

I'd say the democratic nations are generally the ones that separate church and state, no matter what the predominant religion is.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 17 February 2006 02:40 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Mr. Morgan. Adolph Hitler was not a Muslim. Nor did he come from a Muslim culture. He was a Christian. Joseph Stalin was not a Muslim, he came from a Christian family.

Mr. Morgan, please speak with reference to the facts as opposed to common misconception. No where in the Qu'ran, or in any Hadith does it recommend removing womens clits. Therefore this has nothing to do with Islam. Nor does the Qu'ran ever suggest stoning as a punishment for a Muslim. It does in one case where Mohammed tries two Jewish people for adultery, and he punishes them per the law of Torah, not the Qu'ran. So, that has nothing to do with Islam.

Too use your logic, I could simply say: "Look the USA convicts children and then can sentence them to death, what barbarians Christians are."

So is it true Mr. Morgan, that the widespread use of the death penalty in the USA reflects upon Christianity as a whole, or not?

I am amazed that you express your ignorance with such determination, while at the same time declaiming the ignorance of otehrs.



Hmm, I must have been thinking of the ritual mutilation of female genitilia in Christian nations.

Ooops. None of that there.

Seems to be only in Islamic nations. I dont really care what your interpretation of the Koran is, I am more concerned about those who interpret the need to mutilate little girls.

Lets talk about today.

How many Christian theocracies are there out there?

None if I can recall.

If the Western world is so nasty, why are muslims pouring into them claiming refugee status?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 02:40 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
Now you are splitting hairs.

There are some freedoms that have only been gained by predominantly Christian nations in the last 100 years and still are more to gain.

In comparison with most Islamic nations though, we are centuries ahead.

Millenia if we take ritual stonings of infidels into account.


The ritual stoning of a few "infadels" compares JUST as unfavourably as CHRISTIANS ADVOCATING THE MURDER OF ABORTION DOCTORS!

Both societies have inherent weaknesses. Let's not just focus ON THE ONE C Morgan!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 02:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cogito ergo sum:

But Turkey has had a militant secularism for pretty much the entire past century. If anything Turkey is a shining example of the benefits of keeping religion private and out of public life. The Turkish government has worked very hard and ruthlessly to build a secular society and keep religion at bay. I think the jury is still out on what the legacy of the current more religious Turkish government will be.

Actually secularism was an Ottoman idea. Or to put it a little more specifically. It was the Ottomans who first deveised a society based on the idea of multi-faithed, multi-ethnic tollerance.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 17 February 2006 02:42 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Where is the stoning of infidels in the Qu'ran Mr. Morgan?

Mr. Morgan is conflating the cultural traditions of certain Arabic countries with Islam.

Isn't that true Mr. Morgan?
(Suggest you think carefully about your answer.)


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 17 February 2006 02:43 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Q: What do the Christian right, Muslim theocrats, Hitler, Stalin, have in common?

A: They are all fundamentalists who want(ed) to impose their view of how to live on everyone else. Therefore they are all despicable.

I'd argue that the US also falls under this fundamentalist label when it comes to its foreign policy. They have this dangerous sense of manifest destiny and divine entitlement that makes them think they have the right to impose their values on everyone else.


From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 17 February 2006 02:44 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:

The ritual stoning of a few "infadels" compares JUST as unfavourably as CHRISTIANS ADVOCATING THE MURDER OF ABORTION DOCTORS!

Both societies have inherent weaknesses. Let's not just focus ON THE ONE C Morgan!



So the stoning of women to death for infidelity by the theocratic state of Saudi Arabia is based on what?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 02:45 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
What is a "Christian nation"; is it a theocracy run by Christians? Or a nation with a state religion that is favoured over other religions in that nation? Canadian and the US would not be Christian nations under these criteria.

I'd say the democratic nations are generally the ones that separate church and state, no matter what the predominant religion is.



England, the "mother country", is OFFICIALLY ANGLICAN and ABSOLUTELY anti-catholic.

There are other countries that are OFFICIALLY Christian too... Like Denmark, Norway and Sweden, ALL officially LUTHERAN!

Yes, many western countries are "officially" something!

Canada doesn't enshrine any type of christianity in its founding documents (neither does the USA), but that doesn't preclude the PRACTICE of a particular religion's supremacy (Easter, Good Friday, Christmas, Boxing Day and Thanksgiving, ALL Christian Festivals).

Where is there a national holiday inspired by a buddhist or jewish or hindu holiday? THERE ISN'T ONE.

Christianity is INSTITUTIONALIZED in PRACTICE here. They even PRAY (the LOrds Prayer) at Queens Park for crying out loud!

It doesn't have to be ENSHRINED in some document to be a functioning PRACTICE!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 02:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well I think we can conclude the following about Mr. Morgan.

1) He has not read the Qu'ran

2) He believes but can not actually site a verse in Qu'ran which calls for the "ritual stoning of Infidels," because he has not read it.

3) He believes that that clitorectomy is an Islamic thing, even though it is not in the Qu'ran, but that excuting children in the USA is not a Christian thing because executing children is not in the bible.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 02:53 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:


So the stoning of women to death for infidelity by the theocratic state of Saudi Arabia is based on what?


Local Custom! Many things attributed to Islam are, in fact, regional customs that date back to before Islam's rise.

Lets review a few things the Judeo/Christian Bible says about women and marriage, shall we?

12 Biblical Principles of Marriage

1. Marriage consists of one man and one or more women. (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).

I LIKE THIS ONE!

2. Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have. (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).

POLYGAMY JUSTIFIED IN THE BIBLE, HMMMMMMM. Not so different than Islam, huh?

3. A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man's wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.

4. If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned. (Deut 22:13-21).

Ah... the STONING ARGUMENT IN THE JUDEO/CHRISTIAN BIBLE

5. A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fianc鬠in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town. (Deut. 22:23-27).

THIS ONE IS A GOODY!

6. If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow. (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).

7. Women marry the man of their father's choosing. (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).

I GUESS I GET TO CHOOSE MY DAUGHTER'S HUSBANDS, HUH? THE BIBLE SAYS I DO!

8. Women are the property of their father until married, and their husband after that. (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).

JUDEO/CHRISTIANITY IS BETTER THAN ISLAM HOW?

9. The value of a woman might be approximately seven years' work. (Gen 29:14-30).

10. Inter-faith marriages are prohibited. (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).

11. Divorce is forbidden. (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).

12. Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin. (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

There are Christian "sects" that practice "the old ways". Isn't Mel Gibson a Traditionalist Catholic, Pre-Vatican II?


Your bible outlines that all of what you accuse Islam of is ABSOLUTELY permissable by CHRISTIANS!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 02:54 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
Women weren't "persons" under Canadian Law until NINETEEN TWENTY NINE C Morgan!

And women were "persons" in most Muslim countries well before that, no?

Oh, wait a sec. In most Muslim societies, they still aren't equal "persons" with men.

But, that's the west's fault.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 02:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
So the stoning of women to death for infidelity by the theocratic state of Saudi Arabia is based on what?

Site please. They behead people In Saudi Arabia.

You just really don't know shit do you.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 03:01 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Actually secularism was an Ottoman idea. Or to put it a little more specifically. It was the Ottomans who first deveised a society based on the idea of multi-faithed, multi-ethnic tollerance.

Yes, yes. Just like all western democratic principles came from the Iroquois.

White Christian men have never done anything good. Actually, it’s much worse than that. All that they have done is positively evil (except for those very, very few enlightened white men who are ashamed of everything western).


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 03:04 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
Like Denmark, Norway and Sweden, ALL officially LUTHERAN!

And Sweden is such an intolerant society. I can barely bring myself to say the word “Sweden” without trembling with shame.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 03:06 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

And women were "persons" in most Muslim countries well before that, no?

Oh, wait a sec. In most Muslim societies, they still aren't equal "persons" with men.

But, that's the west's fault.


And you could BEAT THE SH*T OUT OF YOUR WIFE, IN CANADA, UNTIL THE EARLY NINETEEN NINETIES. No one really enforced the concept of "spousal abuse" and its' illegality until the early 1990s in all provinces.

Domestic violence laws weren't "beefed up" in Ontario until 2000, when the Ontario government implimented "The Domestic Violence Protection Act".

Yes Sven, we are light years ahead of everyone else..... NOT!



From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
foofighter
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9423

posted 17 February 2006 03:06 PM      Profile for foofighter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

We're talking about Solomon's column, and I'm saying it is incompetent. With some confidence.

The quotes maybe off but the new laws speak for themselves

"The Danes have brought in immigration laws that are stricter still, all but ending their liberal refugee program and discouraging even temporary workers."

"The Netherlands, which has cut immigration in half since 2001, is deporting 26,000 rejected asylum seekers and keeping new arrivals in detention camps"

Even if the story is half wrong, it's still something to be worried about. People don't always let facts get in the way of how they feel about something.

Most Europeans I know don't agree with most of the points in story, however some don't voice this too loudly, and I only know left of centre europeans.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 03:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can't you ever discuss anything without whining?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 03:07 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
2. Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have. (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).

POLYGAMY JUSTIFIED IN THE BIBLE, HMMMMMMM. Not so different than Islam, huh?


Is that why western Christian societies are polygamous?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 03:10 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
Yes Sven, I guess they are such intolerant societies huh?

Sven... a nice scandinavian boy's name.

Can it be you are a product of that TOLERANT threesome of societies?

I think NOT, judging by your opinions displayed here.

Oh yes, ask a Sami how tolerant Norway, Sweden or Finland is! Don't know what a Sami is, LOOK IT UP!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 03:10 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
Yes Sven, we are light years ahead of everyone else..... NOT!

Name one Muslim-dominated society that you’d rather be openly gay in than Canada?

Yes, Canada is light years ahead of Muslim-dominated societies in most areas of civil liberties.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 17 February 2006 03:12 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Site please. They behead people In Saudi Arabia.

You just really don't know shit do you.


Hmm. Lets see. I find stoning to death in Nigeria for adultrystoning

I find women stoned to death in Iran for adultry stoning

I find women stoned in Yemen for adultry. stoning

These theocratic Islamic countries claim Sharia law demands it. Argue with them about their interpretation of the Koran. Not me.

I find no stonings in Saudi. I was wrong about that.

They simply cut the heads off their women.

Thanks for the correction.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 03:14 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
Yes Sven, I guess they are such intolerant societies huh?

(snip)

Oh yes, ask a Sami how tolerant Norway, Sweden or Finland is! Don't know what a Sami is, LOOK IT UP!


Okay, cndviking, here’s a little quiz for you (which I’ll bet you won’t dare answer): What, in your opinion, are the ten most tolerant societies/countries in the world?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 03:15 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
Sven...here is a nice report about how tolerant Norway is: report

How about Finland's intolerance, hmm? report

Stellar societies, free of discrimination and abuse. NOT.


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 17 February 2006 03:15 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sven, I think you really need to read your own posts and decide if you really want to head in the direction that you are heading.
From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 03:17 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
Stellar societies, free of discrimination and abuse. NOT.

Who said anything about any society being “free of discrimination and abuse”?

But, if you’re a gay man, I think you’d rather live openly gay in Sweden, Norway, Denmark or even, yes, Canada, than in any Muslim-dominated country.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 03:18 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Transplant:
Sven, I think you really need to read your own posts and decide if you really want to head in the direction that you are heading.

Don't pussy-foot around the edges, man. Please come out and say what that direction is.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 03:18 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Okay, cndviking, here’s a little quiz for you (which I’ll bet you won’t dare answer): What, in your opinion, are the ten most tolerant societies/countries in the world?



In reality Sven, NO country can be called "tolerant"... PERIOD.

ALL have their problems with intolerance, discrimination and outright racism/sexism!

All have religious minorities seeking to impose their theocracies on the masses.

So, in answer to your question, there are NO tolerant countries in the world that I can think of!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 17 February 2006 03:20 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sven, I think you really need to read your own posts and decide if you really want to head in the direction that you are heading.

Deutchland Uber Alles?


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 03:20 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
In reality Sven, NO country can be called "tolerant"... PERIOD.

ALL have their problems with intolerance, discrimination and outright racism/sexism!

All have religious minorities seeking to impose their theocracies on the masses.

So, in answer to your question, there are NO tolerant countries in the world that I can think of!


Like I said, you’d never answer that “quiz” because it would be an admission that some countries, though not perfect, are more tolerant than others. When, if fact, that is undeniably true.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 03:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

Hmm. Lets see. I find stoning to death in Nigeria for adultrystoning

I find women stoned to death in Iran for adultry stoning

I find women stoned in Yemen for adultry. stoning

These theocratic Islamic countries claim Sharia law demands it. Argue with them about their interpretation of the Koran. Not me.

I find no stonings in Saudi. I was wrong about that.

They simply cut the heads off their women.

Thanks for the correction.


Yes, the correction. Very good.

Now where in the Bible does it prescribe lethal injection or electrocution for capital crimes?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 03:22 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Who said anything about any society being “free of discrimination and abuse”?

But, if you’re a gay man, I think you’d rather live openly gay in Sweden, Norway, Denmark or even, yes, Canada, than in any Muslim-dominated country.



You MIGHT get away with living OPENLY in LARGE URBAN CENTRES in ANY of the countries you mentioned Sven, but NOT outside MAJOR population centres.

It would be as bad as some muslim countries for abuse (I recall an american gay man who was DRAGGED BEHIND A MOVING PICKUP TRUCK TILL HE WAS DEAD FOR BEING GAY.... stoning kind of plales in comparison).


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 03:22 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:

Deutchland Uber Alles?


You are not honestly asserting that I think Nazi Germany was tolerant, are you?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 17 February 2006 03:22 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's see. First world country or third world country. Which one would be the more preferable to live in?

Fucking idiocy.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 February 2006 03:22 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:

And you could BEAT THE SH*T OUT OF YOUR WIFE, IN CANADA, UNTIL THE EARLY NINETEEN NINETIES. No one really enforced the concept of "spousal abuse" and its' illegality until the early 1990s in all provinces.

Domestic violence laws weren't "beefed up" in Ontario until 2000, when the Ontario government implimented "The Domestic Violence Protection Act".

Yes Sven, we are light years ahead of everyone else..... NOT!




Canadian men could do quite a lot of things to women - their wives, their daughters, and their sisters - until well into my adult lifetime.

They could have them incarcerated for being "immoral" or "incorrigible." They could authorize medical experiments on them. They could see their women impoverished, dispossessed.

And that did not stop because the men decided to stop treating women as chattels. Canadian men did not liberate me or other Canadian women. The laws would not have changed if we had not fought for ourselves.

It is hilarious to read North American white men talking about how all their warlike urges to invade and despoil other nations are driven by their sincere desire to liberate women and gays in those nations.

Yeah, sure. Simmer down, ignorant little boys.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 17 February 2006 03:24 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, I am, as always, pointing out that your hate-on for multi-culturalism bears many of the rhetorical xenophobic flourishes that Fascism did.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 17 February 2006 03:24 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Don't pussy-foot around the edges, man. Please come out and say what that direction is.

Oh, you're doing a pretty good job of digging your own hole.

So is C. Morgan.

And cdnviking.

Hell, it's just one big bashfest of Islam and Christianity around here lately.

Yeah, that'll learn 'em.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 03:25 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Like I said, you’d never answer that “quiz” because it would be an admission that some countries, though not perfect, are more tolerant than others. When, if fact, that is undeniably true.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]



You asked me what countries I thought were MOST TOLERANT and I answered. NONE.

Your opinion is that most western countries are. I DON'T share that opinion.

So my answer, in the context of my opinion, is just as correct as yours Sven!

So if you want to put yourself into some sort of supremist delusion that you "bested me" on this one, think again!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
NWOntarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9295

posted 17 February 2006 03:25 PM      Profile for NWOntarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The assertion that started this drift was that there are Muslim fundamentalists who are demanding that extremist ideas be accepted, tolerated, and incorporatd into our society. I just don't see that as something that is happening, or is likely to happen. Show me where there are large-scale movements within our society, started by fundamentalist Muslim immigrants, that want to destroy the principles of equality that we hold? Ones that have a something approaching an even remotely reasonable chance of success.

Are there nations that are more tolerant than others? I wouldn't dispute that idea.

I just don't see why criticizing what we are doing or have done requires me to add the caveat, "Oh, but they've got some terrible beliefs too." Because, quite frankly, I don't care. Sure, there's a few aspects of Muslim culture I don't entirely agree with, but also there's nothing I can do, personally, to change their ideas from where I'm sitting. I'm not going to go over there and try to get involved. More than likely, they don't care what I, as a random Canadian, have to say.

Now if millions of fundamentalist Muslims decided to come over to Canada and establish some kind of theocracy, then sure, I'd have plenty to say on the topic. But they aren't, though there are lots of perfectly reasonable Muslims who want to live under the same principles of freedom and equality that I want to live under. On the other hand, there are people here -- yes, white folk, who I feel absolutely terrible about picking on, and Christians, too, which makes me feel even worse for egregiously victimizing -- who do have some terrible, extremist ideas about how our society should be organized, and have an organized campaign to put those ideas into practice. I really don't feel under any obligation to add, when I criticize those ideas, "But let's not forget that these guys over here are bad, too, and so are those guys over there."

It's just not relevant.


From: London, ON | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 03:26 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
You MIGHT get away with living OPENLY in LARGE URBAN CENTRES in ANY of the countries you mentioned Sven, but NOT outside MAJOR population centres.

Yeah, you’re probably right. You’d be better off being openly gay in, say, the LARGE URBAN CENTRES of Tehran, Riyadh, etc., etc. than rural Alberta.

NOT.

ETA: A friend of mine at college (the University of Minnesota) was from Tehran and he was at the University to get a sex change. He said he could never return to Tehran because he would be killed. Yeah, that happens all the time here. Minneapolis is just like Tehran.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 03:27 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:


Canadian men could do quite a lot of things to women - their wives, their daughters, and their sisters - until well into my adult lifetime.

They could have them incarcerated for being "immoral" or "incorrigible." They could authorize medical experiments on them. They could see their women impoverished, dispossessed.

And that did not stop because the men decided to stop treating women as chattels. Canadian men did not liberate me or other Canadian women. The laws would not have changed if we had not fought for ourselves.

It is hilarious to read North American white men talking about how all their warlike urges to invade and despoil other nations are driven by their sincere desire to liberate women and gays in those nations.

Yeah, sure. Simmer down, ignorant little boys.



LOL.... you sound like my mom! She raised me, contrary to societally accepted norms of the time, to believe women are equal to men and in some ways better!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 03:28 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Transplant:

Oh, you're doing a pretty good job of digging your own hole.

So is C. Morgan.

And cdnviking.

Hell, it's just one big bashfest of Islam and Christianity around here lately.

Yeah, that'll learn 'em.


I am not digging a hole... I am illustrating the counter-point to theirs, NO society is perfect or tolerant and NO ONE SOCIETY should be held up as a beacon or template for ALL OTHER SOCIETIES is all!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 03:30 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
You asked me what countries I thought were MOST TOLERANT and I answered. NONE.

Your opinion is that most western countries are. I DON'T share that opinion.

So my answer, in the context of my opinion, is just as correct as yours Sven!

So if you want to put yourself into some sort of supremist delusion that you "bested me" on this one, think again!


Oh, I see that you “answered” my quiz. I just wanted to get confirmation that you think all societies are equally tolerant. Something, I’m sure, that every human rights group on the plant agrees with.

NOT.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 17 February 2006 03:30 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Transplant:

Oh, you're doing a pretty good job of digging your own hole.

So is C. Morgan.

And cdnviking.

Hell, it's just one big bashfest of Islam and Christianity around here lately.

Yeah, that'll learn 'em.


You imply that we are not allowed to critique religious practices here?

May I suggest you look up the threads around the time that the Pope died?

The double standards at times are deplorable.

By the way, how many beheadings, stonings and ritual clitoral mutilations of girls have there been in Norway and Finland lately?

Can women vote in those countries?

Is it legal to be gay in those countries?

How many refugees are pouring out of Norway into Yemen?

To even try and make comparisons is sad to say the least.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 17 February 2006 03:33 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
I am not digging a hole... I am illustrating the counter-point to theirs...

Nope, you're just digging a different hole.

But then one hole is pretty much just like any other....

Just remember, the deeper the hole, the harder it is to get out.

Not to mention that holes often collapse.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 03:34 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
Sven... you aren't worth the time! You have your supremacy down pact and no one can dissuade you from it!

Good luck with that, and if you ARE scandinavian in heritage, please don't broadcast it.

It desecrates the concept that Norway/Sweden is the home to the Nobel Prize for such things as PEACE, HUMAN RIGHTS AND SCIENCE.

Sure there are some whackos back home, but for the most part they are all "evolved" people who DON'T think themselves superior to anyone else.

That HARDLY describes you Rævhøl.


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 03:34 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
I am not digging a hole... I am illustrating the counter-point to theirs, NO society is perfect or tolerant and NO ONE SOCIETY should be held up as a beacon or template for ALL OTHER SOCIETIES is all!

Nice try, but, no. Your assertion is NOT that “no society is perfect”. Everyone agrees with that and if that was your assertion, there’d be no dispute.

What you are asserting is that no country is more tolerant that any other. That is demonstrably false.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 17 February 2006 03:37 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
You imply that we are not allowed to critique religious practices here?

May I suggest you look up the threads around the time that the Pope died?

The double standards at times are deplorable. ...


Which you have no qualms using to advance your own argument.

I see you're still digging.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 03:37 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Transplant:

Nope, you're just digging a different hole.

But then one hole is pretty much just like any other....

Just remember, the deeper the hole, the harder it is to get out.

Not to mention that holes often collapse.


What, dispelling the fiction that Canada is a nice, tolerant place for everyone?

I don't think so.

If shining a light on the truth is digging a hole... I am just going to go get the backhoe then! LOL!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 03:38 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
Sure there are some whackos back home, but for the most part they are all "evolved" people who DON'T think themselves superior to anyone else.

That’s what it boils down to, isn’t it? A reluctance to say our society is “better” than another society? Well, in the area of civil and human rights, I’m fully prepared to make that assertion about Canada relative to, say, Iran. You, apparently, are not. And, I would venture to guess it’s not some “whacko” named Sven who thinks that but that every human rights organization in the world word agree with that.

So, who’s the “whacko”???


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 03:42 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
What, dispelling the fiction that Canada is a nice, tolerant place for everyone?

Who has said that it’s a nice, tolerant place for “everyone”?

Canada is more tolerant than Iran. Yet, you have repeatedly said it is not. That is laughable.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 03:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

Hmm. Lets see. I find stoning to death in Nigeria for adultrystoning

I find women stoned to death in Iran for adultry stoning

I find women stoned in Yemen for adultry. stoning

These theocratic Islamic countries claim Sharia law demands it. Argue with them about their interpretation of the Koran. Not me.

I find no stonings in Saudi. I was wrong about that.

They simply cut the heads off their women.

Thanks for the correction.


Yes, the correction. Very good.

Now where in the Bible does it prescribe lethal injection or electrocution for capital crimes?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 03:44 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Now where in the Bible does it prescribe lethal injection or electrocution for capital crimes?

I think it's John 3:16, or something like that.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 17 February 2006 03:57 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Yes, the correction. Very good.

Now where in the Bible does it prescribe lethal injection or electrocution for capital crimes?


Which Christian theocracy is doing these things?

It is the Islamic theocracies which hide behind Sharia law.

I dont see any Christian theocracies executing people with the Bible as justification.

In fact, aside from the USA, how many executions do we see in general in Western democracies?

Pretty sad.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 04:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok then, its not about christianity. Excelent. Now that we have estblished that the primary faith of nation, does not necessarily determine the nature of its laws we can move on. The US is a secular democracy, but they exectue people by bursting all of their internal organs through chemical injection.

Can we say given that the USA is a secular democracy, that this time of execution is fundamental to the core values of secular democracy?

Or are their different interpretations of how secular democracy is applied?

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 17 February 2006 04:38 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
That’s what it boils down to, isn’t it? A reluctance to say our society is “better” than another society? Well, in the area of civil and human rights, I’m fully prepared to make that assertion about Canada relative to, say, Iran. You, apparently, are not. And, I would venture to guess it’s not some “whacko” named Sven who thinks that but that every human rights organization in the world word agree with that.

So the atrocities that still continue to be committed against Natives in this country don't play into this? Why don't you swing a few hours north to the Prairies, and see the differences in attitudes for white and aboriginal victims of crime?


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 17 February 2006 05:20 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

So the atrocities that still continue to be committed against Natives in this country don't play into this? Why don't you swing a few hours north to the Prairies, and see the differences in attitudes for white and aboriginal victims of crime?



Hmm. Havent seen any beheadings or stonings of natives yet.

Havent seen them gassed like Saddam does with minorities.

Native women are allowed in public without covering their faces and I have not heard of them being forced to mutilate the genitilia of their little girls.

Far as I know natives can vote as opposed to most people in Islamic states.

Why you are right.

Natives are just as bad off as people in Islamic states.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 05:45 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
So the atrocities that still continue to be committed against Natives in this country don't play into this? Why don't you swing a few hours north to the Prairies, and see the differences in attitudes for white and aboriginal victims of crime?

Well, I’m not sure what that has to do with tolerance, Aristotle, which is the subject being discussed.

But, for the sake of discussion, who is treated better: aboriginals in Canada or openly gay men in Tehran?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 17 February 2006 06:16 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
Hmm. Havent seen any beheadings or stonings of natives yet.

Still digging I see.

Yep, that there hole is bigger than the other guy's, alright.

Bet yer darned proud of it, too.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 17 February 2006 06:33 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
But, for the sake of discussion, who is treated better: aboriginals in Canada or openly gay men in Tehran?

Our justice system has miserably failed Aboriginal women, notably Helen Betty Osborne.

quote:
According to a Canadian government statistic, young Indigenous women are five times more likely than other women of the same age to die as the result of violence.

Indigenous women have long struggled to draw attention to violence within their own families and communities. Canadian police and public officials have also long been aware of a pattern of racist violence against Indigenous women in Canadian cities – but have done little to prevent it.

The pattern looks like this:

Racist and sexist stereotypes deny the dignity and worth of Indigenous women, encouraging some men to feel they can get away with acts of hatred against them.


Decades of government policy have impoverished and broken apart Indigenous families and communities, leaving many Indigenous women and girls extremely vulnerable to exploitation and attack.


Many police forces have failed to institute necessary measures – such as training, protocols and accountability mechanisms – to ensure that officers understand and respect the Indigenous communities they serve. Without such measures, police too often fail to do all they can to ensure the safety of Indigenous women and girls whose lives are in danger.
No excuse for government inaction
There is no excuse for government inaction. In fact, many of the steps needed to ensure the safety and well-being of Indigenous women have already been identified by government inquiries – including the inquiry into the murder of Helen Betty Osborne.


How about the police taking native men and dropping them off at the outskirts of cities in sub-zero Farenheit weather?

Or how about the OPP response to the peaceful occupation of a provincial park, killing one unarmed protester?

It wasn't the Iranian government that suggested a need to get rid of the "Indian problem."

Prostitues went missing for almost 20 years before anything was done about it.

quote:
The first indication that there was a significant number of prostitutes missing as far back as 1978 came to public attention in July of 1999, when the Vancouver Police and the Province's Attorney General published a poster offering a reward of $100,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or people involved in the disappearances. Even the popular U.S. TV program America's Most Wanted aired a segment on the missing prostitutes, but few leads surfaced.
(Many of the missing women were Aboriginal.)

Canadian leaders have in the past lectured other leaders about human rights, only for those leaders to say Canada has no place to speak, given its treatment of Aboriginal people.

So, being an Aborignial in Canada or an openly gay man in Tehran? Both sound quite dangerous to me.

quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
Hmm. Havent seen any beheadings or stonings of natives yet.

Havent seen them gassed like Saddam does with minorities.

Native women are allowed in public without covering their faces and I have not heard of them being forced to mutilate the genitilia of their little girls.

Far as I know natives can vote as opposed to most people in Islamic states.

Why you are right.

Natives are just as bad off as people in Islamic states.


No beheadings or stonings? Quite right. Our governments instead used bullets and in the case of the Plains peoples, wiped out their food supply. You're right, that's so much better than beheading.

Aboriginal women suffer greatly from violence in Canada, moreso than non-Aboriginal women:

quote:
This report examines the following factors which, too long neglected, have contributed to a heightened -- and unacceptable -- risk of violence against Indigenous women in Canadian cities:

• The social and economic marginalisation of Indigenous women, along with a history of government policies that have torn apart Indigenous families and communities, have pushed a disproportionate number of Indigenous women into dangerous situations that include extreme poverty, homelessness and prostitution.

• Despite assurances to the contrary, police in Canada have often failed to provide Indigenous women with an adequate standard of protection.

• The resulting vulnerability of Indigenous women has been exploited by Indigenous and non-Indigenous men to carry out acts of extreme brutality against them.

• These acts of violence may be motivated by racism, or may be carried out in the expectation that societal indifference to the welfare and safety of Indigenous women will allow the perpetrators to escape justice.


But you're right, no genital mutilation, that's okay. (By the way, you've not responded to the prior points made that genital mutilation predates Islam in many areas.)

And Aboriginal people can vote! That's right! Why, it doesn't matter about structural injustices, higher rates of violence, or police brutality. They're equal with everyone else because they get to vote! And voting is so empowering. Why, if we don't like the current batch of politicians, we elect a new batch of politicians to continue doing what the previous batch before them did! Yay voting!

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 17 February 2006 06:45 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
So, being an Aborignial in Canada or an openly gay man in Tehran? Both sound quite dangerous to me.

You do, huh?

If you’re openly gay in Tehran, you’re almost certain to be killed.

You’re not saying that FN people in Canada have the same fear, are you?

If you are, then you must, necessarily, believe that most FN will be murdered if they are “open” about it (which is demonstrably false).

If not, then I take it that you agree that Iran is less tolerant, in this example, than Canada?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 17 February 2006 06:54 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
If you’re openly gay in Tehran, you’re almost certain to be killed.

You’re not saying that FN people in Canada have the same fear, are you?

If you are, then you must, necessarily, believe that most FN will be murdered if they are “open” about it (which is demonstrably false).

If not, then I take it that you agree that Iran is less tolerant, in this example, than Canada?


The issue I have is one of seing the speck in the other person's eye while being unable to see the plank in our own. It looks very much to me like Sven et al, when confronted about systemic injustices in Canada and the US in this thread, simply covered their ears and said, "Islamic states are worse, everything's fine here, lalalalalalalala." You know what? Contrary to what anyone who subscribes to American libertarianism will tell you, class, race, and gender do matter in Canada and the US, and people are favoured on these factors.

But I'm not FN or a POC. I'd be interested to hear that perspective on this thread, however.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 17 February 2006 07:09 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It'll have to be in a new thread because this one's crazy long.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca