BS: Muslims again . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 08:37 AM

It seems to me that you have implied what I have said that you have implied. It may or may not have been your intention.

I have considered the Oxford English Dictionary. It gives 4 main meanings to the word "entail". Of the fourth, the fifth and final subsidiary meaning is "to bring on by way of necessary consequence". I'm all for elegant variation in language, but to pretend that that is the primary meaning is irrational.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 05:11 AM

Richard ~ You are being unfair. I have not said that the governments & groups I name are typical of anyone but themselves & the others who choose to associate with them; but how does that make their actions any the less reprehensible & unacceptable? Let me refer you to my answer to Eliza a bit earlier this morning ~ 12.25 a.m.

You arguments look dangerously close to me to the plea that nobody of any race or faith can be criticised because the cry of 'racism!' will apply. Try & find the thread I OPd last year some time about how 'Racism' could be used as a catch-all defence to any sort of criticism ~~ like that Italian footballer who accused an opponent of 'racism' for calling him Italian!

Honestly question the rationality of your own arguments, please, before attacking me for what I have neither said nor implied.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 05:02 AM

With all due respect, MtheGM, once again you generalise in saying that here you are "writing about Islam", whereas the activities and laws to be criticised are those only of some adherents and purported adherents of Islam. You again illustrate the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 04:23 AM

That happens to be the subject of this thread, Richard. I have had plenty to say on other threads about the iniquities of the activities of the state of Israel [despite my own, long-rejected, provenance]. I have mentioned the activities of the Holy Office {Inquisition}, a Xtn institution, above. I hold no brief, as I have also stated on other threads, for the activities of fundamental Xtns in the USA &c ~~ as I have said about the idiocies being perpetrated on the ongoing Young Creationist thread by the foolish & pertinacious GUEST,Iona.
In attacking me for writing about Islam on a thread dedicated to that subject [look at the thread title for crying out loud], it is surely you, not me, who is persisting in reading and commenting selectively.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 03:43 AM

The problem MtheGM, to which you are contributing, is that statements like yours about the evils of Islam and Sharia law tend to give the impression that you are condemning Islam and/or Sharia law as such, not merely some objectionable examples or practices in some places or by some people. There are you and a few others who seem to find something to object to only in Islam and Islamic law, but nothing to criticise in say Xtianity or Judaism, and no examples of objectionable conduct in either of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 12:29 AM

Sorry about that ~~ cookie now back.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 12:25 AM

Nobody is 'stereotyping', Eliza. Everyone knows that not all Muslim states are alike. All you have demonstrated is that the things that happen in N Nigeria & Saudi Arabia do not happen in the Ivory Coast, which I knew already. But how does that make the Sharia-based [by their own claim, not mine or yours or anyone else's] goings-on in those 2 places any the less iniquitous?

Might as well say the crime is OK because you & I are not criminals.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 01:17 PM

Ivorian muslims are quite moderate and believe that only God has the right to punish by taking a life, so no death penalty. There is a sort of matriarchal society there too, and the older, strong-minded women certainly do contribute to decision-making within the family. There are no drachonian punishments and none of my husband's many sisters is veiled in any way. I don't think stereotyping is helpful or enlightening, just misguided.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Musket
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 10:57 AM

Well, one mate of mine who happens to be a Muslim reckons capital punishment is barbaric, that his wife wears the trousers in his house and he and his wife had a great time at his own son's civil partnership wedding.

He is a Muslim.

All it takes is one exception to the stereotyping and the stereotyping is irrelevant and false.

Next!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 04:03 AM

And again you ignore every one of my points about the very nature of all religions - even the one you attempt to make fireproof
Until they are all removed from the political arena and become no more than spiritual guides, they will all continue to be a menace to our well-being and safety - not to recognise that is to take sides..
Damn them all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 04:35 PM

---"I can't see that I am heading, even 'gradually', in any such direction"
Can't help but notice that we have moved with considerable ease from
"that small but unavoidably noticeable BY THEIR OWN WILL & CHOICE minority"
to
"by the actions of so many of its adherents"---
.,,.

Yes, I do see what you mean, Jim. BUT you have taken two discrete remarks out of their separate contexts.

The first referred to individual, or small groups of, Muslim citizens of this country and other western states, misbehaving ostentatiously in public in order to draw public attention to their activities, AS A DELIBERATE PROVOCATION TO THE GENERAL POPULACE as an expression of their defiance of the majority's values. I am more & more reminded by that particular element of Millwall Football Club's pathetic supporters with their pathetically provocative chant of "Everybody hates us; we don't care." I think it a sad attitude, whether from disaffected E London youths or from disaffected young Muslims plotting to blow up national monuments.

My second point referred to the actions of the legal governments and established priesthood [the same people, largely] of sovereign states, with whom we continue to maintain diplomatic relations & who continue to have voices & votes in international forums like the UN, whose actions are a disgrace to the whole of C21 civilisation. These are, to my mind, well rubricated as "so many of its adherents".

Please do not claim or pretend not to recognise the distinction I have drawn here.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 01:15 PM

"I can't see that I am heading, even 'gradually', in any such direction"
Can't help but notice that we have moved with considerable ease from
"that small but unavoidably noticeable BY THEIR OWN WILL & CHOICE minority"
to
"by the actions of so many of its adherents"
"tiptoe' a bit more 'carefully"
I have suggested that any religion, given the opportunity, would resort to oppresive measures to further its cause - you appear to be making Zionism a no-go area - perhaps I should have stuck with the "Will Israel attack Iran" thread!!
"whataboutery"????
I have put forward examples of what has happened when religions attain power and influence - no "what about" about it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 12:35 PM

"We seem to be gradually heading towards an "all Muslims are...." position here. I am very carefully tiptoeing around the 'Zionist extremism' argument -as I say, "all religions." "

.,,.
Who the 'we' in this formulation, Jim? I can't see that I am heading, even 'gradually', in any such direction in anything I have said. Can you point out wherein lies your evidence from within my post[s] for any such assertion?

& I should 'tiptoe' a bit more 'carefully' if I were you Jim ~~ like, for instance, not mentioning that particular argument at all: simply because it is nothing to the purpose ~~ even AFAICS as a bit of that 'whataboutery' that you seem to me to be constantly falling back on here.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 12:19 PM

"But these are in the past, Jim."
The recent past,and they only ended when the power of the church waned - ironically, the exposure of the extent of clerical sexual abuse has done much to reduce the power of the church - all to the good in my opinion.
Your bishop's having "something to say" depended entirely on the publicity the occurrences received and it was as likely as not that the bishops themselves were as great abusers as their subordinates. It should be remembered that the last Magdalene Laundry finally closed its doors in 1996 - and the church is still opposing investigation into the abuses that took place in them (and the Government continues to wash its hand of all responsibility for what went on in these 'correction centres').
"if the image of Islam is not to be tarnished in the eyes of many by the actions of so many of its adherents"
We seem to be gradually heading towards an "all Muslims are...." position here. I am very carefully tiptoeing around the 'Zionist extremism' argument -as I say, "all religions..."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 11:46 AM

I don't know to what extent this may or may not pertain to Sharia Law where the welfare of Pakistani women is concerned, but it might be relevant to note that Pakistan ranked on a list* as one of the five (Afhganistan topped it by a good head incidentally) countries most dangerous to women.

http://www.trust.org/documents/womens-rights/resources/2011WomenPollResults.pdf

Anyone interested in the subject might wish to do a little reading around certain prevalent and even commonplace cultural practices such as honour killing, acid throwing, forced child marriage, stoning as punishment, domestic violence and so-on. There's plenty of academic papers available out there including more detailed research on these subjects for anyone interested in the subject.

* compiled by Trust.Org: http://www.trust.org/

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 11:44 AM

I disagree withl little, if anything, you are urging here, Jim ~~ except that most of abuses you rubricate ~~ let us take the notorious activities of the Holy Office {aka The Inquisition}, especially but not exclusively in 14-16 C Spain, as prime examples. Your neighbour deafened by the priest who would probably have claimed authority by his office within the Church, is a more recent, but I think & hope more isolated instance - and I imagine that if his Bishop had heard of it he would have had something to say, if only quietly & privately.

But these are in the past, Jim. We are talking here of abuses widespread within supposedly modern states ~~ what had late medieval Spain which N Nigeria & Saudi Arabia & Taliban Afghan haven't, in terms of persecution by power allegedly authorised by the Faith, and actively supported within by that Faith's priesthood?

Those like the cleric mentioned in OP; those who, as you say, interpret Sharia differently from the LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTS of those states I name [but alas fail to shame] above ~~ these are going to have their work cut out if the image of Islam is not to be tarnished in the eyes of many by the actions of so many of its adherents, not 'then' but NOW, which the better-intentioned and clearer-thinking within their Faith, fail to address & prevent.

No?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 10:56 AM

I should have added that Sharia law is as disputed and open to interpretion among Muslims as are many Christian doctrines among Christians
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 10:50 AM

Mike
"......their paedophilia was actually enjoined on them by their Catholic faith, would they?"
That any religion may have abusers in their midst is something that might be claimed of any organisation; that the heirarchy of those organisations should protect those abusers and allow them to continue their abuses "in the interests of the organisation or religion" becomes a religious matter.
Pro-life groups that overstep (todays) norms may be now looked on askance by the church, but it is within living memory that churches as a body have actively persecuted "sinners", physically, mentally and socially for their sins. I've mentioned before our elderly neighbour who had her eardrum burst by a priest for attending a dance - a not uncommon occurence up to relatively recently.
I don't think that any religion can claim the high ground when it comes to abuse of power and position.
I believe that most religions by their absolutist nature, have a tendency towards oppression and persecution which is only restricted by the power they possess.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 09:37 AM

···I don't disagree with your 'mistaken attitudes of some' - but that surely applies to all religions; those who would defend and protect paedophile Catholic priests···
,..,
Right as a general point, Jim: but surely nobody would defend these on the grounds that their paedophilia was actually enjoined on them by their Catholic faith, would they? Which is a claim made by some small number of Muslims defending the homicidal and terrorising Jehadist or 'Islamist' factions. Tho I do take your point over some similarity in the case of homicidal 'pro-lifers'& such within the Christian community. But I feel these further out on a limb from mainstream Xtnty than the 'Islamists' from mainstream Islam, tho will accept this perhaps a partial and personal impression.

Still, as I have said before, no abuse can be excused by an argument of what I call "whataboutery".

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 08:56 AM

"but I do feel that some few among them have mistaken attitudes and follow &/or recommend unacceptable practices; and I resent being attacked, directly or by implication, as some sort of racist persecutor,"
Sorry Mike - we have had our differences in the past, some of them heated, but I am not aware that you have ever stereotyped any community or group as a whole (or even 'all males belonging to any specific group) - others have, and my remarks were aimed at them, not you.
I don't disagree with your 'mistaken attitudes of some' - but that surely applies to all religions; those who would defend and protect paedophile Catholic priests, or fanatical 'pro-lifers (sic)', or Christians who would slaughter a camp-ful of youngsters in order to make a political/religious/racist point....
As a community, British Pakistanis are recognised as law abiding and hard working and their children are among the highest achievers within the education system - hardly the cultural perverts that some would have us believe - "that small but unavoidably noticeable BY THEIR OWN WILL & CHOICE minority" says it all as far as I'm concerned - would that everybody accepted that fact.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 08:13 AM

OK, Jim: but ~~ accepting your 'braindead' designation, which I will agree will do as well as any term for the racist thugs you specify ~~

I would refer you back to a long-ago thread of mine on the use of the term 'racist' as a catch-all term used by some self-appointed arbiters of public morality to smear their opponents ~~ a postulation with which you expressed agreement.

So:- not all who recognise some invalid arguments or unjust practices followed by some [as I say above "few but disproportionately prominent & effective"] Muslims ~~ e.g. strict Sharia Law with relation to penal matters and the necessity of its imposition ~~ are "advocating racial or cultural inferiority from the comfort and safety of their keyboards." I do not regard them all, or indeed any but that small but unavoidably noticeable BY THEIR OWN WILL & CHOICE minority I have just described, as 'racially or culturally inferior'; but I do feel that some few among them have mistaken attitudes and follow &/or recommend unacceptable practices; and I resent being attacked, directly or by implication, as some sort of racist persecutor, simply for exercising my undoubted right to express such a view ~~ 'from the comfort & safety of my own keyboard' or by way of any other medium.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 07:41 AM

"Accusations of 'braindeadness' are facile, Jim."
No Mike, they are not
Anybody who sets out to deliberately to persecute or terrorise people because of their race, etnicity, religion... deserve the description of 'braindead, from 'Paki-bashers' to the passive thugs who egg them on by advocating racial or cultural inferiority from the comfort and safety of their keyboards.
Islam is no more or less dangerous than any other religion taken to extremes, especially when it gains the support and becomes entangled with politics - until all religions become a matter of personal choice and are totally divorced from the running of the state they will continue to be a threat.
"UK has racists like any country Jim, but is more tolerant than most."
Not in my experience and not in the experience of British Pakistanis who are 10 times more likely to be persecuted than any other ethnic group.
Following the Lawrence murder, the police force as a whole was declared to be "institutionlly racist" - changes were initiated, but the problem of racism is still an issue within the British establishment, as shown by the racial flashpoint that preceeded last years riots (and numbers of other early similar disturbances).
Britain as a whole is far from racially tolerant, and that situation is set to intensify given the present economic climate.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 06:23 AM

Words have more than one meaning, Richard, as even a fuke kno [except apparently the particular fule that is R Bridge]; and it is patent which was the sense in which I used 'entail'; so you do yourself no favour in pretending to be even more bloody silly than you are.

It is not only the info contained in the Daily Mail which reports that Sharia Law as practised in N Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, by the Taleban in Afghanistan, &c, entails such enormities as the public flogging of young female rape victims for having thus become impure, the public amputation of hands and feet of thieves, the public execution by stoning or hanging of adulterers/resses, the public beheading of apostates from Islam ~~ not are these not denied, but are positively boasted of, by the governments involved.

You may not really be such a fool as you appear to wish to appear; but you are being thoroughly disingenuous.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 06:01 AM

I'm not wholly clear that I know enough about "Sharia Law" as distinct from the picture painted of it by things like the Daily Mail, to be confident that Sharia Law does in fact so "entail". I have placed "entail" in quotation marks as it does have a specific meaning in the history of English land law and I am reasonably sure that that is not what MtheGM means to imply.

Regrettably, the often-seen attacks on some practices in Muslim countries do give the impression that the proponents of those attacks do see Muslims as generally inferior. That, I think, is part of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 05:10 AM

Me, 1st Feb.
"Can you justify your claim that Muslims are persecuted by the law in UK? "

And not one justification has been put forward by Greg or Jim.

UK has racists like any country Jim, but is more tolerant than most.

There is nothing to justify Greg's claim, "Yeah, "walking while Muslim" in the U.K. seems to be the equivalent od "driving while Black" in the U.S of A. "

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 04:22 AM

Accusations of 'braindeadness' are facile, Jim. Nobody is accusing all, or even most, Muslims of being inferior either culturally or personally. But I maintain that countries which elect or tolerate governments which insist on Sharia law, with all the medieval atrocities thereby entailed, are 'inferior', both in cultural & human terms, to ones which don't; and so are those, few but disproportionately prominent & effective, Muslims in other countries who strive by terrorist acts to bring about such governments within the countries they inhabit or within which they intrude.

Those who deny or will not acknowledge this are wilfully blinding themselves to the facts of the matter, and are as 'braindead' as you accuse others of being.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 03:55 AM

"I asked for justification that they were persecuted in UK "by the law."
And I pointed out that they were persecuted by braindeads who beleieved them to be inferiors both culturally and as human beings
"Muslims are not persecuted in this country."
Don't see any mention of the law in that statement
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 02:34 PM

Correction. I was originally talking about Muslims, not just Pakistanis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 02:33 PM

British Pakistanis are the most persecuted ethnic Group (and the poorest) in Britain today

I asked for justification that they were persecuted in UK "by the law."
None has been provided that any "ethnic group" is.
What do you have Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: ollaimh
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 01:03 PM

the usual cranks,

well western style democracy is a threat to any native people in the world, especially amerindians. akenaton read a book!

i sugest "a little matter of genocide" by ward churchill.

unites states out of america!!!

lets have a real democracy instead of a corporate sham of democracy.

i get really tired of genocidal christians pointing the finger. ther's lots wrong with islam but they are not the threat to world domination. christianity has already done that! with its twisted capitalist version, with absolutely no campassion or mercy and a military invasion at the ready!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 03:56 PM

Thanks to the braindeads in our midst, British Pakistanis are the most persecuted ethnic Group (and the poorest) in Britain today - must be something to do with the cultural implant!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Musket
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 05:13 AM

Every time the tax man disagrees with my assessment, I am being persecuted by the government.

zzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 02:59 AM

How? By providing examples of non-persecution?

Muslims are not persecuted in this country.
If they were it would be easy to provide examples.
If you have none, you are displaying prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 09:08 AM

Keith: Can you justify your claim that Muslims are persecuted ... in UK?

Can you justify your claim that they're not?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: GUEST,Bake-on
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 08:57 AM

Now I've been crying lately,
thinking about the world as it is
Why must we go on hating,
why can't we live in bliss

Cause out on the edge of darkness,
there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country,
come take me home again

It's so peaceful

Oh peace train sounding louder
Glide on the peace train
Come on now peace train
Yes, peace train holy roller

Everyone jump upon the peace train
Come on now peace train

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 08:53 AM

Not that I trust any paper especially, but the Telegraph says the bugged conversation took place relatively early in the day, then they left the car, subsequently travelled by bus and eventually walked, which was when they were seen observing the tourist spots. So if the Telegraph report is accurate it would be an unjustified linkage between the conversation and the observation, unless the conversation itself named those places. This isn't to defend them in any way, but generally speaking getting the detail right is important to ensure the scope for appeals is minimised.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 08:06 AM

Tourist spots are an ideal target from their point of view
Could be, but so could so many other places that are decidedly not tourist but would have even greater economic damage and/or fatalities. For obvious reasons, I'm not going to suggest any.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 07:34 AM

Tourist spots are an ideal target from their point of view. It scares people to think that they've penetrated even to a place of interest. The IRA bombed the Tower of London some years ago for that reason, I should imagine. I'm reassured that these type of places are under surveillance. If someone known to the Intelligence Service is seen walking past, it's highly unlikely they're there to broaden their education!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:04 AM

"but the earlier reports - indeed any report I've yet read - didn't say that"
The BBC news site does not refer to it, but last evening's bbc radio and TV reports did

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 05:47 AM

Planning bombs for the Stock Exchange is rightly something to bring to trial, but, really, looking at the tourist stuff?

Their car was bugged as they made this reconnaissance, and they were talking about which building to "hit."

If that's so, then I have no problem, but the earlier reports - indeed any report I've yet read - didn't say that. They only talked about Johnson, the American embassy and two rabbis as a written list, and the stock exchange as a chosen target.

'Observing' is a tricky word, since it covers everything from walking past and looking at something exactly as an ordinary tourist would, through to getting the theodolites out and taking measurements. So I want better evidence than a vague declaration someone was observing something. A recording that they were actively discussing bombing the buildings so observed is such evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 02:52 AM

Returning to
observing Big Ben, Westminster Abbey, the London Eye and the Palace of Westminster.

Well, that's pretty suspicious activity, isn't it?

Planning bombs for the Stock Exchange is rightly something to bring to trial, but, really, looking at the tourist stuff?

Their car was bugged as they made this reconnaissance, and they were talking about which building to "hit."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 12:00 AM

That differs from your previous position.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 09:40 PM

Adopt values of their new society-
Should acceptance of behavior of immigrants extend to honor killings, genital mutilation, insistance on conformity to values contrary to concepts of freedom of association and speech?

This does not mean the exclusion of cultural and religious values that do not conflict with our laws.
Approximately 20 percent of citizens in my city are members of "visible minorities" and have different practices relating to calendar events (year of the dragon, etc.), religious observances (Ramadan), etc. The mayor is Muslim, and Sikhs serve in the provincial legislature.

The exhortation of Emma Lazarus is obsolete or has been strongly modified, at least in Canada, where a new immigrant must show that he has the ability to support himself or invest or has a responsible sponsor, and obtains preference for certain skills (refugee applications excepted but these are limited). Quotas also exert strong bias.

Even the "illegals" nearly all come to work and make their contributions without inflicting odious restrictions on their families.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 05:56 PM

Had to memorize that in fifth grade. Who knew that one day I'd be a National Park Service ranger at the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 05:48 PM

Q - you may have forgotten:

The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus, 1883


Nothing there about assimilating, and indeed previous immigrants to the American continents went so far from assimilating as to destroy the indigenes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 05:27 PM

Immigrants applying for permanent settlement in the UK must pass a 'Life in the UK' test which demonstrates their understanding of English language and culture. If an immigrant's English isn't up to taking the test, they must take ESOL (English for Speakers of other Languages) lessons and advance one level, obtaining a certificate as verification. These lessons are expensive. This applies even to spouses who have married a UK citizen. Many of the terrorists apprehended so far were born here in UK, but went to train in their chosen career as murderers in fundamentalist states. They're not in any way immigrants.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 05:00 PM

I don't see how you could deport them. What other country would agree to take them - after they have misbehaved here?

Apparently this latest lot were radicalised in prison - and you don't get sent there for nothing. If they live here, they're our problem, aren't they?

I wonder if anybody is ever actually reformed, deterred or turns over a new leaf after the experience of prison. The whole idea needs looking at. It seems to be very expensive and doesn't do much good - although I can see that it gives us a break from the activities of bad people.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 04:43 PM

In the case you cite, Q, it was an Afghan family, but all too often we hear of murders of families and murder suicides by non-Muslim families in The New World. And most of them have nothing to do with religion. I think the religion or culture in most of these cases is purely coincidence.

Actually, the US doesn't demand that immigrants adopt a way of life - many never learn English, they live in communities with dense non-English populations or in extended families where they don't have to learn it. To get citizenship some mastery is required. Living with the American legal system is required, of course. But that isn't the same as "they should adopt the values of the society they enter." That suggests there is only one set of values in the new country, and that simply isn't the case.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 03:06 PM

Immigrants should adopt the values of the society they enter. Their willingness should be declared when they land.
If they cannot agree, or lie about their willingness to adopt the values of their new home, they should be subject to immediate deportation- regardless of country of origin or religion.

Canada has recently had the horrible case where a Muslim family was convicted of killing their daughters and the man's first wife because they would not conform to the strict values brought from their former society and adopted the freedoms of Canadian society; an "honour" killing.
The killers have been sentenced to life in prison. Unfortunately Canada has legislated against the death penalty.

Muslims- or any group- must not be tarred wholesale with the same brush. Canada has received many who have adopted Canadian values and are making a contribution to the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 02:46 PM

Damn, Mither, you don't like Gilbert & Sullivan either? "I've got a little list..."