AND SO IT BEGINS? SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN?

I have presented quite a bit of conclusive data showing that Muslim controlled countries are typically--even universally--less tolerant and afford fewer guaranteed human rights than developed non-Muslim controlled western countries. And while you will find more tolerance and leniency in say Indonesia and Turkey than in some more fundamentalist countries, more restrictions on human rights exist there than is found in developed non-Muslim western countries. That is especially true in places where Islam is more fundamentalist.

More examples:
SEE HERE

AND HERE

AND HERE

AND HERE

This was presented when you and others tried to make this into my diatribe against Islam which it has never been. Or you tried to make a big deal that an Islamic presence does not have negative effect on the country. That is probably true, though I haven't been able to find a country anywhere with a majority Islamic presence that isn't being cited for significant human rights violations.

And then again, I said in my opinion that was all beside the point. Illustrations using Islam is but one illustration of what could happen in many places where new majorities emerge.

So what kind of data must be provided in order to ask a simple and civil question related to one's attitude about culture?

Let's try one last time, and if some here continue to be unable to understand the question as asked, I'm done.

The question is:

If. . .

. . .a rapidly growing minority (of any sort) decide to drastically push for changes in the existing culture--that would be dress, cuisine, laws, traditions, customs, sense of human worth and rights etc.--and this was mostly for the worse. . . .

. . .should that be accepted as normal and inevitable? Or should that be resisted? If it should be resisted, how should it be resisted?

Would the answer be different if the minority was likely to become a majority?

Or asking the question in a different way, what should be resisted in the way of change? And what should be embraced and welcomed?

0 Replies

Bull Foxy. This is about fear and bigotry.

Muslims are far from the first religious group to experience it. Just 100 years ago, there was an outcry that Italians and Irish were a threat to our country.

The accusations were their religion was dangerous, that they were prone to political violence, and that they were unable or unwilling to assimilate.

History proves the bigotry and fear was unwarranted.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I have presented quite a bit of conclusive data showing that Muslim controlled countries are typically--even universally--less tolerant and afford fewer guaranteed human rights than developed non-Muslim controlled western countries.

Really? Could you link to the post where you have done this?

And I don't mean the posts where you've posted anecdotal evidence as you've done just now - after discounting "anecdotal illustrations" as of no consequence in this debate...

Also, I don't think that editorials titled "10 Reasons Terror Meets Silence From Muslims" would count as "conclusive data". It's a valid approach towards discussing underlying issues - but that's really all it is.

I may have missed the posts where you presented "conclusive data showing that Muslim controlled countries are typically--even universally--less tolerant and afford fewer guaranteed human rights than developed non-Muslim controlled western countries" - and in this case it shouldn't be a problem for you to link to those posts again.

However, I really doubt you've ever presented any kind of "conclusive data".

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The question is:

If. . .

. . .a rapidly growing minority (of any sort) decide to drastically push for changes in the existing culture--that would be dress, cuisine, laws, traditions, customs, sense of human worth and rights etc.--and this was mostly for the worse. . . .

. . .should that be accepted as normal and inevitable? Or should that be resisted? If it should be resisted, how should it be resisted?

I think your problem is that this question hasn't been answered in a way that you approve of. Which is why you're trying to rephrase it again and again until finally people come around and you get your desired answer of "yes, if things change for the worse, we have to resist it".

The problem is that you were framing this debate in terms of influence of Islam on a Western country - thereby clearly referencing Western countries and their culture as better and Islam as a detrimental influence to those countries and cultures.

If you had started this debate free of that kind of context, people might have discussed that "wider issue" that you're purportedly trying to discuss rather than focusing on the framework you have presented - that Western culture is "good" and Islam is "bad".

0 Replies

As a slave who wish to expose the arrogance of the war infested christistian many I ask a simple question?

0 Replies

No.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Let's try one last time, and if some here continue to be unable to understand the question as asked, I'm done.

The question is:

If. . .

. . .a rapidly growing minority (of any sort) decide to drastically push for changes in the existing culture--that would be dress, cuisine, laws, traditions, customs, sense of human worth and rights etc.--and this was mostly for the worse. . . .

. . .should that be accepted as normal and inevitable? Or should that be resisted? If it should be resisted, how should it be resisted?

Would the answer be different if the minority was likely to become a majority?

Or asking the question in a different way, what should be resisted in the way of change? And what should be embraced and welcomed?

Well, when I read the history of the state you live in, I could get the impression that the former majority has to live in reservations and lives from casinos and selling art.
The religion becomes a mixture of what is actually present on the market, with the focus on the one of the first majority.
And over the centuries you get in a status of accepting the situation.

Similar happened before and afterwards and all over the world.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I have presented quite a bit of conclusive data showing that Muslim controlled countries are typically--even universally--less tolerant and afford fewer guaranteed human rights than developed non-Muslim controlled western countries.

Really? Could you link to the post where you have done this?

And I don't mean the posts where you've posted anecdotal evidence as you've done just now - after discounting "anecdotal illustrations" as of no consequence in this debate...

Also, I don't think that editorials titled "10 Reasons Terror Meets Silence From Muslims" would count as "conclusive data". It's a valid approach towards discussing underlying issues - but that's really all it is.

I may have missed the posts where you presented "conclusive data showing that Muslim controlled countries are typically--even universally--less tolerant and afford fewer guaranteed human rights than developed non-Muslim controlled western countries" - and in this case it shouldn't be a problem for you to link to those posts again.

However, I really doubt you've ever presented any kind of "conclusive data".

I could like to the post where I did that, but you obviously didn't read it then, so why should I take my time to hunt it up and post it again? You can do that as easily as I can.

I did not post 'evidence'. I posted 'examples'. I realize English may be your second language and I usually make allowances for that. But in this case I think you are intentionally pretending not to understand my point of view and/or to address the issue I am interested in discussing. Which is your prerogative.

It is also my prerogative to wish you a nice day as I kick myself out the door for giving you the benefit of the doubt yet again. But oh well. Better to risk than not I guess.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I have presented quite a bit of conclusive data showing that Muslim controlled countries are typically--even universally--less tolerant and afford fewer guaranteed human rights than developed non-Muslim controlled western countries.

(Emphasis mine) Why not compare apples to apples? Why stipulate "developed" for non muslim countries but not for muslim countries?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I did not post 'evidence'. I posted 'examples'. I realize English may be your second language and I usually make allowances for that. But in this case I think you are intentionally pretending not to understand my point of view and/or to address the issue I am interested in discussing. Which is your prerogative.

Actually, I was referring to the commonly accepted usage of the term "anecdotal evidence" as described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Specifically, the part in bold:

Quote:

The expression anecdotal evidence has two quite distinct meanings.

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity: the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy or untrue.

(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion from which it does not follow, usually by generalising from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I have presented quite a bit of conclusive data showing that Muslim controlled countries are typically--even universally--less tolerant and afford fewer guaranteed human rights than developed non-Muslim controlled western countries.

(Emphasis mine) Why not compare apples to apples? Why stipulate "developed" for non muslim countries but not for muslim countries?

Some seem to think that the form of Islam found in Indonesia and Turkey would not result in any change in the UK or anywhere else. There are numerous non-Islamic countries that also have abysmal human rights, but they are mostly not highly developed nations as you do find in most developed western nations. I specified developed western nations to distinguish from some of the poorest western nations in which human rights are still very much a problem.

Those points in the discussion came up at all because some of our resident liberals here are more interested in accusing me of points of view that I don't hold or making this a racial or ethnic issue which it isn't.

The thesis is whether a nation can retain its unique culture if it capitulates to or accommodates demands from a different kind of culture in a major way, and more particularly if that different culture should become the majority. And should that be a concern in the UK or anywhere?

A few on this thread actually were able to read and answer that question without having to demonize a single person or any people to do it. I very much appreciated that.

0 Replies

This is typical of the kind of tripe you include in your threads. The category is every example which confirms your prejudice, and excludes any example which contradicts your prejudice. Therefore, any nation with a christian majority which has a bad human rights record does not count because you will allege that said nation is not "developed," and every nation with a muslim majority which has a good human rights record will not count because you will allege that that nation is a "developed" nation.

This makes a mockery of the notion of a logical argument--you're basically saying that the only examples which will count will be those nations which confirm your point of view, and those which don't are not to be considered.

Serbia is a nation which is, in the industrial and economic sense, a developed nation. It was, until quite recently, the rump of Yugoslavia, and its human rights record was abysmal. The only reason that this might be said to be no longer true is because ever other portion of Yugoslavia in which there was an ethnic minority (or majority) which the Serbs were oppressing has either successfully seceded from the rump of Yugoslavia, or was removed from Serb control by force. Being "developed" and christian did not make the rump of Yugoslavia a compassionate or a just state. It was only through successful, massive foreign military intervention that Bosnia-Herzegovina was able to secede and Kosovo was separated. It was only after the international attack on Serbia that Montenegro was so bold as to secede from the rump of Yugoslavia, and Serbia itself does not consider that either Montenegro or Kosovo have legally separated from the rump of Yugoslavia (nor Macedonia either, for that matter). (As recently as September of last year, the Serbian foreign minister referred to Montenegro as a "quasi-state," even though Serbia formally recognized Montenegrin independence in 2006--allegedly.)

Turkey, meanwhile, has not been allowed to join the European Union because of its human rights record, primarily with regard to the Kurdish minority, and because of Turkey's continued refusal to recognize the slaughter of Armenians in the late stages of the Great War and after the war as an act of genocide. The inescapable conclusion is that neither christianity, nor islam, nor "development" is a reasonable measure of the likelihood of a nation to guarantee (nor deny) human rights. The basic argument which Fox has attempted to present is not demonstrated, and she only claims that it has been because she willfully ignores any examples which contradict her thesis.

Walter has repeatedly pointed out in this thread that sharia is not and never has been the law anywhere in the United Kingdom, and has quoted responsible members of government to that effect. The response from Fox on those comments has been silence.

Germany can hardly be described in any other terms than a highly developed nation. The largest single ethnic minority in Germany is the Turkish "guest workers" (1.8 million Turks--source from the University of Arizona MESA bulletin, July, 1995). Yet the Turkish minority in Germany could not be German citizens, even the children of Turks who were born there, until new legislation in 2000. At that time, the children of foreigners who were born in Germany were allowed to apply for German citizenship between ages 18 and 23, but still could not hold dual citizenship. On the other hand, anyone who can claim a certain degree of German ancestry, no matter the country of their origin, is automatically entitled to claim German citizenship. This can hardly be seen as a perfect social justice, despite Germany being putatively a christian nation and a developed nation.

In short, Fox's entire argument is based upon a variation of the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances. The only examples which she is willing to discuss are those which confirm her point of view, and any which contradict it will be said not to apply based upon one excuse or another.

0 Replies

Germany can hardly be described in any other terms than a highly developed nation. The largest single ethnic minority in Germany is the Turkish "guest workers" (1.8 million Turks--source from the University of Arizona MESA bulletin, July, 1995). Yet the Turkish minority in Germany could not be German citizens, even the children of Turks who were born there, until new legislation in 2000. At that time, the children of foreigners who were born in Germany were allowed to apply for German citizenship between ages 18 and 23, but still could not hold dual citizenship. On the other hand, anyone who can claim a certain degree of German ancestry, no matter the country of their origin, is automatically entitled to claim German citizenship. This can hardly be seen as a perfect social justice, despite Germany being putatively a christian nation and a developed nation.

In short, Fox's entire argument is based upon a variation of the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances. The only examples which she is willing to discuss are those which confirm her point of view, and any which contradict it will be said not to apply based upon one excuse or another.

I have no disagreemtnt with the above quote.
Let us shape a decent world before our death

0 Replies

Fox's thesis is not and has never been based on the injustices imposed by one people upon another. That is an interesting subject but an entirely different subject. The only points I have rejected, within this context, are those that attempt to change the subject, not address it.

The subject here is whether a culture--language, value system, laws, customs, traditions, cuisine, way of life--can be worth defending and protecting. The subject here is when or whether it would be appropriate to resist those who seek to change the culture, if it would ever be appropriate to do so.

0 Replies

You, specifically, are the one who introduced the subject of human rights as a measure of a nation's commitment to decency and justice.

Once again, when yet another touchdown or field goal is scored against her, Fox attempts to move the goal posts.

0 Replies

By the way, i am only a "liberal" in the mind of a political reactionary. I haven't accused you of racism, or of ethnic prejudice. Specifically, i am accusing you of a typical, fundamentalist christian religious prejudice. As the "British Empire" began to collapse in the wake of the Second World War, and especially after 1960 when England began to jettison her former colonies, the residents of her former colonies used the rights they had as citizens of the Commonwealth to migrate to England and take up residence. I don't see you worried about how the people of the West Indian islands threaten the culture of England. I don't see you worried about how the huge south Asian population of England threatens the culture of England. The only thing is see you whining about (and you continue to ignore what Walter has repeatedly pointed out, that sharia is not the law or even a part of the law in the United Kingdom) is the threat of Muslims.

You are, without a doubt, in my never humble opinion, a religious bigot of the first water.

0 Replies

The subject here is whether a culture--language, value system, laws, customs, traditions, cuisine, way of life--can be worth defending and protecting. The subject here is when or whether it would be appropriate to resist those who seek to change the culture, if it would ever be appropriate to do so.

Just curious .
would you mind to put it succinctly so that I can underststand.
Accept my repects in advance.

0 Replies

No, I did not other than in the context of an EXAMPLE of why a change in culture could be detrimental. Others attempted to make this a critique of me and my point of view--they almost always get it wrong when they do that--and still others wanted to make it a diatribe against Islam since that happens to be the group changing some of the culture in the UK which was the thread starter.

Human right could certainly be a component of one culture when compared to another. That would be a huge biggie for me.

But human rights would only be a factor in this discussion should the encroaching culture be pushing more or less human rights. Some cultures value human rights. Some do not. It is as simple as that. If you happen to be in a society that does value human rights, losing those to an encroaching culture would most likely be seen as a strong negative.

0 Replies

I just had a spate of hilarity. I can think of few things less worth defending than "British cuisine."

0 Replies

Rama, what are you asking?

0 Replies

AND SO IT BEGINS? SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know