RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (12) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: GoP defends his claim about muslim intergration, Rebuttal as appropriate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,11:48   

Dear All,

Ghosty made the following claim:

Quote
For example, I claim that Muslims, as a group, do not assimilate as well as other groups, and in fact their culture often damages civil liberties. Is this bigotry or simply stating an unpleasant truth? You obviously think the former, but if you're right you should point to evidence (not isolated examples) that Muslims do in fact assimilate, or that we are more free to speak our minds than previously.


Bold mine.

Since Ghosty is convinced that nobody has refuted any of his political views, and since Ghosty is keen for me deal with his politics as I have stated that they are based on his obvious prejudices, this debate has been arranged as a means to accomplish this.

There are several reasons I have picked this political claim over many others.

1) To be fair to Ghosty,I think there is a chance of him defending this one. Zombie Pinko Hitler is a different beast!

2) It's not something I have any special knowledge of, but I am inclined to grant anyone, including muslims and even Ghosty, the benefit of the doubt until I see evidence to the contrary. I am happy to be persuaded by Ghosty that the positive claim is the case, and I hope he is equally happy to be persuaded by me that it isn't, should that be the position I take. It is possible that Ghosty will present such compelling evidence that I agree with the original claim, and thus with him.

3) This claim at least is relativey specific. Many of the other claims,including the attempt by Ghosty to widen this claim, are more vague. Vague claims make for poor debates.

So the key claim is that muslims do not integrate as well as other groups. I expect Ghosty to present evidence for this claim and to clearly compare and contrast the integration into Western society of several groups. I also expect Ghosty to define what he means by "muslims" and "integrate", just for starters.

Take it away Ghosty.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,12:05   

don't take a lack of response in this thread to be a lack of disagreement with gawp.

It's just that the premise of what he stated is so stupid as to be singularly unworthy of response.

to be blunt, it's simply boring in its inanity.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,12:39   

As a raging Liberal, my gut reaction is that Paley is wrong.  But certainly in Europe, the massive Muslim immigration since WW II is not going well.  Obviously part of the cause is racism and discrimination by the host country, and lack of economic advancement (compare it to the African American population post Civil War to now – integration comes only when BOTH sides want it).

But there is also the problem of religion.  Muslims are probably much closer to comfortable in an authoritarian theocratic country like the States than they are in very liberal and secular Europe.  That very liberalism can be seen as threatening their core beliefs.  And, again in Europe with its high density Muslim areas, everything has worsened since 9/11.  There have been very significant signs of lack of integration, and WHATEVER THE CAUSE, it is something that needs to be thought about and dealt with.

So while I don’t like the idea, I am willing to consider it.  I am not going to reject it out of hand.  Unlike Bush I don’t believe in truthiness – I need to try and look at this seriously.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,13:08   

Although it is always fun to watch Paley make a blithering idiot of himself (yet again), I do question the need to continually offer our intestines to the tapeworm. . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,13:17   

I deleted the other topic, since everyone said they were moving over to this one.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,13:41   

Ok, let's get a few ground rules out of the way. Don't sweat, Louis, I think you'll find them rather palatable.

1) I will assume for the purposes of this debate that all mainstream science, including evolution, is true. Why? Because I want to demonstrate that even "rational" sciency types can agree with me on this issue. I don't perceive a problem here, as Evos never tire of telling us that their Theory is the bestest of all time.

2) I will assume for the purposes of the debate that the Bible is not an authoritative source for truth claims. This doesn't mean I'm assuming its falsity; only that the Bible is just a holy book no different from other scriptures -- it may be true but it has to prove its validity to the "objective skeptic". Thus, you don't have to be a "Bible-thumping fundie" to embrace my position.

3) Except on immigration and possible instances of profiling, I will assume that Muslims should get full and equal treatment under the law (whether this actually occurs is another issue, of course, and open to debate). Actually, this one's easy because it represents my personal beliefs, not that anyone's noticed.

4) Louis and I are free to use any source we wish, and it is up to the opposing side to point out its inherent weakness, bias, or irrelevancy. No source may be ruled inadmissable without a rational objection. Relax, Louis, I'm not planning on using bonehead sources; I'm just trying to keep PC out of this as much as possible.

5) I will assume all racial and ethnic groups are precisely equal in mental ability, emotional stability, etc. No biological determinism. Once again, not much of a stretch.

6) Since Steve has deleted the other thread (which confuses me, since I thought Stevestory said he wasn't a moderator. Did he get promoted?), I am going to completely ignore anything that doesn't flow directly from Louis's pen. He is free to cut n' paste other posts to his heart's content, however, and then I will respond. My lack of response to any poster is not to be taken as a lack of ability to respond. Whine to Louie if you want an answer.

7) Last thing. I'm planning on breaking my initial statement into manageable segments. This should cut down on frustration due to software glitches and make the debate easier to follow. Louis can respond to my first post whenever he wishes, of course; I don't expect him to wait around forever.

Louis, if you have any problem with any of this, let me know now. Thanks.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,14:09   

I will watch this thread with interest, since my country provides a 'peculiar' example of muslim minorities, old and new, their potential assimilation to western culture, and their possible link to crime and civil disorder.
I would however like to poropose another rule, which will make things simpler, if both wish to follow it.
Supplementing Ghost's "no inadmissable source" rule, I propose, if he and Louis agree, that the context in point for each source provided should be readily admissable and examined- that is, no indirect quotes.
Let's not have a link to a thread that mentions an article about a book that refers to a study that is supposed to mention (A); Let's see a link to the study.
It's not that much to ask, and it would help to settle much possible dispute on the evidence, especially in such a heated issue.
What do you think?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,14:16   

I would also like to say that "poropose" is too a word, and an awesome one at that.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,14:27   

Quote
6) Since Steve has deleted the other thread (which confuses me, since I thought Stevestory said he wasn't a moderator. Did he get promoted?), I am going to completely ignore anything that doesn't flow directly from Louis's pen. He is free to cut n' paste other posts to his heart's content, however, and then I will respond. My lack of response to any poster is not to be taken as a lack of ability to respond. Whine to Louie if you want an answer.


If I read everything correctly, Midnight Voice, who started the other and very similar thread, said in the comments that he was ditching it and switching to this one. So I pruned it under the rule against unnecessary multiplication of topics. This thread is about GoP's claim about muslim integration, the other was like an open thread about muslim integration, so I presume all comments relating to both GoP's claim and the more general topic can coexist here.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,14:38   

OK. The software has been playing me for a mark lately, but I'll try to get at least one substantial post in tonight. Since the debate hasn't officially started, I'd like to unignore Faid fer a sec.

Faid:

   
Quote
I would however like to poropose another rule, which will make things simpler, if both wish to follow it.
Supplementing Ghost's "no inadmissable source" rule, I propose, if he and Louis agree, that the context in point for each source provided should be readily admissable and examined- that is, no indirect quotes.
Let's not have a link to a thread that mentions an article about a book that refers to a study that is supposed to mention (A); Let's see a link to the study.


Yes, I should have thought about this issue; this came up on Thordaddy's gay marriage thread. Sometimes things do get taken out of context and then the diseased info zooms around the internet like a horny teen. Repeating hard-to-check-factoids can be worse than useless. My tentative proposal is that it's OK, but the debater should mention that he can't locate the original source, and that the reader should exercise due caution. All I demand is that anything that applies to me also applies to Louis.

The reason why the evidentiary standards might have to be loosened is that many European countries have become dodgy about reporting crime statistics at all, especially by ethnic/religious breakdown. Now I have grave suspicions as to the cause of this, but putting that aside the truth is statistics are not easy to come by, so one is forced to rely on what's available. In any case, I will rely on primary documentation as much as possible.

Next post: opener.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,15:51   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 23 2006,19:38)
OK. The software has been playing me for a mark lately, but I'll try to get at least one substantial post in tonight. Since the debate hasn't officially started, I'd like to unignore Faid fer a sec.

Faid:

   
Quote
I would however like to poropose another rule, which will make things simpler, if both wish to follow it.
Supplementing Ghost's "no inadmissable source" rule, I propose, if he and Louis agree, that the context in point for each source provided should be readily admissable and examined- that is, no indirect quotes.
Let's not have a link to a thread that mentions an article about a book that refers to a study that is supposed to mention (A); Let's see a link to the study.


Yes, I should have thought about this issue; this came up on Thordaddy's gay marriage thread. Sometimes things do get taken out of context and then the diseased info zooms around the internet like a horny teen. Repeating hard-to-check-factoids can be worse than useless. My tentative proposal is that it's OK, but the debater should mention that he can't locate the original source, and that the reader should exercise due caution. All I demand is that anything that applies to me also applies to Louis.

The reason why the evidentiary standards might have to be loosened is that many European countries have become dodgy about reporting crime statistics at all, especially by ethnic/religious breakdown. Now I have grave suspicions as to the cause of this, but putting that aside the truth is statistics are not easy to come by, so one is forced to rely on what's available. In any case, I will rely on primary documentation as much as possible.

Next post: opener.

My goodness, Paley, you sure do love center stage . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,16:10   

All right.

The first objection I hear to complaints about lack of Muslim assimilation is that it's an answer in search of a problem....in other words, who cares? The justification is simple: a healthy nation must first have a coherent vision that is accepted by the vast majority of the populace. Without a single identity, it often divides into warring factions, leading to political and military instability. There are several prominent historical examples:

Egypt:

   
Quote
13th Dynasty, 1786-1633 BCE
   With the decline of the 13th Dynasty, Egypt lost much of its power and cohesion. The military leaders and soldiers stationed in Nubia became more and more independent. Some of them may even have permanently settled in Nubia. The fortresses built along the Eastern border were either abandoned, or control over who passed the borders was not as strict as it used to be. Canaanite nomads entered the country freely.
   Most of these Canaanites settled and became traders, farmers or craftsmen, but at least one of them, Khendjer, became a king. By the end of the 13th Dynasty, the Eastern Delta was populated mostly by Asiatics.

15th and 16th Dynasties: the Hyksos, c. 1684-1567 BCE
    Weakened by internal problems, Lower Egypt was taken over seemingly with little fighting by the invading or perhaps just immigrant Hyksos, who set up two contemporaneous dynasties. The 15th dynasty (1674-1567) of the great Hyksos kings dominated the Hyksos vassal chiefs of the 16th dynasty (1684-1567).
   Greek writers, beginning with Manetho, called them "Hyksos," which was mistranslated as "shepherd kings." Egyptians seem to have called these kings heqa-khasut, rulers of foreign lands, but they generally referred to invading foreigners as amu, asiatics or shamu, sand-dwellers.
   The Hyksos were a Semitic (Canaanite or Amorite) people and may have come from southern Canaan or Syria. Evidence seems to point to their having had a nomadic life style.

Some primary documentation from the same site.

Rome:

   
Quote
Roman citizenship carried responsibility, more or less analogous to what is called noblesse oblige today. Many historians agree that a key cause of Rome's decline was the decline in this sense of civic responsibility -- particularly military service. After 212 AD that was farmed out more and more to German tribesmen and other distant peoples -- whose loyalty to Rome was questionable. Defenses weakened accordingly, which makes sense, because how could non-Romans be entrusted with the defense of Rome? This is all the more the case when barbarian soldiers were called upon to defend Rome from other barbarians. True, some were heroes; Stilicho immediately comes to mind. But it just wasn't quite the same thing as the noble days when Romans defended their own country, and the Roman army was headed by Roman officers.

I am not arguing that this phenomenon was the sole cause of something as complex as Rome's decline, but I think it likely that psychologically, it was conducive to the decay (ironically) of classical values among the Romans themselves:

In The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, noted historian Edward Gibbons masterfully describes this decline of virtue:
"That public virtue which among the ancients was denominated patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are members. Such a sentiment, which had rendered the legions of the republic almost invincible, could make but a very feeble impression on the mercenary servants of a despotic prince" (1: 9).

In fairness, Gibbon doesn’t imply that such changes are irreversible and goes on to describe a time when "For a while the angry and selfish passions of the soldiers had been suspended by the enthusiasm of public virtue" (281). In reality, most of these upturns in Roman virtue were short-lived and the overall trend was away from the classical values so eloquently depicted in Virgil’s Aeneid.


The decline of Rome has been considered to include in its origin Caracalla's Constitutio Antoniniana -- which diluted the once-privileged status of Roman citizenship by conferring it to everyone in the Empire with the exception of slaves.

This source is biased, but the facts aren't. Caracalla's policy didn't solve Rome's decline; in fact, it might have been one of the key factors of its decline.

The Former Yugoslavia:

 
Quote
The history of the Balkans has been fraught with ethnic conflict as well as wars of conquest. Once thought of as an ill-charted zone separating Europe’s civility from the chaotic maelstrom of the Orient, in recent centuries, the area became a theater of intrigue for the great international powers. Indeed, the region of the Balkans was historically contested by the Ottoman and Hapsburg empires, as well as the Third Reich and the Allies, all of whom exploited and exacerbated existing tensions.

Yet some international relations experts have suggested that the collapse of Yugoslavia into nationalist regimes was not solely due to ethnic conflict and religious discord, or even a history of animosity for that matter. Rather, the disintegration of political and civil order, in conjunction with economic problems, together contributed to Yugoslavia’s breakdown. Certainly the perspective seems to bolster the argument that national movements and their ensuing balkanizing influences are not simply identity-based circumstances, born out of clashes between historically-polarized majority and minority groups, but also are exacerbated by economic and political circumstances of the present.

Other analysts suggest that during the rule of Yugoslavia by Tito in the communist years, measures taken to decentralize the country’s decision making processes (rather than democratize the country) ultimately led to the collapse. That is to say, decentralization bred ethnic nationalism and fueled identity politics, while the lack of real democratization efforts accelerated the increasing climate of fragmentation.

Regardless of the actual cause of balkanization in the former Yugoslavia, the regions remains one of the most volatile in the world, and functions as an ongoing exemplar of identity politics, micronationalism and balkanization.


These are not the only incidents I could cite, and I'm certainly not trying to prove that multiculturalism always fails; Louis could cite the Qing dynasty as a counterexample.* I'm just trying to establish that multiculturalism can have grave consequences, especially if it's enacted haphazardly.

*But be careful with those counterexamples, because these nations overcame these difficulties by enacting lefty-unfriendly policies:

 
Quote
Though trade with China grew rapidly, Britain became increasingly unhappy with the terms of business. China’s ruling Qing dynasty viewed foreigners as barbarians and imposed tight restrictions on foreign merchants. Warehouses were allowed only outside city walls; Canton was the sole permitted trading port; and a clutch of Chinese merchants, called the Cohong, kept a stern eye on trading activities. Equally discouraging was the balance of trade: Britain had little to exchange for China’s tea and silk, except silver. This meant a steady drain on the royal treasury.


More.

 
Quote
To establish unquestioned authority in his empire, he wrote an imperial edict called 'Sacred Edict', a set of sixteen ethical guidelines for exemplary behavior to be followed by the population, which had to be studied by everybody after its publication in 1681. Aged 16 at the time when he wrote the 'Sacred Edict', he initiated with this document not only a new educational practice but a wave of conservatism that ended the free-spirited exaltations of the Late Ming.
[...]
Yongzheng also kept strict censorship over the publishing industry which reduced the amount of novels of morally doubtful contents.



Rule of Emperor Qianlong (r. 1736-1796)
Under emperor Qianlong the Sacred Edict was published in a tri-lingual edition (Chinese, Manchu, Mongol).


A supporter of Chinese culture and a patriot engaged for the Manchu cause at the same time, emperor Qianlong commissioned dictionaries of the Manchu language and genealogies of the Manchu aristocracy. In a book inquisition that lasted for fifteen years (1774 -1789) critique of Manchu rule as well as morally disturbing publications were eliminated from the imperial collection of all Chinese books in the four categories  of the Classics, historical works, philosophical works, and belle-lettres.  About 2,000 Chinese works were eliminated through this inquisition beyond recovery.


More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2006,21:44   

Ghosty,

I can live with those rules, they seem pretty fair.

Nice first post. And whilst this is by no means a reply to the interesting points you raise about multiculturalism, I have a few initial thoughts before I go away and read up on the topic so I can better discuss it.

What does it have to do with muslims? I thought we were discussing why muslims integrate less well than other groups onto western society. Multiculturalism, whilst a relevant overarching topic isn't dealing with the specifics of your claim. Your claim was black and white: muslims integrate less well than other groups. This isn't a debate about the virtues (or lack of) of multiculturalism.

Shouldn't you compare and contrast the historical integration of muslims with the historical integration of other groups?

Shouldn't you also be defining just what you mean by "muslims" in terms of a group identity. Are there differences between Pakistani muslims and Iraqi muslims in their ability to integrate? What about Bangladeshi?

Precisely what do you mean by "integrate" anyway? For example does a muslim have to renounce his/her faith and adopt the local majority faith in order to "integrate"? Do they have to dress similarly? Do they have to speak the host nation's language? Do they have to forgo halal food etc etc etc?

What I am trying to do is not present you with problems, but to understand precisely what we are discussing. Multiculturalism is a much broader issue than muslim integration for example, there are more groups than muslims and westerners (obviously otherwise you wouldn't be contrasting them! Duh Louis, that's a clever comment! ).

I think before we get into the to and fro we should define clearly what we are discussing.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,00:15   

Eek. Tough topic. The diversity of "Muslims" is a real sticking point. It's not like..well, Ruth Benedict did a study on the Japanese around WW2 that was amazingly good for the time (The Chrysanthemum and the Sword..still a #### good read)..but trying to do the same for Muslims as a whole..from Indonesia to Lebanon...do black muslims here in the States count? This should be interesting. The only work that I have on the socio-historical "mindset" of Muslims is Raphael Patai's " The Arab Mind" which got a lot of shit from people like Edward Said.
Offhand, I'd say there is a greater degree of isolationism due to religion, modernism, prejudice, etc. but the Jews had their shtetls and shtots once, too...yet seem to have done pretty well in the long run. Bring on the stats!
Although I'm as socially liberal as anyone I know, I think large-scale (larger than now) conflict between Islam and the largely Xian west is near-inevitable. Cultures resist change and one of the things archaeology tends to point out is that very, very often disaster is required to force changes in perceptions and action/behavior. Even if global warming doesn't force a mass movement from the arid regions of Eurasia..the absolutist mindsets of extremist factions, along with the booming birthrate in Islamic groups...well...it doesn't look good for peace and loving groovy good vibrations to me.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,04:20   

By the way, I fixed some of the most embarrassing spelling and grammatical lapses in the first installment. "Halfhazardly"? What the heck is that?

Quote
What does it have to do with muslims? I thought we were discussing why muslims integrate less well than other groups onto western society. Multiculturalism, whilst a relevant overarching topic isn't dealing with the specifics of your claim. Your claim was black and white: muslims integrate less well than other groups. This isn't a debate about the virtues (or lack of) of multiculturalism.


Yes, I realise this first post was very general. It all goes back to the Bugliosi conjecture, which is that unless people recognise that there's a problem worth investigating, they're not going to listen to a solution. Please understand that when I argue this issue with my more liberal friends, it usually comes back to: "Well, even if what you're saying is true, don't we have serious problems to worry about?" I'm trying to anticipate this counter, because even if you don't bring it up, many people will still think it. Also, I'm not denying that people can interpret historical events in different ways. For example, here's a source that discusses the conflicting points of view about what the Hyksos invasion was and what it contributed to later Egyptian growth and military expansion. Certainly, Egypt was a notoriously insular civilisation that probably benefited from Hyksos military technology and culture, so it's improper to portray this event as a long-term disaster. The main is simply that the Egyptians themselves thought that expelling the invaders was necessary to reclaim their society.

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
lawman



Posts: 8
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,05:31   

Very interesting topic Paley. I may be able to jump in occasionally with some info as I have lived all my life in a predominantly muslim nation. The racial composition of my country is something like native 60%, ethnic chinese 30%, ethnic indians 9% and 1% europeans, eurasians and others. Also, note there are a lot of ethnic indians and chinese who are also muslims. so i guess you would first define what you mean by a muslim, especially the ones who do not integrate as easily as other religions. anyway, i do think your posts are quite intriguing and i await your next one...over to you paley!

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,05:55   

Quote (lawman @ Aug. 24 2006,10:31)
Very interesting topic Paley. I may be able to jump in occasionally with some info as I have lived all my life in a predominantly muslim nation. The racial composition of my country is something like native 60%, ethnic chinese 30%, ethnic indians 9% and 1% europeans, eurasians and others. Also, note there are a lot of ethnic indians and chinese who are also muslims. so i guess you would first define what you mean by a muslim, especially the ones who do not integrate as easily as other religions. anyway, i do think your posts are quite intriguing and i await your next one...over to you paley!

Malaysia?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,10:09   

Quote
Shouldn't you compare and contrast the historical integration of muslims with the historical integration of other groups?

Shouldn't you also be defining just what you mean by "muslims" in terms of a group identity. Are there differences between Pakistani muslims and Iraqi muslims in their ability to integrate? What about Bangladeshi?

Precisely what do you mean by "integrate" anyway? For example does a muslim have to renounce his/her faith and adopt the local majority faith in order to "integrate"? Do they have to dress similarly? Do they have to speak the host nation's language? Do they have to forgo halal food etc etc etc?


This will probably be my last post for today, but tomorrow I will have plenty of time to post installments. Here's the outline:

First Installment:

I will explain why a fair and thoughtful consideration of Islamic beliefs and practices reveals that Muslims make poor candidates for assimilation into Judeo-Christian/secular societies. I will focus on the Sunnis and Shi'ites (hereafter Shiites) because these two sects comprise 95 - 96% of the world's Muslim population. I will follow the Hadith collections and Fiqh rulings that these sects consider authoritative, as well as the relevant Qur'an (or Koran) suras (of course, Muslims view all non-Arabic translations as commentary, but I don't see any other way. I'll try to find good translations, which include my copy at home). Of course, I will also contrast the liberal followers within these sects with the more orthodox believers. If you want to discuss minority sects as well, let me know.

Second Installment:

This will examine the empirical evidence of nonassimilation. I'll provide a little historical perspective as well, and even attempt to differentiate between different nationalities. My hypothesis, however, is that all Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as a group, are incompatible with Western societies regardless of nationality. In order to become compatible, they must discard their religion, and nothing less will do. I don't care about fashion and culinary preferences so long as they are not motivated by religious belief.

I hope this helps -- see you tomorrow.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,10:25   

Muslims as opposed to who specifically? Also before you start a good definition of 'incompatible' as it applies in this case would be useful.

  
lawman



Posts: 8
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2006,14:38   

Yes arden, malaysia it is. have you been here by any chance? i guess if paley is only going to be talking about integration/ assimilation into western culture i won't have much to add. although defining what exactly is western culture may be of value...as far as i can see integration into another society is not that much of a problem here in asia-pac, barring the odd radical, but who doesn't have them anyway.i've travelled much in asia, muslim integration is not really a problem, but you need to specify what you mean by integration. indonesia is the most populous muslim nation in the world, we get a lot of workers and even domestic help from over there, all the maids in our household have been from indonesia and are muslims, no integration problem whatsoever. so i really don't know what paley is on about. but i speak from experience of a small sample. if integration into "western culture" is a problem then maybe it could be that "western culture" is the problem?
but from the way that paley is going on i am guessing that he will be talking of arabians more than muslims?
sorry i can't reply on time, i'm mostly sleeping or at work when the battles are raging at atbc...

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,02:49   

Ghosty,

Great, I'll await your evidence then.

BTW, in the interest of helping you out, you might want to rephrase this:

Quote
My hypothesis, however, is that all Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as a group, are incompatible with Western societies regardless of nationality. In order to become compatible, they must discard their religion, and nothing less will do. I don't care about fashion and culinary preferences so long as they are not motivated by religious belief.


Bolding mine.

Because all I have to do is find one Shi'ite or Sunni muslim who operates well within Western societies and yet still practices his/her faith and co-exists amicably, compatibly and productively. I think I know what you are going to get at here btw, I just think in the interest of nitpickery that rephrasing this will benefit you.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,06:43   

Doing a cursory search, "Western" stats on public education, employment and crime incorporating religious affiliation seem pretty #### hard to find. Good luck, GoP

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,06:48   

Quote
My hypothesis, however, is that all Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as a group, are incompatible with Western societies regardless of nationality.


Why didn't you include Sufis? You are aware of that branch of islam, aren't you? I mean, it's not like you'd go shooting your mouth off without knowing what you're talking about, is it?

(considers previous geocentric statements)

Uh nevermind.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,07:39   

Quote
Bolding mine.

Because all I have to do is find one Shi'ite or Sunni muslim who operates well within Western societies and yet still practices his/her faith and co-exists amicably, compatibly and productively.


Get rid of the "all" then. I'm talking about groups, not individuals. I'm glad that you're not trying to lawyer me to death; I dislike endless semantic battles.

       
Quote
Great, I'll await your evidence then.


OK, two things to reiterate: (1)most Muslims do not consider non-Arabic editions of the Koran authoritative; (2) I am no expert on Islam, and am completely illiterate in Arabic. This forces me to depend on the expertise of others, a fact that the skeptic should always keep in mind when evaluating my case.

Now. In order to get a feel for what Muslims believe, you can't do any better than the Koran itself. In fact, a few Muslims do not consider any other text authoritative, and virtually all consider this book a backbone to their religion. So what does it teach? Many Muslims claim that Islam's peaceful nature is proved by passages within the Koran, and that anyone who paints it as an uncompromisingly militant and intolerant scripture is taking its message out of context. Since the Koran does not preach violence and intolerance against outsiders, Muslims are fundamentally open to core Western values. Let's listen:

     
Quote
Because the Koran was revealed in the context of an all-out war, several passages deal with the conduct of armed struggle. Warfare was a desperate business on the Arabian Peninsula. A chieftain was not expected to spare survivors after a battle, and some of the Koranic injunctions seem to share this spirit. Muslims are ordered by God to "slay [enemies] wherever you find them!" (4: 89). Extremists such as Osama bin Laden like to quote such verses but do so selectively. They do not include the exhortations to peace, which in almost every case follow these more ferocious passages: "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4: 90).

In the Koran, therefore, the only permissible war is one of self-defense. Muslims may not begin hostilities (2: 190). Warfare is always evil, but sometimes you have to fight in order to avoid the kind of persecution that Mecca inflicted on the Muslims (2: 191; 2: 217) or to preserve decent values (4: 75; 22: 40). The Koran quotes the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, which permits people to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but like the Gospels, the Koran suggests that it is meritorious to forgo revenge in a spirit of charity (5: 45). Hostilities must be brought to an end as quickly as possible and must cease the minute the enemy sues for peace (2: 192-3).

Islam is not addicted to war, and jihad is not one of its "pillars," or essential practices. The primary meaning of the word jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle." It refers to the difficult effort that is needed to put God's will into practice at every level--personal and social as well as political. A very important and much quoted tradition has Muhammad telling his companions as they go home after a battle, "We are returning from the lesser jihad [the battle] to the greater jihad," the far more urgent and momentous task of extirpating wrongdoing from one's own society and one's own heart.

Islam did not impose itself by the sword. In a statement in which the Arabic is extremely emphatic, the Koran insists, "There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" (2: 256). Constantly Muslims are enjoined to respect Jews and Christians, the "People of the Book," who worship the same God (29: 46). In words quoted by Muhammad in one of his last public sermons, God tells all human beings, "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another" (49: 13)--not to conquer, convert, subjugate, revile or slaughter but to reach out toward others with intelligence and understanding.


Mustafa Akyol adds:

   
Quote
Islam presents the principles of just war, and kidnapping noncombatants, killing them, or threatening to do so are overtly against those principles.

In the Koran, there are several verses about prisoners of war. First of all, you can't take noncombatants as captives. On the contrary, another verse makes it clear that non-Muslims, even the least sympathized pagans, are to be protected whenever they ask for asylum:

"If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge" (Koran, 9:6).
[...]
Let's assume that they were regarded as combatants. Berg, Johnson, and Sun-il should therefore have been regarded as prisoners of war. The verdict of the Koran is clear about them: They should be taken as captives during the battle, then, after the war, they should be released for free or ransomed (Koran, 47:4).

There is no justification for the killing, or even the ill treatment, of POWs in the Koran. On the contrary, a verse tells that good Muslims are the ones who give the best of their food "to the poor and the orphan and the captive" (Koran, 76:8).

There are also historical accounts reporting Prophet Muhammad ordering his men to treat captives very humanely. According to one account:

"After the Battle of Badr, prisoners of war were brought. Among them was al-Abbâs. He did not have a shirt on, so the Prophet looked for a shirt for him. It turned out that a shirt of Abd Allah bin Ubayy was the right size, so the Prophet gave it to al-Abbâs to wear and compensated Abdullah with his own shirt" [Al-Bukhârî (3008)].


In a separate essay, he writes:

   
Quote
THE KORAN IN CONTEXT
Context is crucial. To understand and interpret the war verses in the Koran, one has to keep in mind that they were revealed in seventh-century Arabia, where battles were fought by swords and spears. Winning a battle meant killing a great number of your enemies. Any reluctance during the battle to attack and kill the enemy could bring defeat, and, in Muslims' case, annihilation of the whole umma, or community of believers.

The first verse that McCarthy quotes should be understood in this context. After a detailed analysis of manpower on the battlefield, the Koran states:

It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land: Ye look for the temporal goods of this world, but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: and Allah is Mighty, Wise. (8:67)
Here we see a military strategy that was necessary in a battle of swords: If Muslims started to take prisoners in the middle of the encounter — which would mean collecting ransoms or "temporal goods," later — it could prove to be a grave error. The enemy would have a chance to retaliate, those captives could rejoin the fight, and the battle itself could be lost. Such an event occurred at the battle of Uhud. The pagan army had a cavalry force that stood aside during the battle, and when the Muslim army seemed victorious and started to collect the spoils, those cavalrymen hit the Muslims from behind and won. Many Muslims were killed, and the Prophet himself was injured.

So, the Koranic principle of not taking prisoners in the middle of a battle is all about assuring victory. Verse 47:4, also quoted by McCarthy, in fact confirms this conclusion:

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind the captives firmly: therefore is the time for either generosity or ransom until the war lays down its burdens....
The phrase "when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight" clearly shows that the verse speaks about a battlefield. Both this verse and that quoted above order Muslim soldiers to kill enemy combatants in battle until the land or the enemy is "subdued" — or in today's military terms, "secured." Once that military target is achieved, there need be no further killing.
[...]
As I explained in my original article, Muslims were ordered by the Koran to treat POWs well, and historical accounts about the Prophet Muhammad show that this command was honored. The Prophet is even reported to have said, "You must feed them as you feed yourselves, and clothe them as you clothe yourselves, and if you should set them a hard task, you must help them in it yourselves" (Gabrielli, Arab Historians of the Crusades, pp. 138-39).
[...]
I conclude that the Koranic order to not take POWs and instead continue to kill the enemy is limited to unsecured battlefields.

Moreover, that "enemy" refers only to combatants. The Koran is clear on this:

Fight in the Way of God against those who fight you, but do not go beyond the limits. God does not love those who go beyond the limits. (2:190)
Thus, war can only be waged against "those who fight" against Muslims, i.e. combatants. It is also well known that Prophet Muhammad was careful to make this distinction and strictly ordered Muslim soldiers to avoid harming women, children, the elderly, or people at temples and monasteries.
[...]
DISCOVERING THE GOOD "UNBELIEVERS"
[I]n the Koran Jews and Christians are called "The People of the Book," and salvation is promised to them if they worship God sincerely (2:62). And Muslims are ordered to be kind to them, unless they behave unjustly:

Only argue with the People of the Book in the kindest way — except in the case of those of them who do wrong — saying, "We have faith in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you. Our God and your God are one and we submit to Him" (29:46).
Even if one is an unbeliever, i.e. an atheist or a pagan, that does not make him an enemy of Islam and Muslims. The Koran, after warning Muslims for being friendly to those who have persecuted the Prophet, makes an important distinction:

God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just. God merely forbids you from taking as friends those who have fought you in religion and driven you from your homes and who supported your expulsion. Any who take them as friends are wrongdoers (60:8-9).
Therefore, besides those who show open hostility to Islam and Muslims, all non-Muslims are to be treated graciously. The Koran hints that even those enemies can be won:

It may well be that God will restore the love between you and those of them who are now your enemies. God is All-Powerful. God is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful (60:7).
This is very different from what you can hear from al-Qaeda spokesmen and similar terrorists.


"THIS IS NOT OUR TRADITION"
[...]
Briefly: The Koran was revealed in the seventh century and some verses refer to events that do not or could not take place today. This means there are some parts of the Koran that we can't — and aren't supposed to — implement literally now. Take the verse that orders Muslims to muster "cavalry" to frighten their enemies (8:60). Today, of course, no Muslim state would think of building an army based on cavalry. The verse can't be implemented literally. We can only infer a principle — such as that strong armies are necessary for national defense — and apply that principle in a modern context.

The same line of reasoning can be extended to some other social and political issues in the Koran, especially to the war verses such as the ones quoted by McCarthy (2:191, 5:33, 8:12). Again, it is possible that we no longer need take all of these verses literally.

Besides that, some traditional doctrines can be abandoned completely. Take the much-disputed concepts of "House of War" and "House of Islam," developed by Muslim jurists in the 8th century. Those jurists regarded all foreign lands as enemy territories, because they could not expect tolerance and safety for Islam there. Today we live in much different world, in which religious freedom is widely established, especially in liberal democracies. Thus there is no justification to see those democracies as "House of War." That very definition is simply outdated; along with many other concepts in the Islamic tradition.


Mustafa Akyol also discusses historical evidence of Muslim mercy towards enemy captives and contrasts them with contemporary incidents, but I'm focusing on the Koran for now. As Akyol points out, the Koran is embedded in a history of early conflicts and cannot be understood apart from them. These are not the only passages in the Koran that can be interpreted as peaceful and tolerant. Here are some others [all emphases mine]:

 
Quote
[2.109] Many of the followers of the Book wish that they could turn you back into unbelievers after your faith, out of envy from themselves, (even) after the truth has become manifest to them; but pardon and forgive, so that Allah should bring about His command; surely Allah has power over all things.
[2.110] And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and whatever good you send before for yourselves, you shall find it with Allah; surely Allah sees what you do.
[2.111] And they say: None shall enter the garden (or paradise) except he who is a Jew or a Christian. These are their vain desires. Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful.
[2.112] Yes! whoever submits himself entirely to Allah and he is the doer of good (to others) he has his reward from his Lord, and there is no fear for him nor shall he grieve.


 
Quote
[3.19] Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam, and those to whom the Book had been given did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves; and whoever disbelieves in the communications of Allah then surely Allah is quick in reckoning.
[3.20] But if they dispute with you, say: I have submitted myself entirely to Allah and (so) every one who follows me; and say to those who have been given the Book and the unlearned people: Do you submit yourselves? So if they submit then indeed they follow the right way; and if they turn back, then upon you is only the delivery of the message and Allah sees the servants.


To prevent software issues, let me continue in a new post.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,09:19   

Quote
[2.256] There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.


     
Quote
[6.66] And your people call it a lie and it is the very truth. Say: I am not placed in charge of you.
[6.67] For every prophecy is a term, and you will come to know (it).
[6.68] And when you see those who enter into false discourses about Our communications, withdraw from them until they enter into some other discourse, and if the Shaitan causes you to forget, then do not sit after recollection with the unjust people.
[6.69] And nought of the reckoning of their (deeds) shall be against those who guard (against evil), but (theirs) is only to remind, haply they may guard.
[6.70] And leave those who have taken their religion for a play and an idle sport, and whom this world's life has deceived, and remind (them) thereby lest a soul should be given up to destruction for what it has earned; it shall not have besides Allah any guardian nor an intercessor, and if it should seek to give every compensation, it shall not be accepted from it; these are they who shall be given up to destruction for what they earned; they shall have a drink of boiling water and a painful chastisement because they disbelieved.


     
Quote
[18.29] And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve; surely We have prepared for the iniquitous a fire, the curtains of which shall encompass them about; and if they cry for water, they shall be given water like molten brass which will scald their faces; evil the drink and ill the resting-place.


One more source:

     
Quote
"And fight in Allah's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression — for verily Allah does not love aggressors" (2:190). "And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away — for oppression is even worse than killing" (2:191). "Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to Allah alone" (2:193).


Which reinforces the point that the Koran only preaches violence against oppression.

So it seems that the moderate Muslims have made an airtight case: Islam is opposed to violence unless it is for defensive purposes. It preaches a stern but loving tolerance towards outsiders, especially "peoples of the Book". Muslim immigrants face no particular hurdle on the road to assimilation.

Here is where Robert Spencer arrives. Coming from a Muslim family and a lifetime student of Islam, he brings an interesting perspective on the subject. Let's begin with some of his criticisms of Akyol:

     
Quote
Akyol:

Mr. Bostom also asks what will happen to atheists if they are not convinced. Of course, nothing. Let them deny the obvious. "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) and Muslims are ordered to say "The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve." (18:29)
Interestingly enough, just yesterday someone sent me this from a Muslim Q&A website, quoting Qur'an 8:39 and 9:5 to say that yes, there is compulsion in religion:

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]” [al-Anfaal 8:39]
“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As&#8209;Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Tawbah 9:5]

This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).

These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.


Let's pause here to describe the concept of Naskh, or "abrogation":

     
Quote
Naskh, an Arabic language word usually translated as "abrogation" and alternately appearing as the phrase al-nâsikh wal-mansûkh ("the abrogating and abrogated [verses]"), is a technical term for a major genre of Islamic legal exegesis directed at the problem of seemingly contradictory material within or between the twin bases of Islamic holy law: the Qur'ân and the Prophetic Sunna. In its application, naskh typically involves the replacement (ibdâl) of an earlier verse/tradition (and thus its embodied ruling) with a chronologically successive one. The complete suppression (ibtâl) of a regulation so that not even its wording remains is recognized as well, though only in the case of the Qur'ân.

The emergence of naskh (initially as practice and then as fully elaborated theory) dates back to the first centuries of Islamic civilization. Almost all classical naskh works, for instance, open by recounting the incident of the Kufan preacher banned from expounding the Qur'ân by an early 'ilmic authority figure (usually 'Alî but sometimes also Ibn 'Abbâs) on account of his ignorance of the principles of naskh (Rippin, BSOAS 47, pp. 26, 38). Whatever the historicity of such traditions (modern scholars generally dismiss them):

...the elaboration of the theories is datable with certainty to at least the latter half of the second century after Muhammad, when Shâfi'î, in his Risâla and in the somewhat later Ikhtilâf al-Hadîth was applying his considerable talents to resolving the serious problem of the apparent discrepancies between certain Qur'ânic verses and others; between certain hadîths and others; and, most serious of all, between certain Qur'ânic verses and certain hadîths.
Burton, JSS 15, p. 250


While many Muslims reject the concept entirely or claim it applies to only a handful of verses, others cite this passage:

   
Quote
[2.106] Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?



Continuing from Wikipedia:

   
Quote
Naskh employs the logic of chronology and progressive revelation. The different situations encountered over the course of Muhammad's more than two decade career as prophet, it is argued, required new rulings to meet the Muslim community's changing circumstances. Or, from a more theologically-inflected stand-point, the expiration points of those rulings God intended as temporary all along were reached. A classic example of this is the early community's increasingly militant posture towards its pagan and Jewish neighbors:

Many verses counsel patience in the face of the mockery of the unbelievers, while other verses incite to warfare against the unbelievers. The former are linked to the [chronologically anterior] Meccan phase of the mission when the Muslims were too few and weak to do other than endure insult; the latter are linked to Medina where the Prophet had acquired the numbers and the strength to hit back at his enemies. The discrepancy between the two sets of verses indicates that different situations call for different regulations.
Burton, Naskh, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI)²
Yet despite its dependence on chronology, naskh is in no way a historiographical enterprise:

While it cannot really be doubted that there is an implicit assumption of the chronological-progressive order of the Qur'&#257;n in the naskh texts, it is notable that the discussions themselves do not generally make this point explicit; naskh, be it with regards to wine or direction of prayer, always assumes that the present law is known (that is, no wine and facing Mecca), and the verses which agree with that fact are necessarily the valid ones. Any verses which contradict this are necessarily invalid, and thus can be logically arranged according to a basic notion of 'progressive revelation.' The arguments found in the naskh texts are, in short, based on logic not chronology.
BSOAS 51, p. 18
[...]
Between sources
Abrogation is applicable to both sources of Islamic law: the Qur'&#257;n and the Prophetic Sunna. A Qur'&#257;nic verse may abrogate another Qur'&#257;nic verse, and a Prophetic Sunna may likewise abrogate another Prophetic Sunna. The possibility of abrogation between these two sources, though, was a more contentious issue precipitated by the absence within a source of the appropriate abrogating (n&#257;sikh) or abrogated (mans&#363;kh) material necessary to bring concordance between it and the Fiqh.
[...]
Opinion as to naskh's technical meaning here oscillated between replacement (ibd&#257;l) and nullification (ibt&#257;l). This despite the fact that the former meaning would make the coordinate clause's "We substitute something better or similar" tautological. Alternate interpretations were also suggested for the subordinate clause's "cause to be forgotten" (aw nansah&#257;), such as defer or leave. This was primarily motivated by flight from the theologically-repugnant idea of prophetic forgetting, with Q.15:9 cited as evidence of its impossibility:

15:9 We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it
Yet verses Q.17:86, Q.18:24, and Q.87:6-7 explicitly endorse its feasibility. Thus "Qur'&#257;n-forgetting is clearly adumbrated in the Qur'&#257;n" (BSOAS 48, p. 457). Many ahadith also attest to the phenomenon: entire suras which the Muslims had previously recited, claims one, would one morning be discovered to have been completely erased from memory (cf. Ab&#363; 'Ubaid al-Q&#257;sim b. Sall&#257;m). In the same spirit of "turning lemons into lemonade" which characterizes much else within the theologizing of naskh, divine purpose was attributed to such incidents; R&#257;z&#299;, for example, speculates that they may have figured among the Prophet's miracles.

Finally, there exist two important linguistically-unrelated verses cited in connection with naskh: Q.16:101- "When We substitute [tabd&#299;l] one revelation for another"- and Q.13:39- "Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth". Besides confirming the two major modes of abrogation (i.e. suppression and supercession), the former verse is employed by Sh&#257;fi'&#299; in his theory of abrogation between sources as proof that a Qur'&#257;n verse can only be abrogated by another Qur'&#257;n verse
[...]
Frequently cited examples of intra-Qur'&#257;nic abrogation are:

Verse: Q.8:65
Abrogator (n&#257;sikh): The immediately succeeding Q.8:66, which lightens the ratio of enemies the Muslims are expected to vanquish from 10:1 to 2:1 .
Verse: Q.2:180
Abrogator: Q.4:10-11, which provides specific allotments for a deceased's relatives. These verses constitute a perfect example of what later exegetes would claim to be takhs&#299;s (specification).
Verse: 2.219
Abrogator: Q.4:43, whose more explicit disapproval of drunkenness is in turn abrogated by Q.5:90, which institutes a complete ban on the consumption of alcohol:
Verse: Q.9:5 (&#257;yat al-sayf, the "sword verse")
Abrogatee (mans&#363;kh): Literally dozens of verses regulating the umma's conduct towards outside groups:
Sura 9:5 is of such importance that it is considered by early exegetes to have abrogated 114 or 124 [cf. Hibat All&#257;h] verses treating war that were revealed before it
- Ibn al Jawz&#299; (d. 1200) Naw&#257;nsikh al-Qur'&#257;n... and one modern scholar counts up to 140 verse (Mustaf&#257; Zayd, Al-Naskh fil-Qur'&#257;n al-Kar&#299;m) .
Firestone, Jih&#257;d (ISBN 0195154940), p. 151 (note 21)
Verse: Q.9:29
Abrogatee: "Nahh&#257;s considers 9:29 to have abrogated virtually all verses calling for patience or forgiveness toward Scriptuaries" (Firestone, Jih&#257;d, p. 151).

Examples of inter-Qur'&#257;nic abrogation, where one of the rulings comes from the Sunna, are:

Verse: Q.2:150
Abrogatee: The Sunna which established Jerusalem as the direction of prayer (qibla).
Verse: Q.24:2
Abrogator: For those unwilling to countenance the existence of a "lost" &#257;yat al-rajm (e.g. Qurtub&#299;, Al-Ghaz&#257;l&#299;), the Prophetic Sunna which establishes stoning to death as the penalty for adultery.


This issue is very complex, of course, yet the concept itself is fairly mainstream in Islam....which suggests that not all passages with the Koran are necessarily of equal relevance to the modern Muslim.

New post.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,10:14   

Continuing with Spencer's critique (and now linking to Akyol's third essay):

       
Quote
But Akyol is ready for that. He attacks the Islamic doctrine of abrogation on which this argument is based:

The doctrine of abrogation is actually a late invention, introduced by some classical jurists during the fourth century (late 10th century) of Islam. These scholars came up with hundreds of cases of abrogated verses to the extent that they formulated a whole science of the subject filling lengthy books and references.
Yet they were in error and many Muslim thinkers are pointing this out since the 19th century. Dr. Khaleel Mohammed, a professor of Religion at San Diego State University, has a very good article that summarizes the refutations against the doctrine of abrogation. "The allegation that 120 verses on the invitation to Islam were abrogated by the verse of the sword (9:5)" says Dr. Mohammed, "is in fact one of crassest stupidity."...

Actually the Koran itself declares that it includes no contradictions (4:82), thus its verses should be seen not as conflicting and calling for abrogative passages, but rather as complimentary parts of a single mosaic.

If we try to build that mosaic, we will see that the war verses describe only an abnormal state of affairs — in which the Muslim community faced an enemy that sought its annihilation — and verses that promote peace and tolerance describe the Islamic ideal.


Gee, that's swell, but unfortunately, Dr. Khaleel Muhammad has not yet taken up his throne as the Muslim Pope. And here, as in so many other instances, he resorts to shallow and base name-calling instead of actually addressing the arguments of his opponents. Jihadists, quite obviously, still employ the practice of abrogation. Does he think that pointing out that it is a tenth-century innovation and accusing those who use it of the "crassest stupidity" will really stop them? "Fellow mujahedin! Dr. Khaleel Muhammad has called us stupid! Let us lay down our arms!"

In fact, abrogation (naskh) is not a tenth-century innovation. It is based on the Qur'an itself: "Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?" (Sura 2:106).

Likewise, Akyol's contention that "the war verses describe only an abnormal state of affairs — in which the Muslim community faced an enemy that sought its annihilation — and verses that promote peace and tolerance describe the Islamic ideal" will do nothing to pacify radical Muslims, since they have argued again and again that today the Muslim community faces an enemy that seeks its annihilation. Thus even by Akyol's own standards, Muslims are justified to invoke the Qur'an's war verses and wage jihad today.
[...]
But since Akyol rejects the authority of passages from Islamic law that Bostom and I cited in our respective replies, he doesn't have to answer or explain them. Instead, he spends the bulk of his article citing Muslim apologists and questionable historical sources to establish that in history, Muslims acted better. Once again, even if this is true, it establishes nothing: the mujahedin believe that they are acting in line with Islamic law, and historical examples don't disprove this.


We'll discuss the historical debate later, but let's focus on the more notorious suras and see why it might inspire terrorists:

     
Quote
[9.1] (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
[9.2] So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers.
[9.3] And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.
[9.4] Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.6] And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.
[9.7] How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Apostle; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).

[9.8] How (can it be)! while if they prevail against you, they would not pay regard in your case to ties of relationship, nor those of covenant; they please you with their mouths while their hearts do not consent; and most of them are transgressors.
[9.9] They have taken a small price for the communications of Allah, so they turn away from His way; surely evil is it that they do.
[9.10] They do not pay regard to ties of relationship nor those of covenant in the case of a believer; and these are they who go beyond the limits.
[9.11] But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know.
[9.12] And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist.
[9.13] What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Apostle, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers.


     
Quote
[3.156] O you who believe! be not like those who disbelieve and say of their brethren when they travel in the earth or engage in fighting: Had they been with us, they would not have died and they would not have been slain; so Allah makes this to be an intense regret in their hearts; and Allah gives life and causes death and Allah sees what you do.
[3.157] And if you are slain in the way of Allah or you die, certainly forgiveness from Allah and mercy is better than what they amass.
[3.158] And if indeed you die or you are slain, certainly to Allah shall you be gathered together.

[3.159] Thus it is due to mercy from Allah that you deal with them gently, and had you been rough, hard hearted, they would certainly have dispersed from around you; pardon them therefore and ask pardon for them, and take counsel with them in the affair; so when you have decided, then place your trust in Allah; surely Allah loves those who trust.
[3.160] If Allah assists you, then there is none that can overcome you, and if He forsakes you, who is there then that can assist you after Him? And on Allah should the believers rely.


These verses, taken together, provide a tremendous incentive to engage in warfare. This is especially true when the verses add the carrot of perpetual bliss/certain victory, and the stick of being considered a coward, to the equation. And since the ideas of "attack" or "oppression" can encompass a spiritual or cultural dimension, particularly among Muslims living in Infidel lands, these appeals to "self-defense" gain even more urgency.

Spencer finishes:

 
Quote
I myself am not an atheist, and I do not reply to him out of some sinister cypto-Stalinism. I made it abundantly clear why I am doing this in an earlier reply to Akyol:

Why am I doing this? To make life difficult for a moderate? No. I am only trying to point out that Akyol's conclusion (the beheadings "stem from a kind of necrophilic nihilism, not from the essence of Islam") is unwarranted, and his argument will be unconvincing to a radical Muslim, who can invoke the authorities I have cited here and others.
So in sum: Akyol's piece is not the kind of moderate Islamic presentation we need in order to neutralize the radicals. We need one that confronts and refutes their arguments; his simply ignores them. Those who are looking for moderate Muslims to rise up and refute the radicals should keep looking.


I stand by those statements. Akyol more and more seems to me like one who is trying to reassure jittery Westerners about Islam, rather than refute the radicals. But his reassurance is hollow, and is only likely to make people less guarded against future attacks by Muslims who do not accept his arguments. His arguments do nothing to stop jihadists from continuing their murderous work.


Especially if the jihadists believe in abrogation and/or are surrounded by infidels who are aggressively spreading their culture around the globe.

I'll have more to say about the Koran's attitude towards "Infidels", particularly Jews and Christians, at a later time, so here's a little reading assignment for those who are interested.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,11:43   

Here are some more "war verses":

 
Quote
[8.11] When He caused calm to fall on you as a security from Him and sent down upon you water from the cloud that He might thereby purify you, and take away from you the uncleanness of the Shaitan, and that He might fortify your hearts and steady (your) footsteps thereby.
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.13] This is because they acted adversely to Allah and His Apostle; and whoever acts adversely to Allah and His Apostle-- then surely Allah is severe in requiting (evil).

[8.14] This-- taste it, and (know) that for the unbelievers is the chastisement of fire.
[8.15] O you who believe! when you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them.
[8.16] And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day-- unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company-- then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is ####; and an evil destination shall it be.

[8.17] So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them, and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
[8.18] This, and that Allah is the weakener of the struggle of the unbelievers.
[8.19] If you demanded a judgment, the judgment has then indeed come to you; and if you desist, it will be better for you; and if you turn back (to fight), We (too) shall turn back, and your forces shall avail you nothing, though they may be many, and (know) that Allah is with the believers.
[8.20] O you who believe! obey Allah and His Apostle and do not turn back from Him while you hear.
[8.21] And be not like those who said, We hear, and they did not obey.
[8.22] Surely the vilest of animals, in Allah's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand.
[8.23] And if Allah had known any good in them He would have made them hear, and if He makes them hear they would turn back while they withdraw.
[8.24] O you who believe! answer (the call of) Allah and His Apostle when he calls you to that which gives you life; and know that Allah intervenes between man and his heart, and that to Him you shall be gathered.
[8.25] And fear an affliction which may not smite those of you in particular who are unjust; and know that Allah is severe in requiting (evil).
[8.26] And remember when you were few, deemed weak in the land, fearing lest people might carry you off by force, but He sheltered you and strengthened you with His aid and gave you of the good things that you may give thanks.


 
Quote
[9.122] And it does not beseem the believers that they should go forth all together; why should not then a company from every party from among them go forth that they may apply themselves to obtain understanding in religion, and that they may warn their people when they come back to them that they may be cautious?
[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).


Here's a good reference for other Jihad passages.

This, in combination with the sheer number of passages that gloat over the eternal Flame awaiting infidels (about more later), provides a good insight into the sources of inspiration for those Muslims who commit violent acts in Allah's name.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,11:47   

Blah blah blah.

Hey Ghosty, does it strike you as significant in any way that your statement "X group of people don't assimilate and are incompatible with American society" is exactly the same thing that (1) the Know-Nothings said about the Irish and Italians, (2) the Klan said about the Chinese, the Africans, and the Latinos, and (3) the Nazis (you know, those flaming liberals) said about Jews and Gypsys?


Coincidence?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,10:12   

Akyol makes an interesting admission about the Muslim concept of self-defense when he admits that Muslims may wage a military Jihad to "preserve decent values". This is one of his proof texts:

 
Quote
[22.39] Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them;
[22.40] Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered; and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty.
[22.41] Those who, should We establish them in the land, will keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and enjoin good and forbid evil; and Allah's is the end of affairs.
[22.42] And if they reject you, then already before you did the people of Nuh and Ad and Samood reject (prophets).
[22.43] And the people of Ibrahim and the people of Lut,
[22.44] As well as those of Madyan and Musa (too) was rejected, but I gave respite to the unbelievers, then did I overtake them, so how (severe) was My disapproval.
[22.45] So how many a town did We destroy while it was unjust, so it was fallen down upon its roofs, and (how many a) deserted well and palace raised high.
[22.46] Have they not travelled in the land so that they should have hearts with which to understand, or ears with which to hear? For surely it is not the eyes that are blind, but blind are the hearts which are in the breasts.


Now look at the rest of the passage (especially [22.44-45]) and notice how the modern idea of self-defense gradually morphs to the idea of attacking morally recalcitrant peoples in Muslim territory (a very elastic concept. Does it apply to high-concentration Muslim areas in Infidel countries?). And remember, the Muslim warrior is one of Allah's agents of destruction, so this whole passage might inspire a different interpretation in non-moderate hands. Also notice that the concept of "oppression" may also imply moral laxity.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,10:39   

I almost forgot....anyone who has any anecdotes relevant to the topic on hand may share them freely, although I'd like the posters to identify the country where these events are taking place.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,11:00   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2006,16:47)
Blah blah blah.

Hey Ghosty, does it strike you as significant in any way that your statement "X group of people don't assimilate and are incompatible with American society" is exactly the same thing that (1) the Know-Nothings said about the Irish and Italians, (2) the Klan said about the Chinese, the Africans, and the Latinos, and (3) the Nazis (you know, those flaming liberals) said about Jews and Gypsys?


Coincidence?

Lenny, I'm sure GoP's descriptions of Muslims are every bit as accurate and informed by personal experience as his descriptions of liberals.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,12:08   

well, that would mean he was a muslim once, right Arden?

It wouldn't actually surprise me to hear him say as much.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,15:10   

Well, actually, GoP, y'know, he's the kind of cowardly, twisted, vicious shit who would point out that "some of his 'best friends' were muslims.

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,15:58   

GoP, I'm looking forward to this debate. Personally, I think you may end up having to conclude that groups of people from any faith don't integrate into societies, if they are fundamentalists.

Integration is about compromise. Moderates of any faith are more likely to integrate into any society (and indeed enhance it). Fundamentalists are more likely to want society to change for them, in a way that reflects their world-view, and thus conflicts arise.

As you have decided to look at 'Western societies' in general, I'm interested to see what role the secularism of a country has to play.

Good luck.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,16:24   

"cowardly, twisted, vicious shit" crosses the line. Paley's comments are not very good, but he's not exactly Ted Bundy, so don't treat him as such.

Anyway.

Quote
don_quixote   Posted on Aug. 26 2006,21:58GoP, I'm looking forward to this debate. Personally, I think you may end up having to conclude that groups of people from any faith don't integrate into societies, if they are fundamentalists.

Integration is about compromise. Moderates of any faith are more likely to integrate into any society (and indeed enhance it). Fundamentalists are more likely to want society to change for them, in a way that reflects their world-view, and thus conflicts arise.

As you have decided to look at 'Western societies' in general, I'm interested to see what role the secularism of a country has to play.

Good luck.


Don hits the nail right on the head here. Extremist belief, whether that of muslims like bin Laden, or christians like Eric Rudolph, is what is at odds with modern society. That's not to equate islam with christianity, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that one religion lends itself to dangerous fundamentalism more than the other.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,16:52   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 26 2006,21:24)
Quote
don_quixote   Posted on Aug. 26 2006,21:58GoP, I'm looking forward to this debate. Personally, I think you may end up having to conclude that groups of people from any faith don't integrate into societies, if they are fundamentalists.

Integration is about compromise. Moderates of any faith are more likely to integrate into any society (and indeed enhance it). Fundamentalists are more likely to want society to change for them, in a way that reflects their world-view, and thus conflicts arise.

As you have decided to look at 'Western societies' in general, I'm interested to see what role the secularism of a country has to play.

Good luck.


Don hits the nail right on the head here. Extremist belief, whether that of muslims like bin Laden, or christians like Eric Rudolph, is what is at odds with modern society. That's not to equate islam with christianity, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that one religion lends itself to dangerous fundamentalism more than the other.

My prediction is that GoP would be much happier with hardcore Christian fundamentalists immigrating to this country than he would be with the most moderate Muslims.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,17:21   

I stand by my statement, since it is simply my own verdict on GoP's vile and underhanded not-quite-craziness.

 Not Ted Bundy?  Fine.  I still avoid his posts, only chancing upon them at secondhand, and believe he is up there with Dave Scott in the "deformed human" catagory.
 After following his antics for a very long time before arriving at this evaluation, I am certain he deserves nothing but scorn.  Or the most disrespectful type of humor. ???

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,04:30   

Once again,  here's a comprehensive collection of the "war" suras. I plan to investigate the Koranic attitude towards Christians and Jews, but first here's some history behind the modern "fundamentalist" Islamic movement. Despite what some moderates assert, its roots extend to the 14th Century:

   
Quote
Taqi Ad-din Abu Al-'abbas Ahmad Ibn 'abd As-salam Ibn 'abd Allah Ibn Muhammad Ibn Taymiya (Arabic: ĂÈæ ÚÈÇÓ Ễí ÇáÏíä ĂÍăÏ Èä ÚÈÏ ÇáÓáÇă Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå ÇÈä ÊíăíÉ ÇáÍÑÇäí) (January 22, 1263 - 1328), was an Islamic scholar born in Harran, located in what is now Turkey, close to the Syrian border. He lived during the troubled times of the Mongol invasions. As a member of the Pietist school founded by Ibn Hanbal, he sought the return of Islam to its sources: the Qur'an and the sunnah (the prophetic tradition of Muhammad). He is also a primary intellectual source of the Wahhabi movement.
[...]
Because of Ibn Taymiya's outspokenness, puritanical views, and literalism, he was imprisoned several times for conflicting with the opinions of prominent jurists and theologians of his day.

As early as 1293 Ibn Taymiya came into conflict with local authorities for protesting a religious ruling against a Christian accused of having insulted the Prophet. In 1298 he was accused of anthropomorphism and for having questioned the legitimacy of dogmatic theology (kalam).
[....]
Ibn Taymiya held that much of the Islamic scholarship of his time had declined into modes that were inherently against the proper understanding of the Qur'an and the Prophetic example (sunna). He strove to: (1) revive the Islamic faith's understanding of "true" adherence to "Tawhid" (oneness of God), (2) eradicate beliefs and customs that he held to be foreign to Islam, and (3) to rejuvenate correct Islamic thought and its related sciences.

Ibn Taymiya believed that the first three generations of Islam -- the prophet Muhammad, his Companions, and the children and grandchildren of the first Muslims -- were the best role models for Islamic life. Their Sunnah, or practice, together with the Qur'an, constituted a seemingly infallible guide to life. Any deviation from their practice was viewed as bidah, or innovation, and to be forbidden.


Ibn Taymiya favored an extremely literal interpretation of the Qur'an. His opponents charged that he taught anthropomorphism -- that is, that he took metaphorical reference's to God's hand, foot, shin, and face as being literally true -- even though he insisted that God's "hand" was nothing comparable to hands found in creation. Some of his Islamic critics contend that this violates the Islamic concept of tawhid, divine unity.
[...]
Controversy over his views on Sufism
Ibn Taymiya was a stern critic of antinomian interpretations of Islamic mysticism (Sufism). He believed that Islamic law (sharia) applied to ordinary Muslim and mystic alike.

Some Wahhabi and Salafi scholars believe that he rejected Sufism entirely. Other scholars, however, have contested this point. In 1973, George Makdisi published an article, “Ibn Taymiya: A Sufi of the Qadiriya Order,” in the American Journal of Arabic Studies, which argued that Ibn Taymiya was a Qadiriyyah Sufi himself, and only opposed antinomian versions of Sufism.

In support of their views, these Ibn Taymiya scholars cite his work Sharh Futuh al-Ghayb, which is a commentary on the famous Sufi Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani’s work, Futuh al-Ghayb “Revelations of the Unseen.” Ibn Taymiya is cited in the literature of the Qadiriyyah order as a link in their chain of spiritual transmission. He himself said, in his Al-Mas'ala at-Tabraziyya, "I wore the blessed Sufi cloak of Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani, there being between him and me two Sufi shaikhs."


This is the next major link:
   
Quote
Wahhabism (Arabic: ÇáæåÇÈíÉ, Wahabism, Wahabbism) is a Sunni fundamentalist Islamic movement, named after Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (1703–1792). It is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Many members of the movement object to the term "Wahhabism", preferring the term "Salafism".
[....]
Wahhabism accepts the Qur'an and hadith as fundamental texts, interpreted upon the understanding of the first three generations of Islam. It also accepts various commentaries including Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's book called Kitab al-Tawhid ("Book of Monotheism"), and the works of the earlier scholar Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328).

Wahhabis do not follow any specific madhhab (method or school of jurisprudence), but claim to interpret the words of the prophet Muhammad directly, using the four maddhab for reference. However, they are often associated with the Hanbali maddhab. Wahhabi theology advocates a puritanical and legalistic stance in matters of faith and religious practice.

Wahhabists see their role as a movement to restore Islam from what they perceive to be innovations, superstitions, deviances, heresies and idolatries. There are many practices that they believe are contrary to Islam, such as:

Invoking of any prophet, Sufi saint, or angel in prayer, other than God alone (Wahhabists believe these practices are polytheistic in nature)
Celebrating annual feasts for Sufi saints
Wearing of charms, and believing in their healing power
Practicing magic, or going to sorcerers or witches to seek healing
Innovation in matters of religion (e.g. new methods of worship)
[edit]
Modern spread of Wahhabism
In 1924 the Wahhabi al-Saud dynasty conquered Mecca and Medina, the Muslim holy cities. This gave them control of the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage, and the opportunity to preach their version of Islam to the assembled pilgrims. However, Wahhabism was a minor current within Islam until the discovery of oil in Arabia, in 1938. Vast oil revenues gave an immense impetus to the spread of Wahhabism. Saudi laypeople, government officials and clerics have donated many tens of millions of US dollars to create religious schools, newspapers and outreach organizations.

[edit]
Salafism and Qutbism
Hassan al-Banna, the Egyptian founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, is said to have been influenced by the Wahhabis. The Muslim Brotherhood also claimed to be purifying and restoring original Islam. When the Muslim Brotherhood was banned in various Middle Eastern countries, Saudi Arabia gave refuge to Brotherhood exiles. Some Wahhabis, or Salafis, rejected what they call Qutbism, as a deviation from true Salafism.


And here's Sayyid Qutb:
   
Quote
Sayyid Qutb (Arabic: ÓíÏ ̃ØÈư; 9 October 1906 – 29 August 1966) was an Egyptian intellectual author, and Islamist associated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. He is best known for his theoretical work on redefining the role of Islamic fundamentalism in social and political change, particularly in his book Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones). His extensive Quranic commentary Fi zilal al-Qur'an (In the shade of the Qur'an) has contributed significantly to modern perceptions of Islamic concepts such as jihad, jahiliyyah, and ummah.
[...]
Qutb concluded that major aspects of American life were "primitive" and shocking. His experiences in the U.S. partly formed the impetus for his rejection of Western values and his move towards radicalism upon returning to Egypt. Resigning from the civil service, he joined the Brotherhood in the early 1950s[8] and became perhaps their most effective publicist. The school of thought he inspired has become known as Qutbism.


Qutb was imprisoned for ten years, from 1954-1964Both the Muslim Brotherhood and Qutb enjoyed a close relationship with the Free Officers Movement in the time leading up to and following the coup of June 1952. Many members of the Brotherhood expected Nasser to direct the formation of an Islamic government, perhaps even an Islamic democracy. However the cooperation between the Brotherhood and Free Officers which marked the revolution's success soon soured. The Free Officers' refused to hold elections or ban alcohol. It became increasingly clear that the Islamic tenets of the Brotherhood were largely incompatible with the secular ideology of Nasserism.
[...]
Whether he supported dictatorship, or later rule by Sharia law with essentially no government at all, Sayyid Qutb's political views always centered on Islam -- Islam as a complete system of morality, justice and governance, whose Sharia laws and principles should be the sole basis of government. On the issue of Islamic governance, Qutb differed with many modernist and reformist Muslims who claimed democracy was Islamic because the Quranic institution of the Shura supported elections and democracy. Qutb argued instead for a `just dictatorship,` [11] claiming the Shura chapter of the Qur'an calls only for the ruler to consult some of the ruled and makes no reference to elections. [12]
[...]
This idea of the complete freedom of man and the means to bring about this freedom were described in his final work, Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones). Qutb envisioned a Muslim vanguard [14] that would fight Jahiliyyah with a two-fold approach: preaching, and abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system by "physical power and Jihaad." The vanguard movement would grow until it formed a truly Islamic community, then spread throughout the Islamic homeland and finally throughout the entire world.

Qutb emphasized this struggle would be anything but easy. True Islam would transform every aspect of society, eliminating everything non-Muslim. Jahili erzatz-Muslims, Jews and Westerners would all fight and conspire against the elimination of Jahiliyyah. True Muslims could look forward to lives of "poverty, difficulty, frustration, torment and sacrifice."

[edit]
Philosophy
Qutb is often identified as a major intellectual contributor to radical Islamism in the 20th century. This is due in part to his many writings on the subject and also his strong connection between religion and politics that mark his later works. In particular, Qutb established complex, controversial views on several traditional Islamic ideas:

[edit]
Jahiliyya
One of Qutb's innovations was applying the term Jahiliyya, which traditionally refers to humanity's state of ignorance before the revelation of Islam, to modern-day Muslim societies. In Qutb's view, the removal of Islamic law and religious values (particularly after the period of European colonization) had left the Muslim world in a condition of debased ignorance, similar to that of the pre-Islamic era (i.e. Jahiliyya). In defining the Muslim world as in a state of Jahiliyya, Qutb concluded that all non-Islamic states were illegitimate, including that of Egypt.

What was most controversial about Qutb's conception of Jahiliyya was his wide application of it. Qutb believed that all societies ruled by a non-Islamic government were not Islamic. Further, based on a Qur'anic interpretation of Jahiliyya, Qutb concluded that Muslims living in such societies were religiously obligated to oppose the ruling government and to challenge its authority. This theory of legitimacy and the advocacy for no less than revolution set Qutb against the majority of political systems in the world, including that of his home country, Egypt. In effect, Qutb's theories paired a fundamentalist interpretation of the Qur'an with a radical, sociopolitical ideology.[15]

[edit]
Criticisms
Qutb has been interpreted, particularly in some parts of the Western media, as an intellectual precursor to various Islamic fundamentalist movements of the 1980s to the present, including the notorious international organization Al-Qaeda. In this view, Qutb is argued to be a theoretical foundation of Islamic extremism. One can find some ideological connections between Qutb's thought and radical fundamentalist groups. These include Qutb's advocacy of an Islamic theocracy as the only legitimate state, his justification of jihad in the conflict against non-Islamic governments, and his uncompromising opposition to Western culture and values.
[...]
The influence of Qutb and his work extends across the whole spectrum of Islamism. Alongside notable Islamists like Maulana Mawdudi and Hasan al-Banna, Qutb is often considered one of the most influential Islamic activists of the modern era. He is recognized for his application of Islamic ideology to current social and political problems, such as Westernization, modernization, and political reform. Qutb's work also expanded many themes now common in Western discourses on Islamism, including the theory of inevitable ideological conflict between "Islam and the West" (see Clash of civilizations), the notion of a transnational umma, and the comprehensive application of jihad in various spiritual, political, and social contexts.

In terms of politics, Qutb left a significant mark on the Muslim Brotherhood, which today still exists and is actively involved in Egyptian politics. His theoretical work on non-violent Islamic advocacy, including emphasis on social justice and education, has become a cornerstone of the contemporary Brotherhood. His interpretation of jihad and its application for societal change has influenced many later Islamist activists, both violent and non-violent. Finally, Qutb's imprisonment and execution has led some to consider him a martyr. Many consider him the most significant new interpreter of Islam in the twentieth century. Some have promoted him as an antecedent of the more extreme aspects of violent Islamist activity today.

Qutb's written works, including his most controversial, are still widely available and have been translated into many Western languages. Qutb's best known work, Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones), is regarded by some as the beginning of modern political Islam. However, the majority of Qutb's theory can be found in his Qur'anic commentary Fi zilal al-Qur'an (In the Shade of the Quran). This 30-volume work is noteworthy for its innovative method of interpretation, borrowing heavily from the literary analysis of Amin al-Khuli, while retaining some structural features of classical commentaries (for example, the practice of progressing from the first sura to the last).


Here are some excerpts from In the Shade of the Quran.

Here's a source that attempts to debunk Qutb:

 
Quote
Qutb's lack of knowledge in Islam coupled by his jailing led him to change his understanding of Islam according to the circumstances he was faced with. Consequently, his writings became more and more radical as time went by. Eventually, his revolutionary ideology of takfir (excommunication) and setting out against the authorities became ingrained in the minds and hearts of a new generation of youth who were looking for something greater than the failed way of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun. To this day, Qutb is considered to be the head of this ideology for all insurrectionary groups.

His new-fangled way of understanding Islam is evident in his attempt to write a tafsir (explanation) of the Quran called Fi Thilalil-Quran (In the Shade of the Quran). Qutb was not interested in following the traditional approach of explaining the Quran, which is to firstly refer to the Quran itself for other verses which clarify the meaning, then the Haadeeths of the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) which deal with the meanings of specific verses, or if this does not exist, to refer to the explanations of his companions. Hence, it cannot be referred to as a tafsir in the conventional sense.

Referring to the explanations of the companions is a legislated matter in Islam, because they witnessed the revelation of the Quran and were taught its understanding and application by the one to whom it was revealed. Consequently, they were commissioned to transmit the texts of the Quran and Haadeeths that we read today and were also charged with the responsibility of retaining the explanations of the texts as well as their causes and occasions of revelation. Instead of referring to these important sources, Qutb used his own opinions to explain the Quran - over and above these sources. Consequently, this tafsir contains numerous errors which the Salafi scholars have already clarified for the people.

Because of his ignorance of the orthodox system of Islamic belief, Qutb came up with a hodgepodge of statements collected from all of the various Islamic sects which have sprung up since the earliest years of Islamic civilization. Far from being upon the creed of the "Wahhabis", Qutb was influenced by the Mu'tazili/Sufi philosophical school of thought which prevails in that area of the Middle East. This system of belief runs completely contrary to the so-called "Wahhabi" creed.


And although many Salafis reject violent forms of persuasion, the vast majority adhere to rather antimodern beliefs:

 
Quote
Salafis preach a purified Islamic monotheism, or tawheed that strictly prohibits shirk (a comprehensive term which is commonly translated as polytheism), or bid`a (innovation, i.e. practices not followed by early Muslims). Salafis believe that widespread Muslim practices such as venerating the graves of Islamic prophets and saints are shirk. Photographs of any living being that possesses a soul are forbidden. Celebration of Muhammad's birthday (Mawlid) is bid`a. All these practices are considered shirk or as bidah (innovation). Salafis in general are opposed to both Sufism and Shi'a Islam, which they regard as deviations.

Salafi place great emphasis on ritual not only in prayer but in every activity in life -- three fingers should always be used when eating, water is to be drunk in three pauses with the right hand while sitting [1] -- so as to follow the example of the Prophet (p) and his companions and make religion part of every activity in life. Salafi also discourage many other activities, including music, beard-shaving, that do not follow the example of early Muslims [2] and that distract people's attention from religion. This has been criticized as overly strict or trivial by some. [3]

Salafi differ from the earlier contemporary Islamic revival movement of Islamism of the 1970s and 1980s, in that (at least many) Salafi reject not only Western ideologies such as socialism and capitalism, but also common Western concepts like economics, constitutions, political parties, revolution and social justice. Muslims should not engage in Western activities like politics, "even by giving them an Islamic slant." [4] Instead, Muslims should stick to Islamic activities, particularly dawah. Salafi promote the sharia.

Salafis reject mainstream dogmatic theology (kalam). They consider this to be based on classical Greek philosophy (Plato and Aristotle) and an import foreign to the original practice of Islam.

Salafis are divided on the question of adherence to the four recognized schools of traditional legal interpretation (madhhabs).

Some Salafis wish to base their jurisprudence directly on the Qu'ran and Sunnah. They believe that literal readings of the Qur'an and the hadith (or oral traditions) are sufficient guidance for the believing Muslim. One scholar who supported this position was Albaanee.
Some Salafis follow the teachings of the 14th century Syrian scholar Ibn Taymiya, and his students Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Kathir.
Some Salafis rely on the jurisprudence of one of the four famous madhabs. For example, Ibn Taymiya followed the Hanbali madhhab. Some of his students (such as Ibn Kathir and Al-Dhahabi) followed the Shafi madhhab. Other students (such as Ibn Abu al-Iz) follow the Hanafi madhhab.
Because Salafis see themselves as practicing "pure" Islam, Salafi teachers and adherents will not necessarily identify themselves as Salafi. They can be identified as part of a particular current of contemporary Islam by their characteristic beliefs, by their use of terms like "the Salaf" or "Qur'an and sunnah." They also tend to use a more rigorous style of transliteration of Arabic into English: long vowels are indicated by doubling, emphatic consonants are doubled, and words that end with a ta marbuta in Arabic are rendered with a terminal h.

[edit]
History of Salafism
From the perspective of the Salafis themselves, their history starts with the Prophet himself. They consider themselves direct followers of his teachings, and wish to emulate the piety of the earliest followers of Islam (the salaf al-salih). All later scholars are merely revivers (not 'founders';). Modern scholars may only come to teach (or remind) us of the instructions of the original Salaf.

[edit]
Contemporary Salafis
Salafism is a movement within Sunni Islam. It includes many groups and shades of belief. It is strongest in the Middle East, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, etc. It is also found in most other Muslim-majority countries (see Islam by country and Demographics of Islam). It is increasingly important to diasporic Muslims in Europe, Canada, and the United States.

Salafis tend to differentiate themselves not so much by matters of Islamic practice, such as prescriptions for prayer (salat) or Islamic dress (hijab), but by their attitude towards the state.

Some Salafis urge believers to support or endure the state under which they live. Believers are encouraged to spread Salafism non-violently, by missionary activity, social work, and political organization. Above all, they should help each other lead lives of true Islamic piety. (Rabei Al-Madkhaly)
Some Salafis believe that violent jihad is permissible against foreign, non-Muslim, occupation, but not against governments that claim to be Islamic. Those governments are to be reformed, not violently overthrown. Civil war (fitna) is to be avoided. (Salman Al-Auda)


Notice that this movement relies on Islam's traditional scriptures.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,04:38   

Quote
Notice that this movement relies on Islam's traditional "scriptures".


Out of curiosity, why the scare quotes around 'scriptures'?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,06:16   

By the way, I'm done with my presentation of the Koranic interpretation of Jihad, so Louis is free to respond to that part. If my formatting (i.e. scare quotes, etc.) seems eccentric, it's because I'm trying to avoid using Christian terms.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,06:21   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 28 2006,11:16)
By the way, I'm done with my presentation of the Koranic interpretation of Jihad, so Louis is free to respond to that part. If my formatting (i.e. scare quotes, etc.) seems eccentric, it's because I'm trying to avoid using Christian terms.

'Scriptures' is a Christian term? ?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,06:27   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 28 2006,12:21)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 28 2006,11:16)
By the way, I'm done with my presentation of the Koranic interpretation of Jihad, so Louis is free to respond to that part. If my formatting (i.e. scare quotes, etc.) seems eccentric, it's because I'm trying to avoid using Christian terms.

'Scriptures' is a Christian term? ?

'scriptures' is not a christian term, but 'Scriptures' is. Wikipedia:

Quote
The Rigveda of Hinduism was likely composed between roughly 1500–1300 BCE, making it one of the world's oldest religious texts. The oldest portions of the Zoroastrian Avesta are believed to have been transmitted orally for centuries before they found written form, and although widely differing dates for Gathic Avestan (the language of the oldest texts) have been proposed, scholarly consensus floats at around 1000 BCE (roughly contemporary to the Brahmana period of Vedic Sanskrit).

The first printed scripture for wide distribution to the masses was The Diamond Sutra, a Buddhist scripture, printed in the year 868 CE.

In English language, the term scriptures can be used to describe any religion's sacred text as in Hindu scriptures, Jewish scriptures, etc. but when capitalized, in English literature, the word Scriptures generally refers to the sacred texts of the Bible, also referred to as Holy Scripture.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,06:36   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 28 2006,11:27)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 28 2006,12:21)
 
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 28 2006,11:16)
By the way, I'm done with my presentation of the Koranic interpretation of Jihad, so Louis is free to respond to that part. If my formatting (i.e. scare quotes, etc.) seems eccentric, it's because I'm trying to avoid using Christian terms.

'Scriptures' is a Christian term? ?

'scriptures' is not a christian term, but 'Scriptures' is. Wikipedia:

 
Quote
The Rigveda of Hinduism was likely composed between roughly 1500–1300 BCE, making it one of the world's oldest religious texts. The oldest portions of the Zoroastrian Avesta are believed to have been transmitted orally for centuries before they found written form, and although widely differing dates for Gathic Avestan (the language of the oldest texts) have been proposed, scholarly consensus floats at around 1000 BCE (roughly contemporary to the Brahmana period of Vedic Sanskrit).

The first printed scripture for wide distribution to the masses was The Diamond Sutra, a Buddhist scripture, printed in the year 868 CE.

In English language, the term scriptures can be used to describe any religion's sacred text as in Hindu scriptures, Jewish scriptures, etc. but when capitalized, in English literature, the word Scriptures generally refers to the sacred texts of the Bible, also referred to as Holy Scripture.

Understood, but this does not explain GoP's use of scare quotes in the sentence in question:

Quote

Notice that this movement relies on Islam's traditional "scriptures".


I've regularly seen the word 'scriptures' used in reference to the writings of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sihkism, and Jainism. (Without quotes.) It's the standard word.

So 'scriptures' isn't just a Christian term.

So I still don't understand why GoP used the scare quotes on the word.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,07:21   

Arden: I fixed it.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,11:25   

I found a good -- if heavily biased -- site that compiles several passages from the Koran about Judaism and Christianity.

       
Quote
3.28: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.

4.157: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

4.171: O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.

5.51: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

5.64: And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

5.82: Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.


Here are some passages on the Jews. Once again, the source is biased:

     
Quote
The Women
[4.46] Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places and say: We have heard and we disobey and: Hear, may you not be made to hear! and: Raina, distorting (the word) with their tongues and taunting about religion; and if they had said (instead): We have heard and we obey, and hearken, and unzurna it would have been better for them and more upright; but Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little.

[4.47] O you who have been given the Book! believe that which We have revealed, verifying what you have, before We alter faces then turn them on their backs, or curse them as We cursed the violaters of the Sabbath, and the command of Allah shall be executed.

[4.50] See how they forge the lie against Allah, and this is sufficient as a manifest sin.

[4.160] Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way.

[4.161] And their taking usury though indeed they were forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful chastisement.

[5.32] For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,[ [5.34] Except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. --this is a bit of a quote-mine -- Paley.]


[5.41] O Apostle! let not those grieve you who strive together in hastening to unbelief from among those who say with their mouths: We believe, and their hearts do not believe, and from among those who are Jews; they are listeners for the sake of a lie, listeners for another people who have not come to you; they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious; and as for him whose temptation Allah desires, you cannot control anything for him with Allah. Those are they for whom Allah does not desire that He should purify their hearts; they shall have disgrace in this world, and they shall have a grievous chastisement in the hereafter.

[5.42] (They are) listeners of a lie, devourers of what is forbidden; therefore if they come to you, judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they shall not harm you in any way; and if you judge, judge between them with equity; surely Allah loves those who judge equitably.

[5.63] Why do not the learned men [rabbis] and the doctors of law prohibit them from their speaking of what is sinful and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired? Certainly evil is that which they work.

[5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

17.4] And We had made known to the children of Israel in the Book: Most certainly you will make mischief in the land twice, and most certainly you will behave insolently with great insolence.

[62.6] Say: O you who are Jews, if you think that you are the favorites of Allah to the exclusion of other people, then invoke death If you are truthful.


Of course, there are positive passages, but the overall message is pretty clear. Here's the online Koran again for cross-checking. 5:51 pretty much says it all, no?

Here are tonight's two reading assignments.

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,11:33   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 28 2006,12:36)
Understood, but this does not explain GoP's use of scare quotes in the sentence in question:

I wasn't putting in there for GoP's edification, but for everyone else. GoP put scare quotes there because he doesn't know any better.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,11:50   

Quote
I wasn't putting in there for GoP's edification, but for everyone else. GoP put scare quotes there because he doesn't know any better.


Thanks, Big Daddy. I look forward to you systematically tearing my little beliefs to shreds in front of the entire board, Sir!

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,12:05   

Give me a geocentric model and I will do exactly that.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,12:16   

since we're talking about GoP, this is appropriate


   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,12:25   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 28 2006,16:50)
Quote
I wasn't putting in there for GoP's edification, but for everyone else. GoP put scare quotes there because he doesn't know any better.


Thanks, Big Daddy. I look forward to you systematically tearing my little beliefs to shreds in front of the entire board, Sir!

Actually, I don't think the real reason for GoP putting scare quotes around the word 'scripture' ever got mentioned, but never mind.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,13:41   

I'm surprised that the only error that anybody's been able to find is an ill-placed scare quote. Let's hope Louis is more successful.

Those last two links are really good. You'll probably poke fun at Andrew Bostom's specialty (kidney diseases), but the guy has done his homework and he pretty much lays waste to several myths about Islam.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,14:03   

Hey, I just felt a big blast of, um, hot air.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,15:08   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 28 2006,19:03)
Hey, I just felt a big blast of, um, hot air.

You know, I have this distinct memory of a discussion a couple months ago where Paley was making some Biblical claim or other, and some of the people here started arguing against him using Biblical citations. When this happened, I remember that Paley he got extremely pissed off and snide that some atheists should be so presumptious as to argue using citations from a religion they don't even believe in.

I guess that rule only applies to citing the Bible, and no other religious books.

Quote
I'm surprised that the only error that anybody's been able to find is an ill-placed scare quote


That's my point, I doubt the ill-placed scare quotes were an error, as such.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,19:15   

Quote
Koranic interpretation of Jihad,


shall we post the Fred "felcher" Phelps interpretation of the bible for comparison?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,23:58   

Ghosty,

Sorry, and call me stupid if you like, but I STILL don't see the direct relevence of all this.

So the qu'ran and hadith and some muslim scholars and individuals have interpreatations/literal verses that are hostile to integration. Big whoop. Not every self identifying muslim adheres to every literal verse nor to every interpretation. If your arguing that muslim fundamentalists make bad intergrators then you and I agree. But then so do christian fundamentalists and jewish fundamentalists and sikh fundamentalists etc etc etc. In addition, not all muslims are fundamentalists. Hardly a shock I'm sure!

I'm also sure you realise I can cherry pick the torah or the bible or the guru granth sahib for similar references. I'm especially sure you know this about the bible!  ;)

I can also understand some of the relevance here in terms of "oooh look, if them muslims do all this stuff then they as a group are going to be total pants at integrating into western societies", and on that I would agree, but the direction you're going in does not reflect the plurality of muslim thought or self identifying muslims.

I was hoping for a more fact based statistical type discussion of the actual evidence collected, rather than suppositions based on the horrific sections of millenium old witterings of illiterate sheep herders in the post iron age Middle East.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,04:28   

Louis:

 
Quote
Ghosty,

Sorry, and call me stupid if you like, but I STILL don't see the direct relevence of all this.


Then why didn't you complain about my outline until I presented a lot of evidence for the first part? It's almost like you were hoping I couldn't establish Part 1....and when you saw I could do it at length, then you came out with this "irrelevancy" charge. But let's put that aside.

Is the "irrelevancy" charge itself relevant? No, and here's why: whenever I find myself debating Muslim immigration, the first line of defense is usually, "Oh, Islam isn't about all that stuff. That's just ignorance about the faith." Here's an example:

 
Quote
Man quotes Koran, is accused of making it up
Undercover Black Man, with whom I’ve had a few dialogs at VFR, was posting at a liberal-leaning blog where his opinions about Islam came under attack. He replied:


Dude … what part of “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them” don’t you understand? Is there any holy book among world religions, EXCEPT the Koran, which advocates the spread of its beliefs through force of arms?”

One of his interlocutors replied:

These are obviously the words of a person who doesn’t know what he is talking about. Who told you that the Koran says this? You obviously have never read it.
You are inventing facts and quoting hearsay to promote your mistaken view of reality.



UBM then did some research on the trusty Web and quoted several English translations of the verse in question as well as of another key verse in Sura 9. We may presume that the person who said UBM was making it all up has now realized that the Koran is not the love-and-tolerance manual he thought it was.
UBM comments, “There is rhetorical power in stacking various English translations of certain Koranic verses one atop the other. The true and essential meaning of the verses stands out in sharp relief when you see them phrased a few different ways.”


Ask Karen Armstrong if this issue's irrelevant, or Mustafa Akyol, or the Bush Administration, or just about any open-borders advocate. But I'm happy that you've admitted that Islam, if taken seriously, is completely at odds with Western Society (if you don't concede this, let me know now.)

This is an important first step. If you concede that Islam, if followed literally, is incompatible with the West, I'll immediately move on to the stats.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,04:39   

Paley, can you explain why this thread doesn't violate the board rule

Quote
*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,04:50   

Quote
This is an important first step. If you concede that Islam, if followed literally, is incompatible with the West, I'll immediately move on to the stats.
Just in case you missed it Ill post a quote from the post directly above yours:

Quote
If your arguing that muslim fundamentalists make bad intergrators then you and I agree. But then so do christian fundamentalists and jewish fundamentalists and sikh fundamentalists etc etc etc. In addition, not all muslims are fundamentalists. Hardly a shock I'm sure!

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,04:58   

Louis:

 
Quote
So the qu'ran and hadith and some muslim scholars and individuals have interpreatations/literal verses that are hostile to integration. Big whoop. Not every self identifying muslim adheres to every literal verse nor to every interpretation. If your arguing that muslim fundamentalists make bad intergrators then you and I agree. But then so do christian fundamentalists and jewish fundamentalists and sikh fundamentalists etc etc etc. In addition, not all muslims are fundamentalists. Hardly a shock I'm sure!


I never said that all Muslims are hostile to the West, just a distressingly high percentage. And I challenge your claim about fundies from other faiths. Orthodox Jews aren't spurring a crime wave, Christian fundamentalists aren't flying planes into skyscrapers, Sikh fundies aren't intimidiating journalists. So these comparisons undercut your case. Consider this: although every scripture has passages that make it look bad to outsiders, you won't find calls to slay the infidels where you find them, cut their fingertips off, etc. The Torah may catalogue the destruction of the Amelekites and Midianites, but God doesn't call for the Jews to practice this in the present. Jesus, as both Deadman and Eric admit, was a relatively peaceful man who instructed Christians to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" and "turn the other cheek". Driving the moneychangers from the temple doesn't begin to compare with robbing caravans and slaughtering Qurayza.

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,05:10   

Ghosty,

1) I did mention the relevance thing early on. Read back. Don't worry about it, it's not a big deal, I'm just trying to focus on the key issues.

2) You're missing my brief point, read the quote that Chris has just made. I'll emphasise the bits you need:

FUNDAMENTALIST.

Nothing to do with orthodoxy, everything to do with fanaticism. Oh and christian fundies are killing abortion doctors and blowing up clinics. It's also fairly trivial to show that literalist adherence to some biblical passages at the expense of others (i.e. just what you are doing with the qu'ran) is directly at odds with modern western society, again as I am sure you are aware. Jewish fundies (or zionists if you like) are bombing merry #### out of Palestinians (rightly or wrongly) and have a foreign policy and a policy on mixed ethnicity that is directly at odds with modern western values.

Oh and look up "Behzti" (sp?) a play that was picketted by Sikhs here in the UK, and the protests turned violent. The intimidation was sufficient to have the play stopped. I believe journos were also targetted, but I might be worng about that. What about "christian voice" an organisation here in the UK dedicated to intimidation camapaigns?

My point is simple, it's the fundamentalism that's the problem. The specific religion is pretty much incidental. In many cases social deprivation or poverty or anger at (foreign) policy is as important in many (if not all) cases of terrorism/rioting etc. The thing you have to do is demonstrate why muslims are special. Since not all muslims adhere to your choice of surahs and interpretations, you have to show why these more "moderate" muslims are worse at integrating than equally moderate sikhs (for example).

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,05:14   

P.S.

Quote
If you concede that Islam, if followed literally, is incompatible with the West, I'll immediately move on to the stats


I explicitly do not concede, nor think, this. If you want to pick on literal islam, sort your own house out first and demonstrate how literal christianity is compatible with the west.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,05:38   

Louis:

 
Quote
Jewish fundies (or zionists if you like) are bombing merry #### out of Palestinians (rightly or wrongly) and have a foreign policy and a policy on mixed ethnicity that is directly at odds with modern western values.


Booooooo! You know this isn't a valid comparison. If Muslims countries would stop attacking Israel and Muslim terrorists would stop commiting atrocities, then Israel would let the Muslims alone.

 
Quote
Nothing to do with orthodoxy, everything to do with fanaticism. Oh and christian fundies are killing abortion doctors and blowing up clinics.


Yep, and this is a problem. But the scale is just a wee bit different, don't you think? Same thing with the Sikhs. I don't see them stabbing filmakers and sabotaging internet websites and causing widespread censorship of cartoons. If they're doing this, let me know.

It all comes back to an issue of scale. Islamic fundies are much more likely to commit terrorist attacks, and their attacks are often directed at the society as a whole, not just an industry they dislike.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,06:17   

Ghosty,

Sorry my bad, I should have made the comparison more clear. What I mean is that if we are cherry picking actions by groups and cherry picking scriptures we had better be on the same page about which bits we are cherry picking. I can find a slew of western values that find Israel's actions to be abhorrent (and a slew more that don't). Oh and by the way that's what (rightly or wrongly) was in there for.

If you're going to cherry pick the worst excesses of current terrorists who happen to be muslims, then why can't I cherry pick the worst excesses of the IRA? Or of ostensibly christian organisations and governments? Or even, dare I say it, of communists (who were ostensibly atheists doncherknow).

The broad point I am making is that this is a very complex topic, and reducing it to "muslim or not muslim" is a very narrow definition. Robert Mugabe: not muslim, nasty fucker, wouldn't want him or his administration trying to muscle their way in over here. Polish/Russian mafia trafficking girls for prostitution and running opium to the UK, less headlines, more damage caused and expense incurred than 10 9/11s or 100 7/7s. etc etc ad nauseum.

Oh and also by the way, the cartoon furore was deliberate. The clerics who toured the middle east did so with a few additional cartoons of their own devising to rouse the lads some more. Heavens! People with an agenda using made up inflammatory propaganda to incite a population to riot? Never been done by a christian! Hmmmmm Wait a minute......

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the evils of islamic terrorists, but the brush you are painting with is far too broad. You're giving it the old "men rape women therfore all man are (potential) rapists" schtick. Muslims do commit acts of terror, true. Muslims therefore are all potential terrorists, not true. You are not admitting to the VAST majority of muslims in the west (and elsewhere) who don't support, condone, or act out these atrocities.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,07:18   

Quote
Ghosty,

Sorry my bad, I should have made the comparison more clear. What I mean is that if we are cherry picking actions by groups and cherry picking scriptures we had better be on the same page about which bits we are cherry picking. I can find a slew of western values that find Israel's actions to be abhorrent (and a slew more that don't). Oh and by the way that's what (rightly or wrongly) was in there for.


Ok, qualification understood. And I would be the first to complain about Jewish immigrants if they took their schtick over to America or Great Britain. But they don't, and that's what I'm getting at. American and European Jews are not whaling on American or European Muslims, so Israel's acts don't apply to them IMHO. On the other hand, many Muslims are importing their $^&* to the West, and that's what bothers me.

 
Quote
If you're going to cherry pick the worst excesses of current terrorists who happen to be muslims, then why can't I cherry pick the worst excesses of the IRA? Or of ostensibly christian organisations and governments? Or even, dare I say it, of communists (who were ostensibly atheists doncherknow).


Ahhh...but you're forgetting the scale once again. And the Irish are not recent immigrants to the UK if I recall.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,07:29   

Quote
Booooooo! You know this isn't a valid comparison.


Translated out of Paleyese = 'I don't agree with this and it screws up my argument'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,07:38   

Quote
Oh and also by the way, the cartoon furore was deliberate. The clerics who toured the middle east did so with a few additional cartoons of their own devising to rouse the lads some more. Heavens! People with an agenda using made up inflammatory propaganda to incite a population to riot? Never been done by a christian! Hmmmmm Wait a minute......


Yep, but the most fundy-friendly country in the West  (that would be us) also has a free media....one freer than most of Europe's media, at any rate. So what harm has been done by us Christian fundies? But Muslims are already abridging everyone else's liberty. South Park can broadcast blasphemous pictures of Jesus to its heart's content; but when they tried showing a drawing of Mohammed, Comedy Central wouldn't let 'em....and this was in the US. So much for the power of the Amurican Fundy.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,07:54   

Louis, I'll try to bring some statistics soon.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,08:13   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 29 2006,10:38)
Booooooo! You know this isn't a valid comparison. If Muslims countries would stop attacking Israel and Muslim terrorists would stop commiting atrocities, then Israel would let the Muslims alone.

Just thought I'd pop by for a moment.

Yes, this is probably true, Bill. But that's not the problem. The problem is, Israel's antagonists have figured out exactly how to get Israel to act against its own interests, by reacting vastly out of proportion to its attackers' actions. It cannot have escaped your notice that Palestinian casualties are always many times the number of Israeli casualties, and it certainly hasn't escaped the notice of the Palestinians and their supporters.

Regardless of whether you think Israel's actions are justified or not, the more critical question is, are they constructive? I.e., do they further Israel's interests? It's pretty clear that they don't.

I was talking to a friend at a bar here in SF back in 2001, near the height of the last major intifada. We were talking about the whole Israel/Palestinian issue, and I could tell the bartender was sort of evesdropping. When my friend went to the ladies', I asked the bartender, who interestingly was Israeli, to do something: set aside, for the moment, questions of morality, or ethics, of who's at fault, of who did what to whom or why. Answer this question: do you think Israel's actions will ever have the desired effect, i.e., to get the Arabs and Paletinians to stop attacking Israel? Her answer: "Yes."

"How long do you think it will take," I asked. "After all, Israel's been using essentially the same tactics for the past fifty years, with precious little to show for it. Is Israel notably more secure now than it was in, say, 1950? How long will it take?"

Her answer? "Fifty, maybe seventy-five more years."

So. Israel's about halfway there on finally persuading the Arab world that it's not to be trifled with.

Maybe it's time to reconsider its tactics?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,09:49   

Eric:

     
Quote
Just thought I'd pop by for a moment.

Yes, this is probably true, Bill. But that's not the problem. The problem is, Israel's antagonists have figured out exactly how to get Israel to act against its own interests, by reacting vastly out of proportion to its attackers' actions. [snip]


Ok, before this becomes a thread on Middle-East policy, let's assume, for the purposes of this debate, that Israel is The Most Evil Nation That Ever Existed*. On an Evilosity scale from 1 - 1000, Israel gets a 1307.

So what? Whatever happens in Israel, stays in Israel -- Jewish immigrants don't import their problems to the West. To a much greater extent, Muslim immigrants do. That's what I'm concerned about.

*I know that Louis and Eric don't believe this.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,11:29   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 29 2006,14:49)
So what? Whatever happens in Israel, stays in Israel -- Jewish immigrants don't import their problems to the West. To a much greater extent, Muslim immigrants do. That's what I'm concerned about.

Actually, no. What happens in Israel ends up halfway around the world, Bill. Whether you agree with Israel's actions or not, the biggest issue the Muslim world has with the West is its support of Israel. And not just support, but uncritical support.

Jewish immigrants may not export problems to the West, but their antagonists certainly do. Let me ask you this, Bill: if Israel did not exist, how big of a problem do you think most Arabs and/or Muslims would have with the U.S.? Sure, you can't practice Christianity in Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis in general don't seem to have a problem with people practicing Christianity here. Which do you think ordinary Saudis have more of a problem with: America's Christian ways, or America's support for Israel?

(and, of course, I'm currently ignoring the Muslim world's biggest beef with America currently: its occupation of Mesopotamia.)

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,12:03   

Eric:

   
Quote
Actually, no. What happens in Israel ends up halfway around the world, Bill. Whether you agree with Israel's actions or not, the biggest issue the Muslim world has with the West is its support of Israel. And not just support, but uncritical support.


I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean that the Middle East geopolitical situation has no effect outside its borders, I meant that Jewish immigrants don't bring their "baggage" to other countries. In other words, while some Israelis may dislike Muslims, they don't mistreat them or engage in terrorism when they move to other countries. That's what counts with immigration.

   
Quote
Jewish immigrants may not export problems to the West, but their antagonists certainly do. Let me ask you this, Bill: if Israel did not exist, how big of a problem do you think most Arabs and/or Muslims would have with the U.S.? Sure, you can't practice Christianity in Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis in general don't seem to have a problem with people practicing Christianity here. Which do you think ordinary Saudis have more of a problem with: America's Christian ways, or America's support for Israel?


I have never denied that America's foreign policy (aka serial screwups, although our support of Israel is not one of them) contributes to Muslim anger at America. My point is, so what? For whatever reason, they don't fit in, and that's what matters in immigration policy.

America's foreign policy is not ideal, but some parts ain't gonna change, nor should they. We're not going to stop supporting Israel. Sorry. So Muslims will always hate us for this regardless of our other actions. Besides, do you really think appeasing them will ever work? It doesn't work for Israel when they try it; what makes us any different? They'll just look at us as Dhimmis in waiting (which I intend to establish in future installments) and then jack up the terrorism even more. Your plan of, "Give em what they want, then open the borders" is absolutely suicidal.

Thanks for proving my point for me, though!

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
clamboy



Posts: 299
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,12:58   

And I would like to thank you, ghost of paley, for reminding me why I am an atheist and an anarchist.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,13:35   

Quote
And I would like to thank you, ghost of paley, for reminding me why I am an atheist and an anarchist.

Actually, I wouldn't mind waving the black flag as long as I got an anarchist's freedom in the bargain. But that's not on the menu; open borders + grim totalitarian society is the soupe du jour. Eat up.  ;)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,13:40   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 29 2006,17:03)
Thanks for proving my point for me, though!

I proved your point that Muslims don't "fit in" with American culture? How did I prove that?

As it happens, Bill, I know several Muslims, I dated one, and living in San Francisco, I know that half the small shopkeepers here are Muslim. And guess what? They all seem to fit in just fine with American culture.

Do Islamic extremists fit in well with American culture? Probably not. But in my opinion, Christian extremists don't fit in any better, and are probably responsible for more social upheaval than Muslim extremists are.

What "extremists" fit in well in any culture, even their own?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,13:49   

Hmmm... I'm starting to wonder if Christians actually  want Muslims to hate them. There's no better way of increasing a group's identity than by encouraging an opposing group to hate them. (The Oceana versus Eurasia/Eastasia thing. Osama bin Laden is very much the West's Emmanuel Goldstein, IMO.)

If so, it actually makes a lot of sense for Christians to uncritically support Israel, especially if it generates the hatred that results in terrorism. Then they can say "look at what Muslims do. They're EVIL. And as they are attacking us, we must be GOOD. Thus, we must destroy them".

The vilification of ALL things Islam is something I've heard from even the nicest Christians. It's as disturbing as talking to someone who you think is decent, and then they suddenly come out with the most blatant anti-semitism!

Why do theists have so much hatred? Is it something to do with being less rational?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,13:55   

Whoops, I seem to be violating my policy of ignoring side comments. Let me do it again, because Eric's delusional questions illustrate what's wrong with the West:

 
Quote
Jewish immigrants may not export problems to the West, but their antagonists certainly do. Let me ask you this, Bill: if Israel did not exist, how big of a problem do you think most Arabs and/or Muslims would have with the U.S.? Sure, you can't practice Christianity in Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis in general don't seem to have a problem with people practicing Christianity here. Which do you think ordinary Saudis have more of a problem with: America's Christian ways, or America's support for Israel?


Ha, ha, Eric thinks that tossing Israel to the Muslims will solve all of our problems. He's almost right. Here's what most Muslims countries want:

1) Death to Israel if not Israelis;

2) Dhimmitude for the rest of the Infidels;

3) Whatever else comes to mind, especially when they discover that 1) and 2) don't close the economic gap.

Poor little Eric and Clamboy -- they don't realise that their freedom is predicated on Israel and America's continued existence.

[uh-oh....based on what's just come in, they're not gonna like this post....]

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,14:02   

In 30 years I did not see the word Dhimmitude. About a month ago, I saw it for the first time on some WorldNutDaily type winger blog. Since then I've seen it 20 times, always from some winger. Saying Dhimmitude is the latest right-wing fad. Where'd you get that, Paley? Little Green Footballs? Hugh Hewitt?

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,14:08   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 29 2006,18:55)
Ha, ha, Eric thinks that tossing Israel to the Muslims will solve all of our problems. He's almost right. Here's what most Muslims countries want:

1) Death to Israel if not Israelis;

2) Dhimmitude for the rest of the Infidels;

3) Whatever else comes to mind, especially when they discover that 1) and 2) don't close the economic gap.

Poor little Eric and Clamboy -- they don't realise that their freedom is predicated on Israel and America's continued existence.

Bill, I'm not denying that the Israel-Palestinian issue is a serious one, nor am I denying that a large number (plurality? majority? a lot?) of Muslims wish for Israel to cease to exist. That wasn't my point. My point was, Israel's tactics in dealing with the Arab and Muslim world do not appear to be working very well.

I do not advocate withdrawing America's support for Israel. However, and at risk of plunging into a numbing analysis of Middle-Eastern affairs, I will say that America's failure to act as an "honest broker" in the Arab-Israeli conflict has made matters demonstrably worse.

But, back to the subject at hand: in what way have I "proved" your point that Muslims cannot integrate into American society? I have first-hand experience that many Muslims can and do integrate perfectly well into American society, which would seem to undermine your point, wouldn't it?

And a further correction: Israel's existence (or lack thereof) has little to no effect on freedom in America. Freedom existed in America long before Israel did.

And I'm not sure what you mean when you say my freedom depends on America's continued existence. Are you under the impression that America's continued existence is under threat from foreigners? I think it's under a much bigger threat from internal actors (and I suspect you agree with me there).

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,14:21   

Quote
If so, it actually makes a lot of sense for Christians to uncritically support Israel, especially if it generates the hatred that results in terrorism. Then they can say "look at what Muslims do. They're EVIL. And as they are attacking us, we must be GOOD. Thus, we must destroy them".

The vilification of ALL things Islam is something I've heard from even the nicest Christians. It's as disturbing as talking to someone who you think is decent, and then they suddenly come out with the most blatant anti-semitism!

Why do theists have so much hatred? Is it something to do with being less rational?


Oh my -- do you have an appropriate moniker....tilting at windmills and living the fantasy life. First of all, I don't hate Muslims; if it were up to me I'd leave Muslims alone to practice their religion to their heart's content. Problem is, they won't leave us alone. Do you really think that Muslim countries were a model of peace until THE NATION THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME was thrown into their midst? Time to gather 'round, kids, it's time for Uncle Paley to give you the history lesson your teacher couldn't!

 
Quote
Writing over six decades ago, Arthur Jeffery belittled as “the sheerest sophistry” attempts



“..made in some circles in modern days to explain away all the Prophet’s warlike expeditions as defensive wars or to interpret the doctrine of Jihad as merely a bloodless striving in missionary zeal for the spread of Islam…The early Arabic sources quite plainly and frankly describe the expeditions as military expeditions, and it would never have occurred to anyone at that day to interpret them as anything else…To the folk of his day there would thus be nothing strange in Muhammad, as the head of the community of those who served Allah, taking the sword to extend the kingdom of Allah, and taking measures to insure the subjection of all who lived within the borders of what he made the kingdom of Allah...[Muhammad] did at least propose that all Arabia should be the land of Allah and planned vigorous measures to insure that within its borders the religion of Allah should be supreme. Communities of the People of the Book [Book= Bible; thus referring primarily to Jews and Christians] might remain within the land, but they must be in subjection….deriving their rights from the supreme Muslim community, not from any recognized rights of their own. As the Arabs did not accept this without struggle, it had to be forced on them, and that meant war. But war in the cause of Allah is Holy War, and so even in the Prophet’s lifetime we have the question of Jihad…” 3
[...]
However, W.H.T. Gairdner, the renowned early 20th century scholar of Islam, wrote the following discussion of Muhammad’s treatment of POWs, based exclusively on Muslim sources, including the same sura (Q.8:67/68) cited by Akyol:



“After Badr, especially, the greatest vindictiveness and bloodthirstiness were manifested. Many prisoners were slaughtered in cold blood, at least two of them at the personal insistence of Muhammad who had a special grudge against them. The most famous Companions (except Abu Bakr) were then the most truculent. One of them was for burning the prisoners en masse ! [Gairdner’s emphasis] The Prophet checked these excesses. But the very words in which he did so, the very limits set up, show clearly that defenseless prisoners might always be slaughtered in cold blood if they could not get anyone to redeem them. The Sura produced after the event (Q.8:67-68) explicitly commands the slaughter of prisoners on occasions when it is advisable to make an impression by ‘frightfulness’: on such occasions the sin would be to grow rich by accepting ransoms! And there is a whole series of traditions which make out that the ‘leniency’ shown at Badr was a sin, that Mohammed had been against that sin, humane Abu Bakr was the chief offender, and that had that sin been punished, only the whole-hoggers who had urged the slaughter of all the prisoners (‘Umar and Sa’d) would have escaped…the Koran itself recommended the ransoming of war-captives as a form of charity suitable for rich Muslims. But the Badr alternative is always there in the background, and on suitable occasions may always be brought into the foreground. The prisoner of war is mubah damuhu: his life’s essentially forfeit.” 5



And a review of Egyptian high school textbooks in 2002 reveals the classical exegesis on these Qur’anic verses is still being taught to students in non-Azharite (i.e., “non-religious”) as well as Azharite schools.
[...]
But as Robert Spencer notes even W.N. Arafat, himself, believes that Q.33:26 refers to the massacre of the Banu Qurayza prisoners. This modern view is consistent with the opinions of classical Muslim scholars (for eg., all the seminal Muslim Koranic commentators, including Tabari [d. 923], Zamakshary [d.1144 ], Beidawi [d. 1286], Ibn Kathir [d.1373], and Suyuti [d. 1505]). Spencer reminds us that one of the canonical hadith collections (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 5, book 64, no. 4028) also attests to this massacre.
[...]
Al-Mawardi’s writing makes clear that killing of jihad POWs is a primary (i.e., “first”) option based solely upon what is most expedient for the Muslims:
[...]
Aykol also fails to acknowledge that Al-Mawardi was hardly unique, the views of this Shafi’ite jurist being nearly identical to those of  key jurists representing the three other main Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence, including the Hanafites, who prevailed in Ottoman Turkey:
[...]
Ibn Abi Zayd Al_Qayrawani (d. 996), head of the North African Maliki school at Qairuan:



“There is no inconvenience to kill white non-Arabs who have been taken prisoner”. 10



The famous Syrian jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328) of the Hanbali school under the Mamluks:



“…If a male unbeliever is taken captive during warfare or otherwise, eg.,  as a result of a shipwreck, or because he has lost his way, or as a result of a ruse, then the imam may do whatever he deems appropriate: killing him, enslaving him, releasing him or setting him free for a ransom consisting in either property or people. This is the view of most jurists and it is supported by the Koran and the Sunna…” 11
[...]
These rulings had tangible consequences.


Did they? Let's devote a separate post to them.....

[Eric, I'll address your points after the lesson]

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,15:13   

Picking up where we left off:

   
Quote
These rulings had tangible consequences. For centuries, from the Iberian peninsula to the Indian subcontinent, jihad campaigns waged by Muslim armies against infidel Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Hindus, were punctuated by massacres, including mass throat slittings and beheadings of captives. Here are but a few examples. Non-Muslim (i.e., Christian) prisoners were beheaded, summarily, during a  jihad campaign against Tripoli in the mid-7th century, as chronicled by Ibn Khaldun in his, History of the Berbers and the Moslem Dynasties of Northern Africa:

“Abd-Allah set siege to the city [Tripoli];  but later, unwilling to let himself be diverted from the goal that he had in mind, he gave the order to break camp.  While we were making our preparations, we spied some vessels that had just landed on the shore; immediately we attacked them and threw into the water anyone who was aboard.  They put up some resistance, but then surrendered, and we tied their hands behind their backs.  They were four hundred in number.  Abd-Allah then joined us, and he had their heads cut off.” 12


OK, I'm going to ignore most of the incidents so I can focus on the largest atrocities:

   
Quote
And Amir Timur, during his jihad campaigns through Northern India (1397-99 C.E.) conducted what may have been the greatest mass slaughter of prisoners ever chronicled:

“Next day, Friday the 3rd of the month. I left the fort of Loni and marched to a position opposite to Jahan-numa where I encamped…  I now held a Court…  At this Court Amir Jahan Shah and Amir Sulaiman Shah and other amirs of experience, brought to my notice that, from the time of entering Hindustan up to the present time, we had taken more than 100,000 infidels and Hindus prisoners, and that they were all in my camp…I asked their advice about the prisoners, and they said that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left

with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the [Islamic] rules of war to set these idolaters and foes of Islam at liberty.  In fact, no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword.
When I heard these words I found them in accordance with the rules of war, and I directly gave my command for the tawachis [drumbeaters] to proclaim throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners was to put them to death…When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. 100,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiru-d-din ‘Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives…” 14


   
Quote
The 7th century Chronicler John of Nikiou describes the jihad conquest of Fayyum and Nikiou, including the massacre of non-combatant women and children:


“[In Fayyum] The Ishmaelites attacked, killed the commandant, massacred all his troops and immediately seized the town…Whoever approached them was massacred; they spared neither old men, nor women, nor children…Then the Muslims arrived in Nikiou.  There was not one single soldier to resist them.  They seized the town and slaughtered everyone they met in the street and in the churches – men, women and children, sparing nobody.  Then they went to other places, pillaged and killed all the inhabitants they found…  But let us now say no more, for it is impossible to describe the horrors the Muslims committed when they occupied the island of Nikiou, on Sunday, the eighteenth day of the month of Guenbot, in the fifteenth year of the lunar cycle, as well as the terrible scenes which took place in Cesarea in Palestine.” 19


   
Quote
Professor J.B. Segal reviewed the jihad destruction of the Christian enclave of Edessa in 1144-1146 C.E., during the Crusades, using primary source documentation, including a contemporary account by Michael the Syrian.



“Thirty thousand souls were killed. Women, youths, and children to the number of sixteen thousand were carried into slavery, stripped of their cloths, barefoot, their hands bound, forced to run beside their captors on horses. Those who could not endure were pierced by lances or arrows, or abandoned to wild animals and birds of prey. Priests were killed out of hand or captured; few escaped. The Archbishop of the Armenians was sold at Aleppo…The whole city was given over to looting, ‘..for a whole year..’, resulting in ‘…complete ruin..’. From this disaster the Christian community of Edessa never recovered.” 21


   
Quote
Professor H.Z. Hirschberg includes this summary of a contemporary Judeo-Arabic account by Solomon Cohen (which comports with Arab historian Ibn Baydhaq’s sequence of events), from January 1148 C.E, describing the Muslim Almohad conquests in North Africa, and Spain:



“Abd al-Mumin…the leader of the Almohads after the death of Muhammad Ibn Tumart the Mahdi [note: Ibn Tumart was a cleric whose writings bear a striking resemblance to Khomeini’s rhetoric eight centuries later] …captured Tlemcen [in the Maghreb] and killed all those who were in it, including the Jews, except those who embraced Islam…[In Sijilmasa] One hundred and fifty persons were killed for clinging to their [Jewish] faith…All the cities in the Almoravid [dynastic rulers of North Africa and Spain prior to the Almohads] state were conquered by the Almohads. One hundred thousand persons were killed in Fez on that occasion, and 120,000 in Marrakesh. The Jews in all [Maghreb] localities [conquered]…groaned under the heavy yoke of the Almohads; many had been killed, many others converted; none were able to appear in public as Jews [emphasis added]…Large areas between Seville and Tortosa [in Spain] had likewise [emphasis added] fallen into Almohad hands.” 23


   
Quote
The mid-15th century Hindu chronicle Kanhadade Prabandha included descriptions of a wave of jihad attacks at the end of the 13th century, and first three decades of the 14th century. These campaigns vanquished extensive regions [Malwa, Gujarat, Ranthambhor, Siwana, Jalor, Devagiri, Warangal, Ma’bar, and Ramesvaram], and resulted in the death or enslavement of perhaps millions of Hindus.24 The devastating nature of such attacks, which included deliberate targeting of non-combatants, is captured in this account:



“A farman (firman) was now given to Gori Malik (to sack Bhinmal)…The Turkish [Muslim] invaders entered the town making dreadful din and clamor. Orders were issued clear and terrible: ‘The soldiers shall march into the town spreading terror everywhere! Cut down the Brahmanas [Brahman priests], wherever they may be- performing homa or milking cows! Kill the cows- even those which are pregnant or with newly born calves!’ The Turks ransacked Bhinmal and captured everybody in the sleepy town. Thereafter, Gori Malik gleefully set fire to the town in a wanton display of force and meanness.” 25


   
Quote
Remarkably similar descriptions of jihad massacres of non-combatants in both the pre-modern and modern eras have been recorded from Greece and the Balkans, Asia Minor, Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and the Far East (Malaysia and Indonesia). Indeed the 20th century opened and closed with frank jihad genocides- the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Turks during the initial two decades, and the genocide of southern Sudanese Christians and Animists committed by the Arab Muslim Khartoum government during the final two decades.


Two things: these numbers are probably wildly exaggerated, but they do indicate that Christians don't have a monopoly on atrocity. And yes, many of these incidents are verified by independent sources. Second: I realise that Christians have a dismal humans right record as well -- but isn't this another reason not to mix such potentially volatile cultures? Since everyone likes to bring up the Crusades, let's look into this time period and see what motivated these conflicts:

 
Quote
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
[...]
With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.

During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.
[...]
It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and His Church. It was the Crusaders’ task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence.

The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today. During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find. Without success, the local bishops attempted to stop the carnage. In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews’ money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. But they were wrong, and the Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks.

Fifty years later, when the Second Crusade was gearing up, St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:
[...]
Nevertheless, a fellow Cistercian monk named Radulf stirred up people against the Rhineland Jews, despite numerous letters from Bernard demanding that he stop. At last Bernard was forced to travel to Germany himself, where he caught up with Radulf, sent him back to his convent, and ended the massacres.

It is often said that the roots of the Holocaust can be seen in these medieval pogroms. That may be. But if so, those roots are far deeper and more widespread than the Crusades. Jews perished during the Crusades, but the purpose of the Crusades was not to kill Jews. Quite the contrary: Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested. In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these "collateral damage." Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children.
[...]
When the Crusader County of Edessa fell to the Turks and Kurds in 1144, there was an enormous groundswell of support for a new Crusade in Europe. It was led by two kings, Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany, and preached by St. Bernard himself. It failed miserably. Most of the Crusaders were killed along the way. Those who made it to Jerusalem only made things worse by attacking Muslim Damascus, which formerly had been a strong ally of the Christians. In the wake of such a disaster, Christians across Europe were forced to accept not only the continued growth of Muslim power but the certainty that God was punishing the West for its sins. Lay piety movements sprouted up throughout Europe, all rooted in the desire to purify Christian society so that it might be worthy of victory in the East.

Crusading in the late twelfth century, therefore, became a total war effort. Every person, no matter how weak or poor, was called to help. Warriors were asked to sacrifice their wealth and, if need be, their lives for the defense of the Christian East. On the home front, all Christians were called to support the Crusades through prayer, fasting, and alms. Yet still the Muslims grew in strength. Saladin, the great unifier, had forged the Muslim Near East into a single entity, all the while preaching jihad against the Christians. In 1187 at the Battle of Hattin, his forces wiped out the combined armies of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem and captured the precious relic of the True Cross. Defenseless, the Christian cities began surrendering one by one, culminating in the surrender of Jerusalem on October 2. Only a tiny handful of ports held out.

The response was the Third Crusade.
[...]
The Crusades of the 13th century were larger, better funded, and better organized. But they too failed. The Fourth Crusade (1201-1204) ran aground when it was seduced into a web of Byzantine politics, which the Westerners never fully understood. They had made a detour to Constantinople to support an imperial claimant who promised great rewards and support for the Holy Land. Yet once he was on the throne of the Caesars, their benefactor found that he could not pay what he had promised. Thus betrayed by their Greek friends, in 1204 the Crusaders attacked, captured, and brutally sacked Constantinople, the greatest Christian city in the world. Pope Innocent III, who had previously excommunicated the entire Crusade, strongly denounced the Crusaders. But there was little else he could do. The tragic events of 1204 closed an iron door between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, a door that even today Pope John Paul II has been unable to reopen. It is a terrible irony that the Crusades, which were a direct result of the Catholic desire to rescue the Orthodox people, drove the two further—and perhaps irrevocably—apart.
[...]
One might think that three centuries of Christian defeats would have soured Europeans on the idea of Crusade. Not at all. In one sense, they had little alternative. Muslim kingdoms were becoming more, not less, powerful in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. The Ottoman Turks conquered not only their fellow Muslims, thus further unifying Islam, but also continued to press westward, capturing Constantinople and plunging deep into Europe itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were no longer errands of mercy for a distant people but desperate attempts of one of the last remnants of Christendom to survive. Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally achieve its aim of conquering the entire Christian world. One of the great best-sellers of the time, Sebastian Brant’s The Ship of Fools, gave voice to this sentiment in a chapter titled "Of the Decline of the Faith":
[...]
Of course, that is not what happened. But it very nearly did. In 1480, Sultan Mehmed II captured Otranto as a beachhead for his invasion of Italy. Rome was evacuated. Yet the sultan died shortly thereafter, and his plan died with him. In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not for a run of freak rainstorms that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his artillery, it is virtually certain that the Turks would have taken the city. Germany, then, would have been at their mercy.

Yet, even while these close shaves were taking place, something else was brewing in Europe—something unprecedented in human history. The Renaissance, born from a strange mixture of Roman values, medieval piety, and a unique respect for commerce and entrepreneurialism, had led to other movements like humanism, the Scientific Revolution, and the Age of Exploration. Even while fighting for its life, Europe was preparing to expand on a global scale.
[...]
From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.


So the Crusades featured plenty of brutality on both sides. We Christians certainly have plenty of blood on our own hands, and our Christian nations have been responsible for their own massacres, genocide, and atrocities. But the remedy is mercy and mutual tolerance, not soft-headedness.

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,15:35   

SteveStory:

   
Quote
In 30 years I did not see the word Dhimmitude.


I'm sure you didn't, buttercup.

 
Quote
About a month ago, I saw it for the first time on some WorldNutDaily type winger blog. Since then I've seen it 20 times, always from some winger. Saying Dhimmitude is the latest right-wing fad.


Yeah, seein' a cuppla towers go down has a way of focusin' the mind, even after a few years.

   
Quote
Where'd you get that, Paley? Little Green Footballs? Hugh Hewitt?


                 ;)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,16:38   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 29 2006,09:58)
[
I never said that all Muslims are hostile to the West, just a distressingly high percentage.

More hot air.

And what the flock does "hostile to the West" mean?  Do you mean hostile to the US?  Hostile to capitalism?  Hostile to Christianity?  ####, CUBA is hostile to all those things, too.  Do you think CUBANS are unable to integrate?

You're just blithering again, Paley.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,18:09   

Quote
Poor little Eric and Clamboy -- they don't realise


'Realise'? Are you Canadian, or something?

Quote
that their freedom is predicated on Israel and America's continued existence.


Congratulations, the kind of boneheaded horseshit for which we can always count on Paley.

Paley, from whom did we get our freedom before Israel existed in 1948? Did we not have any?

 
Quote
In 30 years I did not see the word Dhimmitude. About a month ago, I saw it for the first time on some WorldNutDaily type winger blog. Since then I've seen it 20 times, always from some winger. Saying Dhimmitude is the latest right-wing fad. Where'd you get that, Paley? Little Green Footballs? Hugh Hewitt?


It's now a jargon buzzword for wingnuts who want to sound all educated-like when they get into their hate rants. I'm surprised I haven't seen Paley use 'Islamofascist' as a synonym for 'Muslim' yet.

 
Quote

Yeah, seein' a cuppla towers go down has a way of focusin' the mind,


Is that your personal euphemism for being an idiot?

Quote

You're just blithering again, Paley.


This is easily of the same quality as when Paley shares with us his fantasies of what liberals are like.

Paley, if we want this horseshit, we can all visit Little Green Footballs. You're wasting our time.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,01:52   

Ghosty (and everyone to an extent),

We are getting WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY off the topic of this thread.

This thread is set up for GoP to establish his claim that all muslims integrate less well into western society than all other groups.

We are not concerned about who is being mean to who or when they were mean to each other, or even who has been the meanest recently. Nobody should be interested in defending the indefensible (7/7, 9/11, invading Iraq for oil.....oops freedom, yeah freedom) or other such tangents, nor should we (Ghosty, I'm looking at you) be pulling the selective quotation game with respects to holy books of various religious people.

Ghosty, if all you're interested in is "Ooohh look at them foreign darkies with their heathen ways and their funny lingo and their evil heathen religion" then a) you are not going to be able to establish your case, and b) I'm not interested. Nobody is interested in you trying to shore up your prejudices with favourable quote mines. What we ARE interested in is you defending the original claim. Everything we have had so far is at best very slightly relevant to the underlying causes of integration trouble (or lack of). At worst, it's irrelevant to the point of being nothing more than a staging ground for your political screed. Like I said, not interested.

Perhaps you should think about what you mean by "integration" and what groups you are going to select to contrast. Like I said before.

For example, take an hasidic jew and a sunni muslim, the hasidic jew doesn't socialise with the wider community but the sunni muslim does. Which one is integrating better? I pick these examples at randomn and only for illustrative purposes. This is what I mean by defining your criteria for deciding the extent of "integration".

That certain muslims are hostile to the west is undeniable, it doesn't follow therefore that ALL muslims (your claim, see above) are worse at integration than everyone else.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,04:02   

Quote
Second: I realise that Christians have a dismal humans right record as well -- but isn't this another reason not to mix such potentially volatile cultures?

Er...

Paley, do you also think that Christians do not assimilate in Muslim countries well, and those countries should kick them out in fear of their safety?

Or are you just playing with words here?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,04:12   

Here's an interesting article from August 25, 2006...five days ago
 
Quote
After the riots in Parisian suburbs and other French cities by mainly Muslim youths late last year, few international and domestic analysts were touting the soundness of the French government's policies toward its Muslim population.
Critics charged French society with discriminating against people of North African descent and Muslims generally. Such discrimination, they claimed, fueled the riots.
Economically Driven Dissatisfaction
However, the Pew Center's survey data paints a different picture of the violence, putting France's treatment of Muslims in a more favorable light.
"When we look at the riots last year in France, they appear to have been heavily economically driven rather than driven by religion -- by the fact that there are very high rates of unemployment among French Muslims rather than by a zealous desire to convert or extinguish those of other faiths," Jodie Allen, a senior editor at Pew, told RFE/RL.
French Muslims, like Muslims in the rest of Europe, are concerned about unemployment. France has an estimated 5 million Muslims, comprising about 8 percent of the population. By contrast, Muslims make up less than 3 percent of the population in the United Kingdom and Denmark.
French Muslims Ready To Assimilate
More than half of French Muslims are concerned about joblessness, according to survey data collected by Pew in April 2006. But unlike their coreligionists elsewhere, a substantial majority embraces the customs of their countrymen.
"Nearly eight in 10 French Muslims generally say they want to adopt French customs," Allen said. "And this high preference for assimilation certainly compares with that in Spain, although Spanish Muslims tend also to come from North Africa. Only 53 percent of Muslims in Spain say they want to adopt Spanish customs. Only 41 percent in Britain say the same about British customs. And nearly 30 percent in Germany say that. So you can see that in some sense the Muslims in France feel more at home in that country."....French Muslims also face unemployment and prejudice. In fact, 37 percent of French Muslims reported a bad experience due to their race, ethnicity, or religion, compared to 28 percent among British Muslims....Few French Muslims perceive a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in French society. Some 72 percent of those surveyed see no conflict, compared with only 49 percent in Great Britain.
Perhaps it is not coincidental then that the broader French public -- some 74 percent -- also sees no conflict, while only 35 percent of the British public agrees with this sentiment.

http://www.speroforum.com/site....gration
I find myself kind of torn here: I dislike organized religions in general and definitely view the theocratic tendencies of Islam as less preferable than living in a "Christian western" state, but I also disagree with Paley's notions of isolationism and Ann Coulter-like fear-mongering. Certainly the history of Islam is replete with wrongdoing (I've always been amazed at the number of American black muslims I've met that have no clue about "Arab" slave-trading)--but that history is not neccessarily a guidepost to the future. Current stats (like those above?) might be better indicators.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,05:17   

Quote (Faid @ Aug. 30 2006,09:02)
 
Quote
Second: I realise that Christians have a dismal humans right record as well -- but isn't this another reason not to mix such potentially volatile cultures?

Er...

Paley, do you also think that Christians do not assimilate in Muslim countries well, and those countries should kick them out in fear of their safety?

Or are you just playing with words here?

Good question Faid. I can't wait for GoP's answer.

Gop, I'm glad to have gotten your attention. Perhaps you would be so kind as to address a point Arden made a few days ago:

"My prediction is that GoP would be much happier with hardcore Christian fundamentalists immigrating to this country than he would be with the most moderate Muslims."

Would that be correct?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,11:11   

OK, let's respond to Louis:

   
Quote
Ghosty (and everyone to an extent),

We are getting WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY off the topic of this thread.

This thread is set up for GoP to establish his claim that all muslims integrate less well into western society than all other groups.


But how can we measure this without exploring the underlying culture?

Basically, there are three levels of denial operating in these debates:

1) Denial that Islam is an intolerant, militant religion;

2) Denial that Muslims themselves have engaged in many acts of barbarism in order to spread their faith;

3) Denial that Muslims make poor candidates for assimilation into Western society

You want me to focus on number 3) to the exclusion of cultural and historical issues, but I don't think that's possible. Culture and historical baggage (issues 1 and 2) offer excellent clues to whether assimilation (point 3) has any realistic hope of succeeding. Like it or not, people assimilate differently, and culture is a large reason why. Don't worry, though: I plan to support 3 in the future. I'm just trying to eliminate any wiggle room in the meantime.

   
Quote
We are not concerned about who is being mean to who or when they were mean to each other, or even who has been the meanest recently. Nobody should be interested in defending the indefensible (7/7, 9/11, invading Iraq for oil.....oops freedom, yeah freedom) or other such tangents, nor should we (Ghosty, I'm looking at you) be pulling the selective quotation game with respects to holy books of various religious people.


This is the kind of stunt you promised you wouldn't pull. You may not wish to examine Islamic scriptures, but don't accuse me of "quotemining" without backing it up. If you think I'm misrepresenting the Koran, then show me where....otherwise, you're behaving dishonestly.

   
Quote
Ghosty, if all you're interested in is "Ooohh look at them foreign darkies with their heathen ways and their funny lingo and their evil heathen religion" then a) you are not going to be able to establish your case, and b) I'm not interested. Nobody is interested in you trying to shore up your prejudices with favourable quote mines. What we ARE interested in is you defending the original claim. Everything we have had so far is at best very slightly relevant to the underlying causes of integration trouble (or lack of). At worst, it's irrelevant to the point of being nothing more than a staging ground for your political screed. Like I said, not interested.


Once again, it is your responsibility to show me where I misrepresented the evidence. By the way, nice ad hom....you must be pretty frustrated with your inability to counter my evidence....why else play the race card (while dealing it from the bottom of the deck)? By the way, here's some more evidence of the cultural barriers that Muslims immigrants face:

   
Quote
One of the more controversial topics for Muslims in the West is the punishment for apostasy from Islam. Muslims living in the Mideast have no problem with the concept of putting apostates to death. But to Muslims living in the West it is an embarrassing Islamic edict. The West values freedom of thought and freedom of speech are two virtues that have never blossomed under Islam. Consequently when asked about the Islamic law for apostates Muslims in the West hide behind excuses such as "only a true Islamic state can execute apostates", or "punishment was carried out because those apostates were threats to the new Islamic state, and it is not needed anymore".


What exactly was the law during Muhammad's and the Caliph's time? What were the requirements for a death sentence to be carried out? Was the sentence only for a short period of time? Was it only to be administered under a "true Islamic state", or did it apply to anyone who had left Islam? A close examination of the Quran, Hadith, and Sirat will show that indeed, the punishment for leaving Islam, either under an Islamic government, or not, was execution.
[...]
To begin with, the Quran does not come out and explicitly state that apostates should be murdered. However, there are a number of Quranic verses that pertain to apostasy, and they shed some light on the punishment for apostates.
[snip suras]
[...]
It is from the Hadith that we draw our understanding and information on the punishment for the apostate. From the Hadith, we find no ambiguity on the subject. All quotes will be from Bukhari's Hadith, from the 9 volume English set, translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan.


Bukhari, volume 9, #17

"Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims."


Bukhari, volume 9, #37

"Narrated Abu Qilaba: Once Umar bin Abdul Aziz sat on his throne in the courtyard of his house so that the people might gather before him....He replied "By Allah, Allah's messenger never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: 1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) 2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and, 3) a man who fought against Allah and His messenger, and deserted Islam and became an apostate....


In Chapter 2, from "The Book of obliging the Reverters from Islam, page 42, (following Hadith #56) it reads:

"The legal regulation concerning the male and the female who reverts from Islam (apostates). Ibn Umar Az-Zuhri and Ibrahim said, "A female apostate (who reverts from Islam), should be killed.And the obliging of the reverts from Islam to repent Allah said - ....

Following this chapter, a number of Quranic verses are given, among them are some already mentioned. They are 3:86-89, 3:100, 4:137, 5:54, 16:106-110, 2:217.


Bukhari, volume 9, #57

Narrated Ikrima, "Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's messenger forbade it, saying, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire)." I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."


Bukhari, volume 9, #58

Narrated Abu Bruda, "Abu Musa said.....Behold there was a fettered man beside Abu Musa. Muadh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Musa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and hen reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Musa requested Muadh to sit down but Muadh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and his messenger," and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers .....


Bukhari, volume 9, #64

Narrated Ali, "Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's messenger, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky, than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you, (not a Hadith), then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah's messenger saying, ‘During the last days there will appear some young foolish people, who will say the best words, but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.’"


Bukhari, volume 9, #271 [This one is similar to #58]

Narrated Abu Musa: A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Muadh Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Muadh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam, and then reverted back to Judaism." Muadh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His messenger."


Bukhari, Chapter 26, from the Book of Mutual Consultation, page 339, following Hadith # 461

"The Statement of Allah... 42:32, 3:159, ...The prophet said, "If someone changes his religion, then kill them....."


********************

OTHER REFERENCES


FROM THE SIRAT RASULALLAH AND THE KITAB AL-TABAQAT AL-KABIR


After Muhammad took Mecca, he ordered a number of people to be killed. Several of them were apostates. Here is the background.


Muhammad ordered the execution of 10 people when he took Mecca. Here is the list of names found in Ibn Sa'd "Tabaqat".

The quote is from the Tabaqat, Vol. 2, page 168.

"The apostle of Allah entered through Adhakhir, [into Mecca], and prohibited fighting. He ordered six men and four women to be killed, they were (1) Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl, (2) Habbar Ibn al-Aswad, (3) Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh, (4) Miqyas Ibn Sababah al-Laythi, (5) al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh, (6) Abd Abbah Ibn Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami, (7) Hind Bint Utbah, (8) Sarah, the mawlat (enfranchised girl) of Amr Ibn Hashim, (9) Fartana and (10) Qaribah.


THE SIRAT RASULALLAH GIVES SOME DETAILS BEHIND THE LIST OF NAMES


The information below corresponds to # 3 on the list.

"The apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them, except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Kaba. Among them was Abdullah Sa'd, brother of the B. Amir Luayy. The reason he ordered him to be killed was that he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he apostatized and returned to Quraysh [Mecca] and fled to Uthman Affan whose foster brother he was. The latter hid him until he brought him to the apostle after the situation in Mecca was tranquil, and asked that he might be granted immunity. They allege that the apostle remained silent for a long time till finally he [Muhammad] said yes [granting Abdullah immunity from the execution order].


Yes this source is Christian, but they quote directly from the Quran and Hadith. So if they're quotemining, you should have no trouble showing me where. But don't forget the testimony of Muslim apostates:

   
Quote
Not until few years ago I used to think that my faith in Islam was not based on blind imitation but rather was the result of years of investigation and research. The fact that I had read a lot of books on Islam, written by people whose thoughts I approved of and delving into philosophies that were within my comfort zone, emphasized my conviction that I had found the truth. All my bias research confirmed my faith. Just like other Muslims I used to believe that to learn about anything one has to go to the source. Of course the source of Islam is Quran and the books written by Muslim scholars. Therefore, I felt no need to look elsewhere in order to find the truth, as I was convinced that I have already found it. As Muslims say “Talabe ilm ba’d az wossule ma’loom mazmoom”. The search of knowledge after gaining it is foolish
[...]
One may think that the dreadful penalty mentioned here pertains to the next word. But Muhammad made sure that these people received their penalty in this world as well. See the following:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 577:

I heard the Prophet saying, "In the last days (of the world) there will appear young people with foolish thoughts and ideas. They will give good talks, but they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out of its game, their faith will not exceed their throats. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for there will be a reward for their killers on the Day of Resurrection."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 63, Number 260:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 63, Number 261:

Eight men of the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk." Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you sh ould join the herd of camels." So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails, which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died.

And from Partial Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4339

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) Said: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned; one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land; or one who commits murder for which he is killed.

The following is very disturbing. I dare to say any man who read it and is not taken aback with disgust has a long way to go to become a human.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4348

”Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.
He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood".


I felt the above story was a manifest injustice. Muhammad condoned a man killing a pregnant mother and his own unborn child just because he said that she insulted him!?

(Arabs used to sleep with their maid slaves. Quran perpetuates this tradition Q.33: 52 “It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things.” Muhammad himself slept with Mariyah the maid slave of Hafsa his wife without marrying her.)

Forgiving someone for killing another human being just because he said she insulted Muhammad is unacceptable. What if that man was lying to escape punishment? What dose this story say about Muhammad’s sense of Justice? Imagine how many innocent women, were killed by their husbands during these 1400 years who escaped punishment accusing their murdered wives of blaspheming the prophet of God and this Hadith has made them get away with it.

Here is another one.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4349

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:
A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.


It was not easy to read these stories and not be moved. There is no reason to believe that all these stories were fabricated. Why should believers, who have tried to depict their prophet as a compassionate man fabricate so many stories that would make him look like ruthless tyrant?

I could no more accept the brutal treatment of those who chose not to accept Islam. Faith is a personal matter. I could no more accept that the punishment of someone who criticizes any religion must be death.

See how Muhammad dealt with the unbelievers.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4359

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
The verse "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite side or exile from the land...most merciful" was revealed about polytheists. If any of them repents before they are arrested, it does not prevent from inflicting on him the prescribed punishment, which he deserves.”


How could a messenger of God maim and crucify people on the account that they resist accepting him? Could such person be really a messenger of God? Wasn’t there a better man with more moral an ethical fortitude to bear this mighty responsibility?

I could not accept the fact that Muhammad slaughtered 900 Jews in one day, after he captured them in a raid that he started. I read the following story and I shivered.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4390

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair

Also I found following story shocking.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4396

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
A thief was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his hand. So his (right) hand was cut off. He was brought a second time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his foot.
So his (left) foot was cut off.
He was brought a third time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said: Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.)
He was brought a fourth time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said: Cut off his foot. So his (right) foot was cut off.
He was brought a fifth time and he said: Kill him.
So we took him away and killed him. We then dragged him and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.

Seems that Muhammad passed judgment before hearing the case. Also by cutting a thief’s hand he is left with no other means to earn his bread except begging, which would be difficult since he is defamed as a thief and so hated by people. Therefore re-offending becomes his only means of livelihood.


But here are direct links to the texts in question, so the skeptic may check for himself.

 
Quote
That certain muslims are hostile to the west is undeniable, it doesn't follow therefore that ALL muslims (your claim, see above) are worse at integration than everyone else.


No, but relative frequencies play a role in this debate, and culture explains the differential frequencies. By the way, here's a debate on some of these issues.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,11:27   

D.Q.

 
Quote
Gop, I'm glad to have gotten your attention. Perhaps you would be so kind as to address a point Arden made a few days ago:

"My prediction is that GoP would be much happier with hardcore Christian fundamentalists immigrating to this country than he would be with the most moderate Muslims."

Would that be correct?


Arfin's just trolling; he'll respond with an irrelevant witticism no matter what I say. But to answer your question: I would prefer the hardcore fundy Christian (after all, I am one myself), but mostly because many moderate Muslims have a dreadful habit of "flipping" into hardcore militancy once they become citizens. This is not a prejudice -- it's a fact. Perhaps they were lying about their beliefs, or perhaps they were horrified by the moral laxity they saw when they settled in. But whatever the reason, it's a very real problem and no one has a clue on how to detect Western-friendly Muslims ahead of time.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,11:45   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 30 2006,16:27)
D.Q.

   
Quote
Gop, I'm glad to have gotten your attention. Perhaps you would be so kind as to address a point Arden made a few days ago:

"My prediction is that GoP would be much happier with hardcore Christian fundamentalists immigrating to this country than he would be with the most moderate Muslims."

Would that be correct?


Arfin's just trolling; he'll respond with an irrelevant witticism no matter what I say. But to answer your question: I would prefer the hardcore fundy Christian (after all, I am one myself), but mostly because many moderate Muslims have a dreadful habit of "flipping" into hardcore militancy once they become citizens. This is not a prejudice -- it's a fact. Perhaps they were lying about their beliefs, or perhaps they were horrified by the moral laxity they saw when they settled in. But whatever the reason, it's a very real problem and no one has a clue on how to detect Western-friendly Muslims ahead of time.

Thank you, GoP, for realising that you are a "fundy Christian" (and I don't mean that sarcastically). Now, would you mind responding to my previous comment:

"I think you may end up having to conclude that groups of people from any faith don't integrate into societies, if they are fundamentalists. Integration is about compromise. Moderates of any faith are more likely to integrate into any society (and indeed enhance it). Fundamentalists are more likely to want society to change for them, in a way that reflects their world-view, and thus conflicts arise."

Do you agree?

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,11:56   

Quote
many moderate Muslims have a dreadful habit of "flipping" into hardcore militancy once they become citizens. This is not a prejudice -- it's a fact


Fact? I find extremely hard to establish such a fact, even if it were true. What way is there to know? And even if you can prove a previous moderate behavior, How can you dismiss the possibility of suppressed tendencies, or circumstances and events that ingited hatred, or even actual pretense to avoid detection, and blame the religion itself?

Any examples?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,12:12   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 30 2006,16:27)
D.Q.

     
Quote
Gop, I'm glad to have gotten your attention. Perhaps you would be so kind as to address a point Arden made a few days ago:

"My prediction is that GoP would be much happier with hardcore Christian fundamentalists immigrating to this country than he would be with the most moderate Muslims."

Would that be correct?


Arfin's just trolling; he'll respond with an irrelevant witticism no matter what I say. But to answer your question: I would prefer the hardcore fundy Christian (after all, I am one myself), but mostly because many moderate Muslims have a dreadful habit of "flipping" into hardcore militancy once they become citizens. This is not a prejudice -- it's a fact. Perhaps they were lying about their beliefs, or perhaps they were horrified by the moral laxity they saw when they settled in. But whatever the reason, it's a very real problem and no one has a clue on how to detect Western-friendly Muslims ahead of time.

So I predicted your reaction correctly: you'd prefer the looniest Christian to any Muslim, because, based on your deep experience, the Muslim will probably become an extremist. You're fine with Christian extremism.

Glad you're as intimately familiar with how Muslims think as you are with liberals.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,12:26   

Quote
But whatever the reason, it's a very real problem and no one has a clue on how to detect Western-friendly Muslims ahead of time.

Ghost, I hope you understand this is an extremely xenophobic assertion.
It basically boils down to "You can never trust Muslims, even the most mild-mannered and friendly ones, because you never know when they might flip out and blow themselves and everyone else up. You just don't".

Not one of your best moments here.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,14:17   

No comment on the Pew Center polling data I posted?

Here's something else, then, from last April:
Quote
A conference of Muslim prayer leaders, or imams, from all over Europe is due to open in Vienna on April 7. On the agenda at the three-day meeting is how to integrate Muslim communities into the European mainstream while maintaining European Muslims' identity. RFE/RL [Radio Free Europe] interviewed one participant, Dr. Abduljalil Sajid, the chairman of Britain's Muslim Council for Religious and Racial Harmony, on Islam's place in Europe and the identity of European Muslims.
RFE/RL: Do you feel imams and preachers are adequately building bridges between Muslims and Christians? Or is this something that still must be done in places of worship around Europe?

Sajid: Well, I'll give you my own example. I started to work on building bridges between [Muslims and] various faiths, Jews, Christians 40 years ago. We all need to live in peace. Peace and coexistence will not come by talks. It will come by practice; it will come by how we respect each other, how we recognize our differences and accept those differences and value and appreciate our humanity together. When we come to respect our humanity, I think that common sense will prevail, and respect will come. Abiding the law of the land and the rule of law is paramount.

RFE/RL: Do you consider yourself a Muslim in Europe or a European Muslim?

Sajid: I'm both. I consider myself a European Muslim. My identity is in my geography, my area, but I myself also consider that my first and foremost duty is to the identity of my faith, believing in God. So I am a Muslim in Europe as well as a European Muslim. I do not see a contradiction in either of these two terms, and we should not be asked and forced to choose one against another. We can be both.

http://www.rferl.org/feature....dd.html

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,14:47   

Faid:
   
Quote
Ghost, I hope you understand this is an extremely xenophobic assertion.
It basically boils down to "You can never trust Muslims, even the most mild-mannered and friendly ones, because you never know when they might flip out and blow themselves and everyone else up. You just don't".

Not one of your best moments here.


Well, the immigration officer can't tell, because how much can one learn about an individual through the naturalisation process? Fill out a form, meet for an interview, get photo'd and printed, then take the oath. Or sneak across the border. Boy, there's a loophole-free system for ya. I'm just being realistic.

Nine:

 
Quote
No comment on the Pew Center polling data I posted?


Since Louis has no answer for my cultural/historical arguments, now's as good a time as any, I guess. This response does not mean that I'm starting my presentation for point # 3, but it will give everyone a sample of what's coming.

Here's the link, so now let the fisking begin:

 
Quote
Study shows France leading in Muslim integration
Thirty-seven percent of French Muslims reported a bad experience due to their race, ethnicity, or religion, compared to 28 percent among British Muslims.


Hmmmm....already I'm astonished. For years and years, Europeans were telling us that their countries were racism-free Utopias that would seamlessly integrate both People of Color and religious minorities, unlike Amerikka. Things haven't turned out as planned, I see. So either Europeans were naive, lying, or both. Maybe this survey will help us choose among these options.

[since this software was designed by the Ancient Mariner, as it stoppeth one of three, I'll continue below]

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,16:01   

Continuing from the last post:

         
Quote
A new analysis by the Washington-based Pew Research Center suggests that European countries with significant Muslim populations may be well advised to study the French model of integration. The Pew data shows that French Muslims are embracing assimilation more eagerly than their counterparts in other European countries.


Notice the subtle admission that Muslims, indeed, have trouble assimilating into Western Societies. I mean, I don't see this much fuss over Christian, Jewish, and Hindu immigrants. This says a lot, and probably more than the reporter intended.

And taking lessons from France? France? the largest and most useless collection of windbags ever assembled in one country? But let's carry on.....

         
Quote
After the riots in Parisian suburbs and other French cities by mainly Muslim youths late last year, few international and domestic analysts were touting the soundness of the French government's policies toward its Muslim population.


Which is quite understandable, since the French Muslim population has had problems for some time now. Let's start with this mysterious poll. Notice that roughly half the Muslims surveyed in the four countries worries about unemployment. This suggests that they're not contributing a great deal to the economy (which, of course, may not be their fault). People with marketable skills tend not to fret so much about unemployment, even in Arkansas. This isn't meant to be snide -- I've worked more than my share of low-paying, degrading jobs, but since unemployment rates hover around 10% for the Pew countries, it's depressing that Muslims are scuffling so much. This is not a good sign. This story quantifies the economic discrepancy:
     
Quote
There is growing fear of a new and virulent anti-Semitism taking hold in the dingy subsidized housing tracts where most Arab and West Africans immigrants live in isolation from the French mainstream, suffering from poverty, unemployment, and school dropout rates often more than double the national average.


The Cato Institute agrees:
   
Quote
French unemployment has hovered around 10 percent for years, but the unemployment rate for the rioting young people is well above 20 percent and in some immigrant neighborhoods tops 60 percent. Overall economic growth is less than half that of the United States.


And this has led to an interesting result:

     
Quote
But more recently, analysts say, anti-Semitism in France has taken an uglier turn as young Arabs and West Africans have adopted loud hatred of Jews as a proclamation of cool, an attitude powered more by rap music, ultraviolent jihadist videos, and radical Islamic rhetoric -- although with little or no adherence to Islamic religious practice -- than by any coherent stand on events in the Middle East. Equally alarming, the anti-Semitism appears to be spreading among non-Muslim Africans and Caribbean blacks in France, and even gaining ground among white immigrants from European backwaters who find it difficult gaining a place in French society.

Said Sammy Ghozlan, a retired police chief and activist against anti-Semitism: ''It's all mixed up: gang stuff, violence, and a glaze of ideology -- they hate Jews, they hate the West, they hate France. The Jews are the face they put on their generalized anger at the world."
[...]
France recorded 974 anti-Semitic incidents in 2004, a record high for the post-World War II era. But officials were proud that slurs spray-painted on synagogues, the trashing of Jewish cemeteries, and other incidents fell dramatically last year, to about 500 incidents.

But Jewish leaders say the decline is less a reflection of growing tolerance than of the heavy precautions that synagogues have felt obliged to adopt in recent years, including installation of high, heavy-gauge steel security fences, 24-hour surveillance cameras, and armed patrols.


But here's more from the Pew poll that inspired the article. Apparently, things are going well assimilation-wise:

 
Quote
when asked whether they consider themselves as a national citizen first or as a Muslim first, French Muslims split relatively evenly (42% vs. 46%) on the issue. Not only is this remarkably different from Muslims elsewhere in Europe (fully 81% of British Muslims self-identify with their religion rather than their nationality, for example) but it is remarkably close to the responses given by Americans when asked whether they identify first as national citizens or as Christians (48% vs. 42%). Perhaps in this, as in other things, Muslims living in France are indeed absorbing the secular ways of their countrymen, among whom fully 83% self-identify with their nationality, rather than their religion.
[...]
Nearly eight-in-ten French Muslims (78%) say they want to adopt French customs. Those under age 35 are equally as likely to say this as are their elders. This high preference for assimilation compares with that expressed by 53% of Muslims in Spain, 41% in Britain and 30% in Germany.
[...]
Most striking, however, is the difference between the views that French Muslims hold about people of other faiths and the views held by Muslims elsewhere in Europe and in predominantly Muslim countries. French Muslims even top the general publics in the United States and France in favorable ratings of Christians (91% of French Muslims vs. 88% of Americans and 87% of the French take that view).

But what most distinguishes French Muslims from their co-religionists not only in the Muslim world but in Europe, is their attitude toward Jews. Fully 71% of French Muslims express a positive view of people of the Jewish faith, compared with only 38% of German Muslims, 32% of British Muslims, 28% of Spanish Muslims and still lower numbers in the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed. In this, Muslims reflect the view of the larger French public among whom fully 86% express a favorable opinion of Jews, a higher proportion than even than among the American public.


Since time has run out, I'll finish this tomorrow. But let me just note that in a battle between evidence and cheerful self-reports, the evidence wins every time.

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,23:17   

Ghosty,

I'm not accusing anyone of quote mining per se, what's that saying "the devil can quote scripture to suit his needs"?

What I'm saying is that you are tarring "muslims" with the brush of literal adherence to the qu'ran, especially the naughty bits. Quoting the qu'ran (or the bible for that matter "thou shalt not suffer an unbeliever to live" remember that one) isn't sufficient to demonstrate "all muslims integrate worse than anyone else" because not all muslims have the same interpretations of the qu'ran, and I'm also saying that we should all be careful with this sort of thing (not just you).

I'm also saying it's irrelevant for good reasons. It doesn't matter what the qu'ran says, all you have to demonstrate is the original claim you made, i.e. that muslims integrate (that has yet to be defined) into western societies worse than all other groups. Wittering on about how evil the qu'ran is or how nasty and intemperate "muslims" are (when it's starkly clear that ALL "muslims" are not so nasty and intemperate, SOME are) doesn't do it.

Your "denials" 1, 2 and 3 are nonsense. No one is denying 1 and 2, mainly beacsue they're irrelevant to the discussion, and 3 is what you're trying to establish!

I haven't answered your "cultural and historical evidence" because you've yet to really bring any up, all we've had so far is appeals to high profile media cases and the nastier bits of iron age nonsense books.

This thread could be about 4 posts long. My original post, your response, my agreement, and a series of statistics showing that for your given definitions of "muslim" and "integration" that muslims do less well than say sikhs. Ok, there'd be a fifth post, me agreeing that you have proved your case.

The "look how nasty their naughty books are, and aren't some of them radical and terrorist material" is pointless, this applies to SOME of everybody. What you have to demonstrate is not that you THINK the make poor integration subjects, but that they HAVE made poor integration subjects, and demonstrably poorer than all other groups.

Ghosty, I am merely trying to get you to defend the claim you made, nothing more. When you defend that claim, and stop appealling to prejudice based on how mean and nasty some things that some muslims have done and said are, I'll post a proper reply. Until then I'm reduced to pointing out how irrelevant most of this is. Your argument thus far could be applied to pretty much any group at any point in history, it amounts to nothing more than your personal belief that the particular nastiness of some islamic people/works/deeds is compelling evidence that ALL muslims are poor integrators into western society. It's the equivalent of "ooooh isn't he black, wouldn't want him and his heathen ways living next to me.", granted with better references! Shorn of it's pseudoscholastic veneer it's nothing more than a rather wordy appeal to prejudice.

And before you go off on one, that's not necessarily a bad thing, it just doesn't establish the claim you are making. It's irrelevant. Is any of this getting through?

Oh and how can we measure this? Define what you mean by integration for a start. Then we could go anywhere: crime statistics, proportion of income returned to home state, stats about the f1 and f2 generations, stats on up take of host language, stats on
"ghettoisation", stats on mixed marriages etc etc etc.

This is why I am trying to get you to define integration in terms of how you mean it. Give us some hard and fast criteria to clearly demonstrate what you are saying is true. This is childishly simple to do and I wonder why you are avoiding it. Skip all this regurgiposting half the internet because it isn't supporting your claim. Start by defining what you mean by integration, and as you have gone some way to defining what you mean by muslim, we may well have a starting point for actual proof.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,23:27   

P.S. Oh yeah, and that interesting "fact" about "many" moderate muslims flipping when they get over here needs a touch of.......evidence, that's the word! Proportionally how many? Where? When?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,04:49   

Louis:

     
Quote
Your "denials" 1, 2 and 3 are nonsense. No one is denying 1 and 2, mainly beacsue they're irrelevant to the discussion, and 3 is what you're trying to establish!

I haven't answered your "cultural and historical evidence" because you've yet to really bring any up, all we've had so far is appeals to high profile media cases and the nastier bits of iron age nonsense books.


But what's funny about this complaint is that Nine, by quoting articles discussing the efforts and surveys going on to measure and improve the extent of Muslim integration, has established that there is a problem with Muslim assimilation! Let's requote his latest link:

     
Quote
A conference of Muslim prayer leaders, or imams, from all over Europe is due to open in Vienna on April 7. On the agenda at the three-day meeting is how to integrate Muslim communities into the European mainstream while maintaining European Muslims' identity. RFE/RL interviewed one participant, Dr. Abduljalil Sajid, the chairman of Britain's Muslim Council for Religious and Racial Harmony, on Islam's place in Europe and the identity of European Muslims.


Now think about this. If Muslims are assimilating as smoothly as other immigrants, then why the need for this conference of Muslim religious leaders? How can this not be a tacit admission of Muslim failure to integrate into Western society? Or do the imams just have nothing better to do with their time? Also notice the exact wording:

     
Quote
On the agenda at the three-day meeting is how to integrate Muslim communities into the European mainstream while maintaining European Muslims' identity.


In other words, Muslims haven't "integrated" yet as a group, and the prayer leaders think that there's a tension between "integrating into the European mainstream" and "maintaining European Muslims' identity". This is not what I say. This is what they say. But let's look at the interview:

   
Quote
RFE/RL: Dr. Sajid, what issues do you intend to bring up at the Vienna conference, and what is the message you are taking there?

Dr. Abduljalil Sajid: We should bring a common European imams' voice, because we are Europeans, so we need to create our [own] European Islamic jurisprudence specific to the areas where Islam is not an authority. How Muslims should behave and live in non-Muslim societies, what our rules and duties are, and what the duties of preachers and teachers are.

The message is very clear: we need to create a common platform on common, shared human values.All these issues will be discussed. I hope we'll create a permanent committee and this permanent committee will guide European Muslims in all daily issues, and also, dealing with authorities like the European Commission, European Council [comprising the heads of EU states], ministers, governments, because we are here to stay. Muslims are not going anywhere, so they need to play a positive role as citizens, and we have to educate our people so that the evil of extremism and racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism completely go away. The message is very clear: we need to create a common platform on common, shared human values.
[...]
Muslims will have to understand that in the Western world people are free to say whatever they like; it is in their custom to make jokes and fun about authority, even [about] queens, and kings and others. And they have to realize they [non-Muslims] are free to do so, but with some restraint and responsibility. And the Western world has to understand that, religiously, Muslims cannot tolerate that their deities, their respect for God, Prophet, and the [Holy] Book can be what we call 'insulted.' Freedom to insult and freedom to abuse is not there. Freedom to respect is there, freedom to create harmonization is there. They are free to criticize Islam and Muslims without any problem, but with respect. But what Muslims did [in terms of] overreaction, in terms of burning flags and burning embassies, that has to be condemned, too. That is not the Muslim way, that is not the Islamic way. Violence is not a part of Islam, it is contrary to Islam; I always say it is a betrayal of Islam. So that will be the message coming out from this conference.


Notice the not-so-subtle message....Muslims cannot tolerate religious "insults". And notice that the context of this answer involves the rather mild satirical cartoons, not some hate-filled propaganda. Also note that this imam has just told us that the freedom to "insult" and "abuse" (remember, we're talking about drawing mild satirical cartoons here) is "NOT THERE"!!! How much more obvious can it get? We have a guy coming to our nations, telling us what we may say in our nations! And this guy is the moderate who's supposed to be rebutting my argument!

Sorry for the bolding and all-caps, but do see why Americans and Europeans might consider this a little problematic? He's got his own Muslim countries to live in, but no, he wants to come to traditionally Christian countries and force us to "respect" his religion (on his terms, of course), even if that means a loss of liberty for us. Well, I've got some advice for this imam: if you don't like what you see in the newspapers or on the telly, then don't read or watch the offending material (or organise a boycott, or protest peacefully)! If that's too much, then sorry, but it's time to go back to your homeland, and don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,05:08   

Quote
Sorry for the bolding and all-caps, but do see why Americans and Europeans might consider this a little problematic? He's got his own Muslim countries to live in, but no, he wants to come to traditionally Christian countries and force us to "respect" his religion (on his terms, of course), even if that means a loss of liberty for us. Well, I've got some advice for this imam: if you don't like what you see in the newspapers or on the telly, then don't read or watch the offending material (or organise a boycott, or protest peacefully)! If that's too much, then sorry, but it's time to go back to your homeland, and don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!

Ghost, this was the most honest post from you yet.  :D

Now, before you go to "more later": For a change, try to reverse sides... imagine it's Christian leaders arguing for succesful integration in the Muslim world. In what way do you think their arguments would be different? What part of "Religious tolerance" don't you get?

Which brings us to that other point you haven't answered... Do you also think that Christians cannot assimilate well in Muslim countries, and therefore those countries would do well to kick them out for their safety? That pevious post of yours seemed to imply so.

And oh, also, about that "fact, not prejudice"... Whenever you're ready.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,05:26   

"The first Muslim to be crowned Miss England" seems to agree with Paley somewhat.

Quote
"Even moderate Muslims are turning to terrorism to prove themselves. They think they might as well support it because they are stereotyped anyway. It will take a long time for communities to start mixing in more.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages....id=1770

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,05:37   

Ghosty,

This is getting pointless.

Whilst I'm grateful for the efforts you have put in, I REALLY think we need to return to the basics. Define what you mean by integration, or at least your criteria for "being integrated" or not. Draw the line you are trying to claim people are crossing or otherwise.

You're skipping over "conversations with black leaders" and "conversations with sikh leaders" etc, all of which occur with unfailing regularity (at least here), and make little headline news because of the current lack of terrorism on the part of some of the members of those groups.

Get to what you mean by integration first, establish a level playing field unambiguously. Otherwise it's obvious what you're trying to do is NOT provide a rational case for your claim.

Cheers

Louis

P.S. I am not accusing you of anything, or being hostile, it's just that you made a very specific claim which is open to proof/disproof very simply. Which is why I asked you to defend it. This way we can have an unambiguous conclusion that satisfies everyone, rather than the long drawn out pointless wrangle that this is turning out to be. Make with the stats that unambiguously prove your claim or admit that you cannot do so without bloviating on the verbal nastiness of the qu'ran and the ridiculous wankery of deluded imams (both of which were well understood by all concrened before you posted them).

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,08:49   

Here's where GoP gets his feverish ideas, evidently.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,09:29   

Louis:

         
Quote
Ghosty,

This is getting pointless.

Whilst I'm grateful for the efforts you have put in, I REALLY think we need to return to the basics. Define what you mean by integration, or at least your criteria for "being integrated" or not. Draw the line you are trying to claim people are crossing or otherwise.


Personally, I don't understand the obsession with definitions -- after all, Nine's article used the term "integration" without assuming that the reader would be left in a semantic fog......but since you're a scientist, I'll humour you and assume this won't lead to a nitpicker's banquet. Don't disappoint me.

By "integration", I mean:

1) No more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole (15 % pts above national violent crime rates at maximum) ;

2) No cries for "affirmative action";

3) Roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations (doctors, lawyers, and/or scientists) without relying on 2). Yes, this implies good scores on standardised scholastic tests;

4) A culture that tolerates Western norms.

Groups that satisfy all the above conditions:

Jews, N.E. Asians, S.E. Asians (I think), Indians.

Notice that it's OK if an immigrant group beats the native population in these areas -- I'm not afraid of hypercompetitive groups. Please notice the word "tolerates" in point 4).

   
Quote
You're skipping over "conversations with black leaders" and "conversations with sikh leaders" etc, all of which occur with unfailing regularity (at least here), and make little headline news because of the current lack of terrorism on the part of some of the members of those groups.

....and? You told me to stick with Muslims, so when I listen you suddenly don't like it. In any case, I never said the black and Sikh populations were model immigrants either, so comparing them to Muslims doesn't prove anything (most Sikhs live in the Punjab region of India anyway -- they're not a big part of the Indian population). And the reason the conversations with black leaders are occuring is because British blacks, as a group, commit disproportionate levels of crime, are mimicking African-American gangsta culture, and are at the bottom in test scores. Yes, I've proved these things before -- check some older threads. The Sikhs I don't know about, but from what you've been saying, they might not be fitting in either. So?

 
Quote
P.S. I am not accusing you of anything, or being hostile, it's just that you made a very specific claim which is open to proof/disproof very simply. Which is why I asked you to defend it. This way we can have an unambiguous conclusion that satisfies everyone, rather than the long drawn out pointless wrangle that this is turning out to be. Make with the stats that unambiguously prove your claim or admit that you cannot do so without bloviating on the verbal nastiness of the qu'ran and the ridiculous wankery of deluded imams (both of which were well understood by all concrened before you posted them).


Really? Nine thought the imam's interview was evidence against my position....but that's not an MP, that's a YP.  :D  :D  :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,10:12   

Quote
Nine thought the imam's interview was evidence against my position....but that's not an MP, that's a YP.

Did I? I don't recall addressing you in any way, GoP. I simply posted what I had found in a very cursory search to promote further discussion after not getting any comment from anyone on the Pew Data. As for your view that the Imam's statements are somehow indicative of entrenched resistance to integration, I'd say the mere fact that he addressed it is a positive sign. You viewing the fact that the Imams even held a meeting as "negative" is one side of a double-bind that you wanted to cast.

If there were no meetings of leaders, you'd say they are ignoring it, content in their isolation that foments mutual antagonism. If they have meetings, you say they are tacitly signalling agreement with your view...despite the fact that they appear to be saying they want to find mutual agreement and integration. In short, you want to have it both ways without presenting any actual hard current data of your own as of yet.

By the way, what are "western norms?"

Despite your view that the French are "the largest and most useless collection of windbags ever assembled in one country," I assume that you 'll say democracy is then a "norm" despite its relative youth here -- it wasn't ALL that long ago that this country and theirs underwent revolutions to rid themselves of monarchies, correct? Don't some "western" countries still have hereditary nobles?
You seem to conveniently forget that it was only a short time ago that the United States would tolerate no public insult to Jesus or Christianity. Try finding a cartoon of the '50's depicting Jesus disparagingly and distributed publicly in a newspaper. All of five decades ago. And how tolerant were americans of integration 5 decades ago? Did the national guard have to be called in to protect those fearsome little black girls? I could go on, but you'd just address THIS rather than deal with having to back your claims.

Do yourself a favor and just find the stats that you say support your contention. Don't try and use anecdote or pretending that I was setting out data "against" your view -- back your claims directly, without engaging in the shoddy blatant duplicity of your "geocentric" crap.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,10:56   

According to the Zogby polling organization, Muslims in the U.S. are in general more educated and affluent than the national average, with 59% of them holding at least an undergraduate college degree. Muslims tend to hold professional jobs, and one in three Muslims earn over $75,000 a year. They tend to be employed in professional fields, and most own stock, either personally or through 401(k) or pension plans.
In terms of civic participation, 82% are registered to vote, half of them as Democrats. Interestingly, however, the survey found that 65% of Muslim Americans favor lowering the income tax.
21% of Muslim Americans intermarry, according to the 2001 Religious Identification Survey of the City University of New York--close to the national rate of 22% of Americans who marry outside their religion. And because 64% of Muslim Americans are foreign born, there is reason to expect that figure to grow among second and third generations.
[A]ccording to Ishan Bagby, a professor at the University of Kentucky who recently made a study of mosque attendance in Detroit, the average mosque-goer is 34 years old, married with children, has at least a bachelor's degree, and earns about $74,000 a year.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007151
******************************************************************
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is the United States largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy group, originally established to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims in America. CAIR portrays itself as the voice of mainstream, moderate Islam on Capitol Hill and in political arenas throughout the United States. It has aggressively condemned all acts of terrorism, and has been working in collaboration with the White House in "issues of safety and foreign policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States
******************************************************************
http://allied-media.com/AM/default.htm gives some other figures on Muslims in America

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,11:20   

Nine:

       
Quote
Did I? I don't recall addressing you in any way, GoP. I simply posted what I had found in a very cursory search to promote further discussion after not getting any comment from anyone on the Pew Data.


Did you? I assumed that this comment:

       
Quote
No comment on the Pew Center polling data I posted?

Here's something else, then, from last April:


Was directed at me. If it wasn't, then I misread your intentions  -- sorry. In any case, I think I should be addressing points like these, so no harm was done.

     
Quote
As for your view that the Imam's statements are somehow indicative of entrenched resistance to integration, I'd say the mere fact that he addressed it is a positive sign. You viewing the fact that the Imams even held a meeting as "negative" is one side of a double-bind that you wanted to cast.


Not quite. I actually agree that the meeting itself was a positive sign. I was attempting to make two additional points, however:

1) The meeting won't be fruitful until the imams realise that it is their duty to obey the debating norms in their Western host countries. They were the ones who came here, after all; we didn't go to their countries. So they are free to protest political and cultural trends, organise boycotts, publish critiques of Western Civilisation, etc. What they should not do is demand that Westerners change their ways, or else. It just doesn't work like this.

2) The need for the meeting itself was evidence that Muslims, in fact, are having difficulty assimilating to Western societies. Certainly, it's not proof: perhaps the conference is just for combating stereotypes of non-assimilation, or maybe the organisers are just publicity hounds. The interview itself seemed to indicate that real problems need to be addressed. So I wasn't going to let anyone argue two contradictory positions:

1) There's no major problem, dude;

2) The Muslims are trying to fix it anyway.

Uh-uh. You may have one of these positions, but not both. One only seeks treatment when one has a disease.

 
Quote
If there were no meetings of leaders, you'd say they are ignoring it, content in their isolation that foments mutual antagonism. If they have meetings, you say they are tacitly signalling agreement with your view...despite the fact that they appear to be saying they want to find mutual agreement and integration. In short, you want to have it both ways without presenting any actual hard current data of your own as of yet.


<groan...> The meeting itself isn't the problem, it's the terms being dictated. He could have said, "Western newspapers must understand that our religion prohibits images of Mohammed, so if they want Muslim subscribers and journalists, they should rethink their policies. Respect for other people's religion is a hallmark of decent civilisation, and we expect nothing less from our media." But he didn't do that. He started off that way, but then forgot that he has no right to dictate the limits of our freedom. Get the point?

 
Quote
You seem to conveniently forget that it was only a short time ago that the United States would tolerate no public insult to Jesus or Christianity. Try finding a cartoon of the '50's depicting Jesus disparagingly and distributed publicly in a newspaper. All of five decades ago.


I don't know about cartoons, but I'll see your bet and raise you a curmudgeon.

Quote
And how tolerant were americans of integration 5 decades ago? Did the national guard have to be called in to protect those fearsome little black girls? I could go on, but you'd just address THIS rather than deal with having to back your claims.


Irrelevant. Move to strike.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,11:38   

Quote
I don't know about cartoons, but I'll see your bet and raise you a curmudgeon.


Then you can't "see" my bet. Pointing to critics of religion or Christianity through time doesn't match the criteria set down. There are critics of Islam all over the place, too. Big deal. I specified what I meant precisely.

How's about those American muslims that refuse to assimilate, eh?

If you'll look at the crime rates for muslim population centers in the US, do you think they'll be above or below national averages? Yeah, and they intermarry...and have good educations and high incomes according to what little data I found. I don't hear any cries for Muslim "affirmative action," and it would appear that they "tolerate" western norms, unless you want to try to weasel that one. Go for it.

Can you counter that with some stats of your own on Muslims in the (I presume) highly westernized U.S.??

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,13:17   

Ahhhh, the Ninester realises that his earlier sources were undercutting Louis's position, so now he brings in the real guns. This is good, because economic and crime data are what I take seriously anyhoo. So I'll abandon my fisking of his crap evidence and move on to the real stuff.

Nine:

[quote]According to the Zogby polling organization, Muslims in the U.S. are in general more educated and affluent than the national average, with 59% of them holding at least an undergraduate college degree. Muslims tend to hold professional jobs, and one in three Muslims earn over $75,000 a year. They tend to be employed in professional fields, and most own stock, either personally or through 401(k) or pension plans.
[/quote]

He cites this article.

First things first. The very same article says:

[quote]As it happens, Her Majesty's government was well clued on these questions before the bombers struck: A 2004 Home Office study showed, for example, that British Muslims are three times likelier to be unemployed than the wider population, that their rates of civic participation are low, and that as many as 26% do not feel loyal to Britain.[/quote]

So things are apparently not rosy all over. This counts. But let's talk about American Muslims for a second.

             
Quote
Information on American Muslims is sketchier. Thanks to a 2004 Zogby International survey, we know that a plurality of Muslim Americans--about one-third--are of South Asian descent; 26% are Arab and another 20% are American blacks. But until 2001 we had no idea how many Muslims lived in America, and even now the figure remains a matter of intense controversy. All major Muslim advocacy groups put the number at above six million, which, as Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum observes, has the convenience of being higher than the American Jewish population. Yet all independent surveys put the real figure at no more than three million, while the most credible study to date, by Tom Smith of the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, estimates total Muslim population at 1,886,000. "[It] is hard to accept that Muslims are greater than one percent of the population," he writes.


A very small minority, in other words. The article continues:

             
Quote
Whatever the real figure, what's reasonably clear is that Muslim Americans, like Arab-Americans, have fared well in the U.S. The Zogby survey found that 59% of American Muslims have at least an undergraduate education, making them the most highly educated group in America. Muslim Americans are also the richest Muslim community in the world, with four in five earning more than $25,000 a year and one in three more than $75,000. They tend to be employed in professional fields, and most own stock, either personally or through 401(k) or pension plans. In terms of civic participation, 82% are registered to vote, half of them as Democrats. Interestingly, however, the survey found that 65% of Muslim Americans favor lowering the income tax.


A fine group of Americans. And a highly selective one:

             
Quote
In these respects, Muslim Americans differ from Muslim communities in Britain and Continental Europe, which tend to be poor and socially marginalized. Four other features set American Muslims apart.
First, unlike in Europe the overwhelming majority of Muslims arrived here legally, and many of those who didn't were deported after Sept. 11, 2001. Currently, according to Ali Al-Ahmed of the Washington-based Saudi Institute, there are probably no more than a few thousand Muslim illegal immigrants in the U.S.


If some of this sounds familiar, it should. It's the very same things that were said about the early African immigrants in the UK: solidly middle class, well-educated, very assimilated. Unfortunately, the cultural center did hold: after a generation or two, the immigrants's children regressed to the cultural mean of their parent's societies and sank to the bottom strata. Prediction: one major difference between America and Europe's Muslims is that Europe's Muslims have had time for cultural regression to occur. Let's see if this hypothesis pans out:

             
Quote
Hanging over all this is the question of the long-term trajectory of the American Muslim population. In Britain, as in Germany and France, a striking feature of the Islamist movement is that it has taken root among second-generation Muslims, whose disenchantment with their Western lives is matched by the romanticist appeals of ethnic authenticity and religious purity. America's mostly foreign-born Muslims are perhaps less susceptible to this. But that's no guarantee their children won't be seduced. Then, too, neither a first-rate Western education nor economic affluence offers any inoculation against extremism: Just look at the careers of 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta, educated at the Technical University of Hamburg, or Daniel Pearl killer Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who did undergraduate work at the London School of Economics.


Prediction met. While we're at it, let's peek at some crime statistics: [quotes are from the linked articles]:

     
Quote
PARIS, June 19, 2005 (IslamOnline.net) – French prisons are teeming with Muslims, a phenomenon chaplains and sociologists blame on marginalization and towering poverty and unemployment rates among the Muslim minority.

“It really harms the image of Islam and Muslims in France that prisons are teeming with Muslims,” Mamdo Sango, a Muslim chaplain, told IslamOnline.net.

Iranian-French researcher Farhad Khosrokhavar said in his recently published book Islam in Prisons that Muslims make up some 70 percent of a total of 60,775 prisoners in France.

As ethnicity-based censuses are banned in France, he said complexion, names and religious traditions like prohibition of pork indicate that Muslims constitute an overwhelming majority in prisons.


     
Quote
According to a new study from the Crime Prevention Council, Brå, it is four times more likely that a known rapist is born abroad, compared to persons born in Sweden. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. According to these statistics, almost half of all perpetrators are immigrants. In Norway and Denmark, we know that non-Western immigrants, which frequently means Muslims, are grossly overrepresented on rape statistics. In Oslo, Norway, immigrants were involved in two out of three rape charges in 2001. The numbers in Denmark were the same, and even higher in the city of Copenhagen with three out of four rape charges. Sweden has a larger immigrant, including Muslim, population than any other country in northern Europe. The numbers there are likely to be at least as bad as with its Scandinavian neighbors. The actual number is thus probably even higher than what the authorities are reporting now, as it doesn't include second generation immigrants. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm, who has investigated violent crimes in Svea high court, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents.


And dare we forget the Dutch:

   
Quote
But by 2002, Kok's Labor government, hard hit by rising crime rates associated with unintegrated Islamic immigrants and a weakening economy, was handed a stunning defeat. That election marked the dramatic rise of the gay activist and former Marxist Pim Fortuyn. It was the beginning of what promises to be an unsettling period in Holland's usually placid politics.

In the first political killing in the Netherlands since the 17th century, Fortuyn was assassinated by an animal rights activist. Then came the murder of anti-Muslim iconoclast Theo van Gogh by an Islamist who was offended by one of van Gogh's movies. These events clearly shook the normally calm and consensus-driven Dutch. Fortuyn's political heir, Geert Wilders, who rose to political prominence in the wake of the Van Gogh killing, was depicted by the American and British press as a one-issue politician. His sole aim, it seemed, was to expel radical Islamists from Holland. That was a misunderstanding of both Wilders and the Dutch situation.

Wilders, who lives under 24-hour guard and sleeps in a prison cell for his own protection, is indeed a strong critic of Islam, which he argues is "incompatible with democracy." But it quickly became clear that he was far more than a one-issue candidate. Moreover, his arguments about Islamic extremism and immigrant crime had already been laid out a decade earlier by the prominent Dutch politician Frits Bolkstein, who is now giving the French fits as a member of the European parliament by pushing for increased E.U. competition in business services.


Some stats:

   
Quote
What increasingly bothers the Dutch are freeloaders. Though the unemployment rate is just over 2 percent, 18 percent of the Dutch labor force is on the dole to some degree, with 11 percent receiving occupational-disability benefits under the widely abused system. Immigrants, who have a high unemployment rate, are another irritant. Eight percent of Holland's 16 million people are of foreign descent, with more than half of them Muslims, mostly from Turkey and Morocco. Holland's four largest cities — Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam, and Utrecht — are home to the majority of immigrants. Almost half the population of Rotterdam, where Fortuyn launched his political career, is of foreign descent.

This has had unfortunate consequences. Earlier this month, the trade association representing Holland's supermarkets announced that it would be shutting down stores in the immigrant-heavy inner cities unless the government got serious about policing the areas. That's because young immigrant men from these neighborhoods are disproportionately represented in Dutch crime statistics. According to criminologist Chris Rutenfrans, a study in 2000 found that 33 percent of all criminal suspects are foreign-born, as are 55 percent of prison inmates. An astonishing 63 percent of those convicted of homicide are immigrants — Moroccans, Antilleans, and sub-Saharan Africans are the chief culprits. "The reason always given to explain these statistics is that they live in deprived circumstances," says Rutenfrans. "But other minorities are similarly deprived, and they aren't criminals."

Some Muslims bring with them a culture of religious extremism, encouraged in part by religious schools — at least one-third of which are funded by the Saudis, according to a government report. The report also revealed that 20 percent of Holland's Islamic schools receive funding from the radical Islamic organization Al-Waqf al-Islami, or have radical Muslims on their boards. The government warned that the country's Islamic schools showed very little commitment to preparing their students for integration into Dutch society.

More troubling, the government intelligence service warned as long as a decade ago that the Netherlands was becoming a center of Islamic terrorist recruitment and operations. Since September 11, terrorism experts have warned that violent Islamic extremists are conducting operations in Holland, in part because the country's deeply ingrained taboo against intolerance gives them relative freedom from scrutiny.


Worries about terrorism and crime manifest themselves as anxiety over immigration, yet Dutch voters also see the rising crime rate as part of a broader decline of civil society. It's common these days to hear the Dutch complaining that beneath the egalitarian surface, theirs has become an individualist culture, in which everyone thinks only of his rights, but not his obligations to the larger community. "People are fed up with the abuse of the welfare state, but they have yet to realize the problem is the welfare state itself," says Bart Jan Spruyt, political editor for Reformatorisch Dagblad, a Protestant-affiliated daily.

"The Dutch worry about what's happening to civil society, but they don't understand that the state cannot make you moral," says Livestro. "They fail to see that civil society starts with personal morality, and with the family." The social problems are connected to the decline of religion and the consequent loss of faith in traditional Judeo- Christian morality. Some 30 years ago, 60 percent of the population were at church on Sunday morning; today, it's between 8 and 13 percent. The media have relentlessly mocked religion.

To be a believing Christian in today's Holland, therefore, requires a countercultural courage that's hard for most Americans to imagine. But these people exist. I stumbled across a small congregation of Iranian Pentecostals, all converts from Islam, in a distant suburb of Amsterdam. The pastor, who asked not to be identified because of past violent threats from area Muslims, told me that he was shocked by the naivete the Dutch have about radical Islam. He thought Fortuyn was "a bit extremist," and didn't count himself a supporter — but he agreed with much of what Fortuyn said, and was glad somebody finally said it.

In this, the Iranian pastor was like most Dutch voters with whom I spoke, telling me that Fortuyn wasn't their cup of tea, politically, but he was invaluable as a catalyst for a long-overdue discussion of Islam and the limits of multiculturalism. Kinneging says Fortuyn struck a chord with voters sick of being taken for granted: "In the wake of the transformation of our big cities [by immigration] has come a lot of guns, violence, drugs, trading in women, and dirty streets. The political, intellectual, and journalistic elite who are in favor of this immigration do not live in these urban neighborhoods."


This one's for Cogzie.

Nine:

 
Quote
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is the United States largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy group, originally established to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims in America. CAIR portrays itself as the voice of mainstream, moderate Islam on Capitol Hill and in political arenas throughout the United States. It has aggressively condemned all acts of terrorism, and has been working in collaboration with the White House in "issues of safety and foreign policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States


Don't be so sure:

 
Quote
As Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes points out, the Washington-based CAIR, founded in 1994, "presents itself as just another civil-rights group" - cultivating an image of moderation that enables it to garner "sizable donations, invitations to the White House, respectful media citations, and a serious hearing by corporations." The organization's goal, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper says benignly, is to promote "interest and understanding among the general public with regards to Islam and Muslims in North America."

But the reality is something not nearly so benevolent, and Americans ought to become aware of it. CAIR is a direct outgrowth of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). According to Oliver Revell, the FBI's former associate director of Counter-Intelligence Operations, the IAP "is an organization that has directly supported [the Palestinian terror group] Hamas' military goals. It is a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants. It has produced videotapes that are very hate-filled, full of vehement propaganda." Such roots can hardly be considered "moderate," and as we examine CAIR more closely, what we see only gets uglier.

CAIR's founder and executive director, Nihad Awad, was the IAP's public relations director with a long history of extremism. Awad openly praised Iran's notorious Ayatollah Khomeini. He blasted the trial and conviction of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers - against whom the evidence of guilt was overwhelming - as "a travesty of justice." At a 1994 Barry University forum, he candidly stated, "I am in support of the Hamas movement."

The IAP's current president, Rafeeq Jaber, was a founding director of CAIR. Mohammed Nimer, who directs CAIR's Research Center, was on the board of the United Association for Studies and Research, which is the strategic arm of Hamas in the US and was founded by Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook. The aforementioned Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR's Director of Communications, lso worked for the IAP. To this day, he refuses to publicly denounce Osama bin Laden. He euphemistically ascribed the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa to a "misunderstanding of both sides." He dismisses the Sudanese Islamic government's enslavement and torture of millions of black Christians and animists during the past two decades - to say nothing of its slaughter of some two million more - as mere "inter-tribal hostage-taking." He makes no secret of his desire to see America one day become a Muslim country. "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," he told the Minneapolis Star Tribune. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

Such sentiments echo those of CAIR chairman Omar M. Ahmad, who in July 1998 told a crowd of California Muslims, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." In a similar vein, CAIR board member Imam Siraj Wahaj calls for replacing the American government with a caliphate, and warns that America will crumble unless it "accepts the Islamic agenda." Wahaj, it should be noted, served as a character witness for Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the Muslim cleric convicted for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; the same cleric who was busy devising plans to blow up American landmarks, buildings, and bridges; the same cleric whose conviction CAIR called a "hate crime" against Muslims. And even though Wahaj was listed as an un-indicted co-conspirator in Rahman's case, CAIR now permits him to sit on its advisory board, deeming him "one of the most respected Muslim leaders in America."

With regard to the war on terror, CAIR's anti-American loyalties are all too clear. In October 1998, for instance, the group demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard that dubbed Osama bin Laden "the sworn enemy," complaining that such a caption was "offensive to Muslims."
In the wake of 9/11, CAIR actually denied bin Laden's culpability, a position from which it would not budge until three months after the attacks, by which time the evidence against al-Qaeda's linchpin was irrefutable. The Website for CAIR's New York chapter - with which Mayor Bloomberg's appointee Omar Mohammedi has been affiliated - openly doubted that Islamic hijackers were responsible for the attacks, speculating that either the Bush administration or Israel orchestrated the nightmare.

CAIR has been the mouthpiece of some of the vilest anti-Semitism imaginable. For example, the organization co-sponsored a 1998 Brooklyn College rally at which a militant Egyptian Islamist led the attendees in chanting, "No to the Jews, descendents of the apes." Hussam Ayloush, who heads CAIR's Los Angeles office, contemptuously refers to Israelis as "Zionazis."

Over the years, a good portion of CAIR's funding came from a group called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). Yet when President Bush closed the HLF in December 2001 upon learning that it was raising money to support Hamas terror attacks, CAIR reacted with its characteristic petulance and indifference to American interests. Calling Bush's move "unjust" and "disturbing," the group circulated a petition exhorting the government to unfreeze HLF assets - charging that "there has been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam."


Nine:

           
Quote
Then you can't "see" my bet. Pointing to critics of religion or Christianity through time doesn't match the criteria set down.


Even very public critics, who published books and articles attacking all shades of Christianity, starting from the 1920's? Here's his Scopes coverage, which savages religious fundamentalists at every turn. Then read Treatise of the Gods. Here's a sample:
         
Quote
The truth is that Christian theology, like every other theology, is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is also opposed to all other attempts at rational thinking. Not by accident does Genesis 3 make the father of knowledge a serpent -- slimy, sneaking and abominable. Since the earliest days the church, as an organization, has thrown itself violently against every effort to liberate the body and mind of man. It has been, at all times and everywhere, the habitual and incorrigible defender of bad governments, bad laws, bad social theories, bad institutions. It was, for centuries, an apologist for slavery, as it was the apologist for the divine right of kings.


Oooh, I mispoke. Here's an article from 1917:

       
Quote
Starting from this double basis, Mark [Twain]undertakes an elaborate and extraordinarily penetrating examination of all the fine ideals and virtues that man boasts of, and reduces them, one after the other, to untenability and absurdity. There is no mere smartness in the thing. It is done, to be sure, with a sly and disarming humor, but at bottom it is done quite seriously and with the highest sort of argumentative skill. The parlor entertainer of Dr. Taft's eulogy completely disappears; in his place there arises a satirist with something of Rabelais's vast resourcefulness and dexterity in him, and all of Dean Swift's devastating ferocity. It is not only the most honest book that Mark ever did; it is, in some respects, the most artful and persuasive as a work of art. No wonder the pious critic of The New York Times, horrified by its doctrine, was forced to take refuge behind the theory that Mark intended it as a joke.

In The Mysterious Stranger there is a step further. What Is Man? analyzes the concept of man; The Mysterious Stranger boldly analyzes the concept of God. What, after all, is the actual character of this Being we are asked to reverence and obey? How is His mind revealed by His admitted acts? How does His observed conduct toward man square with those ideals of human conduct that He is said to prescribe, and whose violation He is said to punish with such appalling penalties?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


These are the questions that Mark sets for himself. His answers are, in brief, a complete rejection of the whole Christian theory -- a rejection based upon a wholesale reductio ad absurdum. The thing is not mere mocking; it is not even irreverent; but the force of it is stupendous. I know of no agnostic document that shows a keener sense of essentials or a more deft hand for making use of the indubitable. A gigantic irony is in it. It glows with a profound conviction, almost a kind of passion. And the grotesque form of it -- a child's story -- only adds to the sardonic implacability of it.

As I say, there are more to come. Mark in his idle moments was forever at work upon some such riddling of the conventional philosophy, as he was forever railing at the conventional ethic in his private conversation. One of these pieces, highly characteristic, is described in Albert Bigelow Paine's biography. It is an elaborate history of the microbes inhabiting a man's veins. They divine a religion with the man as God; they perfect a dogma setting forth his desires as to their conduct; they engaged in a worship based upon the notion that he is immediately aware of their every act and jealous of their regard and enormously concerned about their welfare. In brief, a staggering satire upon the anthropocentric religion of man -- a typical return to the favorite theme of man's egoism and imbecility.

All this sort of thing, to be sure, has its dangers for Mark's fame.[snip]


Here's another guy:

       
Quote
Religions are conclusions for which the facts of nature supply no major premises.
-- Ambrose Bierce, Collected Works (1912)


       
Quote
Altar, n. The place whereon the priest formerly raveled out the small intestine of the sacrificial victim for purposes of divination and cooked its flesh for the gods. The word is now seldom used, except with reference to the sacrifice of their liberty and peace by a male and a female fool.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)


       
Quote
Christian, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)


       
Quote
Decalogue, n. A series of commandments, ten in number -- just enough to permit an intelligent selection for observance, but not enough to embarrass the choice. Following is the revised edition of the Decalogue, calculated for this meridian.
    Thou shalt no God but me adore:
         'Twere too expensive to have more.
    No images nor idols make
         For *Robert Ingersoll to break.
    Take not God's name in vain; select
         A time when it will have effect.
    Work not on Sabbath days at all,
         But go to see the teams play ball.
    Honor thy parents. That creates
         For life insurance lower rates.
    Kill not, abet not those who kill;
         Thou shalt not pay thy butcher's bill.
    Kiss not thy neighbor's wife, unless
         Thine own thy neighbor doth caress.
    Don't steal; thou'lt never thus compete
         Successfully in business. Cheat.
    Bear not false witness -- that is low --
         But "'hear 'tis rumored so and so."
    Covet thou naught that thou hast not
         By hook or crook, or somehow, got.
                                                           G.J.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911), some versions have "Roger Ingersoll" for our "Robert Ingersoll"; see also our "Which Ten Commandments?" handbill ††


       
Quote
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)

Heathen, n. A benighted creature who has the folly to worship something he can see and feel.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)


       
Quote
Irreligion, n. The principal one of the great faiths of the world.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)


       
Quote
Reverence, n. The spiritual attitude of a man to a god and a dog to a man.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)

Scriptures, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)
[...]
Trinity, n. In the multiplex theism of certain Christian churches, three entirely distinct deities consistent with only one. Subordinate deities of the polytheistic faith, such as devils and angels, are not dowered with the power of combination, and must urge individually their clames to adoration and propitiation. The Trinity is one of the most sublime mysteries of our holy religion. In rejecting it because it is incomprehensible, Unitarians betray their inadequate sense of theological fundamentals. In religion we believe only what we do not understand, except in the instance of an intelligible doctrine that contradicts an incomprehensible one. In that case we believe the former as a part of the latter.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)


More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,13:24   

Oh, and guys....



--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,14:19   

In your own mind, I'm sure you're a legend. As far as refuting the Zogby data, the best you could do was say " yeah, but you just wait." which simply doesn't address the facts TODAY, nor does it guarantee your conclusions of "cultural regression"  for tomorrow or the next century.

In simple terms, so you can understand it, GoP, you're  blowing hot air. Vapid unsubstantiated hot air that doesn't support your claim in the least for Muslims  in the U.S.

Invoking cultural determinism based on religion is simply unfounded as the current data in the U.S. shows. You lose.

By the way, Chinese immigrants working on the railways, mines, etc. in early California were also subjected to the notion of religiously-based cultural determinism. It didn't pan out there, either.

So...in lieu of actual data on American muslim assimilation, you turn to pasting reams of Ambrose Bierce as if that matches my stated criteria of :

"show me a denigrating cartoon of Jesus published in major newspapers in the 50's."

Just deal with the facts as they stand -- Muslims in america intermarry, hold good jobs, are well-educated and assimilate just fine, contrary to your claim. If the best you can do is say " yeah, but just you wait!," you have no case.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,15:09   

Let's "FISK" GoP's "stats" that he claimed:

To "support" his claims that the US is due for a tidal wave of crime from the children of immigrant muslims, GoP cites "data" from *three* countries:

From France
A claim by a sociologist and a muslim chaplain actually from this site: http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2005-06/19/article04.shtml. The sociologist, Iranian-French researcher Farhad Khosrokhavar said in his recently published book Islam in Prisons that Muslims make up some 70 percent of a total of 60,775 prisoners in France. but ethnicity-based censuses are banned in France, so the "researcher" went by complexion, names and religious traditions like dietary habits... yet the same article says other non-muslim prisoners seem to prefer "halal" meals and are apparently claiming to be muslim to get them:  
Quote
Khosrokhavar also noted that Islam has become a sought-after religion in prisons with a Christian prisoner asking prison authorities to provide him with halal meat almost on a weekly basis.

Guesswork  =/= evidence
************************************************

Then some "stats" from Norway, allegedly: On the Oslo rape "stats" the link is http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece
Here's the article referred to:  
Quote
Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily.The study is the first where the crime statistics have been analyzed according to ethnic origin. Of the 111 charged with rape in Oslo last year, 72 were of non-western ethnic origin, 25 are classified as Norwegian or western and 14 are listed as unknown.
Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year.
Nine out of ten cases do not make it to prosecution, most of them because police do not believe the evidence is sufficient to reach a conviction.
Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo's Vice, Robbery and Violent crime division says the statistics are surprising - the rising number of rape cases and the link to ethnic background are both clear trends. But Larsen does not want to speculate on the reasons behind the worrying developments.
While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases, with 20 percent being women of foreign background.

No mention of the religion of the perpetrators. Or anything identifying them as "muslim" at all. These are not "stats," supporting his claim, either
************************************************

GoP moves on to the Dutch. He cites an article http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.....=253257 mentioning the assassination of gay activist and former Marxist Pim Fortuyn by an animal rights activist. Then  the murder of anti-Muslim iconoclast Theo van Gogh by an Islamist who was offended by one of van Gogh's movies. The article ties these events to the rise of  one Geert Wilders, who rose to political prominence in the wake of the Van Gogh killing. It then turns out that Wilders is "Far from a one-issue politician, it was clear that Wilders' attacks on Islamic extremism were tied into a larger critique of economic statism as practiced by the European Union and the elite-driven Dutch political system. The Dutch, he insisted, face "interconnected crises" in which the growing number of civil servants in both Brussels and the Hague extract unsustainable sums of money even as Europe is unprepared for the coming onslaught of Chinese competition and as rising crime rates send skilled Dutch professionals fleeing for New Zealand and Canada"
No mention of actual figures there. Nothing to support GoP's claims about "kids of immigrants reverting to 'cultural regression'"
Another Dutch article has Criminologist Chris Rutenfrans, saying " a study in 2000 found that 33 percent of all criminal suspects are foreign-born, as are 55 percent of prison inmates. An astonishing 63 percent of those convicted of homicide are immigrants — Moroccans, Antilleans, and sub-Saharan Africans are the chief culprits."
Well, this "study" alleges "Moroccans" ...but at what proportion? Antilleans are not muslim, nor are most sub-saharan africans. How many muslims perpetrated actual crimes there? No data.

************************************************
This means, for all the "cha-ching" whistles and bells, GoP had exactly WHAT to back his claim? Virtually NOTHING and certainly no *clear* valid statistical studies clearly identifying "children of muslim immigrants" as he claimed. As I said...all hot air and vacuous claims.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,15:15   

I'm sure that what you'll do is avoid any U.S. data on muslim immigration and assimilation, GoP.

Instead, you'll pull more "stats" from European countries like the above and claim "victory" again, despite the evident shoddiness of the data you've tried to forward so far.

You lost on the U.S. data alone, GoP. Deal with it.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,16:04   

Sorry Ghost. In your delusional world, posting long boring posts with irrelevant quotes may equal victory, but reality is much different.
Just a few things from the top of the heap:

The 'muslim leaders' do NOT say what you claim they say, and in fact argue in the very way you say they should- change "muslim" for " christian" in the quotes, and see if you disagree with their assertions then

Overall unemployment rates were not part of your integration criteria, and cannot be used

The size of the minority is also irrelevant, again according to your criteria

Comparisons between one minority in one country and a different minority in another country cannot be valid, unless you establish a connection- a connection other than the obvious (their marginalization in the community), which does not help your point

"Predictions" are not "met" with "you just wait" assertions

The fact that a second generation on muslim immigrants finds appeal in fundamentalism is actually an argument against your position, even if it is true, since it shows it is not inherrent in the culture, but a result, as your own quotes say, of social marginalization of the community (unless you think that for Muslims, terrorism is "in their blood" -hee hee)

Mark Twain and Ambrose Bierce have little, if anything, to do with your case, since atheism is not debated here, religious intolerance is- and, in their atheistic beliefs, both remained spiritual outcasts until recently

And finally, you are repeatedly violating the rules you set by citing biased sites without mentioning it, but that was expected anyway.

In the meantime, Deadman has provided stats that apply directly to the criteria you set, and you failed to address them.
So, if "chaching" is the sound of you paying up, I gladly agree.




Oh and Ghost: We have all figured out you have a small AFDave inside, trying to get out- you don't have to be so obvious. It don't do no good for your image, believe it or not.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,23:55   

Ghosty,

You've drifted into that wonderful world of hostility and bullshit you like so much. I'm not taking a contrary position to you, as I stated right at the start. It's a topic I know too little about to do that. What I DID say was that until I see good evidence to the contrary I am willing to grant everybody, muslims and you included, the benfit of the doubt. Regardless of what others are saying, I'm not hostile to your claim, it could very well be the case, this whole thread started because you said that no one had ever refuted one of your political claims, after a certain amount of to and fro we settled on the idea that you would defend one of your claims, and for the reasons stated previously, I offered this claim of yours for defense, and you took up it's defense freely. Thus far we have four pages of only tangential relevance. Like I said before, this thread could be 5 or 6 messages long, with me completely agreeing with you at the end. Or it could be 7 or 8 messages long with you saying "oh wait my stats we're wrong" or something similar. Get it yet?

BTW, I'm not asking you to provide data for sikhs, blacks etc being poor integrators, calm down son! You're seeing arguments where there are none! My point was very simple, many cultures/races have had these "conversations" because of their taking "offense" to something or other, thus the fact that "conversations" have happened and some twat on a radio has said that we must censor free speech is vastly less significant that is being made out. This is the tangential stuff, thankfully you get to the actual claim later on. Congratulations.

I'm glad that you have defined what you mean by integration, that way we can  deal with what is actually going on rather than the endless series of pointless quotations and bigotry from all quarters.

The reason I want you to define what you mean by integration clearly is so that we have something concrete to deal with as opposed to quoting nasty people/books and saying "see how unWestern they are???!!!111one11111!!!".

Quote
By "integration", I mean:

1) No more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole (15 % pts above national violent crime rates at maximum) ;

2) No cries for "affirmative action";

3) Roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations (doctors, lawyers, and/or scientists) without relying on 2). Yes, this implies good scores on standardised scholastic tests;

4) A culture that tolerates Western norms.


The claim you are proving is this:

Quote
I claim that Muslims, as a group, do not assimilate as well as other groups, and in fact their culture often damages civil liberties.


And you have defined what you consider to be "muslims". I've included some broader descriptive quotes from which I'll attempt to make a summary description of your idea of what or who a muslim is.

Quote
I will focus on the Sunnis and Shi'ites (hereafter Shiites) because these two sects comprise 95 - 96% of the world's Muslim population. I


Quote
My hypothesis, however, is that all Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as a group, are incompatible with Western societies regardless of nationality. In order to become compatible, they must discard their religion, and nothing less will do.


Quote
For whatever reason, they don't fit in, and that's what matters in immigration policy


Quote
Here's what most Muslims countries want:

1) Death to Israel if not Israelis;

2) Dhimmitude for the rest of the Infidels;

3) Whatever else comes to mind, especially when they discover that 1) and 2) don't close the economic gap.


Quote
First of all, I don't hate Muslims; if it were up to me I'd leave Muslims alone to practice their religion to their heart's content. Problem is, they won't leave us alone. Do you really think that Muslim countries were a model of peace until THE NATION THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME was thrown into their midst?


So here is my precis of the "GoP majority muslim" (GMM hereafter), please feel free to correct any errors I make:

1) GMMs are of the sunni or shi'ite sects.
2) GMMs regardless of nationality are incompatible with western society (another phrase that needs definition) unless they abandon islam as described at length in many previous posts (GoPislam or GI hereafter).
3) GMMs desire Israel to be removed utterly, and possibly for Israelis themselves to be killed.
4) GMMs will "relegate" all other faiths they approve to some extent of to second class, i.e making the adherents of these faiths subject to dhimma.
5) GMMs are envious of the material success of the west and will alter their demands in order to garner the material items they desire.
6) GMMs will not leave the west alone, they will keep bombing, attacking etc until such time as they dominate.

Is that fair representation of the GMM?

So the claim has been defined by you Ghosty as the following:

GMMs do not integrate into western societies in such a way that they are no more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole, do not call for affirmative action, have a roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations without relying on affirmative action, score well on standardised scholastic tests, and have a culture that tolerates Western norms. In fact GMMs are worse on all these integration criteria than any other group that has emigrated into western society.

Do you consider this to be accurate regarding your claim?

Well I can certainly agree that a GMM might not fit that last criterion well (i.e. tolerate western norms), but we've yet to see the evidence for the crime, affirmative action, professional and scholastic criteria.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2006,06:24   

Ok guys, I only have a few minutes so I'll be brief:

1) I've found some more stats on schooling, crime, etc. I'll try to post them tomorrow.

2) I forgot to add that I don't want my personal liberties diminished as a result of immigration. So if a minority group assimilates at the cost of my free speech/expression rights then I'm not as impressed as with one who assimilates without Big Brother carefully monitoring my luggage, internet searches, and library usage. This has always been a big theme with me; I can't believe I forgot to include it.

3) Your summary of my position is OK, Louis. However, I'm still irritated that you call me names without backing it up.

4) Deadman: I plan on rebutting your "evidence" but before I do, think of this: Is it really fair that pro-immigrationist governments deprive their citizens of the relevant data, and even fine/imprison them for criticising the open borders philosophy, and then turn around and say, "Where's your data and why don't you speak up if you don't like it?" Your side censors the evidence, and then taunts us for not producing it. Case in point: you can be arrested in France for compiling crime data by religion, so researchers have to use proxies. But when they do, they're accused of being unprofessional and the scare quotes come out: "researcher", etc. Notice that liberals rarely demand that govs produce the data so that stereotypes can be erased; that's strange behavior if they really believe that Muslims don't commit a disproportionate amount of crime. I'm just sayin'.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2006,07:32   

Quote
I've found some more stats on schooling, crime, etc. I'll try to post them tomorrow.

As I noted above...you didn't POST any "stats" to begin with, just some guesswork in one case and and citations regarding "non-western" groups that contain no actual percentages/rates/etc. specifically referencing Muslims.
(1) I don't HAVE a "side" in this, GoP. I was merely interested in the topic and posted stuff that I found to advance the discussion. You then decided to talk shit, so that irritated me and I looked a little more...BUT, on a personal level, I mentioned on the first page of this thread that I thought that there  
Quote
is a greater degree of isolationism due to religion, modernism, prejudice, etc... Although I'm as socially liberal as anyone I know, I think large-scale (larger than now) conflict between Islam and the largely Xian west is near-inevitable.
I'll go even further to say that at this stage of history, I dislike/fear Islam more than I do Christianity. If I lived in the 12th Century, I would think the exact opposite. You'll also note that on the first page of the thread, I mentioned the LACK OF DATA on the subject, and told you "good luck."  
***********************************************
 
Quote
Your side censors the evidence, and then taunts us for not producing it. Case in point: you can be arrested in France for compiling crime data by religion, so researchers have to use proxies. But when they do, they're accused of being unprofessional

(2) Okay...let me get this straight.

You posted several claims about muslims not assimilating, causing increased crime, performing more "poorly" in multiple areas than "western" groups, etc. ... and NOW you realize there's little hard data on the subject?

This *seems* to indicate that your assertions hinged on either anecdotal or selective media references that have no substantive basis. In a word, you were simply talking out of your ass.
You seem to enjoy inflammatory statements that get you attention -- which I don't understand at all -- since you seem bright enough at times to actually hold an intelligent discussion -- without all this weird posturing and game-playing that makes you sound like a  dolt.

I view the problem between the west and Islam as enormously important--as important as ANY potential disaster we have facing the human species. IF global warming holds true, and populations are pushed further towards the poles, Islam has a huge birthrate, a potentially deadly ideology that could create an equally fanatical religious response, it sits on oil that the west wants desperately -- it has all the fixin's for one he11 of a brawl with a group that has about 2 billion adherents.

So, when you reduce this threat to some kind of stupid game that you want to play to massage your ego, I view THAT as annoying as well. Why not just try to discuss the actual issues without the inflammatory nonsense?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2006,12:50   

Ghosty,

Erm, sorry where did I call you names in this thread? I checked and I'm not sure I did. In fact I've bent over backwards to be conciliatory. Ah well.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2006,16:40   

Is anyone here actually reading all of Ghosty's big long intolerant rants?

Or have we all concluded long ago that he's just a nutter and nothing he says is worth paying any serious attention to?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,11:16   

Fifth Amendment

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,12:03   

Some statistics and studies of Muslims or immigrants from overwhelmingly Muslim nations:

France:

Unemployment:

           
Quote
On the Outside



In France, foreign youths from predominantly Muslim countries have a particularly high rate of unemployment. Rates for ages 15-29:

Foreigners from North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa and Turkey 40 percent Foreigners (all nationalities) 26 percent French by birth 16 percent French by naturalization 15 percent

Note: Data are from 2002
Source: Advance excerpts from "Integrating Islam: Political and Religious Challenges in Contemporary France


Other Economic Measures:

           
Quote
FRANCE has failed miserably to integrate the millions of Arab and African immigrants who have settled in the country since the 1960s, according to two reports this week.

The findings, by the state court of auditors and senior business leaders, confirm a reality that is familiar to everyone in France and highlight the bankruptcy of a state policy that denies the existence of ethnic communities.
[...]
The business leaders’ report, drafted for Jean-Pierre Raffarin, the Prime Minister, said that France was not only inflicting injustice on generations of ethnic minorities but also depriving itself of a vital economic resource.

According to the report, young people of Arab and African origin are five times more likely to be unemployed than the rest of the French population. In education the number of Arabs and Africans gaining access to top university courses and the elite “grandes écoles” is decreasing, while problems at primary and secondary level mean that schools are “incapable of ensuring basic literacy among non-French-speaking immigrants ”.


The two reports called for far more active measures to help minorities, but stopped short of supporting the idea of race quotas.

Such “positive discrimination” is enthusiastically backed by M Sarkozy but opposed by President Chirac and most of the political world as contradictory to France’s doctrine of the homogenous, egalitarian republic.

Where are these Africans from?
           
Quote
The composition of this population group has changed more than its numerical size. The immigrants who arrived in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s were mainly Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and North African. In 1999, three national groups accounted for some 500,000 immigrants: the Portuguese, Algerians and Moroccans. Next came the Turks, Italians, Spaniards and Tunisians and nationals of sub-Saharan Africa. The proportion of Italian and Spanish immigrants in the total was higher, but many of them have acquired French nationality.


More recent numbers:

         
Quote
Immigrants from sub-Saharan African countries appeared to lead the charge, with their numbers jumping 45 percent between 1999 and 2004 to 570,000.

The number of immigrants from North African countries rose to 1.5 million, up 220,000 from 1999.


And there are plenty of Muslims even in the sub-Saharan region.

The "speculation" of large Muslim imprisonment rates is widespread:

         
Quote
Prison populations have been expanding across Europe in recent years, partly because of stricteranticrime regimens influenced by the sort of zero tolerance on quality-of-life crimes that was epitomized by the former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

France's prison population has risen by 20 percent in the past three years, largely because of aggressive pursuit of lower-level crimes.
[...]
Missoum Abdelmadjid Chaoui, the imam responsible for the Nanterre institution here west of Paris, says there are only eight Muslim chaplains for the nearly 20,000 Muslim inmates in the Paris region. He handles 9 of the 25 prisons himself.
[...]
The prisons' shifting demographics are engraved in the small brick- walled exercise yard in Fresnes, a hub in transferring inmates around the national system. Names carved into the bricks a century ago are all French. ''Maurice Barbes, 1909,'' reads one. But those carved by the young men filling the yard these days are predominantly North African names like Oulmana, Chebbabi and Karim.


Although this study says the immigrants do well compared to their economic cohorts, the North Africa academic success rates are pretty grim:

         
Quote
Contrary to recent French research which has studied the success of immigrants’ children in the
baccalauréat examination using either a retrospective design (Tribalat, 1996) or a cross-sectional design
(Laacher and Lenfant, 1997), we study it in a longitudinal or prospective perspective. As Table 3 indicates,
31.8% of French secondary school entrants obtain the baccalauréat diploma after seven years, i.e. without
repeating a year, but the corresponding rate is 24.7% for South-East Asians, 20.2% for Portuguese, 19.1%
for Moroccans, 18.2% for Tunisians, 16.9% for Algerians and only 12.9% for Turks. Compared to their
French schoolmates, foreign children therefore are at a disadvantage in the French secondary school and the
number of foreign attributes as well as the duration of stay of parents in France highlight similar, albeit slightly
smaller, differences.


Some more insight:

     
Quote
In 2005, the unemployment in the cités reached 20%, whereas the national average is 10% [1]; in some quarters, it can reach 40%. Part of the problem is that the general level of education in these areas is well below the national average, which, in a context where it is difficult to find jobs requiring little or no qualifications, is bound to generate high unemployment. According to the BBC, the unemployment rate for university graduates of French origin is 5%; this can be compared to the unemployment rate of 26.5% for university graduates of North African origin. However, the BBC study does not specify whether the people of North African statistically attend the same university curricula as the average French population; it is well-known that some French higher education curricula do not offer good job prospects afterwards, and a "graduate" can be someone with a DEUG (a diploma issued after just two years of University education). Employment prospects in France for someone with only a DEUG are slim. According to the BBC, the inability of educated people who happen to be nonwhite to obtain employment and the connection to documented racism have left many feeling that they face dim prospects regardless of their actions. [2]


The U.K.:

Here are some stats that Nine didn't "throw out for discussion":

     
Quote
Industry and labour
· Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than the white population and three times more likely to be on low pay
· Average earnings among Muslim men are 68% that of non-Muslim men
· Three-quarters of Bangladeshi and Pakistani children live in households earning less than half the average income
· 25% of Pakistani men are self-employed compared with 11% of white men
· 65% of Bangladeshis are semi-skilled manual workers compared with 23% among other ethnic minorities and 15% among white Britons
· 54% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi homes receive income support, three times other households
Welfare
· 28% of older Pakistani and Bangladeshi people live in homes without central heating
· 38% live in overcrowded homes. They are three times as likely not to have a phone at home than non-Muslims
· Number of Muslims in prison: 4,298, 7% of the male population and 3% of female

Health
· Perinatal mortality rate among Pakistani mothers is 16%, twice the UK average
· 18% of Pakistanis are diagnosed with chest pains or heart disease, compared with 14% of Sikhs, and 8% of Hindus
· 20% of Muslims report a long-standing illness, compared with 16% for Hindus and Sikhs


Education
· There are four Muslim schools in the state sector, though many more private schools
· The percentage of Pakistani and Bangladeshi girls taking A levels in 1998 was more than double that of white boys
· Bangladeshi and Pakistani children with unemployed parents are more likely to enter higher education than their white counterparts
· In 2000, 30% of Pakistani students gained five or more good GCSEs, compared with 50% in the population as a whole
[...]
Economics
· There are 5,400 Muslim millionaires (measured by cash and stocks but not property)
· 77% of Pakistani and 45% of Bangladeshi households are owner-occupiers
· 43% of Bangladeshis live in council or housing association properties - 50% higher than the national average


Prison stats:

     
Quote
The need to counter Muslim radicalization in prisons is underscored by recent population statistics and incarceration rates.7 There are around 13 million Muslims living in Europe (about 2.5 percent of the total population); of this number, over 7 million live in Western Europe (about 2 percent of the total population). Initially, Western Europe’s Muslim communities were made up of workers drawn largely from former European colonies. These mostly male laborers were later joined by family members arriving from abroad. West Germany was also home to a significant number of Turkish guest workers, whose status was more formally defined. More recently, these established Muslim communities have swelled with the arrival of economic and political refugees from the Balkans, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, and North Africa. The number of Muslims living in the United Kingdom grew from about 23,000 in 1951 to 2 million in 2000. In 1961, there were about 6,700 Turkish Muslims living in West Germany; the Muslim population of Germany now also stands at about 2 million. Other West European countries, particularly France and the Netherlands, have seen similar increases in their Muslim populations. If current legal and illegal immigration patterns hold, this trend will likely continue.8

Foreigners in general and Muslims in particular are overrepresented in Europe’s prison populations. In Switzerland, for example, the foreign inmates generally fall into one of three categories: asylum seekers, tourists who have committed crimes, and long-term residents who have not been granted Swiss citizenship. Such foreigners account for nearly 63 percent of the Swiss prison population—about 3,500 of the 5,000 inmates—although they constitute only 20 percent of the general population. Given Switzerland’s geographical proximity to the Balkans, it is not surprising that many of these foreign prisoners are Muslims from Albania, Macedonia, and the former Yugoslav Republic.9

This pattern is replicated in other European states. Official statistics show that foreigners account for 28.5 percent, 34 percent, and 28.5 percent of the French, German, and Italian prison populations, respectively, proportions far in excess of the foreign component of the general population. Although precise figures are hard to come by, anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that a large percentage of these foreign prisoners are Muslims. In Britain, one of the few countries that makes a breakdown available, 8 percent of the prison population is Muslim, compared to only 2.5 percent of the general population. In 2002, the last year for which statistics are available, this translated into 5,495 Muslim inmates out of a total prison population of 71,218.10 The British government has also disclosed that since 9/11 only 97 out of the 562 people arrested for involvement in terrorist activities—a group made up almost entirely of Muslim men—have been charged with offenses under the Terrorism Act passed in 2000, and of these only 14 have been con-victed.11 It is Muslims such as these, men imprisoned then released for lack of evidence or detained on lesser charges, who are ripe for radicalization.


More recent data:

     
Quote
In light of the above, this paper presents the results of a study exploring the process of conversion to Islam amongst young male prisoners. Since 1993, the number of Muslims in British prisons has risen threefold, from 2,106 in March 1993 to 6,136 in June 2003 (National Offender Management Service, 2004). In 2003, Muslims accounted for eight per cent of the prison population (National Offender Management Service, 2004), and this is a significant over-representation since Muslims make up approximately only 2.7 per cent of the UK population. Whilst the reasons for this over-representation are numerous, conversion to Islam (or a re-affirmation of Muslim identities) in prison may also account for the rising numbers of Muslim prisoners.


More Prison data:

     
Quote
Young Black men in particular are converting to Islam during their imprisonment, and some prisons have reported around five conversions a week. The number of Muslim inmates within British prisons is up from 700, 15 years ago, to around 5,000 currently. Muslims are 7 percent of the total British prison population, but in prisons in larger cities, such as London, Manchester or Birmingham, they account for 20 percent of all inmates. As a whole, Muslims, at around 1.9 million, make up about 3 percent of the 60 million British population.

The figures for prisons do not include those who have converted whilst serving their sentence and a spokesman for the British Prison Service admitted that the actual number of Muslim prisoners could, in fact, be far higher.

The Prison Service employs 23 full-time and 12 part-time imams plus another 120 on a sessional basis. All are closely vetted and monitored before being allowed to work in prisons. Anwar Chaudhry, an official at a west London mosque who works part-time at a number of prisons, says: “We do not seek to radicalise inmates or even convert them. We are just teaching them positive things about Islam and how it can help their lives. Obviously, many of the prisoners come from troubled backgrounds and Islam gives them discipline and order; it helps them to run their lives better.”


More stats:

     
Quote
In 2001, there were 371,000 school-aged (5 to 16 year old) Muslim children in England (Source: National Statistics)
In 2004, 67 % of Indian, 48% of Bangladeshi and 45% of Pakistani pupils gained five or more grades A* to C at GCSE (or equivalent), compared with 52% of White British pupils. (Source: Social Trends No. 36, 2006)
31% of young British Muslims leave school with no qualifications compared to 15% of the total population.  (Source: National Statistics)
Poverty
35 % of Muslim households have no adults in employment, (more than double the national average). (Source: 'Muslim Housing Experience', Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies)
Just under three-quarters of Bangladeshi and Pakistani children (73%) are living in households below the poverty line (60% of median income). This compares with under a third (31%) for children in all households.  (Source: Department for Work and Pensions. Households Below Average Income 1994/5 - 2000/01)
In 2001, 13% of Muslim men and 16% of Muslim women reported 'not good' health.  These rates, which take account of the difference in age structures between the religious groups, were higher than those of Jewish and Christian people, who were the least likely to rate their health as 'not good'.
[...]
Employment
In 2004, 28% of 16-24-year-old Muslims were unemployed.  This compares with only 11% of Christians of the same age. (Source: National Statistics 2001 Census report on faith)
In 2004, a fifth of Muslims were self-employed. (Source: National Statistics)
In 2004 almost seven in ten (69%) Muslim women of working age were economically inactive.  (Source: Social Trends No. 36, 2006)
Crime
47% of Muslim students have experienced Islamophobia.  (Source: FOSIS (Federation of Student Islamic Societies) survey, 2005)
Almost 10% of the prison population are Muslim, two-thirds of whom are young men aged 18-30. (Source: Prison Service statistics, 2004)
Between 2001 and 2003 there was a 302% increase in 'stop and search' incidents among Asian people, compared with 118% among white people.  (Source: Home Office, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System, 2004).


But!


Positive news for Muslims (look under Education).

Denmark:

Nine's whine gets rebutted:

   
Quote
* Living on the dole: Third-world immigrants - most of them Muslims from countries such as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iraq - constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.

* Engaging in crime: Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.

* Self-imposed isolation: Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.

* Importing unacceptable customs: Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem.

Another is threats to kill Muslims who convert out of Islam. One Kurdish convert to Christianity, who went public to explain why she had changed religion, felt the need to hide her face and conceal her identity, fearing for her life.

* Fomenting anti-Semitism: Muslim violence threatens Denmark's approximately 6,000 Jews, who increasingly depend on police protection. Jewish parents were told by one school principal that she could not guarantee their children's safety and were advised to attend another institution. Anti-Israel marches have turned into anti-Jewish riots. One organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, openly calls on Muslims to "kill all Jews . . . wherever you find them."

* Seeking Islamic law: Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.


The response:
   
Quote
As Danish politicians, we are offended by the way integration problems in Denmark were portrayed by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard and we wish to set the record straight (Muslim Extremism: Denmark's had Enough, Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, Aug. 27).

The authors claim that 40% of Danish welfare expenses are consumed by Muslim immigrants. Denmark has a much broader spectrum of welfare costs than countries in North America. We include not only unemployment benefits and social security but also substantial allocations to housing, transport, homecare, early retirement, protected workplaces, daycare and other smaller schemes. Muslim immigrants do not receive 40% of those allocations even though they represent a substantial part of the clients. The main reason being: It is hard to compete on a job market not interested in employing immigrants.

The further assumption that more than half of all rapists in Denmark are Muslims is without any basis in fact, as criminal registers do not record religion.

Mr. Pipes and Mr. Hedegaard mention that only 5% of young Muslims in Denmark wish to marry a Dane. A sign of self-inflicted isolation, indeed. We welcome the brave 5% who accept intermarriage—they are true pioneers for peaceful co-existence and human contact across cultures. However, the new Danish government has made it extremely difficult for Danish citizens to bring a foreign spouse to Denmark. The ruling opinion obviously is that intermarriage should be avoided.


The counter:

   
Quote
Both protest our conclusion that Muslims "make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists," saying that because Danish statistics do not correlate religion with crime, this assertion "is without any basis in fact." Statistics Denmark does, however, produce numbers on immigrants from Third World countries and their descendants, which it reports makes up 5% of the population; and it is known that Muslims make up four-fifths of this element. The latest police figures show that 76.5% of convicted rapists in Copenhagen belong to that 5% of the population, and from that we drew our understated conclusion.

Our critics then sow confusion about the word "welfare." We wrote in English for an English-speaking readership, and used "welfare" in the conventional English sense of meaning public assistance in the form of cash or food stamps—not in the Danish sense of including "housing, transport, homecare, early retirement, protected workplaces, daycare and other smaller schemes" as mentioned by the two politicians.

As for the numbers involved, former Socialist spokeswoman for immigration and integration Ritt Bjerregaard has leaked figures from an unpublished study showing that in 1999, the 5% of the Danish population made up of Third World immigrants received 35% of all welfare payments (Danish: kontanthjaelp). This percentage is higher today and therefore we wrote that that 5% consumes "upwards of 40% of the welfare spending."

Both MPs may not believe Danish Jews are threatened but the Jewish population itself believes it is under siege. This obliviousness of Ms. Arnold and Ms. Nielsen is part of a larger problem, whereby they have long been among the most vocal cheerleaders of massive immigration and completely blind to the problems this creates. Unfortunately for them, Danish voters do see the problems and threw their coalition out of office last November.


I don't know about this "unpublished study", but the crime figures are reasonable.

Now what about Sweden? Let's look at Malmo, with one of the (if not the) highest concentrations of Muslims in Europe:

 
Quote
Ali Dashti has been kindly supplying us with information about the situation in Sweden for some time. Now the larger -- if not mainstream -- media is catching on. From a FoxNews commentary:

Now in Malmo, Sweden, a city where a quarter of the population is Muslim, there are some parts of the city where buses refuse to go for fear of safety. Fireman, policemen, and ambulance drivers have been attacked in certain sections when trying to do their job. Swedes, though, are not an easy soundbite, perhaps because they are so thoughtful. They try to see things from every side. We went out with a policeman on patrol and spoke to him while he was walking around in the dangerous part of town. At one point I stopped him and said, "How does it feel to you, personally, when you come here trying to do your job, trying to help someone, and people throw rocks at you?" His response was that it was "a little annoying." Annoying. I imagined what kind of a colorful response I could have gotten from a New York policeman.


Here's some anecdotal evidence.

More stats:

 
Quote
Numbers released in January 2005 indicate a sharp rise in the number of rape charges in Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city:

Thomas Anderberg, responsible for statistics at the Malmö Police, says there was a doubling of the number of reported rapes by ambush in 2004, following what was already a decade of steadily increasing numbers of sexual crimes. - I think that’s great news, says Anna Gustafsson, head of the Domestic Violence Unit at the Malmö Police. She suggests that the increase is due to the fact that women who otherwise wouldn’t press charges for rape now choose to contact the police.

In other words, Gustafsson claims that we are dealing with a “technical” increase, not a real one. However, national statistics reveal that reported rapes against children have almost doubled in Sweden during the past ten years:

According to Swedish Radio on Tuesday, statistics from Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention show that the number of reported rapes against children is on the rise. The figures have nearly doubled in the last ten years: 467 rapes against children under the age of 15 were reported in 2004 compared with 258 in 1995. Legal proceedings continue this week in a case involving a 13 year old girl from Motala who was said to have been subjected to a group rape by four men. (Note: These four men were Kurdish Muslims, who raped the girl for hours and even took photos of doing so)

The number of rape charges per capita in Malmö is 5 – 6 times that of Copenhagen, Denmark. Copenhagen is a larger city, but the percentage of immigrants is much lower. And it’s not just the rape statistics that reveal a scary increase in Malmö or Sweden. Virtually every kind of violent crime is on the rise. Robberies have increased with 50 % in Malmö only during the fall of 2004. Threats against witnesses in Swedish court cases have quadrupled between 2000 and 2003. During the past few decades, massive immigration has changed the face of Sweden’s major cities, as well as challenged the viability of the welfare state. In 1970 Sweden had the fourth highest GDP per capita among developed countries with income about 6% above the OECD average. By 1997 it was at fifteenth place with an average GDP per capita 14% below average. Malmö has a heavy concentration of Muslim immigrants in particular. According to some estimates, it will be a Muslim majority city in no more then 10 years. Crime is rampant in the growing ghettos:

Becirov runs the Islamic Center of Malmö, on the outskirts of Sweden's third-largest city. Some immigrant neighborhoods in the city have (official) unemployment rates exceeding 50 percent. Swedish authorities have failed to lift up the area, and seem to be giving the Islamic Center of Malmö a great deal of leeway in attempting to do so. An article that appeared in 2003 noted that "a few" of the 6-to 10-year-old girls were wearing headscarves. On a visit in January 2005, fully 80 percent were covered in class--only a handful were not. In a fit of absent-mindedness, Sweden has suddenly become as heavily populated by minorities as any country in Europe. The percentage of foreign-born is roughly equivalent to the highest percentage of immigrants the United States ever had in its history (on the eve of World War I). Rosengård appears to be all-immigrant. The public schools have virtually no ethnically Swedish children. There are stories--familiar in other parts of Europe where immigrants from the Muslim world have recently settled--of students harassing Jewish teachers and defacing textbooks that treat Jewish themes. Crime is high.

Is it unfair and “racist” to suggest a link between the influx of Muslim immigrants and the growing number of rapes? Not if we compare with the situation in neighboring Denmark, where this trend has been evident for years:

Criminologist: immigrants are rape champions

If one leading expert is to be believed, the sharp rise in the number of rapes in this over the last 5 years is largely attributable to a group of unemployed and alienated immigrants. 'Over the last 5-10 years there has an increasing tendency to marginalise and alienate immigrants,' says Professor Flemming Balvig, a criminologist at Copenhagen University. 'As a result, many second generation immigrants have reacted against this through various types of criminal activity, including rape.'

Muslim rape concern

Alarmed at last week's police statistics, which revealed that in 68% of all rapes committed this year the perpetrator was from an ethnic minority, leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls.

As Robert Spencer has demonstrated, rape can indeed be linked to Islamic teachings of Jihad, and even to the example of Muhammad himself, his Sunna. Above all, it is connected to Islamic notions of the role of women in society, and their behaviour in the public sphere. An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Apparently, he isn’t the only Muslim in Europe to think this way:

The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte told in a recent interview that in Holland, you can now see examples of young, unveiled Moroccan women with a so-called "smiley". It means that the girl gets one side of her face cut up from mouth to ear, serving as a warning to other Muslim girls who should refuse to wear the veil. In the Muslim suburb of Courneuve, France, 77 per cent of the veiled women carry veils reportedly because of fear of being harassed or molested by Islamic moral patrols.

Hijab, the Islamic veil, is thus not ”just a piece of cloth”. It serves as a demarcation line between proper, submissive Muslim women and whores, un-Islamic women who deserve no respect and are asking for rape. The veil should more properly be viewed as the uniform of a Totalitarian movement, and a signal to attack those outside the movement. Judged in the light of the Mufti who said that women who don’t wear it are asking for rape, how on earth can the veil be said to be about ”choice”? The freedom to choose not to be raped if you dress in a normal fashion in your own country? Is that what freedom is about in Europe in 2005?

Even though Sweden, unlike Denmark, has almost no public debate about immigration, frustration is very much present underneath the surface. 75 % of Swedes think that many people in their country “dislike” Muslims, more than in any other European nation surveyed. Even in Holland, which recently witnessed violent clashes with Muslims after the murder of Islam-critic Theo van Gogh, the rate is lower than in Sweden. But you’re not supposed to talk about such issues in Sweden. That would be “racist”:

Swedish laws prohibiting "hate speech" against racial minorities have been vigorously enforced. There have, for example, been a number of gang-rapes of Swedish women by Muslim immigrants. But Swedes must be careful what they say about them. On May 25, neo-Nazi Bjorn Bjorkqvist was convicted and sentenced to two months in prison for writing, "I don’t think I am alone in feeling sick when reading about how Swedish girls are raped by immigrant hordes." ["Jag tror inte jag är ensam om att må dåligt när jag läser om hur svenska tjejer har våldtagits av invandrarhorder"]

All in all, we must say that there is strong circumstantial evidence indicating that the rise in rape charges in the city of Malmö could very well be real, which puts the Malmö Police assertion that this is “great news” in a rather curious light. And the problem is not just limited to Sweden. It exists in Norway, too:

Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year. Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo's Vice, Robbery and Violent crime division says the statistics are surprising - the rising number of rape cases and the link to ethnic background are both clear trends. But Larsen does not want to speculate on the reasons behind the worrying developments. While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases, with 20 percent being women of foreign background.


Here's more:

 
Quote
The population of Malmo as a whole is about 25% immigrant or the children of immigrants, primarily from Bosnia, Iraq (especially Kurdish areas), North Africa and Turkey. These immigrants are concentrated in old housing in the suburban ring around the city center. There are few jobs there. The student body in some of the schools is nearly 100% immigrant, drawing very heavily from countries that are predominantly Muslim. Last September, Swedish newspapers reported that bus service in a Stockholm suburb similar to Malmo's was suspended in response to violent attacks.

This was reported in a dramatic way by Fox. But you can read a similar account of the school situation in this dry report of a visit by Spanish educators to the Malmo suburban schools in 2003.

The WaPo notes:

But the biggest problem in Malmo, and in other parts of Sweden, is what people here call "ghettoization": White Swedes typically live in certain areas, in this case the city center, while immigrants are increasingly clustered on the outskirts in their own communities. As Hosseinkhah put it: "People physically live in this area, but they mentally live in their former countries." "They don't feel they are a part of this community," he said. "They don't know this society. They don't know the codes. . . . There's that feeling of 'we' and 'them.' "
This ghettoization is only growing worse as the demographic makeup of Sweden changes. Ove Sernhede, a Swedish scholar, wrote back in 1990

Marginalised groups have during the last two decades been forming ghettos all over Europe. In Sweden this development is related to the rapid changes in economy and society during the last 5 to 10 years. The Swedish ghettoisation is most visible in the modern multi-ethnic suburbs outside the highly segregated big cities. Along with Moss Side (Manchester), Bobigny (Paris), Gutleutviertel (Hamburg) we can today also list Angered (Gothenburg), Rinkeby (Stockholm) and Rosengard (Malmo). In Gothenburg, to give one example, there are many areas where 75-95 of the population (neighbourhoods with of 5-10 000 people) are immigrants, the city is one of the most segregated in Europe.... The parliamentary committee on 'big city conditions' recently presented statistics about the 'exposed urban districts' - more than 50 of the children between 0-6 years of age have unemployed parents, in Gothenburg social entitlements increased by 100 between 1990 and 1993, the unemployment for certain 'exposed' ethnic minorities are more that 90 . - etc., etc. These circumstances have put Sweden more or less into a state of shock.
The problem of unassimilated immigrants in Sweden, mostly from Muslim countries, is especially acute because of differences in birth / arrival rates. As an official brochure notes:

There are 0.9 million young Swedes [out of a total population of 8.9 million - rkb] aged between 16 and 24 today, and by about 2010 the figure is expected to exceed a million. The majority of these young people were born in Sweden and have Swedish nationality. 10 per cent of them have one Swedish and one foreign parent. A further 10 per cent were born abroad, and of these 5 per cent still retain their foreign nationality. After Swedish the most common nationalities are Finnish, Bosnian, Iraqui, Turkish, Yugoslavian and Somalian. This means that slightly more than one young person in five living in Sweden was born abroad his/herself or has at least one parent who was.
At this point 2 out of every 3 new Swedes is from a non-ethnically-Swedish ancestry.


But what about Oslo, Norway?

This study indicates that the largest non-Western immigrant groups in Oslo are from mostly Muslim countries (see figure 2, and note the exception!;)). So I stand behind my original stats -- unless it is those small Vietnamese men that are targeting those large Nordic women and calling them "whore"! And why are so many Swedish girls dying their blonde hair so they won't be targeted for rape? Doesn't sound like Asian rapists to me.....

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,16:41   

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz.............................

Wake me when the nutter is finished.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,16:42   

OK, Ghost:

Do you intend to change your criteria, and claim that overall rates of unemployment are indictive of Muslim integration?

If you do, it's fine by me- I'd just like to see some reasoning behind it.

You remember "reasoning", right? It's that thing you're supposed to have in between quotes.

IF your purpose is to actually have a normal debate that is, and not just "win at teh Intarnets".

But I doubt it.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,21:44   

Ghosty,

Thanks for the wealth of stats and information.

I'm off to Cyprus for a cousin's wedding on Wendesday. I'll be away until at least the 16th, and I am excruciatingly busy until the 30th. So forgive me if I don't respond as fully as I might like. Dare I say "more later"?

Louis

P.S. I'm sure in my absence the gentlemen and ladies of ATBC can keep you amused.

--------------
Bye.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,07:39   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 03 2006,17:03)
FRANCE has failed miserably to integrate the millions of Arab and African immigrants who have settled in the country since the 1960s, according to two reports this week.

Hmm very first quote he uses blames the country not the immingrants   :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2006,07:08   

Been away for some time.

Anyway...

I think that there is some truth in stating that muslims are less well integrated than other faiths (at least in the UK).

It apears to me that Asians of hindi and sikh religious persuasion are doing far better economically than Asian muslims.

I do not believe that the majority of muslims are maladjusted extremists but some actions by muslims do concern me. While only a small minority of muslims may be extremist just about every recent terrorist to operate in the UK is a muslim. Something is going wrong, I am not sure what it is let alone have a solution.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2006,10:39   

Here's a report on Muslims in Italy. If you look through the report, the best statistical estimates paint a pretty bleak portrait in areas of education, employment, housing, etc. I know that Muslims are about 10 times more likely to be in prison than their overall presence would predict (see here, although they claim the 2000 OECD data shows roughly proportional educational achievement for Muslims as a whole). I know the more recent data shows a grim situation for Turkish students worldwide, and the overall situation for German Turks is depressing.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2006,11:04   

Here's where the grim conclusion on Turkish students comes from:

 
Quote
Language and the geographical origin of immigrant children may be additional factors, the report notes. But this is not sufficient to explain variations in performance between countries. Immigrant students whose families have come from Turkey tend to perform poorly in many countries. But they do significantly worse in Germany than they do in Switzerland.


More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2006,11:38   

I found a nice article from Russell and Faid's favorite e-zine. Enjoy.

Next: Muslims in the Land Down Under.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,08:18   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 05 2006,16:04)
Here's where the grim conclusion on Turkish students comes from:

 
Quote
Language and the geographical origin of immigrant children may be additional factors, the report notes. But this is not sufficient to explain variations in performance between countries. Immigrant students whose families have come from Turkey tend to perform poorly in many countries. But they do significantly worse in Germany than they do in Switzerland.


More later.

And that supports your position how exactly, Ghost?

Both Germany and Switzerland were part of Western Civilization, last time I checked.

Also: Before you go to "more later", got any stats from Greece?  :)

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,11:22   

Faid:

         
Quote
       
Quote
Here's where the grim conclusion on Turkish students comes from:

           
Quote
Language and the geographical origin of immigrant children may be additional factors, the report notes. But this is not sufficient to explain variations in performance between countries. Immigrant students whose families have come from Turkey tend to perform poorly in many countries. But they do significantly worse in Germany than they do in Switzerland.


More later.


And that supports your position how exactly, Ghost?

Both Germany and Switzerland were part of Western Civilization, last time I checked.

Also: Before you go to "more later", got any stats from Greece?  :)


????? How does the underperformance of Turkish students in Germany and Switzerland not support my case? Turkey is a Muslim country, no?

I'll look up some stats for Greece.

By the way, you definitely creamed me on our satirical debate on the "whiteness" of Greeks -- the recent FIBA results prove that, indeed, the Greeks are white:

   
Quote
Don't ask me how they ever won the European championships; that's what I was saying. The Greeks are always slow and they can never shoot. No one is tougher, or plays harder, but the traditional Greek team of the '90s was always a classic wannabe.

But this Greek team has nothing in common with those other squads. This Greek team has the game of basketball figured out.

Its calling card en route to a 7-0 record entering the game against the USA was defense.

"Defense is the coach's heart," is the way Mike Krzyzewski had put it, the coach being Panagiotis "Pano" Yannakis, a cagey fellow who has both played on (1987) and coached (2005) a European champion.

Defense, defense, defense. ... that's what Pano has been preaching to his team. Offense was a matter of sharing and caring. The Greeks entered this game with eight men averaging between seven and 11 points per game. There was no "go-to" guy.

So what were the Greeks doing running up 101 points on the Americans? In his wildest and craziest fantasies, Pano Yannakis never dreamed he'd ever beat the Americans by scoring 101.

And maybe it all was a fluke, but if it was, it was the most artistic fluke in the history of the world championships. For after struggling to create offense during the first quarter in the face of some stern American defense, and after falling behind 33-21, 14 1/2 minutes into the game, the Greeks turned into an offensive monster, outscoring the stunned NBA guys 44-18 over the next 9:46 to go up by 14 and, frankly, never do much in the way of looking back.

How did they do this? Better yet, how didn't they? They must have run the same pick-and-roll play successfully at least 84 times. They nailed threes. They posted up. The fairly amazin' final stat sheet revealed that Greece had shot 63 percent overall and 71 percent (27-for-38) on twos.

The Americans? Well, they shot a very respectable 50 percent overall and 63 percent on twos (24-for-38). They were good, but the Greeks were better.


Yep, they're definitely white: who else can dominate athletically and receive nothing but backhanded compliments... :D  :D  :D  :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,12:33   

Two sources on Greek Muslims. Basically:

Foreigners (half of which are Albanians) are 2.5 to 3 times as likely to commit thefts and robberies than their population figures would predict (I converted the theft ratios into percentages, and divided those numbers by the percent of foreigners in the population). Foreigners make up 45% of the prison population, although much of this discrepancy might be due to extra scrutiny by the police, tough enforcement of immigration law, and legal inequities. But even if it's true that half of the foreign crime is due to infractions of immigration law, that would put the foreign prison population at 22.5%, which is more than twice as high as the population numbers would predict. The proportion of migrant crime is apparently half of what would be expected (I think the author confused 1988 with either 2003 or 2004), but migrant crime has grown faster than the migrant population (once again, I'm confused by the author's presentation of the data). Given the imprisonment rates, the overall picture seems bleaker than the author's letting on. The other article shows that Greek Muslims are slightly underrepresented in the higher academic echelons, but there's a lot of uncertainty in the classification.

According to surveys, Greeks are very unhappy with the Muslim immigrants.

So no, I don't see much room for optimism. It sounds like more of, "The minorities aren't competing, so it must be society's fault!" Unfortunately, Americans know the punchline to this joke: lots and lots of suppression combined with lots and lots of affirmative action.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,12:49   

it does not help your case in the way that, if analogous groups from the same ethnic minority have considerably different performances in different Western countries, then the reasons are not inherrent in the minority, but should be sought in the circumstances and conditions in those countries. I'm sure you can understand that.
I'm asking about greece because, well, the situation is interesting here, and seems to strike to the heart of your arguments (especially since there does not seem to be a correlation between failure in cultural assimilation and crime rates, which makes your initial assertions disputable). But the net is not that rich in info on our local muslim minority, at least not of the relevant kind, and I thought a Google scolar might do a better job :)
Anyway, since I'm once again visible to you, can you answer my questions? Here they are again:
Do you plan on changing the criteria you proposed and claim that rates of overall unemployment show failure of integration? If so, can you explain it?
Can you provide some evidence and examples about that "fact" you threw out and forgot about it, namely that even "moderate", benign Muslims turn to fanatics, some time after they come to the West?
Thanks.

Oh and thanks for the thumbsup Ghost! However, I've already read the article and you seem to miss the point: What the article goes on to say is that, although USA had the best players, Greece had the best team. And they played better basketball. So, it basically says that it was not a "disaster" or "tough luck" for the US, that Greece deserved to win and that not admitting it only makes them bad losers. Something you should think about too (especially now that your Geocentric thread is back up :) ).

But hey, we sure are white: Like the final demonstrated, we suck at rebounds- We just can't jump.
Hmm.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,13:08   

Crap, I didn't see your next post, and I don't have time now. A few things:
First of all, let's clear something out: Albanians are NOT Muslims- not culturally or religiously. They were Muslim in their majority once (around 70%), but half a century of living under (forced) secularism has changed their culture, and now only about 25-30% identify themselves as Muslims. They certainly are not following the Muslim cultural identity now, and their accent is the only thing that separates a Greek from an Albanian immigrant (and not even that for young people anymore). Like you said, the overblown statistics of Albanians in prison comes from counting all the illegal immigrants arrested and held for deportation; and that is a large number. Still, Albanians seem to be disproportionally represented in crime busts (mostly theft and robbery, but not murders)- However, at the same time, they seem to display an unusual rate of integration in all other aspects, from rise of income to sucess in education (where some estimates show they'll soon surpass Greek natives -it's as if they were Asian! :) ) In the meantime, many other minorities that show an increased crime rate are not Muslim at all, while Pakis (and we have a lot of those too) As just as quiet and law-abiding as Indians. In fact, they're mostly victims of crimes (for quite some time, Rumanian gangs used to beat Pakis to take their wages the day they got paid).
And then there's our native Muslim minority -but I'll talk about that next time (m-more later? :p ).

Oh and, Greeks are unhappy with Albanians because we're a bunch of closet nationalists that hang from the lips of our sleazy reporters. Just FYI.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,14:14   

Faid:

 
Quote
Crap, I didn't see your next post, and I don't have time now. A few things:
First of all, let's clear something out: Albanians are NOT Muslims- not culturally or religiously. They were Muslim in their majority once (around 70%), but half a century of living under (forced) secularism has changed their culture, and now only about 25-30% identify themselves as Muslims.


Which is one of the reasons I was ignoring Greece initially. Still, the Muslim presence in Thrace is pretty large (120,000 I think), and the Muslims are agitating for a mosque in Athens.

 
Quote
Still, Albanians seem to be disproportionally represented in crime busts (mostly theft and robbery, but not murders)- However, at the same time, they seem to display an unusual rate of integration in all other aspects, from rise of income to sucess in education (where some estimates show they'll soon surpass Greek natives -it's as if they were Asian!  ) In the meantime, many other minorities that show an increased crime rate are not Muslim at all, while Pakis (and we have a lot of those too) As just as quiet and law-abiding as Indians. In fact, they're mostly victims of crimes (for quite some time, Rumanian gangs used to beat Pakis to take their wages the day they got paid).


But if Albanians aren't really Muslim, then much of this argument is pointless. As far as the Pakis go, I was under the impression that the Greek Muslims were primarily Turks (even after the population exchange!;)) or Albanians. Take those groups out, and how many Muslims are left?

 
Quote
Oh and, Greeks are unhappy with Albanians because we're a bunch of closet nationalists that hang from the lips of our sleazy reporters. Just FYI.


Yeah, but shouldn't the Greek people be allowed to determine their own immigration policies? They're the ones who will pay if the immigrant situation turns nasty, not the coke-sniffing multiculturalist elite in their gated Myconian communities.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,15:08   

Faid:

     
Quote
Anyway, since I'm once again visible to you, can you answer my questions? Here they are again:
Do you plan on changing the criteria you proposed and claim that rates of overall unemployment show failure of integration? If so, can you explain it?
Can you provide some evidence and examples about that "fact" you threw out and forgot about it, namely that even "moderate", benign Muslims turn to fanatics, some time after they come to the West?
Thanks.


I don't see how unemployment is "changing the criteria". Here is my definition:

     
Quote
By "integration", I mean:

1) No more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole (15 % pts above national violent crime rates at maximum) ;

2) No cries for "affirmative action";

3) Roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations (doctors, lawyers, and/or scientists) without relying on 2). Yes, this implies good scores on standardised scholastic tests;

4) A culture that tolerates Western norms.


If a huge chunk of the immigrant population is unemployed, this makes 3) unlikely and 2) almost mandatory. Certainly, chronic unemployment breeds resentment towards the native population and soaks up social services. I don't understand your objection.

As for your second question: c'mon, even Stevestory linked to a quote from Miss England that backed up my opinion. For more insight, read this article. Here's another source. Here's the Pew Global Attitudes poll. A substantial minority of Muslims associate one negative trait after another with Westerners, although European Muslims are milder than their counterparts in Islamic countries.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,15:39   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 03 2006,21:41)
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz.............................

Wake me when the nutter is finished.

Can't be bothered by facts.  

You asked for 'em and you got 'em, then ignore them.

Typical fundie behavior

I see where you got you title "Rev"

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,18:39   

Friend of yours, Paley?

Didn't think you had any.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,00:12   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 08 2006,23:39)
Friend of yours, Paley?

Didn't think you had any.

I think I am one of a very small minority here that actually likes GoP's posting (at least I normally find them amusing).

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,15:57   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 08 2006,23:39)
Friend of yours, Paley?

Didn't think you had any.

Is that all you got.

Try reading.


Why should I accept your word any more than the guy who delivers my pizza.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,18:04   

Quote (tsig @ Sep. 09 2006,20:57)
Is that all you got.

Yep.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,18:14   

I was going to delete this "You suck" "No you suck" crap of the last few comments, but then I thought, this is a GoP thread. Deleting a few intemperate comments would be like waxing the floors at Three Mile Island. So I'll leave them unless anybody thinks they're really disruptive.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,19:46   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,23:14)
I was going to delete this "You suck" "No you suck" crap of the last few comments, but then I thought, this is a GoP thread. Deleting a few intemperate comments would be like waxing the floors at Three Mile Island. So I'll leave them unless anybody thinks they're really disruptive.

Wax on....Wax off?

Do you have another name MR. Myagi?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,02:52   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,23:14)
So I'll leave them unless anybody thinks they're really disruptive.

Disruptive of what?  Nobody is reading Paley's big long hate speeches anyway.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,05:16   

[quote=The Ghost of Paley,Sep. 06 2006,19:14][/quote]
 
Quote
Which is one of the reasons I was ignoring Greece initially. Still, the Muslim presence in Thrace is pretty large (120,000 I think), and the Muslims are agitating for a mosque in Athens.

That is true, and this is our native Muslim minority. They have been with us for centuries, living in the same region more or less. They are, I think, an interesting issue in this discussion: They are quite fundamental in their religious beliefs and culture- much more than your average Turk, in fact, not to mention Albanian Muslims. They live in rural areas, are mostly farmers and small traders, and their income is significally lower (or that is what their taxes show). So, no, after all these years, they have not integrated -but you could say that for the Amish in the US too (in fact, they're much more integrated in comparison to them). Still, their participation in the crime rates is non-existant, even proportionally: no theft, rape, robbery or murder. All the fuss with them is that they are often the pawn in political games between Turkey and Greece (like the mosque issue). But crime? nope. And they have been the target of racism for many a year.

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 06 2006,19:14)
Quote
Still, Albanians seem to be disproportionally represented in crime busts (mostly theft and robbery, but not murders)- However, at the same time, they seem to display an unusual rate of integration in all other aspects, from rise of income to sucess in education (where some estimates show they'll soon surpass Greek natives -it's as if they were Asian!  ) In the meantime, many other minorities that show an increased crime rate are not Muslim at all, while Pakis (and we have a lot of those too) As just as quiet and law-abiding as Indians. In fact, they're mostly victims of crimes (for quite some time, Rumanian gangs used to beat Pakis to take their wages the day they got paid).


But if Albanians aren't really Muslim, then much of this argument is pointless.

The point, Ghost, is that, although there seems to be a correlation of crime rates and immigrants in urban areas, there is no valid connection with the Muslim faith. Not in my country, at least. And I think my country is a good example on what really happens with immigration, because we have immigrants that are not predominantly Muslim, and we can get a clearer distinction.
Quote
As far as the Pakis go, I was under the impression that the Greek Muslims were primarily Turks (even after the population exchange!;)) or Albanians. Take those groups out, and how many Muslims are left?

Not many: Pakistanis mostly, and a fair number from the Middle East; but absolute numbers here are not the issue, the relevance between religion and crime rates is, and at least in Greece that is clearly not the case.
Quote
Yeah, but shouldn't the Greek people be allowed to determine their own immigration policies?
They're the ones who will pay if the immigrant situation turns nasty, not the coke-sniffing multiculturalist elite in their gated Myconian communities.

Well, we did, Ghost, and we pay the price. When Albanians first appeared as financial immigrants in the early 90s, both businessmen and politicians saw the benefit of a large, semi-legal workforce in our developing country. So, we let them all in ("Let our brothers come" said a paper), and we welcomed them in our country... By denying them visas and social or health care, having them remain in a semi- legal condition, always afraid of deportation, unable to claim a decent job or an honest salary, working as hired slaves for peanuts, often getting deported instead of paid.
And when our resentment and exploitation paid off, and crime rates among immigrants began to climb, the SAME paper that I quoted before said "Send the monsters away", and people started arguing in much the same way you do now, putting all eggs in one basket.
And guess what: It is the Myconian elite that was the most vocal. Sorry Ghost, you won't find multiculturalists in Myconos: Just rich and famous Neocons. Neocons that profited from illegal workforce back in the day, and now want all foreigners to "go home" and even resent the fact that Albanian children do better in highscools than many Greeks (we actually had protests a couple of times, to stop Albanians, who were top students in their schools, from holding the flag during parades. And yes, we still have parades).

If you ever come to Greece, and you want to meet Greek multiculturalists, stay away from the coke-sniffers at Myconos: go to a camping site in Ios or Scopelos or Thrace even. Why meet them, I hear you ask? Well, because multiculturalists have more fun.  :D

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,06:00   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 06 2006,20:08)
I don't see how unemployment is "changing the criteria". Here is my definition:

           
Quote
By "integration", I mean:

1) No more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole (15 % pts above national violent crime rates at maximum) ;

2) No cries for "affirmative action";

3) Roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations (doctors, lawyers, and/or scientists) without relying on 2). Yes, this implies good scores on standardised scholastic tests;

4) A culture that tolerates Western norms.


If a huge chunk of the immigrant population is unemployed, this makes 3) unlikely and 2) almost mandatory.

Ghost, please don't play with terms and words, and remember what you are trying to prove.
Your #3 point is valid as a criteria, if you can show that it is the Muslim culture that prohibits participation in intelectual occupations. But overall unemployment? Now wait a minute: We're talking about economic immigrants here.
They're unemployed by default, Ghost. ALL such immigrants are when they get to a country. Greeks were during the 20s in the US, during the 50s in Germany... And when they get there, immigrants quickly get absorbed into the workforce "black market": Doing part-time, one-service jobs, almost exclusively involving manual labor, without a contract or a minimum wage or a hope for insurance and health care. Many remain unemployed, and many more appear to be, as far as the state is concerned.
Saying "Muslims can't get jobs at all, so they can't get 'intelectual' jobs either, so their culture forbids them to" is not just a non-sequitur; it's a joke.
 
Quote
Certainly, chronic unemployment breeds resentment towards the native population and soaks up social services. I don't understand your objection.

No objection there, Ghost. In fact, this is my argument. Tell me, where does religion or culture enter in what you just said?
And that is why I think that, like I said in my previous post, it's the wave of immigration that creates the social conditions for marginalization and increase in crime, not religion.

"And how would I prove that my criteria are met then?" I can hear you say... Well, Ghost, since it's your criteria, it's also your job to do it. But I suppose you could evaluate a sample of Muslims that have a steady job and income, and check whether the proportion of 'intelectual' works in them is simillar to Westerners. That would work better in a country where they had a Muslim minority for quite some time, to make the financial differences due to recent immigration less significant...
...And this is where Deadman's links might come handy, perhaps?  ;)

 
Quote
As for your second question: c'mon, even Stevestory linked to a quote from Miss England that backed up my opinion. For more insight, read this article. Here's another source. Here's the Pew Global Attitudes poll. A substantial minority of Muslims associate one negative trait after another with Westerners, although European Muslims are milder than their counterparts in Islamic countries.


Ghost, can you please tell me how any of your links substanciates this "fact" you offered?
 
Quote
many moderate Muslims have a dreadful habit of "flipping" into hardcore militancy once they become citizens. This is not a prejudice -- it's a fact.


Because frankly, I cannot see any relevance. How does claiming that moderate Muslims come to the West and immediately turn into hardcore potential terrorists when they get a visa, become a "fact" because a "substantial minority" (5%) of second-generation Muslims "associates one negative trait after another" with the West? (And of course, how is that not explained itself by them being raised and treated as an outcast in the land they were born?)

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,11:04   

Faid:
Quote
Ghost, please don't play with terms and words, and remember what you are trying to prove.
Your #3 point is valid as a criteria, if you can show that it is the Muslim culture that prohibits participation in intelectual occupations. But overall unemployment? Now wait a minute: We're talking about economic immigrants here.

I only have about 10 minutes, so let me just make a couple of observations for now:

1) Many of the unemployed Muslims have had plenty of time to find a job; they just haven't succeeded. Remember, some of my stats show that even well-educated Muslims have sky-high jobless rates in some countries. And what about the second generation immigrants? Many of the unemployed (especially in France and England) were born in Europe, so once again, their unemployment is a puzzle. Besides, the US Muslims found jobs immediately, didn't they? You don't have much of a point here.

2) Recall my education statistics. Aside from Italy, the US, and maybe Greece, Muslim students tend to drop out more and underachieve academically. Furthermore, the Muslims who perform well are not very Muslim (Albania) are mostly Foreign Nationals (Italy) or are first generation cherry-picked professionals (America). This doesn't say anything about the typical Muslim immigrant and his children.

3) If you read the early part of the thread, you'll see many cultural arguments. In any case, my main job involves proving they don't assimilate, not why they don't. By the way, you never answered my question: "Do Greek people have a right to determine who immigrates into their own country?"

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,08:26   

Faid:

Let me quote my conditions again:

   
Quote
By "integration", I mean:

1) No more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole (15 % pts above national violent crime rates at maximum) ;

2) No cries for "affirmative action";

3) Roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations (doctors, lawyers, and/or scientists) without relying on 2). Yes, this implies good scores on standardised scholastic tests;

4) A culture that tolerates Western norms.


Now let's look at this link:

   
Quote
As teaching takes place mainly in the minority language, a large number of minority students end up acquiring an imperfect knowledge of Greek. For many, this situation constitutes a very serious obstacle to their social and professional integration into the larger Greek society, and restricts their economic, social or geographical mobility.
[....]
The Greek government, in its effort to follow and even exceed contemporary standards, put into force in October 1995 a new law regulating matters pertaining to the education of the minority in Thrace. The law aims at upgrading the quality of the education afforded Muslim Greek citizens and at facilitating their educational advancement.

In order to increase the quality and continuity of teaching in minority schools, the law requires that high teacher qualifications -- including teacher training, graduate studies, foreign language skills, and familiarity with other cultures, civilizations, and religious practices -- be taken into account during the appointment of teachers to minority schools.

The law also introduces English language courses at the primary school level.
Furthermore, the law establishes special financial and retirement incentives for teachers who choose to teach at minority schools.

Finally, the law establishes an affirmative action ("positive discrimination") program for the admission of Muslim minority students to Greek higher education institutions (universities and technical institutes). The law provides for a minimum quota for minority students, as had been up to now the case for certain other classes of Greek citizens (e.g., children of emigrants and repatriates). The provision aims at offsetting the disadvantages faced by many Muslim students during the national university entrance examinations, due mostly to Greek language difficulties, and at facilitating their integration into the social fabric of the country. It goes without saying that the above provisions do not prevent Muslim students from participating in the nation-wide University admission examinations.

In a different vain, it must also be noted that the Greek State provides substantial financial support for the covering of the operational expenses of minority schools. In 1994-95 approximately one-half billion drachmas (approx. 1.7 million ECU) were provided for maintenance of existing minority school infrastructure. New primary and secondary schools are presently being constructed at a total cost of 2 billion drachmas (approx. 6.7 million ECU).


It seems we have a.....



L-L-H-H-H-HOOO......SAH!!!!!!!


But you know what they say, Faid. The next best thing to playing and winning.....is playing and losing.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,09:25   

I do not see why this thread is getting so "technical". By which I am reffering to all the links.

As far as I can see, muslims are not integrating to British society in any way at all.

By which I mean muslims as reported by the BBC etc.

I work in a group of about 8 people. 3 of which are muslim. They seem fine. Well all but 1 anyway.

However in a recent survey of muslims in Britian 40% wanted sharia law here. That stinks. Sod that, does anyone really believe we should stone to death adultering women?

Before anyone calls the racist card. These muslims are mainly asian. Why is it Indian asians are performing far beter economicaly that muslims of the same race?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,10:03   

S. Elliot:
 
Quote
I do not see why this thread is getting so "technical". By which I am reffering to all the links.

I can only speak for myself, but everyone kept naggin' fer the stats, so I gave 'em stats. Plus, a lot of this stuff was hard to find, and I don't want to waste any of it.

   
Quote
However in a recent survey of muslims in Britian 40% wanted sharia law here. That stinks. Sod that, does anyone really believe we should stone to death adultering women?

Arrrrgh! I was saving that survey for emergencies. ;) Oh well, the truth must out and so on.

So Louis & the rest are in a bind: either admit that the UK knowingly let in immigrants who wanted to replace English common law with Sharia, or concede that there's a whole lot o' flippin' going on.

   
Quote
Before anyone calls the racist card. These muslims are mainly asian. Why is it Indian asians are performing far beter economicaly that muslims of the same race?

That is the question.  ;)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,10:39   

Well Mr. Paley. I am a tad worried about apearing on your side.

However I do think that the muslim agenda is pretty much anti-western values.

Oh well. Lets see where this leads.

I find it strange that people who are anti-fundamentalist make exceptions for muslim fundies.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,11:03   

At the risk of irritating Stephen, I'm going to post a few more links.

Please note (first link):

1) The separation between Indians and the Bangladeshis/Pakistanis in all categories;

2) The inverse relationship between GCSE scores and the concentration of Muslim followers within the host nations;

3) The fact that the lower achieving groups are "more educated" despite relatively poor test performance;

4) The evidence for regression to the cultural mean in Africans, Caribbeans, and Pakistanis.

The more recent data (second link) supports the above observations, although the Pakistanis nip the Bangladeshis at the GCE A levels.

The authors argue for biological differences between honkies and African/Caribbeans, but pay that no mind. The gold is in the comparison of the test differences within ethnic groups, which they can't explain at all. But I can, and have.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,11:30   

Just one more link for now.

I can't wait for Faid to answer this question:

 
Quote
"Do Greek people have a right to determine who immigrates into their own country?"


--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,15:40   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 11 2006,15:39)
Well Mr. Paley. I am a tad worried about apearing on your side.

However I do think that the muslim agenda is pretty much anti-western values.

Oh well. Lets see where this leads.

I find it strange that people who are anti-fundamentalist make exceptions for muslim fundies.


Yes. The muslim agena is to rule the world, it is plain in the Qu'ran. This is not just fundie belief, is the living doctine of every muslim.

We in America have CAIR. Just think of the name, the implication is that they are entitled to deal with the rest of us as a soverign power

Yes. The muslim agena is to rule the world, it is plain in the Qu'ran. This is not just fundie belief, is the living doctine of every muslim.

We in America have CAIR. Just think of the name, the implication is that they are entitled to deal with the rest of us as a soverign power

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,16:02   

Quote (tsig @ Sep. 11 2006,20:40)
Yes. The muslim agena is to rule the world,

As opposed to the Christian fundamentalists, who want to bring the whole world "under Christ's feet".

Right?

Fundies is fundies.  They're all nutters, and they all need to be kept as far away as possible from real political power.  Anywhere.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,16:02   

I think my question to Faid is the central one. It may well be true that Greek Muslims are relatively harmless, that Albanians are kicking academic a$$, and that most Greeks are not particularly rational on Islam. American Muslims may also be well assimilated, at least at the moment. Nevertheless, it all boils down to, "Does the Greek/Swede/American have the right to his own culture? And if not, why not? Why can't the Christian or non-communist atheist enjoy what the Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist takes for granted?"

[edit: have you ever noticed the love affair that open-borders apologists have with the tu quoque argument? Get a hotel already......]

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,16:06   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 11 2006,15:39)
However I do think that the muslim agenda is pretty much anti-western values.

You mean Western values like, say, oh, free elections, free press, freedom of assembly, free speech . .. ?

Ya know, the things that their unelected governments won't give them?

The, uh, unelected governments that the US helps keep in power against their own people's wishes?

You mean THOSE kind of Western values . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,18:28   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 11 2006,21:06)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 11 2006,15:39)
However I do think that the muslim agenda is pretty much anti-western values.

You mean Western values like, say, oh, free elections, free press, freedom of assembly, free speech . .. ?

Ya know, the things that their unelected governments won't give them?

The, uh, unelected governments that the US helps keep in power against their own people's wishes?

You mean THOSE kind of Western values . . . ?

Good point. But I was reffering to an element of muslim culture in Britain.

The idea that 40% of British muslims want sharia law in Britain is troubling.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,22:06   

Ghost:
 
Quote
See see affirmative action for Muslims in Greece I WIN NEENER NEENER


Boy, You sure are on a roll, Ghost...



:)

I don't have time to reply to your previous post now, since work's being a bitch again, but I will this afternoon.
In the meantime: As amusing as it is to watch the excitement with which you beat your strawmen, I'll have to disappoint you:
That article talks about our native Muslim minority, Ghost. The one I already talked about, remember? The one I already said is more fundamental in their beliefs and way of life than most other Muslims, and it has (and always had) problems integrating? So you got nothing on me here.
But since you brought it up again, remember: I also told you that, however distinct and marginalized, this community is not only without substantial crime rates, but surprisingly quiet. All the fuss involving it is political; complex games between Greece and Turkey involving their definition. But responsible for social disorder and crime? Hardly. Crumbling the foundations of Greek society? Nnnnnope. Not now, not for the last century.
Unless you can address how this fits with your assertions, you got nothing on them either.

More later.  ;)

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,06:53   

Faid:

 
Quote
That article talks about our native Muslim minority, Ghost. The one I already talked about, remember? The one I already said is more fundamental in their beliefs and way of life than most other Muslims, and it has (and always had) problems integrating? So you got nothing on me here.


Yeah, but you were using them as an example as a long-term Muslim population that didn't cause any trouble. Well to me, affirmative action is trouble. I will concede for now that they don't commit much crime, so you've got me there; I sure wish there were stats though.

 
Quote
Crumbling the foundations of Greek society? Nnnnnope. Not now, not for the last century.
Unless you can address how this fits with your assertions, you got nothing on them either.


You don't ask much from your immigrant population, do ya? I agree that a low crime rate is a fantastic start, but I'd like to see them pull themselves up without relying on affirmative action. Plus, you can't remove the politicking from the ledger....the strained relations with Turkey also count IMHO.

I'll wait for your reply.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,08:21   

Oookay... I know I said I'll answer this afternoon, but I just woke up and now I gotta go see an evolutionist movie: Pirates of the Carribean. Maybe I'll post a review in your page!
So, my reply will have to wait till tomorrow. I hope I won't annoy you much by making you wait... Don't worry, your "wife-beating" question will be answered too (although I've done that already wtf). And it won't take long, since I'll mostly use your own sources... This is becoming like a pattern with you and me, Ghost. Like having our own tune or something...  :p
Just one thing before I go: Like I said, it is our NATIVE Muslim community. They're not considered immigrants: Most were here before many modern Greeks can claim their ancestors were. As for being a cause of tension, Like I said, they have been the pawn inmany a olitical game, and they are not so much the cause of tension between Greece and Turkey as the result of decades of tension between them. But that's another story.
Laters!

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,09:30   

Faid:

Quote
Oookay... I know I said I'll answer this afternoon, but I just woke up and now I gotta go see an evolutionist movie: Pirates of the Carribean. Maybe I'll post a review in your page!


Don't worry, I can wait until tomorrow. By the way, if you really want to do a movie review on my page, feel free. I've been meaning to one myself, but I either don't have the time or am too tired.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,09:00   

I guess Faid is still swooning from Johnny Depp's performance, cause otherwise why would he slap me with the dueling glove and then stand me up?  ???

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,09:10   

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. This is a very astute remark:

 
Quote
How liberals sustain their liberalism
A commenter at Jihad Watch writes:


When I suggested to a co-worker that she should read the Koran before jumping to the conclusion that terrorists are “misinterpreting” Islam, she said “I don’t think I should read the Koran, because there are probably things in it that will upset me.”

Many years ago (pre-Giuliani, actually) I was describing to a liberal female friend, a lawyer who worked in New York, the decadence and depravity that were common in the streets of the city. She replied that she never looked at people in the streets. I thought, though I didn’t say, that that was a good way to keep one’s liberalism intact.


                               

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,09:29   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 14 2006,14:10)
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. This is a very astute

I had thought that you would have argued this case better.

From my perspective in the UK it seems that muslims are definately not integrating. BTW when I use the term muslim I am reffering to the more fundy members. Not 1 single muslim that I actually know has a problem here as far as I can tell.

I do see numerous problems though.

From polls:

A large % of muslims living in Britain consider our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq as showing Britain to be anti-muslim.

On the 2nd aniversary of the 9/11 atack, posters apeared all over my town (Slough) expressing celebrations of the atacks.

There is the obvious thing of last Septembers London bombings.

The protests in London of those Danish cartoons. Including more (bombing) threats.

The forced marriage issue that our government "cowardly" refused to opose.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2006,12:20   

S. Elliot:

     
Quote
I had thought that you would have argued this case better.


True, but my strategy is to circle in from the outside, cutting off possible avenues of retreat. I wanted to show that:

1) Islam's religious scriptures, even given the most generous reading possible, are fundamentally incompatible with the West.

2) Muslims understand and agree with 1).

3) 1) and 2) might explain why European Muslims struggle in school, at work, and in the judicial system.

Basically, I wanted to start with broad cultural issues, move to historical nonassimilation, discuss the "hard" evidence of current non-assimilation, and then finally finish with the polling data. I suspect that inverting this presentation would have led to endless spin-doctoring from the other side: oh, this response came from a biased question, Muslims don't really mean this, you don't understand their culture, etc. But they can't really do that now, can they? The war and infidel suras are staring them in the face, and the lurkers have now gotten a free history lesson. So when they see that 40% of British Muslims prefer to live under Sharia, they see that this is a fundamental tenet of their culture, and not just a transient attitude.

   
Quote
From polls:

A large % of muslims living in Britain consider our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq as showing Britain to be anti-muslim.

On the 2nd aniversary of the 9/11 atack, posters apeared all over my town (Slough) expressing celebrations of the atacks.

There is the obvious thing of last Septembers London bombings.

The protests in London of those Danish cartoons. Including more (bombing) threats.


Sure, but without the background information, all of this could have been waved away. Oh, just a few nuts that are misinterpreting the Koran, most Muslims are doing well, younger Muslims are different, it really is our fault so we need to appease, etc. I've obliterated that wheeze by making sense out of the data. And I'm not through yet.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2006,06:58   

Actualy GoP, I don't agree that being a muslim is necessarily a complete barrier towards doing well in the "West".

I am not sure why muslims in Britain tend to be worse off than most other groups. Probably there are many factors.

Racism might be one facet but I doubt that very much. If this was the case the success of the Indian community would be hard to explain.

I suspect that religious views are the major cause, both for their lack of economic success and disafection with life in Britain.

The 40% who want sharia law here will never like Britain unless we alter our laws to their P.O.V. I would hate to see that happen.

Having a large % of clerics trained or born and trained in Pakistan almost certainly does not help. We also tend to hear the views of the most extreme muslims far more clear and loud than those of moderates. This can't help.

Multiculturism is likely to play a part too. Encouraging people to cling to their traditions probably discourages them to integrate. Particularly if those traditions are very different to the host nations. People being raised to hold strong views about women being second to men and needing to cover themselves to prevent lustfull thoughts (in men), are not very likely to do well here.

Add to that the mixing of politics, law and religion in many muslim countries makes that outlook very hard to reconcile with modern British views.

I consider likely to be untrue that being a muslim prevents economic success, but it probably makes it much more difficult (for the radicals at least).

Other ideas are also making life difficult in the long term. Having the street signs in Southall (a London borough) written in a non-English language. This merely discourages the learning of English and that is bound to impact on business/employment oportunities.

Another thing that I consider a hindrance to muslims in Britain is the notion of "the Islamic brotherhood". his seems to make it difficult for the more reasonable muslims to crticise extremists of their religion.

While I have no problem believing that the vast majority of muslims are not active supporters of terrorism*. It would apear that an unsettlingly large % "have sympathy" (whatever that means) for the muslims that bombed London last year.

*I use the word terrorism to mean the deliberate and intentional targetting of civilians.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2006,11:00   

Jared's at it again:

 
Quote
Major Findings

Income and Wealth

Per capita income of Hispanics is one half that of non-Hispanic whites, and household net worth is less than one tenth.


Fifty percent of Hispanic households use some form of welfare, the highest rate of any major population group.

Crime

Hispanics are 3.3 times more likely to be in prison than whites; they are 4.2 times more likely to be in prison for murder, and 5.8 times more likely to be in prison for felony drug crimes.


Young Hispanics are 19 times more likely than young whites (and slightly more likely than young blacks) to be in youth gangs.

Education

Hispanics drop out of high school at three times the white rate and twice the black rate.


Even third-generation Hispanics drop out of school at a higher rate than blacks and are less likely to be college graduates.


From 1992 to 2003, Hispanic illiteracy in English rose from 35 percent to 44 percent.


The average Hispanic 12th-grader reads and does math at the level of the average white 8th-grader.
Families and Health

At 43 percent, the Hispanic illegitimacy rate is twice the white rate, and Hispanic women have abortions at 2.7 times the white rate.


Hispanics are three times more likely than whites not to have medical insurance, and die from AIDS and tuberculosis at three times the white rate.


In California, the cost of free medical care for illegal aliens forced 60 hospitals to close between 1993 and 2003.

Attitudes

Only 33 percent of citizens of Hispanic origin consider themselves “Americans” first. The rest consider themselves either “Hispanic/Latino” or their former nationality first.


--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,03:34   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 17 2006,16:00)
Jared's at it again:

   [quote]Major Findings

Income and Wealth

Per capita income of Hispanics is one half that of non-Hispanic whites, and household net worth is less than one tenth...

Are you going to point out the relevance any time soon? ???

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,04:59   

S. Elliot:
   
Quote
Are you going to point out the relevance any time soon?  ???


The link provides evidence of third-generation cultural stagnation among certain Christian immigrants.....
   
Quote
Even third-generation Hispanics drop out of school at a higher rate than blacks and are less likely to be college graduates.

....so should we necessarily expect better results from non-Western immigrants?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,05:16   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 18 2006,09:59)
....so should we necessarily expect better results from non-Western immigrants?

I think it would depend on wether they are integrated or not.

I have a suspicion that people born into a familly of imigrants that are maintaining a culture noticeably different to the host culture are more likely to feel alienated than the direct imigrants.

The people who originally emigrate would be expected to have a desire to move to the new country. Therefore being much happier on the whole as it was their choice. The children on the other hand could become confused/dissafected due to two different lifestyles/expectations.

But I don't know this for a fact.

I get the impression that we are the only 2 people here interested in discussing it though.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,07:15   

S. Elliot:

 
Quote
I think it would depend on wether they are integrated or not.


Yes. And with the exception of America, Muslims are not well integrated.

 
Quote
I have a suspicion that people born into a familly of imigrants that are maintaining a culture noticeably different to the host culture are more likely to feel alienated than the direct imigrants.

The people who originally emigrate would be expected to have a desire to move to the new country. Therefore being much happier on the whole as it was their choice. The children on the other hand could become confused/dissafected due to two different lifestyles/expectations.

But I don't know this for a fact.


I think many immigrants want the best of both worlds: they wish to take advantage of the new country's benefits while holding on to their old culture. This isn't so bad if their original culture is compatible with their new society, but if it isn't, trouble ensues. I also have the sneaking suspicion that many Muslims consider themselves colonists rather than immigrants. If you can't beat 'em from the outside, weaken them from the inside. Remember what the Koran teaches.

Quote
I get the impression that we are the only 2 people here interested in discussing it though.


Everyone else has disappeared, haven't they?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,07:32   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 18 2006,12:15)
I think many immigrants want the best of both worlds: they wish to take advantage of the new country's benefits while holding on to their old culture. This isn't so bad if their original culture is compatible with their new society, but if it isn't, trouble ensues. I also have the sneaking suspicion that many Muslims consider themselves colonists rather than immigrants. If you can't beat 'em from the outside, weaken them from the inside. Remember what the Koran teaches.

 
Quote
I get the impression that we are the only 2 people here interested in discussing it though.


Everyone else has disappeared, haven't they?

IMO it isn't just imigrants. In Britain more and more people tend to be demanding rights while rejecting personal responsibility.

Over here we seem to be growing a compensation culture. Years ago we used to laughat some of the stupid compensation claims tha Americans made. Now it is becoming a huge industry here.

There is also a growing number of people that seem to choose to live on benefits. Something that I consider unsustainable.

The largest imigration trend here is the Polish. There are thousands of them recently arived where I live. They are very good hard working people as a whole. Trouble is though that they are forcing people out of work on the lower end of the employment spectrum.

Many of them work below the minimum wage. I do not blame the Polish here; It is the iresponsibility of the people that employ them.

Going off-topic drastically sorry.

To get back on-topic. I do not believe that muslim lack of success is the fault of individual muslims. I consider it a mix of our perception of them combined with (sometimes) their militancy.

EDIT: It is a shame more people are not interested in discussing this. This site usually has a surplus of well educated incitefull comenters. They could add a lot to the subject.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,09:10   

Quote
IMO it isn't just imigrants. In Britain more and more people tend to be demanding rights while rejecting personal responsibility.


Oh yeah, I'm not trying to frame the immigrants. Both of our countries have serious social problems that we need to address -- otherwise I wouldn't want full assimilation (Do we really want Jews, Indians, and NE Asians swilling beer in front of the telly? Or having lots of abortions & out of wedlock children?).

 
Quote
Over here we seem to be growing a compensation culture. Years ago we used to laughat some of the stupid compensation claims tha Americans made. Now it is becoming a huge industry here.

There is also a growing number of people that seem to choose to live on benefits. Something that I consider unsustainable.


Welfare states need a strong, homogeneous culture to succeed. Something that's lacking in America and the UK.....

 
Quote
To get back on-topic. I do not believe that muslim lack of success is the fault of individual muslims. I consider it a mix of our perception of them combined with (sometimes) their militancy.

EDIT: It is a shame more people are not interested in discussing this. This site usually has a surplus of well educated incitefull comenters. They could add a lot to the subject.


As Faid noted (where is he, by the way? I've never known him to break a promise), immigrants often get stereotyped & then blamed for every negative trend. That's one reason I like cultures that place the locus of responsibility on the individual; immigrants need thick skins to combat residual native hostility. It's unfair, but then so is life. ;)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,09:28   

I am starting to think that nobody should enjoy the rights of citizenship untill they have contributed something to society.

Not sure how to work that idea yet. But being granted rights for zero input is begining to sound ridiculous.

I really could not give a stuff about someones ethnicity. But before taking out from a central resource, people should have to put something in.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,10:17   

Would you mind elaborating? Just curious.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,10:38   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 18 2006,14:28)
I am starting to think that nobody should enjoy the rights of citizenship untill they have contributed something to society.

Not sure how to work that idea yet. But being granted rights for zero input is begining to sound ridiculous.

Naturalized citizens should get more votes. They have to pass a test on the constitution, and obviously know it better than Bush, and they have to pass a test in English, and obviously speak it better than Bush.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,12:41   

Quote
Arfin':

       
Quote
OH MY GOD, PALEY, I am so GRATEFUL to you for SINGLE-HANDEDLY protecting us wicked liberals from, uh, whoever it is you're protecting us from. OH GOD, I'VE BEEN SO BLIND! WHAT CAN I DO to thank YOU, and ALL THE OTHER FUNDIES, and ISRAEL?


Accept God.

       
Quote
We liberals never realized HOW CLOSE WE CAME! *WHEW!*

Is it the MUSLIM HORDES, Paley? Is that who you're saving me from? Oh my GOD, is my face RED!


Our innate savagery. We'd still be running around rude, nude, and tatooed if it wasn't for Jesus.

Europe before God:


Europe after God:


Europe without God:


Any questions?

 
Quote
No pictures of sweaty, naked BOXERS, Paley? How did you resist?

So, 'accept God', huh? Is the Young Earth Creationism and Geocentric Universe an essential part of this?  And I assume the Muslim God is okay? Hindu gods? It's all good?

What about those parts of the world that still haven't 'accepted God', Paley? Have they all been destroyed by their 'innate savagery'?And I assume that savagery is missing from all places that have 'accepted God'? It's really that simple? Am I savage if I believe in evolution?

     
Quote
We'd still be running around rude, nude, and tatooed if it wasn't for Jesus.


"People all had tattoos and never wore clothing before Jesus. In fact, in countries that continue to reject Jesus, it's still that way."

Your grasp of history is right up there with Dave's.

'Europe without God'? Paley, by 1945, Europe had been Christian for a thousand years.

Oh, whoops, I'm sorry -- they were all Wiccans and Atheists by then. You proved that a couple months ago.

Another for your 'Europe with God' collection:



Again, I'm SO GRATEFUL FOR HOW YOU SAVED ME, Paley!
Quote
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 18 2006,17:02)
Any questions?

Yeah. When did these guys hear about Jesus?



Or these guys?



Or these guys?



Or these guys?


   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,13:08   

Quote
Over here we seem to be growing a compensation culture. Years ago we used to laughat some of the stupid compensation claims tha Americans made. Now it is becoming a huge industry here.
A couple of years ago someone came up to us on the street and ended up trying to persuade my friend to sue her brother for pushing her of the swing and breaking her leg when she was 5.

Quote
There is also a growing number of people that seem to choose to live on benefits. Something that I consider unsustainable.
This does seem to be a worrying trend although its hard to tell sometimes how much the news blows it out of proportion.

Quote
To get back on-topic. I do not believe that muslim lack of success is the fault of individual muslims. I consider it a mix of our perception of them combined with (sometimes) their militancy.
What tends to happen in Britain is a situation of tolerant segregation (the government calls it multiculturalism), Im not really sure what the solution is though.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,14:10   

Arfin:

     
Quote
Yeah. When did these guys hear about Jesus?
[snip]


[pssst....Arden. Shah Jahan was quite familiar with Jesus.  ;) ]

Kidding aside, I see your point. The Mayan and Khmer Empires were both great. So were the Aztecs, Incans, Egyptians, Greeks, as well as many others. Nonetheless, none of these civilisations ever reached the height of European Judeo-Christian culture, and I think religion explains much of the difference.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,14:25   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 18 2006,19:10)
Arfin:

       
Quote
Yeah. When did these guys hear about Jesus?
[snip]


[pssst....Arden. Shah Jahan was quite familiar with Jesus.  ;) ]

Kidding aside, I see your point. The Mayan and Khmer Empires were both great. So were the Aztecs, Incans, Egyptians, Greeks, as well as many others. Nonetheless, none of these civilisations ever reached the height of European Judeo-Christian culture, and I think religion explains much of the difference.

Those were Eric's photos.

I notice you didn't include the Romans in that discussion.

Besides, your comments were not about the 'height of European Judeo-Christian culture', it was about how Christians and Jews are somehow saving us all from 'tyranny' and savagry. Keep your asinine claims straight, please.

You never did tell me, is Creationism an essential part of fending off 'tyranny'? A 6,000 year old earth?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,14:36   

Quote
Those were Eric's photos.


Well, you can't blame me.....Eric and Steve didn't make it easy to identify the author!

 
Quote
I notice you didn't include the Romans in that discussion.


An oversight. Obviously, Rome and Greece helped European civilisation as well. But Protestant Christianity took it to the next level, while Catholic Christianity contributed some nice philosophy and architecture in the meantime.

 
Quote
You never did tell me, is Creationism an essential part of fending off 'tyranny'? A 6,000 year old earth?


No specific doctrine is strictly necessary I suppose, but the Christian society that neglects the Bible is headed for trouble. I've seen Europe's substitutes for Jesus, and I'm not impressed with their track record.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,16:13   

Now, Paley, as a Christian, perhaps you can tell me: what are you personally doing to protect us liberals from tyranny? Is you just being a Christian enough to do it? I'm just curious what your role is in all this.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,17:24   

Geez, is Paley  ***STILL*** cackling . . . .?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2006,17:54   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 18 2006,19:10)
Kidding aside, I see your point. The Mayan and Khmer Empires were both great. So were the Aztecs, Incans, Egyptians, Greeks, as well as many others. Nonetheless, none of these civilisations ever reached the height of European Judeo-Christian culture, and I think religion explains much of the difference.

Actually, that was me.

But which is the real reason these other civilizations never reached the heights (if that's the proper term) of Judeo-Christian culture? Is it because there's something inherently pro-civilization about Judaism and/or Christianity (seems doubtful) or is because they peaked earlier in time than European culture?

If you could teleport back to, say, the 14th century, and could get a global perspective on the civilizations in existence at the time, I doubt you'd have any reason to single out Europe as any kind of future center of civilization or culture. You'd probably see China as the dominant culture on the planet. Central America probably would have looked pretty promising too.

So—what is it do you suppose it is about Christianity that made it an engine of civilization, culture, and technology—but only after 1,000 years or so? The first 1,000 years Europe spent under Christianity were pretty grim.

You say you think it's religion that's the difference: but what about religion? Kung Fu Tzu-ism did the Chinese pretty well for a lot longer than Christianity has even existed…

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,07:38   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Sep. 18 2006,18:08)
Quote
Over here we seem to be growing a compensation culture. Years ago we used to laughat some of the stupid compensation claims tha Americans made. Now it is becoming a huge industry here.
1).A couple of years ago someone came up to us on the street and ended up trying to persuade my friend to sue her brother for pushing her of the swing and breaking her leg when she was 5.

 
Quote
There is also a growing number of people that seem to choose to live on benefits. Something that I consider unsustainable.
2).This does seem to be a worrying trend although its hard to tell sometimes how much the news blows it out of proportion.

 
Quote
To get back on-topic. I do not believe that muslim lack of success is the fault of individual muslims. I consider it a mix of our perception of them combined with (sometimes) their militancy.
3).What tends to happen in Britain is a situation of tolerant segregation (the government calls it multiculturalism), Im not really sure what the solution is though.

1).That does not really surprise me. Litigation has taken off in a large way in Britain. It has now lead to far fewer experiences for children in the way of school activities, trips and sport.

2). You are probably correct in assuming media exageration, the problem is real though. From my experience it is localised.

My ex wife was brought up on a council estate in Wigan. Unemployment was enormous and mostly a chosen lifestyle. I suspect it is down to expectations and role models.

The other problem is people who lose their jobs and get trapped on benefits. The whole idea that a person could be financially worse off by choosing to work is ridiculous to me, but for certain people it is a fact of life.

3) While I would agree that it usually leads to tolerant segregation this is not always the case. Especially at the time that it is originally happening.

Multiculturalism is a nice idea but I do not think that it is working. Certainly not for Brit/Asian muslims. Other groups seem to be fairing much better though. Brit/Asian Hindus and Sikhs seem to be doing very well. Particularly those that were forced to leave Uganda by Idi Amin. In fact I think as an ethnic group they are the financialy most successfull people in Britian (on average).

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,08:57   

Quote
No specific doctrine is strictly necessary I suppose, but the Christian society that neglects the Bible is headed for trouble. I've seen Europe's substitutes for Jesus, and I'm not impressed with their track record


Let me guess: you're disappointed with Europe for rejecting Creationism and Fundamentalism.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,09:59   

Eric Murphy:

   
Quote
But which is the real reason these other civilizations never reached the heights (if that's the proper term) of Judeo-Christian culture? Is it because there's something inherently pro-civilization about Judaism and/or Christianity (seems doubtful) or is because they peaked earlier in time than European culture?

If you could teleport back to, say, the 14th century, and could get a global perspective on the civilizations in existence at the time, I doubt you'd have any reason to single out Europe as any kind of future center of civilization or culture. You'd probably see China as the dominant culture on the planet. Central America probably would have looked pretty promising too.


Wow. I could write pages and pages. Let's just say that Judaism and Christianity place more emphasis on independent thinking than other religions do. This is why the West has a robust view of civil liberties despite the Church's concerted efforts to quash heretical groups and anti-Christian expression.

That will have to do for now....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,10:05   


   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,10:09   

Arfin' Nutmeld:

 
Quote
Let me guess: you're disappointed with Europe for rejecting Creationism and Fundamentalism.


Not as disappointed as they will be. France and Germany are already hurtin' economically, British youths are turning into thugs, crime rates are rising across Europe.......how long until a crisis erupts, I wonder? Clichy-sous-Bois just dropped off its perch.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,10:24   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2006,15:05)

That is pretty funny.

A Reaction

more

While I do not believe the majority of British muslims preach violence. There seems to be a wierd World reaction to a speach by the pope.

A large percentage of muslims seem to be saying...."If you say Islam is intolerant we will resort to violence".

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,12:00   

Lawrence Auster has been blogging on all things Islam lately. He's even more radical on the subject than I. Good stuff on the Pope.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,17:18   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 19 2006,15:09)
   
Quote
Let me guess: you're disappointed with Europe for rejecting Creationism and Fundamentalism.


Not as disappointed as they will be. France and Germany are already hurtin' economically, British youths are turning into thugs, crime rates are rising across Europe.......how long until a crisis erupts, I wonder?

And you think that's because they rejected fundamentalism and creationism.

And you think that these things don't happen in America, at least not in conservative, religious areas.

Wow.

You're far, far stupider than I even thought. And I already thought you were pretty stupid.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,17:39   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 19 2006,15:09)
Arfin' Nutmeld:

 
Quote
Let me guess: you're disappointed with Europe for rejecting Creationism and Fundamentalism.


Not as disappointed as they will be. France and Germany are already hurtin' economically, British youths are turning into thugs, crime rates are rising across Europe.......how long until a crisis erupts, I wonder? Clichy-sous-Bois just dropped off its perch.

And one day soon, their violent crime rate may even rival ours.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,08:05   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 19 2006,15:24)
[quote=stevestory,Sep. 19 2006,15:05]

While I do not believe the majority of British muslims preach violence. There seems to be a wierd World reaction to a speach by the pope.

A large percentage of muslims seem to be saying...."If you say Islam is intolerant we will resort to violence".

Muslims believe that you sumit to Islam or the follower of Islam by violence where possible or by lying when needed.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,08:23   

Quote (tsig @ Sep. 20 2006,13:05)
[quote=Stephen Elliott,Sep. 19 2006,15:24]
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2006,15:05)


While I do not believe the majority of British muslims preach violence. There seems to be a wierd World reaction to a speach by the pope.

A large percentage of muslims seem to be saying...."If you say Islam is intolerant we will resort to violence".

Muslims believe that you sumit to Islam or the follower of Islam by violence where possible or by lying when needed.

I have had no expeience of that. Out of the group of 8 people I am in at work there are 2 Hindis 1 Sikh 3 muslims and 2 non denomination. No submitting to violence happening.

I have worked in 4 muslim countries and had no major problems. IMO it is a minority of eejits that are stirring up trouble (in Britain). That minority is very vocal however and if you lived in an area where you only saw muslim people on the news you could be forgiven for thinking that muslim=intolerance.

It apears to me that at least 3 things are responsible for the way muslims apear to other people.
1-The behaviour of the more extreme members.
2-The way the media report news.
3-The almost silence and unwillingness to criticise fellow muslims by moderates.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,11:31   

S. Elliot:

Quote
I have had no expeience of that. Out of the group of 8 people I am in at work there are 2 Hindis 1 Sikh 3 muslims and 2 non denomination. No submitting to violence happening.


Actually, my experiences mirror this. I find the vast majority of Muslims cordial and reserved, although several have gotten agitated when Israel is discussed. The main problem, however, is....

Quote
3-The almost silence and unwillingness to criticise fellow muslims by moderates.


This is the biggie. If a culture can't control its extremism, then the extremists control the culture. And if you don't try to fix a problem, then you are part of the problem IMHO. I don't see a way around this dilemma.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,12:18   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 20 2006,16:31)
Quote
3-The almost silence and unwillingness to criticise fellow muslims by moderates.


This is the biggie. If a culture can't control its extremism, then the extremists control the culture. And if you don't try to fix a problem, then you are part of the problem IMHO. I don't see a way around this dilemma.

And to think - this is how Bush thinks we should behave in America.  Disgusting, is it not?

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,12:39   

Midnight Voice:

   
Quote
And to think - this is how Bush thinks we should behave in America.  Disgusting, is it not?


Eh?????? I don't understand. If this is meant as a criticism, then I'm doubly confused, since as an Irishman you'd understand better than anyone the danger in enabling/tolerating terrorist violence (and this is coming from someone who loves Irish culture). As an Amurican from the Christian Right, I know that we don't do enough to combat the likes of Eric Rudolph, because even though secular philosophers played a role in his actions, Christian rhetoric encouraged him and some Christians even shielded him from the authorities.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,13:39   

7 Popes:

             
Quote
And one day soon, their violent crime rate may even rival ours.


While the European homicide rates are lower than ours, overall violent crime levels were generally much higher in the EU than the U.S. However, the latest victimisation surveys do indicate an overall decrease in the EU since the turn of the millenium. I bet the US still wins, though.

Any more myths you'd care to share with us?



Arfin':

       
Quote
And you think that's because they rejected fundamentalism and creationism.

And you think that these things don't happen in America, at least not in conservative, religious areas.

Wow.

You're far, far stupider than I even thought. And I already thought you were pretty stupid.


See, this is why liberals have to censor their opponents: they can't handle the evidence and therefore must resort to tu quoque and ad hominem arguments. America's situation -- which is better than Europe's, incidentally-- has little to do with Europe's problems. And yes, I blame much of this decline on replacing Jesus with multiculturalism and Big Brother.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,14:34   

Here's one (rather old) statistic on Australian Muslims:

   
Quote
In 1996 the unemployment rate of Muslims in Australia was 25 per cent, compared to eight per cent for United Kingdom and Irish-born, and nine per cent for the Australian-born and national total, in spite of the fact that the Muslims' skill levels were almost equivalent both to the Australian-born and the national total. Muslims were also better represented in higher and bachelor degree education than the other groups. Many Muslims believe their Islamic culture, which is exposed by their names and dress code, affects their employment opportunities. They are perceived to be 'different' from the dominant population because of their Muslim names such as 'Muhammad', 'Abdullah', 'Ahmed', 'Ayesha' or 'Fatima'. Muslim women's traditional attire or Islamic dress code, the abaya or chador (long dress or big shawl) and hijab (headscarf) also make them culturally conspicuous. Their cultural identity immediately reveals that the applicant for a job is not a 'native' and belongs to a different ethnic background. In consequence it is believed they may not be able to assimilate to the employing company's culture, which is Anglo-Celtic Christian or Australian.


This group of vocal atheists doesn't care much for Islam.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,15:12   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 20 2006,18:39)
           
Quote
And you think that's because they rejected fundamentalism and creationism.

And you think that these things don't happen in America, at least not in conservative, religious areas.

Wow.

You're far, far stupider than I even thought. And I already thought you were pretty stupid.


See, this is why liberals have to censor their opponents: they can't handle the evidence and therefore must resort to tu quoque and ad hominem arguments. America's situation -- which is better than Europe's, incidentally-- has little to do with Europe's problems. And yes, I blame much of this decline on replacing Jesus with multiculturalism and Big Brother.

That's not what you SAID, doofus.

(And no one is censoring you, so lose the martyr complex.)

What you SAID was that Europe's crime rate is due to evolution and their abandoning fundamentalism.

And yet, the US has a HIGHER crime rate than Europe, even tho most Americans don't accept Evolution and we're crawling with fundies.

So your theory makes no sense. AGAIN. Another stupid theory of yours.

But if you really love your theory, please prove to us why nonfundamentalism and evolution cause Europe's LOWER CRIME RATE. I could use the laughs. I think I could more easily make an argument that accepting Darwinism lowers crime.

You think I 'can't handle the evidence? YOU are the one making the stupid assertion, so YOU must provide the evidence.

Just like when you prove the sun revolves around the earth, right?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,16:02   

Arfin'

 
Quote
But if you really love your theory, please prove to us why nonfundamentalism and evolution cause Europe's LOWER CRIME RATE. I could use the laughs. I think I could more easily make an argument that accepting Darwinism lowers crime.


Europe doesn't have a lower crime rate. Or didn't you read the links I just gave? And why don't you try proving your assertion that....

 
Quote
I think I could more easily make an argument that accepting Darwinism lowers crime.


.....if you're so sure of yourself?

 
Quote
You think I 'can't handle the evidence? YOU are the one making the stupid assertion, so YOU must provide the evidence.

Just like when you prove the sun revolves around the earth, right?


You just made a claim yourself. Why does the burden of proof rest solely on my shoulders?

Typical liberal....stacks the deck cause he can't win a fair debate....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,01:33   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 20 2006,17:39)
Eh?????? I don't understand. If this is meant as a criticism, then I'm doubly confused, since as an Irishman you'd understand better than anyone the danger in enabling/tolerating terrorist violence (and this is coming from someone who loves Irish culture). As an Amurican from the Christian Right

Hmm.  I am hardly surprised at you lack of understanding, it is what I would expect from an Amurican from the Christian Right.

And bilingual I am, but Irish I am not. But thanks for the compliment.  Next you will really compliment me and think I am a woman  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,04:32   

MidnightVoice:

 
Quote
Hmm.  I am hardly surprised at you lack of understanding, it is what I would expect from an Amurican from the Christian Right.

And bilingual I am, but Irish I am not. But thanks for the compliment.  Next you will really compliment me and think I am a woman  


They have operations for that, you know. Check the Ann Coulter threads.

OK, wiseguy, if you're from the UK but not "British" or "Irish", then are you a Scotsman or Welshman? Or from a former colony? And please explain my "lack of understanding".

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,09:04   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 21 2006,09:32)
OK, wiseguy, if you're from the UK but not "British" or "Irish", then are you a Scotsman or Welshman? Or from a former colony? And please explain my "lack of understanding".

American

I assume it lack of mental ability

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,09:19   



I told ya that looks can be deceiving! Who's next?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,05:49   

Where have you gone, Faid De-doctor-o, a forum turns its lonely eyes to you, whoo-hoo-hoo....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,00:32   

I take this claim has been abandoned in light of GoP's new venue for touting racist bullshit?

Anyway, since I am still excruciatingly busy, you'll STILL have to wait. Although I did discover a variety of useful stats from the ONS, I'll post them when I have time.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,05:12   

Louis, I've abandoned nothing. It's just that no one has refuted anything I said, so what else can I do? You asked for stats, I gave em to ya, and then you and Faid went away. And what racism have I been "touting"? I thought I was criticising Diamond's racism. Since when does criticising inherent mental differences = racism? You liberals don't make a lick of sense.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,05:37   

Ghosty,

No has refuted anything? Not from where, um, everyone else is looking! Anyway that aside, you STILL haven't demonstrated the original claim this thread was designed for you to defend. You've used it for your ever twisted views on race etc. You've then gone to the other thread and started the same schtick there.

I've gone away because of work, and I don't know where Faid has gone. I have read the thread today so that I was up to speed on what had and hadn't been said. You really haven't demonstrated this claim you know. You've wanked on about avenues of escape and silly comments about bashing and liberals as usual, but you haven't defended the one claim you have actually said you would. Like I've said a gazillion times,the vast majority of this thread is totally irrelevant (or at best tangentially relevant). We've had a definition (sort of) we've had a few attempts at some stats, but they don't really cut the mustard. Especially as (in some cases) you've tried to be honest and show stats that don't support your point.

The state of you demonstrating your claim is in that wonderful area we all knew it would go: yes there are some things a bit naughty about some muslims at the moment, and this is hidden by the standard GoP bullshit about liberals and race.

Oh and stop trying to be igenuous. Your race comments on the other thread are not restricted to Diamond.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,06:06   

Hi Louis,

I am interested in discussing this (with regards the UK). Got to admit that I do not get the impression that the muslim community is adapting to the British way of life.

If you have any arguments against my view, I would be happy to hear them.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,06:14   

Louis:

 
Quote
Ghosty,

No has refuted anything? Not from where, um, everyone else is looking! Anyway that aside, you STILL haven't demonstrated the original claim this thread was designed for you to defend. You've used it for your ever twisted views on race etc. You've then gone to the other thread and started the same schtick there.


1) Speed kills, Louis. I suggest you take this advice to heart.  :(

2) You don't know it, but you just won an informal bet I had with one of my friends. I said, "I'll bet as soon as I present my stats on European Muslims, Louis will find a "pressing" engagement, leave for a while, and then come back and pretend that I never presented any evidence". My friend said, "The problem with you Paley is you judge others too much. This guy is just wanting you to support your side." Well, my friend is right -- I am quick to judge, and this is a sin. But I must say, debating liberals makes this sin a very tempting one. This thread is an example why.

Louis, just after my stats presentation, you said:

Quote
Ghosty,

Thanks for the wealth of stats and information.


So you admitted at the time that I showed you some evidence; you even called it a "wealth". Since then, you have rebutted none of it. Now you're acting like I haven't shown anything. Are you beginning to see why liberals have such a bad reputation?

Quote
The state of you demonstrating your claim is in that wonderful area we all knew it would go: yes there are some things a bit naughty about some muslims at the moment, and this is hidden by the standard GoP bullshit about liberals and race.

Oh and stop trying to be igenuous. Your race comments on the other thread are not restricted to Diamond.


Then you should have no problems citing a racist comment. So cite it, you big Dhimmi.  :D  :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,06:17   

By the way, nice to have you back, Louis -- I missed your unique brand of commentary.  ;)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,07:10   

GoP,

Hold on. Where did I say you've posted no stats?

That's right, nowhere. What I DID say is that (as usual) your stats don't show what you think they show.

Now then Ghosty, let's learn to fucking read shall we? I didn't say racist comments I said "race comments" and I was refering to the fact that these comment weren't restricted to Diamond. Shit Ghosty, try harder.

You can cast aspertions on my having to work bloody hard all you like Ghosty. Forgive me if I note the irony and utter inappropriateness of your comment due to the fact that you have written a large number of cheques you cannot pay.

Anyway, stop this fucking about, I don't have the stats I downloaded the other day on this PC, so you'll have to wait. And yes, I'm still fucking busy. Tough.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2006,15:45   

Thought I'd share this article outlining how Muslims are seamlessly integrated into British society.

Quote
Trouble centred on the Jamea Masjid mosque in Clarendon Street, Avenham, for more than four hours last night (Sunday) and led to a massive policing operation.

Preston's police chief said the problems were triggered by local youths throwing stones at cars belonging to people attending the mosque.

This sparked a response from around 200 people inside the mosque who came out to defend those under attack.

It resulted in one 16-year-old Asian youth being stabbed in the arm, but ambulance crews were turned back as the police felt it was too dangerous for them to enter the scene.

Fighting continued into the early hours and led to police requiring back-up from officers as far away as Lancaster and Burnley.

Chief Supt Mike Barton, divisional commander for the area, said more than 100 officers were deployed and he was treating the incident as race-related.

He said: "Some people I spoke to at the mosque insisted it wasn't racial but I think some people at the mosque believe it was.

"Until we actually find the offenders and speak to them, and because some people believe it to be racial, then that's how we'll treat it."


Of course the "local youths" started it, but still......

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2006,16:05   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 04 2006,20:45)
Thought I'd share this article outlining how Muslims are seamlessly integrated into British society.

 
Quote
Trouble centred on the Jamea Masjid mosque in Clarendon Street, Avenham, for more than four hours last night (Sunday) and led to a massive policing operation.

Preston's police chief said the problems were triggered by local youths throwing stones at cars belonging to people attending the mosque.

This sparked a response from around 200 people inside the mosque who came out to defend those under attack.

It resulted in one 16-year-old Asian youth being stabbed in the arm, but ambulance crews were turned back as the police felt it was too dangerous for them to enter the scene.

Fighting continued into the early hours and led to police requiring back-up from officers as far away as Lancaster and Burnley.

Chief Supt Mike Barton, divisional commander for the area, said more than 100 officers were deployed and he was treating the incident as race-related.

He said: "Some people I spoke to at the mosque insisted it wasn't racial but I think some people at the mosque believe it was.

"Until we actually find the offenders and speak to them, and because some people believe it to be racial, then that's how we'll treat it."


Of course the "local youths" started it, but still......

Next week in the GoP times:

Millions of peacefull Muslims do nothing newsworthy exclusive!

Twat.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2006,14:41   

Tard Cap:

 
Quote
Next week in the GoP times:

Millions of peacefull Muslims do nothing newsworthy exclusive!

Twat.


Tell it to French cops:

 
Quote
Muslims are waging civil war against us, claims police union
By David Rennie, Europe Correspondent
(Filed: 05/10/2006)



Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day.

 
Interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy was warned of an 'intifada'


As the interior ministry said that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year, a police union declared that its members were "in a state of civil war" with Muslims in the most depressed "banlieue" estates which are heavily populated by unemployed youths of north African origin.

It said the situation was so grave that it had asked the government to provide police with armoured cars to protect officers in the estates, which are becoming no-go zones.

The number of attacks has risen by a third in two years. Police representatives told the newspaper Le Figaro that the "taboo" of attacking officers on patrol has been broken.


Instead, officers – especially those patrolling in pairs or small groups – faced attacks as soon as they tried to arrest locals.

Senior officers insisted that the problem was essentially criminal in nature, with crime bosses on the estates fighting back against tough tactics.

The interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also the leading centre-Right candidate for the presidency, has sent heavily equipped units into areas with orders to regain control from drug smuggling gangs and other organised crime rings. Such aggressive raids were "disrupting the underground economy in the estates", one senior official told Le Figaro.

However, not all officers on the ground accept that essentially secular interpretation. Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the hardline Action Police trade union, has written to Mr Sarkozy warning of an "intifada" on the estates and demanding that officers be given armoured cars in the most dangerous areas.

He said yesterday: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

He added: "We need armoured vehicles and water cannon. They are the only things that can disperse crowds of hundreds of people who are trying to kill police and burn their vehicles."

However, Gerard Demarcq, of the largest police unions, Alliance, dismissed talk of an "intifada" as representing the views of only a minority.

Mr Demarcq said that the increased attacks on officers were proof that the policy of "retaking territory" from criminal gangs was working.

Mayors in the worst affected suburbs, which saw weeks of riots and car-burning a year ago, have expressed fears of a vicious circle, as attacks by locals lead the police to harden their tactics, further increasing resentment.

As if to prove that point, there were angry reactions in the western Paris suburb of Les Mureaux following dawn raids in search of youths who attacked a police unit on Sunday. The raids led to one arrest. They followed clashes on Sunday night when scores of youths attacked seven officers who had tried to arrest a man for not wearing his seat belt while driving. That driver refused to stop, and later rammed a police car trying to block his path.

The mayor of Les Mureaux, Francois Garay, criticised aggressive police tactics that afterwards left "the people on the ground to pick up the pieces".


--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2006,16:48   

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5387062.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5393358.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5408784.stm

Never trust white male christians with guns.

Louis

P.S. No doubt Gippy you will be as dismayed and annoyed by the assessment (fake) I jocularly made above. But you aren't demonstrating your claim on this thread and you know it. Posting snippets of news don't cut the mustard and you know this. You'll get your stats in a few days.

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,06:15   

Here are some more stats. Check the chart out -- it's pretty cool.

 
Quote
Unemployment rates for Muslims are higher than those for people from any other religion, for both men and women.

In 2004, Muslims had the highest male unemployment rate in Great Britain, at 13 per cent. This was about three times the rate for Christian men (4 per cent). Unemployment rates for men in the other religious groups were between 3 and 8 per cent.

The unemployment rate for Muslim women at 18 per cent was about four times the rate for Christian and Jewish women (4 per cent in each case). Unemployment rates for women in the other religious groups were between 6 per cent and 9 per cent.

Unemployment rates were highest among those aged under 25 years for all religious groups. Muslims aged 16 to 24 years had the highest unemployment rates. They were over twice as likely as Christians of the same age to be unemployed – 28 per cent compared with 11 per cent.

Although unemployment rates for older Muslims were lower, there was a greater difference between their unemployment rates and those for people from other religious backgrounds. Muslims aged 25 and over were more than three times as likely as Christians of the same age to be unemployed – 11 per cent and 3 per cent respectively.
Men and women of working age from the Muslim faith are also more likely than other groups in Great Britain to be economically inactive, that is, not available for work and/or not actively seeking work. Reasons include being a student, being disabled or looking after the family and home.

Among working age men, Muslims had the highest overall levels of economic inactivity in 2004 – 31 per cent compared with 16 per cent of Christians. This is partly explained by the young age profile of Muslims and the correspondingly high proportion of students. However, among older men of working age, Muslims also tended to have the highest levels of economic inactivity, largely due to ill health.


Here are some more:

 
Quote
Among men in employment, Jews and Hindus are the most likely to work in managerial or professional occupations – about half in each group in 2004. One in 20 Hindu men was a medical practitioner in 2004 compared with one in 200 Christian men.

Muslim and Sikh men are the least likely to be working in managerial or professional occupations (less than a third of these groups), and the most likely to be working in low skilled jobs. In 2004, almost one in ten Muslim men was a taxi driver, cab driver or chauffeur. This was much higher than the proportion in any other group.

The proportion of Christian men working in managerial or professional occupations is similar to that for Muslims and Sikhs, at around 30 per cent. However, Christian men are more likely than Muslims and Sikhs to be working in skilled trade jobs. Christian men are also less likely than Muslims to be in low skilled jobs.

Patterns are similar for women, although not as pronounced. Jewish and Buddhist women are the most likely to work in managerial or professional occupations. Sikh women are the most likely to be working in low skilled jobs. Around one in ten Sikh women was working as a process, plant and machine operative in 2004 compared with around 3 per cent in most other groups.

Muslim, Hindu and Sikh women are concentrated in sales and customer service jobs (between 16 and 20 per cent), compared with 12 per cent among Christians and those with no religion.


Christians aren't great by this metric, but they still beat Muslims overall (Muslim women have a slight advantage, though).

Hey Louis, if you want to argue crime rates, I'm game.

Here's another article:

Quote
LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Britain's Muslims are more than twice as likely to be unemployed than followers of other faiths and up to five times as likely to live in overcrowded housing, a major survey has revealed.

Published by the Office of National Statistics, the survey has been hailed as the most detailed snapshot taken of Britain's increasingly diverse population.

For the first time, it analyzes the country along its religious as well as its ethnic lines.

Britain's Muslims have come under increasing scrutiny since July last year when four British Islamists carried out suicide bombings in London.

Some critics have urged Muslims to do more to integrate themselves into wider British society and to stamp out Islamist extremism in their midst.

Many Muslims and social commentators say the community's problems stem from poverty and discrimination rather than religious intransigence, and have urged the government to do more to address such issues.

Based on data from the 2001 national census, the 162-page study paints a relatively bleak picture of life for Britain's 1.8 million Muslims, most of whom are ethnic Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.

"Of the different religious groups, unemployment rates among Muslims were more than double those in other groups," it found.

Some 17 percent of Muslim men and 18 percent of Muslim women were unemployed compared to just five percent of Christian men and four percent of Christian women. "Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Black African groups had low levels of participation in the labor market," the study found.

"Their high unemployment rates suggest that even when active in the labor market they experienced difficulties finding employment."

A third of Muslims lived in households which, according to the census definition, were overcrowded, compared to just six percent of Britain's Christians.

Some 44 percent of ethnic Bangladeshi and 26 percent of ethnic Pakistani households were deemed to be overcrowded, against an average for the country of seven percent.

In a country of nearly 59 million where home ownership is widespread and regarded as a key measure of wealth, Muslims were less likely to own their own houses than followers of other faiths.

Just over half of Muslim households owned their houses compared to a national average of nearly 70 percent.


--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,09:56   

I believe that GoP has a point here. Only talking about Britain but Muslims are not integrating.

Let me be clear, I am talking about a % of them, but it is a large % I think.

There has been many problems recently and it appears to be a clash of cultures. Two stories have emerged in Windsor this week:

1) Is a feud in an estate about a dairy expansion and building a mosque.

2) Is a house being vandalised and graffitid to prevent soldiers moving in.

Also we have had Jack Straws comments being considered an outrage.

Then there was the fuss about the popes comments.

IMO Islam in the UK contains extremists. I personally believe that the majority of muslims are OK. Yet they do not seem to want to criticise the extreme elements in their community.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,12:25   

Gippy,

LOL So you've found the website of the ONS! Good, that's where my stats come from. You'd be amazed what an hoonest treatment of them shows, because it ain't what you think. I'll just have to ask you to wait until I'm on the other PC and I can get that sodding doc I left there.

_


Steve,

Some muslims aren't integrating? Certainly none of the ones I've met. How did the Africans, Carribeans, Sikhs, Hindus, Europeans and various other immigrants integrate early on? Did they all have the same grievances against the "West", whether or not those grievances are valid or not.

What amuses me about this is I am defending muslims, who's religion (like christianity) I find utterly abhorrent. I firmly believe that a tolerance of moderate religion promotes fundamentalism and prevents it from scrutiny.

News stories are all GoP seems to have (although he has selectively quoted the ONS, as I will show), what about the myriad unwritten news stories? "Muslim goes to work, comes home, has tea. No bombings. film at 11". Personally I don't believe the hype. What I DO believe is that, yes the muslim community (particularly Iqbal Sacranie et al) are very reluctant to criticise the vileness of extremist islam, however it is ever thus. Are we Brits less hypocritical? What of OUR attrocities? Massacres in colonial India, near genocide in the South seas, constant interference and aggression against the Middle East, the list goes on. We are far from whiter than white.

Breaking news: when two different groups mix, there are inevitable tensions and conflicts. Don't believe me? Go to a family wedding! The groups don't need to be as big and diverse as a race or religion. Overemotive nonsense which abrogates the REAL target of blame is pointless. Religion in all its forms is where we have to look, and what we have to eradicate. Obviously in practice this is unobtainable outside of totalitarian horror, and so isn't desirable in the least. However, what we CAN, and should do, is remove the societal protection religious beliefs have. If anyone cries "that offends my religion" our reply shouldn't be "sorry" or "fuck you" but "so what? What the hecky thump does your religion have to do with anything? Sorry chum, your religion is your business alone".

How best to illustrate this? Hmmmm. Well there is a school of islamic thought (particualrly Wahhabist) that states if a muslim on the other side of the world is cut, then I (were I a muslim) bleed. This is yet another "them and us" in group/out group identity issue. Gippy is trying to prove that white male christians are the bees knees because he is a white (presumably) male(possibly) christian (unfortunately). He's trying to reinforce his in group identity. How is this obvious? because he is trying desperately to focus on the differences he sees as significant when let's be honest they ain't.

I'm sure you remember better than I the 70s and 80s when the NI troubles were rife. Irish catholics, and Irish people in general were under the same suspicion that muslims are now. Unfortunately for muslims in Britain now, world events involve their brethren and the tabloids are having a field day tarring all with the same brush.

Unfortunately Gippy's argument amounts to no more than "'Ere they come over 'ere, with their heathen lingo and clothes and steal our jobs. And their food tastes funny!" Different cultures clash? Fuck me, really? Guess what, demonising people, patronising them, giving in to them and pulling out hair and crying "oh WHY aren't they integrating" doesn't cut it. Unfortunately that's what our government is doing. What people need to see is that British society has a place for them, and that's fucking hard to acheive and I'm certainly not wise enough to know the answer to it. I have a couple of ideas, but I can't be sure they're any good.

Anyway,enough of this crap. Gippy's actually done something serious ish and quoted good stats. Time for me to get that sodding document from work.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2006,07:19   

Hey Louis,

I am not disputing most of what you wrote.

What I am talking about is that right now in the UK a fairly large % of Muslims are feeling alienated and dislike the UK. I believe they are probably a minority but it is a breeding ground for conflict.

Example: Walking to work through Slough on the morning of Sep 11 2003, posters where all over the place celebrating the atacks on the USA and casting the perpetrators as heroes.

There was way too many of these stickers to have been done by a small group. That indicated to me that where I lived a large number of people thought it was cool to have all those people killed. I wont deny that caused me concern.

Then the bombings on London transport. Somebody found British born muslims who hated the country they where born in so much they killed themselves to cause it harm. Killing fellow muslims while doing so.

Next the protests in London about a cartoon in a Danish newspaper. Masses of people screaming for death and destruction because of cartoons.

Now this nonesense about Jack Straw insulting Islam because he prefers to see the face of somebody he is talking to.

It all beggars belief. I don't doubt that the majority of Muslims are OK. Every muslim I know personaly I can get-on with.

But something is very wrong that so many feel so outraged about UK life.

Don't get me wrong. I do not hate muslims or people of any race/religion. But I do hate this extremism we are facing. Now, I believe we have a problem in the Uk and would like to discuss it, preferably without calls of racism/islamophobia.

If you have no interest in the subject, just say so and I will STFU about it.

I really would only like to talk about it with somebody I can respect and GoP (as much as he amuses me) "don't cut the mustard".

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2006,07:47   

Stephen,

I agree with you about, well, everything there! I'm dead curious about the topic too, which is why I picked this claim of Gippy's. I don't know enough about it to have a properly informed opinion initially, so I am granting everyone concerned the benefit of the doubt, and learning on the fly.

So don't STFU in any way at all! The cultural clashes between immigrants and host nation are nothing new, as I'm sure you know. This one will fade in time as fashions change. Like you said, many of your/my muslim chums are as English as they can be. There is some "anglicisation" process that happens, so change does happen on the immigrant side. If there is a great deal of alienation then we might just have to change a little ourselves. Secularising education and law would be a blinding good start. No faith schools because it turns into "me too" segregation. Bin all religious holidays and just up the amount of holiday people can take so that they can celebrate whatever holy days they wish. Stand firm on freedom of speech, make sure everyone realises it cuts both ways (i.e. if you don't like muslim hate speech or the BNP then listen to neither, or better still refute, rebutt and counter these people intellectually). If people wnat to build a mosque, go right ahead, but make sure you don't fall foul of the noise pollution laws etc.

We don't have to lose our British identity to accomodate immigrants, but we do have to demonstrate a coherent policy which doesn'tbias things in our favour. That might go a long way to helping. Of course, just my opinion little more.

There's one thing that sort of worries me. Where was this British self analysis during the IRA's most active periods? My guess is that the little I remember being there was due to the fact that we all knew why the IRA were doing what they are doing. Our part in the conflict was well understood. I think the propaganda and bullshit we are subjected to now hinders a rational persepctive on the current issue. I shall have to think on it more.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2006,09:03   

Luois,

For the life of me I cannot see why Ireland issues enter the picture.

That IIRC was an enmity issue that went back to he middle ages and a topic of national identity.

We (the British) was stuck with a Northern Ireland population that wanted to stay British with a vote of 2 or 3 to 1.

The republicans wanted a united Ireland regardless of a vote.

But what relevance does this have to do with some British muslims hating Britain?

Damned if I know.

The other point is, why should I feel guilty about what Britain did before I was born? I had no say in the matter (obviously). So why is it my/our fault?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2006,10:55   

Another example of Muslims smoothly integrating into their host society:

 
Quote
Plans for a Muslim-only hospital in Holland have sparked a heated debate over its separate all-male and all-female wings, halal food and roster of duty imams.

A populist Right-wing party described the plan for the clinic in south Rotterdam as "a step backwards to the Middle Ages".

There will be segregation between the sexes, with male patients treated by an exclusively male nursing and medical staff and similar arrangements for females.

Holland's once proud multi-cultural model, which promoted tolerance of a rapidly growing immigrant population, has been sharply questioned in recent years, especially after the murder of the film-maker Theo van Gogh by an Islamic radical.

The latest row concerns plans for a private hospital aimed at members of Holland's one million Muslims.
It is the brainchild of a health industry entrepreneur, Paul Sturkenboom, who plans to employ 45 doctors and 275 nurses. Staff will not have to be Muslims.


Do non-Muslims get serviced? The article doesn't make it clear. I don't remember Catholic hospitals turning away non-Catholics.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2006,12:05   

Louis:

Quote
So don't STFU in any way at all! The cultural clashes between immigrants and host nation are nothing new, as I'm sure you know. This one will fade in time as fashions change. Like you said, many of your/my muslim chums are as English as they can be. There is some "anglicisation" process that happens, so change does happen on the immigrant side. If there is a great deal of alienation then we might just have to change a little ourselves.


Soft, soothing words. Too bad history doesn't bear any of this out. And read "just have to change a little ourselves" in the sense that your dentist says, "this just might have to hurt a little." One thing reading immigration history has taught me is that you never take anything a liberal says on faith. Look at how Ted Kennedy and the rest told one outrageous lie after another during the debates over the 1965 Immigration Act.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2006,05:39   

Here's some background to the Windsor riots that won't make it to the MSM:

Quote
Compared to the furore over Jack Straw’s remarks about the niqab, or blackout veil, relatively little has been written about the disturbances that have been going on in Windsor for several nights. They should not have been downplayed. They are important and highly alarming.

They have been referred to in passing as attacks by white youths on a Muslim-run dairy which provoked reprisal attacks by Muslim youths. Reading various stories about these incidents, including here, here, here and others that are not available on line, a rather different account takes shape. Clearly, these stories still leave a lot of things unknown, but as far as I can piece things together what happened was this.

Three years ago, Sardar Hussein opened the Medina Dairy on the site of an old Express dairy. This became a source of tension. Locals claimed that the business expanded so much that the noise made by the lorries serving the dairy was unbearable. The locals also claimed that dairy staff had intimidated people walking past the firm and barred entry to the road which runs between its two premises, a shortcut to the local primary school, a claim that the owner denied.

Tensions rose much further, however, when he applied for planning permission to build a mosque and Islamic complex on the site. Those opposing the conversion claim the 500 Muslims who live in Windsor, out of a population of more than 30,000, are not enough to warrant a mosque. The planning application was rejected by Windsor and Maidenhead council this year because the area was meant for industrial use. The owner appealed and a decision is expected shortly.

However, despite the refusal of planning permission it seems the dairy was being used for prayers, and locals say it has already attracted a hard-core element of fundamentalists. Staff at the dairy, on the other hand, say that before last week’s disturbances they have faced verbal abuse, their cars have been damaged and stones, bricks and bottles have been thrown at the buildings.

The incident that started the chain of events last week appears to have been when 15 year-old Sean Hayes and a friend were beaten up by worshippers outside the mosque. His mother, Karen Hayes and her 18 year-old daughter Emily went to confront the mob but were themselves set upon by a gang of 20 shaven-headed worshippers dressed in white robes and armed with baseball bats, iron bars and pitchforks.

That night, some 30 white youths smashed windows at the dairy, and during disturbances over the next few days a petrol bomb was thrown at it by a youth on a scooter. Meanwhile, according to local residents, gangs of youths took to the streets chanting: ‘We are getting our mosque.’
Some men have been arrested, but the police were reported as saying that it was unlikely that the mob would be brought to justice, even though knives and iron bars had been found and were connected to staff at the dairy. According to a senior police officer, communal distrust was being exploited by extreme elements within the Muslim community and by neo-fascists.

Meanwhile the Sun reported on Saturday that Muslims wrecked a house in a village near Windsor to stop four soldiers moving in after returning from duty in Afghanistan. The house had bricks thrown through its windows and was daubed with abusive messages. The four young Household Cavalry officers who had planned to rent it were also the target of phone threats from Muslims and were forced to look elsewhere to live.

Windsor offers a foretaste of an extremely alarming scenario. Muslims behave aggressively, either physically or by refusing to accept decisions that go against them. No-one does anything. Tensions rise, Islamic extremist reinforcements arrive and then the neo-fascists start mixing it to foment much greater violence and disorder. Muslims and non-Muslims come under attack. The media then decide that white racists are to blame and look nowhere else. The real cause of the problem is concealed, and the problem replicates itself elsewhere with exactly the same response..

The wider silence is the worst of it.


Hmmmm......sounds familiar......

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2006,06:34   

Funny you should post that Ghost. Windsor is where I am living atm.

IMO the problems between muslims and wider British society appear to be orchestrated to some degree.

The 2 incidents you mention do not seem like spur-of-the-moment occurences for a couple of reasons.

1) After the atack on the woman caused a backlash, muslims from Slough arrived on the scene before the police did.

Now if I was in fear of my life, the police would be the people I called 1st not some friends in another town.

2) The atack on the house happened in 1 swoop rather than a build up from smaller incidents.

I readilly admit that the situation in the UK between Islamic radicals and the rest of society worries me. Not because I think Islam will overthrow our way-of-life, but the governments pathetic hand-wringing is likely to see the problems rise and feed Nazi-type sympathy. I do not want the BNP to gain more support but I would predict it happening if things don't change.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2006,15:06   

Quote
Funny you should post that Ghost. Windsor is where I am living atm.

IMO the problems between muslims and wider British society appear to be orchestrated to some degree.

The 2 incidents you mention do not seem like spur-of-the-moment occurences for a couple of reasons.


The response may have been planned. Does this worry you more, or less?

 
Quote
I readilly admit that the situation in the UK between Islamic radicals and the rest of society worries me. Not because I think Islam will overthrow our way-of-life, but the governments pathetic hand-wringing is likely to see the problems rise and feed Nazi-type sympathy. I do not want the BNP to gain more support but I would predict it happening if things don't change.


Yeah, remember the Cronulla beach riots in Australia? The civilised people wouldn't do their duty, so the yobbos took over. It's all about filling niches, baby.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2006,21:16   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 09 2006,20:06)
   
Quote
Funny you should post that Ghost. Windsor is where I am living atm.

IMO the problems between muslims and wider British society appear to be orchestrated to some degree.

The 2 incidents you mention do not seem like spur-of-the-moment occurences for a couple of reasons.


The response may have been planned. Does this worry you more, or less?

 

More. Was that not clear in my post?

EDIT: BTW the "riot" reported in Windsor probably involved less than 100 people. Not exactly "riot" numbers. More like a large(ish) gang fight.

EDIT-2: I still believe the majority of UK muslims are just fine and dandy. There does seem to be a problem with alienation for a large percentage though. That alienation seems to be being exploited by extremists. Probably on both sides. 1 thing seems clear to me, current government policy is failing.

I am surprised that more people do not want to discuss this issue. Also dissapointed as this site has more intelligent/educated people posting than any other site I know of.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2006,04:36   

S. Elliot:

 
Quote
More. Was that not clear in my post?


Actually, no; I can see the arguments either way. In fact, I'm not sure which scenario scares me more myself.

 
Quote
EDIT: BTW the "riot" reported in Windsor probably involved less than 100 people. Not exactly "riot" numbers. More like a large(ish) gang fight.


True, but that's one more large-scale rumble than Windsor used to have (correct me if I'm wrong here). You have to understand something: I'm an American, I'm used to no-go zones and being targeted for violence/scamming/harrassment due to my race, so if America continues in this vein, what harm is done really? I just get depressed when people in formerly quiet, crime free countries import gang-rape and thuggery into their beautiful societies. Did you know that Swedish women used to leave their baby carriages on the sidewalk when they went into stores to do a little shopping? Now some girls are dying their blonde hair so they won't be gang-raped by roving packs of criminals. Most Muslims (or immigrants) might not be like this, but all it takes is a sizable minority and an ineffectual majority. Tell me Stephen....why, why, why would a country do this?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2006,09:19   

I hope that Louis will still present his statistics.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2006,15:56   

Gippy the Wonder Cunt,

Given:

a) your recent confession to trolling (an odious practice at the best of times). (Note I predicted this as one of two very plausible alternatives a LONG while back, as did others)

b) the fact that it's 2:37am here, I'm still working and therefore fucking busy in general (despite breaks such as this for light relief).

c) I'm still remote from the PC with the relevant file on it.

d) You've already found the UK govt stats site where I have taken all the info from, an HONEST quoting of the stats on that site refutes your "position" utterly as you undoubtably know.

I'm disinclined to bother. However, your particular brand of pointless scum will no doubt crow, and so I'll post the list when I get the chance.

Frankly given that you are a self confessed troll my opinion of you (singular or plural) has been revised downwards rather than upwards. It isn't about teams, I couldn't care less that you "believe in evolution" (something that's been obvious for a while btw) and thus are "on our side", I care that you've posted/behaved like an obnoxious twat. An opinion reinforced by your self confessed trolling. Dembskiesque "street theatre" one wonders?

From what I can gather from your posting habits as "CreoGippy" you (singular or plural) are (a) conceited egomaniac(s)  obsessed with your own self importance, and with FAR too much time on your hands (indicating no ACTUAL importance). Why should anyone expect "ReasonableDeistGippy" (with ALL NEW AVATAR!!!!;) to be any different? How are we to know this isn't the latest shell in an endless shell game.

Like I recently said, you're obviously a deluded little inadequate who behaves this way online because in real life the much deserved smack in the mouth you would undoubtably receive for such behaviour scares you pissless.

If you haven't got this extremely simple point yet Gippy I'll spell it out: creationism/religion/bigotry/pseudoscience are not things that I counter simply because they are different or opposed to my own views, but because they have no foundation in evidence, and thus espousing them is either: ignorant, stupid, dishonest or wicked. I'm not worried too much about the first two classes. The second I can't do much about. The first seems omnipresent regardless of the struggle against it (yet that struggle must go on). The third and fourth categories are what energise my opposition, especially the third.  In a forum limited by it's medium of communication we de facto have to be as honest as possible to have as productive a discussion as possible. By being dishonest (a la AFDave) the discussion is made unproductive. By being dishonest (a la Gippy) the discussion is rendered fucking pointless.

So it's about dishonesty Gippy, and by confessing to trollery you openly confessed to dishonesty. What a total waste of time and effort on everyone's part, most especially yours. Amusingly, you didn't even have the talent to do it successfully enough to fool people! How sad.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2006,11:00   

Muslims in Britain:

I no longer live in the UK, but I was born and rasied there, and am nearly as old as dirt.  In my youth it was the Caribean immigrants that were not integrating and hated Britain as an ex-Imperial power. And I remember riots over several decades (and I used to live near the "front line" at one time - anyone remember the Brixton Riots and the bus burning?). Nowadays, whilst they have many justifiable complaints, I don't think they all hate Britain, and I think they are on the way to integration to a degree.

I also used to live in Wandsworth, and just down the road was a Hugenot cemetry.  Those darned people took forever to integrate  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2006,09:27   

Quote (MidnightVoice @ Oct. 14 2006,16:00)
Muslims in Britain:

I no longer live in the UK, but I was born and rasied there, and am nearly as old as dirt.  In my youth it was the Caribean immigrants that were not integrating and hated Britain as an ex-Imperial power. And I remember riots over several decades (and I used to live near the "front line" at one time - anyone remember the Brixton Riots and the bus burning?). Nowadays, whilst they have many justifiable complaints, I don't think they all hate Britain, and I think they are on the way to integration to a degree.

I also used to live in Wandsworth, and just down the road was a Hugenot cemetry.  Those darned people took forever to integrate  :D

I am not getting that. Just been reading the stories from those imigrants (It was an aniversary of them being delliberately recruited for low paying jobs in the UK).

They had some absolute greivances. Example would be boarding houses displaying signs saying "no blacks" etc. They was initially only given low pay jobs regardless of qualifications. The UK at the time was only importing people to do those jobs.

That is not true now.

Right now the problem is very different.

The UK is getting imigrants from places that live very differently from us. Their culture is almost in the stone age.

It just doesn't mix very well.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2006,05:21   

GoP,

As I said, an honest quoting of the stats from the UK govt website will show you that you claim is false. Since I am now back at the PC with the doc on it, and since I can spare a few minutes here we go:

Prison Population

Pages 121 onwards are relevant. Note for example (one of many) that the "south asian" category has increased at roughly the same rate as the "white" category. Or that in violent and sexual crimes the "south asian category" is the smallest. Or that the "south asian" category is less (or in some cases equally at worst) represented than the "black" category in prison pop.

Or page 127 onwards might grab your eye. Muslims make up only 8% of the total prison population yet are the largest single religious group after christians in the general populace. Or that buddhists, even though a tiny minority, have tripled in the prison population as have people with no religion where muslims have merely doubled.

Enough of that. How about:

The majority of muslims self identify as British nationals

Or this little stat

Some more stats about the make up of the groupings

and these

Or that Muslims make up only 2.8% of the whole population

How about Muslims are the second largest religious group to be self employed (such revenue generation!;)

How about this too?

How about the situation for Pakistanis (almost all of whom are muslims)?

Highest chance of being a victim of racial crimeHighest chance of being a victim of racial crime

Or that they have the worst health

Or that they are the youngest (and have the largest male:female ratio)

Or that they are the least qualified

Or the poorest

My point is NOT "oh poor muslims". My point is that there is a stronger correlation between poverty, age of population, history of immigration, access to education. general social depravation and criminality, integration etc than there is with "race". That doesn't mean there are no correlations to be made, just that these correlations are less valid than others that could be made. The picture is VASTLY more complex than "Muslim=foreign=won't integrate".

Also the stat about national identity is an interesting one, the majority of even foreign born muslim immigrants self identify as British. More so than hindus for example. Isn't that just a little interesting? Again, the point is not that muslims are  "black or white/good or bad" in a bipolar sense, but that they are not worse than all other groups across the board, nor do they represent the least integrated category of immigrant (in fact nor does any one group).

So we have the original claim:

Quote
For example, I claim that Muslims, as a group, do not assimilate as well as other groups, and in fact their culture often damages civil liberties. Is this bigotry or simply stating an unpleasant truth? You obviously think the former, but if you're right you should point to evidence (not isolated examples) that Muslims do in fact assimilate, or that we are more free to speak our minds than previously.


Quote
By "integration", I mean:

1) No more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole (15 % pts above national violent crime rates at maximum) ;

2) No cries for "affirmative action";

3) Roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations (doctors, lawyers, and/or scientists) without relying on 2). Yes, this implies good scores on standardised scholastic tests;

4) A culture that tolerates Western norms.

Groups that satisfy all the above conditions:

Jews, N.E. Asians, S.E. Asians (I think), Indians.

Notice that it's OK if an immigrant group beats the native population in these areas -- I'm not afraid of hypercompetitive groups. Please notice the word "tolerates" in point 4).


So what have we got? Equally educated? Nope, but then is that more strongly correlated with educational opportunity, poverty, age and migratory history than race/religion? Yes. Is their relative "newness", youth and poverty more important in their professional lives than their religion? Yes. (Oh by the way, if you look at those stats, you'll find muslims were the most ethinically diverse group of immigrants, which alone blows your claim out of the water)

They are vastly less likely to commit violent crime. Wonderful!

Cries for affirmative action? Can this really be blamed on muslims? There was no affirmative action before muslims emigrated to Britain? What if muslims are in some cases suffering genuine discrimination and injustice in this country? Are they meant to say nothing when there are social channels open to them to aid their integration? By the way, as stated before I don't support affirmative action, nor do I support the attempts by SOME muslim (or in fact any religious) groups to censor language and demand special priviledge, my point here is that this is not restricted to muslims. Every immigrant or minority group has cried out against discrimination, perceived or real. Are muslims any "worse" than black people are/were in this respect? Where is the muslim million man march? Where is Martin Luther Khan? Personally I think the question is irrelevant and stupid, as I have mentioned before, but the point is the level of self employment and self identification as British amongst muslim immigrants demonstrates a tendancy to "get on with it" and not complain amongst the majority of muslims. Guess what, this has been habitually true of most immigrants!

A culture that tolerates western norms? What are western norms? How about tolerance of homosexuality? Does your average muslim tolerate homosexuality any less or more than say your average southern baptist or sikh or hindu? Does your average muslim tolerate other faiths any less or more than say Stephen Green of "christian voice"? My point here is again that the majority of immigrant muslims self identify as British which strongly implies that they DO tolerate western norms, as does the fact that there are many muslims in the country who simply melt into the background, the few bad apples spoiling things for the majority.

Again the comparison stands: Is the average muslim immigrant more or less tolerant of western norms than immigrants of other faiths? Given the level of self identity as British, it would appear that in the UK at least (a western country last time I looked) muslim immigrants are better than many other immigrant faith groups, even those more established in Britain like Asian hindus, Indian Sikhs and Afro-Carribean christians.

Are there cultural differences? Of course. Are those cultural differences by and large ironed out over time as they have been in the majority of other immigrants? Yes. Are those cultural differences more pronounced than those of Indian immigrants and Afro-Carribean immigrants of previous waves of migration? No. Are those cultural differences more violently expressed than those of the white, Irish Catholic community of the 1970s and 1980s, or the National Front and British National Party skinheads (supposedly of the same culture as myself)? No. Is it possible that race or foreign-ness are not the engines of these conflicts? Yes. Is it possible that discrimination, poverty and social exclusion are? Yes. IS it possibly even a mix of both? Yes.

What's the point of all this? The point is not that muslims or any immigrant is whiter than white and a perfect little victim of horrible natives. Nor is the point to deny there are problems caused by immigration that would be absent with no immigration. The point is that a) we have been here before with every immigrant population in every nation across the world (claims of cultural incompatibility, cries for fair and equal treatment, cries for societal change that would be unfair and unequal), b) that in many if not most categories muslims are no worse that extant and former immigrant populations (at least in the UK), c) many of those categories in which muslims fall down are more strognly correlated to the social circumstances of muslims (history of immigration, poverty etc) than they are to the faith of muslims or racial background (see for example the fact that non-muslim Afro-Carribean immigrants are more represented in the prison population relatively than are Asians or Pakistanis).

My point is essentially that the absolutist claim "muslims=bad immigrants" is false and that the contention that muslims are significantly worse than other racial/faith/ethnic groups at integrating into western societies is false.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2006,05:42   

Thanks for the effort you put into collating the stats, Louis. I'll try to respond by 10:00 tonight (Amurican East time).

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2006,06:31   

Quote
Stephen Elliot:

I believe that GoP has a point here. Only talking about Britain but Muslims are not integrating.

Let me be clear, I am talking about a % of them, but it is a large % I think.


Doesn't GoP(s) also talk about blacks not integrating in the US? I think it takes a while for dis-similar cultures to assimilate. Assimilation changes both cultures. No? Radicalism/ ization at the fringes doesn't surprise me much. If you've got a good thing going, you wouldn't want to change. I wonder if there is any example of two cultures assimilating without one having large grievances of the other. It's only been in the last 50 years that anybody cared what the underdog thought at all. We used to just jail them or kill them. The world around.

So the doctrine in question is maybe "Might makes Right"??

Is that what you are lamenting GoP(s)? Do you long for the good old days of decency and sophistication where we could just lock up or lynch the rabble rousers of the poorer culture?



Quote
Louis:
We don't have to lose our British identity to accomodate immigrants, but we do have to demonstrate a coherent policy which doesn't bias things in our favour. That might go a long way to helping. Of course, just my opinion little more.


But, in some small way, you will. Or you will have to fight. It's either kill them or assimilate them. When we started the real process of assimilating Blacks and hispanics in the US we fundamentally started changing. It may be subtle but we are being forced to live side by side with very different kinds of social relationships. We don't get to split the cultures the way we used to. The old guard is busy trying to figure out how to go back (uses of the Federal Highway act etc.) and the new guard is trying to figure out how to change the whole culture. We are being forced to deal with some of the problems legislatively and that makes us examine our underlying motive.

Religion is a perfect tool for fanatics. Something worth killing and dying for that almost always has the effect of an attempt to preserve the status quo or change the balance of power in your favor. For being all about these god ideas, it is surprising how it ends up aboput politics.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2006,07:10   

Great post Louis,

Quite a lot to take in, but those stats are quite encouraging.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2006,15:34   

OK, it's late, I've been working pretty hard, and I haven't had anything to eat. So let me take this a little at a time. I hope that Louis & the lurkers will actually make the effort to re-read the last few pages of this thread, so I don't have to redocument every blessed thing. If Louis doubts anything, I will be more than happy to supply the proof.

Louis:

 
Quote
GoP,

As I said, an honest quoting of the stats from the UK govt website will show you that you claim is false. Since I am now back at the PC with the doc on it, and since I can spare a few minutes here we go:


Already we're off to an interesting start. Louis is asserting that my quotations are dishonest, which implies that he's going to reveal stats I didn't quote, or that I hid. Let's see how he supports this.

 
Quote
Prison Population

Pages 121 onwards are relevant. Note for example (one of many) that the "south asian" category has increased at roughly the same rate as the "white" category. Or that in violent and sexual crimes the "south asian category" is the smallest. Or that the "south asian" category is less (or in some cases equally at worst) represented than the "black" category in prison pop.


But I thought we were discussing the Muslim category. Why are you using ethnic proxies, especially ones that spread the Muslim population into several categories, while grouping Muslims with non-Muslims in others ("South Asians", for example)? The relevant pie-chart (figure 7.2, page 129) shows that Muslims are 8% of the prison population, just like I claimed. And before you argue that this is tremendously inflated by immigration violations and such, please note that the Muslim criminal conviction rate is still over 7% (Table 7.6, p.137) and that they are overrepresented in the "serious sentences" category (7.4% of lifers, 13.8% of between 10 years and less than life). In other words, when the relevant categories are considered, my point still stands.

But this is your document, not mine. It's up to you to wade through it.

 
Quote
Or page 127 onwards might grab your eye. Muslims make up only 8% of the total prison population yet are the largest single religious group after christians in the general populace. Or that buddhists, even though a tiny minority, have tripled in the prison population as have people with no religion where muslims have merely doubled.


Umm, Louis, Muslims don't make up 8% of the general population -- around 2.7%, as a matter of fact. I believe I already quoted this figure to you. So who cares if they're the "the largest single religious group after christians in the general populace"? Their prison proportion are about 2.5 times their general proportion, even if we use the conservative 7% figure. I believe I cited this figure as well.

 
Quote
Enough of that.


Yes, a good man knows when to cut his losses and move on.  :D

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2006,17:33   

And there are an estimated 15,000 *white* converts to Islam alone in GB. And an unknown number of non-whites. So...how many actual immigrant Muslims comprise that 8% of the prison population? And why is it that you're still using the standard GoP attempts to antagonize? Oh, yeah, as I noted in your LUCA thread, it's not an act, it's your tender little ego needing validation.
I'll bet you were the one posting up the photos of wrestlers and such...do you bodybuild, too, and admire yourself in the mirror?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2006,22:33   

Gippy,

I think I made the point that although muslims make up more of the prison population than their representation in the general public would acount for, other groups do so to a greater extent.

Nice dishonest quoting of ME let alone the stats.

The point about you dishonestly quoting the stats is very simple. You have picked things which you think support your case and omitted things that don't. Since I have no case (as I stated right at the outset of this thread) it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I am free to quote everything. As I said at the start it might turn out that muslims are worse than all other immigrant groups, but that I seriously doubt it.

My major point is (and has always been) nothing more controversial than your blanket treatment of muslims (or any group) is erroneous, which let's be honest it blatantly is from even a cursory reading of the above stats. I don't need to deny problems with immigrant populations because I know they are there, the agenda is YOURS (i.e. muslim=unintegrable) not mine. Your agenda relies on media scare stories and hyperbole and ignores the vast majority of people immigrant or otherwise.

My minor point is that you can only ever support such a view by distorting the facts, selective reporting and hyperbolic rhetorical nonsense. Posting articles about how debates rage over veils, or how in Windsor nasty things happen doesn't butter any parsnips. Yes there are problems it's ridiculous to deny there are problems, but these are problems from a wide variety of sources and any remote understanding of history (very recent in some cases) shows that immigrant populations before  muslims had similar if not exactly the same problems. The point is that you have done nothing to support your original claim which was that muslims are worse than other groups. The stats show that by and large they are not worse than other groups. This is not the same thing as there being no conflicts at all.

With the prison population thing you are deliberately and dishonestly ignoring the point I am making very clearly which is simply that if we go by proportion of general population vs proportion of general population south asians (of which the majority of British muslims are a subset, look at the other stats) are better off that Afro-Carribeans (for example). If we go by religious leanings then muslims are better off than people with no religion. However, the minute you correlate those data with poverty, education etc you find that the correlation between these factors is more significant that religion. Look at that big old document that frightens you so much, you'll find social groupings in there too.

Nice try, pity you failed.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2006,07:05   

Quote
I think I made the point that although muslims make up more of the prison population than their representation in the general public would acount for, other groups do so to a greater extent.


And.....? That would like an American open-borders advocate saying, "Ok, Hispanic illegals commit a lot of crime, but you shouldn't mind because African Americans commit even more!" Sorry, but I expect more from my immigrants. Besides, comparing one hard-to-assimilate group with another isn't the best way to make your case.

   
Quote
The point about you dishonestly quoting the stats is very simple. You have picked things which you think support your case and omitted things that don't.


No, I have selected the most relevant data. If the British Government didn't have religious breakdowns, then yes, we'd have to make do with geographical/ethnic proxies. The point, however, is that they do have this information, and at least according to one source, they get the religious affiliation prior to "jailhouse" conversions. So why not go with that? Yes, I'm aware that Pakistanis/Bangladeshis make up the plurality of Muslims, but apparently other Muslim ethnicities are more than making up the difference crime-wise. Here's a nice source that shows the demographic breakdown. Notice that 43% of Muslims are neither white nor South Asian.

Notice that Louis doesn't challenge a single statistic in my rebuttal.

 
Quote
Since I have no case (as I stated right at the outset of this thread) it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I am free to quote everything. As I said at the start it might turn out that muslims are worse than all other immigrant groups, but that I seriously doubt it.


Maybe. I strongly suspect you're of Turkish background, which would imply a pro-Muslim bias. In any case, all I care about is your argument. You're the one who can't resist ad homs.

Notice that Louis doesn't refute any of my statistics.

 
Quote
My minor point is that you can only ever support such a view by distorting the facts, selective reporting and hyperbolic rhetorical nonsense. Posting articles about how debates rage over veils, or how in Windsor nasty things happen doesn't butter any parsnips. Yes there are problems it's ridiculous to deny there are problems, but these are problems from a wide variety of sources and any remote understanding of history (very recent in some cases) shows that immigrant populations before  muslims had similar if not exactly the same problems. The point is that you have done nothing to support your original claim which was that muslims are worse than other groups. The stats show that by and large they are not worse than other groups. This is not the same thing as there being no conflicts at all.


I'll let the lurkers decide this for themselves, but I notice that nobody could put a dent in my critique of the religion itself, or the history of Muslim - Christian/Hindu conflict. Nobody challenged Stephen's survey. This says something, I think.

 
Quote
With the prison population thing you are deliberately and dishonestly ignoring the point I am making very clearly which is simply that if we go by proportion of general population vs proportion of general population south asians (of which the majority of British muslims are a subset, look at the other stats) are better off that Afro-Carribeans (for example).


I've addressed this above, but I can't understand why you're comparing hard-to-assimilate groups. Why not compare Muslims to the average? That seems more reasonable to me.

 
Quote
If we go by religious leanings then muslims are better off than people with no religion. However, the minute you correlate those data with poverty, education etc you find that the correlation between these factors is more significant that religion. Look at that big old document that frightens you so much, you'll find social groupings in there too.


First, you should be comparing the Muslim prison proportion with their population proportion, not their prison proportion with other prison proportions. How do we know that the nonreligious are overrepresented to begin with? Perhaps they're underrepresented, in which case your (irrelevant) comparison is actively misleading. Second, I'm not through with the "wah, wah, they're poor so they aren't as accountable for their actions" charge. I'll deal with that later.

 
Quote
Nice try, pity you failed.


I'll let the reader decide.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2006,08:40   

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 16 2006,11:31)
Quote
Stephen Elliot:

I believe that GoP has a point here. Only talking about Britain but Muslims are not integrating.

Let me be clear, I am talking about a % of them, but it is a large % I think.


Doesn't GoP(s) also talk about blacks not integrating in the US? I think it takes a while for dis-similar cultures to assimilate. Assimilation changes both cultures. No? Radicalism/ ization at the fringes doesn't surprise me much. If you've got a good thing going, you wouldn't want to change. I wonder if there is any example of two cultures assimilating without one having large grievances of the other. It's only been in the last 50 years that anybody cared what the underdog thought at all. We used to just jail them or kill them. The world around.

So the doctrine in question is maybe "Might makes Right"??

Is that what you are lamenting GoP(s)? Do you long for the good old days of decency and sophistication where we could just lock up or lynch the rabble rousers of the poorer culture?

I have only just read this. Missed it first time around.

No, I don't believe that might makes right. Far from it. On the whole,  the only people who I would want jailed are 1)folks who offer violence to others when not defending either themselves or a victim of violence and 2)habitual criminals.

I have no desire to kill anyone, unless not doing so would likely result in the death of an innocent.

Maybe you have the impression I am some rabid anti-Islamic fanatic. I don't think I am.

What I am concerned about is that in the UK recently there seems to be mounting tension between Muslims and the rest of society. Both sides seem to feel under threat by the other, (admitedly generalising here).

It did concern me on Sept 11th 2003 when walking to work, posters had appeared all-over town celebrating the atacks on the USA 9/11 2001. I am talking about lots of posters here, almost every lamp-post railing sign-post etc had 1 or more. That must have taken a bit of organisation and manpower to do. It was worrying to think that I was living among people who could find something to celebrate in all those deaths.

Again I will stress that I believe it is only a minority of Muslims who feel that way. But that evidence indicated to me that it was still a large group.

Obviously the London suicide bombings is something that troubles me. All British born, and all hating Britain so much they where willing to die.

Then the protests in London. The fact that so many people where marching through London calling for indiscriminate death upon people over cartoons.

Surely something is wrong over here. I am not sure what. The idea that 40% of Muslims in Britain want sharia law worries me too.

The stats Louis provided OTOH are encouraging to a degree.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2006,10:36   

Well, I have a little free time after all, so let me add that if Louis wants to start defending the South Asian subset of Muslims, then he has to explain why this group struggles academically relative to Hindus. You can't just select prison data while ignoring everything else.

 
Quote
Is that what you are lamenting GoP(s)? Do you long for the good old days of decency and sophistication where we could just lock up or lynch the rabble rousers of the poorer culture?


BWE, if we're going to have a real discussion, you're gonna have to pack those love beads away. We're the "niggers" now. We're the ones who face legal discrimination, we're the ones who are targeted for robbery, assault, and murder; we're the ones who are constantly stereotyped and ridiculed. The fact that we can compete anyway doesn't change that reality. After all, Jews and Asians had to overcome discrimination too.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2006,10:44   

HAHAHA
Quote
BWE, if we're going to have a real discussion, you're gonna have to pack those love beads away. We're the "niggers" now. We're the ones who face legal discrimination, we're the ones who are targeted for robbery, assault, and murder; we're the ones who are constantly stereotyped and ridiculed. The fact that we can compete anyway doesn't change that reality. After all, Jews and Asians had to overcome discrimination too.

Oh, yeah, you're "discriminated " against. I think your love of muscley-men and the WWW atrophied your brain. Lay off the steroids or whatever you're using to try to become a man.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2006,10:48   

Quote
Oh, yeah, you're "discriminated " against. I think your love of muscley-men and the WWW atrophied your brain. Lay off the steroids or whatever you're using to try to become a man.


What is it about those pictures that upsets so many people? I'm really confused about this; apparently, I've encountered a mental blind spot. Could someone fill in the picture? (heh)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,03:17   

GoP,

I am making no case other than your original claim is erroneous. Stop trying to dodge.

Your claim was "muslims worse than everyone" I didn't buy it, and have shown that it's false. Your claim has been summarily refuted. Quod erat demonstratum.

If you wish to debate about the benefits and problems of immigration then that's fine, but it's a different topic. You made a specific claim, that specific claim has been comprehensively shown to be false. Is it beyond you to admit that?

Hmmm

Louis

P.S. Does anyone want to independantly adjudicate this issue? GoP made a specific claim. I assert that that that specific claim has been shown to be false and erroneous, no more no less. Any takers?

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,04:47   

Quote
GoP,

I am making no case other than your original claim is erroneous. Stop trying to dodge.


I'm dodging nothing. You told me to stick to "Muslims", so that's what I'm doing. You're the one who's equivocating. By the way, if you want to investigate whether or not some subsets of Muslims integrate better than others, then that's OK. But don't tell me to stick to "Muslims" and then call me dishonest when I take your advice.

Quote
Your claim was "muslims worse than everyone" I didn't buy it, and have shown that it's false. Your claim has been summarily refuted. Quod erat demonstratum.


No, my claim was that Muslims don't assimilate. I never said that you can't find groups that do even worse. Look at my stated criteria again.

Quote
If you wish to debate about the benefits and problems of immigration then that's fine, but it's a different topic. You made a specific claim, that specific claim has been comprehensively shown to be false. Is it beyond you to admit that?


You have got to be kidding. Your statistics show that Muslims are overrepresented among prisoners. Doesn't get any clearer than that.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,07:32   

GoP,

Oh Deary Me! Why am I lumbered explaining reasoning to someone with the IQ of room temperature yoghurt?

1) Here is the original claim YOU made:


Quote
For example, I claim that Muslims, as a group, do not assimilate as well as other groups, and in fact their culture often damages civil liberties. Is this bigotry or simply stating an unpleasant truth? You obviously think the former, but if you're right you should point to evidence (not isolated examples) that Muslims do in fact assimilate, or that we are more free to speak our minds than previously.


Bolding mine.

2) Here is where it came from:

Link to the Movie thread

A salient quote therein

Quote
Then prove it. Show me a single political claim I've made that runs contrary to the facts, and I'll happily revise it. Until then, I'll assume you're bluffing


Re-reading the section of the thread, we've been here before.

Quote
So basically, here's the challenge. Point to the political belief you think is silly and refute it, or show exactly where it's incoherent. If you do anything other than this, then I will interpret it as an inability to refute my position. No excuses accepted.

Or you can just admit you can't do it. Cause I know you can't, Panda's Thumbers know you can't, and many of the lurkers know you can't. Why not just be honest?


So there's Gippy's challenge. After some to and fro we got some definition of what Gippy was claiming:

Quote
I will focus on the Sunnis and Shi'ites (hereafter Shiites) because these two sects comprise 95 - 96% of the world's Muslim population.


and this on "integration":

Quote
By "integration", I mean:

1) No more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole (15 % pts above national violent crime rates at maximum) ;

2) No cries for "affirmative action";

3) Roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations (doctors, lawyers, and/or scientists) without relying on 2). Yes, this implies good scores on standardised scholastic tests;

4) A culture that tolerates Western norms.

Groups that satisfy all the above conditions:

Jews, N.E. Asians, S.E. Asians (I think), Indians.

Notice that it's OK if an immigrant group beats the native population in these areas -- I'm not afraid of hypercompetitive groups. Please notice the word "tolerates" in point 4).


3) Reading the stats from my previous post we see that muslims are more represented in the prison population than in the general population. As I explained before this isn't a problem for me bevause I'm not claiming differently. However it is a problem for Gippy IF another group is even more represented in the prison population than muslims when it relates back to the presence in the general population. Non religious people are more represented by far in the prison population than are muslims, and vastly more than present in the general population. So if Gippy wishes to claim that muslims are "worse" than everyone then why aren't they "worse" than non-religious people on this criterion?

If Gippy wishes to switch tracks and claim that these stats will be hidden in studies on ethnic composition then the fact that Afro Carribean people are vastly more over-represented in the prison population compared to Asians, which is the ethnic background of most British muslims (see other links in that post).

The point is not that "muslims= great" but that Gippy's claim of "muslims = worse than every other group" is false. Get it Gippy?

As for violent crime, look at how under-represented asians/muslims are in violent crimes, much less than the white/christian majority even taking into account proportion of general population.

Do I really have to keep spelling this out for you Gippy?  You made a very specific claim. I asked you if it was a claim you would wish to defend. You said yes. I asked you to define the terms of the claim. You did. I bent over backwards to let you present the "evidence" and all I got, bar two meagre quote mined attempts at stats, was anecdotal crap and news articles about meany muslims.

But still I let you continue. I went to the UK govt stats site, after freely confessing that I knew little to nothing about this topic several times, and found the stats I posted. They by no means show a perfect picture of muslims in the UK, but then the bits that aren't perfect in almost all cases correlate more strongly with social deprivation, age, migrational history, poverty and other factors rather than religion.

The point is Gippy you made a big claim which you had every chance to redefine, take back, or modify and yet you ploughed ahead regardless. You have been hoist by your own bigotry, so eager are you to promote your pre-existing racist fantasies. This is why I keep telling you Gippy, you're fucking transparent sonny. Not only is the claim AS STATED AND DEFINED BY YOU false, but you are now resorting to equivocation to back away from it. I said right at the outset this was not a thread about the benefits/flaws of immigration,it was merely a thread about you demonstrating your claim to be true. You have not done that with all your news stories, bigotry and obfuscation because one simple set of stats show that you claim is false.

Keep whining dumbass. As I have said many many times, you fool no one. What a laughable, contemptable little clown you are.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,10:46   

Quote
1) Here is the original claim YOU made:


 
Quote
 
For example, I claim that Muslims, as a group, do not assimilate as well as other groups, and in fact their culture often damages civil liberties. Is this bigotry or simply stating an unpleasant truth? You obviously think the former, but if you're right you should point to evidence (not isolated examples) that Muslims do in fact assimilate, or that we are more free to speak our minds than previously.



Bolding mine.


You know Louis, I'm reading that statement over and over, and yet I don't see where "other groups" translates into "all other groups". Since I've never claimed that Muslims are the only group that doesn't assimilate (quite the contrary), then why would I make an unnecessarily strong claim? In fact, the fuller definition you just gave shows that the "groups" I was referring to were Jews, N.E. Asians, and Indians. Here, let's look again:

 
Quote
By "integration", I mean:

1) No more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole (15 % pts above national violent crime rates at maximum) ;

2) No cries for "affirmative action";

3) Roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations (doctors, lawyers, and/or scientists) without relying on 2). Yes, this implies good scores on standardised scholastic tests;

4) A culture that tolerates Western norms.

Groups that satisfy all the above conditions:

Jews, N.E. Asians, S.E. Asians (I think), Indians.


Notice that it's OK if an immigrant group beats the native population in these areas -- I'm not afraid of hypercompetitive groups. Please notice the word "tolerates" in point 4).


Also notice 1) which explicitly compares Muslims "as a group" to "the population as a whole". This was an attempt to give you a break, so you wouldn't have to compare the three hypercompetitive groups against Muslims -- only with the general population. And the Muslims fail even that test, because they are overrepresented in the criminal prison population, which means that the rest of the population is underrepresented!!! So your very nitpicking works agin you.

Quote
3) Reading the stats from my previous post we see that muslims are more represented in the prison population than in the general population. As I explained before this isn't a problem for me bevause I'm not claiming differently. However it is a problem for Gippy IF another group is even more represented in the prison population than muslims when it relates back to the presence in the general population. Non religious people are more represented by far in the prison population than are muslims, and vastly more than present in the general population.


As I've noted, not only is this claim false, it doesn't even make sense, as I've always argued that several different groups don't assimilate well. By the way, you never proved that the nonreligious are overrepresented in prison, so your other point fails as well.

Quote
As for violent crime, look at how under-represented asians/muslims are in violent crimes, much less than the white/christian majority even taking into account proportion of general population.


Like I said, Louis, if you want to shift the claim to, "Asian Muslims assimilate well", that's OK. I was told to focus on religion, not race, so why are you bitching because I followed directions? Geez, make up your mind, dude: I can't be a racist and race-blind at the same time.

Quote
The point is Gippy you made a big claim which you had every chance to redefine, take back, or modify and yet you ploughed ahead regardless. You have been hoist by your own bigotry, so eager are you to promote your pre-existing racist fantasies.


OK, earlier you were complaining that I was ignoring racial subcategories (a terrible thing, apparently), now you're claiming I was promoting my "pre-existing racist fantasies" during the debate. This makes no sense.

Quote
This is why I keep telling you Gippy, you're fucking transparent sonny. Not only is the claim AS STATED AND DEFINED BY YOU false, but you are now resorting to equivocation to back away from it. I said right at the outset this was not a thread about the benefits/flaws of immigration,it was merely a thread about you demonstrating your claim to be true. You have not done that with all your news stories, bigotry and obfuscation because one simple set of stats show that you claim is false.

Keep whining dumbass. As I have said many many times, you fool no one. What a laughable, contemptable little clown you are.

Louis


Wow, Louis, you must be kicking my tail, because you're behaving in such a calm, rational, self-confident manner. Too bad you can't be such a tuffy when it really counts.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,12:55   

Hey Louis. Do you like apples?

Quote
The Government withdrew its support from Britain’s largest Muslim organisation yesterday after accusing it of failing to lead the fight against religious extremism.
Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, attacked the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) for boycotting Holocaust Memorial Day, criticising police anti-terrorist operations and “sitting on the sidelines” in the campaign against extremists.




Muhammad Abdul Bari, the secretary-general of the MCB, was invited to hear Ms Kelly’s speech, which was delivered to a Muslim audience, but refused to attend.

Ms Kelly said that she was embarking on “a fundamental rebalancing” of the Government’s relationship with Muslim organisations.

Until now ministers have viewed the MCB, which represents 400 organisations and hundreds of mosques around the country, as the most important voice among Britain’s two million Muslims.

But Ms Kelly said that in future she would engage with and give funding to organisations that represented young Muslims and Muslim women and which were taking a “proactive leadership role in tackling extremism and defending our shared values”.

The Communities Secretary has £11 million remaining from a fund established last year to combat extremism.

Ms Kelly highlighted the MCB’s repeated refusal to participate in Holocaust Memorial Day as a serious failing which set a poor example.

She said: “There are some people who don’t feel it right to join in the commemorations of Holocaust Memorial Day even though it has helped raise awareness not just of the Jewish Holocaust, but also more contemporary atrocities like the Rwanda genocide.

“I can’t help wondering why those in leadership positions who say they want to achieve religious tolerance and a cohesive society would choose to boycott an event which marks, above all, our common human- ity and respect for each other.”

Ms Kelly also attacked groups which criticised British foreign policy as anti-Muslim and denigrated the police.

Dr Bari and the MCB have been critical of the bungled anti-terrorist raid in Forest Gate, East London, this year and have argued strongly that British policy in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan has undermined security.

Ms Kelly said: “The police and security services have disrupted a number of further attacks. And we know that followers of al-Qaeda are planning others. The scale of the threat means great urgency. And this can produce mistakes.

“But these mistakes have sometimes been seized on by some to falsely suggest that the police are the enemy rather than the terrorists. They aren’t — they deserve all of our support. A serious and tough security response is inevitable for all of our safety.”


Dr Bari responded angrily to Ms Kelly’s remarks. He said the minister was making “a veiled threat” about who would qualify for funding in future.

Dr Bari added: “Every organisation has the right to apply for government funding — but agreeing with government policy should not be a criteria for receiving that money.
“For sometime now, mainstream Muslim organisations have not been consulted. We have been talked to, we have not been talked with.”



Inayat Bunglawala, assistant general of the MCB, said: “We have the sense that the Government only wants to speak to organisations that mirror its own views. It is untenable to continue to deny that Iraq and Afghanistan have not undermined our security.”

The debate about the role of British Muslims in society was further intensified by Harriet Harman in the row over the wearing of the veil. Ms Harman, a minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, said that the veil was “an obstacle to women’s participation, on equal terms, in society”.

She told the New Statesman: “I want women to be fully included. If you want equality, you have to be in society, not hidden away from it.”


How do you like dem apples?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,22:07   

Lord love a duck Gippy! I'M not making any claim. YOU are making the claim. You claimed muslims don't integrate as well as other groups. It would appear that they do. Your claim is false. End of story. The argument about the bigger picture is not the issue, as I have said.

The abuse is because I am frustrated by dealing with a goal post moving dishonest git like you Gippy. Get it yet?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,09:48   

Louis:

Quote
The abuse is because I am frustrated by dealing with a goal post moving dishonest git like you Gippy. Get it yet?


That might be, but given the evidence of your posts I suspect that your frustration arises because you're an incompetent debater who has realised the facts don't support his side of the argument. I mean, Geez dude, after all the trash talking about how your document was gonna blow a hole in my stats, and this is all you've got? Well, now we know why you favoured my banishment: if you can't beat 'em, cheat 'em. Too bad Wes wouldn't go along with your plan, and Shirley's idea of a Shunning didn't take hold. Oh well, you can now go back to your chemistry lab, confident that your transparent attempt to change the terms of the debate constitute a Blow for Truth and Justice. Meanwhile, reality will remain unimpressed, and people will continue to suffer.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,10:15   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 17 2006,15:36)
 
Quote
Is that what you are lamenting GoP(s)? Do you long for the good old days of decency and sophistication where we could just lock up or lynch the rabble rousers of the poorer culture?


BWE, if we're going to have a real discussion, you're gonna have to pack those love beads away. We're the "niggers" now. We're the ones who face legal discrimination, we're the ones who are targeted for robbery, assault, and murder; we're the ones who are constantly stereotyped and ridiculed. The fact that we can compete anyway doesn't change that reality. After all, Jews and Asians had to overcome discrimination too.

And the analogous word to nigger is? The legal discrimination, is it affirmative action? How bout Sexual harrassment? The targeted bit: Wouldn't it make sense to target the ones with the money? And the stereotype is?

I think that maybe you are rolling Affirmative action into one big ball and calling it those other things.

Quote
For example, I claim that Muslims, as a group, do not assimilate as well as other groups, and in fact their culture often damages civil liberties. Is this bigotry or simply stating an unpleasant truth? You obviously think the former, but if you're right you should point to evidence (not isolated examples) that Muslims do in fact assimilate, or that we are more free to speak our minds than previously.


Fundementalism which does not allow for change is always hard to integrate. Is there some new idea here? Education normally fixes religion problems. I see your point as running around telling us the volcano is blowing rather than telling us where the lava might go.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,10:36   

BWE:

 
Quote
And the analogous word to nigger is?


Whitey, cracka, honkie, whiteboy, gringo, haole....as in, "You picked the wrong hood to be in, whiteboy." By the way, notice that white men are routinely referred to as "boys" by Blacks. I've even been referred to that a couple of times myself. Never twice by the same individual, at least in face-to-face meetings (I don't tolerate it, nor should anyone).

Look, I don't want to turn this into a whinefest. And I certainly don't think that A.A. is remotely as evil as Jim Crow. But the truth is that the situation today is completely different from the past, and that's my main point.

 
Quote
Fundementalism which does not allow for change is always hard to integrate. Is there some new idea here? Education normally fixes religion problems. I see your point as running around telling us the volcano is blowing rather than telling us where the lava might go.


I don't deny that Muslims are individuals, and even that some subsets of Muslims integrate much better than other subsets. Perhaps the US model will prove to be an effective way to assimilate Muslim immigrants. The point remains, however, that one must recognise a problem before fixing it. I think immigration from muslim countries should be scaled back or even eliminated. That's one obvious solution. Another would be to import more NE Asians, Jews, and Indians. What is your take?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,10:38   

An massive increase in funding for public education.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,13:48   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2006,17:55)
[Hey Louis. Do you like apples?]

I love them so.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,04:29   

Keep deluding yourself GoP, it's all you have.

Anyone else agree with Gippy's assessment?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,04:39   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 21 2006,09:29)
Keep deluding yourself GoP, it's all you have.

Anyone else agree with Gippy's assessment?

Louis

Dude, nobody else is even *listening* to the nutter.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ogee



Posts: 89
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,05:11   

As a white man, I feel terribly underpriveleged and discriminated against.  There's no question that in our society minorities (especially blacks and Muslims) have unfair advantages, as proven by their economic dominance of us poor white folk and their disproportionate representation in government.  Of course, some of them are poor, but that's just because of their inferior culture or incapacity to assimilate.  The idea that there is real systemic discrimination against non-whites is just a dirty gay/liberal/intellectual lie.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,05:56   

Quote (Ogee @ Oct. 21 2006,10:11)
As a white man, I feel terribly underpriveleged and discriminated against.  There's no question that in our society minorities (especially blacks and Muslims) have unfair advantages, as proven by their economic dominance of us poor white folk and their disproportionate representation in government.  Of course, some of them are poor, but that's just because of their inferior culture or incapacity to assimilate.  The idea that there is real systemic discrimination against non-whites is just a dirty gay/liberal/intellectual lie.

And commie, too.  Don't forget the commies.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,06:07   

As the population of the US recently passes 300 million, it occurs to me that, in the US, good white aryans like Paley will very soon be . . . well . .  a minority.

One wonders how well Paley himself will then integrate into the, um, majority culture.

Or will Paley then advocate his own good white aryan version of "ethnic cleansing" . . . . ?

How about it, Paley?  Would you want your daughter to marry one of "those people" . . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,09:13   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 20 2006,15:36)
BWE:

 
Quote
And the analogous word to nigger is?


Whitey, cracka, honkie, whiteboy, gringo, haole....as in, "You picked the wrong hood to be in, whiteboy." By the way, notice that white men are routinely referred to as "boys" by Blacks. I've even been referred to that a couple of times myself. Never twice by the same individual, at least in face-to-face meetings (I don't tolerate it, nor should anyone).

Have you ever heard Big Bill Broonzy's song, "When Do I Get To Be Called A Man?"

How about "Strange fruit?"

You GoP(s) turned out to be just about the same as your pretend alter ego. What sort of work do you do?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,09:56   

BWE:

 
Quote
Have you ever heard Big Bill Broonzy's song, "When Do I Get To Be Called A Man?"


Never heard it, but if it's about what I think it is, then it's ironic that many blacks would proceed to do the same #### thing. It's OK for them, though, correct?


 
Quote
How about "Strange fruit?"


One of my favorite songs. I prefer the younger Holliday myself, but the older edition has more character. So? I don't deny that lynching occured in the past. Trouble is, most of the interracial violence I see is black on white. As a wise man once said, "You could look it up."

 
Quote
You GoP(s) turned out to be just about the same as your pretend alter ego. What sort of work do you do?


You know, I once read a good line by a character in Stephen King's novel Thinner: "The definition of an ####### is someone who doesn't believe what's in front of his eyes", or something to that effect. I don't deny the injustice in the past, but I also won't cover my eyes to the injustices of the present. You ever read John McWhorter or Thomas Sowell? You should, because both of these black men agree that substantial discrimination for blacks is a thing of the past. They, along with a growing number of other blacks, argue that some aspects of Black culture are far more responsible for the remaining inequities than the actions of whites. But these intelligent, well-traveled black men are delusional Klansmen, right? .......Right?

Lenny:

 
Quote
As the population of the US recently passes 300 million, it occurs to me that, in the US, good white aryans like Paley will very soon be . . . well . .  a minority.

One wonders how well Paley himself will then integrate into the, um, majority culture.


This fact distresses more whites than you think. As for me, I don't care so long as the minority-majority culture doesn't find Western values evil white abstractions. If so, you'll be swinging next to me. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

 
Quote
Or will Paley then advocate his own good white aryan version of "ethnic cleansing" . . . . ?


If ethnic cleansing ever happens (doubtful), it will be based on Mugabe's, not Hitler's, model. What's more likely is a heightened level of strife, with SWAT teams being a fixture in many high schools, not just California's. Hope it doesn't come to pass, but the preliminary evidence doesn't look so hot (heh).

 
Quote
How about it, Paley?  Would you want your daughter to marry one of "those people" . . . . . . ?


Since my future daughter will be mixed, she'll probably marry another mixed individual. But whomever she marries, (s)he has my support so long as (s)he's not someone like you. You know, an angry person who writes deceptive, poorly researched essays. If that ever happens, then you bet I'll be pissed.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ogee



Posts: 89
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,10:01   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,14:56)
You know, an angry person who writes deceptive, poorly researched essays.

You are no stranger to irony, I see.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,10:50   

Quote
You are no stranger to irony, I see.


Well, maybe my 'tude is recessive. ;)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,11:57   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,14:56)

[ This fact distresses more whites than you think.]


I live in Florida, Paley.  I'm quite aware how "distressed" "whites" are by it.

And I laugh at them and their "distress".


[As for me, I don't care so long as the minority-majority culture]


Wow, you can't even bring yourself to SAY it, can you, Paley . . . even when they are "the majority", you will STILL continue to view them (and speak of them) as "minorities", and will STILL see yourself as their superiors. . . .

They will be "the majority", Paley.  YOU will be the "minority".  Get used to it, and pray they will be more merciful towards you than your ilk have been towards them.  Me, I think turnabout is fair play.  And you might even learn a lesson or two from it.

I think you and your fellow aryans are in for some awfully rough times in the next few decades, Paley. . . . .



[doesn't find Western values evil white abstractions.]


I see, so it's OK for YOU to think THEIR values are evil, but it's *not* OK if THEY think YOUR values are evil.  They have to integrate into YOUR culture, but YOU don't have to integrate into THEIRS.  I guess you're too good for that or something, huh.

And, uh, what again did you and your fellow aryans plan on doing if the majority DO decide to make you integrate into their majority culture (ya know, Paley -- like the way you want the Muslims to integrate into yours, and then bitch and complain when they don't do it to your satisfaction . . .?)

I do not think you are going to enjoy the next few decades, Paley. . . .


[If so, you'll be swinging next to me.]


No, Paley --- I'll be helping them string you up. I don't like aryan supremacists very much. And I take great pleasure in their "distress".

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,12:01   

Hey Paley, why don't you go ahead and tell us how the US was founded as a white Christian nation . . . . . . . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,14:04   

What???  I tought GoP had "come out" as an official loki-troll?  At least, someone was claiming something like that on the UD thread - I simply scroll past anthing by that pretentious racist fokwot? and anything referring to him.
 If such a thing were being claimed, I simply don't buy it, as no one can pretend to be such a smug, frightened jerk for so long without giving up the giggle.  No one has so much free time that they would be able to maintain such an ugly fiction.
 
 GoP's world is warm, smelly, and pink ("Bob"!;), and deliciously doomed to being used for amusement as its impotence before that last brick falls from that last decaying church.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,17:52   

Just woke up so maybe I am not comprehnding this corectly.

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 21 2006,16:57)
They will be "the majority", Paley.  YOU will be the "minority".  Get used to it, and pray they will be more merciful towards you than your ilk have been towards them.  Me, I think turnabout is fair play.  And you might even learn a lesson or two from it.


Are you saying that it is ok to discriminate on race, providing it is done against whites?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,20:27   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 21 2006,22:52)
Just woke up so maybe I am not comprehnding this corectly.

 
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 21 2006,16:57)
They will be "the majority", Paley.  YOU will be the "minority".  Get used to it, and pray they will be more merciful towards you than your ilk have been towards them.  Me, I think turnabout is fair play.  And you might even learn a lesson or two from it.


Are you saying that it is ok to discriminate on race, providing it is done against whites?

Go back to sleep.  ;)

I am saying that the good white aryans are not going to like what happens when they are the minority.  And it might teach them a lesson or two.

And I will laugh at them the entire time.  I think turnabout is fair play.

What I think is OK or not, matters not a whit. No one is going to ask my permission beforehand.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,21:53   

Quote
If such a thing were being claimed, I simply don't buy it, as no one can pretend to be such a smug, frightened jerk for so long without giving up the giggle.  No one has so much free time that they would be able to maintain such an ugly fiction.


check the LUCA thread for the narcissistic revelations of a year-long self-proclaimed loki troll.

whether you believe him or not, he does in fact claim to have just been trolling all this time.

...and some of us care not one whit.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,22:56   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,14:56)
BWE:

   
Quote
Have you ever heard Big Bill Broonzy's song, "When Do I Get To Be Called A Man?"


Never heard it, but if it's about what I think it is, then it's ironic that many blacks would proceed to do the same #### thing. It's OK for them, though, correct?


   
Quote
How about "Strange fruit?"


One of my favorite songs. I prefer the younger Holliday myself, but the older edition has more character. So? I don't deny that lynching occured in the past. Trouble is, most of the interracial violence I see is black on white. As a wise man once said, "You could look it up."

   
Quote
You GoP(s) turned out to be just about the same as your pretend alter ego. What sort of work do you do?


You know, I once read a good line by a character in Stephen King's novel Thinner: "The definition of an ####### is someone who doesn't believe what's in front of his eyes", or something to that effect. I don't deny the injustice in the past, but I also won't cover my eyes to the injustices of the present. You ever read John McWhorter or Thomas Sowell? You should, because both of these black men agree that substantial discrimination for blacks is a thing of the past. They, along with a growing number of other blacks, argue that some aspects of Black culture are far more responsible for the remaining inequities than the actions of whites. But these intelligent, well-traveled black men are delusional Klansmen, right? .......Right?

You know GoP(s), there a lot of things out there to be concerned about. Why would you pick that one? Education is an equalizer. I relate basically just as well to anybody of any color or religion who has a similar background. Not necessarily college but definitely the understanding that knowledge is subject to change and that beliefs which don't fit facts should be discarded. And I relate roughly the same to almost anybody who has visions of the world and human relations that include violence and derogetory remarks. Seems pretty superficial what got them there.

I'm just sayin.

If you want to worry about one, look at global warming or the end of a graph of freidmanian economic activity. Or collision with an asteroid or nuclear war. It's a delicate balance out there and feelings of entitlement breed all kinds of nasty hangers-on.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2006,00:57   

By the way does anyone buy GoP's recent goalpost shift and dishonesty in this thread?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2006,09:13   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 22 2006,05:57)
By the way does anyone buy GoP's recent goalpost shift and dishonesty in this thread?

Louis

I think that you won your point Louis.

On the bigger scale, muslim fundamentalism does still worry me. Jayzus, all religious fundamentalism scares me.

The Christian shiz in the USA is very worrying, as is the Islamic fundamentalism we seem to be getting in the UK.

I guess I enjoy freedom.

Maybe we should discuss it with beer? I am up for it  if you can fit it into your schedule.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2006,09:43   

Quote
They will be "the majority", Paley.  YOU will be the "minority".  Get used to it, and pray they will be more merciful towards you than your ilk have been towards them.  Me, I think turnabout is fair play.  And you might even learn a lesson or two from it.

I think you and your fellow aryans are in for some awfully rough times in the next few decades, Paley. . . . .
[....]
And, uh, what again did you and your fellow aryans plan on doing if the majority DO decide to make you integrate into their majority culture (ya know, Paley -- like the way you want the Muslims to integrate into yours, and then bitch and complain when they don't do it to your satisfaction . . .?)

I do not think you are going to enjoy the next few decades, Paley. . . .


[If so, you'll be swinging next to me.]


No, Paley --- I'll be helping them string you up. I don't like aryan supremacists very much. And I take great pleasure in their "distress".


Comedy gold! I've found my signature.......

I'll answer the rational objections later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2006,10:58   

Glad I was able to feed your massive martyr complex, Paley.

Now you can run off and proudly tell everyone how oppressed you are.

Bye.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2006,11:00   

Steve,

Ah now muslim fundamentaliam scares me shiteless also. I TOTALLY agree about the horrors of ideological fundamentalism, religious or otherwise. Look at the "excesses" under communist/stalinist regimes for non religious examples.

Beer. Interesting concept. I've heard of it of course, good idea! How about Skeptics in the Pub in London Bridge (google Skeptics in the Pub uk, it should be the first link that comes up) on thursday? There's always a good crowd and it's worth the visit. I can't remember how local you are (or aren't) so I don't know if this is convenient.

Anyway, this conversation wasn't about muslim fundamentalism, immigration or any of these things. It was about Gippy claiming that no one had ever refuted one of his political claims (which was crap when he claimed that, and is still crap now). Not that I think for 2 seconds that Gippy will admit it, but hey ho, 'tis the way the cookie crumbles. They do say that denial is not just a river in Africa, and we already know about Gippy's  projection, denial, narcissism, cognitive dissonance,  obsessive fixation with homoerotica, masculinity issues, insecurity, pretensions and delusions of significance. This is just another data point.

Louis

P.S. (added in edit) Lenny, don't you find Gippy's partisan witterings highly amusing? His wanton paranoia about lefties borders on the McCartyist. Hmmm I wonder how relevant that might be. After all it's possible Gippy's ISN'T a pointless 14 year old with Google as his homepage. He might be a sad little septagenarian, wizened and bitter, long abandoned by his compatriots who died from bile or atherosclerosis. Whichever, he's still wearing mom's wedding dress and failing to take his meds. Ahhhh 'tis good to mock the moronic. It makes a day of frustrating chemistry melt into the background!

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2006,12:00   

Hey Louis,

When you're ready to defend Muslims (not just Asian Muslims), let me know.

If there is a specific subgroup of Muslims you'd like to defend (Asian Muslims, etc.), let me know.

Until then, don't get the two arguments mixed up.

By the way, Louis, even the subsets of Muslims that have relatively low crime rates are struggling in the classroom and in the job market, so your new argument still loses. Look at the Pakistani and Bangladesh performances in those categories. So you still have a ways to go if you're still interested.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2006,12:50   

Oh for fuck's sake Gippy, do try to get this through your intensely thick skull:

I AM NOT DEFENDING ANY CLAIM, GROUP OR POSITION AT ALL IN THIS THREAD!

You made a claim that no one had ever rebutted one of your political claims.

You also made a claim about muslims being worse at integrating into western societies than any other group.

It is clearly not the case that muslims as a group are worse at integrating into western societies than any other group on every criterion YOU gave for integration.

Ergo, your claim is false. Quod erat demonstratum.

This says NOTHING about whether there are social problems associated with immigration, multiculturalism, the mixing of cultures, religious moderation fostering religious extremism etc etc etc. All this thread has been to do with is YOUR defense of a claim YOU made and YOU defined. There are other threads in which the wider issues at play are under discussion. You claimed 2+2=5, it doesn't, 2+2=4, but that has little if anything to do with whether the battle of Hastings occured in 1066 or the atomic weight of carbon is 12.0107 or whether there is a pink elephant in my shorts. The veracity of other claims are not affected by the total lack of veracity of the specific claim you have made. You made a claim, well two claims actually (you've never been wrong on politics and muslims are worse integrators than everyone), and you were wrong. Get over it.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2006,20:15   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 22 2006,17:00)
Hey Louis,

When you're ready to defend Muslims (not just Asian Muslims), let me know.

If there is a specific subgroup of Muslims you'd like to defend (Asian Muslims, etc.), let me know.

Until then, don't get the two arguments mixed up.

By the way, Louis, even the subsets of Muslims that have relatively low crime rates are struggling in the classroom and in the job market, so your new argument still loses. Look at the Pakistani and Bangladesh performances in those categories. So you still have a ways to go if you're still interested.

GoP(s),

Defend Muslims? Is that Omar or Sayid we're defending here? I really can't believe this. Hello, it's the irrelevant issues department. Is GoP(s) available?

Doiiiiinnnnggg!

Education doesn't just take one generation. Mmmmm. I'm stifling the insults. Rrrrr. Mmmmmf!

sdrawkcab gnikniht.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,02:16   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 22 2006,16:00)
P.S. (added in edit) Lenny, don't you find Gippy's partisan witterings highly amusing?

Indeed, sometimes it's fun to yank the junkyard dog's chain, just to listen to him bark madly.

I simply don't take Paley seriously, since . . . well . . . no one else does either.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,03:34   

Louis:

   
Quote
You also made a claim about muslims being worse at integrating into western societies than any other group.


False.

   
Quote
It is clearly not the case that muslims as a group are worse at integrating into western societies than any other group on every criterion YOU gave for integration.


Now you've stopped trying. Review my exchange with Faid:

   
Quote
Faid:

Let me quote my conditions again:

         
Quote
By "integration", I mean:

1) No more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole (15 % pts above national violent crime rates at maximum) ;

2) No cries for "affirmative action";

3) Roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations (doctors, lawyers, and/or scientists) without relying on 2). Yes, this implies good scores on standardised scholastic tests;

4) A culture that tolerates Western norms.


Now let's look at this link:

         
Quote
As teaching takes place mainly in the minority language, a large number of minority students end up acquiring an imperfect knowledge of Greek. For many, this situation constitutes a very serious obstacle to their social and professional integration into the larger Greek society, and restricts their economic, social or geographical mobility.
[....]
The Greek government, in its effort to follow and even exceed contemporary standards, put into force in October 1995 a new law regulating matters pertaining to the education of the minority in Thrace. The law aims at upgrading the quality of the education afforded Muslim Greek citizens and at facilitating their educational advancement.

In order to increase the quality and continuity of teaching in minority schools, the law requires that high teacher qualifications -- including teacher training, graduate studies, foreign language skills, and familiarity with other cultures, civilizations, and religious practices -- be taken into account during the appointment of teachers to minority schools.

The law also introduces English language courses at the primary school level.
Furthermore, the law establishes special financial and retirement incentives for teachers who choose to teach at minority schools.

Finally, the law establishes an affirmative action ("positive discrimination") program for the admission of Muslim minority students to Greek higher education institutions (universities and technical institutes). The law provides for a minimum quota for minority students, as had been up to now the case for certain other classes of Greek citizens (e.g., children of emigrants and repatriates). The provision aims at offsetting the disadvantages faced by many Muslim students during the national university entrance examinations, due mostly to Greek language difficulties, and at facilitating their integration into the social fabric of the country. It goes without saying that the above provisions do not prevent Muslim students from participating in the nation-wide University admission examinations.

In a different vain, it must also be noted that the Greek State provides substantial financial support for the covering of the operational expenses of minority schools. In 1994-95 approximately one-half billion drachmas (approx. 1.7 million ECU) were provided for maintenance of existing minority school infrastructure. New primary and secondary schools are presently being constructed at a total cost of 2 billion drachmas (approx. 6.7 million ECU).


It seems we have a.....



L-L-H-H-H-HOOO......SAH!!!!!!!


But you know what they say, Faid. The next best thing to playing and winning.....is playing and losing.


I clearly held that the immigrants must satisfy all criteria, not any of the criteria. Otherwise, why would I think that the violation of condition 2) falsified Faid's argument? Ironically, this post is dated September 11: clearly an unhappy day for open borders advocates.  ;)

So you are clearly misrepresenting at least one of the terms of the debate. I'll let the lurkers decide what that implies about your interpretation of the others.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,04:41   

Gippy,

Yet again Gippy this isn't a debate, it's you defending your claims and me rebutting as appropriate (see the tag line). I said right from the outset that IF your evidence proved this case I'd happily agree. Sadly for you it doesn't support your claim.

Your claim IN YOUR OWN WORDS was:

Quote
I claim that Muslims, as a group, do not assimilate as well as other groups, and in fact their culture often damages civil liberties.


Muslims as a group don't integrate as well as other groups, not some other groups, not some other groups which I shall now specify, but simply other groups.

You went on to give examples of groups you think are good integrators later on, post defining integration:

Quote
By "integration", I mean:

1) No more likely to commit violent crimes as a group than the population as a whole (15 % pts above national violent crime rates at maximum) ;

2) No cries for "affirmative action";

3) Roughly proportionate representation in the intellectual occupations (doctors, lawyers, and/or scientists) without relying on 2). Yes, this implies good scores on standardised scholastic tests;

4) A culture that tolerates Western norms.

Groups that satisfy all the above conditions:

Jews, N.E. Asians, S.E. Asians (I think), Indians.

Notice that it's OK if an immigrant group beats the native population in these areas -- I'm not afraid of hypercompetitive groups. Please notice the word "tolerates" in point 4).


So this:

Quote
I clearly held that the immigrants must satisfy all criteria, not any of the criteria


Is interestingly twisted.

Gippy is it STILL possible you don't understand that the refutation of your claim is NOT "Muslims integrate well on all criteria" but "muslims integrate better  than another group and thus are not "worse integrators" than another group for a given criterion X).

Your specific examples listed above are:

1) Less violent crime than general pop. Well at least in the UK (a western nation) this is the case, muslims are on average much less likely to commit violent crime (see those stats Gippy). Their presence in the general prison pop is interesting, but a corollary point to this. So this Gippy integration test is passed by muslims in the UK.

2) No cries for affirmative action. Hardly dealt with yet by me.

3) Proportional representation in the professions and education. Sadly UK muslims are behind here, BUT this correlates much more strongly with social deprivation, poverty, age, migrational history and educational opportunties than it does with their religion (again, see the stats Gippy), so this is more a "wait and see, it's too early to tell properly" than a pass or fail.

4) A culture that tolerates western norms. Since the vast majority of muslims self identify as British, more than almost any other Asian group btw, this is a pretty good start. The high level of self employment in the muslim group is also a good indicator of cultural tolerance, i.e. they can work at least well enough to follow the relevant laws, and to interact in a business sense with other UK citizens.

Also, despite the high prison population (a negative factor, at least potentially, persecution does happen, but I'd argue it's almost not present in the UK) those crimes are small relative to the general prison population (i.e. more likely to be in for less than 12 months than over 4 years etc, yet again, see the stats). This AGAIN correlates strongly with poverty and social deprivation and weakly with religion. Really read those stats Gippy, I did. You'll find that "petty crimes" warranting small sentences are more often commited by those in a certain group of social classes (the lower ones) and that this correlation is stronger than the religious one. If muslims make up more of the poor in the UK and the poor are more likely to commit petty crime, then you'd expect to see a larger proportion of muslims in prison for petty crimes. Which is what you do see. The same happens to be true of Afro-Carribean populations in the UK, but I digress.

The SIMPLE point you keep evading Gippy is that you claimed that muslims were the worst integrating group of immigrants. The simple fact that they are not the worst integrators in the categories YOU gave (or at least are no worse than another group) disproves your claim. Again QED. Muslims do not integrate worse than other groups into at least one western society on all (or perhaps any except cries for affirmative action) of your criteria.

Lastly, appeal to lurkers, nice. Come forward oh ye lurkers (not just your Sock Puppets Gippy). Come forward all ye who disagree that Gippy's claim has been refuted. I've asked several times.

Anyway, I've said this all before, your reading for comprehension is as shocking as always Gippy, as is you "logic".

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,04:47   

P.S. Oh yeah. Gippy, my guess is that your current "I'm a deist" pose is to get out of your woeful geocentrist bullshit. You know it's all a front, we know you're really a frothing creationist loon. Have fun fuckwit!

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,05:20   

Quote
Less violent crime than general pop. Well at least in the UK (a western nation) this is the case, muslims are on average much less likely to commit violent crime (see those stats Gippy).


What the #### are you smoking? The stats clearly show that Muslim criminal rates are higher than the population as a whole. This is especially true for serious crimes. Reread my initial rebuttal to your document.

Quote
2) No cries for affirmative action. Hardly dealt with yet by me.


We agree here.

Quote
Gippy is it STILL possible you don't understand that the refutation of your claim is NOT "Muslims integrate well on all criteria" but "muslims integrate better  than another group and thus are not "worse integrators" than another group for a given criterion X).


Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. The Faid response clearly demonstrates what the stated criteria meant, and which criteria applied (all of them). Now you're trying to redefine which criteria applied. Sorry, better luck with the next opponent.

Quote
Proportional representation in the professions and education. Sadly UK muslims are behind here,

If this were a dick-waving contest I would say, "Sorry, you lose bucko." I won't do that, however, because I'm interested in exploring the reasons for this, which may include:

Quote
BUT this correlates much more strongly with social deprivation, poverty, age, migrational history and educational opportunties than it does with their religion (again, see the stats Gippy), so this is more a "wait and see, it's too early to tell properly" than a pass or fail.


Now, I'm more than willing to show why these proffered explanations miss the mark. But would I be wasting my time? You've already demonstrated that you're more interested in playing lawyer and screeching vulgar abuse than engaging in a formal discussion. Perhaps a more reasonable person would care to pick up the reins? Flint? Eric? Stephen?

Quote
Also, despite the high prison population (a negative factor, at least potentially, persecution does happen, but I'd argue it's almost not present in the UK) those crimes are small relative to the general prison population (i.e. more likely to be in for less than 12 months than over 4 years etc, yet again, see the stats). This AGAIN correlates strongly with poverty and social deprivation and weakly with religion. Really read those stats Gippy, I did. You'll find that "petty crimes" warranting small sentences are more often commited by those in a certain group of social classes (the lower ones) and that this correlation is stronger than the religious one. If muslims make up more of the poor in the UK and the poor are more likely to commit petty crime, then you'd expect to see a larger proportion of muslims in prison for petty crimes. Which is what you do see. The same happens to be true of Afro-Carribean populations in the UK, but I digress.


This is precisely why you're not worth debating. I already showed you that Muslims are, if anything, even more overrepresented for serious crimes (life, 10 years to life). So your objections flail against the current of the evidence.

Flint? Eric? Stephen? Anyone who is literate in the English language?

Quote
The SIMPLE point you keep evading Gippy is that you claimed that muslims were the worst integrating group of immigrants. The simple fact that they are not the worst integrators in the categories YOU gave (or at least are no worse than another group) disproves your claim. Again QED. Muslims do not integrate worse than other groups into at least one western society on all (or perhaps any except cries for affirmative action) of your criteria.


Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.

Flint? Eric? Stephen? Anybody reasonable?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,06:06   

Quote
Flint? Eric? Stephen? Anybody reasonable?

Well, not me. This topic is not even that interesting. Why am I supposed to care if Muslims are the least integratable group? If I wanted to read about politics I'd go to a political board. What does this have to do with anti-evolution again?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,06:15   

Ved:

 
Quote
Well, not me. This topic is not even that interesting. Why am I supposed to care if Muslims are the least integratable group? If I wanted to read about politics I'd go to a political board. What does this have to do with anti-evolution again?


1) Why are you reading this thread if you're not interested?

2) I have never said that Muslims were the least integrable group, only that they don't integrate.

3) Do you complain when "string-em-up-Lenny" bitches about the Bush administration? That's political too (incidentally, the manifest evil and incompetence of the Bush regime is something I agree with).

Oh yeah, I just realised that many lefties won't accept anything unless they're spoonfed. So here goes:

 
Quote
But I thought we were discussing the Muslim category. Why are you using ethnic proxies, especially ones that spread the Muslim population into several categories, while grouping Muslims with non-Muslims in others ("South Asians", for example)? The relevant pie-chart (figure 7.2, page 129) shows that Muslims are 8% of the prison population, just like I claimed. And before you argue that this is tremendously inflated by immigration violations and such, please note that the Muslim criminal conviction rate is still over 7% (Table 7.6, p.137) and that they are overrepresented in the "serious sentences" category (7.4% of lifers, 13.8% of between 10 years and less than life). In other words, when the relevant categories are considered, my point still stands.


Bolding mine.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,06:35   

Wow, what in the world do you suppose those statistics are useful for? What conclusions are you drawing? You appear so have a serious case of corellation=causation sickness.

Is there a difference between fundy A and Fundy B? Is it religion? Is it a lack of education? Is it too much education? Is it sexual repression? Is it sexual promiscuity? Is it addiction? Is it low moral character? Is there a genetic difference in the races or cultures that ought to lead to instituting a policy of containment? Should we just string em up? What the he!! is your point? I really can't figure this out. What policy should be implemented to counter this unusual and serious problem?

"I've been around the world and seen that only stupid people are breeding
The Cretons cloning and feeding
And I don't even own a TV"

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,07:37   

1) Can't say I didn't see this question coming... I check your threads every now and then just to see what you're still doing here.

2) Apologies, you see, I'm not really following the thread. So either they do or they don't. Should be easy to figure out, right?

3) No. I also don't see any Lenny vanity threads, although it is understandable that someone taking the side opposite from the majority of the board will receive a lot of attention.

Also, I accept the fact that antievolution IS mostly political. I just don't know what Muslim integration has to do with it.

I thought you came out. All you did was drop your most fun arguments, the sciency ones.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,10:54   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 23 2006,10:20)
Now, I'm more than willing to show why these proffered explanations miss the mark. But would I be wasting my time? You've already demonstrated that you're more interested in playing lawyer and screeching vulgar abuse than engaging in a formal discussion. Perhaps a more reasonable person would care to pick up the reins? Flint? Eric? Stephen?

I am not sure that I want to continue this. Personally I think that there is a problem in the UK regarding the integration of muslims. But you are giving me the impression that you believe muslim=bad. That is not my position.

My POV is that muslim imigrants to the UK contains a larger % of fundamentalists than most other groups. That may very well change if USA evangelists get what they want. Some of the Christian sites from the USA are pretty #### disturbing with absolute wingnuts running churches.

I pretty much dislike fundamentalism and evangelism. It breeds ignorance, arogance and intolerance. Personally I don't care what people believe but I don't want them to have the right to demand that everybody else has to believe/respect it.

Louis has raised some good points, so to just dismiss them indicates that you don't want to talk about a problem but would rather demonise muslims outright. Admitedly I could be wrong on that, but it is the feeling I am getting ATM.

As for "taking up the reins", I wouldn't know where to start.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,13:38   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 23 2006,11:15)
many lefties

No, Paley --- we're all Muslims.


And we're all out to get you.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,13:44   

Quote (Ved @ Oct. 23 2006,12:37)
I thought you came out.

Not yet.  

But given all the wrestling pics he posts, it's just a matter of time, I think.  Unless he's too self-hating . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,14:00   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 23 2006,15:54)
you don't want to talk about a problem but would rather demonise muslims outright. Admitedly I could be wrong on that

You're not wrong.  There's nothing fundies hate more than, well, other fundies.

As an aside, it amuses me greatly to hear that Dubya has been wracking his, uh, brains lately to come up with a good label for the enemy he wants to see everywhere in Iraq.  "Islamofascists" seems to be about the best he can come up with.

Oddly, he doesn't seem very eager to use the one term that *does* best describe the people he is referring to ---- "fundamentalist religious kooks".

Perhaps that would be because most of Dubya's political supporters fall into . . . um . . . the same category.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,14:28   

Stephen:

Quote
I am not sure that I want to continue this. Personally I think that there is a problem in the UK regarding the integration of muslims. But you are giving me the impression that you believe muslim=bad. That is not my position.


Well, the parody certainly equated Muslim with bad. Personally, I don't think Muslim immigration is bad if:

1) The host country tolerates the Muslims while demanding tolerance in return. Muslims must realise that they are not in Islamic countries anymore; if they want to engage in Jihad they can get the fuck out. Obviously, they have a right to practice their religion without harassment.

2) The host country is very selective. They should give extensive security checks, keep the total numbers relatively small and make sure the immigrants are given time to assimilate, while deporting or locking up illegals/criminals without hesitation.

3) No affirmative action. If you can't hack it in our free market system, find a socialist republic to live in.

Basically, study what Europe does and then do the opposite. Personally, I would rather just import another passel of NE Asians instead of going through the headache -- but that's just me.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,15:16   

[quote=The Ghost of Paley,Oct. 23 2006,19:28][/quote]
Well, the parody certainly equated Muslim with bad. Personally, I don't think Muslim immigration is bad if:

1) The host country tolerates the Muslims while demanding tolerance in return. Muslims must realise that they are not in Islamic countries anymore;



--Do you realize that, in a few years, you wo't be in a "white" country any more . . . ?




if they want to engage in Jihad they can get the fuck out. Obviously, they have a right to practice their religion without harassment.


---- Obviously they don't.  Equally obviously, 99.9% of them aren't terrorists, despite your ignorant ASSumption.



2) The host country is very selective. They should give extensive security checks, keep the total numbers relatively small and make sure the immigrants are given time to assimilate, while deporting or locking up illegals/criminals without hesitation



--- And this is more true of Muslims than of, say, Irish or Russian or black, why, again . . . .?


3) No affirmative action. If you can't hack it in our free market system, find a socialist republic to live in.



--Do you tell that to all the fundie whackjobs who bitch and whine and moan about how "the only legal discrimmination still existing is against Christians boo hoo hoo hoo" . . . ?



Basically, study what Europe does and then do the opposite. Personally, I would rather just import another passel of NE Asians instead of going through the headache -- but that's just me.


--Personally, no one cares what you want.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,04:06   

{sigh} I did this all before and you still didn't read it. Fuck me deftly Gippy you are a dishonest bastard. You move the goalposts every time you are shown to be in error.

Crime. How many times do I have to repeat myself? I agree that muslims are overrepresented in the prison population, it's pretty hard to disagree with reality (although you seem to have no problem). The point is that if you read those stats you'll see the stronger correlation with poverty etc than with religion. I may have made this point ooooohhhh about 3 or 4 times now only to have you ignore it and shrilly repeat "but there's more of them in prison!!!!111one!!111!".

Look at the table you think is a problem on page 138 of that first large document. Dealing with just male prisoners (to be fair to you because female prisoners really don't help you)

In order:

Page 93:

Crime and Age Stats, Male prisoners, 2002:

26.4% of all crime was commited by 21-24 year olds.
25.0% of all crime was commited by 25-29 year olds.
33.2% of all crime was commited by 30-39 year olds.
11.0% of all crime was commited by 40-49 year olds.
3.4% of all crime was commited by 50-59 year olds.
0.1% of all crime was commited by 60+ year olds.

14.0% of all crime was violent.
25.0% of violent crime was commited by 21-24 year olds.
22.4% of violent crime was commited by 25-29 year olds.
35.0% of violent crime was commited by 30-39 year olds.
13.2% of violent crime was commited by 40-49 year olds.
3.7% of violent crime was commited by 50-59 year olds.
0.1% of violent crime was commited by 60+ year olds.

3.0% of all crime was sexual.
12.3% of sex crime was commited by 21-24 year olds.
11.6% of sex crime was commited by 25-29 year olds.
28.8% of sex crime was commited by 30-39 year olds.
22.7% of sex crime was commited by 40-49 year olds.
17.7% of sex crime was commited by 50-59 year olds.
12.0% of sex crime was commited by 60+ year olds.

8.6% of all crime was drug related.
22.6% of drug  crime was commited by 21-24 year olds.
24.2% of drug crime was commited by 25-29 year olds.
35.4% of drug crime was commited by 30-39 year olds.
13.3% of drug crime was commited by 40-49 year olds.
3.8% of drug crime was commited by 50-59 year olds.
0.1% of drug crime was commited by 60+ year olds.

Compare this to page 136:

Age and religion stats of prison pop, males, 2002:

3.7% of all prisoners were 15-17 year olds.
11.7% of all prisoners were 18-20 year olds.
18.5% of all prisoners were 21-24 year olds.
34.0% of all prisoners were 25-29 year olds.
28.5% of all prisoners were 30-39 year olds.
11.7% of all prisoners were 40-49 year olds.
4.7% of all prisoners were 50-59 year olds.
2.2% of all prisoners were 60+ year olds.

68.3% of all prisoners were religious.
2.4% of religious prisoners were 15-17 year olds.
9.1% of religious prisoners were 18-20 year olds.
16.4% of religious prisoners were 21-24 year olds.
18.8% of religious prisoners were 25-29 year olds.
31.2% of religious prisoners were 30-39 year olds.
13.7% of religious prisoners were 40-49 year olds.
5.8% of religious prisoners were 50-59 year olds.
2.7% of religious prisoners were 60+ year olds.

8.0% of all prisoners were muslims.
2.8% of muslim prisoners were 15-17 year olds.
11.1% of muslim prisoners were 18-20 year olds.
20.9% of muslim prisoners were 21-24 year olds.
21.9% of muslim prisoners were 25-29 year olds.
28.6% of muslim prisoners were 30-39 year olds.
11.0% of muslim prisoners were 40-49 year olds.
2.2% of muslim prisoners were 50-59 year olds.
1.1% of muslim prisoners were 60+ year olds.

Take home message:

The vast majority of violent, sex or drug related crime is commited by people between 21 and 39 years old. In every age group below 30 years old muslim males are over represented, and in every age group above 30 years old they are greatly under represented (or in one case equal) compared to all prisoners and all religious prisoners. Combine this with previous data shown on the age of the muslim population. Muslims (specifically South Asian [i.e.Pakistani and Bangladeshi] muslims who make up more than 73% of all muslims in the UK, see page 127) are by far the youngest group of ethnic minorities in the UK. A stark illustration of this point is shown by the fact that for all male prisoners the proportion over 30 is 47.1%, for all religious prisoners it's 53.4% and for muslim prisoners it's 42.9%.

Also on page 120 see the data about young and adult offenders. The percentages of young offenders sentenced to > or = 12 months were 74% white, 86% black, 86% South Asian, 80% chinese/other. South Asians (remembering that these are at least 73% muslim) are "equally bad" in this sense and black prisoners. The percentages of adult offenders sentenced to >4 years were 51% white, 66% black, 58% South Asian, and 60% Chinese/other. South Asians are much "better" than blacks, and slightly better than Chinese/other here. They are certainly well within the 15% points you define within your definition of integration.

Also, on page 118 note that for violent/sex crimes white have the highest percentage at 34%, followed by South Asians at 33%, Chinese/other at 29% and blacks at 24%. Not good! But note above the strong correlation between age and violent crime and the age of the Asian population in the UK.

In terms of sentencing, see pages 137/138:

17.6% of all prisoners got < or = 12 months.
42.4% of all prisoners got < or = 4 years and > 12 months.
33.7% of all prisoners got < or = 10 years and > 4 years.
14.1% of all prisoners got < 10 years to life.

69% of prisoners were religious.
14.3% of religious prisoners got < or = 12 months.
39.3% of religious prisoners got < or = 4 years and > 12 months.
30.5% of religious prisoners got < or = 10 years and > 4 years.
16.0% of religious prisoners got < 10 years to life.

31% of prisoners were non religious.
21.4% of non religious prisoners got < or = 12 months.
45.8% of non religious prisoners got < or = 4 years and > 12 months.
22.9% of non religious prisoners got < or = 10 years and > 4 years.
9.8% of non religious prisoners got < 10 years to life.

8% of prisoners were muslim.
10.9% of muslim prisoners got < or = 12 months.
36.2% of muslim prisoners got < or = 4 years and > 12 months.
35.0% of muslim prisoners got < or = 10 years and > 4 years.
18.0% of muslim prisoners got < 10 years to life.

1% of prisoners were buddhist.
3.3% of buddhist prisoners got < or = 12 months.
19.0% of buddhist prisoners got < or = 4 years and > 12 months.
40.0% of buddhist prisoners got < or = 10 years and > 4 years.
37.4% of buddhist prisoners got < 10 years to life.

SCARY BUDDHISTS!!! ARGH!! 77% got over 4 years compared to a mere 53% for muslims. However, seriously, it's not a good picture for the muslims. Note again though the strong correlation with age. "Young" groups (21-39) tend to commit more crime, esp violent and drug crime, and muslims in the UK are the youngest religious group (and Pakistanis/Bangladeshis are the youngest ethnic group, no surprises there!;).

But what are these serious sentences for? What crimes? See above for a clue! Drugs were a big problem. Your criterion was violent crime was it not?

Breaking that down further (p125):

For all nationalities of male prisoner, 2002,

Violent crime:

81.8% white, 11.8% black, 3.2% South Asian, 3.1% Chinese/other.

Sex crime:

81.5% white, 12.2% black, 2.7% South Asian, 3.5% Chinese/other.

Drug crime:

61.1% white, 28.0% black, 4.7% South Asian, 6.1% Chinese/other.

Note that the violent/sex crime stats are much more closely in line with the %population of South Asians (4% total, of which 45% are Pakistani/Bangladeshi i.e. 1.8% of total pop). Mind you, those black and Chinese/other lads are overacheivers eh? Considering they make up 2% and 0.8% of the population respectively (in 2001).

See here for details

What about the ethnicity of those muslim prisoners? Are they all South Asians?

See page 135:

All prisoners:

White 77.6%, Black 14.9%, South Asian 3.2%, Chinese/Other 4.1%

Religious Prisoners:

White 74.5%, Black 15.8%, South Asian 4.6%, Chinese/Other 5.0%

Muslim Prisoners:

White 12.3%, Black 32.9%, South Asian 35.0%, Chinese/Other 25.5%

Note the ethnic diversity of the muslim prisoners versus the general prison and general religious prison pop. So is it a problem with islam or perhaps something else? This I'll get to in a minute.

Last two things on crime: change over time and recidivism.

Page 132: 1993 Prison pop:

All christian: 74.6%
buddhist: 0.4%
hindu: 0.4%
jewish: 0.5%
muslim: 5.0%
sikh: 0.8%
other: 0.3%
non recognised: 0.3%
no religion: 17.6%

2002 Prison pop:

All christian: 58.0%
buddhist: 0.9%
hindu: 0.4%
jewish: 0.3%
muslim: 7.7%
sikh: 0.6%
other: 0.2%
non recognised: 0.3%
no religion: 31.5%

It's pretty clear that muslims are not the most increased group. Buddhists and non-religious are. I'm not saying it's good for the muslims, just that it's worse for others.

Oh and by the way, see page 131. "[male] Muslims were the largest group amongst non-criminal prisoners, accounting for 33%". Hmmm, makes one think.

And now recidivism, sadly we have to go back to ethnicity, all the while remembering that 73% of South Asians are muslims.

British Nationals:

All ethnicities: All crime 60%, violent crime 48%, sex crime 16%, drug crime 42%.

White: All crime 61%, violent crime 48%, sex crime 16%, drug crime 42%.

Black: All crime 57%, violent crime 49%, sex crime 32%, drug crime 40%.

South Asian: All crime 46%, violent crime 40%, sex crime 20%, drug crime 40%.

Chinese/other: All crime 52%, violent crime 45%, sex crime 20%, drug crime 37%.

It would appear that South Asians, who are mostly muslims remember, have a much lower rate of recidivism. Except for that sex thing, sodding perverts!

What's the point of all this?

Well Gippy, because you are being so dishonest and a) misrepresenting what I am saying (strawman), assuming your conclusions (as usual), and moving the goalposts, I wanted to present a clear picture. And it's pretty grim. Too many muslims in prison, too many South Asians there too. By the way, look back and find ONE instance where I have denied this is the case. You won't find it because it isn't there.

My point throughout has been that, yes there are problems, but that these problems more strongly correlate to age, income and social deprivation than religion or ethnicity. I've noticed you keep avoiding this point and deliberately evading dealing with it.

So what other factors strongly correlate with muslims (and South Asians, and Pakistanis/Bangladeshis and blacks etc) in the UK. See the stuff below:

Another report

ethnicity trends

Poverty and ethnicity spreadsheet

More ethnicity data

There's a nice long report on ethnicity and society in that lot. Page 43 for example, explains the reasons behind Pakistanis/Bangladeshis (almost exclusively muslim btw) being more likely to have no qualifications than anyone else (immigration of adults with no qualifications to the UK). It also shows on page 41  educational trends. For example that Pakistanis/Bangladeshis have, since 1992, been the most improved group in terms of acheiving A* to C grades in GCSEs (i.e. good grades) despite being the second from bottom groupin terms of actually getting good grades.

Another point you completely overlook every time I make it is the self identity as British of muslims and South Asians in Britian. This is depsite the fact that Pakistanis/Bangladeshis as an ethnic group and muslims as a religious group are by far and away the most likely victims of racially motivated crime, as indeed I showed before.

Look also at the strong correlation between ethnicity and poverty, or ethnicity and overcrowded accomodation (Pakistanis/Banglasdeshis are more likely than anyone else to have several families in one house, they also report the most health problems, and have the least professional representation. These are the classic hallmarks of social deprivation). 60% of Pakistani/Bangladeshi (the majority of British muslims) households are on very low incomes. If we take into account housing costs this rises to 68%, their nearest companions (African black people) are 19% behind them on 49%. Compare this with white people of whom only 21% are in this category after housing costs.

Again my point here is NOT "all is well, muslims are great" or "oh poor muslims" my point is this:

If you are going to make such a big deal over the correlation between crime and islamic belief, why not also make a big deal over the much stronger correlation between crime and poverty, education, age and social deprivation?

The whole basis of your claim is that because there is a correlation between several factors and islamic belief, that the islamic belief is the cause of those factors. My point is NOT that this correlation does not exist, but that there are stronger correlations with other factors that you are deliberately ignoring to make your preconceived prejudiced case. A fact I have MORE than demonstrated about 5 times now.

You can whine on about me abusing you all you like Gippy, I do so because you are dishonest. I don't need to be dishonest because as I have said from the very beginning I am more than happy for you to be correct in this instance. The problem is you are not.

In every one of the criteria for integration YOU outline not only are muslims not the worst integrators, but there are demonstrably greater correlations with age, poverty, education and social deprivation than there are with religion or ethnicity. Simply put: young, poor, uneducated, socially deprived people commit more crime than old, rich, educated, socially enriched people. More muslims or South Asians are young, poor, uneducated and socially deprived than any other group in the UK. The weak correlation between islamic belief or Asian ethnicity and crime is swamped by the much stronger correlations between the other factors.

Like I said Gippy, your claim is erroneous. False. Bunkum. Bullshit. The fact that I have to continually spell this out to you and have you ignore it is a little annoying.

Louis

P.S. Oh and in the previous post I got my wires crossed. Petty crime IS more associated with poverty. I fucked up when I equated it with muslims in the UK. My bad. Brain fart. As it goes though the point is more strongly and correctly made in this post.

--------------
Bye.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,05:05   

Isn't Paley's gripe mostly about assimilation of Muslim immigrants? If so, I'd think that the stats of Muslim inmates wouldn't be too helpful because it doesn't differentiate between Muslim immigrants and already westernized American converts to Nation of Islam.

[Edit: Nevermind, I'm not reading enough of this thread to be able to keep up properly]

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,05:19   

Quote

Like I said Gippy, your claim is erroneous. False. Bunkum. Bullshit. The fact that I have to continually spell this out to you and have you ignore it is a little annoying.

Have to? Is someone forcing you to argue with him?

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,05:21   

Ved,

The whole purpose of this thread was for Gippy to defend a specific claim he made. That claim, and the relevant definitions by Gippy, have been posted several times. This thread is expressedly NOT a thread about wider immigration/cultural issues, Gippy's racist fantasies or anything else. Gippy made a very specific claim and has to defend it. Despite his floundering all over the place and attempts to move the goal posts to avoid the consequences of his claim, this thread is simply for that reason alone.

The crime stats form part of the data relating to one aspect of his definition of integration. He keeps avoiding the strong correlations in favour of the weaker one that he thinks demonstrates his case. It doesn't.

Louis

P.S. Steve, no, no one is forcing me to argue with him. The whole point of this is Gippy claimed he had never had a political claim disproven (despite the evidence to the contrary). I picked a political claim he made and asked if he'd like to defend it (after he challenged me to do so). I picked, he agreed, after lots of waffle he defined his criteria, the data doesn't support his claim. End of story. All the rest is Gippy avoiding the fact that he is wrong and me getting annoyed about it.

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,06:01   

Louis, I'll respond to your latest statistics because you actually have a good argument here. I do need to adjust for the fact that Muslims generally have a demographic profile skewed towards randy young men. I'll make the appropriate adjustments when I get the time. I won't give you poverty, though, since that's not a valid reason for being a violent thug. Plus, it's circular, since it assumes people are poor because of discrimination, and then uses the poverty to "prove" discrimination. Speaking as someone who's brushed up against poverty himself (and consequently met a lot of poor people), let me just say that discrimination has very little to do with it IMHO.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,06:08   

Gippy,

My argument hasn't changed since I posted those stats.

It would appear that you don't understand it still however. My argument is NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with discrimination or the tautology you assume. Nor do I make the value judgement that poverty is an excuse for being a violent thug. I have made no case that muslims are poor and therefore are discriminated against or that they are discriminated against and therefore poor. In fact how you get this is beyond me. I explicitly have not and never would make that argument.

What I have said is that the correlations you are drawing attention to between your integration criteria and islamic belief are weaker than the correlations between your integration criteria and a wealth of toher factors (poverty, social exclusion, age, education etc etc). If you are being honest (which you are not) then you would admit that these stronger correlations are a refutation of your emphasis on the weaker correlation. No discrimination, no tautology, no cries of "oh woe are the muslims". Stop beating up a strawman that doesn't exist.

Louis

P.S. (added in edit) Just had a thought. Social exclusion/social deprivation is NOT about discrimination, it's about access to resources/opportunities. One possible reason for exclusion is discrimination, BUT it is one amongst many causes, and in this case I would argue a minor one. A far greater cause is the vicious circle of poverty and lack of education. Some people don't know how to improve their lot, don't care to learn, are afraid to learn, don't want to improve their lot etc. One part of the "don't want to" factor in immigrant populations is the percieved standard of living and the ability to send cash home. If one can survive and meet one's obligations in terms of sending money to the motherland, then one has no need to improve one's lot. Not MY attitude, nor that of my family or friends, but AN attitude prevalent in immigrant communities (and similarly in indigenous ones as it happens). Also the simple fact of being poor can hinder people improving their lot. Not everyone is an entrepreneur. They are concerned with jam today, not more jam tomorrow, mouths to feed and all that. Sure there is discrimination too, and language barriers and simple dumbness, but these are less important than the real problems of poverty/lack of education etc.

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,07:13   

Quote
I won't give you poverty, though, since that's not a valid reason for being a violent thug. Plus, it's circular, since it assumes people are poor because of discrimination, and then uses the poverty to "prove" discrimination. Speaking as someone who's brushed up against poverty himself (and consequently met a lot of poor people), let me just say that discrimination has very little to do with it IMHO.

No, you're right GoP(s), discrimination just keeps them there. Education gets them out of it.  And it takes more than one generation typically.

But poverty does contribute to desperation and hopelessness. As someone who has worked with homeless kids for almost 10 years, I have read a few studies and watched many great theoretical models go down in flames. It is a complicated subject that goes through many disciplines and, in the end, it is always either a light going on or not that makes a difference. Have you ever read Herbert Gans, "Positive Functions of the Undeserving Poor"?

Discrimination is a quasi-institutional way to reduce competition and to maintain a labor pool for disposable workers. Not that that idea is solely from Gans, there are several others too. If you want to have that kind of a discussion, I'd be happy to but It'll be slow because I will be doing normal work again starting Thursday. (I've been doing excel spreadsheets for the last week so I've had a little extra break time.)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,07:31   

I'll address the substantial issues Louis and BWE raised later, but for now, I thought I'd share an interesting article I found off Auster's website:

Quote
Thousands of immigrants and asylum seekers are legally allowed to drive on our roads even though many would be incapable of passing a British driving test, safety campaigners have claimed.

Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander faced calls to end a legal loophole entitling people who have a an overseas licence to drive in the UK for a year before taking a test.

The demands from road safety groups and MPs follow a series of accidents involving immigrants.

Critics claim foreign licences are often bought on the black market in their country of origin or handed out after tests lasting as little as five minutes.

And UK driving instructors say they are dealing with an increasing number of immigrants who have been driving in Britain for a year but need as many lessons as a novice to pass their test.


Tory MP David Davies, who holds a heavy goods vehicle licence, said: "It is crazy that someone who has been driving in Somalia should be allowed to drive here without taking a test."

His views were supported by Cathy Keeler, of the national road safety group Brake. "If the test in each country is not as high a standard as in the UK, it should not be valid here,' she said.

While our driving test - which has a pass rate of just 43 per cent - is one of the hardest in the world, exams in other countries are less rigorous. In Kenya, candidates move toy cars around a street map and are given practical tests in groups. No matter what the results, a bribe of just £11 is said to be enough to secure a licence.

Ethiopian drivers have a practical test around a course marked out by wooden pegs while in Somalia fake licences can be bought openly at markets.

There are also fears of corruption in EU countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic, whose licences are now considered equivalent to those in the UK and can be used here indefinitely.


Earlier this month, Polish bus driver Robert Botur was jailed for two years after causing the death of a female passenger six weeks after his arrival in the UK. He was driving on the wrong side of the road and hit an oncoming car.

In Peterborough, a surge in the number of non-English speakers convicted of driving offences led police to produce a leaflet with cartoon pictures explaining English driving laws.

The Department for Transport denied foreign licences were a safety risk, adding: "We don't want people here for a short period of time to have to go through the process of getting a licence."


"Four legs good, two legs baaaaaatter, four legs good, two legs baaaaater, four legs good, two legs baaaaater.

We're all equal. It's just that some are more equal than others."

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,07:51   

Gippy,

So? How is this in any way relevant to this thread? Your delusions about the evils of immigration are not relevant to you supporting your claim. This thread is not about you espousing your prejudicial drivellings about race/immigration etc, but about you defending a specific claim. How about you try to deal with that mmmkay? Start another thread about your immigration issues if you must.

Oh and the Daily Mail? Way to go for the "truth", you do know that paper supported Hitler well into WWII (I win the Godwin sweepstake!;), right? Not that that's  relevant but let's just say that the paper isn't reknowned for its balanced, fact based approach to matters.

Does it help you to know that when I lived in the USA (over a decade ago admittedly) I could have legally bought a gun after being in the country for 28 days with no training or substantial screening? (I actually tried and succeeded in doing this at my local KMart, only changing my mind at the cash register when the cashier asked for the money. I had no need for a gun at that time, it was just fun to see if I could do it. Perversely buying alcohol was a fucking nightmare. You Yanks have it all the wrong way around!;) Or that I could drive immediately, and having passed a very brief state driving theory test got my own NY state driving licence?

Keep bleating bigot.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,09:31   

Quote
Gippy,

So? How is this in any way relevant to this thread?


First, I don't have to justify anything I do to you. I'll post whatever I want, whenever I want, and however I want. It's up to the mods to take action if I break the rules. This is an American forum, and in America we still have a little thing called the First Amendment. The head(s) of this website allow the posters broad latitude to exercise their First Amendment rights, and you'll have to deal. Perhaps later on you and Lenny will be able to lynch as many blue-eyed devils as you wish, but for now you'll have accept the fact that your piddly little theories are being placed under scrutiny. Tough tits, witch-dunker.  :D

Second, this article (among others) shows Britain's willingness to bend over backwards (forwards?) for the immigrants, which puts the lie to your claim of massive discrimination by Whitey. I don't care about the paper's past -- I'm only interested in the evidence right now.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,09:54   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 24 2006,15:31)
Second, this article (among others) shows Britain's willingness to bend over backwards (forwards?) for the immigrants, which puts the lie to your claim of massive discrimination by Whitey. I don't care about the paper's past -- I'm only interested in the evidence right now.

Is that what you think?  Because it sure sounds like the ministry is concerned with tourists rather than immigrants.

Quote
The Department for Transport denied foreign licences were a safety risk, adding: "We don't want people here for a short period of time to have to go through the process of getting a licence."


--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,09:56   

Oh, and Mrs. Louis? Don't get your panties in a bunch over what my parody said. I'm willing to defend the original claim, but I'm also willing to learn from the discussion we're having. If you provide evidence for your position, I'm willing to change my POV. PC tirades have no effect, I'm afraid.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,11:01   

WOW! You ARE a deluded individual aren't you?

Nowhere have I mentioned or indeed insinuated censorship or denial of freedom of speech. Are you bipolar? Schizophrenic? You are certainly not sane whatever you suffer from.

Your recent Daily Mail story is not relevant to the topic of this thread. Period. The topic is that thing at the top of the thread. You are defending a specific claim in this thread, not wittering about the evils of immigration. Like I said, stick that in a different thread and I'll happily play along, but don't pretend it's relevant in this one. It ain't. My issue isn't with shutting you up, it's with trying to keep you honest and relevant for thirty seconds to deal with reality as it actually is, not as you wish it to be.

As for my position, like I said at the start, on this issue I don't actually have one. I am willing to grant people the benefit of the doubt. Beginning and end of story. It is YOU that is defending the claim, not me. You aren't putting my views to any scrutiny because you don't know what they are other than I don't like bigots and liars. This latest shell game of yours fools no one.

Face it, you've been comprehensively shown to be talking rubbish on every single occasion and on every single topic. This one included. Parody or not, you are a failure, naught more than a troll with nothing better to do than bait people on an internet forum for kicks.

The simple fact that you still think that I am appealing to some politically correct "gee aren't we all just skippy" nonsense is ludicrous. It shows that you are neither honest nor capable of reading for comprehension. I care only about the evidence and its reliability. I'm happy to note that the concept of human races is useful in certain limited circumstances, based on the evidence. I'm happy to note that there are broad differences between human races. I'm also happy to note that there is more variation within human races than between human races. I'm even happy to acknoledge the problems that cultural mixing and immigration can and do cause. The difference is Gippy I know for a fact that these things are like the pain of pulling a rotten tooth. Temporary. Just like dealing with bigots like you Paley. The painful interlude before the relief.

You do realise that your insistance on dealing with immigrants by ethnic and faith group reveals you to be a bigot and gives the lie to your claim to deal with people as individuals? Nope didn't think so. Not big on the self realisation are we Gippy? Actually just make that not big on realisation.

In one limited sense you fascinate me. What would drive a presumably adult human being to behave in the manner you are? Why troll an internet forum for a year, or more accurately, falsely claim this is what you are doing? Are you so insecure and starved of attention that this is what you need?

I have a few educated guesses about you Gippy. You were unpopular at school. Not very good at sports and ridiculed for your lack of "machismo" and manly athletic prowess. Reviled, you turned to intellectal pursuits but unfortunately weren't bright enough to achieve what you felt you deserve, after all Gippy you are the GREAT GHOST OF PALEY right? Your bile and bitterness ate away at you and so you sought hard to find those you could patronise and condescend to.

I would guess that you are an underweight, physically unattractive white or perhaps pale mixed (depsite your claim I don't belive a word you say) race male. I would guess that if you have reached adulthood, you have done so as a virgin. Oh perhaps not quite a virgin, but almost certainly your sexual encounters have been fumbled, brief and unsatisfactory if they have happened at all. Possibly they have been paid for with earnings fromyour no doubt unfulfilling blue collar job. I would also guess you are tortured by self loathing due to your homosexual fantasies.

Scorned by what could laughably called your peers (let's face it, you haven't risen to the height of having a peer yet) you decided to drink deep from the well of bigotry. So proud are you to be an "American", so convinced of your own fictional superiority you pour forth venom on the "lesser" races and nations, i.e. anyone different from you. Oh sure, you just about tolerate those that keep quiet and don't act too foreign, but heaven forfend that anyone should have the temerity to be browner or happier than you and a bit different. Look at your scorn for "liberals", "us vs them" again Gippy. You have no actual achievements or talent and you are afraid, so you clothe yourself in a group to protect yourself. You identify with the group you think makes you powerful, desirous of the power you lack. You fear the values of the Enlightenment and the "liberals" who espouse them.

Perhaps this is why you revile science, reason and actual freedom and tolerance. You have no intellectual gifts or acheivements, let's face it all you do is Google trawl to support prejudices you have or wish you had for the sake of popularity you will never attain. Your use of macho images, the language of dominion and conquest, your desperate need for attention and approval all speak volumes about you Gippy. Tell me, what is the difference between Gippy now and Gippy the "parody"? Nothing. You have the same views, the same lies, and the same total lack of abilities.

You have both my contempt and such pity as I can be bothered to spare you.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,11:51   

Quote
The simple fact that you still think that I am appealing to some politically correct "gee aren't we all just skippy" nonsense is ludicrous. It shows that you are neither honest nor capable of reading for comprehension. I care only about the evidence and its reliability. I'm happy to note that the concept of human races is useful in certain limited circumstances, based on the evidence. I'm happy to note that there are broad differences between human races. I'm also happy to note that there is more variation within human races than between human races. I'm even happy to acknoledge the problems that cultural mixing and immigration can and do cause. The difference is Gippy I know for a fact that these things are like the pain of pulling a rotten tooth. Temporary. Just like dealing with bigots like you Paley. The painful interlude before the relief.


My friends and family would probably laugh at your forensic skills, as your profile is practically orthogonal to reality. (I am, however, a white guy with some Amerindian blood -- nice deduction! The rest just establishes why Freud is such a poor guide to the truth.) However, what you lack in diagnostic skills you make up in inadvertent self-immolation. Take the claim that you're a free-thinking dude that's willing to look reality square in the eye. This is belied by:

1) Your constant stream of invective;

2) Your tendency to evade, then mangle, your opponent's position;

3) Your tendency to state stupid stuff that contradicts your position. For example:

     
Quote
I'm happy to note that the concept of human races is useful in certain limited circumstances, based on the evidence. I'm happy to note that there are broad differences between human races. I'm also happy to note that there is more variation within human races than between human races. I'm even happy to acknoledge the problems that cultural mixing and immigration can and do cause. The difference is Gippy I know for a fact that these things are like the pain of pulling a rotten tooth. Temporary. Just like dealing with bigots like you Paley. The painful interlude before the relief.


If you're willing to acknowledge that there might be "broad differences between human races", then how can you be assured that the "problems that cultural mixing and immigration can and do cause" are "temporary"? You can't, because if there are genetic differences in either intelligence or temperament among racial groups (something that is far from proven, however plausible it may be), then mixing different races will guarantee inequities, especially in professions that are g-loaded. Now, I'm far from certain that the inequities we do see are due in part to genes, but if they are, then any humane attempts to remove the discrepancies are bound to result in failure. This sets up a feedback loop of unsuccessful strategies leading to more repressive legislation against the visibly successful groups, as the failures are blamed on the evil discrimination imposed by the groups on top.

Face it dude: you're just a mouse squeaking the lefty party line. Nothing wrong with that: we all need a source of comfort in our lives. But don't delude yourself. While you may have forgotten your attempts to have me shut up, don't think that I have.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,12:14   

Too close to the bone was I Gippy?

Louis

P.S. What have I evaded or mangled? Evidence Gimpy. You know that invonvenient stuff that you hate so much.

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,13:06   

Re; Muslims in prison -- I am mildly curious as to how many of those actually converted to Islam AFTER they were already in prison on all their violent charges.  Particularly since the Nation of Islam has extensive organizational apparatus in every prison in the United States, and people with long prison sentences (violent criminals) would be far more likely than people with short prison sentences (nonviolent criminals) to need the support of an internal prisoner organization simply to survive longterm in a prison environment.

Malcolm, X, after all, was already in jail when he converted to Islam.  I suspect that is true of a high percentage of others.


I also suspect that Paley will, uh, "answer that later".

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,13:12   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 24 2006,16:01)
Are you so insecure and starved of attention that this is what you need?

DING DING DING !!!!!!!!!

He needs attention like a tapeworm needs sh#t.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,13:52   

Quote
Too close to the bone was I Gippy?

Louis


Actually, no: I've had to deal with people like you all my life. But the fact that you were so eager to have me banned says that you were fucked up by the Paley Express. After all, one doesn't try to ban something unless one feels threatened by it somehow......hmmmm....fess up, Louie. What about me intrigues you to the point that you follow me around, bellowing invective? I mean, you're a research chemist, for God's sake. Same thing for Lenny....I'm still giggling that a respected contributor to the Talk Origins Archive thinks that my immigration restrictionist beliefs merit a lynching. That is just so fucking funny. I'm a better troll now than when I was trying.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,15:21   

Louis. I'm looking at your stats and boy are they a muddled mess:

 
Quote
Crime and Age Stats, Male prisoners, 2002:

26.4% of all crime was commited by 21-24 year olds.
25.0% of all crime was commited by 25-29 year olds.
33.2% of all crime was commited by 30-39 year olds.
11.0% of all crime was commited by 40-49 year olds.
3.4% of all crime was commited by 50-59 year olds.
0.1% of all crime was commited by 60+ year olds.

14.0% of all crime was violent.
25.0% of violent crime was commited by 21-24 year olds.
22.4% of violent crime was commited by 25-29 year olds.
35.0% of violent crime was commited by 30-39 year olds.
13.2% of violent crime was commited by 40-49 year olds.
3.7% of violent crime was commited by 50-59 year olds.
0.1% of violent crime was commited by 60+ year olds.

3.0% of all crime was sexual.
12.3% of sex crime was commited by 21-24 year olds.
11.6% of sex crime was commited by 25-29 year olds.
28.8% of sex crime was commited by 30-39 year olds.
22.7% of sex crime was commited by 40-49 year olds.
17.7% of sex crime was commited by 50-59 year olds.
12.0% of sex crime was commited by 60+ year olds.

8.6% of all crime was drug related.
22.6% of drug  crime was commited by 21-24 year olds.
24.2% of drug crime was commited by 25-29 year olds.
35.4% of drug crime was commited by 30-39 year olds.
13.3% of drug crime was commited by 40-49 year olds.
3.8% of drug crime was commited by 50-59 year olds.
0.1% of drug crime was commited by 60+ year olds.

Compare this to page 136:

Age and religion stats of prison pop, males, 2002:

3.7% of all prisoners were 15-17 year olds.
11.7% of all prisoners were 18-20 year olds.
18.5% of all prisoners were 21-24 year olds.
34.0% of all prisoners were 25-29 year olds.
28.5% of all prisoners were 30-39 year olds.
11.7% of all prisoners were 40-49 year olds.
4.7% of all prisoners were 50-59 year olds.
2.2% of all prisoners were 60+ year olds.

68.3% of all prisoners were religious.
2.4% of religious prisoners were 15-17 year olds.
9.1% of religious prisoners were 18-20 year olds.
16.4% of religious prisoners were 21-24 year olds.
18.8% of religious prisoners were 25-29 year olds.
31.2% of religious prisoners were 30-39 year olds.
13.7% of religious prisoners were 40-49 year olds.
5.8% of religious prisoners were 50-59 year olds.
2.7% of religious prisoners were 60+ year olds.

8.0% of all prisoners were muslims.
2.8% of muslim prisoners were 15-17 year olds.
11.1% of muslim prisoners were 18-20 year olds.
20.9% of muslim prisoners were 21-24 year olds.
21.9% of muslim prisoners were 25-29 year olds.
28.6% of muslim prisoners were 30-39 year olds.
11.0% of muslim prisoners were 40-49 year olds.
2.2% of muslim prisoners were 50-59 year olds.
1.1% of muslim prisoners were 60+ year olds.


First, you're comparing the age profile of adult prisoners in the general prison category with the age profile for adult + 15-20 prisoners in the Muslim category. Of course it's easy to recalculate consistent percentage breakdowns but it does make it confusing for those not used to working with numbers. Don't the lurkers deserve better at least?

Second, to show that skewed demographics are responsible for the Muslim overrepresentation in prison you need to compare the age categories in the overall Muslim population with the overall age categories in the UK population. Comparing percentages within prison groups ain't gonna cut it, because even if it's true that young prisoners are overrepresented among Muslims (your stats don't seem to show this, BTW, at least compared to the general prison population), this might only show a generational crime spike. You need to show what % of the Islamic pop is youthful over & above the general pop, so I can calculate the expected frequencies.

Third, what is the "other" in Chinese/other? Inquiring minds want to know.... ;)

And this is just from the paragraph I tried to work with. I'm not saying the stats are garbage but you need to collate them better so meaningful comparisons are possible. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Take your time, I promise I won't nag. I just want a clear argument so you can't juke, jive, and then call me dishonest on top of it.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,18:07   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 24 2006,18:52)

Don't flatter yourself, Paley.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,23:06   

Lord love a duck!

Gimpy,

1) Pay attention.

2) Read for comprehension.

3) I said that IF (note conditional) there were a vote (which there is not) I would vote for you to be banned. I stand by that. In fact I will say it clearer for you: Yes I would like you banned from ATBC.

The reasons, as I have stated, are not because you have bothered me, but because you are a self confessedly, demonstrably dishonest troll. I would desire the same if anyone trolled like you, whether or not they agreed with me on anything. See the difference?

Your dishonesty causes me to desire your removal. I'm more than happy for you to troll anywhere you like since it isn't up to me where you do that. I'm also more than happy to express my desire that here isn't one of the places you do this. JAD and DaveTard were banned from here for incessant trolling and dishonesty. Why make an exception for you? Disagreement isn't even the issue, the fact that you contribute nothing of substance and do so with unfailing regularity and frequency is. Get it? I doubt it, but what I don't doubt is that you will lie about it and try to twist things to fit your purposes.

Note that if I had tried to get you banned I would have emailed Steve and Wesley etc. I haven't and I seriously doubt I will. I have expressed a desire for, not attempted to arrange, your removal. I know this is a tricky concept for you to grasp but do try.

4) The invective and abuse is because I hold you in deep contempt. Demonstrate you are worthy of anything other than abuse and you'll get other than abuse. I'm also rather enjoying destroying your arguments and watching you squirm about. It's also really funny that you are trying to turn everything I mention back onto me. As Lenny said when a "tactic" really bothers a creationist loon like yourself it always shows because they try (unsuccessfully) to use it.

5) The crime stats. Sorry Gimpy but I presented them as they were in the document. As I have said ooooohhh a dozen or so times now, I am not promoting and cause, ideology or case other than the specific claim YOU made is incorrect. Ignore the under 20 year old stats for muslims if you wish. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. The correlation STILL exists. Read the data, read the links. The lurkers that you worry about so are more than capable. I also note a deafening silence from said lurkers regarding your pleas. Amusing. Age is more stringly correlated with criminality than religion, and muslims are the youngest religious group in the UK. Simple. The stats from that document have the same categories (20-24, 25-29 etc) focus on those if you wish, I also believe that I pointed out later in the document the stats regarding young offenders, and made it pretty clear that I was only comparing adult males. Ah well, you do get points for trying. Did you spell your name correctly at the top of the sheet? Or did you copy the child's next to you by accident?

The only argument I have is that, based on the evidence, your contention that muslims integrate into western societies worse than other groups is false. End of story. I'm not advocating open borders, hugging muslims or kissing Africans. I'm not denying that differences exist, nor that there are problems caused by immigration. What you seem incapable of understanding is that it is possible to face reality and still hold what you would term "liberal lefty" views. Yes there are some racial and cultural differences, but they are less statistically significant that the similarities. Yes there are problems, but they are deomstrably less significant than the problems caused by isolationist regimes. See the consistency now? Forgive me if yet again I doubt it. Anyway it's irrelevant to this thread which is about the veracity of YOUR claim.

As for the Chinese/Other category, it's all in the document Gimpy. Read it for yourself. Why should I do your homeowrk for you? All I'm saying is that the data does not match your claim. I'm not advancing a claim of my own. Understand this yet? Nope, didn't think so.

6) I'm not following you around anywhere, especially since I was posting in ATBC before you AFAIK***, and that this thread was designed for you to defend a claim you made. You don't seem to be doing that btw, you seem to be off on another of your interminable frothings regarding immigration and "liberals". You also seem to be flailing desperately around to ignore the fact that your claim has been comprehensively demolished. A fact which the lurkers about whom you are so concerned are probably in no doubt about.

BTW I find this particualrly amusing: people like Dawkins don't debate creationists because to do so gives the artificial and false impression that the creationists, and their ideas,  are worth debating. Are you saying that because Lenny and I and others repsond to you, you are somehow validated and your views are somehow worthy of serious debate? Trust me sunshine they aren't worthy of serious debate, hence abuse. Get it yet? No, didn't think for a second you would!

7) Research chemists can't post on the net now? When did that rule come in. Just because you flip burgers for a living and have the time management skills of a recently deceased tapeworm (cheers Lenny)  doesn't mean the rest of us do. In yesterday's 18 hour working day (including work at home) I managed to get quite a bit done cheers, including posting to you in a break. Like I've said Gimpy, your problems are yours, try not to project them onto others, there's a good chap.

8) Just to reiterate, because you seem to have trouble with this: this thread is for YOU to defend YOUR claim. Get it? I don't have to advance a contrary or alternative argument to demonstrate that YOUR argument is inconsistent or fallacious (which btw I've done).

9) No let's not go to 9. I wouldn't want to make you count past the fingers on one of your "hands".

Louis

*** Added in edit. Oooopsie Louis made a booboo. Louis needs to engage brain methinks. Louis should look at those nice little dates near to the poster's name and notice that Gimpy has been shitting in this sandbox longer than Louis has been raking the sand. Louis bad. Louis feels sad now. Still, Louis is still happily enjoying Gimpy's projection, paranoia and aberrant psychology. Gimpy's very funny. But Louis feels shame for it is not nice to mock the afflicted.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,23:15   

P.S. I always think if a specific song when I tire ofn the presence of any individual, in meat or cyber space:

Motley Crue's "Girl Don't Go Away Mad (Girl Just Go Away)".

Just go away Gimpy, your trolling is merely vacuous, dishonest and annoying, not interesting or useful.

--------------
Bye.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2006,02:05   

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1928111,00.html

Quote
White youths are more likely to believe they are superior to those from other races, and their attitudes are more of a barrier to integration than those of Muslims, a study for the government has found.

An interesting point, of course it is just one study....

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2006,08:33   

Quote
5) The crime stats. Sorry Gimpy but I presented them as they were in the document. As I have said ooooohhh a dozen or so times now, I am not promoting and cause, ideology or case other than the specific claim YOU made is incorrect. Ignore the under 20 year old stats for muslims if you wish.


OK, here's an adjusted comparison:

 
Quote
26.4% of all crime was commited by 21-24 year olds.
25.0% of all crime was commited by 25-29 year olds.
33.2% of all crime was commited by 30-39 year olds.
11.0% of all crime was commited by 40-49 year olds.
3.4% of all crime was commited by 50-59 year olds.
0.1% of all crime was commited by 60+ year olds.


vs the adjusted Muslim adult incarceration stats:

24.3% for 21-24 year olds.
25.4% for 25-29 year olds.
33.2% for 30-39 year olds.
12.8% for 40-49 year olds.
2.6% for 50-59 year olds.
1.3% for 60+ year olds.

I fail to see the significance. If anything, randy young Muslims are slightly underrepresented (that's a good thing, I guess).

Quote
Age is more stringly correlated with criminality than religion, and muslims are the youngest religious group in the UK. Simple. The stats from that document have the same categories (20-24, 25-29 etc) focus on those if you wish, I also believe that I pointed out later in the document the stats regarding young offenders, and made it pretty clear that I was only comparing adult males. Ah well, you do get points for trying.


So what if age is more strongly correlated with criminality than religion? Gender is more stongly correlated with violent crime than poverty or education, yet lefties don't ignore these variables. Besides, that's not the way to make your case. You need to make a multivariate model and check the coefficient for the variable of interest, or do an analysis of variance, or chi-squared.....whatever. Anything is better than the nothing you've given me.

Quote
As for the Chinese/Other category, it's all in the document Gimpy. Read it for yourself. Why should I do your homeowrk for you? All I'm saying is that the data does not match your claim. I'm not advancing a claim of my own. Understand this yet? Nope, didn't think so.


Stephen, would you mind telling us who the "Other" category is? Louis seems reluctant for some reason......

By the way, Louis, why aren't you addressing my main claim, which is:

Quote
Second, to show that skewed demographics are responsible for the Muslim overrepresentation in prison you need to compare the age categories in the overall Muslim population with the overall age categories in the UK population. Comparing percentages within prison groups ain't gonna cut it, because even if it's true that young prisoners are overrepresented among Muslims (your stats don't seem to show this, BTW, at least compared to the general prison population), this might only show a generational crime spike. You need to show what % of the Islamic pop is youthful over & above the general pop, so I can calculate the expected frequencies.


Saying "go read the links" is not a response; ####, anyone could make that response to support any claim: geocentrism, flat earth, Holocaust denial. Give me a counter-argument.

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2006,08:48   

Where are these stats coming from? What is the correlation to education and income?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2006,08:50   

Quote
Gender is more stongly correlated with violent crime than poverty or education, yet lefties don't ignore these variables.


Whoops. This statement is not quite kosher. Let's just say that age groups are probably more correlated to violent crime than poverty or education, and that gender ties in more strongly to crime than any of the above. Certainly, I can more reliably assume that a random thug is male than that he's poor or poorly educated.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2006,09:38   

BWE:

   
Quote
Where are these stats coming from? What is the correlation to education and income?


BWE, you seem very eager to engage in a broader social debate. Well, I'm game so long as it's on another thread (perhaps the GOP West & Race thread?), and you show patience for my somwhat erratic work schedule. I'm trying to get Louis to collate his stats more usefully or at least give the overall demographic breakdowns of the Muslims in the UK so that I can quantify his arguments. Basically, he's saying that age, poverty, and education are far more predictive of crime than a tendency to embrace Islam. The problem, however is:

1) The fact that even more powerful correlations may exist is no excuse to ignore all other correlations;

2) There are ways to tease out the other variables, but Louis's data makes that impossible, rendering his argument irrelevant;

3) Louis has not made any sort of the analysis of the data he has uncovered.

To be honest, I was fooled by Louis's bluster. His data is not as informative as he's maintaining. Anyone who's numerate can verify this if they wish. This, in conjunction with some of his statistical fallacies (my favorite was this one:

 
Quote
Last two things on crime: change over time and recidivism.

Page 132: 1993 Prison pop:

All christian: 74.6%
buddhist: 0.4%
hindu: 0.4%
jewish: 0.5%
muslim: 5.0%
sikh: 0.8%
other: 0.3%
non recognised: 0.3%
no religion: 17.6%

2002 Prison pop:

All christian: 58.0%
buddhist: 0.9%
hindu: 0.4%
jewish: 0.3%
muslim: 7.7%
sikh: 0.6%
other: 0.2%
non recognised: 0.3%
no religion: 31.5%

It's pretty clear that muslims are not the most increased group. Buddhists and non-religious are. I'm not saying it's good for the muslims, just that it's worse for others.


Ah yes, the Hasty Generalization fallacy. The Buddhist prison proportion increased by 125%. Wow! that's certainly a larger change than 54%. Good thing the Buddhists avoided that dreadful 1% threshold -- otherwise we'd have a crime wave on our hands.... :D)


make me skeptical of his entire position.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2006,12:49   

Gimpy,

It's great fun to watch you seize on what you percieve to be a problem and ride that horse to death no matter how wrong you are. The argument is more developed than the difference between those first two groups of data. It's also interesting to see you dishonestly compare different data and ignore the actual comparison. Very amusing.

Try correcting the stats for the other groups quoted from the same table, the differences stand out more.

"Corrected data" for Gimpy from page 136

Age and religion stats of prison pop, males, 2002:

21.8% of all prisoners were 21-24 year olds.
22.5% of all prisoners were 25-29 year olds.
33.7% of all prisoners were 30-39 year olds.
13.8% of all prisoners were 40-49 year olds.
5.6% of all prisoners were 50-59 year olds.
2.6% of all prisoners were 60+ year olds.

18.5% of religious prisoners were 21-24 year olds.
21.2% of religious prisoners were 25-29 year olds.
35.3% of religious prisoners were 30-39 year olds.
15.4% of religious prisoners were 40-49 year olds.
6.5% of religious prisoners were 50-59 year olds.
3.1% of religious prisoners were 60+ year olds.

24.3% of muslim prisoners were 21-24 year olds.
25.9% of muslim prisoners were 25-29 year olds.
33.2% of muslim prisoners were 30-39 year olds.
12.7% of muslim prisoners were 40-49 year olds.
2.6% of muslim prisoners were 50-59 year olds.
1.3% of muslim prisoners were 60+ year olds.

I LOVE the fact that you keep misrepresenting things to hold onto your claim, it's really fun to watch. You STILL don't get this do you? I am not ignoring ANY of the correlations, I don't have to. I am asking why YOU are focussing on the correlation between religion and X when there are other factors more strongly correlated to X. It's YOUR claim that is under scrutiny and YOU that has to support it. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

The table on page 93 is about receptions into prison on sentence, the table on 136 is about prison pop. This is why I presented the relevant data from BOTH tables, otherwise it's  not comparing like with like. Geez Gimpy, I did expect that you could read just a little.

One point of all this data is that younger people commit more crime than older ones. In the UK the youngest religious group are muslims (see later in the original post and the long subsequent one, I have repeated this for you a few times), and that the muslim prison population is younger than the religious prison pop and the total prison pop.I notice you've ignored the rest of the data, and the points IT (not I remember the only point I have on this topic is that the data does not support your claim) makes.

I DO expect you to follow the links, not because I am trying to do anything dishonest, but because I am not particularly inclined to retype 200+ page documents for you. Especially because it seems I have to explain the simplest things to you. I know you are afraid of the evidence so you don't spoil that wonderful bigotry of yours, but please Gimpy, try at least to behave like an honest adult with some degree of reading for comprehension and intellectual gifts.

So here we go with somemore links (btw Gimpy, unlike you I read my links rather than googling for a phrase I like, these are all from the uk govt stat site):

Religious populations including tabulated age and sex data

Age stats, see page 22 onwards, Pakistani and Bangladeshi populations notably biased towards youth than other groups

UK age distribution 1

UK age distribution 2

Age distribution by ethnicity

Breakdon of figures for age distribution by ethnicity

Rather irritatingly for me I couldn't find a breakdown of the UK population by religion for age distribution more accurate (i.e. that overlapped with the age categories of the prison document exactly). However annoying that is, because it would be really clear and you woudn't whine about it (which you will indubitably do about it's absence) the point still stands and is demonstrated by these stats: age is more strongly correlated with criminality than is religion.

Also, I'm not at all reluctant to provide you with a definition of "other" in the Chinese/other category. Here's a nice long document that explains it:

Other!

Unfortunately it appears to be more precise than the prison document. Doubtless you willwhine about THAT disparity in precision too, despite it's irrelevance.

Also this made an interesting read:

Social Inequality

Some points of note: The terrifying correlations between social class and educational attainment on page 12 and ethnicity and educational acheivement on page 11. The lower incomes and lower social participation of ethnic minorites on pages 37/38/45/50, which really do bear READING!

Oh I could go on, but what's the point? You'll only dishonestly hand wave things away.

My points still are:

1) The data does not support that muslims integrate less well than other groups on the criteria you gave (see for example buddhists and non-religious people on crime etc). (i.e. Your original claim that you are desperate to avoid).

2) Criminality is more strongly correlated with age than religion, poverty than religion, social deprivation/class than religion, gender than religion, and education than religion. You are ignoring these correlations in favour of your prejudiced assumption. I.e. religious belief and crime are correlated BUT that there are other correlations which you are deliberately ignoring. (Not that I am implying correlation = causation by any means. AllI am saying here is that you have picked only examples that suit your prejudices and are not representing the wider picture).

That's it Gimpy. I am expressedly not advancing an alternative to your claim, I am merely showing you that it isn't supported by the data. You can wank on about lefties and liberals all you like, doesn't make it either true or relevant.

Lastly the burden of proof. Your claim Gimpy, your burden. Look at the title of the thread,it isn't "Louis defends his claims about Gimpy's racist claims" is it?

Get on with it, and do some reading, I'm not going to reproduce huge documents in a post for you.

Louis

P.S. Oh the irony.The whole point of including the Buddhist data is to show that your religious correlation is bunkum! Way to lower the bar Gimpy. Your claim rests on your assumption that someone's religion is more significant to their criminality than other factors. If this is the case, and you wish us to assume that someone's islamic faith is causative to their criminality, you have to explain why someone's buddhism (or more importantly someone's lack of religion, I notice you avoided that) is equally causative. Granted buddhists are a really minor minority (did I try to disguise this? Nope) why is their religion not causative to criminality when more stringly correlated to criminality than islamic faith which you are claiming is causative to criminality. It's the staggering dishonesty of your claim and conduct that amazes me.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2006,12:59   

P.P.S. And Gimpy, THIS is the hasty generalisation fallacy, not your twisted version.

The irony being that this is precisely what you are arguing, and the total antithesis of my rebuttal of your claim! Wow, can you get more dishonest?

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2006,14:06   

Gee, Paley, you seem to have this delusional idea that people here actually GIVE a flying fu#k what you think.

I can quite assure you that, um, nobody does.  (shrug)

We are not laughing WITH you, Paley.  We are laughing AT you.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2006,15:00   

Quote
The table on page 93 is about receptions into prison on sentence, the table on 136 is about prison pop. This is why I presented the relevant data from BOTH tables, otherwise it's  not comparing like with like. Geez Gimpy, I did expect that you could read just a little.


Yes, I didn't read the heading carefully, and I apologise. Notice that Louis claims to be looking at the evidence objectively, yet assumes any mistake I make must be due to dishonesty and bigotry. But wait, how could he assume motives unless he thinks his belief is beyond criticism?

Anyway, I didn't use the right table, so my percentages were a little off. But I'll trust Louis's division for now....let's compare his numbers:

       
Quote

[3.74% of all prisoners were 15 -17 year olds
11.696% of all prisoners were 18-20 year olds - my edit]
21.8% of all prisoners were 21-24 year olds.
22.5% of all prisoners were 25-29 year olds.
33.7% of all prisoners were 30-39 year olds.
13.8% of all prisoners were 40-49 year olds.
5.6% of all prisoners were 50-59 year olds.
2.6% of all prisoners were 60+ year olds.
[....]
[2.84% of muslim prisoners were 15 -17 year olds
11.099% of muslim prisoners were 18-20 year olds - my edit]
24.3% of muslim prisoners were 21-24 year olds.
25.9% of muslim prisoners were 25-29 year olds.
33.2% of muslim prisoners were 30-39 year olds.
12.7% of muslim prisoners were 40-49 year olds.
2.6% of muslim prisoners were 50-59 year olds.
1.3% of muslim prisoners were 60+ year olds.


So this makes 59.736% for the under 30 general pop, and 93.436% for the under 40s.

For Muslims, this makes 64.139% of the under 30, and 97.339% for those under 40. Around a 5% difference. Now this shows that the Muslim prison population is skewed young, but here's a couple of problems that Louis has yet to address:

1) As I've said two times already, comparing age profiles among prisoners can be deceptive, because it might reflect cultural regression rather than the true demographic profile. To his advantage, Louis seems to realise this, since he reposts his links to the general UK population. More about this below.

2) The gap between the expected and actual Muslim prison population is not small -- it's 250% times too high. Pointing to a mitigating factor (age structure) without attempting to quantify by how much this factor reduces this discrepancy won't demonstrate much . So far, he has not made the slightest attempt to quantify this factor. Why not? Louis keeps reminding us how stupid I am, and I know how to carry these tests out, so it should be a trifle for him. I can think of several possibilities:

1) The data won't allow it (in which case, Louis can't support his claim);

2) Louis doesn't know how to do the proper adjustments (nothing wrong with that, but you'd think he could find someone who could. Why hasn't he?);

3) Louis doesn't have the time (then why not find someone who can do it, or use his time more constructively -- I can't believe he would rather insult me than demonstrate his claim).

I'll let Louis confide which option is correct, because make no bones about it, without a proper analysis, the relatively small discrepancy he found, even if it represents the true demographic profile, does not begin to overturn that whopping 250% discrepancy that I found. The discrepancy was about 5% -- look at the totals above.

So let's look at page 6 on this link. What do we find? That most of the skewedness in the Pakistani/Bangladesh category is in the "under 16" / "65 and older" categories, which is not the high-crime age group! .[Edit: Louis's spreadsheet makes this point crystal clear. The distribution is skewed in the non-crime-prone direction.] Given that 27% of Muslims are of the non-subcontinental, non-white variety, there's a good chance that there isn't much of a difference in that all important 15 - 39 age group (if there is, it might even favor non-Muslims), which if true absolutely crushes his claim. Even if there is a difference in that all important age group, it appears to be minor.

Sorry Louis, this is why I won't be content with a link dump and hand-waving: everytime I investigate your little stats, they collapse under their own triviality. You've had plenty of time to build your counterargument. Either admit that the stats can't survive a serious analysis, or take some more time to collate them. Your barking doesn't work with me, cause I can see your arguments have no bite.

 
Quote
P.P.S. And Gimpy, THIS is the hasty generalisation fallacy, not your twisted version.


Next time try looking up the full definition:

 
Quote
This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:


Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.
The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:


X% of all observed A's are B''s.
Therefore X% of all A's are Bs.
The fallacy is committed when not enough A's are observed to warrant the conclusion. If enough A's are observed then the reasoning is not fallacious.

Small samples will tend to be unrepresentative. As a blatant case, asking one person what she thinks about gun control would clearly not provide an adequate sized sample for determing what Canadians in general think about the issue. The general idea is that small samples are less likely to contain numbers proportional to the whole population. For example, if a bucket contains blue, red, green and orange marbles, then a sample of three marbles cannot possible be representative of the whole population of marbles. As the sample size of marbles increases the more likely it becomes that marbles of each color will be selected in proprtion to their numbers in the whole population. The same holds true for things others than marbles, such as people and their political views.


Your little Buddhist group of prisoners (.9% of the total male prison population after the increase) is too small to be of any use, because small changes in the actual numbers will represent a huge percentage increase. Tiny fluctuations like this cannot be used to infer much about Buddhist crime tendencies over time.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2006,15:17   

Poor little Louis: he can't even rise to Jared Taylor's level of competence when presenting a statistical argument. Now I see why he has to rely on insults so much. Spend a little more time thinking and a little less time trash-talking, and you might get somewhere. And Louis? Even if I were the easily intimidated type, you pretty much showed your true colors when you admitted to being terrified of a masturbating hobo.



NO, LOUIS! NOOOOOOOO!

Strange Fruit:
Quote
Gee, Paley, you seem to have this delusional idea that people here actually GIVE a flying fu#k what you think.


This from a man who wants to lynch me. The laughs just keep on comin'.



NO, LENNY! NOOOOOOOO!

Hey Lenny, how many pigs do you plan to "off" come the revolution?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2006,16:29   

Hey, I think the pit yorkie yapped something. . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2006,20:37   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 25 2006,21:29)
Hey, I think the pit yorkie yapped something. . . . .

GoP beats off all day and somehow thinks we're all entranced by watching it. Yawn.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2006,20:41   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 25 2006,20:17)
Poor little Louis: he can't even rise to ... And Louis? Even if I were the easily intimidated type, you pretty much showed your true colors when you admitted to being terrified of a masturbating hobo.

This is the first obviously dishonest (flat out lying) statement I have seen you write on this thread. There may be more but this is one that definately needs calling.

GoP, Louis claimed to be embarassed by that guy, not intimidated. They are not the same thing.

Whereas it was you that wanted to present a simple choice backed by physical agresion to somebody with a mental illness. What that guy was doing was abnormal and embarrasing, not threatening. He was not actually doing anybody bodily harm.

Being willing to beat-up the mentally ill is not something you should boast about.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2006,23:10   

Steve,

Thanks for the support. It's not necessary because Gimpy's simply floundering about wantonly. Actually the point of the wanking tramp story was manifold.

1) That on the Tube people wouldn't notice someone if they were on fire and that this not noticing is entirely deliberate.

2) Wanking tramps are funny, to be honest everyone was trying to stifle laughter behind their Standards. Especially because the guy was making very amusing noises. Embarassment is also part of the funny.

3) People tend to ignore what is right in front of them if it doesn't fit into their world view. That's a hint for Gimpy et al.

4) There has been a breakdown in care for the mentally ill in the UK which has lead to "Care on the Northern Line". That poor sod wasn't the first or last nutter I've encountered on the Tube. Smacking the crap out of him would serve no purpose other than to harm him when he really wasn't harming anyone else.

5) Other things I can't remember!

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2006,23:34   

Gimpy,

1) Still being dishonest? I think I dealt with the smallness of the buddhist sample in the last post. Still ignoring the non-religious grouping I note. The point of including the buddhist data was, as I said, to a) illustrate the small sample problem and the fact that you are treating a small percentage of a group as representative of a whole group, and b) that if the criminality of muslims was relevant to their religion due to the over-representation of muslims in prison, then the same follows (a fortiori) for buddhists and more strongly for non-religious people.

The whole point is to demonstrate that you are picking and choosing your stats to suit your prejudices, not to advance an alternative claim. I keep repeating this and you keep bashing away at the strawman in your head and ignoring it.

2) Read the axes of the graphs on pages 23 and 24 of the document you misquote and you will see that a greater percentage of the graph for the Pakistani/Bangladeshi is in the range 20-39 than for any other group except black Africans and Carribeans (another high crime group you ignore for convenience).

Also I made the point about the inadequacy of the data you refer to, the population graphs (pages 23/24) are more usueful but I have extracted the numbers from them. They are nice piccies Gimpy, you should be able to see the differences.

3) Get this through your skull, I am not making any claims other than the data does not fit your claim and that other factors are correlated more strongly with your integration criteria than religion or race and that you are ignoring these. Yet again my point is that you have to look at the WHOLE picture, not just the bits you like. As I've said MANY times now there are many correlations, religion is one, but to focus on it to the exclusion of others is dishonest, irrational and ridiculous. Especially when it is'nt the strongest correlation. You focus on the increase in muslim criminality, which is significant for the muslim population (although not the UK pop as a whole) I am asking why you don't focus on the bigger increase in buddhist criminality and non-religious criminality which are more significant for the buddhist community and non-religious community respectively (but only in the latter case for the UK pop).

Do you see where you have gone wrong? You're accusing me of comparing the tiny sample of criminal buddhists to the UK pop when I am not, I'm comparing it to the buddhist pop, just like you are comparing the criminal muslim pop to the muslim pop. Since both are small samples of the whole UK pop, they either both fall foul of the problems you claim exist or both don't. You are STILL ignoring the increases in the statistically far more significant non-religious pop.

Lastly, it's really amusing to see you keep misrepresenting my argument, it demonstrates my point that the only way you can maintain your claim is by lying. Thanks for your help.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Ogee



Posts: 89
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2006,03:04   

You've hit the nail on the head again, Louis.  GOP is making much of how small a proportion (0.9%) of the prison population is Buddhist.  The priceless part is that he is simultaneously harping about a group representing less than 0.4% of Britain's Muslim population (~6,000 prisoners out of ~1.6 million Muslims).  Worse yet, he's doing a spectacularly bad job of handwaving away the demographic problem.  The vast majority of prisoners are 18-39 years old; not coincidentally 18-39 year-olds are overrepresented by 30-40% (back-of-envelope) among the two largest sources of Muslims (Pakistanis and Bangladeshis) relative to the generalpopulation, according to the histograms in the Ethnicity and Religion report.  Therefore, age demographics alone can reasonably account for about a third of the Muslim overrepresentation in British jails.  Given that Gippy hasn't even started to account for other factors (economics, education, conviction rates), this is quite devastating - and is why he is so very desperate to shift the burden of proof to you.  In all, it's quite hilarious: Gippy has actually managed to undermine a claim that many people (myself included) would have considered quite plausible at the outset.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2006,03:32   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 26 2006,04:10)
Steve,

Thanks for the support. It's not necessary...
Louis

Louis,

I know you do not require my support. It was however necessary for me to point out the dishonesty of GoP here though.

I can remember the outline of the conversation as it is a subject that I have an interest in.

At the time, Ghost eventually said what he would do. It was myself (probably among others) who pointed out to him (GoP) that hitting somebody harmless and ill was not something to be proud of. Ghosty then claimed something along the lines of "missreading the mental ill part". I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Something I am usually happy to do. Missunderstanding is a regular thing in this medium.

For him to then make the statement I responded to here indicates beyond reasonable doubt, Gop is being far from honest.

That is all from memory. I haven't looked up the original posts. So if I am incorect GoP should be easily able to refute me.

Steve.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2006,04:05   

Steve,

Argh, the limitations of text and my (lack of)communication skills! I didn't mean that I didn't need your support (i.e. I am not ungrateful or ingracious) I meant that Gimpy's just wallowing around looking for any branch he can grab and that's his current choice. Gimpy's dishonest, film at 11! He'll lie and distort anything to "win at that Interwebz" which is one of his two primary goals, the other being attention whoring/trolling. I'm always grateful for any support.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2006,04:11   

Yes, guys, I saw the population pyramids on one of Louis's links. The Pakastanis have the largest demographic issues to account for, but the Bangladeshis are so right skewed that their populations rapidly fritter away by the time you reach the 30-39 age group. My back of the envelope calculations show that at most the demographic issues account for 40% of the discrepancy, and probably a lot less.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2006,04:32   

By the way, I can't participate in this debate any more for now. For the reason, ask SteveStory.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2006,04:36   

Ogee,

Thanks for that! Yeah that's (at least partly) my point.

As I said at the start, and several times since, I too thought it was a plausible claim, which is precisely why I asked Gimpy to defend it. It seemed open to evidenciary support, unambiguous, and possible. Again as I said at the start, it's not a topic I knew/know anything significant about, another reason I thought it a good one for Gimpy to defend (unlike say, geocentrism). He does seem to have made a total balls of his "defence" though.

I've got to admit that the most amusing part of this for me is that either way I don't care!

If "yay", I'm perfectly happy to have religion play an enormous part in criminality (for example). After all I'm an atheist who would rather see it disappear from the public arena. If the correlation between criminality and islamic faith is too strong to ignore (which it isn't) then I have a really good argument against allowing faith schools/religious policy making and a myriad of insidious religious influences on public life. All of which I decry strongly.

If "nay", I'm perfectly happy for faith to have no influence on criminality (for example) because I can use that to argue against the same policies/public influences "informed" by religious faith. Get rid of tax supported prison chaplains for example.

As far as I am concerned it's win-win for me!

The thing I really don't like is Gimpy's slippery bait and switch with regards to immigration. As every "wave" of immigrants has appeared in every nation the world over there have been problems. Guess what, human's ain't perfect. From immigrant cries of discrimination to natives repeating the same cries they did for the previous wave. It has ever been thus. Guess what, I'll take Achmed/Kofi/Ferentz/Ramachandran/Manfred the mugger and all his chums in exchange for one Salman Rushdie/Benjamin Zephaniah/Abdus Salam/Freddie Mercury/CLR James/Andrew Adonis/G Constantinesceu/Paul Dirac/Harry Kroto/Roslaind Franklin/my grandparents/my wife's parents all of who were immigrants or descended from immigrants. Immigration demonstrably adds more to a nation that it takes away, and Gimp's arguments amount to no more than "ooooh aren't they different".

What Gimpy doesn't get is that he isn't arguing with the "StrawLiberal" in his head.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2006,07:03   

Okay, well, masturbating hoboes has sealed the deal. We're done here.

I encourage anyone who wants to deeply pursue issues of race and islam to set up a blog expressly for that purpose. The purpose of this site is Anti-evolution.

   
  341 replies since Aug. 23 2006,11:48 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (12) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]