The Islamic conquer of Europe

[Prolescum]

So you seem to have ignored the reason they are exempt (I'm not surprised at this point); it's in the European convention of human rights and the various local legislation. Good luck in your attempt to change the universally granted guarantees of freedom.

Let's see, that's "removing religious freedom" ticked on my list of the fuckwitted ideas of atheists. I love it when minorities try to tell everyone else what they should do. Reminds me of... something.

Hello again, angry man.

Learn the difference between anger and incredulity. It's probably been the latter on more ocassions than you think.

I never said anything about "removing religious freedom", that's just a strawman on your part, like the the false accusation of "racism" before it.

Firstly, you were never accused of being a racist. Neither was the other chap. No straw man.
Secondly, not only did you actually state explicitly that:

we can't give freedom to people who want to use it against us

you spent most of your time talking about removing the exemption of religious beliefs in the slaughter of animals legislation, despite being told repeatedly that you'd have to remove the freedom of religion clause in the human rights act. So, it is not a straw man either, but the end result of your oft-repeated desires. I bet you'll even go over it again in this post.

Edit: yes, you have :facepalm:

We were taking about the "European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter" remember?

Yes, of course. I can generally keep track of a conversation.

I've mentioned how retarded (and I mean that literally) your reasoning is on this almost every single post here.

And I think it should be changed so all animals are stunned before slaughter. We're already killing them so the least we could do it be humane about it and not cause pain.

And you've been told time and time again, that exemption cannot and will not be removed until article 9 is rewritten to remove religious freedom. That is why there is an exemption on religious grounds in the first place.

Your subtle position shift ain't that subtle, princess. Your case rests overwhelmingly on your hatred of Islam (and by extension religion in general Dogma's Demise). Oh, and before you call me a liar:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bottom line is, exemption from humane treatment of animals on religious grounds is unacceptable.

Muslims don't refuse to stun because it's expensive, they refuse to stun because it's again their religion.

I'll tell you what I am: I am a militant secularist (which is really defensive secularism) and anti-theist, and like it or not, Islam is the most dangerous religion, far more dangerous than Christianity, and with a much higher percentage of extremists.

Do you know that if you live in the UK, you could be endorsing Halal food without even realizing it?

Obviously these restaurant owners, school principals etc. would rather have their staff serve Halal food, just in case a Muslim might be "offended". After all, it's not really a big deal if some secularist or animal welfare activist gets offended.

I mean really, would you ever make a case that somehow eating meat from an animal that died 5 seconds prior to throat cutting poses some serious risk to your health (or to your "eternal soul")? It's ridiculous and the idea that an omnipotent, all-wise god would care about these technicalities is even more absurd.

Give me a break, this is the kind of madness you get with religious dogma in general, you can hold silly beliefs without justification, just say "God commands it, I believe it, that settles it." It's almost a license to be stupid yet free of any criticism because you can scream "bigotry".

It's ridiculous and the idea that an omnipotent, all-wise god would care about these technicalities is even more absurd.

So let me get this straight, a regular guy can torture a cat and get jail time, a regular abattoir must stun animals or face closure, but if I form a death cult centered around gruesome acts too graphic to describe against kittens, puppies and parrots, I can just claim "religious freedom" and say the torture and killing of animals gives my voodoo magic god a celestial boner so it's okay?

---------------------------------------------------------------

What part of this statement is religious "bigotry" to you?

I've already explained why your argument is bigoted. Go back and read it slowly. Perhaps get an adult to explain it to you with pictures.

There's a difference between being against religious freedom and being in favor of a policy that might conflict with specific religious practices. I thought stunning was a humane thing to do long before I heard of Halal meat.

Your attempt to soften your case is risible when you've been told time and time again what you would need to do to effect that change. Your first post in this thread was as a hardliner, and it rarely lightened; it's a bit late now, sunshine.

This pile of stupid doesn't even deserve a response.

Maybe you just don't give a fuck about animal rights so that's why this example isn't getting to you.

Animal rights don't come into this discussion.

You seem to be under the illusion that I fall prey to rhetorical tricks like the above quote. You're like a creationist who has been told a thousand times that carbon dating isn't used to date million-year-old fossils yet continues to assert that carbon dating doesn't work at all and attempts to hit back by saying Pol Pot was an atheist. :lol:

And in all fairness now, I can sympathize with that idea more because I myself don't like some of the ideas of animal rights activists. But we have to be at least minimally humane about how we treat animals. They too are sentient beings and can feel pain so we can't just ignore it.

This thread, and your contention, is that there is an "Islamising of Europe". Attempting to paint me in a horrible light as a distraction from your weak arguments is, at turns, funny and depressing.

Are you ever going to justify any of your assertions?

And these restaurants and public institutions are withholding information from their customers because it's more convenient if all food is Halal.

Ignoring the logistics of making everything halal (and the shortage of Imams that would necessitate an influx of new ones), this may or may not have happened in a particular case. You supplied a Daily Mail article (a rabidly anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and pre-war Nazi-supporting newspaper) whose veracity cannot be checked, and seem to think it's a valid citation. More fool you.

A bigot is someone intolerantly devoted to their own opinions.

Only the fundamentalists drew the first blow, not me.

So? That doesn't lessen your bigotry, it only highlights the parallels between religious fundies and you.

They were given freedom and they used that freedom to make it clear they don't want it, they just want Sharia.

You haven't even established that all Muslims want halal in every butchers, all Muslims want Sharia or any of your other contentions. They are given freedom here as a matter of human dignity, not because we condescendingly grant it to them.

You begin with the premise (Muslims want Europe to become Islamic) and try to justify it as you go along. As funny as it's been, this will probably be my last response to your ill-thought out, ignorant, fuckwitted and barely coherent "arguments". Perhaps one day, you will attempt to analyse your own position. I don't hold out much hope, "Dogma's Demise", but I've been wrong about people before.

If the fundies had their way, I'd be tortured and executed for blasphemy or lynched in the streets.

And your fears are unjustified. You cannot even show that a majority of Muslims want what you say the want, let alone that an unknown number of Islamic fundamentalists could take over the governments of Europe and that you might be tortured and executed for blasphemy.

That is if I didn't get arrested first for eating pork. And half of the population (women) would become second class citizens and subject to FGM while the authorities turned a blind eye.

And you seem to be completely ignorant of the sheer volume of legislation that would have to change to accomodate your ridiculous suppositions.

So damn right I want to see fundies (not all Muslim, fundies, and arguably only specific types of fundies) deported.

Deported, eh? Ah yes, you did say:

Of course not, my suggestion is a psychological examination for anyone applying for citizenship, deportation of those who exhibit traits that are highly incompatible with secularism and freedom.

You yourself exhibit traits that are highly incompatible with secularism and freedom. Where should we deport you to? You're European... Those 7/7 bombers? British. Where would you deport them to?

I didn't see any atheist being called a "bigot" or a "racist" when they suggested Helen Ukpablo the Christian fundie witch-hunter (whose teachings have lead to the deaths and mutilation of children in west Africa) should be barred from entering the US.

Changing the laws to suit your particular viewpoint is exactly 100% unlike the above.

By the way, visas - they're a privilege, not a right.

Who cares about this shit? You're supposed to be telling us about the Islamising of Europe.

And in your country's case in particular (UK), even citizenship can be revoked, if it is a case of dual citizenship and it is deemed in the public interest.

You've moved on to solutions to a problem you can't even show exists. :lol:

Really, just :lol:

Irrelevant. Are you ever going to give us something that shows the "Islamising of Europe"?

I think we need to define terms here.

"Islamising of Europe" is simply the spread of Islam and its values in Europe.

Finally getting back on topic! No, it is not simply spreading Islam and its values, it is becoming (i.e. present active participle) Islamic. That phrase was used, and the thread's topic is "the Islamic conquer of Europe".
This can be evidenced by your earlier statements about Sharia courts, for example, where you tried to insinuate that we are one step away from legislation via Sharia principles (not true, as per the rebuttal with citation).

Do you deny that number of Muslims is not increasing?

Double negatives aside, do I deny that Muslims have children? No. Do I deny the tall tales you've created from supposition? Yes.

Do you deny there is an increasing demand of Halal food?

I have seen no evidence to suggest it matters much, but I suspect it is comparable with the number of Muslims in a particular area.

Do you deny that official Sharia courts didn't exist until several years ago?

Calling them "courts" is a bit of a misnomer; they are one form of arbitration panel.

If you think the process of starting a religion is really as retarded as that, there really is no point in attempting to dissuade your fundamentalist mindset.

So what exactly is the difference Islam and a religion created 5 minutes ago out of the fantasy of the sole adherent? Oh yeah that's right, history and numbers. It doesn't need to be rational or true.

It is an officially recognised religion under British, European and international law. Your comparison is plainly idiotic.

So what are you saying? You are against my freedom to practice my religion of stabbing kittens for the lulz?

That is not a religion, that is just your tiny black heart showing its true colour.

Or you're only for religious freedom as long as it's a centuries/millenia old, well established and high adherent number religion?

Do you even know what a religion is? Because you certainly give the impression of someone who has no fucking idea.

I demand that a special provision be made in the animal welfare legislation to allow ritual torture of kittens because it's contrary to my religion. [/parody][/fuckwittery]

That comment says the exact opposite of what was intended. I suggest proofreading in future.

Is your memory a sieve? I've already explained why you'd have to change the human rights legislation itself to remove the religious exemption, and you can't even argue your case on the internet...

Hello? "European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter" - that's what you first linked.

At this moment, it became clear to me that you genuinely do not understand what has been said. Please, with all grace, read my posts again.

Oh fucking lordy... Let me try to explain this as if to a child: Me woznt defending it, me sez it is legal.

Yeah, only the way you said it indicated otherwise.

As just noted, your reading comprehension is fuzzy. Attend to it.

It can't be put any fucking simpler. Nuance, Dogma, you feel me? Oh I forget, you "anti-theists" love absolutes, a bit like your religious facsimiles.

Oh right, so now you're making generalizations about all "anti-theist"?

You're right, I did make a generalisation... for the sake of ridiculing you, not in my rebuttal of your bullshit.

Even within this group of people's opinions vary.

That you consider anti-theists a "group" is depressing.

Both of us actually agree with religious freedom, yes I like to criticize and ridicule religion and try to convince people to leave it, but I won't do it by force.

Bullshit:

Of course not, my suggestion is a psychological examination for anyone applying for citizenship, deportation of those who exhibit traits that are highly incompatible with secularism and freedom.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yes the spread of Islam does concern me, but I'm not calling for the ban on Islam or for the closure of mosques. Halal food isn't even the main issue, yes I think it's wrong, but it's not the Halal meat eating Muslims I want to see deported.

You've suggested we deport anyone who exhibits traits that are highly incompatible with secularism and freedom.
Do these little arbitrary rules of yours only apply to the religious? This is an important question.

It's the fundamentalist Sharia-loving Muslims, the kind who dream of a Eurabia instead of trying to adapt to Europe.

You haven't shown any evidence that any of your fears have weight. Until you do, comments like the above will be dismissed by any rational reader.

And this is a subject I'd want you to respond to: I claim that "no-stun" food is not an instance of religious freedom, but of religious special pleading, just like tax exemption is, just like withholding medical treatment from a child on religious grounds is, just like saying you don't want a new ID card because you "see" the number 666 in it is. The only discrimination is against those regular food producers who are obligated to ensure stunning while Halal food producers can get away with it.

There's no need to respond to this until you actually make the case for any of your assertions.

Sharia court again - banning them is not a violation of religious freedom.

They don't exist as far as you mean Sharia courts, as already explained numerous times (I even gave you the relevant legal documents that apply).

Says some angry little boy who hates religion so passionately he want the very freedoms that protect him removed so they don't protect the religious.

You're a fucking embarrassment to the civilised world.

Strawmanned again.

Lol, no. Reading comprehension fail on your part.

Again.

As I said, visas are a privilege, not a right. No country should be under any obligation to accept disruptive immigrants.

I suggest you read the appropriate legislation regarding immigrants and refugees before making stupid comments like the above. I mean, I don't expect you to because you have a severely limited ability to think critically or rationally, but it's important that readers go and look it up so they don't fall into the same idiotic loop you have.

No it isn't; you're calling for the removal of religious freedom.

Government enforced Sharia courts are not an instance of "religious freedom", they are an instance of forcing everyone else to endorse the rulings of a particular religion.

Seriously, what the fuck? There are no "government enforced Sharia courts".

Or as Americans would call it "respecting an establishment of religion". When a Sharia court makes a decision, the state is obliged to enforce that decision. It's not religious freedom, not in theory, and most certainly not in practice.

Gurgh. America is a) not Europe, and b) the state does not "enforce" decisions made by the arbitration panels (Sharia courts in your parlance). Just go and read the fucking legislation.

None of this is evidence, you're just reiterating something you've heard someone else say. Not that I'm surprised at this point.

As far as I know, if you're gullible enough to submit to Sharia courts, you can't appeal the decision to a real court.

You don't "submit" to a Sharia court, you agree to specific (and qualified) people holding arbitration over disputes.
You have a lot to learn about the English language, padawan.

It's not just propaganda, it's fucking idiotic to take what you have from its results; a complete and utter lack of critical thinking on your part. I'd be fucking ashamed if I was in your position right now.

All you've done is dismiss it as "right-wing nonsense" because you don't like what it says.

Yes, that's all I've done. Except give you the appropriate legislation, shown why your reasoning is flawed and pointed out the spurious and illigitimate nonsense you've spewed all over this thread. Besides all that, and a brief English lesson, I've only done that.

So you acknowledge there's actually more than one type of Muslim. we're getting somewhere.

Slowly...

I've acknowledged it from the beginning, now you're just being manipulative. When did I ever say all Muslims are bad? Even that "right-wing nonsense" that I linked shows the majority of Muslims aren't extremists.

You have been non-discriminate in your discrimination against Muslims.

You, being a Romanian, have no right to demand anything of the Turkish political framework.

So now you're against my free speech?

No, not at all. It, I'm afraid, shows your limited understanding of English that the above even crossed your mind. You are not a Turkish citizen, nor is Turkey a member of the EU.

Besides, it's hardly a "demand". I'm just saying what I think it's best for them, if they want to ignore it that's their problem.

Ahem:

Turkey is a secular country by constitution, parties with Islamic agendas should not even be allowed to exist let alone be eligible for elections.

No, they don't, you're being entirely dishonest with this statement and you know it.

The arguments you've used against Muslims in this thread can, with relative ease, be applied to Christian fundies.

How islamized does one have to be do deny the obvious?

So I'm "Islamised"? :lol:

Please, go into detail!

I don't get people like you, I've never seen a single atheist so equally offended by criticism of Christianity, but when Islam is involved, you suddenly become this force of hypocritical political correctness.

Ah, and you once again expose your inability to read. I defend freedom, and believe wholeheartedly in the principles of CHR. I criticise religions when their tenets are under discussion. This is a conversation about the Islamising of Europe, which also covers your flaccid arguments about removing religious exemption from particular laws.

Freedom to follow your conscience, to express yourself etc are far more important than your small mind seems able to comprehend; they are not to be disgarded because you disagree with a particular group, no, their strength depends on their protection over everyone.

So your case against Islam boils down to "they're intolerant, so we should be equally intolerant".

Fucking disgraceful.

What do you propose? Bend over and take it like a man?

I give up talking to this baby.

 

[Laurens]

About crimes against the Bosnians...

Remember, that was a more local conflict, during war time, with nationalist implications, not just religious. If it was the case that groups of Christians all over the world were praising those Serbian mass murderers as glorious fighters for the cause of God, then yes I'd be equally worried about Christianity as I am about Islam.

I don't think you can say that Islamic extremism is without political agenda whatsoever.

"Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places"

Their motive is not absent of nationalist or political agenda, as you can see here, they're declaring war against America for its support of Israeli occupation - which isn't a wholly religious motive.

The religious extremism is an effective means for drumming up support, exaggerating and spreading conflict, but neither the crimes in Bosnia nor those committed by radical Islam are solely religiously motivated. Religion just gives them more conviction, motivation and more support.

I'd also be worried if those same Serbians then traveled to other Muslim countries and started committing suicide bombings against civilians because they viewed the Muslim world as "decadent" and "anti-Christian". Or if they went into multiple European countries to commit suicide attacks because they viewed them as "decadent untrue Christians" that must be returned to the true path of Jesus.

Its important to note that I'm not saying the genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia are directly analogous to Islamic extremism in their methods or in their outlook. I'm just saying that religion of all kinds is used in all sorts of situations to justify all sorts of evil. It would be fallacious to single out Islam as being unique in this sense. Islam might be the most prominent example in the 21st century, but history has shown that given the right circumstances any religion breeds extremists raring to commit evil.

I'd also be worried if Serbia was some kind of oppressive Christian theocracy that butchered its own people regularly for the crime of being women or "not true Christians". But they don't even come close.

Well the Rwandan genocide comes close, a religiously supported government brutally butchered hundreds of thousands of people with machetes based solely upon their ethnicity.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Prolescum, what is the difference between:

a. religious freedom
b. religious privilege/favoritism

?

EDIT: And also, what is your opinion on immigration in general? Does a country have the right to select its immigrants or decide to accept no immigrants at all? And more specifically, do you recognize the right of a country to deport or deny entry to any immigrant deemed to have a disruptive influence on society?

I'm not asking this from a legal perspective, I'm asking from your own moral perspective.

EDIT2: And please spare me all the little details and technicalities of Sharia "arbitration". All you did was restate what I just said in different words. Yes, you do submit to a Sharia ruling if you choose that as your arbitration.

to submit - "to give over or yield to the power or authority of another (often used reflexively)"

And yes they are "government enforced". The decisions made are legally binding - aka have the full backing of the British law enforcement.

Jesus fucking Christ, spare me of your cheap lawyer tactics. It's still an immoral court that discriminates against women.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Its important to note that I'm not saying the genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia are directly analogous to Islamic extremism in their methods or in their outlook. I'm just saying that religion of all kinds is used in all sorts of situations to justify all sorts of evil. It would be fallacious to single out Islam as being unique in this sense. Islam might be the most prominent example in the 21st century, but history has shown that given the right circumstances any religion breeds extremists raring to commit evil.

Okay, so let me refine my previous statements:

In the current social climate, and for the foreseeable future, Islam poses a threat to freedom and human rights more than Christianity does.

Can we at least agree on this?

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Its important to note that I'm not saying the genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia are directly analogous to Islamic extremism in their methods or in their outlook. I'm just saying that religion of all kinds is used in all sorts of situations to justify all sorts of evil. It would be fallacious to single out Islam as being unique in this sense. Islam might be the most prominent example in the 21st century, but history has shown that given the right circumstances any religion breeds extremists raring to commit evil.

Okay, so let me refine my previous statements:

In the current social climate, and for the foreseeable future, Islam poses a threat to freedom and human rights more than Christianity does.

Can we at least agree on this?

I would have to say I agree with some of this. Terrorist attacks, human rights violations, religious extremism, and

societal backwardness aren't limited to any particular group, for sure. Take a stroll in your local ghetto and be

reminded of this. I would have to say, however, that the groups that are fighting for for the cause of Islam are, at the

moment, a greater threat than your run of the mill bible thumpers. I'm not so sure the problem is entirely religious in

origin, though. Look at the rest of the third world and I'm sure you will find many non-religious atrocities being committed.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

More examples of Islamic nonsense in Britain:

Rise in FGM with ZERO prosecutions: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11053375

Hard to believe it's pure incompetence on the authorities' part.

Testimonies of FGM victims: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/jul/25/girls-facing-female-circumcision
Anti-blasphemy policy: http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2802/london-school-of-economics-blasphemy
Muslims blocking streets to pray: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096263/The-Mecca-city-In-London-street-faithful-way-pray-mosque-overflows.html (Don't believe it? We has screenshots! But I guess the Islamized p.c. left will just say it's photoshopped by right-wingers. :lol: )

More religious special pleading, now Muslim doctors and nurses can bend hygiene rules as mandated by the NHS: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7576357/Muslim-staff-escape-NHS-hygiene-rule.html


Yeah, multiculturalism and reckless immigration policies for the WIN, while Fred Phelps (who never had any intention of becoming a permanent resident or citizen) is banned from entry. :lol: Prolescum, what do you think about his "freedom of religion"? :lol:

Was it right when people wanted to keep this fundie out of the country?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7898972.stm

If so, why are you bothered by my opinion that maybe you should keep out Islamic extremists too?

Yeah yeah, I know I'm not a citizen of your country and I don't really have a say in this, but that's beside the point, a good idea is valid no matter where it originates from.

8. The fact that 28% of UK Muslims want UK to become an Islamic state: http://my.telegraph.co.uk/danielpycock/ ... of-the-uk/

One thing I hate is when the media (and anyone who swallows their bullshit) start stating things like "facts" when claiming to know what everyone within a group think. Why? Let me explain:

The polls cited in the argument that actually gave the numbers of those polled adds up to 3100 people. Let's double that to make up for the polls that didn't give numbers, just as a conservative estimate, that's 6200 people (assuming every poll interviewed no one twice). Of those 6200 28% are teh evil Muslims who want Sharia and ll that jazz, that's 1736 people.

The Muslim UK population count in 2010 when most of the polls were conducted (give or take) was 2.8 Million*. 1736 people is approx 0.07% of that population (0.07% is actually 1960 people). So when you or the media say 28% of UK Muslims want a UK Islamic state you're lying. Extrapolating an opinion on 2.8 million people who didn't take the poll is dishonest. While I'd agree there are a lot of Muslims who would want a British Islamic state, the fact is you can't honestly claim 28% do unless you've polled 100% of them and 28% agreed.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom

And to address this point, there is such a thing as survey sampling. You don't actually need to do a full blown census, although I'd certainly recommend it. But probably not going to happen due to cultural sensibilities or some other bullshit. :lol:

I would not dismiss this poll so quickly as "right-wing" nonsense, it does seem to match the current tendency of the Muslim countries. Like it or not, most Muslims in Britain emigrated from repressive Muslim theocracies (and if they didn't, their families did) which has had a large impact on their worldview. It's naive to think you can just integrate all of them over night.

And all this special pleading and parallel tribunal is not helping them integrate into western society.


EDIT: Hey Prolescum, I'm not even gonna comment on it, you tell me wtf is this: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/16309

 

[Prolescum]

Seeing as you all but ignored my previous post, I'm disinclined to respond at all, but for the sake of completeness and no small amount of masochism...

Prolescum, what is the difference between:

a. religious freedom
b. religious privilege/favoritism

?

One is guaranteed by law in the EU. I shouldn't have to explain this (as many times as I have) to an adult. Of course, I'm honest enough to admit that I'm only assuming you're an adult on very flimsy circumstantial evidence.

EDIT: And also, what is your opinion on immigration in general?

If someone requires my help, I attempt to help if I can. Doesn't matter if it's with learning the guitar or finding a new home.

General enough?

Does a country have the right to select its immigrants or decide to accept no immigrants at all?

Depends on the country and the framework of their immigration policy (for example, EU nations have some rules put in place by the council/parliament).

And more specifically, do you recognize the right of a country to deport or deny entry to any immigrant deemed to have a disruptive influence on society?

I'm not asking this from a legal perspective, I'm asking from your own moral perspective.

Well, the terms "disruptive" or "disruptive influence" could mean many things. You have a comically simple view of the world if you think that question has any meaning.

EDIT2: And please spare me all the blah blah blah

My definition is more precise and does not have the connotations yours does. Let's use that.

Serious question: Why do you think your bias is so easily discovered by others?

Rise in FGM with ZERO prosecutions: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11053375

Hard to believe it's pure incompetence on the authorities' part.

Testimonies of FGM victims: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010 ... rcumcision

Are you really trying to assert that there is a conspiracy to avoid prosecution on the basis that the likely perpetrators are Muslim? If so, you're fucking deluded.

The article states that: "FGM is illegal in the UK and anybody convicted for it can be jailed for up to 14 years. The law protects British citizens even if they undergo the procedure abroad."

If you are under the impression that it is not being dealt with, you are very much mistaken.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110630-0001.htm

and the follow up

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldhansrd/text/120216-0001.htm

Basing your argument on out of date news articles does nothing for what little credibility your arguments may have had.

Anti-blasphemy policy: http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2802/ ... -blasphemy

Ah, "policy". Sounds as if you're linking to governmental dept. renegging on the 2008 blasphemy law repeal (somehow). Sadly, it's what seems to be a pro-Israeli anti-Muslim think tank (check their other articles and if you're bored, the blogs that repost them) pissing itself with excitement because a student union has told the atheist/humanist/whatever group that they're offending other union members unneccessarily.

It's pretty dumb (of the union - on this I'm sure we can agree), barely significant, and is still being played out; in other words, a bunch of students get uppity at other uppity students - who cares?

Muslims blocking streets to pray: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... flows.html

S'funny, even the Daily Mail doesn't describe it as "blocking the streets to pray"; in fact, they only say that it is happening every Friday. I took a look at what kind of road it was on the map, and used Google street view too. I can see how constantly busy that street would be at lunchtime, what with being a back street to some flats.

(Don't believe it? We has screenshots! But I guess the Islamized p.c. left will just say it's photoshopped by right-wingers.

Why wouldn't I believe it? The Daily Mail severly skews its reporting, it doesn't print fake news (intentionally - I have no idea if they've ever fallen prey a la Piers Morgan at the Daily Mirror).

Who are the "Islamised PC left"? Please, articulate.

What are the "Islamised PC left"? Full definition you're using, please.

More religious special pleading, now Muslim doctors and nurses can bend hygiene rules as mandated by the NHS: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7576357 ... -rule.html

Do you even read the shit you're posting? They (some lobbyists) asked the relevant department to consider revising the rules, the department, with qualification and due consideration, clarified the policy.

The Department of Health said: 'The revised workwear guidance gives further clarity to frontline staff about the need to have good hand hygiene when in direct patient care. It does not change previous policy.

Don't worry if you can't find this quote in the article you linked to, it's available below.

The Department of Health has also relaxed rules prohibiting jewellery so that Sikh members of staff can wear bangles linked with their faith, providing they are pushed up the arm while the medic treats a patient.

The Mail on Sunday [The Sunday edition of the Daily Mail - Here's the original article] reported the change had been made after female Muslims objected to being required to expose their arm below the elbow under guidance introduced by Alan Johnson when he was health secretary in 2007.

Some Muslim staff and those from other groups may be allowed to use disposable plastic over-sleeves which cover their clothes below the elbow and allow the skin to remain covered up.

And the quote one supposes people like you jump on:

Derek Butler, chairman of MRSA Action UK, said: "My worry is that allowing some medics to use disposable sleeves you compromise patient safety because unless you change the sleeves between each patient, you spread bacteria.

"Scrubbing bare arms is far more effective."

So the guy who heads MRSA Action UK voices a legitimate concern. Good stuff, he's doing his job.

The following is from the original article referenced in the Telegraph (another right-wing newspaper I should add) article you linked.

The Department admitted in its new guidance that it had reviewed its rules because 'exposure of the forearms is not acceptable to some staff because of their Islamic faith'.

It added: 'We recognise that elements of the additional guidance could be seen to be introducing differing requirements for those to whom "baring below the elbows" presents no significant problem.

'We have considered the implications of this possibility but concluded that the overall purpose of the guidance, to ensure patient safety by adherence to good hand hygiene, is not prejudiced by the additional dress options that have now been identified.'

So remind us again: how exactly is accommodating for some of your religious staff "Islamising Europe"? Is it also "Sikhing Europe"?

Yeah, multiculturalism and reckless immigration policies for the WIN

Aha, I wondered when you'd single out multiculturalism by name. I only need one more thing from you to confirm my initial impression of you. It won't be long, you won't be able to contain it.

Even after this explicit prompt to choose your words carefully.

Neither article specifies whether the Muslim or Sikh complainants were immigrants. You had better zip up, your bias is popping out.

while Fred Phelps (who never had any intention of becoming a permanent resident or citizen) is banned from entry.

You've now given away any pretence you had that you understand how governments or laws work; there's really no point trying to explain it to you, as you likely still haven't taken in the reason the convention on animal slaughter has an exemption on religious grounds.

Prolescum, what do you think about his "freedom of religion"?

His freedom of religion is not being impinged upon.

Was it right when people wanted to keep this fundie out of the country?

If you had any notion of the various complexities of speech/rights/immigration laws, I'd attempt to explain it. You haven't shown a single spark of critical thinking throughout this conversation, and have practically ignored every legitimate rebuttal of your nonsense. It's really not worth the effort.

If so, why are you bothered by my opinion that maybe you should keep out Islamic extremists too?

Your question shows how deeply ignorant you are on every issue we've discussed. I don't see it changing any time soon, so there's really no impetus for me to spend the time it would take to educate you.

Yeah yeah, I know I'm not a citizen of your country and I don't really have a say in this, but that's beside the point, a good idea is valid no matter where it originates from.

When you find one, don't forget to share it with us.


Edit: Feel free to go and address this: http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=136212#p136212

 

[Dogma's Demise]

I do want to make one correction, it's not just the fundies, whiners and career victims that are the problem, maybe I've been too harsh on them. It's also the people (generally leftist cultural relativist whackos) who are all too eager to accommodate them with special privileges and differential treatment because of their beliefs/culture/whatever.

Seeing as you all but ignored my previous post, I'm disinclined to respond at all.

Yeah, because I don't see the point in answering until you actually clarify your stance on things like religious freedom and immigration.

One is guaranteed by law in the EU.

And this is why you completely failed to answer my question, I specifically stated:

"I'm not asking this from a legal perspective, I'm asking from your own moral perspective."

And I won't accept "that is irrelevant" or any other evasive answer this time. Show me you got a backbone, and you're not just some lawyer for Islam.

EDIT: And also, what is your opinion on immigration in general?

If someone requires my help, I attempt to help if I can. Doesn't matter if it's with learning the guitar or finding a new home.

General enough?

Very evasive response, try again.

Does a country have the right to select its immigrants or decide to accept no immigrants at all?

Depends on the country and the framework of their immigration policy (for example, EU nations have some rules put in place by the council/parliament).

Again, "I'm not asking this from a legal perspective, I'm asking from your own moral perspective."

You're not under the illusion that the law is perfect, unchangeable and always accurately reflects what is actually good for society. (Are you?)

And more specifically, do you recognize the right of a country to deport or deny entry to any immigrant deemed to have a disruptive influence on society?

Well, the terms "disruptive" or "disruptive influence" could mean many things. You have a comically simple view of the world if you think that question has any meaning.

And you have a comically simple view of the world if you think radical Islam does not pose a threat to secularism and freedom.

Disruptive, okay, let's give some examples, like:
- committing a felony (And by no means am I implying only Muslim immigrants commit crimes, all non-citizens who commit felonies should be deported on the first offense, and don't take this as a legal statement, it's simply my belief about what any sane country should do to protect its citizens)
- having intention to overthrow the government
- promotion of racial hatred, terrorism, war, genocide (if that's not already illegal)
- being fundamentally opposed to the culture (in your case, secular western culture that values human rights, democracy, freedom etc.) and wanting to see it significantly changed (for example turned into an Islamic theocracy) - And say what you will, but those statistics are alarming and at the very least warrant another poll - I'm sorry but if you think an immigrant who wants to turn your country into Saudi Arabia should be given citizenship, you truly are a cultural masochist and history will judge you and people like you for it.

My definition is more precise and does not have the connotations yours does. Let's use that.

Yeah, you're like one of those Bible apologists who tries to justify why those old laws of Leviticus are really not that bad, for example claiming that there were "good reasons" during that time for a rape victim to marry the rapist, or trying to present it in a more favorable "humane" manner.

But no matter how you look at it, it's still a bad idea and doesn't fall under "religious freedom" but under religious pandering and special pleading.

( And by the way, if you're going to insist on strict and precise definitions don't use retarded phrases like "atheist caliphate". :roll: )

Serious question: Why do you think your bias is so easily discovered by others?

I've yet to see you show any sign of impartiality. You have a clear bias in favor of Islam and against anyone who doesn't like its slowly increasing influence in Europe.

Rise in FGM with ZERO prosecutions: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11053375

Hard to believe it's pure incompetence on the authorities' part.

Testimonies of FGM victims: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010 ... rcumcision

Are you really trying to assert that there is a conspiracy to avoid prosecution on the basis that the likely perpetrators are Muslim? If so, you're fucking deluded.

The article states that: "FGM is illegal in the UK and anybody convicted for it can be jailed for up to 14 years. The law protects British citizens even if they undergo the procedure abroad."

If you are under the impression that it is not being dealt with, you are very much mistaken.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110630-0001.htm

and the follow up

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldhansrd/text/120216-0001.htm

Basing your argument on out of date news articles does nothing for what little credibility your arguments may have had.

And still no convictions... Your link agrees with this.

But okay maybe I was wrong, maybe your authorities really are that incompetent. Shape up is all I can say then!

Anti-blasphemy policy: http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2802/ ... -blasphemy

Ah, "policy". Sounds as if you're linking to governmental dept. renegging on the 2008 blasphemy law repeal (somehow).

No, not really, it may seem misleading but yes I know it's a student union doing it.

Sadly, it's what seems to be a pro-Israeli anti-Muslim think tank

Wait... what? What's bad about being pro-Israel?

(check their other articles and if you're bored, the blogs that repost them) pissing itself with excitement because a student union has told the atheist/humanist/whatever group that they're offending other union members unneccessarily.

Honestly, :lol: who cares if they are "unnecessarily offended". They need to get used to it, that religious beliefs aren't beyond challenge.

It's pretty dumb (of the union - on this I'm sure we can agree), barely significant, and is still being played out; in other words, a bunch of students get uppity at other uppity students - who cares?

I care enough that I don't want to encourage this bullshit. Religion (the belief) deserves all the mockery it gets as far as I'm concerned. People need to stop treating it as taboo, whether it's offensive criticism or not.

S'funny, even the Daily Mail doesn't describe it as "blocking the streets to pray"; in fact, they only say that it is happening every Friday. I took a look at what kind of road it was on the map, and used Google street view too. I can see how constantly busy that street would be at lunchtime, what with being a back street to some flats.

/facepalm

You saw the cars parked? Now imagine you were in the area, wanted to leave, but couldn't. This is just not acceptable behavior, please stop trying to justify it. It's a public place, they shouldn't be there in middle of the road, they should be fined for obstructing traffic.

I guess it's not their fault as much as it is the fault of people who tolerate this behavior just so they don't cause "offense".

So much for your own "non-bias" and "critical thinking".

Who are the "Islamised PC left"? Please, articulate.

What are the "Islamised PC left"? Full definition you're using, please.

The kind of people so obsessed with political correctness (short PC), that is not causing offense to Islam, that they're willing to demonize anyone who disagrees with Islam or its barbaric aspects as a "racist", "bigot", "xenophobe", "culturally insensitive" etc. (often under the illusion that somehow Islamic culture is equal to western culture). They may also support policies to accommodate some of its practices or to limit criticism.

More religious special pleading, now Muslim doctors and nurses can bend hygiene rules as mandated by the NHS: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7576357 ... -rule.html

Do you even read the shit you're posting? They (some lobbyists) asked the relevant department to consider revising the rules, the department, with qualification and due consideration, clarified the policy.

The Department of Health said: 'The revised workwear guidance gives further clarity to frontline staff about the need to have good hand hygiene when in direct patient care. It does not change previous policy.

-snip-

Alright, you made a good point here but I wasn't really concerned that much with Sikhs to begin with. They pushed it up the arm (presumably above the elbow right?), whatever, no harm done, no extra costs.

But may I ask who is going to pay for all those (otherwise unnecessary) disposable plastic over-sleeves that get changed every time you deal with another patient? Why should anyone accommodate those demands just because someone couldn't keep his/her ridiculous beliefs out of the work place?

But you know what, I'd allow one concession: They cover the extra costs (no matter how small) out of their paycheck and it's fine with me. And I say that from a moral perspective, just to be clear.

Yeah, multiculturalism and reckless immigration policies for the WIN

Aha, I wondered when you'd single out multiculturalism by name. I only need one more thing from you to confirm my initial impression of you. It won't be long, you won't be able to contain it.

Even after this explicit prompt to choose your words carefully.

What is there to choose? Multiculturalism sounds nice in theory, distinctive, mutually enriching cultures living side by side and the state accommodating every culture, but in practice it creates segregation and social unrest and we've seen it fail before with the Yugoslav wars.

And Islamic culture is, overall, not equal to western culture, it's inferior because its values are often outdated and oppressive.

You want this kind of behavior to become prevalent in Europe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoMeUcC_M20 ?

And Sharia arbitration in Britain is the best example of pandering to Islamic barbarism. I'm sorry but, it's crucial to integration in society that everyone follow the same standard, both on criminal and civil disputes. I don't think parallel "courts, "tribunals" or "arbitration" are ever good ideas. Sharia arbitration favors men over women, it exploits uninformed consent from women who don't know any better because of their indoctrination, it exploits peer pressure to make people agree to the arbitration, and I've yet to see you address this point, all you do is provide William Lane Craig-style excuses for it.

Show some backbone for fuck's sake.

Parallel education systems are another problem. Did you know that some (not all but some) of the Islamic schools in Britain (with Saudi support) teach children to hate Jews, that homosexuals are worthy of execution and provide instructions on how to cut off arms and legs. Basically they serve as an indoctrination ground for children as young as 6 and up to 18.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRH6EV5rRMU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2wPYpv0i4M

while Fred Phelps (who never had any intention of becoming a permanent resident or citizen) is banned from entry.

You've now given away any pretence you had that you understand how governments or laws work; there's really no point trying to explain it to you, as you likely still haven't taken in the reason the convention on animal slaughter has an exemption on religious grounds.

*sigh*

For the last time, your interpretation for article 9 isn't that flawless, READ IT:

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Now granted morality can be disputed with some even arguing that it's completely subjective, it does show you that there is a loophole. And I think you're going to have a hard time arguing that causing avoidable suffering to an animal (a sentient being that can feel pain) is moral. And frankly it seems very hypocritical on the EU's part to embrace a more humane approach to animal welfare, condemn painful practices and criminalize them (basically an admittance that they find it immoral), but still make allowances for religion.

But just to go further, let's say that they are indeed within their right. You say the only solution would be to abolish article 9. This is just a false dichotomy, to suggest that if I disagree on certain small details (for example on how to balance animal rights vs. religious freedom right) then I'm entirely against the idea. But yeah, you don't have any "bias".


But ignoring all that too, let's say Muslims have their Halal, don't you find at least despicable of not being informed whether or not the meat is Halal? You can't get around this point, customers deserve to know what they're paying for, especially if you want to live in a culture that strives to increase humane treatment of animals when possible.

This same section also explains why Sharia arbitration is not religious freedom, and in fact should be banned: "protection of the rights and freedoms of others".

Prolescum, what do you think about his "freedom of religion"?

His freedom of religion is not being impinged upon.

He was denied entry because of his extreme views on homosexuality, as taught by his religion. And don't get me wrong, I support that idea, in fact I encourage all countries to refuse anyone associated with the WBC a visa. He's a US citizen, he should stay in USA, other countries shouldn't have any obligation to put up with his bullshit protests or extremist ideology.

But no, when someone suggests to deport the extremist Islamists (not even most Muslims, but extremist Muslims) it's "bigotry".

Yeah, and you want me to believe you're not one of those people who bash Christianity at every opportunity but they get but cave in to Islamic sensibilities.


And to answer your question about extremist Muslims who are born in the country and have citizenship - So what? They stay. You're stuck with them. But this problem is almost always related to immigration (where do you think the extremist Islam came from if not 2nd/3rd generation immigration?) so you might want to reconsider this for the future, who you allow into your country and how you integrate them. There will always be extremism, but that doesn't mean you can't take steps to discourage it.

Was it right when people wanted to keep this fundie out of the country?

If you had any notion of the various complexities of speech/rights/immigration laws, I'd attempt to explain it. You haven't shown a single spark of critical thinking throughout this conversation, and have practically ignored every legitimate rebuttal of your nonsense. It's really not worth the effort.

Yeah because making excuses for Islamic fascism is what a "critical thinker" does... :lol: Give me a break, you haven't been entirely honest or impartial in this conversation either.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

A narrower question, Prolescum:

This is a reasonably large and well funded movement among European Muslims that seeks to institute core Islam values and diminish historical European values - broadly, how do you think this should be handled?

 

[Prolescum]

Dogma's Demise - Talking to you is almost exactly like talking to VyckRo; you may have a moment to take that in.

When you respond to all the valid questions put to you, address all the rebuttals, justify any assertions of yours still standing (if any), and stop crying like a baby about your bigotry being exposed, I'll consider responding to your latest tripe.

Although why you pretend to be interested in the views of leftist-PC-cultural-relatavist-Islamic-lawyery-whackos when you clearly don't give a toss about reality, I'll probably never know.

A narrower question, Prolescum:

This is a reasonably large and well funded movement among European Muslims that seeks to institute core Islam values and diminish historical European values

What is a reasonably large and well funded movement among European Muslims that seeks to institute core Islam values and diminish historical European values?

Are you talking about a real organisation or is this for the sake of argument?

What are "core Islam values"?

What are "historical European values"?

broadly, how do you think this should be handled?

I suppose it depends on your answers to the above, but generally speaking, I am not a policy maker - put your ideas in front of me and I'll tell you whether I think it should be implemented, tweaked or whether I think you should piss off.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Right, so you're trolling then. As proof:

What are "core Islam values"?

Because it's our fault you don't know the basic concepts behind one of the most popular philosophies in the world. :roll: Go read a Koran or hit up youtube or something - educate yourself.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Dogma's Demise - Talking to you is almost exactly like talking to VyckRo; you may have a moment to take that in.

I get the same impression when talking to you.

 

[Laurens]

Right, so you're trolling then. As proof:

What are "core Islam values"?

Because it's our fault you don't know the basic concepts behind one of the most popular philosophies in the world. :roll: Go read a Koran or hit up youtube or something - educate yourself.

I don't think that is a completely unreasonable question to ask given that there are numerous different sects of Islam, all of whom have a different take on things...

This is something that critics often fail to account for...

 

[Prolescum]

Right, so you're trolling then. As proof:

What are "core Islam values"?

Because it's our fault you don't know the basic concepts behind one of the most popular philosophies in the world. :roll: Go read a Koran or hit up youtube or something - educate yourself.

Proof! :lol:

Arthur, as noted by Laurens, I want you to explain what you mean when you refer to them.

What is this reasonably large and well funded movement among European Muslims that seeks to institute core Islam values and diminish historical European values? Are you talking about a real organisation or is this for the sake of argument?

What are "core Islam values"?

What are "historical European values"?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

A narrower question, Prolescum:

This is a reasonably large and well funded movement among European Muslims that seeks to institute core Islam values and diminish historical European values

What is a reasonably large and well funded movement among European Muslims that seeks to institute core Islam values and diminish historical European values?

Are you talking about a real organisation or is this for the sake of argument?

Organization? I said movement. There's probably some local leaders, but not some kind of continental conspiracy like you're positing. :roll:

What are "core Islam values"?

Let's narrow it down to the Maliki sect of Sunni Islam - the predominant sect in Northwestern Africa where a lot of Muslim immigrants to Europe come from. Wikipedia paints them as strict traditionalists with a very narrow reading of the Koran - which, again, I'm not going to read for you.

What are "historical European values"?

Secular courts, free speech, and freedom of religious expression (in the last couple centuries anyway) seem the most germane to this topic.

broadly, how do you think this should be handled?

I suppose it depends on your answers to the above, but generally speaking, I am not a policy maker - put your ideas in front of me and I'll tell you whether I think it should be implemented, tweaked or whether I think you should piss off.

Just answer the damn question already. I promise not to write any legislation based on your opinion. :roll:

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Just answer the damn question already. I promise not to write any legislation based on your opinion. :roll:

Watch out, we got a bad ass over here!

 

[Prolescum]

What is a reasonably large and well funded movement among European Muslims that seeks to institute core Islam values and diminish historical European values?

Are you talking about a real organisation or is this for the sake of argument?

Organization? I said movement.

Potato, potato. Are you referring to a real movement or is this for the sake of argument?

If it's genuine, what is it called (if anything), and where are the figures you used to approximate its size? How do you know about its finances, and where can I verify your information?

If it's hypothetical, don't expect anything beyond laughter.

There's probably some local leaders, but not some kind of continental conspiracy like you're positing. :roll:

I'm not positing anything here, you are. If it's not some kind of conspiracy, how can you describe this "movement" (this is a reasonably large and well funded movement among European Muslims that seeks to institute core Islam values and diminish historical European values) as you have thus far? What do you mean "probably" some local leaders? Don't you know?

You accused me of trolling earlier, let me ask: are you taking the piss?

What are "core Islam values"?

Let's narrow it down to the Maliki sect of Sunni Islam - the predominant sect in Northwestern Africa where a lot of Muslim immigrants to Europe come from. Wikipedia paints them as strict traditionalists with a very narrow reading of the Koran - which, again, I'm not going to read for you.

No, let's not narrow it down until you define whether this movement you're on about is a) real or b) hypothetical and to which branch it belongs, if any.

Then you can explain why the values espoused by this particular group are "core Islamic values" as opposed to "values particular to this group".

Also bear in mind you state this "well funded movement" is among "European Muslims"; does it include indigenous Muslims as well as immigrants?

Anyway, you're speaking of "core Islam values"; if they're so readily identifiable, what's the problem posting what you think they are here?

And for future reference, I do have a copy of the Qur'an (in English) somewhere in amongst the detritus.

What are "historical European values"?

Secular courts, free speech, and freedom of religious expression (in the last couple centuries anyway) seem the most germane to this topic.

Address all of the above.

broadly, how do you think this should be handled?

I suppose it depends on your answers to the above, but generally speaking, I am not a policy maker - put your ideas in front of me and I'll tell you whether I think it should be implemented, tweaked or whether I think you should piss off.

Just answer the damn question already. I promise not to write any legislation based on your opinion. :roll:

I answered your damned question as best I could with the paltry amount of information you gave.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

brb

 

[ArthurWilborn]

If it's genuine, what is it called (if anything), and where are the figures you used to approximate its size? How do you know about its finances, and where can I verify your information?

You and your conspiracy theories, insisting on some shadowy organization. :roll: It's called "Islam", size is about 16 million people.

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

I don't have the financials on 16 million people, sorry, but I'm guessing there's some money to be had there. Rough estimate, at $20k US per year and about 66% of the population that's of working age - $20 billion per year GDP. Not much compared to a national budget - but not bad as a narrow-interest lobby.

Let's narrow it down to the Maliki sect of Sunni Islam - the predominant sect in Northwestern Africa where a lot of Muslim immigrants to Europe come from. Wikipedia paints them as strict traditionalists with a very narrow reading of the Koran - which, again, I'm not going to read for you.

No, let's not narrow it down until you define whether this movement you're on about is a) real or b) hypothetical and to which branch it belongs, if any.

Then you can explain why the values espoused by this particular group are "core Islamic values" as opposed to "values particular to this group".

The Maliki sect of Islam. Who favor a strict traditionalist interpretation if Islam (ie the one closest to its core values). Which part are you not understanding?

Also bear in mind you state this "well funded movement" is among "European Muslims"; does it include indigenous Muslims as well as immigrants?

Irrelevant. Don't try this "Not every X is Y!" bullcrap on me. I'm not talking exhaustively about every single X. NOONE is EVER talking about every single X. It's a cheap dodge.

Anyway, you're speaking of "core Islam values"; if they're so readily identifiable, what's the problem posting what you think they are here?

Because I'm not falling for your trolling tactic of lazily asking questions and putting in no effort. Shed some of your own ignorance, I'm not doing all the intellectual lifting for you. :roll: It will take you two minutes of research and then you'll actually be able to coherently talk about it instead of dodging.

Secular courts, free speech, and freedom of religious expression (in the last couple centuries anyway) seem the most germane to this topic.

Address all of the above.

They are traditional European values. Clean out your eyes. :roll: Islam favors religious courts, sharply curtailed speech, and repression of other religious expression.

Just answer the damn question already. I promise not to write any legislation based on your opinion. :roll:

I answered your damned question as best I could with the paltry amount of information you gave.

Nope, you claimed ignorance and pushed the question back on me. I wasn't asking about me, silly. :lol: I was asking about you.

 

[Prolescum]

You and your conspiracy theories, insisting on some shadowy organization. It's called "Islam", size is about 16 million people.

Oh, excuse me. When you referred to it as "a movement among European Muslims" as you did initially:

This is a reasonably large and well funded movement among European Muslims that seeks to institute core Islam values and diminish historical European values

you can see why there is confusion. So, we have "Islam", a "movement" that is reasonably large and well funded among "European Muslims".

Right.

Not doing yourself any favours, my love.

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

I don't have the financials on 16 million people, sorry, but I'm guessing there's some money to be had there. Rough estimate, at $20k US per year and about 66% of the population that's of working age - $20 billion per year GDP. Not much compared to a national budget - but not bad as a narrow-interest lobby.

Seriously, Arthur: what fucking drugs are you on? I know you teeter on the edge of a mental precipice sometimes, but your batshit is usually at least comprehensible. What are you attempting to show with these particular figures?

No, let's not narrow it down until you define whether this movement you're on about is a) real or b) hypothetical and to which branch it belongs, if any.

Then you can explain why the values espoused by this particular group are "core Islamic values" as opposed to "values particular to this group".

The Maliki sect of Islam. Who favor a strict traditionalist interpretation if Islam (ie the one closest to its core values). Which part are you not understanding?

So "European Muslims", all 16 million of them, are of the Maliki sect and hand all their money over to the "movement"?

A "strict traditionalist interpretation" is not the same as "Islam's core values". Try again.

As I've already asked, what are "core Islam values" according to you?

Or do I have to explain what "core", "values" and "Islam" mean?

Also bear in mind you state this "well funded movement" is among "European Muslims"; does it include indigenous Muslims as well as immigrants?

Irrelevant. Don't try this "Not every X is Y!" bullcrap on me. I'm not talking exhaustively about every single X. NOONE is EVER talking about every single X. It's a cheap dodge.

People do that all the time, actually. You've done it yourself.

So you're talking about 16 million European Muslims, who may or may not all be part of the same sect when it suits you, and definitely are whenever you want them to be, regardless of their place of birth, and not when it's uncomfortable for you, and we just have to guess what is applicable at any given time?

And you accuse me of a cheap dodge? You're out of your fucking mind, mate.

Anyway, you're speaking of "core Islam values"; if they're so readily identifiable, what's the problem posting what you think they are here?

Because I'm not falling for your trolling tactic of lazily asking questions and putting in no effort.

Have you even fucking read this thread? Lazily asking questions? Putting in no effort?

I mean, I know you only joined it to harrass me for your own amusement (which is fine, we're good buddies), but for fuck's sake don't be such a hypocrite.

If you can't put up, shut up. Or to put it another way, make your next post worth responding to.

I've asked you questions because it is pointless discussing something like "core Islam values" if we're talking about different things.

Shed some of your own ignorance, I'm not doing all the intellectual lifting for you.

Arthur, you know I like you but this just beggars belief.

It will take you two minutes of research and then you'll actually be able to coherently talk about it instead of dodging.

There is almost no doubt in my mind that you are trying to wind me up.

I'm away for the weekend, so take your time, (and some deep breaths), before you make yourself look like a bigger tit than you already do.