Confed999

No, like if you don't do what they say, you're killed.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Parihaka

LOL, you won't find me espousing Christian rule anymore than you'll find me espousing Islamic rule


My point being that that harrassment and discrimination is a hallmark of Islamic states, which reinforces my statement, We've got the Christian church reasonably under control here, although it is an ongoing battle.
I don't want to have to battle yet another desert monotheistic religion seeking to curtail my freedoms.
To many of my ancestors died because they didn't worship the appropriate version of the appropriate deity at the appropriate time to allow it to happen again.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

bandwagon

Really? Yet you agree with this:
I agree entirely with John Howard. But it is in essence a rejection of multiculturalism. We can accommodate immigrants only if they accept and adopt our culture.

Parihaka

No, we can accomodate immigrants if they They do not need to deny their own culture in toto, only those aspects of it which contradict our own standards. Culture is not acceptance of laws, but acceptance of laws is essential to integrate into a culture and add the aspects of your own culture which compliment it. THAT is multiculturalism.

bandwagon

No. Acceptance of laws is only a small part of integration into a culture. It is values and attitudes that set cultures apart. Without the adoption of values and attitudes of the host they prevent themselves from taking on citizenship of the host nation as the dominant part of their identity; it encourages a separate identity, isolation, social exclusion, which predisposes to discrimination, racism and reaction, which further exacerbates the problem.

If you take values and attitudes away from a culture what have you got left? Some traditions and clothing accessories. If that is multiculturalism I can live with it.

There is enough variation in our culture to allow people to have vastly different habits and tastes without it being divisive. What we want from immigrants is a sense of shared citizenship and I can’t see that happening without them relinquishing the essence of their cultural identity.

Parihaka

With all due respect, what you are asking for is for your immigrants to deny every aspect of their culture and adopt all of yours, which is a bit of an indicator as to why the UK is having the problems it does.

Values and attitudes can be and are diverse within a single culture let alone a multicultural one. Differing aspects of belief in marriage, religious beliefs, alcohol consumption, political allegiance, et cetera et cetera can all be accomodated within a monoculture, so why not within bi or multicultural one?

The only neccesary requirements are respect for the laws of the land, acquiring those skills such as language neccessary to make your way in your adopted society, and accepting the responsibilities of your adopted country.

I guess I have to ask why you think 'habits and tastes' differ from 'values and attitudes'. What's the difference?

I understand the anxt current in Britain with some new cultures having not assimilated into British society and the pressures this generates, but coming from a true multicultural society I know that it can be achieved. The advantage we have over you is an extra hundred years.

Here's an example of what your ancestors came up with 166 years ago to deal with bi-culturalism.

Now I'm not pretending this is easy. So far it's taken all of those years to bring about what we now have, and it's an ongoing process and far from perfect. What it has enabled us to do however is to have migrants from all over the world, from every religion and race, without the major problems you are experiencing in the UK.

If your ancestors can come up with the idea, and we can implement it, why can't you? Surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander?

gunnut

Nope, I want us to becareful of some Imans who like to preach hatred. We don't allow the Klan to preach hatred. We shouldn't allow them either.

That's incorrect. You can do a search on everything I've said about muslims. I maintain the fact that the bad ones are few, but loud. Most muslims are good, but unwilling to speak out.

Totally agree. I'm not a religious man for that reason.

Oh yeah, those people are nutty and a danger to kids. In fact, didn't the FBI just get the guy in Utah who led a cult of polygamists?

I'm not upset that muslims want to spread their religion. Every religion does that. I have a problem with islamists habit of killing people who they don't agree with. Remember Theo Van Gogh in Denmark? He made a film criticizing the way muslims treat their women and he was shot by an islamists. I have a small problem with that.

And there probably still is.

That's good. Israel has a problem with Hezbollah, not Lebanon.

Protected from whom? And from what?

Rarely. Still happens. And how often do we actually get the true information from that part of the world?

East Timor? Phillipines? India? Russia? You can't deny the fact that most religious strife going on in the world today somehow involve muslims.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

bandwagon

( Damn! Will you believe I posted a reply to this earlier, which didn’t appear somehow. I’m trying to remember the undoubtedly excellent points I made)

The objective is to prevent social division, by having immigrants develop a shared identity with the host society.

In NZ, Oz, USA etc the society has evolved around the presence of an ethnic mix with different cultural backgrounds virtually from the outset, with a much lower degree of dominance of a single culture, so that cultural differences are less likely to be divisive. Furthermore, over time there is a tendency for a mix of cultures to converge, and as you point out, you’ve had more time. Also converging generations of immigrants would help as a bridge for new intake immigrants from the same original culture.

The difference between “habits and tastes” and “values and attitudes” is that the latter affect behaviour towards others, both as individuals, but more importantly as a group.

(Damn. My original reply was much longer)

Your quoted declaration seems to be about property rights.

PubFather

I have issues with the term "major problems". There are problems with racial integration in the UK. What is grabbing the headlines (for obvious reasons) is the Islamist minority. This - in part - has been fueled by the UK govt treating people like Al Bakhri with kid-gloves when they preach hatred, out of the fear of being accused of being racist. This is mirrored in the attitudes of city councils who would ban the word "Christmas" being used for school holidays.

However, while there are problems, they are hugely, hugely overblown by the media. That doesnt mean I'm complacent, but simply judge that the overwhelming majority of British Muslims live according to the laws of British society.

What problems that do exist, come from two main sources imho.

Firstly, "Britishness" come attached with lots and lots of negative baggage. We are still defining (and may never achieve this) a true sense of Britishness. A sense of "Scottishness" exists - and England suffers from the negative, national front/hooligan image of "Englishness". The old sense of being British was founded on the Empire, WWII, and the monarchy. Such things are almost irrelevant to the bulk of British people nowadays. There is a vacum of identity. Is it any surprise that immigrant groups - particularly Muslims - have no really attractive sense of identity to over-ride their own, native ones?

The majority of British Muslims arrive from Bangladesh and Pakistan - former colonies. Particulary in terms of Pakistanis - there is still resentment at (rightly) at the treatment of their former status.

Secondly, British Muslims are disproportionately in the lower socio-economic bands. The same socio-economic bands that produces groups like the BNP. Islam then becomes a cure for social ills. It has been said that several of the 7/7 bombers do not fit this picture. The case often quoted is one of them who is reported to be a teacher. He was not. He was a special educational needs assistant, who are not paid well. Muslims have generally been less successful than Hindus for example - possibly because many lack the devotion to secular education that Hindus possess.

These problems are compounded by a perception of Western double-standards and oppression of Muslims, fed by a minority of radical clerics.

It's these problems that lie at the root of racial problems in the UK, along with the percentage of Pakistanis who have such a strong connection to their homeland. (A connection constantly reinforced by marriage to people from Pakistan).

__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto

"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

Parihaka

The problems I refer to are the hate speeches from the likes of Al Bakhri and equally the attempts by the establishment to 'accomodate' his like.
Also the problems of the bombings and terrorist training camps. I'm not trying to say the majority of Muslims in Britain are terrorists or aren't peaceable people, but you do have some pretty active terrorist problems.

It was about sovereignty (and protection for Maori from the European privateers).
Now it's about bi-culturalism, mana, tino rangatiratanga, taonga, (sorry, can't really translate those meaningfully) and above all what it means to be a New Zealander.
The debate about it will gone for another 100 years at least but what it really means is that because I understand fully the meaning of those words, I and my descendants are natives of Aotearoa.
My wife who is English doesn't understand this but my 6 year old daughter does. She knows that she is Ngati English, Ngati Pakeha e Ngai Tahu, tangata whenua o Aotearoa.
Damn, I'm going to burst into some sort of liberal rally cry if I'm not careful, best to stop now.

Anon

Anon

That about says it all bro.

Gun Grape

Actually we do allow the Klan to preach hatred. All part of that free speech thing


Do you remember Dr Barnett Slepian? Dr David Gunn? ,,Dr. John Britton ?

They were all Doctors that performed abortions and were killed by "Christians". One of them by a Presbyterian minister.

And here is the outcry from one of the religous leaders of the movement
"REV. DONALD SPITZ: The reason I said that, that he was a hero - he or she was a hero - is this: Doctor abortionist baby killer Slepian has had a history of murdering unborn babies, so whoever the sniper was, male or female, that shot this abortionist, that shot this baby killer, saved those innocent human beings from being murdered by Dr. Slepian."
There are laws protecting them that are like our "Hate Crime" laws.
Most of that information comes from the Christian community in that country or missionaries.
Yea except for that Tibet thing. Your right. But since they are a minority religion it they would involve muslims.

ArmchairGeneral

On the getting killed for spreading the gospel thing: they most certainly do kill people for spreading the gospel, among other things. That's why the gospel is not spread there. Not many people spreading the gospel=not many people dying/imprisoned for doing it.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

troung

East Timor had zero to do with religion. It was a right wing military dictatorship (we supported BTW not only the right wing military government but the invasion itself) worried that it would have a border with a possibly radical left wing nation. And the chief planner behind the invasion, was a catholic. At the time most of Timor's population was not even catholic.

The Philippines came from years of forcing Moros off their land, making laws preventing them from ownership of land, bullying them and yes killing them and then demanding the Moros turn over any weapons they have to a dictator. Years of bad policies aimed at the Moros caused what we see now.

Russia and Chechnya started off as Chechnya wishing to break away from Russia.

India, a Pakistani land grab and attempt to bleed them.

__________________
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway