No. This is prejudice.

Goatherd style guys? I don't like many fashion statements but I would never dare consider basing the limitation of someone else's rights on that.

Beards? So, all men (and some women :dead: ) must all be clean shaven now, regardless of their beliefs? Wow!

Men with beards and dresses? Yeh, Scotsmen are like that. It's the bagpipes I would protest against. :rotfl:

You're wrong, Avon Lady. I am surprised. But then again, the ME is a confusing place. I don't want my country to become like that.

You only care for Israel.

PS What I also dont want in my neighboorhood:

-Gay parades
-Neo nazi's
-Jewish orthodox
-Serial killers
-Beggers
-etc. use your imagination

I like to think I have something to say about the direct environment I live in. Taste. My neighboors feel the same and that means more to me than opinions here from distant places.

Sixpack, just schedule all those folks to parade AT THE SAME TIME. Problem solved. :-j

Seriously, someone mentioend the Japanese Americans, lots fewer numbers that we are talking about here. Still, I do know Greece and Turkey "exchanged populations" (mutual deportation) after WWI... was a bit harder for the Greeks...and my family traces back to Cappadocia, sad difference is we were there first. :cry: Oh well, glad to be born in Canada.

I'd be cool with that ! :up:

I did not realize that having people different than you in your community makes your country "different".

You are obviously referring to something bigger and more dramatic, like the extinction of one's culture and legal and social systems. This is not apparent in your words, which, taken for what you wrote, I find alarming.
This is an insulting lie. :shifty:
Boy the way Glen Miller played.
Songs that made the hit parade.
Guys like us we had it made.
Those were the days!

And you know where you were then.
Girls were girls and men were men
Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

Didn't need no welfare states.
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee our old Lasalle ran great
Those were the days!

:nope:

Stifle yourself, Sixpack!

Getting emotional, Lady ? Weird stuff.

But maybe it's not:

Irrational fear of deja vu:
http://www.aish.com/holocaust/overvi...Jew_Hatred.asp

Does your husband wear an Jewish-orthodox beard (and hairdue even) ?
http://www.terragalleria.com/images/...isra10205.jpeg

Anyway, no worries. I simply dont believe in free for all.

No.

Nostalgic for good TV. Yes.
You've lost me. What is the relevance of this link to what I've said?
Clean shaven. But we have plenty of neighbors and some relatives who fit the description. So what?!
Thanks for clearing that up.

Heh, despite your major issues with islam and Palestines, perhaps the Jewish trauma of WW2 is even greater still. As a consequence you may even fear that muslims in Europe could end up facing similar intolerant radical stuff. Seemingly far-fetched but nonetheless a possible explanation of your former replies.

It would be the same tragic old mistake which prevented earlier measures. The mistake to confuse current affairs in Europe with Neo Nazi(~hood?). I certainly dont want a Fuehrer, but I want the European majority to be heard and politically followed.

Meanwhile, have a look at the latest islamic victory in my hometown (luckily other (east)side of town separated by a river; the other mosq is only 2 km away from that mosq :roll: )

Oh, it's gonna be so great. Cant wait ! Allah Akhbar ! :roll:
http://reeskamp.typepad.com/selimiye/images/do04.JPG

PS Changing profile again to 'Friggin' Holland.

Well the discussion has been improving a lot :D

Will make some replies now, this is the second time because the first one got lost due to striking a bad key :damn: , so I will be more direct (Tired of typing already :P ):

That depends on two things:

1-Wether the ku-klux-klan and nazis are meeting on the office just to discuss their ideas and blame the jews & blacks, or wether they are commiting violent acts against those groups

2-Wether the action to take by blacks and jews is to go to the Police and Court or to take the justice in their own hands and act as irrationally and illegally as the nazis or ku-kulx-klans

I do have anything against people being nazi or racist, as long as they don't pretend the rest to be like them through violence, and as long as they don't use violence against anyone. Same goes for any measure taken to eliminate radical groups, wether they are islamic, nazis or whatever. As long as this is done by the police and courts, using a legal and democratic procedure, I have no problem.

I agree completely. This is an unacceptable generalization, even if the ideas are wrong, what matters is what the individuals or groups that have them do towards the rest of the society.

The "Iron Curtain" was created by Stalin, not by the western countries. Same with the Berlin wall. In our western countries we had (Including the USA, BTW) legal communist parties most of the time, and there was no problem with that. They simply acted in the frame of our Constitutions and respected others that did not think the same. That granted a peaceful cohexistence.

Certainly not because the Torah does not include capital punishments, but because (As the Avon Lady rightly said) the courts and rabbins did a reasonable interpretation of it, far from radicalisms. Good proof that it is the interpretation and not the supposed doctrine of the holy texts what counts. So what is the problem with Islam then? Ain't it possible to do a reasonable interpretation of it? It certainly is, same as of the Torah and Christian Bible. The main difference is that Islam is being used for political purposes by certain groups/countries.

Very close. He even said that the biggest problem in Britain is not having had his own Adolf Hitler (Of course that was said long before WW2) And britain has its own fascist party before WW2. But above fascist in some aspects, he was a brit, and thus he would do anything to save his country from any danger.

Democracy is a form of government, determined by the way the leading class is elected in a state. It has nothing to do with that country respecting or not the human rights declared by the ONU, something the US has not always done. Guantanamo is a good example of what shouldn't be done. If 99% of people in a country vote for hanging suspected criminals before a previous impartial trial, that might be democratic, but it will be against human rights. There is a difference.


Now to some of the solutions proposed:

1-Stop inmigration: What inmigration? Inmigration of radical islamists or any islamist? Are they all the same? How do we distinguish?

2-Deportation of radical non-citizens: Good. But what do we do with the converted muslims that are citizens? How do we deport them?

You are starting to face the REAL problem: Do we ban the Islam as an ideology/religion? Or do we ban simply radical interpretations of it, by punishing acts against the law or provocation to disobey and violence?

We have enough of them here already i.m.o. So, a.f.a.i.c. anyone from an islamic state/background unless assumed to be of a non-islamic religion (for example: a Christian prosecuted in Iran).

I think that part is done then.

We can't deport that categorie nor is there a need to do that

We are troubled by the dilemma you mentioned because we one day separated our churches (that defined our Euro-culture) from state. Remember: WE DID that but THEY did NOT (like we did)! (I refer to my other thread: How do I become a muslim?).

Like Skybird said: We have an eroded culture. That's why we struggle so much with this issue. Had we had a strong identity ourselves and true self belief in our principles things would not have come this far.

It's amazing how that undereducated minority of radical muslims confuses the hell out of everybody.

No that practically proves too difficult under our legal system, so we have to be pro-active for a change and not leave it to the courts to decide.

The whole thing stated in 1917 as well-known boycott of bolshevick's Russia by western countries when bolshevicks refused to continue the war against Germany. Stalin was not in the power then but later greatly contributed to "iron curtain" as well. But even nowdays embassies of the western countries treat ordinary Russian people as animals when they want to apply for a simple turist visas to travel and see the world. Russian embassies are no better but it is known that Russia is not a democratic country.

And "a peaceful cohexistance" claims always remind me about the senator Mackarthy (or whatever spelling of his name is) times.

Anyhow, what I was trying to say is that western democracies have experience in isolating and blocking the danger of this sort (now it is about Islam), no matter whether one likes it or not to hear about the methods used.

Hmmmmm I don't think I can agree completely with that Sergei :hmm: (Though you have a good point there)

It is true that western culture was at least scared with the communism as it started during the industrial revolution (19th century), but that was mainly sorted by legallization of sindicates and communist parties. Yes, communist states like the USSR after 1917 were not always treated well diplomatically speaking, but that does not mean lying an iron curtain. Note that during the whole WW2 relations between UK, US and USSR were -understandably- fluent and it was the USSR who carried the whole weight of fighting germany in the continent (After June 1940 Dunkerke evacuation, the brits only fought directly against the german land troops in Africa until june 1943 when landings in Italy by the allies started!).

In all, we had legal communist parties, characterized by being required to respect the constitutional laws. That happened even here at Spain after 1975...the communist party was legallized long before the Iron Curtain fell. :yep:

So -noting tha the discussion starts to slow down- I want now to expose my opinion about how to deal with Islam. It is quite simple: We have a constitutional set of laws, we do recognize the rights of all humans according to the ONU declaration 1948, so we just demand from Islam -or any other religion- to respect that. Whenever there is a conflict between both ideas, Islam and constitution, Islam must give up. If they don't, they who break the law are to be treated as anybody who breaks the law, whatever consequences are established for that. I can agree with deportation of radical imans (Non-citizens) and with punishments to any citizen iman who inducts people to break the laws of the state. And I have the same opinion for any catholic preacher who inducts people to break laws (We have recently had here in Spain a terrible problem with the gay marriages...public servants were required by the Catholic church to object and not proceed to marry gay couples. This is unacceptable in my opinion).
Above all, including religions, is the right to a peaceful and free coexistance, and the minimum necessary for that is the limit to any religious idea. :up:

@Iceman

you forgot to quote the rest of the verse. as usual, quotes are out of context, misinformed. so let me continue it for you

"...But whoso repents, after his evildoing, and makes amends, God will turn towards him; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Knowest thou not that to God belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth? He chastises whom He will, and forives whom he will; and God is powerful over everything."


So although in certain situations, a thief may very well have his hand cut off, if he/she is repentant and makes an effort to recompense the victim, there can be no punishment.

is that the sort of straight answer you were looking for?

you should find things out for yourself, don't depend on what i or others say -- we all have our individual biases (will anyone else join me in admitting it?) you're entitiled to your own opinion, i only ask that you not base that opinion on hearsay or misinformation.