[Cooool]

This thread is clearly not a waste of time, seeing as this issue does exsit, regardless of what your on it opinion is.

UK Thinking Is Harming Society
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4576528.stm
Can Britain Survive Politically-Correct Multiculturalism
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/906049/can_britain_survive_politically_correct.html
Campaign Against Political Correctness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_Against_Political_Correctness

Although I agree political correctness is often a good thing (such as trying to get rid of the phrase ``that`s so gay``) but at what point do you draw the line? I believe political correctness is responsible for shutting down any type of discussion, especially if it involves minorities. I believe issues such as why African Americans are responsible for such a disporportionate amount of crime or why the gay community have a higher rate of AIDS/HIV need to be discussed. These are facts, not bigoted statements and too often political correctness causes people to turn a blind eye to sensitive issues.

And as for the Christian comparison, I agree fundamental Christianity is harmful, but on a much smaller scale. Christian fundamentalists kill abortionists. Muslim fundamentalists go on shooting sprees in American military forts.

And Canada is very accepting of Muslims and allows participation in society yet we have had terrorists plot to blow up the CBC building. I highly doubt Islamic fundamentalism is fueled by excluding muslims from Western society. Like I said before, they are not the only minority who faces discrimination. Lastly, I wonder how welcome anyone from America or Europe would be in a Muslim state such as Syria or Iran. They don`t exactly welcome Western culture with open arms, yet they try and ``bring down society`` when the UK isn`t as tolerant of Islamic culture?

 

[GenerationW]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my limited knowledge of the Crusades includes a lot of huge atrocities committed against various Muslim, Jewish, and even Christian groups in territories conquered. Were those Muslims running around roasting people alive on spits when they invaded Christian areas? Compare what happened to Christians in the Balkans when conquered by the Ottomans to what happened to Muslims and Jews in Iberia after the Reconquista. Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, etc. all still have Christian majorities. How big is Andalucia's Muslim community? Its Jewish community?

Spain banished, killed, or forcibly converted whatever Muslims remained.

Some Jews were also converted, but most left for Italy, Central Europe, or Ottoman Europe -- mostly to the city of Thessalonica (now in Greece).

War was vicious back then, whether the invading army was Muslim or Christian. When the Ottomans overran a city, the Sultan (or whoever was in charge) allowed three or four days for the soldiers to plunder (stealing, raping, taking slaves, murdering) before order was restored. The Ottomans also had what were called Janissary troops, which consisted of Christians who were taken as young boys (usually by force) and trained to be loyal Muslim soldiers. Ironically, the Janissaries eventually grew so powerful and influential over the centuries that the Sultan had them all annihilated in 1826.

It's my belief that the worst atrocities in human history were committed by Christians, or in the name of Christianity. Consider the most barbaric acts you can think of, impaling, boiling in oil, live gutting, live skinning, etc. Who did these things in the Middle Ages?

Pretty much everyone.

And with respect to the view of the Muslim world with respect to Mongols vs. Crusadors, I don't know this for sure, but I would have a hard time believing that Muslims would have a more negative view of Mongols.

That seems true (and probably is) from today's perspective, where the West is rich & powerful and Mongolia is a benign, faraway country, but historically the Mongols were greatly feared and incessantly damned. They suffered no major military defeats from 1206 to 1260, and when they laid siege to a city which refused to surrender, all residents were slaughtered when the city fell. Untold thousands of those victims were Muslims.

When Baghdad, the most important Muslim city of its time, fell in 1258, as many as a million people were killed, all major libraries and centres of learning were destroyed, grand buildings were demolished, and what is considered to be Islam's golden age came to an end.

 

[LAz]

Compare what happened to Christians in the Balkans when conquered by the Ottomans to what happened to Muslims and Jews in Iberia after the Reconquista. Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, etc. all still have Christian majorities. How big is Andalucia's Muslim community?

*laughs*
Man, you are not aware how Islam has spread bigtime in the former Byzantine Empire. There has been pretty much an organized effort to erradicate Constantinople/Istanbul of the Orthodox Christians. Lets not forget the Armenians.
There are loads of Muslims in the Balkans. The Albanians are one of the fastest expanding ethnic groups in Europe, and in the former Yugoslavia they are overwhelmingly Muslim - over 95% of them are in Macedonia and Kosovo. In Kosovo they have pushed out the Christian Groups - not totally but they are trying. In Macedonia they are expanding rapidly. In Bosnia where Christians were the strong majority of over 60%, we now see them at 50% - there has not been a census in about 20 years in Bosnia so we can not say for sure how many of who is there, but estimates say that the Muslims are up to 50% there - a big change from the past. Islam expands. That's a fact. In Greece it might not be so, but that's because of population transfer agreements.

So to sum up the changes...
Montenegro - 11% muslim in 1961, 17% muslim in 2003.
Kosovo - 32% muslim in 1871, 48% in 1899, 68% muslim in 1961, 95% muslim in 2007
Bosnia - 34% muslim in 1961, about 50% now.

Lets do a case study of muslim expansion.
FYR Macedonia - %muslim - 22.4 in 1961, 23.6 in 1971, 24.3 in 1981, 26.86 in 1994, 30 in 2002. Jee, look at the trend. Who knew? We could add a couple percent if we included the gypsies - they're muslim too, but nobody seems to care about them, so I left them out, instead looking at albanians plus turks.
Well if someone wants to map this out in excel they can get a nice line showing the increase. Perhaps it can be used to predict the future if the R values are good.


So yeah, do not underestimate islam in the balkans. It's expanding.

I didn't even get into other stuff, like the turks of bulgaria and the muslims in central serbia.






The fact is that they spread quite rapidly, and do not assimilate well. North America does not have huge populations of muslims, so this issue is not that big here. People who bring it up are looked at as wild freaks. But in Europe this is a big issue, and North Americans often do not want to face the fact that this is a big issue over there.








My advice for Britain and the EU...
...you guys are screwed. You let them in for the cheap labor after ww2, and now it's time to pay the cost for that mistake. Short term profits have resulted in these long term problems. Britain is not that affected actually. The place where this is a much bigger deal is France and Germany.
I suspect that the only reason why this is mentioned in Britain is because there are many muslims in london, and because the BNP is given media attention as of late.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I don't profess to know much about the issues in the UK. But from what I've read it seems the UK has some serious issues, that are arguably even more catastrophic than the problems facing the US.

This has been referred to as the "Empire's Revenge" in the British press.

One of the big issues is that the English locals don't know their own identity - ask someone what a Scot is, and you know, same for a Welshman, but what is an Englishman? Is there an English seat of government? No. The Scots have theirs, as to the Welsh, meanwhile the English have only the Westminster Parliament, which represents everyone in the UK.

Anyone in the UK can be British by way of having a British passport - but does that make you English? There's a real crisis of identity in England, IMO, which PC and a reluctance to challenge radical imans, open door immigration from nations that do not share British values, aggressive affirmative action, and most importantly the complete neutering of the once powerful pride of things English/British, have reduce the country to a shadow of its self.

It's no wonder that the Scots wanted their own parliament to get away from this mess.

 

[urbandreamer]

Nonsense. I think a true Englishman has a sense of identity--a true Englishman is someone who's got ancient ties to England. Descended from William the Conqueror's gang? Englishman. And further back.... Political correctness be damned!

 

[adma]

Just call yourself "Nigel", and, presto

 

[cacruden]

There are multiple issues with political correctness mentioned here:

The first is racial language that is used in the same manner as with assault. i.e. calling someone a nigger, or wet-back. Names that are meant to demean, insult, and verbally assault other individuals. This IMHO is a welcome political correctness. It does not mean that the racial based animosity that it comes from has changed, but it is welcome in that at least those that feel as such do not feel the need to assault others verbally. This would of course not be necessary if we did a better job of instilling people with a basic respect for other people (all).

The downside of political correctness, is that it and the racism charge is too easily used.... and is often used (especially by the left; the right tends to use other "hot buttons" for the same effect) as a weapon. Instead of discussing certain topics, it is used as a weapon to shut down discussion and bury difficult topics. This creates a situation where people might have incorrect perceptions, but because you cannot talk about a subject, you cannot be challenged - and thus not learn. It has the effect of burying ones prejudices'.

 

[urbandreamer]

^Then why is it still acceptable to use the term "WASP in a derogatory sense (meaning boring etc)?" That is insulting, and in many cases, wrong!

 

[LAz]

^Then why is it still acceptable to use the term "WASP in a derogatory sense (meaning boring etc)?" That is insulting, and in many cases, wrong!

'out of my way, you waspy dink! [/joking]

 

[ShonTron]

This has been a really ridiculous thread, right from the beginning. To argue that one religion has been worse than any other in terms of violence is nuts, though many do make these arguments out of some agenda (though not accusing anyone here of it).

 

[urbandreamer]

It all depends on perspective. If you grew up brain-washed by a certain National and religious identity, you'll do your damndest to defend that pov. If you grew up secular and detached from any religious or national identity, other than the generic "Canadian," you'll feel differently about these hardliners. But just like the German pioneers of Berlin (aka Kitchener-Waterloo) protested involvement in WW1, today's "you name it" pioneers in Canada will defend their "true" identity vigorously. It will take two generations for their children to feel like us born-and-bred-Canadians....

 

[Admiral Beez]

To argue that one religion has been worse than any other in terms of violence is nuts.

I don't care what religions have done in the past. There is only one religion in the 21st Century that is on an international campaign of terror, striking down anyone, even their own, in the name of the cause.

 

[urbandreamer]

^The Scientologists?

 

[Second_in_pie]

You know Beez, you're right. Well, it's a religion only by the way that some people act around it, but by that description, it totally is.

I mean, I can only think of one religion right now that is sacrificing not only hundreds of innocent people in attacks a week, but also their own fighters in fighting whatever way they can. I think I'm at the breaking point. I've seen too many rockets fired into peaceful small towns, too many innocent civilians gunned down in the name of the cause and without any hint of compassion for the perpetrators. And what? Because this religion says that the unworthy need to be cleansed? Because they think that just because another group of people disagree with them, means they should charge at them with guns blazing, no matter the circumstance?

And it's not even that there's a small group here. Entire countries under this evil and hateful religion give money to continue the crusade against infidels and the unenlightened. They are all guilty in their belief, because there can be no justification for a belief that preaches evil, martyring yourself for the most trivial of gains. It's barbaric. Even more unfortunate is that this unstable religion is put under the harshest of stresses by it's believer's suffering. If only we could bring peace and stability to the areas where there are the highest concentrations of it, the world might be a hugely better place. I honestly think you've changed my mind.




Democracy is evil! God, it makes me hate myself for living in this disgusting society.

 

[ganjavih]

^The Scientologists?

I think he means the Sikhs.