PDA

View Full Version : '9/11 Burn Koran Day' madness



Benedikt
08-09-2010, 10:37
this is from a VOA newscast, i hope i got all the facts right, their english is not always the easiest to understand.:yikes:
In Gainsville(?) Florida, evangelist/fundamentalists/ idealists/idiots ( add your choice of word...) plan to burn 200 Korans on a bonfire in front of the church on the 9/11. Sounds great, these ideas, do they have any brain left or are they gone totally bonkers? or is this all in the name of religious freedom?:yikes:
General Patreus and the Obama administration are strongly opposed of course, it definitely will be a hot day :rolleyes:on the 11th of September 2010!

ReallyGreatConcerts
08-09-2010, 11:11
There is almost no limit to the hatred and stupidity of a minority of extremist so-called "Christians". I believe this so-called "Church" only numbers about 50-60 whackjobs, in fact.

BoZz
08-09-2010, 11:39
Just some Hillbilly desperately trying to attract attention in his otherwise mundane life.

Please see this clip

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/09/07/florida.quran.burning/index.html#fbid=L9-BPoRuC-Q&wom=false

ReallyGreatConcerts
08-09-2010, 12:07
Frankly I wonder whether the whole thing hasn't been set-up as a Black PR Exercise in the first place, so that the White House can appear to be making their peace with moderate Islam?

Otherwise why is so much prominence being given to a blowhard in some hayseed backwater of Gainesville FL? I think they've just found a useful fool?

Swordfish90293
08-09-2010, 12:48
This is screwed. Not to justify this insanity, because it's pretty sick, but consider the corresponding practice of burning American flags throughout Islamic countries. Maybe this is how these hicks hatched the idea combined with a mindset spawned from inbreeding...

YouTube- Hillbillys Problem Kids In The Hall

BoZz
08-09-2010, 13:10
Nothing corresponding between burning a flag, which incidentally we also do in our own land, and buring a holy book no matter of whichever religion.

Benedikt
11-09-2010, 17:54
Nothing corresponding between burning a flag, which incidentally we also do in our own land, and buring a holy book no matter of whichever religion.

and I will not comment on that because there is no need to re hash the whole story.
Therefore there should have been no VIOLENT demonstrations in Indonesia and Afghanistan. or does my comment bear no logic?
Or maybe there is someone who is pushing the people into demonstrations and violent acts, for whatever and whichever purpose. I mean someone must tell the people:whisper: what is going on, do they have all cable TV or sat bowls so the can watch CNN even up in the mountains of the Hindukush or in the rice paddy villages in the Aceh province.
Funny, nothing from Saudis or Iran or Irak, no demos there or did I miss out on the latest news.

BoZz
11-09-2010, 18:52
For sure someone is informing all these people. In itself there is nothing wrong with that. Again like anything else information can be used positively or negatively and for sure there must be something to be gained by creating confusion and frenzy.

Benedikt
12-09-2010, 12:19
was listening to a broadcast on BBC news today *(saturday) and that was an eye opener for me.
150 years ago the catholics of the United States, new immigrants, were treated like 'untermenschen' subhumans, that is. not fit to become integrated and a danger for the community. They did not fit into the WAP (white American Protestant) society.
Apparently also the pope sent them fatwha's not to integrate and not adapt and accept the american values of democracy. Good man there in the Vatican!
It all only ended and catholics were 'accepted' when J.F. Kennedy was elected, as we know he was a catholic.

2ndWind
12-09-2010, 18:25
It all only ended and catholics were 'accepted' when J.F. Kennedy was elected, as we know he was a catholic.
Not exactly! Some years ago, (after the Kennedy election) I married a Catholic girl. My mother was so dead set against it that she tried to prevent the marriage and disowned me when I went through with it. At the time (and possibly to this day) the Church investigates a non-Catholic (infidel?) who wishes to marry a Catholic. In an effort to block the marriage, my mother lied to the priest who came around to interview her.

Although she relented somewhat after grandchildren were born, my mother and my (now ex)wife could never get along.
The marriage was a disaster.

Other than among a great influx of Yankees and other foreign born, I doubt that attitudes have changed very much in the Southeastern US.

ReallyGreatConcerts
12-09-2010, 19:31
It's occasions like this that remind me how much better Russia is as a place to live.

If this situation had arisen in Russia, near to the very outset this arsehole's bank accounts would have been frozen, and his church building locked-up after failing Fire Regulations on 1007 different infractions.

And it would be the right approach to whackjobs like the Pinhead Pastor.

cbhansen
14-09-2010, 02:40
It's occasions like this that remind me how much better Russia is as a place to live.

If this situation had arisen in Russia, near to the very outset this arsehole's bank accounts would have been frozen, and his church building locked-up after failing Fire Regulations on 1007 different infractions.

And it would be the right approach to whackjobs like the Pinhead Pastor.

I'm sure that most human rights activists or political critics to the current political elite in Russia would agree with the idea that Russia is a better place to live for exactly those reasons...but then again, I suppose that is a matter of opinion.

ReallyGreatConcerts
14-09-2010, 05:52
I'm sure that most human rights activists or political critics to the current political elite in Russia would agree with the idea that Russia is a better place to live for exactly those reasons...but then again, I suppose that is a matter of opinion

Works for me!

You can shove your Pinhead Pastor!! ROFL!!!!

I'd like to see that arsehole tarred and feathered!! THAT'S how much I support his "freedom of speech"!!! :)

TolkoRaz
14-09-2010, 10:46
You can shove your Pinhead Pastor!! ROFL!!!!

I'd like to see that arsehole tarred and feathered!! THAT'S how much I support his "freedom of speech"!!! :)

Writes one extremist about another! :book:

Benedikt
14-09-2010, 11:36
Writes one extremist about another! :book:
it is called 'freedom of speech and expression'. and it in the constitution...:evilgrin:

ReallyGreatConcerts
14-09-2010, 16:02
it is called 'freedom of speech and expression'. and it in the constitution...:evilgrin:


Ignore him. It was only to be expected that our resident whackjob Zionist troll would be in favour of the Koran-burning arsehole. They're birds of a feather!

Tonko Wazz is someone else who ought to be tarred and feathered! Only it would be a waste of good tar.

TolkoRaz
14-09-2010, 16:13
RGC, You really are quite pathetic and not very astute with your perceptions about people, their background or political beliefs, if any.

Any clear thought is so obviously fogged by your extremist leanings.

:brush:

MissAnnElk
14-09-2010, 18:37
Have you seen this?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/13/901417/-UPDATED-artwork:-Dude,-you-HAVE-no-Koran

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/12/skateboarder-extremist-burning-quran/

objective
14-09-2010, 19:33
Just some Hillbilly desperately trying to attract attention in his otherwise mundane life.

Please see this clip

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/09/07/florida.quran.burning/index.html#fbid=L9-BPoRuC-Q&wom=false

What an immature punk! I am glad I never had the occasion to call that fella a personal friend... I would be embarrassed, ashamed even.:7525:

objective
14-09-2010, 19:44
Works for me!

You can shove your Pinhead Pastor!! ROFL!!!!

I'd like to see that arsehole tarred and feathered!! THAT'S how much I support his "freedom of speech"!!! :)

You know? 'freedom of speech' is one thing, but I do not believe that freedom was ever intended as permission to denigrate or insult others at a whim.:wazzup:

MissAnnElk
14-09-2010, 20:01
You know? 'freedom of speech' is one thing, but I do not believe that freedom was ever intended as permission to denigrate or insult others at a whim.:wazzup:

Freedom of Speech does not mean we throw away manners, kindness, and active listening skills.

Benedikt
14-09-2010, 21:30
and a 'book' in his hand or a cap or button/ AND ALL WITHOUT WORDS. honestly i would wonder what kind of statement this would be, i know it is a soldier because he wears a helmet, but otherwise, one would have to guess what is it all about. or am i missing something?

rusmeister
14-09-2010, 21:43
I agree with a lot of the things said here - or at least the sentiments.
However, a thread where everyone merely agrees tends to be both boring and self-congratulatory. So, playing the devil's advocate - and actually advocating some of the sentiments...

There is something very right in the sentiment of wanting to burn the Koran. And it is found in the natural human to admire, respect and prefer one's own tradition to foreign ones, and even to uphold the ancient wisdom of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do", and a corresponding rejection of efforts of non-Romans (and Roman opportunists) to make Rome something fundamentally non-Roman.

For the past 30-40 years, we have experienced an intensifying of the imposition of 'multiculturalism' on people who neither want nor need it - for it is something that is beneficial only to immigrants themselves - the kind who wish to not assimilate, most specifically, and to globalizing interests that benefit from the cheap labor that such immigration brings. You may admire any culture but the traditional American one, it seems, and any religion but the traditional Christian one. Laura Ingalls and Abraham Lincoln are to be replaced by Caesar Chavez and Margaret Sanger, Easter is to be replaced by Eid and Christmas by Kwanzaa and so forth. People are kicking back, and I, for one, find that reaction to be natural and proper, even if the objects are wrong.

dontcallme
14-09-2010, 22:21
I agree with a lot of the things said here - or at least the sentiments.
However, a thread where everyone merely agrees tends to be both boring and self-congratulatory. So, playing the devil's advocate - and actually advocating some of the sentiments...

There is something very right in the sentiment of wanting to burn the Koran. And it is found in the natural human to admire, respect and prefer one's own tradition to foreign ones, and even to uphold the ancient wisdom of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do", and a corresponding rejection of efforts of non-Romans (and Roman opportunists) to make Rome something fundamentally non-Roman.

For the past 30-40 years, we have experienced an intensifying of the imposition of 'multiculturalism' on people who neither want nor need it - for it is something that is beneficial only to immigrants themselves - the kind who wish to not assimilate, most specifically, and to globalizing interests that benefit from the cheap labor that such immigration brings. You may admire any culture but the traditional American one, it seems, and any religion but the traditional Christian one. Laura Ingalls and Abraham Lincoln are to be replaced by Caesar Chavez and Margaret Sanger, Easter is to be replaced by Eid and Christmas by Kwanzaa and so forth. People are kicking back, and I, for one, find that reaction to be natural and proper, even if the objects are wrong.

I'll discuss this one from a British rather than American viewpoint.

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do." This is something us British have preached but not practised for an alarming amount of time. From the times our generals and leaders ex-patriated to our colonies they continued British practices such as 5 o'clock tea, cricket in the afternoons etc. But heaven forbid immigrants coming to our country continue to do things that were everyday to themselves back home and we say they aren't respecting our culture. Hypocritical and ignorant don't even come close to covering it.

Our own religion originates from what is now the Middle East and of course Africa. When our own Christians go abroad to other countries do they give up their religion and start practising the religion from their new country? No, they don't.

Multiculturalism isn't a new thing to the UK or America. Both countries were completely built on immigration. Immigration has given us many institutions that seem built on our heritage: Rothschilds, Warburgs, Barings, Marks and Spencers, Dollond and Aitchison. Our own Royal Family is of German heritage. Many of our great writers Harold Pinter, T.S Elliott, the list goes on forever so I'll stop wouldn't have been here if their parents or ancestors hadn't made the move to Britain. In World War One one third of the British army was populated from our colonies which included one and a half million Indians. I could go on forever but almost everything in the UK even our plants, fruits, flowers and vegetables came from abroad.

We've always heavily relied on immigration for many, many things but at the same time been aggressive and hostile towards immigration. "For it is something that is beneficial only to immigrants themselves" is so far off the mark that it is unreal. Remember the amount of people in America today who emigrated from Europe, Asia and Africa, almost all them.

But yet people talk about muticulturalism as if it is a new thing. The only thing that is changing is that it is being championed as a good thing now by our politicians rather than blaming our problems on immigrants. Of course there are some such as the BNP who are doing the opposite.

martpark
14-09-2010, 22:40
and a 'book' in his hand or a cap or button/ AND ALL WITHOUT WORDS. honestly i would wonder what kind of statement this would be, i know it is a soldier because he wears a helmet, but otherwise, one would have to guess what is it all about. or am i missing something?

I think you're missing something. Did you watch the video? That's a skateboarder with a skateboard helmet who stole a Koran from a man about to burn it. Interesting times.

MickeyTong
14-09-2010, 23:09
.....a thread where everyone merely agrees tends to be both boring and self-congratulatory.

There is something very right in the sentiment of wanting to burn the Koran. And it is found in the natural human to admire, respect and prefer one's own tradition to foreign ones, and even to uphold the ancient wisdom of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do", and a corresponding rejection of efforts of non-Romans (and Roman opportunists) to make Rome something fundamentally non-Roman.


...and a society where everyone agrees tends to be boring and self-congratulatory....

Admiration, respect and preference for "one's own" tradition - if that were the case, Rus, you'd still be a Baptist.

I certainly accept your point about doing in Rome as the Romans do - why should the Romans accept immigrants/visitors who don't like them? But the Romans themselves didn't just stay in Rome, did they? And they didn't do in Gaul as the Gauls did.....

Apartheid had its proponents, and still does.

yakspeare
14-09-2010, 23:55
I agree with a lot of the things said here - or at least the sentiments.
However, a thread where everyone merely agrees tends to be both boring and self-congratulatory. So, playing the devil's advocate - and actually advocating some of the sentiments...

There is something very right in the sentiment of wanting to burn the Koran. And it is found in the natural human to admire, respect and prefer one's own tradition to foreign ones, and even to uphold the ancient wisdom of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do", and a corresponding rejection of efforts of non-Romans (and Roman opportunists) to make Rome something fundamentally non-Roman.

For the past 30-40 years, we have experienced an intensifying of the imposition of 'multiculturalism' on people who neither want nor need it - for it is something that is beneficial only to immigrants themselves - the kind who wish to not assimilate, most specifically, and to globalizing interests that benefit from the cheap labor that such immigration brings. You may admire any culture but the traditional American one, it seems, and any religion but the traditional Christian one. Laura Ingalls and Abraham Lincoln are to be replaced by Caesar Chavez and Margaret Sanger, Easter is to be replaced by Eid and Christmas by Kwanzaa and so forth. People are kicking back, and I, for one, find that reaction to be natural and proper, even if the objects are wrong.

Rusmesiter i read your words with horror and amazement. For someone to be educated to have such beliefs is frankly frightening. i have enjoyed our discussions on here very much, but you need rebuking dear friend.

Which culture is invading us or affecting other and you say multiculturism is a bad thing? My God! You are in russia! Cossaks, Chuvash, Mari, Muslim Tatar all enrich the culture and traditions indeed extend from interaction with these people. Do you despise Georgian cooking and uzbek too? i love it! if you want russia to be just one culture, then do a deal with the ukrainians and take back kiev, ancient capital of Rus and all live there....

And for American culture, two words i generally have trouble putting together, what exactly is that? From whom does it come? Is it British or a rejection of all things British? They even considered making the national language German at one point...is it white, black or hispanic? Catholic, protestant? Perhaps Americans ought assimilate to Native India culture, no?

What of values? America is nominally christian....which frankly means by the real definition that christians( regular church goers etc who follow seriously the teachings of Jesus) are a minority...so maybe family values? Well i tell you, as a person who has lived in Muslim lands, i have generally seen greater family values, people saving themselves for marriage, abstinence from harmful substances. alms giving and fear and reverence of God- from MUSLIMS and not christians. We should look to them to see what devotion truly is...and i don't mean nutjobs...in america you had the davidian sect, offshoot polygamous mormon cults and various others..you can't use radicals to support an argument.

I am from Australia....i had 20 white kids in my scholl of 1000. my friends are from all over the world and the more i know of them and their culture, the better human i am. that is why, strong in my own faith, i choose to learn about their religions too. Afterall if you will ever be in the position to change their views it is helpful to know what they already believe.

This is from the Koran, enjoy!


"God’s is what is in heaven and in the earth, and if ye show what is in your
souls, or hide it, God will call you to account; and He forgives whom He will,
and punishes whom He will, for God is mighty over all."

"And when the angels said, ‘O Mary! verily, God has chosen thee, and has
purified thee, and has chosen thee above the women of the world. O Mary! be
devout unto thy Lord, and adore and bow down with those who bow. That is (one)
of the declarations of the unseen world which we reveal to thee, though thou
wert not by them when they threw their lots which of them should take care of
Mary, nor were ye by them when they did dispute.’

When the angel said, ‘O Mary! verily, God gives thee the glad tidings of a
Word from Him; his name shall be the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, regarded in
this world and the next and of those whose place is nigh to God. And he shall
speak to people in his cradle, and when grown up, and shall be among the
righteous.’ She said, ‘Lord! how can have a son, when man has not yet
touched me?’ He said, ‘Thus God creates what He pleaseth. When He decrees a
matter He only says BE and it is; and He will teach him the Book, and wisdom,
and the law, and the gospel, and he shall be a prophet to the people of Israel
(saying), that I have come to you, with a sign from God, namely, that I will
create for you out of clay as though it were the form of a bird, and I will blow
thereon and it shall become a bird by God’s permission; and I will heal the
blind from birth, and lepers; and I will bring the dead to life by God’s
permission; and I will tell you what you eat and what ye store up in your
houses. Verily, in that is a sign for you if ye be believers. And I will confirm
what is before you of the law, and will surely make lawful for you some of that
which was prohibited from you. I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so
fear God and follow me, for God is my Lord, and your Lord, so worship Him:- this
is the right path.’"

ReallyGreatConcerts
15-09-2010, 00:12
Freedom of Speech does not mean we throw away manners, kindness, and active listening skills.

Freedom of speech does not mean we hold the entire world to ransom in a hostage-style "Stop the Mosque or the Koran gets it" blackmail threat.

The guy is a criminal nut, and should face criminal prosecution. When the law fails society, society has to act accordingly.

ReallyGreatConcerts
15-09-2010, 00:20
the ancient wisdom of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do", .

And so what are you doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, then??

Like the "Romans" did??

Gypsy
15-09-2010, 10:51
Rusmeister - I think you are wrong in most of what you say from a British perspective anyway.

Firstly - with the exception of a small number of Britons, we are an immigrant culture, going back to Angles, Jutes and Saxons through Normans, Jacobins Central European Jews and Commonwealth immigrants.

They have all massively benefitted British society.

yakspeare
15-09-2010, 11:59
Yeah well i am half pict so we are basically the aborigines of Scotland...anyone who came after his an immigrant bringing their culture with them.

i have to say, having lived in England as a child, and being there right now, the contrast is stark. In my town where i am living, 1 hour north of London in Cambridgeshire, there are an abundance of Poles, dutch as well as African muslims and so forth. The range of food items, even at Salisbury's, has been extended and there are various notices on the noticeboard to learn anything from belly dancing to chinese calligraphy. The country has become far less insular and infact i think a better place. On the tube there a signs to give to the Pakistan appeal and even at the supermarkets there are special bins to donate money to it. Community spirit is thriving, on Sunday i was up in a village near Lincoln and the whole community was making scones and tea whilst doing a working bee at the local church and other historic buildings. there are fundraisers for just about everything and i can see that the majority of new immigrants are clearly integrating(much like they do in Australia) whereas before i recall some hostility and racism about those who were different(mind you i don't think English society is perfect just better than it was) and a whole less class nonsense with the population of Britain now very mixed up with so many different British accents in the one area showing the population is a lot more mobile. On Sunday people still weed their gardens and say good morning to complete strangers. My friend's two dogs got out and a stranger walking over from the next town called in to let us know where the dogs were if they were indeed our dogs.....there certainly has been no erosion of culture and the list of activities has increased with the influx of new people with new ideas and skills. i love my English fish and chips which i do miss in russia, as well as the assortment of pies and other things, but now there is so much more to offer and for a foodie like myself the new immigrants have really brought some fabulous food into the UK with them too.

rusmeister
15-09-2010, 20:37
And so what are you doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, then??

Like the "Romans" did??



Actually, no. Я обрусевший в степень, в которую это возможно человеку, к-ый начал с нуля взрослым.
Point is, I don't "bring my own samovar with me" and I hold no expectations that Russians adopt my ways, practices, or even language. If anything, one might even say that I accepted "their" religion - rather the opposite of what the would-be Koran burners (whose choice of actions I think wrong, but no one seems to have got that) are objecting to. They have no objections to people of middle-eastern descent who do not attempt to impose middle-eastern culture on the native inhabitants, under whatever pretext. They are objecting precisely to the imposition and to the demand that they accept it on the basis of multiculturalism, and although their actions may be wrong, their sentiment is right.

I support the right of a people to NOT be multicultural if they choose not to. It never seems to cross one's mind who really benefits the most from spreading all cultures everywhere and creating one m**** grey, worldwide culture in the process - those who benefit from globalization the most.

Studying the history of public education (from other than a public education source) and its coincidence with and support by industrialization offer clues as to why that is.

ReallyGreatConcerts
15-09-2010, 21:07
And while we are speaking of whackjob extremist American bigots, we must congratulate Miss O'Donnell today on her electoral victory. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/christine-odonnell-delaware-midterms)

Far from representing just fifty loonytunes like the Pinhead Pastor, O'Donnell romped to victory with 53% of the vote. She campaigned on a platform of anti-immigration, anti-gun-control, anti-abortion, and considers masturbation to be a sin. Oh, and God approves that message too.

And bear in mind - not a single tea-bagger said a word to condemn Jim Jones... ooops I mean Terry Jones.

You couldn't make it up, could you?

:yikes:

MickeyTong
15-09-2010, 21:08
I support the right of a people to NOT be multicultural if they choose not to.

But the world keeps on turning, Rus.

I spent my teens in South Africa and Rhodesia during the 70s. The SA government considered itself the world's last Christian government, ruling according to biblical principles (mainly Old Testament, but the Book of Acts played a part in maintaining racial segregation). The Rhodesians thought they were the last bastion of British Victorian values, which included the idea that "niggers begin at Calais" (Italians were better than Portuguese, who were better than Greeks, who were better than Indians, who were better than blacks. People of mixed race were....an embarrassment to everybody.)

Back in the Medieval days when most people stayed within a few miles of where they were born and didn't see other cultures even on TV, people could choose (well, they had no option) to be monocultural. People could live from birth to death without hearing a different language or seeing a foreigner.

Sticking with one particular culture may make your faith easier to maintain, Rus, because you will never be confronted by ideas/people who question the morality of what you believe to be moral, or doubt the truth of what you consider Truth.

Swordfish90293
15-09-2010, 22:52
But the world keeps on turning....The SA government considered itself the world's last Christian government, ruling according to biblical principles (mainly Old Testament, but the Book of Acts played a part in maintaining racial segregation). The Rhodesians thought they were the last bastion of British Victorian values, which included the idea that "niggers begin at Calais" (Italians were better than Portuguese, who were better than Greeks, who were better than Indians, who were better than blacks. People of mixed race were....an embarrassment to everybody.)

Back in the Medieval days when most people stayed within a few miles of where they were born and didn't see other cultures even on TV, people could choose (well, they had no option) to be monocultural. People could live from birth to death without hearing a different language or seeing a foreigner.

Sticking with one particular culture may make your faith easier to maintain, Rus, because you will never be confronted by ideas/people who question the morality of what you believe to be moral, or doubt the truth of what you consider Truth.

The concept of the "we" group is a foundation of prejudice and intolerance, the big brothers to provincialism and parochialism...

YouTube - Monty Python - Prejudice.

Bogatyr
16-09-2010, 20:41
Freedom of Speech does not mean we throw away manners, kindness, and active listening skills.

Actually Freedom of Speech in the US is quite simple, and most people seem to get it wrong -- it just means the government can't put you in to prison for your words (ignoring things like "I'm going to kill the president"...which will earn you a visit from the Secret Service most likely). This is a very important right, but people frequently think it means more than it does.

In particular, Freedom of Speech DOES NOT, I repeat DOES NOT mean "Freedom from Consequences" or "Freedom from Reactions Which I Don't Like" to your speech.

rusmeister
17-09-2010, 05:57
There are a number of reasonable posts here, I have reasonable responses, although it could take me days to churn them out. It would be simpler to say that I have a developed worldview that objects to much of what passes for modern conventional wisdom. Developed worldviews cannot be expressed and understood in a few sentences, although that is usually what we want to reduce what we disagree with to.

People who have read GK Chesterton or CS Lewis, for example, have a significant head-start in understanding that worldview. People who had public educations are at a significant disadvantage, and it will be more difficult for them to understand.


I'll discuss this one from a British rather than American viewpoint.

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do." This is something us British have preached but not practised for an alarming amount of time. From the times our generals and leaders ex-patriated to our colonies they continued British practices such as 5 o'clock tea, cricket in the afternoons etc. But heaven forbid immigrants coming to our country continue to do things that were everyday to themselves back home and we say they aren't respecting our culture. Hypocritical and ignorant don't even come close to covering it.

Our own religion originates from what is now the Middle East and of course Africa. When our own Christians go abroad to other countries do they give up their religion and start practising the religion from their new country? No, they don't.

Multiculturalism isn't a new thing to the UK or America. Both countries were completely built on immigration. Immigration has given us many institutions that seem built on our heritage: Rothschilds, Warburgs, Barings, Marks and Spencers, Dollond and Aitchison. Our own Royal Family is of German heritage. Many of our great writers Harold Pinter, T.S Elliott, the list goes on forever so I'll stop wouldn't have been here if their parents or ancestors hadn't made the move to Britain. In World War One one third of the British army was populated from our colonies which included one and a half million Indians. I could go on forever but almost everything in the UK even our plants, fruits, flowers and vegetables came from abroad.

We've always heavily relied on immigration for many, many things but at the same time been aggressive and hostile towards immigration. "For it is something that is beneficial only to immigrants themselves" is so far off the mark that it is unreal. Remember the amount of people in America today who emigrated from Europe, Asia and Africa, almost all them.

But yet people talk about muticulturalism as if it is a new thing. The only thing that is changing is that it is being championed as a good thing now by our politicians rather than blaming our problems on immigrants. Of course there are some such as the BNP who are doing the opposite.

Hi, DCM!
I think even a "British" viewpoint to be limiting - after all, what is "British"? The idea begins from empire. Empire aims to support itself and is something deeply anti-democratic. "English:, however, is a national idea; one that respects borders and is in fact democratic. But empire would cast the "Little England" idea as a negative thing, for it demands the limitation and muzzling of empire.

Starting from that, we have a condemnation of imposed multiculturalism and pluralism - and the hypocrisy you rightly condemn - from the get-go. It says that, whatever a people are in a given place, let them be in a given place. We can not, and should not control, dominate or even 'police' the world - which is really the same thing. We should take care of our own homes.

Here I really want to respond to yakspeare's admiration of Pakistani relief (and the broader idea behind it). I do not deny that helping people - anywhere - is a good thing. However, when people's concern becomes global, they overreach themselves. We cannot fix the world. The Christian command is to "love our neighbor" - the people near to us. When we love people who are far away but curse other drivers next to us in traffic, we are engaged in a form of hypocrisy.

But back to your thoughts on immigration. You say "we" rely on immigration, and I think there is truth in that. But I think a bigger truth is that certain people benefit heavily from immigration - and exploit immigrants in doing so, and so have a stake in encouraging immigration and preaching multiculturalism and pluralism. These certain people are NOT, in fact, most of us (and therefore not "we"), who could actually learn to rely less on immigration, to pay higher prices for locally produced goods, to keep wealth in the local economy and not pumped to an off-shore corporation, and to enjoy less diversity in goods for the sake of a less consumer-oriented life.
Again, public education, with its relentless indoctrination in the values of multiculturalism and pluralism - which benefits this minority - which can be shown by following the money - especially the foundations that fund public education and form its hidden philosophy - is a huge disadvantage. Any serious study of the history of the modern public school will reveal that.

rusmeister
17-09-2010, 06:17
...and a society where everyone agrees tends to be boring and self-congratulatory....

Admiration, respect and preference for "one's own" tradition - if that were the case, Rus, you'd still be a Baptist.

I certainly accept your point about doing in Rome as the Romans do - why should the Romans accept immigrants/visitors who don't like them? But the Romans themselves didn't just stay in Rome, did they? And they didn't do in Gaul as the Gauls did.....

Apartheid had its proponents, and still does.

Hi Mickey,
Your conflation of proper nationalism (as opposed to extremism - which badly needs definition) with apartheid is disappointing. I think you capable of better than that.

In a way, I HAVE returned to the Baptists. Certainly, I see that the Baptists are mostly right on some of the most important things. I have become truly multicultural - you are right about that. But I don't think that it is a shoe meant to fit most people. I think that both my relatives in the US and my in-laws (just for example) here should be expected in the least to have anything alien imposed on them, such as a foreign language or culture. I have come a circle where first I learned to admire and appreciate foreign cultures, back to learning to appreciate and love my own, and to believe that everyone grounded in that culture is perfectly fine in being so grounded. It is a form of missionaryism - pride and superiority, "the white man's burden" - to attempt to educate them in everything that I have learned. I have discovered that in fact I cannot do this - that nothing less than having experiences similar to my own could really communicate what I have learned. And that they can have full lives without ever needing to learn what I have learned - although I wouldn't give up what I've learned for anything.

And all of that does not even touch on the motivations behind the tremendous push in public education and the media to impose global values on all - even though the true value is delivered to an elite minority and the result is the destruction of traditional cultures and the formation of, as I said, one bland, grey, global culture whose main purpose is to convert us all into compliant and predictable consumers, and certainly to prevent any more French or American revolutions that might actually result in genuine liberty for the common man.

rusmeister
17-09-2010, 06:42
Rusmeister i read your words with horror and amazement. For someone to be educated to have such beliefs is frankly frightening. i have enjoyed our discussions on here very much, but you need rebuking dear friend.

Which culture is invading us or affecting other and you say multiculturism is a bad thing? My God! You are in russia! Cossaks, Chuvash, Mari, Muslim Tatar all enrich the culture and traditions indeed extend from interaction with these people. Do you despise Georgian cooking and uzbek too? i love it! if you want russia to be just one culture, then do a deal with the ukrainians and take back kiev, ancient capital of Rus and all live there....

And for American culture, two words i generally have trouble putting together, what exactly is that? From whom does it come? Is it British or a rejection of all things British? They even considered making the national language German at one point...is it white, black or hispanic? Catholic, protestant? Perhaps Americans ought assimilate to Native India culture, no?

What of values? America is nominally christian....which frankly means by the real definition that christians( regular church goers etc who follow seriously the teachings of Jesus) are a minority...so maybe family values? Well i tell you, as a person who has lived in Muslim lands, i have generally seen greater family values, people saving themselves for marriage, abstinence from harmful substances. alms giving and fear and reverence of God- from MUSLIMS and not christians. We should look to them to see what devotion truly is...and i don't mean nutjobs...in america you had the davidian sect, offshoot polygamous mormon cults and various others..you can't use radicals to support an argument.

I am from Australia....i had 20 white kids in my scholl of 1000. my friends are from all over the world and the more i know of them and their culture, the better human i am. that is why, strong in my own faith, i choose to learn about their religions too. Afterall if you will ever be in the position to change their views it is helpful to know what they already believe.

This is from the Koran, enjoy!


"God’s is what is in heaven and in the earth, and if ye show what is in your
souls, or hide it, God will call you to account; and He forgives whom He will,
and punishes whom He will, for God is mighty over all."

"And when the angels said, ‘O Mary! verily, God has chosen thee, and has
purified thee, and has chosen thee above the women of the world. O Mary! be
devout unto thy Lord, and adore and bow down with those who bow. That is (one)
of the declarations of the unseen world which we reveal to thee, though thou
wert not by them when they threw their lots which of them should take care of
Mary, nor were ye by them when they did dispute.’

When the angel said, ‘O Mary! verily, God gives thee the glad tidings of a
Word from Him; his name shall be the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, regarded in
this world and the next and of those whose place is nigh to God. And he shall
speak to people in his cradle, and when grown up, and shall be among the
righteous.’ She said, ‘Lord! how can have a son, when man has not yet
touched me?’ He said, ‘Thus God creates what He pleaseth. When He decrees a
matter He only says BE and it is; and He will teach him the Book, and wisdom,
and the law, and the gospel, and he shall be a prophet to the people of Israel
(saying), that I have come to you, with a sign from God, namely, that I will
create for you out of clay as though it were the form of a bird, and I will blow
thereon and it shall become a bird by God’s permission; and I will heal the
blind from birth, and lepers; and I will bring the dead to life by God’s
permission; and I will tell you what you eat and what ye store up in your
houses. Verily, in that is a sign for you if ye be believers. And I will confirm
what is before you of the law, and will surely make lawful for you some of that
which was prohibited from you. I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so
fear God and follow me, for God is my Lord, and your Lord, so worship Him:- this
is the right path.’"
Hey, Yak!
Like I said, reasonable posts that deserve reasonable responses.
I think you misunderstand my thoughts, and your understanding that "I want to make Russia into one culture" is evidence of that.
It is a given that changes in cultures have taken place throughout history. We cannot undo all of them, for to undo them is to undo history. The only thing I would propose is what can and should be done now in the existing condition. So: America has changed from being one of Indian/tribal "hegemony" to a white "anglo-saxon" protestant culture to now, a post-Christian culture.
I would have people live where they are, and to form their own governments, and govern themselves as best they can. I would not abolish borders, for only borders form a barrier against human rapaciousness. I would reapply those borders to business above all. I would make corporations illegal. (Not that I think any of that would cure humanity. Sin and the fact that we are Fallen will ultimately corrupt even the most ideal government - and it always has. In our case, it already has.
But it was the idea of the traditional nation-state that enabled us to develop what good there is in civilization, and what good has been attained in what genuine liberty there actually is. It is the modern idea of pluralism and multiculturalism that will bring the independent nation-state down. For the nation-state is based on an idea of homogeneity, starting with the family and societies that hold a common philosophy - and therefore are genuine societies. P and MC are based on an opposite idea - the breaking-down of homogeneity and the imposition of opposing philosophies onto a society, thus breaking down the society.
That's not meant to say that homogeneity is absolute in all things. Even in the nation-state, men have always disagreed about the best ways to do things. But the thing that enabled the building of civilization is what they had in common, not what divided them. It seems that the first principle to be forgotten is "United we stand, divided we fall." The modern concept of unity is one brought about, not by liberty and free-thinking, but by compulsory schooling (something that is an antithesis to true education) and the propagating of one philosophy to all via the media. And so, people no longer have their own philosophies, but as GKC put it:
Men have always one of two things: either a complete and conscious philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken bits of some incomplete and shattered and often discredited philosophy.
http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/revivalpPhilosophy.htm
(It's a short essay - one page - I highly recommend it.)

On the Koran, I'll p**** thanks. I think that truth can be found there - or it would not have existed for 1400 years - but I have better wisdom to refer to. I reject syncretism. I don't think I'm wise enough to form correct theology on my own. (Or that anyone else is, either.) The most successful falsehoods are generally those that are composed of mostly truth.


The country has become far less insular and in fact I think a better place.
This is the true question? What IS better? To answer that, you must first define what is good. Ask any EFL/ESL teacher if they can teach the comparative and superlative degrees of adjectives while ignoring the positive degree. Funny how grammar reveals truth, such as how the ability to measure anything depends on a common standard, which is precisely the thing we don't have.


This is the arresting and dominant fact about modern social discussion; that the quarrel is not merely about the difficulties, but about the aim. We agree about the evil; it is about the good that we should tear each other's eyes out. We all admit that a lazy aristocracy is a bad thing. We should not by any means all admit that an active aristocracy would be a good thing. We all feel angry with an irreligious priesthood; but some of us would go mad with disgust at a really religious one. Everyone is indignant if our army is weak, including the people who would be even more indignant if it were strong. The social case is exactly the opposite of the medical case. We do not disagree, like doctors, about the precise nature of the illness, while agreeing about the nature of health. On the contrary, we all agree that England is unhealthy, but half of us would not look at her in what the other half would call blooming health . Public abuses are so prominent and pestilent that they sweep all generous people into a sort of fictitious unanimity. We forget that, while we agree about the abuses of things, we should differ very much about the uses of them. Mr. Cadbury and I would agree about the bad public house. It would be precisely in front of the good public-house that our painful personal fracas would occur.
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/whats_wrong.html
It's a book, but I'd put it in the top 4 of his books to read to understand the philosophy of GK Chesterton - as well as what I am talking about now. (the others being Orthodoxy, Heretics, and The Everlasting Man - read any of them?)
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/index.html

rusmeister
17-09-2010, 07:05
But the world keeps on turning, Rus.

I spent my teens in South Africa and Rhodesia during the 70s. The SA government considered itself the world's last Christian government, ruling according to biblical principles (mainly Old Testament, but the Book of Acts played a part in maintaining racial segregation). The Rhodesians thought they were the last bastion of British Victorian values, which included the idea that "niggers begin at Calais" (Italians were better than Portuguese, who were better than Greeks, who were better than Indians, who were better than blacks. People of mixed race were....an embarrassment to everybody.)

Back in the Medieval days when most people stayed within a few miles of where they were born and didn't see other cultures even on TV, people could choose (well, they had no option) to be monocultural. People could live from birth to death without hearing a different language or seeing a foreigner.

Sticking with one particular culture may make your faith easier to maintain, Rus, because you will never be confronted by ideas/people who question the morality of what you believe to be moral, or doubt the truth of what you consider Truth.

Hi again!
I get that you are relating your own experience. But it doesn't speak to what I said.
If a people want to segregate themselves, may they? Or do you think you have a right to impose force and prevent secession or insulation? To impose your will on others? I do not say that apartheid was good or that it was well done. We both agree, I think, that it was abominable. But to say that because some people did evil things in very bad and wrong ways in order to achieve insulation does NOT mean that the desire to be insulated - the desire to not have people of opposing beliefs and ideas parading in front of you, and obtaining legal rights to impose them on you and teach them to your children, is bad.

(It's purely a side-bar to add that I doubt that a people that claimed to base their actions on the book of Acts truly read and understood the book, let alone in a coherent context. They obviously missed the part about Peter's vision.)

But you are saying that people have no choice - no freedom or liberty to choose - they MUST accept being overwhelmed by foreign ideas and influences, on your say-so. Doesn't sound like liberty or democracy to me.

Finally, I have no trouble maintaining my faith in the face of external discord and opposing ideas - it was, in fact, the imposition of that philosophy in public education in the US (something that I can claim to have some expert knowledge in) that was instrumental in driving this lazy agnostic to accept faith. The truth about me is the exact opposite of what you thought it was. (Or still think it is, if you think I can't know what led me to faith - but I think you could concede my point here.)

rusmeister
17-09-2010, 07:18
And while we are speaking of whackjob extremist American bigots, we must congratulate Miss O'Donnell today on her electoral victory. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/christine-odonnell-delaware-midterms)

Far from representing just fifty loonytunes like the Pinhead Pastor, O'Donnell romped to victory with 53% of the vote. She campaigned on a platform of anti-immigration, anti-gun-control, anti-abortion, and considers masturbation to be a sin. Oh, and God approves that message too.

And bear in mind - not a single tea-bagger said a word to condemn Jim Jones... ooops I mean Terry Jones.

You couldn't make it up, could you?

:yikes:

Hi RGC,

YOU may be speaking of 'whackjob extremist American bigots'. I am speaking of millions of ordinary Americans - starting with my family and friends that I grew up with and left behind - that don't really want more than cursory exposure to foreign languages, cultures, and ideas, that are firmly rooted in the English language and their (mostly) Protestant heritage, and don't know, or really care to know, about anything else.

Your lumping together of various "anti"s without considering them in turn is not thought. It is assumption and response to rhetoric. It is true that many religious leaders confuse what their religion actually teaches with what they feel to be politically best. But when I look at your list of what you disapprove of, I note that the first two are not actual teachings of traditional Christianity, although the latter two are.
Even when I think just a little about the term "anti-abortion", I see that it is a term that has assumed one side of the debate and rejected the other out of hand. People who oppose abortion see themselves as "pro-life", and from their philosophical standpoint, it is a true description. If abortion IS killing, then their stand is entirely logical and consistent with their faith - you merely disagree.
If sexuality is something that IS to be reserved for marriage (which has always been understood as being between one man and one woman, a fact SO obvious that no one ever felt a need to point it out until our time), then it is also logical to condemn masturbation as an act serving the ego and connected neither to love nor procreation. It is an act focused on the self, which is what the idea of "sin", deeply misunderstood today, actually means.
Therefore, such stands are quite logical, even though you disagree with them. The most effective debaters learn and understand the best arguments of what they disagree with, and do not simply assume their rightness, which is something that demagogues do.

ReallyGreatConcerts
17-09-2010, 08:32
after all, what is "British"? The idea begins from empire. .

Crap.

ReallyGreatConcerts
17-09-2010, 08:35
.

Your lumping together of various "anti"s without considering them in turn is not thought..

More crap.

The world is fundamentally tired of religious wingnuts forcing their unwanted opinions down the throats of others with the threat of hellfire and damnation if they encounter resistance.

YOU wanna worship the Mystic Mushroom or the Holy Bubble?? By all means, be my guest. But when you come here claiming some kind of moral superiority and right to tell ME what to think or do, YOU CAN BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS. Clear enough for you, "Reverend"???

Gypsy
17-09-2010, 09:49
RM, you are clearly well educated and very well, if selectively, read, But I can see three rather large fallacies in your argument.

First: you conflate what you perceive to be multiculturalism - what we are referring to as "tolerance" - with "having something alien forced upon you." That is not something I have seen in Britain. Rather the opposite - a generally fairly tolerant Britain coming to terms with successive waves of immigration and gradually integrating them. It takes time in every specific, but it happens. I have not seen this "imposition" that you mention so often.

Second; and I really do mean this with the utmost respect, but, you do seem to rely on fairy stories to back up much of your argument. eg C.S. Lewis? Really? An incredibly crude, very badly written rehash of the Christian/Jesus myth. Why not Lord of the Rings? Star Wars? Harry Potter? All the same story.

Third: you criticise Mickey for his description of life in South Africa and Zimbabwe, and particularly taking issue with the labels he uses. This is a very common argument by the religious - when christians carry out persecution then we cannot rely on the label, they are not real christians: if any other religious practitioner does so this is proof of their being "evil" etc

My response is that, Mickey was there, I doubt you were, and when those using that label act in a way consistent with the actions of those with the same label over the previous 1700 years, there is a decent argument for saying that that is where the fault lies - not with the label.

rusmeister
17-09-2010, 10:27
RM, you are clearly well educated and very well, if selectively, read, But I can see three rather large fallacies in your argument.

First: you conflate what you perceive to be multiculturalism - what we are referring to as "tolerance" - with "having something alien forced upon you." That is not something I have seen in Britain. Rather the opposite - a generally fairly tolerant Britain coming to terms with successive waves of immigration and gradually integrating them. It takes time in every specific, but it happens. I have not seen this "imposition" that you mention so often.

Second; and I really do mean this with the utmost respect, but, you do seem to rely on fairy stories to back up much of your argument. eg C.S. Lewis? Really? An incredibly crude, very badly written rehash of the Christian/Jesus myth. Why not Lord of the Rings? Star Wars? Harry Potter? All the same story.

Third: you criticise Mickey for his description of life in South Africa and Zimbabwe, and particularly taking issue with the labels he uses. This is a very common argument by the religious - when christians carry out persecution then we cannot rely on the label, they are not real christians: if any other religious practitioner does so this is proof of their being "evil" etc

My response is that, Mickey was there, I doubt you were, and when those using that label act in a way consistent with the actions of those with the same label over the previous 1700 years, there is a decent argument for saying that that is where the fault lies - not with the label.

Hi Gypsy, and thanks for the complement!
I certainly hope that by my age, I would be well-read - and equally that I would be selective about what I read. :)

Yes, I do conflate MC with imposition. However, if a generation has grown up with an imposition, then they would no longer perceive it as such, but as the natural order of things. That is what I believe has actually happened. The test is simple. How would our great-grandparents react to what is considered moral today? Sexuality is a particularly good example of this. A very tiny minority - of the DH Lawrence variety, advocated it. An overwhelming majority condemned it. On the whole, they would see us not as having become more "liberated", but as having become more degraded. Regress, not progress.

So people today hold beliefs radically different from a century. How did this happen so quickly? I believe the answer is found in the history of public education more than anything else. Yet whenever I ask anyone about said history, no one seems to know anything. A few mention Horace Mann, but can't tell much about him or where he got his ideas, and who ultimately supported and funded them. It was a gradual process - and had to be, but once in place it was a prime cause in 180-degree shift in some aspects of morality over hardly two generations - as well as other effects.

To understand a response to treatment of myth and legend, you'd have to get what it was that brought Lewis - a devout atheist - to Christianity in the first place.
Here is something I found on the quick to attempt to communicate that:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0107.html
(Please note that I'm not Catholic)
Hopefully it will provide some food for thought. Surely there is some explanation as to why Tolkien's fantasy was and remains so popular? (I'm sure you'll have a pop answer - I'm suggesting that there is something in his and Lewis's works that suggest otherwise.)

Next, I do NOT criticize Mickey for what he saw and experienced, and I in fact agreed that there was a great deal of evil. Not sure how you came to misunderstand my words so completely.
I don't think the label a necessary indicator of truth. Even in the Gospels Christ says that people will come and say "Lord, Lord, did we not do such-and such in your name?" And He will say, "Depart from Me; I know you not." Not all acts committed in the name of Christianity can be ascribed to what is common to what the gradually dividing branches of Christianity continued to teach in common. So I ask, "Is there valid Christianity, and if so, where is it?" "What makes a particular form of faith truly Christian"? If you're not asking those questions, we can hardly communicate.

yakspeare
17-09-2010, 10:37
Firstly Gypsy C.S Lewis did not just write the chronicles of Narnia...books like Mere Christianity and the Screwtape letters were fundamental to my conversion. He is a very good author who was not initially a Christian and became one using logic and argues the case for it using logic.

Rusmeister it is a shame, a real shame you feel that way. You assume that new culture is imperial in nature when often it is not. I had the best beard trim ever yesterday, here in Cambridgeshire, by a Turkish gentleman. I spoke to him in Uzbek(it is almost the same as Turkish) and we joked and laughed in his native language-how uplifting it was for him and respectful and i was treated ever the better for it. The woman in there was Polish so i spoke to her in the very basic Polish i know(mostly russian words which are the same plus a few words i knew from my Polish Aunt). They know English, they learnt it and use it everyday, but it was a joy to speak to them in their language. how possibly can you spread the word when you don't understand their culture? How can you tell a muslim about christ if you can't debunk the thoughts he already has on it?

In Australia we are so mixed it is truly wonderful. None of my friends were the same race as any other! I grew up in high school with one white friend, one korean, one vietnamese and one from Bangladesh and i would take a bullet for any of them. later i became dear friends with the lebanese and maltese too.

In Uzbekistan the russians refuse to integrate and demand the uzbeks speak their language. they lord their superiority over the uzbeks even calling them "harib" which means monkey. but the Uzbeks have their revenge...they charge then russians more for food at the market, more for a taxi and so forth...but any russian, and indeed myself, who bothers to speak the language of the people pays the same price as the Uzbeks. You can live in your insular society but there is a price to pay! When you bother to get to know them you are treated like a king even though the russians would say they would never accept you-i am proud to call many Uzbeks my brother!

Frankly Rus you are about one step away from being a Neo-Nazi. Russia for Russians! America for Americans! Stop the immigration! Stop pandering to minorities! They are taking our jobs, destroying our way of life!

love thy neighbour means to love everyone outside of your family unit as equals not love those in your street but not others. The message was spread from the Jews to the gentiles to be spread to the very edge of the earth-what is the gospel if not love?

" Here i have arrived in your village to spread the message of our Lord Jesus, of love , peace and forgiveness and also to tell you to stay the heck out of my own country!"

or to twist an orwellian phrase:

All are loved but some are more loved than others...??

i don't see how your philosophy is compatible with:

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

ReallyGreatConcerts
17-09-2010, 13:25
I find circular arguments of the kind:

"I am right because my God says I am right, and I have the monopoly on relaying what my God says, and interepreting his words"

to be not only laughable in the context of any serious discussion, but furthermore to be outrageously arrogant, demeaning and insulting to the rest of the community here.

dontcallme
17-09-2010, 13:30
There are a number of reasonable posts here, I have reasonable responses, although it could take me days to churn them out. It would be simpler to say that I have a developed worldview that objects to much of what passes for modern conventional wisdom. Developed worldviews cannot be expressed and understood in a few sentences, although that is usually what we want to reduce what we disagree with to.

People who have read GK Chesterton or CS Lewis, for example, have a significant head-start in understanding that worldview. People who had public educations are at a significant disadvantage, and it will be more difficult for them to understand.

Hi, DCM!
I think even a "British" viewpoint to be limiting - after all, what is "British"? The idea begins from empire. Empire aims to support itself and is something deeply anti-democratic. "English:, however, is a national idea; one that respects borders and is in fact democratic. But empire would cast the "Little England" idea as a negative thing, for it demands the limitation and muzzling of empire.

Starting from that, we have a condemnation of imposed multiculturalism and pluralism - and the hypocrisy you rightly condemn - from the get-go. It says that, whatever a people are in a given place, let them be in a given place. We can not, and should not control, dominate or even 'police' the world - which is really the same thing. We should take care of our own homes.

Here I really want to respond to yakspeare's admiration of Pakistani relief (and the broader idea behind it). I do not deny that helping people - anywhere - is a good thing. However, when people's concern becomes global, they overreach themselves. We cannot fix the world. The Christian command is to "love our neighbor" - the people near to us. When we love people who are far away but curse other drivers next to us in traffic, we are engaged in a form of hypocrisy.

But back to your thoughts on immigration. You say "we" rely on immigration, and I think there is truth in that. But I think a bigger truth is that certain people benefit heavily from immigration - and exploit immigrants in doing so, and so have a stake in encouraging immigration and preaching multiculturalism and pluralism. These certain people are NOT, in fact, most of us (and therefore not "we"), who could actually learn to rely less on immigration, to pay higher prices for locally produced goods, to keep wealth in the local economy and not pumped to an off-shore corporation, and to enjoy less diversity in goods for the sake of a less consumer-oriented life.
Again, public education, with its relentless indoctrination in the values of multiculturalism and pluralism - which benefits this minority - which can be shown by following the money - especially the foundations that fund public education and form its hidden philosophy - is a huge disadvantage. Any serious study of the history of the modern public school will reveal that.

You're talking about several different issues now so it's a little hard to give a response.

I disagree about taking care of our own homes only. We can't change history but we should understand that what the British empire did in the past has ramifications today. The reason a lot of the poor countries today are poor because of us stealing their wealth. Because of this I believe we have duty to help with poverty issues. When it comes to cultural issues though it's a lot more difficult to say whether we have any right to get involved.

"When we love people who are far away but curse other drivers next to us in traffic, we are engaged in a form of hypocrisy."

This is an interesting view and I agree if you mean what I think you mean. Through multiculturalism becoming a mainstream issue we have created a negative view of ourselves. We seem to show huge compassion for people who we know about from a far away country and even try to justify terrorism and murder as a thing that isn't partly their fault but the guy living on benefits up the road is written off completely.

It's certainly true that many people benefit from mass immigration. My opinion is this is a new challenge we need to face and those who embrace it can become successful while those who moan about it and use it as an excuse will fail.

One of the biggest problems (talking about England here) is that when new immigrants come to England often their academic qualifications aren't applicable here. In warehouses and factories I've met Asians who are trained as architects, plumbers, doctors and many other professions but they are deemed to be invalid qualifications because they were obtained from their home country. The result of this added with initial language problems means they have little choice but to look for manual labour and non-skilled based jobs. This means there is a lot of competition and the lower end of the working class are negatively affected with loss of jobs or reduced pay because there's a new work force happy to work for minimum wage. As a result of this the working class get upset and start to complain about immigration and then the middle class liberals brand them racists which is easy to do when you're not negatively affected by something. If thousands of Eastern Europeans came over and started working in profesional fields and starting their own businesses and competing with the typically middle class then our self-proclaimed liberals would have a different viewpoint.

I think education is a key point but I don't think it's through teaching multiculturalism as a good thing. When Labour originally came into office it was on the strength of "education, education, education." Unfortunately they did little more than put more money into education, they didn't really change anything. Until 16 our education system is still purely academic so those who aren't academic have few options. They finish school with no qualifications and an inferiority complex because our system has deemed them failures. Many look for manual jobs because they have no training and with mass immigration these jobs are harder to find than ever.

Unfortunately you're right we do look after the minority still (upper clases not immigrants) but immigration isn't the cause of this. And don't worry I won't refer to you as a Neo-Nazi for having a different viewpoint to myself.

yakspeare
17-09-2010, 14:04
no one has called Rus a Neo-Nazi

rusmeister
17-09-2010, 20:31
If I can insert something I think incredibly relevant, I mention the HISTORY of education repeatedly (in different forums) and invariably get responses about the modern state of education. I can't say I've encountered anyone who could give extensive details on how mass compulsory schooling appeared in their country and who pushed it, and why.

It's as if there's some kind of black hole or aura of unnoticeability over the word "history" when it appears before "of public education".

I wouldn't have known anything, myself, if I hadn't read Gatto - and recognized in him a fellow teacher who had really been in the trenches - and then discovered through a little independent research confirmation of at least some of his history. He forced me to research it.

Why public education? Well, is it possible that mass education could lead to people having similar thinking without thinking much about it? Is it possible that some people could realize this and attempt to capitalize on it? And finally, what if they have already done so and we are victims of their efforts (ie, could we have been indoctrinated into thinking in certain ways - take it for 'our own thinking' and not know about it)?

Sounds absurd on the surface (If a mind were indoctrinated without its will or knowledge, that's all there would be - a surface). A little bit of delving into history makes it frighteningly plausible, though.

MickeyTong
18-09-2010, 17:04
Hi Mickey,
Your conflation of proper nationalism (as opposed to extremism - which badly needs definition) with apartheid is disappointing. I think you capable of better than that.

In a way, I HAVE returned to the Baptists. Certainly, I see that the Baptists are mostly right on some of the most important things. I have become truly multicultural - you are right about that. But I don't think that it is a shoe meant to fit most people. I think that both my relatives in the US and my in-laws (just for example) here should be expected in the least to have anything alien imposed on them, such as a foreign language or culture. I have come a circle where first I learned to admire and appreciate foreign cultures, back to learning to appreciate and love my own, and to believe that everyone grounded in that culture is perfectly fine in being so grounded. It is a form of missionaryism - pride and superiority, "the white man's burden" - to attempt to educate them in everything that I have learned. I have discovered that in fact I cannot do this - that nothing less than having experiences similar to my own could really communicate what I have learned. And that they can have full lives without ever needing to learn what I have learned - although I wouldn't give up what I've learned for anything.

And all of that does not even touch on the motivations behind the tremendous push in public education and the media to impose global values on all - even though the true value is delivered to an elite minority and the result is the destruction of traditional cultures and the formation of, as I said, one bland, grey, global culture whose main purpose is to convert us all into compliant and predictable consumers, and certainly to prevent any more French or American revolutions that might actually result in genuine liberty for the common man.

You covered a lot of ground in that post, Rus....

I don't conflate "proper" nationalism with apartheid, but I certainly recognise that a legitimate love and respect for "my" people and heritage can slip (or be manipulated) into paranoid bigotry.

I also recognise that most people have no interest at all in foreign languages and cultures, and that they are not lacking in fulfilment - be they White Christians, Mediterranean Catholics, Algerian Muslims, Balinese Hindus, Orthodox Jews or even Little Englanders. Although I, personally, may not like them because I'm an outsider and attitudes towards outsiders are sometime patronising, at best.

You may find that your doubts about public education are more widely held than you think. Ivan Illich's seminal Deschooling Society is nearly 40 years old now, and many thoughtful "products" of the system question its efficacy.

rusmeister
21-09-2010, 07:56
You covered a lot of ground in that post, Rus....

I don't conflate "proper" nationalism with apartheid, but I certainly recognise that a legitimate love and respect for "my" people and heritage can slip (or be manipulated) into paranoid bigotry.

I also recognise that most people have no interest at all in foreign languages and cultures, and that they are not lacking in fulfilment - be they White Christians, Mediterranean Catholics, Algerian Muslims, Balinese Hindus, Orthodox Jews or even Little Englanders. Although I, personally, may not like them because I'm an outsider and attitudes towards outsiders are sometime patronising, at best.

Hey, Mickey!
I certainly agree, and would even say that that, traditionally has always been a danger. However, an equal and opposite danger has arisen in our time, the one I have tried to describe. I would say that it is now the greater danger of the two - and the flashes we see on the news of the other danger are actually composed mostly of normal people who are kicking back against this new mass imposition of globalization and one world culture. The danger is driven by schooling and the media and the people who fund them. So...


You may find that your doubts about public education are more widely held than you think. Ivan Illich's seminal Deschooling Society is nearly 40 years old now, and many thoughtful "products" of the system question its efficacy.

I found Gatto much more interesting - and touching much more directly on original causes - than Illich. Obviously (if you've read him) Gatto goes a lot further. And you'll probably agree that a person who doesn't know the history of the thing he is talking about cannot talk about it intelligently - if he's looking at a phenomenon and doesn't know how it came to be that way - then he can't effectively judge or even understand it. (Not saying that about Illich - but certainly his focus - from everything I've read - was on the modern condition and what to do, with little history.)

Plus, not being an academic, but a man who was "in the trenches", Gatto shows a strong understanding of both theory and practice, as well as heavily-researched history. Some things I didn't believe (and there are still some I hold in abeyance, and even reject - such as his knowledge of religious history), but enough has been confirmed to me by my own personal experience and research to be convinced that he is right. Occam's razor. Who funded these things and continues to do so? Follow the money.

Whenever I ask anyone about the history of public education (by which I mean m**** compulsory schooling) I get responses about the current state of schooling, er, 'education', or blank responses. People know zip. A few mention Horace Mann as 'the great father of our wonderful system', or something of that sort, and then jump to desegregation in Arkansas, and then to No Child Left Behind. This institution has always been there, it schooled me, why question it?

rusmeister
21-09-2010, 08:45
Rusmeister it is a shame, a real shame you feel that way. You assume that new culture is imperial in nature when often it is not. I had the best beard trim ever yesterday, here in Cambridgeshire, by a Turkish gentleman. I spoke to him in Uzbek(it is almost the same as Turkish) and we joked and laughed in his native language-how uplifting it was for him and respectful and i was treated ever the better for it. The woman in there was Polish so i spoke to her in the very basic Polish i know(mostly russian words which are the same plus a few words i knew from my Polish Aunt). They know English, they learnt it and use it everyday, but it was a joy to speak to them in their language. how possibly can you spread the word when you don't understand their culture? How can you tell a muslim about christ if you can't debunk the thoughts he already has on it?



Frankly Rus you are about one step away from being a Neo-Nazi. Russia for Russians! America for Americans! Stop the immigration! Stop pandering to minorities! They are taking our jobs, destroying our way of life!

love thy neighbour means to love everyone outside of your family unit as equals not love those in your street but not others. The message was spread from the Jews to the gentiles to be spread to the very edge of the earth-what is the gospel if not love?

" Here i have arrived in your village to spread the message of our Lord Jesus, of love , peace and forgiveness and also to tell you to stay the heck out of my own country!"

or to twist an orwellian phrase:

All are loved but some are more loved than others...??

i don't see how your philosophy is compatible with:

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Hi, yak,
I'm not sure you've understood my philosophy. You seem to have immediately read, well, a fascist/neo-Naziism into it.
You say "I assume the new culture is imperial in nature". This is not true, and it is not what I have assumed.
Now, I think you know by now that I AM a truly multicultural person, and you should have guessed that I DO value and love both my native language and country as well as adopted one. So I DO champion learning - for those who want to learn. But for those who want to live on their farms in the midwest, put in a hard day at the factory, the ranch, or whatever, drink beer with friends or just be with their families, etc, I oppose forced imposition of other cultures. And if it is required in public schools, and forced on our politicians and business leaders - with recalcitrant ones losing their positions, then it IS forced. That is the great thing I would like to communicate. I was a public school teacher in the US for nearly 4 years. I saw enough of that forcing - from teacher indoctrination in the prep programs, to the indoctrination in the staff meetings that PREVENTED us from working together collegially, to forced busing of downtown kids to schools far from their communities and homes - to know that it IS force.

I do think it grand to know the bits or basics (or more) of Turkish, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, German, French, Czech, Italian, Latvian that I do know, and everything I have learned about some of those lands and peoples in my travels. I wish I could share my inter-cultural knowledge with everybody. But I have found that I can't. Even when I try to share it with my folks back home, I get 2 minutes of active interest, quickly dying down and a shift to topics that they can relate to. ("I was in the military coup in Moscow/Ruritania, etc!" "Oh, really? And did you hear about the new mall they're building over on River Street?")
But that's their small-town lives. They don't actually learn anything about Islam - or whatever - they only know that they are supposed to "tolerate" it, and can't even say why - while increasingly being taught that it doesn't matter what you believe (via schooling and the media). That's the effect of this forced lifelong exposure to modern propaganda. Mass schooling does NOT create individuals who think freely, critically and independently.

I don't say "stop immigration". I do think immigration should be controlled. I believe in the nation-state, as the best of heretofore established ways of securing peace and freedom. I do not believe in "citizens without borders". I recognize Russia's right to treat me as a foreigner for my refusal to surrender my native citizenship. I myself am an immigrant in a country that is harsher to them than the US or UK, and so have every sympathy with them - and think that I have a better right to talk about them than most people - who usually are not immigrants.

So I think you've misunderstood me, and you've therefore misapplied Scripture.
Love your neighbor, by the way (ближнего in Russian, which means "near-person") means exactly "love the people close to you". When asking ourselves who our neighbor is, I think Lewis put it best in "The Screwtape Letters":

Do what you will, there is going to be some benevolence, as well as some malice, in your patient's soul. The great thing is to direct the malice to his immediate
neighbours whom he meets every day and to thrust his benevolence out to the
remote circumference, to people he does not know. The malice thus becomes wholly
real and the benevolence largely imaginary. There is no good at all in inflaming
his hatred of Germans if, at the same time, a pernicious habit of charity is
growing up between him and his mother, his employer, and the man he meets in the
train. Think of your man as a series of concentric circles, his will being the
innermost, his intellect coming next, and finally his fantasy. You can hardly
hope, at once, to exclude from all the circles everything that smells of the
Enemy: but you must keep on shoving all the virtues outward till they are
finally located in the circle of fantasy, and all the desirable qualities inward
into the Will. It is only in so far as they reach the will and are there
embodied in habits that the virtues are really fatal to us. (I don't, of course,
mean what the patient mistakes for his will, the conscious fume and fret of
resolutions and clenched teeth, but the real centre, what the Enemy calls the
Heart.) All sorts of virtues painted in the fantasy or approved by the intellect
or even, in some measure, loved and admired, will not keep a man from our
Father's house: indeed they may make him more amusing when he gets there,
Your affectionate uncle
SCREWTAPE

Of course, we should hold a spirit of love towards all. But we can only truly enact it (or fail to do so) on our neighbor - those close to us.

But when we speak about national politics (while we still can - until globalization absorbs the separate nations into one vast union), saying that the people of a country should control its immigration is no lack of love - it is a call against anarchy. It is a desire to establish peace and liberty for those to whom it is home. (Personally, I would favor much smaller states. Small is beautiful. I'd think 50 separate states with some common agreements on travel and transport a better thing than the one huge federal non-democratic republic that it is.) But that choice is out of my hands.

My recommendation to you is GK Chesterton's "What's Wrong With the World". You seem to be on a level where you could grasp what he says - both the humor and the deadly serious.
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/whats_wrong.html
It's out of copyright - public domain, so copy and read at will!
TEASER:

The fallacy is one of the fifty fallacies that come from the modern madness for biological or bodily metaphors. It is convenient to speak of the Social Organism, just as it is convenient to speak of the British Lion. But Britain is no more an organism than Britain is a lion. The moment we begin to give a nation the unity and simplicity of an animal, we begin to think wildly. Because every man is a biped, fifty men are not a centipede. This has produced, for instance, the gaping absurdity of perpetually talking about "young nations" and "dying nations," as if a nation had a fixed and physical span of life. Thus people will say that Spain has entered a final senility; they might as well say that Spain is losing all her teeth. Or people will say that Canada should soon produce a literature; which is like saying that Canada must soon grow a new moustache. Nations consist of people; the first generation may be decrepit, or the ten thousandth may be vigorous. Similar applications of the fallacy are made by those who see in the increasing size of national possessions, a simple increase in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. These people, indeed, even fall short in subtlety of the parallel of a human body. They do not even ask whether an empire is growing taller in its youth, or only growing fatter in its old age. But of all the instances of error arising from this physical fancy, the worst is that we have before us: the habit of exhaustively describing a social sickness, and then propounding a social drug. ch 1