topcat(The most tip top) Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I have absolutely no idea. I've spent about 4 days of my life in Germany. There is a lot more to say about the Gastarbeiter (guest worker) program which was the principle avenue of immigration in West Germany than I can tell you but two features are particularly pertinent. Firstly workers were expected to be in Germany on a temporary basis. The cast of Auf Wiedersehen pet were always going to go back to Newcastle some day they weren't going to become new Germans. Secondly it specifically targeted low skilled immigrants (modern points based immigration policies tend to do the opposite) This is a recipe for a bunch of not very smart or sophisticated immigrants who don't know how long they're going to be in Germany for which in turn makes them less able and less inclined to integrate than might be the case. There's probably someone on here who knows more about it than me though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The vast majority of German immigration has been Turks and Arabs in recent times. They havent "integrated". Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 By the way the idea that a majority (never mind a vast one) of German immigration in recent times had been Arab and Turkish doesn't stand up to even the mildest fact checking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The vast majority of German immigration has been Turks and Arabs in recent times. They havent "integrated". *citation required* Please outline the parameters by which "integration" is being determined by the shed-dwelling community. And then try and brush up on what 'multiculturalism' means again, as it does not in fact involve such demands of "integration" into an existing society. Swing and a miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Reynard on the brink of scuttling off to his shed again, hopefully for good this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Oh my word, I had Reynard as a Jack Smethurst level of thinker but it appears to me that there is a deeper darkness afoot. There is indeed a deeper darkness afoot. The Islamic doctrine of abrogation (naskh). This is the idea that Allah can change or cancel what he tells Muslims: None of our revelation do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?" (Koran 2:106) According to this idea, the violent verses of the ninth sura, including the verse of the Sword(9:5), abrogate the peaceful verses, because they were revealed later in Muhammad's prophetic career. The suras of the Koran are not arranged chronologically, but according to length. However, Islamic theology divides the Koran into Meccan and Medinan suras. The Meccan ones come from the first segment of Muhammad's career, when he simply called the Meccans to Islam. Later, he fled to Medina, and he approached the Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians etc and his teachings were rejected by them his positions hardened. The Medinan suras are filled with matters of law, rituals and exhortations to Jihad warfare against unbelievers. The relatively tolerant verse date from the Meccan period, and the violent verse from the Medinan period. Most Muslim authorities agree that the ninth sura, the Verse of the Sword, abrogates 124 more peaceful verse. The Koran commentator Ibn Kathir declares that sura 9:5 abrogated every agreement of peace in the Koran. after Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Didn't know we had so many of the world's foremost scholars of religious texts and philosophy posting on this site, certainly an interesting addition of recent days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I'm sure P&B's theology experts would have no problem telling the family of last week's murdered Muslim policeman that they aren't compatible with French life. No problem at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Maybe not. But I agree with Merkel that it hasn't worked. Unlucky. Thanks for playing. Sheds. Etc. Nonsense - it's an integral part of human existence to mix with other cultures. Germany itself has always been multicultural and has accomodated different ethnic and linguistic groupings be it the Celts or Romans. The Slavic Sorbs of East Germany have survived as an 'island' in a sea of German for 1500 years despite different religious fads having come and gone. Islam has a problem with extremists but then so does Christianity. It's not long since a right-wing Christian with views similar to Reynards massacred his fellow white, Judeo-Christian countryfolk in Norway. We have extremists in the US killing because of their faith. And, how TF can Reynard overlook the Sunni Christians and Shia Christians in Northern Ireland? Multi-culturalism and learning from others is how we progress as a human race. Being scared of other cultures and railing against them is regression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I'm just picturing Reynard sitting on his Swedish furniture, on his Japanese made computer, eating a curry/ pizza/ Chinese, having parked his German car outside and having opened a bottle of Belgian beer before slipping into his PJs which were made in a Bangladeshi sweatshop whilst shaking violently as the thought of multi-culturalism threatening his WASP way of life.... typing furious messages on P&B which contain Roman letters and Arabic numerals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 He lives in a shed, tbf, I very much doubt any of the above is happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I'm sure P&B's theology experts would have no problem telling the family of last week's murdered Muslim policeman that they aren't compatible with French life. No problem at all. I don’t think anybody in P&B would say such a thing to the murdered policeman’s wife. However, the Koran says: Women are inferior to men, and must be ruled by them: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other” (Koran 4:34). The Koran also likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “ Your women are a tilth for you to cultivate so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223). There are other similar verses. None of them of them compatible with French life or law, I would suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I don’t think anybody in P&B would say such a thing to the murdered policeman’s wife. However, the Koran says: Women are inferior to men, and must be ruled by them: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other” (Koran 4:34). The Koran also likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “ Your women are a tilth for you to cultivate so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223). There are other similar verses. None of them of them compatible with French life or law, I would suspect. Whereas the bible is a beacon of progressive thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I don’t think anybody in P&B would say such a thing to the murdered policeman’s wife. However, the Koran says: Women are inferior to men, and must be ruled by them: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other” (Koran 4:34). The Koran also likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “ Your women are a tilth for you to cultivate so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223). There are other similar verses. None of them of them compatible with French life or law, I would suspect. LIke the Bible is compatible with our lifestyle? You for real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Reynard gets his ass handed to him on live radio... http://www.islam21c.com/special/a-james-obrien-masterclass-in-how-to-deal-with-people-demanding-that-muslims-apologise-for-charliehebdo/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I'm afraid Islam is more ambiguous than some other religions. So that paradise would not be a bore for Muslims with different proclivities. Allah also promised his blessed that in paradise, "round about them will serve, devoted to them, young male servants handsome as pearls well-guarded" (Koran 52;24) "youths of perpetual freshness" (Koran 56;17) A couple of Hadith, which are not the words of Allah but Muhammads own ramblings does condemn sodomy. However, there is a strange double-mindedness about homosexuality in Islam. The great Muslim poet Abu Nuwas glorified homosexuality in his notorious poem the Perfumed Garden: O the joy of sodomy. So now be sodomites, you Arabs. Turn not away from it. - therein is wondrous pleasure. Take some coy lad with kiss-curls twisting on his temple and ride him as he stands like some gazelle standing to her mate - A lad whom all can see girt with sword and belt not like your whore who has to go veiled. Make for smooth-faced boys and do your very best to mount them, for women are the mounts of the devils. This paradoxical attitude towards homosexuality runs through Islamic history. Sunnyday's selective lessons on religious texts reminded me of this chestnut... over to you bible-boi... Dear Dr. Laura/ Sunnyday, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… end of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness – Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination? Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Nonsense - it's an integral part of human existence to mix with other cultures. Germany itself has always been multicultural and has accomodated different ethnic and linguistic groupings be it the Celts or Romans. The Slavic Sorbs of East Germany have survived as an 'island' in a sea of German for 1500 years despite different religious fads having come and gone. Islam has a problem with extremists but then so does Christianity. It's not long since a right-wing Christian with views similar to Reynards massacred his fellow white, Judeo-Christian countryfolk in Norway. We have extremists in the US killing because of their faith. And, how TF can Reynard overlook the Sunni Christians and Shia Christians in Northern Ireland? Multi-culturalism and learning from others is how we progress as a human race. Being scared of other cultures and railing against them is regression. The Koran exhorts believers to fight unbelievers without specifying anywhere in the text that only certain unbelievers are to be fought, or only for a certain period of time, or some other distinction. Taking Koranic texts at face value, the command to make war against unbelievers is open ended and universal. The Old Testament, in contrast, records Gods commands to the Israelites to make war against particular people only. Hittites, Girgashites, Amorrites etc. So even the Bibles violent verses. (Numbers 31:17-18) (Deuteronomy 20:10 -17) ( Deuteronomy 7:1-2) Or even absurdly ( Luke 19:26-27) Of course, the fallacy here is that these are the words of a king in a parable, not Jesus instructions to His followers. The Koran verses are the word of God revealed by the Arch Angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Or (Matthew 10:34-35). If this passage were really calling for any literal violence, it would seem to be intra-familial jihad, but to invoke it as the equivalent of the Koran jihad passages, which number over a hundred is absurd. Then there is the *****mitude, a number of restriction that applied only to non Muslims, and the Jizya tax (Poll Tax to be paid only by all non Muslims). These remain part of Islamic law today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The Koran exhorts believers to fight unbelievers without specifying anywhere in the text that only certain unbelievers are to be fought, or only for a certain period of time, or some other distinction. Taking Koranic texts at face value, the command to make war against unbelievers is open ended and universal. The Old Testament, in contrast, records Gods commands to the Israelites to make war against particular people only. Hittites, Girgashites, Amorrites etc. So even the Bibles violent verses. (Numbers 31:17-18) (Deuteronomy 20:10 -17) ( Deuteronomy 7:1-2) Or even absurdly ( Luke 19:26-27) Of course, the fallacy here is that these are the words of a king in a parable, not Jesus instructions to His followers. The Koran verses are the word of God revealed by the Arch Angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Or (Matthew 10:34-35). If this passage were really calling for any literal violence, it would seem to be intra-familial jihad, but to invoke it as the equivalent of the Koran jihad passages, which number over a hundred is absurd. Then there is the *****mitude, a number of restriction that applied only to non Muslims, and the Jizya tax (Poll Tax to be paid only by all non Muslims). These remain part of Islamic law today. Do you really beleive all this boolshit? And do you really think the slight differences in warmongering in the bible are much of a moral highground? Especially when a lot of the violence in the bible is meted out to 'errant' members of the tribe. Hope you're keeping away from those menstruating women... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Sunnyday's selective lessons on religious texts reminded me of this chestnut... over to you bible-boi... Dear Dr. Laura/ Sunnyday, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… end of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness – Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination? Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging. The book of Leviticus is from the Torah. These passages condemn homosexuality. I was pointing out the ambiguity to be found in the Koran. Please don't make the mistake of attributing the views I have quoted here as my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Do you really beleive all this boolshit? And do you really think the slight differences in warmongering in the bible are much of a moral highground? Especially when a lot of the violence in the bible is meted out to 'errant' members of the tribe. Hope you're keeping away from those menstruating women... My point is that the Muslims who murder others around the world do believe the boolshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.