Is Multi-culturism Good For A Country?

[jasreeve17]

multiculturalism is good for human beings in general, so is good for countries by default.

Agree 100%.

The only people that benefit from nationalism (the alternative) are liars, cheats and barrstarrds...

[Birdman]

multiculturalism is good for human beings in general, so is good for countries by default.

Agree 100%.

The only people that benefit from nationalism (the alternative) are liars, cheats and barrstarrds...

...problem, if immigrants bring into the new country their nationalism without any regards/respect for the local culture at all.

[sanmiguellight]

multiculturalism is good for human beings in general, so is good for countries by default.

Agree 100%.

The only people that benefit from nationalism (the alternative) are liars, cheats and barrstarrds...

So if someone doesnt agree with unlimited immigration they are a nationalist lying cheating bastard ........ you liberals really are vile ....... the only time i'm nationalist is when England are playing football or when a British boxer is fighting, what the <deleted> has there ever been anything to be nationalistic about ....... if asked i wouldnt go to war for this country ...... yet you infer that people who like me who dont agree with your idealogical views on immigration are racist nationalists.

Edited August 11, 2009 by sanmiguellight

[samran]

I cannot see why they cant ALL just go back to their own countries and preach to their own goverments about their civil rights instead of demanding from my country (UK). It used to be called going on holiday when you travelled anywhere to experience another country / culture, then you went HOME. It would be nice for all of those now in my country to do just that !!

Come for a holiday then return to your own country instead of polluting ours.

No doubt I will be cursed for my view but what the hel_l , I am a Brit .

so planning on retiring in Thailand then?

[sunholidaysun1]

Yes of course

All my UK mates live here now and none of them wear turbans have prayer mats or speak anything other than ENGLISH, lol

Told you I would upset someone

[sassienie]

If in moderation, than, no problem.

[dumbnewbie]

david96, "...The religion of Radical Islam and its culture will be a problem for Western governments

in the future and they need to update their laws and legislation to combat it...."

I have never heard of a religion called Radical Islam. Can you elaborate about it, please? Is it a translation of one of the radical groups names such as Jamah Islamiyah? Isn't the name "Islam" when tied to one of the radical groups more a political movement than a religion?

What you've stated is the officially approved Politically Correct viewpoint on the subject, and I'm not sure I dare correct you. I'm still a bit new here and don't know how much I'm allowed to say.

Read the forum rules and speak your mind.

I'm not sure Which statement you are referring to as PC. I made a comment followed by several questions, so I have to assume you're referring to David96's statement.

I wouldn't call it PC.....you'd better clarify Dumbnewbie.

The PC party line is that all these people committing acts of terror all over the world in the name of Islam are not Muslims at all - that they're abusing the religion for political aims. Thus we have terms like Radical Islam, Muslim Extremists and Islamists, to distinguish the ideology of the terrorists from the supposedly peaceful "religion" of Islam.

It's my contention that Islam itself is more political than religious. Proof of this is is that the so-called radicals, extremists and Islamists are also called Islamic fundamentalists. In other words, they believe and practice the fundamentals of Islam, i.e., as it was taught and practiced by the founder of the movement 1300 years ago. (If you protest that every religion has fundamentalists, ask yourself how a fundamentalist Buddhist would behave. Would he kill innocent people after calling them "infidels"? Or would he be more likely to meditate until he starved to death, or maybe feed himself to a poor hungry tiger?)

Further proof is that the most Islamic countries on earth, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran, are remarkably similar, even though one is Sunni and the other Shiite, and one is a monarchy while the other is a theocracy. Why are they so similar? Because they are both based on draconian Sharia Islamic law ("god's law"), as were all Islamic societies prior to being modernized and liberalized by Western colonialists or secular native reformers (as in Turkey and Iran). These reformers replaced Islamic law with secular Western law, thus giving women rights (to walk down the street unmolested even though not dressed like a black ghost, to get a secular education, to work outside the home, etc.) and also throwing out all the inhuman Islamic punishments (flogging, amputation, stoning to death) for such "crimes" as pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, homosexuality, blasphemy, apostasy, heresy, etc. Clergy (mullahs) were stripped of their power, exactly as happened in the West when the Reformation, Renaissance and Enlightenment ended the Dark Ages of Christian tyranny.

To understand true Islam, you only have to learn how Mohammad and his immediate followers behaved, because that is what Muslims are supposed to do. And what do we find? Well, they set out to conquer, Arabize and Islamize the entire world. And they made incredible progress toward that end given the primitive technology they had - conquering everything from Morocco to India, destroying the ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Persian cultures in the process and converting most of those people from Greek or Coptic Christians or Persian Zoroastrians into Arabic-speaking Muslims. (You have to learn Arabic to be a Muslim, because you're supposed to memorize the Koran, and the only official version of the Koran is the Arabic one). Mohammad's armies killed men, raped women and took as wives and concubines the wives and daughters of the conquered.

Islam means "submission" to the angry Middle Eastern god of the Torah/Old Testament, which the Koran was based on. Islam does aim for "peace", but the idea is that there will be peace on earth only when all of humanity becomes Muslim and submits to god and his sharia laws.

There is no question but that Islam was much more political and violent than any other "religion" right from the very beginning. Mohammad was nothing like Buddha or Jesus, who taught compassion and radical non-violence (even towards enemies). Christianity became a very violent religion, but you can argue that the whole religion was the antithesis of what its founder actually taught and stood for. The same cannot be said of Islam.

Having said all that, I want to make a clear distinction between Islam (the religion/ideology/worldview) and Muslims, the vast majority of which are decent, good people, because they are human beings first and Muslims second, or more likely, in name only. Indeed, they are the first victims of this Islam, which has the death penalty for converting to another religion or even questioning it, and they deserve our understanding and sympathy.

Edited August 11, 2009 by dumbnewbie

[Harcourt]

"...The PC party line is that all these people committing acts of terror all over the world in the name of Islam are not Muslims at all - that they're abusing the religion for political aims. Thus we have terms like Radical Islam, Muslim Extremists and Islamists, to distinguish the ideology of the terrorists from the supposedly peaceful "religion" of Islam.

It's my contention that Islam itself is more political than religious......"

Is that the PC party line? Or is it pretty much fact that radical Islamists are political but your average Muslim is simply religious, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort? Therefore it would be right to distinguish the majority of simple religious followers from the fundamentalist fringe.

Your contention has numerous arguments against it, and is the Right Wing party line, peddled out ever since the US decided it needed a firmer grip on the Middle East to grab someone else's oil. To be frank I would have to google to get the best ammo for that argument.....so lets just say you are right for the sake of this MC debate: that Islam is political.

Is that an argument against MC? Keeping in mind that the vast majority of Muslims are not radical or political, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Harcourt

[JiveTalker]

I am free of all prejudice - I hate everyone equally

\hahahaha brilliant answer....and so true...... they are all b*stards, the lot of them....

HAHA! YES!

Oh dear.

[dumbnewbie]

"...The PC party line is that all these people committing acts of terror all over the world in the name of Islam are not Muslims at all - that they're abusing the religion for political aims. Thus we have terms like Radical Islam, Muslim Extremists and Islamists, to distinguish the ideology of the terrorists from the supposedly peaceful "religion" of Islam.

It's my contention that Islam itself is more political than religious......"

Is that the PC party line? Or is it pretty much fact that radical Islamists are political but your average Muslim is simply religious, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort? Therefore it would be right to distinguish the majority of simple religious followers from the fundamentalist fringe.

Your contention has numerous arguments against it, and is the Right Wing party line, peddled out ever since the US decided it needed a firmer grip on the Middle East to grab someone else's oil. To be frank I would have to google to get the best ammo for that argument.....so lets just say you are right for the sake of this MC debate: that Islam is political.

Is that an argument against MC? Keeping in mind that the vast majority of Muslims are not radical or political, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort.

Your "average Muslim" isn't even very religious, but even they rarely if ever speak up against the "terrorists". Why is that? The fact is that most of them agree with the goals of the jihadi terrorists (killing Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, gays, fornicators, adulterers, prostitutes, etc. and destroying Israel, US, UK, India, secular governments, etc. in order to establish a new Islamic Caliphate to be the new world hegemon). Or they are afraid to speak out because Islam has the death penalty for that. Either way it's a problem. So yeah, I'd say that the biggest problem for MC is Islam, because Islam isn't about living peacefully with other people - it's about dominating, converting and/or killing them.

This can easily be verified if you'll kindly remove your rose-colored (leftist) glasses for a moment and take a glance around the world - everywhere there are Muslims they are in conflict with their non-Muslim neighbors: in UK, Spain, France, Netherlands, Australia, US, Thailand, Philippines, China, Russia, Serbia, Sudan, Nigeria, Israel, India, you name it. And in majority-Muslim countries the non-Muslim minorities are constantly being terrorized, persecuted and murdered: Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. (Christians are attacked); Indonesia (Christians, Hindus, Buddhists are attacked, Western tourists are bombed); Iran (Baha'is, Christians, atheists, leftist secularists are attacked); Pakistan (Christians, Hindus, Sikhs are attcked), etc. To ignore all of this evidence and suggest that fear of Islam is irrational and a bogeyman made up by US neocons greedy for Middle Eastern oil is highly disingenuous, or just ignorant.

I'm not saying that the majority of "Muslims" are causing problems. No - the majority are not. But all it takes is a few, doesn't it? And you simply don't have that problem with any other group of people I can think of. It is unique to Islam, and again, I stress that the IDEA (and the culture of intolerance, hatred and violence it produces) is the root of the problem, not any particular ethnic group or groups.

Mankind is going to have to find some way of containing or destroying this idea, because as long as it exists, it will produce that "minority fundamentalist fringe" which you agree is a problem. And that fringe will only grow stronger from here on out, if it is allowed to. They're not stupid people - they can learn nuclear technology, biological weapons, cyberwarfare, whatever. The strange thing about religion is that even highly intelligent people often believe in it.

But I could be wrong, and I'd enjoy being persuaded of it, so don't give up.

Edited August 11, 2009 by dumbnewbie

[endure]

"...The PC party line is that all these people committing acts of terror all over the world in the name of Islam are not Muslims at all - that they're abusing the religion for political aims. Thus we have terms like Radical Islam, Muslim Extremists and Islamists, to distinguish the ideology of the terrorists from the supposedly peaceful "religion" of Islam.

It's my contention that Islam itself is more political than religious......"

Is that the PC party line? Or is it pretty much fact that radical Islamists are political but your average Muslim is simply religious, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort? Therefore it would be right to distinguish the majority of simple religious followers from the fundamentalist fringe.

Your contention has numerous arguments against it, and is the Right Wing party line, peddled out ever since the US decided it needed a firmer grip on the Middle East to grab someone else's oil. To be frank I would have to google to get the best ammo for that argument.....so lets just say you are right for the sake of this MC debate: that Islam is political.

Is that an argument against MC? Keeping in mind that the vast majority of Muslims are not radical or political, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort.

Your "average Muslim" isn't even very religious, but even they rarely if ever speak up against the "terrorists". Why is that?

For the same reason that Brazilians rarely spoke up against the IRA. The actions of the terrorists have nothing to do with them.

I meet Muslims every day in my work (in the UK). I once asked a Muslim what he thought about the accusation that Muslims don't speak out against terrorists. His answer was that he was a shopkeeper with a wife and 2 kids - what would he know about terrorism? All he was doing was trying to provide for his family. He neither knew nor wanted to know anything about terrorism.

[sunholidaysun1]

"...The PC party line is that all these people committing acts of terror all over the world in the name of Islam are not Muslims at all - that they're abusing the religion for political aims. Thus we have terms like Radical Islam, Muslim Extremists and Islamists, to distinguish the ideology of the terrorists from the supposedly peaceful "religion" of Islam.

It's my contention that Islam itself is more political than religious......"

Is that the PC party line? Or is it pretty much fact that radical Islamists are political but your average Muslim is simply religious, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort? Therefore it would be right to distinguish the majority of simple religious followers from the fundamentalist fringe.

Your contention has numerous arguments against it, and is the Right Wing party line, peddled out ever since the US decided it needed a firmer grip on the Middle East to grab someone else's oil. To be frank I would have to google to get the best ammo for that argument.....so lets just say you are right for the sake of this MC debate: that Islam is political.

Is that an argument against MC? Keeping in mind that the vast majority of Muslims are not radical or political, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort.

Your "average Muslim" isn't even very religious, but even they rarely if ever speak up against the "terrorists". Why is that? The fact is that most of them agree with the goals of the jihadi terrorists (killing Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, gays, fornicators, adulterers, prostitutes, etc. and destroying Israel, US, UK, India, secular governments, etc. in order to establish a new Islamic Caliphate to be the new world hegemon). Or they are afraid to speak out because Islam has the death penalty for that. Either way it's a problem. So yeah, I'd say that the biggest problem for MC is Islam, because Islam isn't about living peacefully with other people - it's about dominating, converting and/or killing them.

This can easily be verified if you'll kindly remove your rose-colored (leftist) glasses for a moment and take a glance around the world - everywhere there are Muslims they are in conflict with their non-Muslim neighbors: in UK, Spain, France, Netherlands, Australia, US, Thailand, Philippines, China, Russia, Serbia, Sudan, Nigeria, Israel, India, you name it. And in majority-Muslim countries the non-Muslim minorities are constantly being terrorized, persecuted and murdered: Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. (Christians are attacked); Indonesia (Christians, Hindus, Buddhists are attacked, Western tourists are bombed); Iran (Baha'is, Christians, atheists, leftist secularists are attacked); Pakistan (Christians, Hindus, Sikhs are attcked), etc. To ignore all of this evidence and suggest that fear of Islam is irrational and a bogeyman made up by US neocons greedy for Middle Eastern oil is highly disingenuous, or just ignorant.

I'm not saying that the majority of "Muslims" are causing problems. No - the majority are not. But all it takes is a few, doesn't it? And you simply don't have that problem with any other group of people I can think of. It is unique to Islam, and again, I stress that the IDEA (and the culture of intolerance, hatred and violence it produces) is the root of the problem, not any particular ethnic group or groups.

Mankind is going to have to find some way of containing or destroying this idea, because as long as it exists, it will produce that "minority fundamentalist fringe" which you agree is a problem. And that fringe will only grow stronger from here on out, if it is allowed to. They're not stupid people - they can learn nuclear technology, biological weapons, cyberwarfare, whatever. The strange thing about religion is that even highly intelligent people often believe in it.

But I could be wrong, and I'd enjoy being persuaded of it, so don't give up.

I agree totally Dumbnewbie , not so dumb after all (no offence meant to those unfortunate to not be able to speak ) but I also think we are being forced into something far bigger than were allowed to know about and atthe same time silenced into accepting what is happening around the world. Muslims out for world domination and their integration is evident . You dont need to answer questions if your only a muslim shop keeper , only take care of your job and family , until the day comes for the uprising and then what ? I know what they will do .

What we need now is a holy war to wipe them off the planet , once and for all before they get to US.

[dumbnewbie]

"...The PC party line is that all these people committing acts of terror all over the world in the name of Islam are not Muslims at all - that they're abusing the religion for political aims. Thus we have terms like Radical Islam, Muslim Extremists and Islamists, to distinguish the ideology of the terrorists from the supposedly peaceful "religion" of Islam.

It's my contention that Islam itself is more political than religious......"

Is that the PC party line? Or is it pretty much fact that radical Islamists are political but your average Muslim is simply religious, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort? Therefore it would be right to distinguish the majority of simple religious followers from the fundamentalist fringe.

Your contention has numerous arguments against it, and is the Right Wing party line, peddled out ever since the US decided it needed a firmer grip on the Middle East to grab someone else's oil. To be frank I would have to google to get the best ammo for that argument.....so lets just say you are right for the sake of this MC debate: that Islam is political.

Is that an argument against MC? Keeping in mind that the vast majority of Muslims are not radical or political, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort.

Your "average Muslim" isn't even very religious, but even they rarely if ever speak up against the "terrorists". Why is that?

For the same reason that Brazilians rarely spoke up against the IRA. The actions of the terrorists have nothing to do with them.

Poor analogy. Does the IRA claim to be fighting the cause of Brazilians? It is an anti-British, Irish-nationalist terror group. Of course it has nothing to do with Brazilians.

I meet Muslims every day in my work (in the UK). I once asked a Muslim what he thought about the accusation that Muslims don't speak out against terrorists. His answer was that he was a shopkeeper with a wife and 2 kids - what would he know about terrorism? All he was doing was trying to provide for his family. He neither knew nor wanted to know anything about terrorism.

And I do sympathize with this man and his situation. Believe me, I do. Still, he is a Muslim and he either cannot or will not condemn Islamic terrorists, either because he secretly agrees with them or because he's afraid to disagree with them. And because there are no Muslim protesters chanting "Not in our name - you are not Muslims!", the terrorists can continue to claim they're fighting for Islam, and the world has no reason to think otherwise.

As an analogy, ask 100 random Christians if they support the KKK. I'd be very surprised if even one of them failed to strongly condemn the KKK and vehemently deny that it is a Christian organization.

[Harcourt]

"...The PC party line is that all these people committing acts of terror all over the world in the name of Islam are not Muslims at all - that they're abusing the religion for political aims. Thus we have terms like Radical Islam, Muslim Extremists and Islamists, to distinguish the ideology of the terrorists from the supposedly peaceful "religion" of Islam.

It's my contention that Islam itself is more political than religious......"

Is that the PC party line? Or is it pretty much fact that radical Islamists are political but your average Muslim is simply religious, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort? Therefore it would be right to distinguish the majority of simple religious followers from the fundamentalist fringe.

Your contention has numerous arguments against it, and is the Right Wing party line, peddled out ever since the US decided it needed a firmer grip on the Middle East to grab someone else's oil. To be frank I would have to google to get the best ammo for that argument.....so lets just say you are right for the sake of this MC debate: that Islam is political.

Is that an argument against MC? Keeping in mind that the vast majority of Muslims are not radical or political, no matter what the strictures of there religion may exhort.

Your "average Muslim" isn't even very religious, but even they rarely if ever speak up against the "terrorists". Why is that? The fact is that most of them agree with the goals of the jihadi terrorists (killing Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, gays, fornicators, adulterers, prostitutes, etc. and destroying Israel, US, UK, India, secular governments, etc. in order to establish a new Islamic Caliphate to be the new world hegemon). Or they are afraid to speak out because Islam has the death penalty for that. Either way it's a problem. So yeah, I'd say that the biggest problem for MC is Islam, because Islam isn't about living peacefully with other people - it's about dominating, converting and/or killing them.

This can easily be verified if you'll kindly remove your rose-colored (leftist) glasses for a moment and take a glance around the world - everywhere there are Muslims they are in conflict with their non-Muslim neighbors: in UK, Spain, France, Netherlands, Australia, US, Thailand, Philippines, China, Russia, Serbia, Sudan, Nigeria, Israel, India, you name it. And in majority-Muslim countries the non-Muslim minorities are constantly being terrorized, persecuted and murdered: Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. (Christians are attacked); Indonesia (Christians, Hindus, Buddhists are attacked, Western tourists are bombed); Iran (Baha'is, Christians, atheists, leftist secularists are attacked); Pakistan (Christians, Hindus, Sikhs are attcked), etc. To ignore all of this evidence and suggest that fear of Islam is irrational and a bogeyman made up by US neocons greedy for Middle Eastern oil is highly disingenuous, or just ignorant.

I'm not saying that the majority of "Muslims" are causing problems. No - the majority are not. But all it takes is a few, doesn't it? And you simply don't have that problem with any other group of people I can think of. It is unique to Islam, and again, I stress that the IDEA (and the culture of intolerance, hatred and violence it produces) is the root of the problem, not any particular ethnic group or groups.

Mankind is going to have to find some way of containing or destroying this idea, because as long as it exists, it will produce that "minority fundamentalist fringe" which you agree is a problem. And that fringe will only grow stronger from here on out, if it is allowed to. They're not stupid people - they can learn nuclear technology, biological weapons, cyberwarfare, whatever. The strange thing about religion is that even highly intelligent people often believe in it.

But I could be wrong, and I'd enjoy being persuaded of it, so don't give up.

To be frank, I am tempted to give up on this one angle of the MC debate because it is tiresome to argue with sweeping unsubstantiated generalisations that are mainly bred out of the US propaganda machine, (not to mention the closed mindedness of the likes of sunholidaysun1...nobody will ever change his mind).

"Sweeping unsubstatiated generalisations" you ask?....I'll put them in bold above in the quote.

If you put forward some facts, not emotive propaganda, we might have a debate.

(As an aside....I share your bemusement at intelligent people that are religious)

[Harcourt]

........

As an analogy, ask 100 random Christians if they support the KKK. I'd be very surprised if even one of them failed to strongly condemn the KKK and vehemently deny that it is a Christian organization.

But all KKK members are Christian. We may also be able to say "ask 100 random Muslims if they support Jamah Islamiyah or the Taliban. I'd be very surprised if even one of them failed to strongly condemn Jamah Islamiyah or the Taliban and vehemently deny that it is a Muslim organisation.

Muslims, too have their scholars that quote scripture to prove that the extremists are not Muslim by very definition of the extremist's actions.

[Datsun240Z]

The Netherlands, shows in the top 5 of Multicultural open ( easy accesable ) countries.

[sunholidaysun1]

To be frank, I am tempted to give up on this one angle of the MC debate because it is tiresome to argue with sweeping unsubstantiated generalisations that are mainly bred out of the US propaganda machine, (not to mention the closed mindedness of the likes of sunholidaysun1...nobody will ever change his mind).

There might be someone who can persuade me

[Harcourt]

The paradox of saying "I don't deign to reply". There should be an emoticon for it.

[dumbnewbie]

To be frank, I am tempted to give up on this one angle of the MC debate because it is tiresome to argue with sweeping unsubstantiated generalisations that are mainly bred out of the US propaganda machine, (not to mention the closed mindedness of the likes of sunholidaysun1...nobody will ever change his mind).

If you put forward some facts, not emotive propaganda, we might have a debate.

Yeah, I know how you feel - I don't have any illusions that I'll change anyone's mind either. If enough other people show interest, maybe I'll take this further, but for now I'll be the one to give it up.

(As an aside....I share your bemusement at intelligent people that are religious)

Nice of you to share that - I'm happy we can agree on something.

[dumbnewbie]

The Netherlands, shows in the top 5 of Multicultural open ( easy accesable ) countries.

Yes, but that famous Dutch tolerance wasn't enough to prevent the vicious murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh and repeated death-threats against Aayan Hirsi Ali, all real heroes for risking death to exercise their free speech and warn others of the danger they saw. What happened to them should dispel any doubts that they were right.

[Harcourt]

To be frank, I am tempted to give up on this one angle of the MC debate because it is tiresome to argue with sweeping unsubstantiated generalisations that are mainly bred out of the US propaganda machine, (not to mention the closed mindedness of the likes of sunholidaysun1...nobody will ever change his mind).

If you put forward some facts, not emotive propaganda, we might have a debate.

Yeah, I know how you feel - I don't have any illusions that I'll change anyone's mind either. If enough other people show interest, maybe I'll take this further, but for now I'll be the one to give it up.

(As an aside....I share your bemusement at intelligent people that are religious)

Nice of you to share that - I'm happy we can agree on something.

Ahhh! We also agreed, or at least I'm agreeing with you now, that MC brings the advantage of more flavour choices in women and food.

[Harcourt]

To be frank, I am tempted to give up on this one angle of the MC debate because it is tiresome to argue with sweeping unsubstantiated generalisations that are mainly bred out of the US propaganda machine, (not to mention the closed mindedness of the likes of sunholidaysun1...nobody will ever change his mind).

If you put forward some facts, not emotive propaganda, we might have a debate.

Yeah, I know how you feel - I don't have any illusions that I'll change anyone's mind either. If enough other people show interest, maybe I'll take this further, but for now I'll be the one to give it up.

(As an aside....I share your bemusement at intelligent people that are religious)

Nice of you to share that - I'm happy we can agree on something.

Ahhh! We also agreed, or at least I'm agreeing with you now, that MC brings the advantage of more flavour choices in women and food.

I should clarify that remark about religious people: I respect the feelings of people that recieve "spiritual nourishment" from their religion, I just can't comprehend "faith" in an unkown quantity.

[Samuian]

intelligent people that are religious)

it's an oxymoron...!

[4.real]

Is multi-culturism good for a country and can it actually work? I don't see too much of it in Thailand because most of the country is Buddhist, and other cultures seem to be scattered in tiny groups. There are certainly lots of Europeans, Aussies and North Americans who take Thai national spouses, but they just sort of blend in wherever they locate. About the only hotspot in Thailand is in the very southern end of the penninsula with the turmoil between the Islamic groups and either Christians or Thai Buddhists.

I know in Canada we are supposed to be a multi-culture country with an English speaking bias, but what I see more of is little groups all keeping separate from each other. My sister in London tells me it's the same in England. Depending on the location I can be a foreigner in my own country. I see bigotry and bias everywhere, but it's more the "New Canadiens" that perpetrate it. Many French speaking Canadians REALLY don't like the English speaking Canadians and that goes back to the 1700s, The Japanese Canadians don't integrate with the Chinese Canadians, Muslims and people from India won't integrate with any other group no matter how long they stay in Canada or how many generations pass, and First Nations people keep entirely to themselves. It's quite noticeable in Islamic communities within our cities as well.

It reminds me of that old Chad Mitchel Trio song

The whole world is festering with unhappy souls

The French hate the Germans, and the Germans hate the Poles.

Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch

And I don't like anybody very much...

It depends on what you mean by 'Country'

If you mean the government then M/C is wonderful.It stamps out what all governments fear =An educated united workforce'.

If you mean the working class then it is horrific=especially in countries such as the U.K with a benefits system and laws that prohibit any anti immigration discussion.

Take ,for instance this article written in a local english newspaper writing glowingly of....'At white hart lane school in Tottenham ,children from 50 countries speak 34 languages'.

This is a school I knew in the 80's which had a good success record in education and where the pupils were 99% english born and all had english as a first language.

I am reminded of the words spoken [recorded] in Parliament by Winston Churchill around 1954...'the biggest threat to Britain ,at this time,is the prospect of mass coloured immigration'..He started a bill [thrown out by Macmillan]to pevent 'rights of residence'.

Edited August 12, 2009 by 4.real

[ClaytonSeymour]

I meet Muslims every day in my work (in the UK). I once asked a Muslim what he thought about the accusation that Muslims don't speak out against terrorists. His answer was that he was a shopkeeper with a wife and 2 kids - what would he know about terrorism? All he was doing was trying to provide for his family. He neither knew nor wanted to know anything about terrorism.

Next time you see him, why don't you ask him how he would feel if his daughters decided to reject Islam, visit pubs & discos, have a non-Muslim boyfriend or too & eventually settle down with a non-Muslim husband, from the local indigenous population?

[dumbnewbie]

Ahhh! We also agreed, or at least I'm agreeing with you now, that MC brings the advantage of more flavour choices in women and food.

I should clarify that remark about religious people: I respect the feelings of people that receive "spiritual nourishment" from their religion, I just can't comprehend "faith" in an unknown quantity.

Yeah, I'm OK with peaceful, compassionate "spirituality" (study, meditation, yoga, tai chi, charity, etc.) - but I have a real problem with people who believe in an angry, cruel, vengeful sky-god, satan, hel_l, etc. and hate those of us who just can't believe in such things.

[dumbnewbie]

It depends on what you mean by 'Country'

If you mean the government then M/C is wonderful.It stamps out what all governments fear =An educated united workforce'.

If you mean the working class then it is horrific=especially in countries such as the U.K with a benefits system and laws that prohibit any anti immigration discussion.

Good point - maybe this is why the British government used to mix up the labor force in it's colonies - importing Indians to Africa and Malaya, Chinese to Malaya, etc. Now every Western government is doing the same thing to their own domestic labor force. It does look like a case of divide & conquer. In the U.S., "illegal immigration" from Mexico & Central America really only took off after the race riots and civil uprising by blacks in the 1960s. The effect has been to largely replace 'uppity' black and unionized white labor with cheaper, pliant (because illegal and scared) Hispanic labor. Meanwhile, the poor whites and blacks turn to drugs and kill themselves and each other. At the other end of the scale, loads of highly motivated scientists, engineers, doctors, nurses, etc. from India, China, Korea, Philippines, etc. have depressed wages for upper-middle class white. You gotta figure all of this was by design.

I am reminded of the words spoken [recorded] in Parliament by Winston Churchill around 1954...'the biggest threat to Britain ,at this time,is the prospect of mass coloured immigration'..He started a bill [thrown out by Macmillan]to prevent 'rights of residence'.

Interesting. You have to wonder how it happened that every Western country simultaneously opened the floodgates to immigrants after WWII. How and why did that happen? Why hasn't it happened in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore or Malaysia?

In any case, I think immigration and increasing diversity is one thing in immigrant nations such as the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand; it's quite another thing in homogeneous tribal nations such as England, Germany, France, Netherlands or Sweden.

[fred2007]

Take ,for instance this article written in a local english newspaper writing glowingly of....'At white hart lane school in Tottenham ,children from 50 countries speak 34 languages'

Well I guess if Great Britain would not have conolozised so many countries they would not have the problems today

[dumbnewbie]

I meet Muslims every day in my work (in the UK). I once asked a Muslim what he thought about the accusation that Muslims don't speak out against terrorists. His answer was that he was a shopkeeper with a wife and 2 kids - what would he know about terrorism? All he was doing was trying to provide for his family. He neither knew nor wanted to know anything about terrorism.

Next time you see him, why don't you ask him how he would feel if his daughters decided to reject Islam, visit pubs & discos, have a non-Muslim boyfriend or too & eventually settle down with a non-Muslim husband, from the local indigenous population?

Yes, and why not ask him point-blank what he thinks about the Taliban and al Qaeda? I'd be very surprised if he categorically denounced them, as you could expect 99.99% of Christians to categorically denounce the KKK.

[4.real]

Take ,for instance this article written in a local english newspaper writing glowingly of....'At white hart lane school in Tottenham ,children from 50 countries speak 34 languages'

Well I guess if Great Britain would not have conolozised so many countries they would not have the problems today

i guess you are one of the huge mass of brainwashed ones that believe the natives of the countries being 'colonised' had a far harder life than the white english children working in the pits and the factories and mills.

those who believe that housing illiterate and backward people used to producing huge numbers of offspring alongside those that survuved the last war was beneficial to the english working class of that time