New Zealand shootings.

john80

drlodge wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I don't think it is practical to somehow extract the churches or other religious organisations from those schools without losing some of the benefits that the VA sector provides.

What are some of these benefits? Funding is very significantly provided by the state so I don't see why Religious/VA schools should be able to prevent my children from going to it or instilling religious doctrine.

My kids go to a church of England school. Apart from the odd bit of spontaneous hymn singing that goes on mainly in the car and the odd fake wedding between kids to show them the way of the church it seems a bit harmless. Unless you actually believe in religion then I am not sure what benefits the church affiliation brings as all the money and infrastructure comes from other sources. We have moved on around maybe a century from churches providing the funds and the staff.

The above is a fairly low key bit of religious infiltration of the state school system as we have yet to have a demonstration on the curriculum for forcing kids to know about LGBT rights etc. I might be a bit more worried if my kid went to a Islamic faith school as the evidence suggests that such openly western topics such as diversity and inclusion might not be on the curriculum.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

drlodge wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I don't think it is practical to somehow extract the churches or other religious organisations from those schools without losing some of the benefits that the VA sector provides.

What are some of these benefits? Funding is very significantly provided by the state so I don't see why Religious/VA schools should be able to prevent my children from going to it or instilling religious doctrine.

My kids go to a church of England school. Apart from the odd bit of spontaneous hymn singing that goes on mainly in the car and the odd fake wedding between kids to show them the way of the church it seems a bit harmless. Unless you actually believe in religion then I am not sure what benefits the church affiliation brings as all the money and infrastructure comes from other sources. We have moved on around maybe a century from churches providing the funds and the staff.

The above is a fairly low key bit of religious infiltration of the state school system as we have yet to have a demonstration on the curriculum for forcing kids to know about LGBT rights etc. I might be a bit more worried if my kid went to a Islamic faith school as the evidence suggests that such openly western topics such as diversity and inclusion might not be on the curriculum.

I think there's certainly a case for being more robust on admission criteria and in ensuring that faith schools don't end up leaving out the bits of the curriculum some parents are uncomfortable with. Recent moves in education have been in the opposite direction with parents having more say in what is and isn't taught. Mind you that works both ways: daughter's school organises visits to the local church and mosque. A significant minority of parents kept their children at home for the mosque visit. Integration takes effort from both parties.

nickice

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

Yesterday the PM came out in a headscarf, an international symbol of oppression that women in Islamic countries have been fighting against.

It can be but at the same time it's not always. It'd be foolish to think all Muslim wear it by choice but it'd also be foolish to think that all are forced to wear it. Given that 49 were killed and she went to visit the Mosque, I think she was just showing a bit of respect to the families. If she was wearing it every time she spoke to Muslims (outside the Mosque) it'd be different. For example, I didn't refuse to put on a Kippah when I visited the wailing wall. I probably would have felt differently, if I had to wear it everywhere in Israel.

As for the other concerns about Islam on this thread, I share most of them. However, it's old ground that's been covered extensively after Islamic terror attacks. Nobody will ever change their mind and the usual suspects will call you a racist/bigot/Islamophobe etc. Totally pointless discussing it any further.

kingstongraham

drlodge wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I seen it argued in debates on immigration is the problem that these people come from poor backwards rural communities. The immigration rules mean it is difficult for anybody other than dependents to enter so these communities are perpetuating this problem. The problem being poverty and a lack of education.

I see the problem as lack of assimilation. Immigrants can bring with them differing values, a different culture and behavioural norms. We have our values & culture, they have their values are culture. Multiculturalism is a failed project, I'd argue having a multicultural society is not a good thing as we should have one set of values. Rather a single culture in a multi ethnic society is what we should be aiming for.

I don't share your "behavioural norms".

kingstongraham

nickice wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

Yesterday the PM came out in a headscarf, an international symbol of oppression that women in Islamic countries have been fighting against.

It can be but at the same time it's not always. It'd be foolish to think all Muslim wear it by choice but it'd also be foolish to think that all are forced to wear it. Given that 49 were killed and she went to visit the Mosque, I think she was just showing a bit of respect to the families. If she was wearing it every time she spoke to Muslims (outside the Mosque) it'd be different. For example, I didn't refuse to put on a Kippah when I visited the wailing wall. I probably would have felt differently, if I had to wear it everywhere in Israel.

As for the other concerns about Islam on this thread, I share most of them. However, it's old ground that's been covered extensively after Islamic terror attacks. Nobody will ever change their mind and the usual suspects will call you a racist/bigot/Islamophobe etc. Totally pointless discussing it any further.

If your response to an attack in which 50 peaceful Muslims were killed by a white supremacist who believes that Islam is evil and there is no coexistence possible between Islam and the west is to essentially post that you think he has a point, then in that specific circumstance, I think racist/bigot/islamophobe probably fits the bill.

Context matters.

nickice

KingstonGraham wrote:

If your response to an attack in which 50 peaceful Muslims were killed by a white supremacist who believes that Islam is evil and there is no coexistence possible between Islam and the west is to essentially post that you think he has a point, then in that specific circumstance, I think racist/bigot/islamophobe probably fits the bill.

Context matters.

I don't agree with that at all. Discussing Islam (I don't know who brought it up) a few days after a white-supremacist attack does not make you a bigot. That's an outrageous thing to say. Especially as, according to his manifesto, he was more concerned with ethnicity than religion with his stupid 'outbreeding' idea. If anyone on here restates this debunked idea then I'd be happy to call them out. And I also know for a fact that certain posters would be (and have done so) shouting 'bigot' even if Islam were discussed in the aftermath of an Islamic terror attack.

tangled_metal

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Large parts of the Muslim community make no effort to integrate and certainly don’t embrace western culture and values.

Had to edit as multiple post copying leads to huge post windows which annoy me.

Anyway, a programme on TV a few years back put GPS units in Muslim driver taxi and in white driver taxi then followed their movements in Blackburn. It was to explain integration problems. Turns out both sides made no effort to integrate. It's tribal / cultural more than purely religious IMHO. When two tribes go to war...

I seen it argued in debates on immigration is the problem that these people come from poor backwards rural communities. The immigration rules mean it is difficult for anybody other than dependents to enter so these communities are perpetuating this problem. The problem being poverty and a lack of education.

How many generations down the line before backwards rural origins cease to matter?

Seriously, my Muslim school mate was third generation British I believe. He was at a fee paid independent grammar school and the son of educated parents. Indeed grandparents were educated too. He held a few slightly extreme Islamic views but not too seriously I might add. Whatever the case rural Pakistan was in the distant past. They wouldn't fit in there now.

kingstongraham

nickice wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

If your response to an attack in which 50 peaceful Muslims were killed by a white supremacist who believes that Islam is evil and there is no coexistence possible between Islam and the west is to essentially post that you think he has a point, then in that specific circumstance, I think racist/bigot/islamophobe probably fits the bill.

Context matters.

I don't agree with that at all. Discussing Islam (I don't know who brought it up) a few days after a white-supremacist attack does not make you a bigot. That's an outrageous thing to say. Especially as, according to his manifesto, he was more concerned with ethnicity than religion with his stupid 'outbreeding' idea. If anyone on here restates this debunked idea then I'd be happy to call them out. And I also know for a fact that certain posters would be (and have done so) shouting 'bigot' even if Islam were discussed in the aftermath of an Islamic terror attack.

It's not just the short time after the attack, it's on a thread about the attack. For some posters, it seems the knee jerk response to an attack, even one on Muslims, is to attack Islam. That is why it makes them look bigoted. IMO.

Alejandrosdog

rjsterry wrote:

drlodge wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I don't think it is practical to somehow extract the churches or other religious organisations from those schools without losing some of the benefits that the VA sector provides.

What are some of these benefits? Funding is very significantly provided by the state so I don't see why Religious/VA schools should be able to prevent my children from going to it or instilling religious doctrine.

If people will pretend to be practising Christians for a few years and butter up the vicar just to get a place at the local CofE primary school, that does suggest there is something to be gained, no?

Why relevance does that have? Look again at the what Muslims think survey. Try and put your denial and apologist excuse making down for one moment. As for the yes buts and some people aren’t Christians they do it for the school wiggle it doesn’t change the facts that Islamic terrorism is tied to the Muslim community.

Alejandrosdog

KingstonGraham wrote:

nickice wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

If your response to an attack in which 50 peaceful Muslims were killed by a white supremacist who believes that Islam is evil and there is no coexistence possible between Islam and the west is to essentially post that you think he has a point, then in that specific circumstance, I think racist/bigot/islamophobe probably fits the bill.

Context matters.

I don't agree with that at all. Discussing Islam (I don't know who brought it up) a few days after a white-supremacist attack does not make you a bigot. That's an outrageous thing to say. Especially as, according to his manifesto, he was more concerned with ethnicity than religion with his stupid 'outbreeding' idea. If anyone on here restates this debunked idea then I'd be happy to call them out. And I also know for a fact that certain posters would be (and have done so) shouting 'bigot' even if Islam were discussed in the aftermath of an Islamic terror attack.

It's not just the short time after the attack, it's on a thread about the attack. For some posters, it seems the knee jerk response to an attack, even one on Muslims, is to attack Islam. That is why it makes them look bigoted. IMO.

That’s right let’s make victims out of the whole Muslim community... oh wait they do that for them selves. I’m not saying the attack was ok, it wasn’t. But it doesn’t mean that Islamic terrorists should have a free pass for a while.

Did you agree with Begum that bombing little girls
Was ok because western governments bombed ISIS terrorists?

rjsterry

Alejandrosdog wrote:

apologist

This is a thread about a white supremacist terrorist incident that you and others managed to derail into a rant about how Muslims are the problem. And you're calling me an apologist.

Ho-hum.

mr_goo

KingstonGraham wrote:

nickice wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

If your response to an attack in which 50 peaceful Muslims were killed by a white supremacist who believes that Islam is evil and there is no coexistence possible between Islam and the west is to essentially post that you think he has a point, then in that specific circumstance, I think racist/bigot/islamophobe probably fits the bill.

Context matters.

I don't agree with that at all. Discussing Islam (I don't know who brought it up) a few days after a white-supremacist attack does not make you a bigot. That's an outrageous thing to say. Especially as, according to his manifesto, he was more concerned with ethnicity than religion with his stupid 'outbreeding' idea. If anyone on here restates this debunked idea then I'd be happy to call them out. And I also know for a fact that certain posters would be (and have done so) shouting 'bigot' even if Islam were discussed in the aftermath of an Islamic terror attack.

It's not just the short time after the attack, it's on a thread about the attack. For some posters, it seems the knee jerk response to an attack, even one on Muslims, is to attack Islam. That is why it makes them look bigoted. IMO.

Unfortunately you, Rick and others will immediately shout down anyone that is trying to explain their thoughts on why such atrocities occur. When the Charlie Hebdo shootings occurred it was still the same old faces that jumped to the defence of the religion in question.
So when I and others question that a certain religion and it's position within certain societies, it's not out of any bigoted or racist view. Its from a standpoint of facing up to the reality of what it that religion preaches in its verses, be it moderate or extreme and whether it fits with a progressive society.

I expect some response now about how Plymouth Bretheren or 7th Day Adventists blah blah are just as orthodox.

veronese68

Have to agree with KG here. It's the same as after an article about a cyclist being knocked over and idiots starting about how they saw a cyclist jump a red light once, the implication being that means a completely different cyclist deserved to die. Do those people have a justifiable point or are they biased against cyclists? Pretty strong evidence for bias in my opinion.

rick_chasey

How have I shut it down goo?

kingstongraham

Mr Goo wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

nickice wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

If your response to an attack in which 50 peaceful Muslims were killed by a white supremacist who believes that Islam is evil and there is no coexistence possible between Islam and the west is to essentially post that you think he has a point, then in that specific circumstance, I think racist/bigot/islamophobe probably fits the bill.

Context matters.

I don't agree with that at all. Discussing Islam (I don't know who brought it up) a few days after a white-supremacist attack does not make you a bigot. That's an outrageous thing to say. Especially as, according to his manifesto, he was more concerned with ethnicity than religion with his stupid 'outbreeding' idea. If anyone on here restates this debunked idea then I'd be happy to call them out. And I also know for a fact that certain posters would be (and have done so) shouting 'bigot' even if Islam were discussed in the aftermath of an Islamic terror attack.

It's not just the short time after the attack, it's on a thread about the attack. For some posters, it seems the knee jerk response to an attack, even one on Muslims, is to attack Islam. That is why it makes them look bigoted. IMO.

Unfortunately you, Rick and others will immediately shout down anyone that is trying to explain their thoughts on why such atrocities occur. When the Charlie Hebdo shootings occurred it was still the same old faces that jumped to the defence of the religion in question.
So when I and others question that a certain religion and it's position within certain societies, it's not out of any bigoted or racist view. Its from a standpoint of facing up to the reality of what it that religion preaches in its verses, be it moderate or extreme and whether it fits with a progressive society.

I expect some response now about how Plymouth Bretheren or 7th Day Adventists blah blah are just as orthodox.

Your explanation of why someone killed 50 Muslims seems to be that Islam is bad. I'm not shouting you down, just pointing that out. I disagree.

surrey_commuter

Veronese68 wrote:

Have to agree with KG here. It's the same as after an article about a cyclist being knocked over and idiots starting about how they saw a cyclist jump a red light once, the implication being that means a completely different cyclist deserved to die. Do those people have a justifiable point or are they biased against cyclists? Pretty strong evidence for bias in my opinion.

beggars belief that people can not understand that blaming an entire section of society for the actions of a minority is just plain weird.

all cod are fish but not all fish are cod

drlodge

Veronese68 wrote:

Have to agree with KG here. It's the same as after an article about a cyclist being knocked over and idiots starting about how they saw a cyclist jump a red light once, the implication being that means a completely different cyclist deserved to die. Do those people have a justifiable point or are they biased against cyclists? Pretty strong evidence for bias in my opinion.

The argument has to go back to the ideology, in this case that it's OK to jump a red light when its clearly not.

Call out the idea, not the people.

Call out Red Light Jumping

Call out the White Supremacist ideology.

Call out the Islamist Ideology.

Don't blame all people who are associated with some aspect linked to the ideology (Cyclists, white skinned people, Muslims).

rick_chasey

drlodge wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Have to agree with KG here. It's the same as after an article about a cyclist being knocked over and idiots starting about how they saw a cyclist jump a red light once, the implication being that means a completely different cyclist deserved to die. Do those people have a justifiable point or are they biased against cyclists? Pretty strong evidence for bias in my opinion.

The argument has to go back to the ideology, in this case that it's OK to jump a red light when its clearly not.

Call out the idea, not the people.

Call out Red Light Jumping

Call out the White Supremacist ideology.

Call out the Islamist Ideology.

Don't blame all people who are associated with some aspect linked to the ideology (Cyclists, white skinned people, Muslims).

...but don’t call out stuff that is aimed at you, right?

tangled_metal

Well to get back on track. Can I just say, if I haven't said it before, that I am totally opposed to the Islamic terrorist who shot up part of new Zealand? Their sick ideology that makes it OK to shoot up a white, Christian, religious establishment is totally wrong.

tangled_metal

Tangled Metal wrote:

Well to get back on track. Can I just say, if I haven't said it before, that I am totally opposed to the Islamic terrorist who shot up part of new Zealand? Their sick ideology that makes it OK to shoot up a white, Christian, religious establishment is totally wrong.

Sorry! Just realised it was a white supremacist who shot up a Muslim establishment. To be fair I would not have got that from reading this thread. I would have sworn that you were commenting on an Islamic, terrorist act.

drlodge

Tangled Metal wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Well to get back on track. Can I just say, if I haven't said it before, that I am totally opposed to the Islamic terrorist who shot up part of new Zealand? Their sick ideology that makes it OK to shoot up a white, Christian, religious establishment is totally wrong.

Sorry! Just realised it was a white supremacist who shot up a Muslim establishment. To be fair I would not have got that from reading this thread. I would have sworn that you were commenting on an Islamic, terrorist act.

Its easy to get confused, their ideology is very similar. ISIS killing people for not being "Muslim" enough, White supremacists killing people for not being "white" enough. Its all vile, in-group out-group tribalism.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Have to agree with KG here. It's the same as after an article about a cyclist being knocked over and idiots starting about how they saw a cyclist jump a red light once, the implication being that means a completely different cyclist deserved to die. Do those people have a justifiable point or are they biased against cyclists? Pretty strong evidence for bias in my opinion.

The argument has to go back to the ideology, in this case that it's OK to jump a red light when its clearly not.

Call out the idea, not the people.

Call out Red Light Jumping

Call out the White Supremacist ideology.

Call out the Islamist Ideology.

Don't blame all people who are associated with some aspect linked to the ideology (Cyclists, white skinned people, Muslims).

...but don’t call out stuff that is aimed at you, right?

Is it me or is there any logic to his argument that it is Islam that he hates not muslims

tangled_metal

drlodge wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Well to get back on track. Can I just say, if I haven't said it before, that I am totally opposed to the Islamic terrorist who shot up part of new Zealand? Their sick ideology that makes it OK to shoot up a white, Christian, religious establishment is totally wrong.

Sorry! Just realised it was a white supremacist who shot up a Muslim establishment. To be fair I would not have got that from reading this thread. I would have sworn that you were commenting on an Islamic, terrorist act.

Its easy to get confused, their ideology is very similar. ISIS killing people for not being "Muslim" enough, White supremacists killing people for not being "white" enough. Its all vile, in-group out-group tribalism.

No! It's easy to see this thread has been hijacked by those who want to rant a bit Islamic terrorism. It's easy to tell the difference between Islamic terrorism and white supremacist terrorism. It's easy to see they're similar and represent a tiny minority of their community If you want to look into it with an open mind. It's easy to see how some on this thread come out as looking like islamaphobes. I'm not saying you are just that twisting this thread into a opportunity to discuss about how bad Islamic terrorism is kind of opening you up to that perception. Have you actually discussed this terrorist and his motives and how his outlook on things is twisted? Have you spent as much effort doing that as you have on doing it for Islamic terrorism?

rjsterry

drlodge wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Well to get back on track. Can I just say, if I haven't said it before, that I am totally opposed to the Islamic terrorist who shot up part of new Zealand? Their sick ideology that makes it OK to shoot up a white, Christian, religious establishment is totally wrong.

Sorry! Just realised it was a white supremacist who shot up a Muslim establishment. To be fair I would not have got that from reading this thread. I would have sworn that you were commenting on an Islamic, terrorist act.

Its easy to get confused, their ideology is very similar. ISIS killing people for not being "Muslim" enough, White supremacists killing people for not being "white" enough. Its all vile, in-group out-group tribalism.

Similar enough that white supremacists converting to radical Islam is a pretty well documented pattern.

drlodge

rjsterry wrote:

Similar enough that white supremacists converting to radical Islam is a pretty well documented pattern.

Is it? I hadn't heard of this, how many have converted?

chris_bass

To start off i should caveat all of the rest of this post by saying that I think anyone can believe whatever the hell they like as long as they don't negatively affect anyone else in doing so. I'm not religious in any way and never have been - I can't get my head round how anyone believes any of it but that's probably for another day!

the difference as I see it between Islam (not Muslims! but the Ideology) and most other religions (orthodox varieties aside) is that it is the only one that claims to be the actual word of God - all the others are stories about what happened. the Koran is meant to be actually transmitted by God and is his will that everyone should follow it or go to Hell. In this respect it cannot be changed or reformed - Christianity, for example, has reformed a huge amount over the years. Judaism too. Obviously that doesn't go for all Christians but Christianity as an ideology.

So if the koran says - or someone or a scholar has interpreted it to say - being Gay is a sin, or don;t drink or kill so and so then it can't really go back on it.

luckily these days a lot of the killing and nastier bits (i'm obviously playing this down) are not followed or have been interpreted to be only at times of war or in certain circumstances which is why the vast vast majority of Muslims don't kill or do anything nasty!

But the ideology itself cannot be changed or altered to move with the times.

Back on topic - the shooter in question was trying to stop immigration generally and was against all non-white people = he wasn't actually specifically against Muslims in particular but any non-whites. He chose a mosque because they were likely to all be non-white (or the huge majority at least). Or at least i think that was his aim.


eidt - i should say i haven't read this whole thread so not sure if i'm on topic or not anymore!

kingstongraham

drlodge wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Have to agree with KG here. It's the same as after an article about a cyclist being knocked over and idiots starting about how they saw a cyclist jump a red light once, the implication being that means a completely different cyclist deserved to die. Do those people have a justifiable point or are they biased against cyclists? Pretty strong evidence for bias in my opinion.

The argument has to go back to the ideology, in this case that it's OK to jump a red light when its clearly not.

Call out the idea, not the people.

Call out Red Light Jumping

Call out the White Supremacist ideology.

Call out the Islamist Ideology.

Don't blame all people who are associated with some aspect linked to the ideology (Cyclists, white skinned people, Muslims).

What do you think you have "called out" in this thread? And why did you think it was relevant? I don't think it is red light jumping.

drlodge

KingstonGraham wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Have to agree with KG here. It's the same as after an article about a cyclist being knocked over and idiots starting about how they saw a cyclist jump a red light once, the implication being that means a completely different cyclist deserved to die. Do those people have a justifiable point or are they biased against cyclists? Pretty strong evidence for bias in my opinion.

The argument has to go back to the ideology, in this case that it's OK to jump a red light when its clearly not.

Call out the idea, not the people.

Call out Red Light Jumping

Call out the White Supremacist ideology.

Call out the Islamist Ideology.

Don't blame all people who are associated with some aspect linked to the ideology (Cyclists, white skinned people, Muslims).

What do you think you have "called out" in this thread? And why did you think it was relevant? I don't think it is red light jumping.

So many people are conflating criticism of ideas with bigotry towards people. The former is fine, the latter not, and there is a big distinction between the two but its getting lost on some people here.

surrey_commuter

Chris Bass wrote:

To start off i should caveat all of the rest of this post by saying that I think anyone can believe whatever the hell they like as long as they don't negatively affect anyone else in doing so. I'm not religious in any way and never have been - I can't get my head round how anyone believes any of it but that's probably for another day!

the difference as I see it between Islam (not Muslims! but the Ideology) and most other religions (orthodox varieties aside) is that it is the only one that claims to be the actual word of God - all the others are stories about what happened. the Koran is meant to be actually transmitted by God and is his will that everyone should follow it or go to Hell. In this respect it cannot be changed or reformed - Christianity, for example, has reformed a huge amount over the years. Judaism too. Obviously that doesn't go for all Christians but Christianity as an ideology.

So if the koran says - or someone or a scholar has interpreted it to say - being Gay is a sin, or don;t drink or kill so and so then it can't really go back on it.

luckily these days a lot of the killing and nastier bits (i'm obviously playing this down) are not followed or have been interpreted to be only at times of war or in certain circumstances which is why the vast vast majority of Muslims don't kill or do anything nasty!

But the ideology itself cannot be changed or altered to move with the times.

Back on topic - the shooter in question was trying to stop immigration generally and was against all non-white people = he wasn't actually specifically against Muslims in particular but any non-whites. He chose a mosque because they were likely to all be non-white (or the huge majority at least). Or at least i think that was his aim.


eidt - i should say i haven't read this whole thread so not sure if i'm on topic or not anymore!

why would an Australian chose to try and stop all immigration by emigrating to NZ and shooting people who were born in NZ. Am I missing something, is he of Maori descent?

drlodge

Surrey Commuter wrote:

why would an Australian chose to try and stop all immigration by emigrating to NZ and shooting people who were born in NZ. Am I missing something, is he of Maori descent?

Because he believes in a twisted ideology?