Hasidic Jew has over 2000 descendants at her death

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

Are young legally-resident European Muslims out of jobs because of labor laws, or simply because employers prefer not to hire them?

I'm not entirely sure, but I believe that it is a little bit of both.

[eion]

But let's lump them all in together. Hitler, Torquemada, Mary Tudor. All crazy, all fanatics, all EUROPEAN. We must ban European immigration at once!

Nitpick: The jury is currently out Mary Tudor. She is now in the process of being reassessed and rehabilitated by a number of scholars. It is now understood that "Bloody Mary" was not at all an accurate epitaph and that our understanding of Mary Tudor is corrupted by centuries of Protestant propaganda. See Eamon Duffy's work especially (http://www.yalebooks.co.uk/yale/display ... 0300152166).

Hitler, Torquemada, and (Inster Anglo-Nutbar Here).

-Oliver Cromwell
-Edward I
-etc

[eion]

What percent of Madrasah Dīniyyah are demanding public finance?

I have absolutely no idea. The odds are that research hasn't even been conducted to quantify such a specific figure. Though if anyone else knows where I could locate such data, it would be appreciated.

Fine, we'll limit it to the UK and the number of Madrasah Dīniyyah applying for government supplementary funding. You made a statement without any evidence to back it up. Give me something, or give up.

What special rights and privileges are European Muslims demanding

What? You mean like Islamic banks and separate Sharia courts in Britain and Sweden?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Bank_of_Britain

Does the Islamic Bank of Britain get government funding in excess of what any other private bank would get? Certification as a banking institution doesn't mean the government is running the place. Islam forbids the charging of interest (Just like some sects of Christianity), and while a quirky value, it doesn't lead to people being blown up; it's about as threatening to European culture as kosher laws and the organizations regulating them are.

There was a demand for Islamic banking, so the market developed a solution, just like there was a demand for “Sabbath modes” on appliances for observant Jews, my oven has a Sabbath mode that I’m sure took a little time to program but it doesn’t affect my life and probably added all of 2 bucks to the cost.

Sharia Law in Sweden

Sharia courts don't categorically demand for their laws to apply to non-Muslims. And in your Sweeden example, they were rightly denied the right to substitute their law for Sweeden's. Normal Sharia courts concern themselves with how people practice Islam, not punishing civil crimes. These are no more a threat than any other ecclesiastical court. People advocating for theocracies is a separate issue; they are always wrong, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindi, or Muslim.

P.S. I'm not sure how to properly dress my links. Could one of the mods fix these if they're all messed up?

BBcode Guide

and is it a small and crazy minority, or if I walked up to any Jane or John Muhammad would I get similar demands

It most certainly isn't a "small and crazy minority" in the UK, where some 85 Sharia Law courts are known to exist, and to have made such rulings as...

Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors

that no Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam and that any children of a woman who does should be taken from her until she marries a Muslim.

Further rulings, according to the report, approve polygamous marriage and enforce a woman's duty to have sex with her husband on his demand.

Oh yeah, that totally creates an atmosphere conducive to "assimilation" to Western values.

You're really using a paper with a confessed right-wing bias and a history of losing libel cases as your only source? Okay...

Again. My first college had a student court. It dealt with cases like constantly bickering roommates or repeatedly throwing people's laundry on the floor. If I didn't like their judgments I was free to appeal them, and if I found the environment so intolerable I could leave the college.

-All religions regulate who can get married and under what circumstances. So long as those rulings only apply to members of the religion, I have no problem with them.
-I see no distinction between poly and mono marriages so long as all parties enter into them willingly.
-Nor do I see the problem with a PRIVATE body advocating sexual obedience, so long as those subject to the rulings are there willingly. I know several people in 24/7 B&D lifestyles, who have “signed” all their freedom away, they entered it willingly and they can leave willingly, so I say “Have Fun.”

The same way I'd classify Ku Klux Klan marches, the Oklahoma City Bombing, and the boycotting and threats against such works such as Corpus Christi, and the Last Temptation of Christ: the acts of a fanatical and violent minority that doesn't represent the values of the greater majority.

Millions of Muslims across several nations rioting simultaneously is a "violent minority that doesn't represent the values of the greater majority?" I think you should rethink that.[/quote]


Nope, don’t think I will. Some Christians are KKK members therefore all Christians must be persecuted. That’s your reasoning. Immigrants who become criminals should be deported, but that doesn’t mean we should assume all immigrants who share their cultural heritage are likely to become criminals. Being assumed to be a criminal is more likely to encourage you to commit crimes.
Assimilation is natural. Immigrants who don’t adopt some local customs and language are unlikely to enjoy wide-spread success. If they aren’t successful, they are unlikely to exert much influence.

But let's lump them all in together. Hitler, Torquemada, Mary Tudor. All crazy, all fanatics, all EUROPEAN.

Don't forward Red Herrings. You're not fooling anyone. As I've already pointed out, this isn't a racial issue. These are objective trends which any idiot can clearly observe to be taking place in contemporary Europe.

Please show me how a few sparks are a fire. They may start one, but they aren’t one. Railing against “Muslims” and “Islamification” is going to create extremism, not discourage it. You want to integrate Muslims into European culture, them integrate yourself with the Muslims. If you seal up a barrel of apples with a few worms, the worms will eat all the good apples. You must remove the worms, not condemn the apples for harboring them.

--A crackdown on what, being brown? Worshiping a slightly different man in the sky than you? Wanting to send one's kids to a school that espouses one's values? Being allowed to wear whatever clothes one like?

How's about tougher immigration laws? Or tests which actually verify that the people being allowed into the country aren't wacky extremists?

Or hey! Here's an idea! Why don't all of these Euro nations relax their labor laws so young Muslims can actually get a job, and therefore aren't sent crying into the arms of some fundy radical at their local Mosque!

Again, immigration restrictions are only going to increase illegal immigration. Test people, fine, run every background check you want to see if they have extremist associations. But if you start asking questions like, “Do you believe women should be subservient to men?” or “Do you eat pork?” you’re going to be creating extremists rather than finding them.
Lack of labor laws hasn’t helped anyone in my state find a job, just made it easier to fire people and hire cheaper replacements.

Or the native Euros could simply pick up their birthrates. Any of these solutions would work really...

Stupid people already tend to have more babies. Stupid people are also more easily swayed by propaganda. The world doesn’t need more stupid people of any stripe.

No sane white person in the U.S. cares if your ancestors came from Italy or Ireland or Russia. We didn’t get there by forcing people to be insular, we Americanized them, and to a large extent they Americanized themselves because they wanted to be here.

Convince Muslims that the only happiness they’ll find in Europe is a paycheck, and you’ll never succeed.

P.S. I relize we're a ways off from the original topic of the thread, so if a mod wanted to split this off, I'm all for it.

[ArmorPierce]

Very well said. At least Christians have Jesus who breached peace and non-violence to temper their Old Testament sentiments.

Yeah, plenty of good that has done

[Balrog]

Right, back on the original subject...

The Hasidics are a type of Jew I'd just as soon not see reproduce like that. I'm all for freedom of belief and all that, but really, they're "Fundy Jews" and almost as bad as the Lubavitch types. For the most part they keep to themselves and don't bother anyone else, which as far as I'm concerned is good, but they insist on living in the past and don't value modern knowledge. The role of women is to pop out babies and not much else.

Hasidics do, very much, oppose homosexuality in all ways - they are Biblical literalists. There is no place in their society for anything but heterosexual marriage. They don't stone people to death in the US, but if they could get away with that punishment for men lying with men they would feel obligated as it is something handed down from their god. Even remaining a celibate single is suspect. While you don't see them on the anti-abortion picket lines they don't like that either. Birth control might be tolerated in some instances but seriously, if the role of women in their society is to produce children for the glory of god and to replace those lost in the Holocaust what do you think their overall attitude towards anything that limits offspring would be?

Yeah, I know they're against all that stuff, but the point was that they don't seem all that politically active, being insular as you noted. Hence having more of them isn't going to influence the current fundy crusade against those ideas if all they really care about is their own clique. Certainly better than if the Westboro group was sprouting a full-sized regiment from their loins.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

Fine, we'll limit it to the UK and the number of Madrasah Dīniyyah applying for government supplementary funding. You made a statement without any evidence to back it up. Give me something, or give up

No, I never made any statement on the percentage of schools which were seeking state funding. You did; most likely as a red herring to try and bog me down by having to leap through hoops.

I only stated that it was happening at all, which is completely unacceptable in any scenario where a healthy "Seperation of Church and State" is to be respected, and highlights the fact that many muslims are seeking not to integrate into general society, but actually distance themselves from it.

In any case, I still wasn't able to find much of anything on an exact "percentage" of schools which are asking for state funding. However, I was able to find a link to the following organization.

http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk/Default.asp

Their site rather explicitly states that it seeks state funding for segregated Muslim schools...

The demand for Muslim schools comes from parents who want their children a
safe environment with an Islamic ethos.Parents see Muslim schools where children can develop their Islamic Identity where they won't feel
stigmatised for being Muslims and they can feel confident about their faith.
Muslim schools are working to try to create a bridge between communities.
There is a belief among ethnic minority parens that the British schooling
does not adequatly address their cultural needs. Failing to meet this need
could result in feeling resentment among a group who already feel excluded. Setting up Muslim school is a defensive response.

State schools with monolingual teachers are not capable to teach English to bilingual Muslim children. Bilingual teachers are needed to teach English to such children along with their mother tongue. According to a number of studies, a child will not learn a second language if his first language is ignored.

Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual
Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. Muslims
have the right to educate their children in an environment that suits their
culture. This notion of "integration", actually means "assimilation", by
which people generally really mean "be more like me". That is not
multiculturalism. In Sydney, Muslims were refused to build a Muslim school,
because of a protest by the residents. Yet a year later, permission was
given for the building of a Catholic school and no protests from the
residents. This clrearly shows the blatant hypocrisy, double standards and
racism. Christians oppose Muslim schools in western countries yet build
their own religious schools.

British schooling and the British society is the home of institutional
racism. The result is that Muslim children are unable to develop
self-confidence and self-esteem, therefore, majority of them leave schools with low grades. Racism is deeply rooted in British society. Every native child is born with a gene or virus of racism, therefore, no law could change the attitudes of racism towards those who are different. It is not only the common man, even member of the royal family is involved in racism. The
father of a Pakistani office cadet who was called a "Paki" by Prince Harry
has profoundly condemned his actions. He had felt proud when he met the
Queen and the Prince of Wales at his son's passing out parade at Sandhurst
in 2006 but now felt upset after learning about the Prince's comments. Queen Victoria invited an Imam from India to teach her Urdu language. He was highly respected by the Queen but other members of the royal family had no respect for him. He was forced to go back to India. His protrait is still in
one of the royal places.

There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim pupils are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools with bilingual Muslim teachers. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.
Iftikhar Ahmad

...and that British society is fundamentally broken and seemingly desrving of contempt according to Islamic values....

Broken Britain
Britain has a broken society. This is a dark portrait but it is very true. Children are left to rot and they grew into animals. Binge drinking, drug addiction, a culture of disrespect and antisocial behavior, teenage pregnancies and abortions, knife and gun culture are part and parcel of every day life in all big city centers. The teenage pregnancies and the sheer madness of sex education teach nothing about morality. British society is suffering from unprecedented social decay and societal breakdown, according to the Children’s Society shocking evidence. Britain has more broken families than other countries. British children are rougher with each other, and live more riskily in terms of alcohol, drugs and teenage pregnancies. Britain's rate of teenage pregnancy is the highest in Western Europe. According to official figures, nearly half of all babies are now born out of wedlock. They are more likely to suffer social, mental and emotional problems. Research has revealed that migrants in Britain are more likely to have children within marriage. The teaching of sex education could not curb teenage pregnancies. Infact, it has simply increased. This is a clear indication of broken society. It is an eye opening for the Muslim community who sends their children to state schools with non-Muslim monolingual teachers.

In broken Britain, the break downs of family are ripping apart communities. According to a report, Scottish schools like English schools have become home for rapes, gun and knife culture, drug dealing, gang culture and racism. It is a horrendous portrayal of the collapse of civilized life and of human despair. Carrying weapons is becoming the norms, violence is “routine” and families are terrorized by gangs. Every parent is worried about his child being indoctrinated into the idea that gay and sexual promiscuity is “normal” modes of behavior. Homosexuality was regarded as mental illness but now blue eyed western educated elites are its defenders and promoters. The spectre of hidden epidemic of sex crimes inside Britain’s classrooms has emerged after Scotland Yard revealed there have been nearly 900 rapes or sex attacks in schools. The vast majority of victims were school children under the age of 16. As many as one in three were under 11. According to official figures, hundreds of children under the age of 12 were treated for addiction to drink and drugs.

Children are being taught that sexually transmitted diseases could be easily treated and there is no acknowledgement of the emotional harm of premature sexual activity. The truth is that more sex education and contraception are provided to children and teenagers, the more they fall pregnant. Studies have shown that access to contraception and sex education, sexual activity and conception and pregnancy rates go up. The sexual health of young Londoners is a “major public health issue” and still among the worst in the country, despite innovative projects and improvements in services.

The demand for Muslim schools comes from parents who want their children a
safe environment with an Islamic ethos. Parents see Muslim schools where children can develop their Islamic Identity where they won't feel stigmatised for being Muslims and they can feel confident about their faith. The significance and value of Muslim schools is that the Islamic religion imposed obligations of good citizenship, keeping the peace and paying taxes. While ambition of state school is to get children humping each other before they are out of primary school and giving them parenting classes when they are fourteen to help the girls cope with the babies they will have conceived at thirteen.
Iftikhar Ahmad

Satisfied?

Does the Islamic Bank of Britain get government funding in excess of what any other private bank would get?

Who cares? The simple fact of the matter is that Muslims are demanding special treatment well above and beyond what any other ethnic group would even dream of asking for, and that naive fools who have been blinded by "multi-culturalism" are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

Are there any Catholic Banks in Britain? Budhaist banks? No? Ok, so explain to me why in the Hell Muslims deserve their own banks.

Because of their kooky investing practices? Give me a break!

Its just one more example of Muslim communities intentionally trying to distance themselves from what they perceive as the "unpure" nature of the greater society they are living in.

I'm sorry, but this simply is not the behavior of an ethnic group which is looking to "assimilate" into its host culture.

Sharia courts don't categorically demand for their laws to apply to non-Muslims.

Once again, so what? That's not the issue. The simple fact of the matter is that they are trying to distance themselves from their host society, rather than assimilate.

You mentioned that the Chinese had their own schools and courts earlier, right? Well, they did that precisely so that they didn't have to deal with whites.This represents the same mentality.

The difference lies in the fact that the Islamic movement in Europe is actually fairly politcially powerful, and that they are trying to bully the state into not only accepting such arbitrary segregation, but actual perpetuate it through the use of state
institutions!

You're really using a paper with a confessed right-wing bias and a history of losing libel cases as your only source? Okay...

Oh I see...You can't refute the fact that the courts' rulings were batshit insane, so you're going to nit-pick my sources instead. Classy...

Once again, the fact of the matter remains that such measures are simply further entrenching the Muslim community's status outside of mainstream European culture. They have absolutely no right what-so-ever to their own state sanctioned religious courts.

Please show me how a few sparks are a fire. They may start one, but they aren’t one.

The simple fact of the matter here is that, even if not all Muslims agree with what I have described above, it is obvious that, at the very least, a comparably large block of the Muslim European population does.

That block is far too large, vocal, and politcially well organized for comfort.

Some Christians are KKK members therefore all Christians must be persecuted

Actually, the KKK represented the (largely unspoken) majority opinion among rural white Protestants during the 19th and early 20th century. Your analogy to the KKK is actually only hurting your case here.

It is estimated that the KKK may have had as many as 2 to 12 million active members during the 1920s, and that passive public acceptance for the organization in the South and Mid West may have been quite a bit larger.

Thats not even counting the various copy-cat organizations it spawned all over the country!

Lack of labor laws hasn’t helped anyone in my state find a job, just made it easier to fire people and hire cheaper replacements.

Generally speaking, Europe tends to run higher unemployment than the US due to its stricter labor laws. The Muslim immigrant community is hit particularly hard by this, and this has created a backlash among Muslim youths. What do you think those riots were about to begin with?

Ammending these laws could do nothing but help the situation.

Stupid people already tend to have more babies.

Well, apparently they're falling behind their quota in Europe.

The simple fact of the matter remains that, if native Europeans want to resolve this dilemma, and preserve their own political and cultural influence in their society, they're going to have to do something to make themselves a part of the solution, rather than a part of the problem.

This is either going to mean picking up their birthrates, at the very least attempting some kind of reform in their labor markets and system of entitlements, acting in some manner to regulate immigration, or some combination of the three.

The "lets sit on our hands and pretend like nothing's wrong, lalalala," approach doesn't seem to be yielding many results.

[Liberty]

In any case, I still wasn't able to find much of anything on an exact "percentage" of schools which are asking for state funding. However, I was able to find a link to the following organization.

http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk/Default.asp

Their site rather explicitly states that it seeks state funding for segregated Muslim schools...

You really think this proves your point? It's a random website! And the site's "forum" had a total of 20 threads in 2009, most of them started by the same guy, and over half of them without any replies - and, those people who did reply generally disagreed with the extreme position. There is only one thread so far from 2010. I could find you a dozen websites taking a more extreme militant fundamentalist Christian perspective in five minutes.

[Broomstick]

Very well said. At least Christians have Jesus who breached peace and non-violence to temper their Old Testament sentiments.

Yeah, plenty of good that has done

Actually, Liberty said that, NOT me - so next time don't mishandle the quote function or I will get very

very

angry.

[Liberty]

Very well said. At least Christians have Jesus who breached peace and non-violence to temper their Old Testament sentiments.

Yeah, plenty of good that has done

Actually, Liberty said that, NOT me - so next time don't mishandle the quote function or I will get very

very

angry.

And by point of explanation, I meant that at least the Christians have a text telling them to be peaceful, love everyone, etc. I'm not saying that they actually follow it, I'm just saying that at least their religion has a text that says that. My understanding is that Islam does not. This leaves moderate or liberal Muslims in an odd position while liberal Christians can simply point to their hippie Jesus.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

You really think this proves your point? It's a random website! And the site's "forum" had a total of 20 threads in 2009, most of them started by the same guy, and over half of them without any replies - and, those people who did reply generally disagreed with the extreme position.

The place seems to have died in recent years (though it does appear to have been quite a bit more active during the 2004-2006 period). However, sites like this are hardly unique, and the fact that these groups were apparently able to drum up enough support to petition the state for their own banks, schools, and courts speaks to the fact that the movement is at least somewhat sizeable.

I could find you a dozen websites taking a more extreme militant fundamentalist Christian perspective in five minutes.

Once again, why do people apparently feel the need to muddy up the discussion with pointless "Christians did it!" red herrings and misplaced allegations of racial intolerance?

Who cares if fundy Christians want to do the same things? Are they getting away with it in the same way the fundamentalist Muslims in Europe apparently are? In a word, no.

Why?

I'll tell you exactly why. It is considered to be perfectly acceptable to speak out against Christianity, but if you say one word against a movement composed of minorities (no matter how batshit insane they might be), you're labeled as being "intolerant."

[Liberty]

Who cares if fundy Christians want to do the same things? Are they getting away with it in the same way the fundamentalist Muslims in Europe apparently are? In a word, no.

Wait, I missed something. Do fundie Muslims in England actually have their own government sanctioned sharia law courts? And their own government funded fundamentalist Muslim schools? And they can stone gays now? Wow, I would've thought the media would have made a bigger fuss than it apparently did, because I definitely missed that.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

Do fundie Muslims in England actually have their own government sanctioned sharia law courts?

Yea, about 85 of them. Check the article, or even wikipedia if you want.

And their own government funded fundamentalist Muslim schools?

I don't believe so, but they are definitely pushing for it. The scary part is that some people are actually taking them seriously.

[ArmorPierce]

Actually, Liberty said that, NOT me - so next time don't mishandle the quote function or I will get very

very

angry.

Instead of acting like this you could have made a post informing of the obvious quotation error.

And by point of explanation, I meant that at least the Christians have a text telling them to be peaceful, love everyone, etc. I'm not saying that they actually follow it, I'm just saying that at least their religion has a text that says that. My understanding is that Islam does not. This leaves moderate or liberal Muslims in an odd position while liberal Christians can simply point to their hippie Jesus.

Like the bible, the koran has plenty of sections stating to be peaceful along with talking about war, cruelty, commiting atrocities etc. They are both aggressive religions that came from the same stock.

2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers

When talking about smack, people tend to leave out or ignore the addendums.

2:177 It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing.

Give to the needy

43:88 And he saith: O my Lord! Lo! these are a folk who believe not.
43:89 Then bear with them (O Muhammad) and say: Peace. But they will come to know.

Make peace with non-believers. They will know eventually (when in hell basically same thing stated by Jesus).

[Liberty]

Do fundie Muslims in England actually have their own government sanctioned sharia law courts?

Yea, about 85 of them. Check the article, or even wikipedia if you want.

Yes, and if you'd read the article yourself, you'd have noticed this:

The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

If you are a Muslim and you don't want to go through the sharia law court, you don't fucking have to.

And their own government funded fundamentalist Muslim schools?

I don't believe so, but they are definitely pushing for it. The scary part is that some people are actually taking them seriously.

But they have not attained it.

Did you know that fundamentalist Christian schools in the United States are also government funded? It's called vouchers. And yet, somehow, this country has survived.

You said you had a problem with me bringing up what Christians have done because:

Who cares if fundy Christians want to do the same things? Are they getting away with it in the same way the fundamentalist Muslims in Europe apparently are? In a word, no.

Well guess what: it appears that in this case it's the Muslims who want to do this and the fundie Christians who are getting away with it.

[eion]

Fine, we'll limit it to the UK and the number of Madrasah Dīniyyah applying for government supplementary funding. You made a statement without any evidence to back it up. Give me something, or give up

No, I never made any statement on the percentage of schools which were seeking state funding. You did; most likely as a red herring to try and bog me down by having to leap through hoops.

I only stated that it was happening at all, which is completely unacceptable in any scenario where a healthy "Separation of Church and State" is to be respected, and highlights the fact that many Muslims are seeking not to integrate into general society, but actually distance themselves from it.

Europe's stance on the Separation of Church and State is even more shaky than America's.

EU Nations with Christianity as Official State Religions:
The U.K.
Denmark
Germany
Cyprus
Finland
Greece
Romania
The Netherlands

Can you really blame Muslim parents for fearing the conversion of their children in state run schools in countries which do not recognize their faith as equal to Christianity? Their point about bilingual education may well be a valid one, too.

Why should it matter if Muslims have private schools to educate their students in their faith? Judaism and Christianity do exactly the same thing! The only thing that matters is if those schools are training people in violence (in which case those schools, and only those schools) should be investigated and prosecuted. In Europe, the state and the church are not separate, so why should the state and the mosque? If an EU country provides state funding to Christian schools, why not Muslim schools?

Does the Islamic Bank of Britain get government funding in excess of what any other private bank would get?

Who cares? The simple fact of the matter is that Muslims are demanding special treatment well above and beyond what any other ethnic group would even dream of ask for, and that naive fools who have been blinded by "multi-culturalism" are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

Are there any Catholic Banks in Britain? Budhaist banks? No? Ok, so explain to me why in the Hell Muslims deserve their own banks.

Because of their kooky investing practices? Give me a break!

Its just one more example of Muslim communities intentionally trying to distance themselves from what they perceive as the "unpure" nature of the greater society they are living in.

I'm sorry, but this simply is not the behavior of an ethnic group which is looking to "assimilate" into its host culture.

They didn't demand the government set up a special bank for them, they set up their own fucking bank to cater to their particular needs, and when then later went through the same fucking process all private banks in the U.K. go through was allowed to become a public (meaning anyone can join, even non-Muslims) bank. They could have sent all their money overseas to Islamic Banks in their countries of origin, but they decided to keep the money in country. That's a sign of assimilation; they aren't there just to work and leave, they are setting down roots.

You better ask every Jew to shut down their Kosher Certification Organizations if you plan on attacking businesses that cater to religious needs. Kosher Delis, Vegetarian Buddhist Restaurants, better shut em all down. Not to mention every Sunday School and Church thrift stotre.

Sharia courts don't categorically demand for their laws to apply to non-Muslims.

Once again, so what? That's not the issue. The simple fact of the matter is that they are trying to distance themselves from their host society, rather than assimilate.

You mentioned that the Chinese had their own schools and courts earlier, right? Well, they did that precisely so that they didn't have to deal with whites.This represents the same mentality.

No, they did it because whites didn't even consider them fucking people. Synagogues have their own courts, churches too. Better shut them down since no one is allowed to form ruling bodies to decide PRIVATE RELIGIOUS MATTERS!

The difference lies in the fact that the Islamic movement in Europe is actually fairly politcially powerful, and that they are trying bullying the state into not only accepting such arbitrary segregation, but actually perpetuating it through the use of state institutions!

Switzerland doesn't seem to have too much trouble proactively banning minarets by popular vote. Again, Christianity is the De Jure religion of Europe; I can't blame Muslims for wanting equal consideration for their religious views if Christians are given such consideration. I don't want either religion to have political sway, but so long as one does, they all deserve it.

You're really using a paper with a confessed right-wing bias and a history of losing libel cases as your only source? Okay...

Oh I see...You can't refute the fact the courts' rulings were batshit insane, so you're going to nit-pick my sources instead. Classy...

Once again, the fact of the matter remains that such measures are simply further entrenching the Muslim community's status outside of mainstream European culture. They have absolutely no right what-so-ever to their own state sanctioned religious courts.

I notice how you snipped the section after I made fun of you for using that racist toilet paper as your only citation that I stated responses to each of their rulings. In short crazy, but as long as they apply only to voluntary members, I have no problem with them. If I was a Buddhist monk, I wouldn't be allowed any meals after local noon, but so long as a Buddhist court doesn't apply that ruling in the same way civil courts do I have no problem.

Please show me how a few sparks are a fire. They may start one, but they aren’t one.

The simple fact of the matter here is that, even if not all Muslims agree with what I have described above, it is obvious that, at the very least, a comparably large block of the Muslim European population does.

This block is far too large, vocal, and politically well organized for comfort.

Whoever said government was about being comfortable? I’m not comfortable that Fred Phelps is allowed to walk around an preach whatever the crazy guy nesting in his inner ear is telling him to this week, but my freedom of speech relies on that Whack-job being allowed to say anything he wants.
But in Europe, there is no such blanket protection, so ban what you like, but don’t claim it’s for safety or the protection of children, just call it what it is: you’re uncomfortable that.

Some Christians are KKK members therefore all Christians must be persecuted

Actually, the KKK represented the (largely unspoken) majority opinion among rural white Protestants during the 19th and early 20th century. Your analogy to the KKK is actually only hurting your case here.

Fine, I'll go back to Tim McVeigh and Star Trek. Tim McVeigh loved ST:TNG (I'm really not making that up, guy was nuts for it, even loved the black guys) Is it our duty then to outlaw any assembly of Star Trek fans, ban the wearing of Star Trek costumes, the recitation of their works, and deport Patrick Stewart? Every group you might find yourself associated with has extremists amongst its membership, but outlawing the association would only create more extremists.

Lack of labor laws hasn’t helped anyone in my state find a job, just made it easier to fire people and hire cheaper replacements.

Generally speaking, Europe tends to run higher unemployment than the US due to its stricter labor laws. The Muslim immigrant community is hit particularly hard by this, and this has created a backlash among Muslim youths. What do you think those riots were about to begin with?

I have no fucking clue what the riots were about because as far as I could tell you didn't provide any dates. The French riot over stale croissants. I assumed you meant the 2006 Cartoon riots, but didn't comment because I didn't know for sure.

Ammending these laws could do nothing but help the situation.

Or it could be seen as kowtowing to those scary Muslims. What laws? Employment Protection? Discriminatory Hiring/Firing? Vacation Guarantees? No Hijab in the workplace? Give me some fucking specifics.

The simple fact of the matter remains that, if native Europeans want to resolve this dilemma, and preserve their own political and cultural influence in their society, they're going to have to do something to make themselves a part of the solution, rather than a part of the problem.

This is either going to mean picking up their birthrates, at the very least attempting some kind of reform in their labor markets and system of entitlements, acting in some manner to regulate immigration, or some combination of the three.

The "lets sit on our hands and pretend like nothing's wrong, lalalala," approach doesn't seem to be yielding many results.

They're doing anything but sitting on their hands. They're race-baiting, passing absurd laws to ban minarets, and clinging to their own state-sponsored religions in a beautiful demonstration of hypocrisy.

Yeah, get into a population race with an immigrant population, very smart. There is obviously demand for the immigration, there are obviously jobs or a desire to flee bad living conditions you can't affect either with minaret-laws.

I am not advocating doing nothing, but reactionary discrimination didn't really work against the Italians, Irish, Chinese, Russian, German, French, Spanish, or Muslims in the U.S. why would it work in Europe? Europe has a southern border more than 4 times the size of the U.S. Any law to limit crossings is only going to increase illegal crossings.
You want to see successful assimilation of brown people in Europe? Look at the Brazilian populations of Ireland. They have maintained their own culture, but all of them want to be Irish. Know what the difference is, they didn’t come with a different faith and have tangential associations with religious whack-jobs.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

Europe's stance on the Separation of Church and State is even more shaky than America's.

EU Nations with Christianity as Official State Religions:
The U.K.
Denmark
Germany
Cyprus
Finland
Greece
Romania
The Netherlands

Can you really blame Muslim parents for fearing the conversion of their children in state run schools in countries which do not recognize their faith as equal to Christianity? Their point about bilingual education may well be a valid one, too.

So which is it Eion? Is Europe the land of secularism and reason you claimed it to be earlier or is it a land of (DUN, DUN, DUN) Christian tyranny (OMG). You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

Why should it matter if Muslims have private schools to educate their students in their faith? Judaism and Christianity do exactly the same thing!

Did you just totally miss the part where they advocated basically throwing all non-Muslim students and teachers out of schools where Muslims are already in the majority so that they could have a purely segregated "Islamic environment," or are you purposely ignoring it?

If Catholics or Protestents were to propose the same (or better yet black baptists or some other similar ethnic minority/ religious minority), tell me that you wouldn't immediately begin raining down fire and brimstone upon the idea.

They didn't demand the government set up a special bank for them, they set up their own fucking bank to cater to their particular needs, and when then later went through the same fucking process all private banks in the U.K. go through was allowed to become a public (meaning anyone can join, even non-Muslims) bank.

Mind posting a source for that assertion?

In any case, if you tell me that you wouldn't mind a "Catholic Bank of America" being partially funded and controlled by the Fed, I'll concede this particular point.

However, the fact of the matter remains that such a move does not under any circumstances represent an effort to "integrate" into Western society.

Synagogues have their own courts, churches too. Better shut them down since no one is allowed to form ruling bodies to decide PRIVATE RELIGIOUS MATTERS!

Once the state intervenes, it is no longer a "private religious matter."

I notice how you snipped the section after I made fun of you for using that racist toilet paper as your only citation that I stated responses to each of their rulings.

And the source is "racist toilet paper" according to who? You?

In short crazy, but as long as they apply only to voluntary members

Once again, why do the Muslims have the right to have their own state sanctioned form of law, which in many cases blatantly contradicts the written law of England?

Besides, there are widespread allegations of abuse and intimidation within the Sharia system.

I also noticed that you ignored my points on such a system being geared away from muslim conformity within greater European society.

Whoever said government was about being comfortable?

Absolutely no one. However, any rational state should be apprehensive about allowing a massive influx of foreigners to basically establish their own miniature theocratic kingdoms within its borders. They should be particularly so when said foreigners seem to be poised to slowly but surely become the single largest political and ethnic minority on the whole continent if current trends continue.

I have no fucking clue what the riots were about because as far as I could tell you didn't provide any dates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil ... _in_France

Would it have really been so hard to look this up for yourself?

Employment Protection? Discriminatory Hiring/Firing? Vacation Guarantees? No Hijab in the workplace? Give me some fucking specifics.

How's about all of the above? It is absurdly hard to fire (and therefore hire) anyone in several European nations.

BTW, don't think that I didn't notice the hoop laying attempt you just tried to pull either. Did I ever claim to be some kind of lawyer specializing in European labor law? No.

It is perfectly acceptable for a layman to have an opinion on an issue when it should be blatantly obvious to everyone that there is a problem with the system. Take the issue of the United States' national debt for instance.

They're race-baiting, passing absurd laws to ban minarets, and clinging to their own state-sponsored religions in a beautiful demonstration of hypocrisy.

I never said that I support reactionary racism. Don't even try and spin that on me. I simply advocated more strictly regulated immigration, reforming certain elements of the economy to make Muslim integration easier, and "just saying no" to wacky fundamentalist Muslim legal and educational proposals.

Europe has a southern border more than 4 times the size of the U.S.

Which happens to be blocked by a rather sizeable inland sea in case you haven't noticed. Hopping borders isn't quite the simple matter for Muslims coming to Europe that it is for Mexicans here in the US.

Yeah, get into a population race with an immigrant population, very smart.

I never said that they should get into a population race. I simply stated that making it so that freaking 85% percent of Europe's anual population growth doesn't come from Muslim immigrants, while the native population dwindles rapidly would probably be a smart decision for native Europeans.

[CarsonPalmer]

Did they DEMAND that the state finance such institutions, and that they be allowed special rights and privileges from the state that are not granted to other citizens? I think not.

They did DEMAND that the public school curriculum be changed to accommodate Catholics. They did want public funding for Catholic schools, but they were generally busy with other things. In the 1950's and 1960's, though, they did oppose federal funding for schools unless Catholic schools were included; it Lyndon Johnson to work the compromise that got the bill through (the public schools buy enough books so that they can send them to the Catholic schools as well; as far as I now, that's still how it works today).

[hongi]

They're devoutly opposed to gay marriage, let alone gay rights in general.

Depends on the sect of Judaism, just like Christianity. Israel approved civil unions for same sex couples three years ago, which paradoxically makes it more progressive than the United States in that regard.

Well duh. That's why I was talking about fundamentalists. The fundamentalists think that gay marriage is an abomination, and they'd gleefully abolish Israel's secular nature to ban it.

[General Zod]

They're devoutly opposed to gay marriage, let alone gay rights in general.

Depends on the sect of Judaism, just like Christianity. Israel approved civil unions for same sex couples three years ago, which paradoxically makes it more progressive than the United States in that regard.

Well duh. That's why I was talking about fundamentalists. The fundamentalists think that gay marriage is an abomination, and they'd gleefully abolish Israel's secular nature to ban it.

Balrog's post wasn't specifying a sect, and your response made it sound like you were talking about Judaism in general.

[eion]

So which is it Eion? Is Europe the land of secularism and reason you claimed it to be earlier or is it a land of (DUN, DUN, DUN) Christian tyranny (OMG). You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

No, I'm recognizing nuance in a situation, shit-for-brains. Europe is becoming a de facto secular culture, but they still have Christianity as the de jure state religion. The correct number of state religions is ZERO or barring that, MANY.

Why should it matter if Muslims have private schools to educate their students in their faith? Judaism and Christianity do exactly the same thing!

Did you just totally miss the part where they advocated basically throwing all non-Muslim students and teachers out of schools where Muslims are already in the majority so that they could have a purely segregated "Islamic environment," or are you purposely ignoring it?

If Catholics or Protestents were to propose the same (or better yet black baptists or some other similar ethnic minority/ religious minority), tell me that you wouldn't immediately begin raining down fire and brimstone upon the idea.

Advocating, is that the same as getting? I forget.
I’d have serious problems if that happened in my country, but then my country has a constitutional amendment which enjoins the government from making any laws regarding the establishment of a state religion.

They didn't demand the government set up a special bank for them, they set up their own fucking bank to cater to their particular needs, and when then later went through the same fucking process all private banks in the U.K. go through was allowed to become a public (meaning anyone can join, even non-Muslims) bank.

Mind posting a source for that assertion?

IT WAS ON THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE YOU POSTED.

"It is the first British bank claiming to operate, in its entirety, according to Islamic principles.[1], although non-Muslims are also allowed to hold accounts."

"The Islamic Bank of Britain was formed by a group of investors from the Middle East to take advantage of the growing market for Sharia compliant financial services in the UK. In July 2002, consultants and advisors were employed to confirm if such type of bank was needed and if it would be accepted by the Financial Services Authority, FSA."

"By August 2004, the FSA granted authorisation of the bank [7], and subsequently led to the Islamic Bank of Britain available to the public."

Privately founded, Open to all Customers, Follows the same regulations as all other Banks. And gee, they look to be popular with Non-Muslims too:

The best savings account you've never heard of

In any case, if you tell me that you wouldn't mind a "Catholic Bank of America" being partially funded and controlled by the Fed, I'll concede this particular point.

Useless comparison. The UK has no legal division between church and state like the US does. But if they followed all the laws regarding banking, didn't discriminate against non-adherent customers, and followed workplace laws how would they be different from any other bank? There's no law that says you have to charge interest on loans.

However, the fact of the matter remains that such a move does not under any circumstances represent an effort to "integrate" into Western society.

Opening a local institution which goes out of its way to attract Non-Muslim customers and follows every regulation to the letter isn't a sign that they want to be involved in western society?

Synagogues have their own courts, churches too. Better shut them down since no one is allowed to form ruling bodies to decide PRIVATE RELIGIOUS MATTERS!

Once the state intervenes, it is no longer a "private religious matter."

As Liberty Ferall pointed out, the judgments of the Sharia are only binding if both parties submit to them. The UK basically gave them the same recognition as consensual mediation, these mediators just happen to be Muslim clerics. Two people have a dispute over a certain matter, the state doesn't really care, they say handle it amongst yourselves or we will take you to court. The People say can our teacher decide? Court says, "It's okay with me if it’s okay with both of you."

Who cares if they use Harry Potter as their source of law at that point?

I notice how you snipped the section after I made fun of you for using that racist toilet paper as your only citation that I stated responses to each of their rulings.

And the source is "racist toilet paper" according to who? You?

My opinion of that particular "publication" isn't relevant to the fact I answered each of their examples. I was just tickled you thought it was a good idea to use them in the first place rather than searching for a less controversial source.

why do the Muslims have the right to have their own state sanctioned form of law, which in many cases blatantly contradicts the written law of England?

For the same reason Synagogues have their own courts, which I'm sure the UK courts care just as much about. If the rulings only apply to voluntary members, how are they different from the Disciplinary Committee at a country club?

Besides, there are widespread allegations of abuse and intimidation within the Sharia system.

And if that's the case I'm sure one of the parties will stop agreeing to submit to the Turbulent Acres Country Club Disciplinary Committee, whoops I mean Scary Religious Tribunal, in which case the rulings carry no weight.

I also noticed that you ignored my points on such a system being geared away from muslim conformity within greater European society.

Conformity to a culture they see as bent on the annihilation of theirs? Can't imagine why they don't trust UK courts de jure subservient to the Church of England God's appointed vessel on earth, aka The Queen.

Whoever said government was about being comfortable?

Absolutely no one. However, any rational state should be apprehensive about allowing a massive influx of foreigners to basically establish their own miniature theocratic kingdoms within its borders. They should be particularly so when said foreigners seem to be poised to slowly but surely become the single largest political and ethnic minority on the whole continent if current trends continue.

Could you tell us all about the scary Muslims' big plans for Europe? Wait, let me put on my pjs for this racist bed-time story.

Seriously, if you want to ban Muslim immigration outright, fine. Whatever. They'll get in anyway and be even more insular than they are now. Let them have their own religious courts and Friday schools. In 20 years’ time their kids will want to rebel against their parents, they'll refuse to wear hijab and will eat pork and take out loans with huge interest rates. The only way to cement isolation and halt assimilation for sure is to make it into an Us vs. Them. Then you'll start seeing some bombs go off. I don't mean metaphorically.

I have no fucking clue what the riots were about because as far as I could tell you didn't provide any dates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil ... _in_France

Would it have really been so hard to look this up for yourself?

Again, the French riot over Tuesday, or so Jeremy Clarkson has led me to believe . And I'm not about to make it easy for you. Let me read this hastily posted Wikipedia page and I'll dissect your arguments momentarily.

Employment Protection? Discriminatory Hiring/Firing? Vacation Guarantees? No Hijab in the workplace? Give me some fucking specifics.

How's about all of the above? It is absurdly hard to fire (and therefore hire) anyone in several European nations.

BTW, don't think that I didn't notice the hoop laying attempt you just tried to pull either. Did I ever claim to be some kind of lawyer specializing in European labor law? No.

Thanks for falling in trap#2 though. If my faith called for me to wear an orange shirt every day, should that be denied?

Makes for good job security for those with a job though. I don't think either end of the spectrum holds the answer, but you seem to think one does.

It is perfectly acceptable for a layman to have an opinion on an issue when it should be blatantly obvious to everyone that there is a problem with the system.

Yes, but complex problems don't often have simple solutions. And simple people aren't skilled or experienced at complex solutions, so quite often the experts are right, and if they aren't the mad ramblings of the lone voice in the wilderness aren't likely to hold the solution.

Take the issue of the United States' national debt for instance.

I won't thanks, this thread has already veered quite wildly off course already. But if you want to start another one with poorly sourced information and half-arguments I'll be happy to ignore/rip it apart.

They're race-baiting, passing absurd laws to ban minarets, and clinging to their own state-sponsored religions in a beautiful demonstration of hypocrisy.

I never said that I support reactionary racism. Don't even try and spin that on me. I simply advocated more strictly regulated immigration, reforming certain elements of the economy to make Muslim integration easier, and "just saying no" to wacky fundamentalist Muslim legal and educational proposals.

Which will lead to more illegal immigration, uprisings from your "native" citizens, and more extremists and calls of hypocrisy. These problems don't have 1 day solutions, they have 20 year solutions, maybe.

Europe has a southern border more than 4 times the size of the U.S.

Which happens to be blocked by a rather sizeable inland sea in case you haven't noticed. Hopping borders isn't quite the simple matter for Muslims coming to Europe that it is for Mexicans here in the US.

I forget, have Muslims developed the boat? I was including Russia too, in case you don't verify information others provide you. And even if we only count Russia's border with the EU, that's nearly twice the size of the US/Mexico border.

Yeah, get into a population race with an immigrant population, very smart.

I never said that they should get into a population race. I simply stated that making it so that freaking 85% percent of Europe's anual population growth doesn't come from Muslim immigrants, while the native population dwindles rapidly would probably be a smart decision for native Europeans.

Quite a few European Countries follow Jus sanguinis (Right of Blood) citizenship laws, so unless you are ethnically of that country, citizenship is rather hard to come by. And if you aren't, your children might be able to get citizenship if you've had permanent residency long enough. So I doubt the Bundestag is under threat of Muslim takeover anytime soon.

[Broomstick]

Instead of acting like this you could have made a post informing of the obvious quotation error.

Mis-atributing quotes is, at best, extremely sloppy. At worst, it turns into a fight. You've been here long enough that I don't feel there's an excuse for that sort of error, other than laziness and sloppiness. I know you can do better.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

I’d have serious problems if that happened in my country, but then my country has a constitutional amendment which enjoins the government from making any laws regarding the establishment of a state religion.

Useless comparison. The UK has no legal division between church and state like the US does.

Once again, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Either something is right or it isn't. You can't say that something is always right for you, but that it doesn't apply to others. That is the relativist fallacy.

Advocating, is that the same as getting?

The fact that they were brazen enough to advocate it at all is more than bad enough.

IT WAS ON THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE YOU POSTED.

Fine. Point conceeded. I apparently didn't read it well enough.

However, I don't believe that most secular individuals would agree with your assessment of religious banking.

The UK basically gave them the same recognition as consensual mediation, these mediators just happen to be Muslim clerics. Two people have a dispute over a certain matter, the state doesn't really care, they say handle it amongst yourselves or we will take you to court.

Child custody hearings and forced marriages count as issues where the state "doesn't really care?" Are you sure about that?

Who cares if they use Harry Potter as their source of law at that point?

When someone might very well end up the victim of an honor killing due to said rulings, I believe that one might want to take issue.

I answered each of their examples

Remind me.

For the same reason Synagogues have their own courts

Ok, so summarize the powers these courts are given. Do they have power over matters of marriage, child custody, and other such issues? Are such rulings upheld by the state?

Conformity to a culture they see as bent on the annihilation of theirs?

Oh please! If we are going to go by the "well, I felt threatened" line of reasoning, why don't we just go ahead and let the Islamophobes try another holocaust? They seem to feel plenty threatened.

Could you tell us all about the scary Muslims' big plans for Europe? Wait, let me put on my pjs for this racist bed-time story.

Nah, I think that the Maronite Christian community in Lebanon could tell the story with far more conviction than I ever could. They were the majority in their nation around the turn of the century.

Guess what's happening to them now? You know, apart from becoming a minority in their own nation due to the massive influx of Palestinians from Israel over an extended period of time, having their country devastated by a fifteen year long civil war kick-started by ethnic and political tensions, and having Hezbollah and the March 8 movement assassinate their politicians left and right...

The only way to cement isolation and halt assimilation for sure is to make it into an Us vs. Them. Then you'll start seeing some bombs go off.

Read the wiki article about the French riots. Bombs are already going off.

If my faith called for me to wear an orange shirt every day, should that be denied?

I actually said that should be revoked (or at least that's what I thought I said, perhaps I misread your post).

I don't think either end of the spectrum holds the answer, but you seem to think one does.

Lol. Europe will go "laissez-faire" over its own dead body. Anyone can tell you that.

I simply meant that slightly less ridiculous labor laws couldn't hurt. Though I couldn't even begin to tell you what such laws might look like in practice.

I won't thanks, this thread has already veered quite wildly off course already

Not one for sarcasm, eh?

Which will lead to more illegal immigration, uprisings from your "native" citizens, and more extremists and calls of hypocrisy. These problems don't have 1 day solutions, they have 20 year solutions, maybe.

Riiiiiiiiiiigggghhht.....And your solution is to just let whoever the Hell knocks on the door into the country and let them take the shirt off your back if they ask for it, I take it?

As I said before, there is a difference between advocating cultural diversity and simply being foolhardy.

I forget, have Muslims developed the boat? I was including Russia too, in case you don't verify information others provide you.

Most of the radical Muslim influences in the world today are coming from the Middle East and North Africa (i.e. where most of the Muslim immigrants to Western Europe come from), not countries like Turkmenistan.

Besides, it is a Hell of a lot harder to sneak in by boat than it is to sneak in by land.

Quite a few European Countries follow Jus sanguinis (Right of Blood) citizenship laws, so unless you are ethnically of that country, citizenship is rather hard to come by.

Awesome, so now the hordes of unemployed, culturally alienated, and just plain generally pissed off Muslims inundating Europe have the honor of knowing that their country doesn't even think that they are worthy of holding a citizenship! I can't think of any way that something like that might ferment unrest and resentment!

[Samuel]

Once again, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Either something is right or it isn't. You can't say that something is always right for you, but that it doesn't apply to others. That is the relativist fallacy.

He is talking about the legal code which does vary from country to country.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

He is talking about the legal code which does vary from country to country.

Conceded. Though I still think that he's trying to play it fast and loose by having it both ways.

[eion]

Either something is right or it isn't. You can't say that something is always right for you, but that it doesn't apply to others. That is the relativist fallacy.

No, It's the difference between the law and ethics.

Advocating, is that the same as getting?

The fact that they were brazen enough to advocate it at all is more than bad enough.

However, I don't believe that most secular individuals would agree with your assessment of religious banking.

My acknowledging their right to exist doesn't mean I'd agree all banks should be like them or that I would be one of their customers. I try to avoid staying at Marriot hotels because their profits tend to end up supporting ant-gay causes, but that doesn't mean I think they can't exist so long as they follow all the laws governing hotels. How are religious-backed hotels different from religious-backed banks?

The UK basically gave them the same recognition as consensual mediation, these mediators just happen to be Muslim clerics. Two people have a dispute over a certain matter, the state doesn't really care, they say handle it amongst yourselves or we will take you to court.

Child custody hearings and forced marriages count as issues where the state "doesn't really care?" Are you sure about that?

Again, they only get jurisdiction if all parties agree to it. Do you even have any usage figures for Sharia laws in the EU?

This article seems to state the Sharia courts are mainly used for divorces where there is no UK legal marriage in the first place, so the Sharia council is trying to give women MORE rights than they would get under UK law.

Who cares if they use Harry Potter as their source of law at that point?

When someone might very well end up the victim of an honor killing due to said rulings, I believe that one might want to take issue.

Is the UK repealing murder laws to allow husbands to kill their wives if they have a note form the Sharia? Why didn't I see it in the Daily Mail? Stop slippery slopping your way out of this. These courts have no codified legal authority (meaning they cannot apply to citizens who do not submit themselves to their authority) The Sharia courts are for religious crimes where the UK courts have no authority, like failing to give a proper divorce settlement to your 3rd wife.

I answered each of their examples

Remind me.

Fuck you. Go read my previous post if you need reminding.

For the same reason Synagogues have their own courts

Ok, so summarize the powers these courts are given. Do they have power over matters of marriage, child custody, and other such issues? Are such rulings upheld by the state?

Beth din.

A beth din is required or preferred for the following matters:

-Validation of religious bills of divorce (get, pl. gittin).
-Kosher certification of restaurants and food manufacturers (Hechsher).
-Examination of shochetim and the control of the shechita inspectors
-Conversions to Judaism with at least one member of the court being a rabbi who is an expert on the laws of conversion.
-Supervising the building and maintenance of a mikvah.
-Determination of "personal status" (i.e. whether someone is a Jew according to halakha).
-The authorization and supervision of mohelim.
-Questions relating to burial practices and mourning.

They have the same legal standing as private arbiters, which is to say none unless the parties agree to it. I'm sure most if not all other religions have similar institutions. Are you done bringing up the specter of evil Muslim pseudo-courts yet?

Conformity to a culture they see as bent on the annihilation of theirs?

Oh please! If we are going to go by the "well, I felt threatened" line of reasoning, why don't we just go ahead and let the Islamophobes try another holocaust? They seem to feel plenty threatened.

Feeling threatened and being threatened are very different here in the real world. Having repressive and arbitrary laws passed against the architecture of your buildings is an example of BEING threatened. Thinking scary boogeymen are going to convert your son and rape your daughter without a single example of either happening might make you FEEL threatened, if you have the intelligence of a typical Daily Mail reader.

Could you tell us all about the scary Muslims' big plans for Europe? Wait, let me put on my pjs for this racist bed-time story.

Nah, I think that the Maronite Christian community in Lebanon could tell the story with far more conviction than I ever could. They were the majority in their nation around the turn of the century.

Guess what's happening to them now? You know, apart from becoming a minority in their own nation due to the massive influx of Palestinians from Israel over an extended period of time, having their country devastated by a fifteen year long civil war kick-started by ethnic and political tensions, and having Hezbollah and the March 8 movement assassinate their politicians left and right...

Well you got me there. Senseless slaughter of a poor Christian minority.

Wait, is Lebanon yet another example of fucking over by colonial powers through the mandate system, leaving them with a crippled government and built-in racial tensions?

And the country hasn't been fighting wars with Israel lately has it?

Oh, the president of Lebanon, has he always been a Marinonite?

Oh, and do Muslims actually have REAL political power unlike in Europe? Which might allow them fuck over the Marionites more effectively?

Lot of people got fucked over by the French and the British after World War I. Muslims, Christians, and Jews. And the British and the French did it for one reason: to keep them bickering with each other so their former colonial masters could become their current corporate masters. Don't expect me to shed a tear for Britain and France getting a little payback in the form of increased immigration from any of their war-torn still-births of a country

The only way to cement isolation and halt assimilation for sure is to make it into an Us vs. Them. Then you'll start seeing some bombs go off.

Read the wiki article about the French riots. Bombs are already going off.

Please by all means give those young men more reason to simplify the argument. Criminals should be prosecuted, but profiling innocents who associate with them is a sure way to get more criminals.

If my faith called for me to wear an orange shirt every day, should that be denied?

I actually said that should be revoked (or at least that's what I thought I said, perhaps I misread your post).

How does my wearing an orange shirt affect your life?

I don't think either end of the spectrum holds the answer, but you seem to think one does.

Lol. Europe will go "laissez-faire" over its own dead body. Anyone can tell you that.

Do you even know what that means? Laissez-faire would mean less regulation you twit. Just because the phrase is French doesn't mean it implies greater government control.

I simply meant that slightly less ridiculous labor laws couldn't hurt. Though I couldn't even begin to tell you what such laws might look like in practice

Oh good. Another one who thinks the status quo is wrong but doesn't have any fucking clue how to improve it. Line forms around the block.

Which will lead to more illegal immigration, uprisings from your "native" citizens, and more extremists and calls of hypocrisy. These problems don't have 1 day solutions, they have 20 year solutions, maybe.

Riiiiiiiiiiigggghhht.....And your solution is to just let whoever the Hell knocks on the door into the country and let them take the shirt off your back if they ask for it, I take it?

No, my solution is to fucking listen to both sides. You refuse to even acknowledge the immigrant's perspective.

As I said before, there is a difference between advocating cultural diversity and simply being foolhardy.

Cultural diversity gave me pizza, beer, whiskey, pad thai, sushi, Buddhism, and kilts. Racist isolationism hasn't really given me much except a pale complexion, two fucking craters where some nice buildings used to be, and an inability to dance. I'm in the green thanks.

I forget, have Muslims developed the boat? I was including Russia too, in case you don't verify information others provide you.

Most of the radical Muslim influences in the world today are coming from the Middle East and North Africa (i.e. where most of the Muslim immigrants to Western Europe come from), not countries like Turkmenistan.

Besides, it is a Hell of a lot harder to sneak in by boat than it is to sneak in by land.

But that part of the world has really secure borders right? It's not really easy to sneak across from there into say Russia and then into Europe, is it?

Quite a few European Countries follow Jus sanguinis (Right of Blood) citizenship laws, so unless you are ethnically of that country, citizenship is rather hard to come by.

Awesome, so now the hordes of unemployed, culturally alienated, and just plain generally pissed off Muslims inundating Europe have the honor of knowing that their country doesn't even think that they are worthy of holding a citizenship! I can't think of any way that something like that might ferment unrest and resentment!

I didn't say it was right, but your nightmare scenario has these Muslims coming over here and taking over the country. Which if they can't vote or hold elected office does seem to throw a wet blanket on their plans.