Islamisation [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

Reckless

18th August 2010, 16:00

An email I just got that I thought might provoke a bit of comment both ways Here on KB.

Its headed up "This Will Give You Cold Chills!"

But why? Because someone thinks like this or because you believe what he says??

I'll leave it to you!!

This Will Give You Cold Chills!

Geert Wilders is a Dutch Member of Parliament.

216473

In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: Who lost Europe ?'

Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands , at the Four Seasons, New York , introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem .

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe . Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem .

The Europe you know is changing.

You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe . These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe , street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe . With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden . In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.

In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.

Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.

In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya , Israel . I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe . San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France . One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.

The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines , Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan , Lebanon , and Aceh in Indonesia . Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel . It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel , they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands , 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number on policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome , Athens and Jerusalem .

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe , American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.

Please take the time to read and understand what is written here, Please send it to every free person that you know, it is so very important.

Maha

18th August 2010, 16:01

I dont have the stamina to read all that Rick but, you made that word up eh?...:shifty:

Suntoucher

18th August 2010, 16:06

Yeah I got about half way, scrolled all the way down and it hadn't ended, don't agree with any religion taking over. Everyone should work to their own devices and ignore the rest.

Wouldn't care if someone in a Burka walked down my street if someone in a Burka didn't care that any of my female friends walked down their street without.

They should be happy if they're right, they're going to their heaven, or happy if they're wrong, they're not going to hell.

Same applies to any other religion, not just Islam. Also includes vegetarianism, and basically any other opposing views on anything. Although I do find a good debate fun as long as afterwards everyone can go back to their differences without a care.

slofox

18th August 2010, 16:10

I seem to recall that Islam has come and gone like the tide in parts of Europe over quite a few centuries...

Reckless

18th August 2010, 16:16

I dont have the stamina to read all that Rick but, you made that word up eh?...:shifty:

To deep for bikers aye lol!!

I must admit I skim read it but it is thought provoking! I must be in one of my deep moods, been working really hard on someones plans for their alterations without a break since 7am so needed a break from the construction and design issues LOL!! Then I get that LOL!!!!

But hey more killing done in the name of religion than any other cause over the ages, who knows maybe the end of the world will come in the name of god? We have moved into an era where innocent women and children are now being bombed regularly and we have the weapons to actually achieve that goal.

Shit I think I need to go for a ride LOL!!!

mashman

18th August 2010, 16:26

let's just skip the boring bits and get straight down to WWIII shall we :)... funny really, this is the sort of thing that happens when society becomes too PC... give an inch, take a continent...

george formby

18th August 2010, 16:27

:mellow: I hate to say it but that is an accurate polemic about what is happening in Europe. My last couple of visits back to Blighty left me stunned at the change in people's attitudes. I have been here 16 years give or take & talking to my parents at home they almost sounded bigoted in their attitude towards British Muslim communitys. Then i started to pay attention to the news... repeated honour killings, Shariah courts, terrorist training in Mosques, vast amounts of money being stolen by immigrant beneficiaries, Muslim police officers excused duty during Ramadan etc, on it went.
The leading Muslim clerics at the end of WW1 stated after the Versailles Treaty signing that they would come back to rule the world, even if it took 100 years. ( Q: Robert Fisk )
I'm not a one for conspiracy theories but it certainly looks like Islam is on the march with medieval fanatics as the cannon fodder.
I also think Geert Wilders is equally fanatical.
Empires rise & empires fall.

Nearly time to go home, tra la la la.:yes:

aprilia_RS250

18th August 2010, 16:41

Complete fallacy. In Europe they get treated pretty much like Aborigines did in Oz in the 70s.
There has been a population spur of Muslims in Europe since mid 90s and that's all. A lot of them are from Eastern Europe, Turkey who believe in the western way of living, not like your typical rag head terrorist. Even full face veils were made illegal in France not just long ago which caused an uproar but are all now abiding.

Just because there is a population spur doesn't mean control. Soon as you get some of them in political circles, running big corporations in Europe and exerting this type of influence rather than throwing Molotov cocktails you can consider yourself safe from a religious uprising.

Oscar

18th August 2010, 16:55

Substitute "Chinese" or "Yellow Peril" for "Muslim" or "Islamic" and you get the same bigoted crap that was going on in NZ a hundred and some years ago.

Winston001

18th August 2010, 16:56

Before anyone gets too excited you need to know that Geert Wilders is a far right politician of the Party For Freedom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders

Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party said exactly the same stuff about the Jewish population.

Oscar

18th August 2010, 16:58

Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party said exactly the same stuff about the Jewish population.

Damn. That was my next post.

slofox

18th August 2010, 17:34

Nearly time to go home, tra la la la.:yes:

Bastard! I got two more hours yet...:angry:

meteor

18th August 2010, 17:49

Saw a doco about religion and race. Us white Christians are a dying breed. We're too busy working and playing on the computer to do the wild thing! We're the authors of our own demise! Fuck I'm depressed.

Oakie

18th August 2010, 17:50

I'd much rather have a Muslim family living next door to me than Geert Wilders. In fact I'd much rather have a whole Mosque full of Muslims over the fence than Mr Wilders.

imdying

18th August 2010, 19:02

Big Dave

18th August 2010, 19:04

Viva le Kebab.

Hitcher

18th August 2010, 19:04

This site's rules are that "religious discussions" shall be relegated to Pointless Drivel.

Congratulations to contributors to this thread so far. As long as the discussion remains true to the original post about the Islamisation of Europe, i.e. a political discussion, then it's OK to stay in R&R.

mattian

18th August 2010, 19:19

ac3_snow

18th August 2010, 20:04

Would you take advice from Winston Peters? :no:

gud point mate, theres always one eh. then again he may not be far off, just needs a good dose of salt.

Rogue Rider

18th August 2010, 20:09

It is quite thought provoking indeed. It's also a very prominent and deliberate strategy.
Africa was one to Islam easily this century over the Christian faith ministries as Islam followers/ muslims set up mosques and built facilities with there amassed financial wealth. They offered free education in Islamic universities to its followers and growth grew rapidly. It invested heavily and quietly grew its population and following.
Europe is obvious, so to is alot of the west. Islam like any religion aims for domination and wiping out other religions.
Islam professes to be the one true religion, and is the most intolerable of any other, and will use any force necessary to destroy it's competition. Its very easy for general followers to become fundamentalist extremists. The initial 5 books/ chapters of the Koran are pretty similar to the Torah (Holy Scriptures", and are largely based on such. The last half of the Koran becomes very pointed, intolerant, and violent towards nonacceptance to followers and compliance. Very little to no grace.
Its worth mentioning, that the historic genealogy of Islam is through the direct descendant Ishmael who was the cast out illegitimate son of Abraham. Abraham is the father of the Hebrews/ Jews and Israel the people. The promise of God was given through Abraham's first born through Sarah, his wife, who was born after Ishmael, who was born through Abraham's maid servant Hagar.
This is where the hatred stems and has stemmed for the past few thousand years. It is a blood feud which will continue throughout time until the end.

As for the take over of the world, its highly probable that Islam will continue to infiltrate, migrate and set up shop in a town or city near you. They will come in peace waving flags of grace, love and freindship, and over time will penetrate societies governing places and take positions of leadership. They will no doubt try to bend societies standards to their ways, and enforce their rules on the societies they can. Schools will change, towns and Cities will change, and laws will change.
They will do it covertly, and legally, and most will not object or confront.
They will slowly become a sleeping giant, but one with the intention to overpower, dominate and rule.
I would encourage individuals to research the Koran for themselves and form their own views.

Here is an interesting fact. In Europe, the population is falling drastically. The average family in Europe only has 1.3 children. For a population to sustain itself it must have a population ration of 2.3 -2.5 childern to surpass the mortality rate.
The average Islamic/ muslim family has a ration of 6.7-7.5 children per family.
It is also worth noting that the population of Islamic migration to Europe is over 23%, and in some countries, such as France, it is alleged that Muslims populate over a 3rd of the population.
If Islamic Muslim believers/ followers were to make up 50% of any population, imagine the control and power they would have. They unite as one, and elect there own, and adapt policy as there own.

Interesting theology, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and also the fastest growing population worldwide. If every Muslim family has 7+ children, imagine what the country will be like in 50 years. NZ isn't high on the priority list, but Islams presence is being felt. The tale of the veil, the acceptance of tolerance to the Islam ways....... Watch this space.....

Edited to remove possible infractionable materials..... Hopefully nothing untoward in here, just info formed from stats online.

emaN

18th August 2010, 20:40

Rogue Rider, you made me sigh a sigh of relief.
I'm so very thankful not all those who read this bolt for the nearest sand-pit & bury their furry lil' heads in it. It was getting rather worrying.

Islam is subtle, it is politics and it is control; yes we've seen this all before. The Islamic spin however is terribly unpleasant.

Atheist, agnostic, believer (in anything) matters not to Islam. To them we are unbelieving infidels and as such only deserve to suffer.

Islamisation is unfortunately very real and already well under way in NZ.

I can provide details of visiting speakers to Muslim youth camps who are on security watch-lists...

It beggars belief.

mattian

18th August 2010, 20:52

Islamisation is unfortunately very real and already well under way in NZ.

I seem to recall a young Adolf Hitler once espoused the same kind of rhetoric about Jews in Germany.... once upon a time.

I live in a New Zealand where all people are welcome to live here. Regardless of race or RELIGION.

Oakie

18th August 2010, 20:58

I can provide details of visiting speakers to Muslim youth camps who are on security watch-lists...

Go on then...

mattian

18th August 2010, 21:02

Go on then...

I think you've called his bluff. Very interested to hear his response, so we can all show up at their houses with pitch-forks and flaming crosses.

Reckless

18th August 2010, 21:14

Just an observation away from religion and back to basics?

IMHO if you do anything five times a day, have to do it, arrange your life around it or your life isn't full anymore. Whether it be Praying, drink, sex, drugs, thinking bad thoughts(Depression), posting on Kiwibiker even riding bikes!
Its become an obsession, it has taken you over IMHO you have become an extremist and lost rational to whatever enslaves you.
If we give these type of people political control then we are doomed, there never will be any balance, by the nature of the beast, there cannot be. If you are not in control of your thoughts Tolerance of anything other than what controls you, is wrong to you.
Not the political reality I want!!

All I can say is thank god for the Bikini thread and the NO bikini thread LOL!!!

F5 Dave

18th August 2010, 21:20

. . .
I live in a New Zealand where all people are welcome to live here. Regardless of race or RELIGION.

Yes you do & long may it continue.

But I think the point being made is that whilst we are tolerant as a people it doesn't mean that others will show the same tolerance. We have been conditioned to be PC pussies.

Maybe we don't need an army [this is how I thought when I was 20]. I don't want to fight in any war. Well in peace time, gee it's not that important. But history teaches some harsh lessons for those with short memories.

Ohh lets use your Hitler example. The Nazi's weren't that popular, or a majority in the early 30s. But a ground swell changed that & they swept into power & Anyone who wasn't a Nazi could yell "But it isn't fair" in a pitiful voice as much as they wanted.

Hitcher

18th August 2010, 21:29

If Islam is as insidious and as evil as some would make it, at what point do the forces of liberal reason, commonsense and decency rise up against it?

And what, exactly, would they be rising up against?

I would have thought that New Zealand's rednecks would be more concerned about Pacific Islanders or Chinese, and leave worrying about the Islamic peril to the Dutch rednecks.

F5 Dave

18th August 2010, 21:35

. . . , at what point do the forces of liberal reason, commonsense and decency rise up against it?. . .
Well, obviously after Austria & Poland have fallen. After all they are a long way away & we don't want any trouble.
Maybe we could sign some sort of tolerance agreement?

Hitcher

18th August 2010, 21:42

That's a great idea. Let's resurrect this topic after Austria and Poland have "fallen".

pete376403

18th August 2010, 21:43

If Islam is as insidious and as evil as some would make it, at what point do the forces of liberal reason, commonsense and decency rise up against it?

At risk of invoking Godwins, National Socialism was either ignored or tolerated until its excesses couldn't be excused any longer (ie once they invaded other countries). Thus I expect it would be with extreme islam.

I would have thought that New Zealand's rednecks would be more concerned about Pacific Islanders or Chinese, and leave worrying about the Islamic peril to the Dutch rednecks.

PI religion doesn't specify killing non-PIs. Chinese, while they probably dislike roundeyes, would rather have us as a market for their goods. Dead, we're no use.

Hitcher

18th August 2010, 21:45

Dead, we're no use.

Islam doesn't hold the patent on that fundamental truth. I don't see them killing anybody yet, apart from illegal armies of occupation.

Virago

18th August 2010, 21:46

That's a great idea. Let's resurrect this topic after Austria and Poland have "fallen".

I look forward to making my escape over the Southern Alps with my children, whilst singing Dave Dobbyn's "Loyal"...

F5 Dave

18th August 2010, 21:57

Well Dutch crazies aside, what would happen if some european counties were outbreed by their immigrants? Lets say they began to vote, after all everyone has a right to vote. At what point where they have the majority of the vote while the indigenous people split votes between the right wing racists & the tolerance for everyone liberals, do they decide that they have the numbers to demand Sharia law. That might change a few peoples living conditions. Women especially.

Nah could never happen.

Having said that look at Tehran in '79. ok not the same situation, but it did change from being a progressive nation to. . well, Iran as we know it now.

Oscar

18th August 2010, 22:05

It is quite thought provoking indeed. It's also a very prominent and deliberate strategy.
Africa was one to Islam easily this century over the Christian faith ministries as Islam followers/ muslims set up mosques and built facilities with there amassed financial wealth. They offered free education in Islamic universities to its followers and growth grew rapidly. It invested heavily and quietly grew its population and following.
Europe is obvious, so to is alot of the west. Islam like any religion aims for domination and wiping out other religions.
Islam professes to be the one true religion, and is the most intolerable of any other, and will use any force necessary to destroy it's competition. Its very easy for general followers to become fundamentalist extremists. The initial 5 books/ chapters of the Koran are pretty similar to the Torah (Holy Scriptures", and are largely based on such. The last half of the Koran becomes very pointed, intolerant, and violent towards nonacceptance to followers and compliance. Very little to no grace.
Its worth mentioning, that the historic genealogy of Islam is through the direct descendant Ishmael who was the cast out illegitimate son of Abraham. Abraham is the father of the Hebrews/ Jews and Israel the people. The promise of God was given through Abraham's first born through Sarah, his wife, who was born after Ishmael, who was born through Abraham's maid servant Hagar.
This is where the hatred stems and has stemmed for the past few thousand years. It is a blood feud which will continue throughout time until the end.

As for the take over of the world, its highly probable that Islam will continue to infiltrate, migrate and set up shop in a town or city near you. They will come in peace waving flags of grace, love and freindship, and over time will penetrate societies governing places and take positions of leadership. They will no doubt try to bend societies standards to their ways, and enforce their rules on the societies they can. Schools will change, towns and Cities will change, and laws will change.
They will do it covertly, and legally, and most will not object or confront.
They will slowly become a sleeping giant, but one with the intention to overpower, dominate and rule.
I would encourage individuals to research the Koran for themselves and form their own views.

Here is an interesting fact. In Europe, the population is falling drastically. The average family in Europe only has 1.3 children. For a population to sustain itself it must have a population ration of 2.3 -2.5 childern to surpass the mortality rate.
The average Islamic/ muslim family has a ration of 6.7-7.5 children per family.
It is also worth noting that the population of Islamic migration to Europe is over 23%, and in some countries, such as France, it is alleged that Muslims populate over a 3rd of the population.
If Islamic Muslim believers/ followers were to make up 50% of any population, imagine the control and power they would have. They unite as one, and elect there own, and adapt policy as there own.

Edited to remove possible infractionable materials..... Hopefully nothing untoward in here, just info formed from stats online.

Interesting, much of this also describes methods used by Christian Missionaries over the last few centuries.

Hitcher

18th August 2010, 22:06

Having said that look at Tehran in '79. ok not the same situation, but it did change from being a progressive nation to. . well, Iran as we know it now.

From my recollection of events in Iran in 1979, a one corrupt repressive regime was replaced by another. The Americans thought this was evil and armed and trained the country next door to cause havoc and mahem.

People forget that Islam doesn't come in one flavour. Iran has no expansionist intentions. Malaysia is pretty liberal. Moslems in the Balkans even eat pork.

Oakie

18th August 2010, 22:06

That's a great idea. Let's resurrect this topic after Austria and Poland have "fallen".

Whew! "Peace in our time".

Oscar

18th August 2010, 22:08

F5 Dave

18th August 2010, 22:10

Whew! "Peace in our time".
Haha, nicely played.

F5 Dave

18th August 2010, 22:17

From my recollection of events in Iran in 1979, a one corrupt repressive regime was replaced by another. The Americans thought this was evil and armed and trained the country next door to cause havoc and mahem.
. . .
Yeah I'm no expert on the area, but I do remember a documentary showing the difference before & after. People riding around on 750 fours, women in university, doctors etc. Then after they weren't allowed to become educated. Heck if you play your cards wrong & have sex out of marriage or get raped you could be stoned to death.

However it isn't our right to criticise other peoples cultures. If that is deemed acceptable then we shouldn't bat an eye.

pete376403

18th August 2010, 22:18

Islam doesn't hold the patent on that fundamental truth. I don't see them killing anybody yet, apart from illegal armies of occupation.
Maybe I was too obtuse.
Islam states it is expected of believers to kill infidels (ie non muslims) - a few of quotes: (there are many like this)
"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)
"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

Chinese seem to be more about making money, regardless of who they deal with. However they need live customers.

pete376403

18th August 2010, 22:20

??!! Sez who?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

Oscar

18th August 2010, 22:26

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

Thanks, but that's a little bit of a tabloid take on it.
Those are more dispute tribunals than courts (very similar to our Marae based justice) - if a complaint was taken to the police, if would have to acted on through the normal system.

In the context of Wilders little propaganda rant, you could be forgiven for assuming that Sharia law had replaced common law and there were people have hands removed and being stoned to death.

Are you also aware that an alternative Jewish system has been available for years in the UK?
British Jews, particularly the orthodox, will frequently turn to their own religious courts, the Beth Din, to resolve civil disputes, covering issues as diverse as business and divorce.

Oscar

18th August 2010, 22:28

Maybe I was too obtuse.
Islam states it is expected of believers to kill infidels (ie non muslims) - a few of quotes: (there are many like this)
"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)
"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

Chinese seem to be more about making money, regardless of who they deal with. However they need live customers.

Firstly, there are plenty of passages like that in the Bible, and do you feel obliged to follow them?

Secondly, for someone quoting Islamic texts, why don't you know that Christians are not considered infidels?

Aryaeil

18th August 2010, 22:31

Big Dave

18th August 2010, 22:44

How do we solve a problem like Virago.

pete376403

18th August 2010, 22:44

Firstly, there are plenty of passages like that in the Bible, and do you feel obliged to follow them?

Secondly, for someone quoting Islamic texts, why don't you know that Christians are not considered infidels?

I didn't, so i had a look, and you are correct (more or less)
"In the modern era, like "infidel", "Kafir" has also come to be regarded as offensive,[16] thus Muslim scholars discourage its use due to the Quran's command to use kind words.[17] It is even a punishable offense to use this term against a Jew or a Christian, under Islamic law.[16] Muslim extremists today however do tend to use the term indiscriminately in reference to all non-Muslims"

It is the extremists that seem to be the topic of this thread, so...

Winston001

18th August 2010, 22:50

IMHO if you do anything five times a day, have to do it, arrange your life around it or your life isn't full anymore.....

Ah but many Moslems don't do that at all. My doctor for one - he doesn't push people out for 5 daily prayers - in fact I doubt he bothers at all. There is a vast number of Moslems who are moderate, Westernised, and not particularly religious.

I suppose its natural we only notice the committed ones without realising Islam has existed for centuries without taking over the world. As posted above, the Moors had a good crack at Europe and despite that Spain is relentlessly catholic as is France.

Relax.

SS90

18th August 2010, 23:04

Oh Dear,

I feel there will be a backlash against my comments, but so be it.

I have lived in Central Europe going on 4 years now (on and off in the UK before that), and 29 years in NZ prior.

While I certainly do not agree with the Opening post entirely (I suggest you all down load Mein Kampf..... it's easily available, although I see a few have already made the comment that the opening quote was too much for you)

3 Years in Germany (literally the old "heartland" of Nazi Germany), Baveria, which, still, to this day holds a generations old combination of guilt (only because they lost), and dislike of "Auslanders" (outsiders).

I am not saying that ALL people in Germany have this attitude (big city's, the racist attitude is from immigrants), but old farming family's, the 1930's attitude, while subdued, is still there.

You will see no Mosque of Islam, no Temple of Juadaism, only thousands upon thousands of CATHOLIC churches, I would estimate, perhaps as many as one per 200 head of population.

You do (in larger towns, perhaps over 10,000 people) see a few "immigrants" (mainly Turkey), perhaps owning a Döner stand, but, in general, of no (obvious) religion, simply "assimilating" into Southern German life.

They pay taxes, they have friends both of German origin, as well as Turkish.

Despite the "Farmer" attitudes, they do their thing.

Austria, they are extremely unwelcome (immigration is hard for someone even of european descent), and the chances of seeing a Mosque, or any other place of worship other than Catholic are, in my opinion a million to one.

Now, on the other hand, the Netherlands.........

I travel to Antwerp a few times a year, and I can tell you I can see what this guy is talking about.

Antwerp (as any reasonable person knows) has a massive Jewish population, something you will not see in NZ.

Also, like the rest of the Netherlands, they have a (daily) increasing Islamic population, and, in driving through the city, when you get to the "old city", you see Jewish people "going about there business" (Hasidic Jew's by the way), as they have for centuries.

In the "new city" (that was rebuilt after the 2500 odd V1 and V2's the Jerries dumped on Antwerp in 1944 after they lost it to the Canadians), you see Muslim women, (admittedly with only head dress, not veils), with half a dozen kids (all of a similar age, so my guess is that they are the unwed women, taking care of children.

You NEVER see the Muslim people mixing with anyone in Antwerp, they won't give you directions, they won't even acknowledge you asked them a question. (it does not matter if you ask them in English, German, or French.....and if you live in the Belgium you speak Flemish (Dutch), German, French, AND English)

The Jewish people, in contrast, while they do hold a reputation for being "introverted", will actually talk to you.

The Netherlands is frequently in the news in Europe (almost weekly) for discovering "Yet another Muslim extremist terrorist training cell"

Here is a short over view..... I am sure if you google Islam Netherlands terrorists, you will come up with one of the latest stories.

http://www.utrechtlawreview.org/publish/articles/000004/article.pdf

It is all very well to sit back in safe old NZ and say "oh, you are a Nazi you big bad Netherlands monster", but I assure you, that if you where here, and read the papers, saw the news (In the Netherlands, you hear DAILY assaults on people (women too), by Muslim's, because, as has been said, someone was drinking Beer, in a Muslim neighborhood (usually a local), or, doing something that Mohammed does not approve of.

Am I racist? Certainly not.

If I had never lived here, I would have the same attitude as alot of people, but because I live here, and have seen for myself the difference between an "immigrant" (assimilation), and a "Settler" (A Muslim living in Europe, and acting like they are still in Durkerdurkerstan, and expect that anyone they see that is NOT a Muslim is to be punished)

Reckless

18th August 2010, 23:06

Ah but many Moslems don't do that at all. My doctor for one - he doesn't push people out for 5 daily prayers - in fact I doubt he bothers at all. There is a vast number of Moslems who are moderate, Westernised, and not particularly religious.

I suppose its natural we only notice the committed ones without realising Islam has existed for centuries without taking over the world. As posted above, the Moors had a good crack at Europe and despite that Spain is relentlessly catholic as is France.

Relax.

Agreed Winston! Islamic Religion is only an excuse for people with hidden agendas to kill people but it is the ones praying 5 times a day (or more) I'd pick that are planting the bombs.
I haven't been over there but from TV it does look like the country comes to a stop and they get out the mats a lot more than once a week?
Btw I haven't heard of an uprising by all the doctor type people against the extremists to stop the fanatics using their religion as an excuse to maim and kill. Although from what I read here the writings do make it easy for the extremists to operate?

Anyway I knew it would create interesting discussion I really don't have to strong a view on the subject other than the thoughts I have put forward.

Interesting to hear the comments from the people who have actually been to the country.

It was, after all an extreme view of the situation Vs the extremists LOL!!. Good stuff for a KB debate!

SS90

18th August 2010, 23:14

I didn't, so i had a look, and you are correct (more or less)
"In the modern era, like "infidel", "Kafir" has also come to be regarded as offensive,[16] thus Muslim scholars discourage its use due to the Quran's command to use kind words.[17] It is even a punishable offense to use this term against a Jew or a Christian, under Islamic law.[16] Muslim extremists today however do tend to use the term indiscriminately in reference to all non-Muslims"

It is the extremists that seem to be the topic of this thread, so...

I see your point, but, like in any religion the (deliberate) ambigiouty of the "books", each individual religion has provided it's "followers" (and each religion then claim that their book is "the word of (their) God, and "all other religions are wrong", also, then tell you that the "interpretation is up to the head of each church" (who, in turn gets their guidance from "God"), yet, one Islamic Follower say's "Oh, the Koran says " Use kind words"", and another says "Kill all infidels"

W T F?????????

Could it be said that the Koran (or Bible) is a deliberately ambigious document, meant to confuse the reader, thereby making the reader more susceptible to suggestions from the leaders of the Church?

How about this.

Can anyone tell me who this quote is from

But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

SS90

18th August 2010, 23:31

That's a great idea. Let's resurrect this topic after Austria and Poland have "fallen".

You know, on the news just now, due to pressure from the EU, Austria have been forced to ease up their harsh Visa restrictions on all nationals.

Trust me, it is a very difficult process in Austria.

But they also say that all immigrants under the scheme MUST speak a high level of German, and be subject to hard back ground checks and Police Inspections during the process.

They will then receive a (probationary) "ROT UND WEIß KART" (Red and white card), that (if their qualifications are accepted) will allow them to work (in certain industries).

the hardest country to get into in Europe has just been cracked!

Talk about timing!

Winston001

19th August 2010, 01:52

Can anyone tell me who this quote is from

But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Reichmarshall Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials.

marie_speeds

19th August 2010, 02:32

SS90

19th August 2010, 03:25

Reichmarshall Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials.

The scary thing is that it still holds true today.

Be it a Nazi doctrine, or a religious one.

You have a Dutch Politician preaching one racial doctrine, and a (some what larger group) a similar one.

The basic method remains the same as Göring's infamous statement.

"But after all, it is the leaders who determine policy, and it is a simple matter to drag the people along................"

The fact is it is the simple "tricks" that work, not the complicated ones.........

This is EXACTLY what the US government are doing, they have not changed the plan that Göring outlined in the slightest.

That is why it works.

SS90

19th August 2010, 03:28

My muslim next door neighbours have more bbqs and drinkies than anyone one else in the street. We occassionally join them and guess what...they talk the same shite that happens at any other "kiwi" bbq.... They're good neighbours, better in fact than that Aussie cow that lives on the other side of us

Then, quite frankly, their definitian of "Muslim" does not marry with the Koran.

I think Mohammed will have no virgins waiting for them in the afterlife.

I am sure they are great people, but, like I say, I question of you can really consider them as "Muslim"

marie_speeds

19th August 2010, 08:22

Then, quite frankly, their definitian of "Muslim" does not marry with the Koran.

I think Mohammed will have no virgins waiting for them in the afterlife.

I am sure they are great people, but, like I say, I question of you can really consider them as "Muslim"

Oh they certainly are.They are just very liberal. Which many are. Same story again the world over in any situation a few spoil it for the majority, and people learn to mistrust based on the actions of the few.

Banditbandit

19th August 2010, 08:26

Well ... Hitcher suggested it .. so here it is ...

We've done all of this stuff before. It's about time we had some new stuff to winge about. Like Islamisation...

What's the problem ? Islam is the word of Allah and who are you to disagree with God ? Lucifer ? Look what happened to that mad bastard ..

Banditbandit

19th August 2010, 08:27

Sorry people .. too early in the morning and missed reckles's thread (must drink more coffee before engaging keyboard !)

Swoop

19th August 2010, 08:49

... combination of guilt (only because they lost)
Germany didn't lose... they came second.
The french, on the other hand, lost.

Speaking of the froggies. They have had to enact several laws to keep their population from being outnumbered by muslim migrants, or at least delay that time.

SS90

19th August 2010, 09:31

Germany didn't lose... they came second.
The french, on the other hand, lost.

Speaking of the froggies. They have had to enact several laws to keep their population from being outnumbered by muslim migrants, or at least delay that time.

The funny thing is, the French are more nationalistic than any European country I can think of!

Check out the English translation of their national anthem..........

Let's go children of the fatherland,
The day of glory has arrived!
Against us tyranny's
Bloody flag is raised! (repeat)
In the countryside, do you hear
The roaring of these fierce soldiers?
They come right to our arms
To slit the throats of our sons, our friends!

Refrain

Grab your weapons, citizens!
Form your batallions!
Let us march! Let us march!
May impure blood
Water our fields!

More
La Marseillaise en français

Listen to la Marseillaise

Bastille Day article

Bastille Day online games

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This horde of slaves, traitors, plotting kings,
What do they want?
For whom these vile shackles,
These long-prepared irons? (repeat)
Frenchmen, for us, oh! what an insult!
What emotions that must excite!
It is us that they dare to consider
Returning to ancient slavery!

What! These foreign troops
Would make laws in our home!
What! These mercenary phalanxes
Would bring down our proud warriors! (repeat)
Good Lord! By chained hands
Our brows would bend beneath the yoke!
Vile despots would become
The masters of our fate!

Tremble, tyrants! and you, traitors,
The disgrace of all groups,
Tremble! Your parricidal plans
Will finally pay the price! (repeat)
Everyone is a soldier to fight you,
If they fall, our young heros,
France will make more,
Ready to battle you!

Frenchmen, as magnanimous warriors,
Bear or hold back your blows!
Spare these sad victims,
Regretfully arming against us. (repeat)
But not these bloodthirsty despots,
But not these accomplices of Bouillé,
All of these animals who, without pity,
Tear their mother's breast to pieces!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Sacred love of France,
Lead, support our avenging arms!
Liberty, beloved Liberty,
Fight with your defenders! (repeat)
Under our flags, let victory
Hasten to your manly tones!
May your dying enemies
See your triumph and our glory!

Refrain

We will enter the pit
When our elders are no longer there;
There, we will find their dust
And the traces of their virtues. (repeat)
Much less eager to outlive them
Than to share their casket,
We will have the sublime pride
Of avenging them or following them!

Reckless

19th August 2010, 12:20

Same story again the world over in any situation a few spoil it for the majority, and people learn to mistrust based on the actions of the few.

Surely then its up to the majority to rise up against the few that are giving their religion a very bad image. Even if its just more strongly publicly condemning their actions?
Look I don't even know any Muslims so I don't like or dislike them or their religion. But they are not portrayed very well publicly. They are shown to have mass prayer sessions Midday and at sunset (ish)? They are shown (at say at wake) to be out of control with grief not individually but as a mass and they are shown to have nothing but the desire to kill their own people ( and ours) in the name of god? Its very hard not to think the Iraq/muslim part of the world is not filled with complete and utter nutters?? As I say I have never been there or even know any Muslims so the jury is out for me, but the look isn't good, thats for sure!

Secondly just by coincidence I was watching Good morning over my weetbix LOL!. Guess what, they told a story about a NZ school that had two (I think) students that wanted to join and to not wear the usual school uniform and wear the Burka. The school said no the uniform was the uniform. The Education Board was into them quick smart! On the other side of the coin the girls wanted to wear pants in winter to keep warm, guess what they are still in dresses.
Did I read a post about earlier about being so politically correct we are shooting ourselves in the foot??
The worlds gone mad, Men don't face up and fight men anymore! We seem to have taken a step down in the decency scale over the last few years or maybe coverage of how we have always carried on in the world has got so much more in our faces.
Don't wanna spout doom and gloom as I'm really not that sort of person but a lot of the shit that happens out there just doesn't seem to have any rational behind it anymore??

Paul in NZ

19th August 2010, 12:28

Oh course us christians were just sooooo well behved when we invaded the world and trashed local religions etc.... The critical thing in every argument is not the colour of the religion but the seperation of religion and the state...

toycollector10

19th August 2010, 17:46

Street Gerbil

19th August 2010, 19:21

I seem to recall a young Adolf Hitler once espoused the same kind of rhetoric about Jews in Germany.... once upon a time.

I live in a New Zealand where all people are welcome to live here. Regardless of race or RELIGION.
I presume you would like to keep it that way?
You know, Lebanon once was a Christian country known officially as a "Riviera of the Middle East" and less officially "the place where you can whore and smoke all the weed you want". Guess what happened?
I am all for freedom of religion (please do not drag racial issues into this) as long it is a freedom of all religions as long as it does not turn to freedom of one religion at expense of all others.

Fatt Max

19th August 2010, 19:54

Fuck the muslims, it's the unchallenged increase in Arsenal supporters and Jenny Craig members that is pissing me off.....

Boring football and fucking diets, thats the end of societly for me mate......

SS90

19th August 2010, 20:11

This is a good thread. This slow awakening as to what's going on with Islam is now taking place. And the debate is starting worldwide. As it should.

So as Europe crumbles under the weight of Islam, hopefully Australia and New Zealand will be able to sit back and observe and learn from what we see.

I recommend Pat Condell.

Before I lived in Europe, I too would have agreed with what many people here are saying.

But what this geezer says is actually true.

You don't see it all the way back in NZ, but in Europe it is exactly as this guy puts it.

And it all has to be handled very carefully.

You cannot exactly have Germany or Austria throwing out it's Muslims, and or enacting laws to stifle their religious freedoms..... that would make them Nazi's in everyone's eyes. (well, those outside Europe anyway)..........

France is actually enacting laws to "curb" the Muslim influence, but many people here point out that when (not if) enough Muslim people can have a swing vote in Parliament (particularly Germany, but England will be first), things will change really fast......

But, it won't effect NZ, that is too far away...........:shifty:

Hitcher

19th August 2010, 20:16

You know, Lebanon once was a Christian country known officially as a "Riviera of the Middle East" and less officially "the place where you can whore and smoke all the weed you want". Guess what happened?

You're telling the story, please continue...

marie_speeds

19th August 2010, 20:32

mattian

19th August 2010, 20:40

Street Gerbil

19th August 2010, 20:50

Was that before or after the crusades?
That was right before Arafat and his thugs happened to them.

pete376403

19th August 2010, 20:54

toycollector10

19th August 2010, 20:55

My Girlfriend happens to be an Indian Muslem and I am a Christain kiwi. I would be so embarrassed if she ever read half the shit I have been reading so far on here. This place is so full of rednecks.

Ask her what a Dhimmi is then. She'll probably blush. Ask about the concept of Dhimmitude, Jizya and Taqiyya or lying to conceal the reality of or the advance Islam.

You need to do some reading or at the very least change your avatar.

mattian

19th August 2010, 21:00

Thats interesting - would you be allowed to marry without converting? (genuine question)

possibly. I have never asked her. I know my family would have no objections.

Street Gerbil

19th August 2010, 21:05

I am quite gobsmaked at some of the bigotry on here towards Islam.

My Girlfriend happens to be an Indian Muslem and I am a Christain kiwi. I would be so embarrassed if she ever read half the shit I have been reading so far on here. This place is so full of rednecks.
I am not very comfortable with PC terminology, but I will pretend to play along. The issue is not with "Islam" or even "Moslems" but what is called "Islamism" and "Islamization".
Let me explain the difference:
* Islam is a major monotheistic religion that is sufficiently fuzzy to be interpreted in many given ways. 900 years ago the rise of Islam brought about a brief golden age of theology, science, and literature.
* A moslem is a person who adheres to Islam.
* Islamism is a belief that the world should belong to Islam and other beliefs should be stamped out. Some moslems subscribe to this belief. Others do not.
* Islamization is a process of implementing Islamism. In some places it is done with fire (e.g. Lebanon, Sudan, Yemen, and G-d knows how many other places throughout the history), in others - by attrition (in Arafat's own words "the uterus is our deadliest weapon"), in yet others - by stealth (e.g. Sweden).
As long as moslem (or any other) immigrants are willing to make good on their promise to the State of NZ to become law abiding Kiwis preserving New Zealand that we know and love, rather than turn New Zealand into a beachhead for the place from which they came, I have no issue whatsoever with them. I guess that makes me a redneck and a racist too.

mattian

19th August 2010, 21:06

Ask her what a Dhimmi is then. She'll probably blush. Ask about the concept of Dhimmitude, Jizya and Taqiyya or lying to conceal the reality of or the advance Islam.

You need to do some reading or at the very least change your avatar.

Good god man. Those terms are about as relevant today as the Christian crusades of the middle ages.
You dont know anything about me, and you're telling me to do more reading????...... you truly are a judgemental fuck

PrincessBandit

19th August 2010, 21:22

Good god man. Those terms are about as relevant today as the Christian crusades of the middle ages.
You dont know anything about me, and you're telling me to do more reading????...... you truly are a judgemental fuck

Interesting first sentence in your post.

What is the harm in asking her? Are you afraid that you might upset her? Or that you will find an answer that is not to your liking? I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, simply curious.

Personally I do believe that islam is intent on worldwide domination. However, as a Christian, I can also acknowledge that Christianity too can be viewed in a pretty bad light historically. Sadly tolerance is severely lacking in fanatics of all religions.

SS90

19th August 2010, 21:25

Good god man. Those terms are about as relevant today as the Christian crusades of the middle ages.
You dont know anything about me, and you're telling me to do more reading????...... you truly are a judgemental fuck

Going by your ignorant response (the use of an expletive), I seriously question your "Christian" label.

As, I also query the fact that your girlfriend is a "Moslem".........

In my opinion (I am not alone in this) I true "Christian", or "Moslem", adhere to their respective "Bible's" (Koran).

The Koran is VERY VERY clear on "Non Moslem's", and "What to do with them"

To identify your self as belonging to ANY religion, SURELY you must adhere to that which is written in the book that your whole belief system is based on?

It would be like saying "I am a Vegetarian, but I eat Chicken", or " I don't drink alcohol, but I do drink rum on the weekend"

You cannot simply "pick and chose" what part of a religion you want too follow, and which not..... that is crazy.

You say you are a Christian, do you follow the word of the Bible, or are you simply identifying your self as one to "hedge your bets" when it comes to "Judgement day", (Unless "the Rapture" comes before that)..... Or do you chose not to follow that particular part?

Because, or course, if your day comes, and your are standing in front of the almighty, no matter how you have lived your life, you can always look in his omnipotent eyes and say "Yyyyyeeeesssss Ssssiiiiiirrrrrr, I always identified myself as a Christian, so that means I am one!"

The Koran tells clearly to Kill all "Infidels".... you sir, as a "Christan", are indeed, an "Infidel".

And that is the point of this thread.

Islamization of Europe.

The Koran tells it's followers to "Kill Infidels".....

Just because, like you identifying as a "Christian", SOME people identify as a Moslem (hedging their bets), and these same people decry their "extremist" mates for their actions, does not mean that these extremists will suddenly stop.

Please, come to Europe and see what these guys are talking about..... it is a very real situation.

mattian

19th August 2010, 21:39

Interesting first sentence in your post.

What is the harm in asking her? Are you afraid that you might upset her? Or that you will find an answer that is not to your liking? I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, simply curious.

Personally I do believe that islam is intent on worldwide domination. However, as a Christian, I can also acknowledge that Christianity too can be viewed in a pretty bad light historically. Sadly tolerance is severely lacking in fanatics of all religions.

I dont need to ask her, I know about those terms and the whole concept of SOME Islamists clandestine spread of their religion to other parts of the world. Just like the Christian Missionairies in Africa and some parts of Asia.
It is so unfortunate that the Moderate majority is drowned out by rednecks on both sides of the fence.

Its funny, in the whole time that we have been dating our respective religions have never been an issue. I find myself getting quite worked up trying to defend her culture.....haha. Think its time to get off the computer for a while....lolz

Hitcher

19th August 2010, 22:35

That was right before Arafat and his thugs happened to them.

Wrong country. Yasser Arafat was a Palestinian, not Lebanese.

Lebanon is not a "muslim" country as such. It has fallen foul of its superpower neighbour to the south on a couple of occasions. Generally the Yids aren't that respectful of their neighbours when they harbour terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Lebanon has had the shit bombed out of it on a couple of occasions, but its economy is pretty strong and it generally recovers.

Hitcher

19th August 2010, 22:42

Islamization by stealth (e.g. Sweden).

Immigration by low income people who may be muslim isn't Islamisation by stealth. The term "stealth" implies that there's some presiding intelligence or evil master plan afoot which there isn't.

Countries like Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands, France and the UK have been quite happy to accept low income people either from neighbouring states like Turkey (which is now a member of the EU and NATO) or from their previous colonial conquests. If those countries have erred it is because they allowed immigration at rates higher than can be easily assimilated.

Countries that have mature secular states should not be threatened by these advances, particularly if secularism is part of their constitution.

Reckless

19th August 2010, 23:57

If those countries have erred it is because they allowed immigration at rates higher than can be easily assimilated.

I Agree with your comments Hitch just like to point out this is also a NZ problem, we let great wads of the same nationality immigrate in very short periods of time.
I live in Howick East Auckland a really nice place and a new growth area. In some shopping areas there are not even any English signs, all Asian. A very large majority of the older people don't speak one word of English.
Asian immigration seems to have tailed off and over the last year or two its been white South African people and lots of them.
I have nothing at all against the Asian community they seem to be good clean living people and I'm very happy to live alongside them but NZ's immigration policy is one of the worst IMHO for what you say. Not their fault at all, if we moved country we would also hang out with our own kind. As NZer's do in say the gold coast.
Bloody hard not to appear be separatist if this is the situation in France etc.

Winston001

20th August 2010, 01:00

I think Mohammed will have no virgins waiting for them in the afterlife.

Just to clarify a wide-spread misunderstanding: the Quran does not say anywhere that there are 72 virgins waiting in Paradise.

In Islam there are 4 source of knowledge

1) Quran = the word of God

2) Hadith: prophets sayings and actions which elaborate on the Quran

3) Account of the life of the prophet, equivalent to the Bible

4) Scholarly writings on jurisprudence, manners, interpretations; you can say schools of thought.

Hadith number 2,562 in the collection known as the Sunan al-Tirmidhi says, "The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby."

Wives can be translated as "houri" who are pure companions most beautiful of eye.

Brian d marge

20th August 2010, 01:50

Wives can be translated as "houri" who are pure companions most beautiful of eye.

He wasnt looking at my wife when he wrote that was he

Stephen

ps was that googled or are you not just a pretty face???????

SS90

20th August 2010, 06:28

Turkey (which is now a member of the EU and NATO)

Pfffft, since when?

I don't mean to be pedantic, but Turkey is certainly NOT a current member of the EU.

While some publications (Mainly controlled by Turkey, and/or strangely enough England) would suggest "It is a done deal", IF Turkey is granted membership (and that is a big IF), it would take a minimum of 10 years for them to come on line with the "Acquis accord", which is essentially the law of the EU.

There are 35 chapters, and as far as I am aware, Turkey only complies with 2 (out of 35!)

Civil rights are a massive issue in Turkey, and only the fact that their economy is booming makes them seem like an attractive proposition (that and their geographical location for military purposes)

If they where granted membership, the reality is that millions of Turks (that currently have to under go language and special skills training if they want to emigrate to the EU, (particularly Germany)), would flood into central Europe.

This, I assure you would create a wave of anomisity akin to the 1930's in Germany.

Look what happened when Romania (how the hell did that happen, I will never know), but however, they are not in the money union (for clear reasons) made it to EU status (remember not MONEY union, there is a difference).

As soon as their passports where accepted in England, bus after bus (and still, 2 years later it is still the same) leave Romania, and, as soon as possible, become a burden on the British tax payer.

Because they can.

No Education, no prospects......... and simply move to England.... I am sure there are special clauses that restrict people from certain countries (like Romania, Poland etc) from the right to live and work in some other EU countries, but I know that England lets them come.

Great!

Countries Like England and Germany (particulary Germany) prop the whole EU thing up, with out England and/or Germany, the whole thing fails.... if you allow poor unskilled migrant workers to, almost with out restriction flood these two countries (and be permitted to receive unemployment benefits, as well as family support (every family gets €125 per child, per month, regardless of income level in Germany and Austria), you seriously undermine the integrity of the whole EU financial system.

I assure you, Germany and Austria are 2 very very attractive prospects for most European countries..... amazing social security benefits (if you work, it comes out of your (get this) 42% tax rate), but if you have no job, it's free matey, free as it gets!

Yeee haaaa!

And you get a free apartment, internet, TV (oh, sorry, only 20 channels) and so on.

If "developing" countries are allowed to dump their "dead weight" on the established countries.... I assure you, the whole thing will fail.... and my guess is England will fall first.

Swoop

20th August 2010, 08:12

Lebanon has had the shit bombed out of it on a couple of occasions, but its economy is pretty strong and it generally recovers.
They have another arse kicking coming to them in the very near future...

Reckless

20th August 2010, 08:31

Just to clarify a wide-spread misunderstanding: the Quran does not say anywhere that there are 72 virgins waiting in Paradise.

Damn you Winston!:shutup: I have to cancel my trip to Iraq now!!:bye: I was gonna join up?:innocent:

avgas

20th August 2010, 08:35

Now is this a problem with Islam.....or political correctness?

Recently went to a friends engagement party. I am a close friend of both parties, but this was a very special indian engagement type thing. He is indian (with a severe dose of kiwi), she is Canadian.

After about 5 hours of her being polite to the entire Indian suburb of New Lynn, we all shot out - grabbed some champagne, and pizza. Took it back to house and sat down having a feed, a drink and a catchup.
Not a word was said - but I could feel the eyes of others on my neck. However now she was happy - as something of her was there now. If PC had taken over - we would not have got in the door with meat pizza....let alone BEEF!
But common sense prevailed here - and all that was requested was that I took the left over pizza home with me.

So everyone who feel like they are being fucked in the arse due to some religion........ask one question - why did you bend over in the first place?

Fatt Max

20th August 2010, 08:44

possibly. I have never asked her. I know my family would have no objections.

I did, she was well up for it.....

marie_speeds

20th August 2010, 08:45

The answers quite simple don't buy any more farken kebabs....

Fatt Max

20th August 2010, 09:59

The answers quite simple don't buy any more farken kebabs....

But......but.......but......

Sheesh, donner what I'm gonna do now....

'kin muslims, they got a sauce, eh

Mind you, they cant get SKY TV where they are cos there is a Telly-Ban......

mashman

20th August 2010, 10:11

"A Saudi judge has asked several hospitals in the country whether they could damage a man's spinal cord as punishment after he was convicted of attacking another man with a cleaver and paralysing him, the brother of the victim says.

Abdul-Aziz al-Mutairi, 22, was left paralysed and subsequently lost a foot after a fight more than two years ago. He asked a judge in north-western Tabuk province to impose an equivalent punishment on his attacker under Islamic law, his brother Khaled al-Mutairi told AP by telephone from Saudi Arabia.

He said one of the hospitals, located in Tabuk, responded saying it was possible to damage the spinal cord, but the operation had to be done at a more specialised facility. Saudi newspapers reported on Thursday a second hospital in the capital, Riyadh, declined, saying it could not inflict such harm."

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/7792667/judge-considers-paralysis-punishment/

dunno wether I like the idea or not :shifty: but it certainly has merit. Something Europe might have to get used to lol...

avgas

20th August 2010, 11:01

The answers quite simple don't buy any more farken kebabs....
Cook me something better then.

george formby

20th August 2010, 11:12

This thread is about migratory changes in Europe & the paranoia, fear & debate which has stemmed from it but world wide exactly the same thing is happening, culturally more so than religion. In coming decades the good old US of A will be a predominantly Spanish speaking nation due to the constant & massive immigration from South America, (mainly Catholic with lots of kids) they are fighting a war on drugs because of this rather than a war on faith. Asia is demonstrating the largest migration in our neck of the woods, the fight here is cultural & economic. John Key has advocated the teaching of Mandarin in schools & why not? We certainly can't beat them, so might as well join them.
Like it or not, the world order is changing but Islam will not become the great oppressor. The very privileges available in Europe which the immigrants want are to a great extent against the teachings of Islam. I think more likely that in time the hard line teachings will be diluted to keep the faith in business as has happened to Christianity. Same s#!t, different name.

Oscar

20th August 2010, 11:25

Wrong country. Yasser Arafat was a Palestinian, not Lebanese.

Lebanon is not a "muslim" country as such. It has fallen foul of its superpower neighbour to the south on a couple of occasions. Generally the Yids aren't that respectful of their neighbours when they harbour terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Lebanon has had the shit bombed out of it on a couple of occasions, but its economy is pretty strong and it generally recovers.

I think he's referring to the fact that, after being kicked out of Jordan (for an attempted coup), the PLO moved to Lebanon. This was the primary reason that the Israelis invaded.

george formby

20th August 2010, 11:30

I think he's referring to the fact that, after being kicked out of Jordan (for an attempted coup), the PLO moved to Lebanon. This was the primary reason that the Israelis invaded.

Ah, Beirut. The muezzin calling the faithful to prayer with RPG's. Home to some of the finest Roman ruins in existence pre & post Christianity. 2000 years & still knocking the snot out of each other in the same ring.

Bald Eagle

20th August 2010, 11:34

2000 years & still knocking the snot out of each other in the same ring.

You'd think they could get along after all that time ...

george formby

20th August 2010, 11:35

You'd think they could get along after all that time ...

I live in hope:yes:

Oscar

20th August 2010, 11:39

Ah, Beirut. The muezzin calling the faithful to prayer with RPG's. Home to some of the finest Roman ruins in existence pre & post Christianity. 2000 years & still knocking the snot out of each other in the same ring.

To be fair, the stoush is usually started by Johnny Foreigner - Greeks, Romans, Turks, Crusaders, Arabs, French, British, Palestinians, Israelis, Americans, Syrians and lately Iranians...

MisterD

20th August 2010, 11:46

Countries that have mature secular states should not be threatened by these advances, particularly if secularism is part of their constitution.

I think only the French have that secularism in their constitution...the UK doesn't even have a single-document constitution. Both countries certainly do have huge problems with isolationist muslim communities in places like Luton and Oldham actively working to promote things like shariah law locally before pushing it on a national scale.

I don't know why, but intelligent, rational people who are happy to bag the Christians for their loony beliefs pull down the PC hatches and hide when it comes to confronting the medieval thinking of islamists (using Desert Gerbil's definition here).

Hospitals brought in sensible rules to prevent the spread of "super bugs" which included bare forearms so that cloth sleeves couldn't be a carrier of infection. The muslims complained it was "indecent" or somesuch according to their religion and got an exemption! WTF? We're going to contradict modern science and put patients lives at risk because of some religious god-bothery that we're too stupid or frightened to confront?

george formby

20th August 2010, 11:49

To be fair, the stoush is usually started by Johnny Foreigner - Greeks, Romans, Turks, Crusaders, Arabs, French, British, Palestinians, Israelis, Americans, Syrians and lately Iranians...

Exacary, the point of the thread. The to-ing & fro-ing of nations, beliefs & commerce.

General question. If you accept that their are a huge number of people being displaced around the world for whatever reason. In coming decades which will prevail, religion (take your pick) or economics (eg.Sony, Nokia, BP etc)?

Paul in NZ

20th August 2010, 12:07

Hospitals brought in sensible rules to prevent the spread of "super bugs" which included bare forearms so that cloth sleeves couldn't be a carrier of infection. The muslims complained it was "indecent" or somesuch according to their religion and got an exemption! WTF? We're going to contradict modern science and put patients lives at risk because of some religious god-bothery that we're too stupid or frightened to confront?

Yeah - that sort of stuff is just plain dumb...

While there are people who won't accept blood transfusions because of religious beliefs it is only their own lives (or their childrens) they risk... The answer is to provide a seperate facility but - whos going to pay for that????

Sigh - I give up... Let the mouth foaming radicals on both sides have the bloody lot, I'm finishing my spaceship in the back yard and then I'm outta here...

Reckless

20th August 2010, 12:10

Well we got to 100 posts without the thread turning to a shit fight!!

Very mature! Congrats to all Kiwibikers LOL!!! :innocent:

Paul in NZ

20th August 2010, 12:26

Well we got to 100 posts without the thread turning to a shit fight!!

Very mature! Congrats to all Kiwibikers LOL!!! :innocent:

How dare you congratulate anyone during the lunar solstice of the camshaft goddess's third moon you heathen overheadcamshaft worshiping swine - Its highly insulting to all us Pushrodians. I declare an unholy war upon your unnatural valve operation system ....

mashman

20th August 2010, 12:26

General question. If you accept that their are a huge number of people being displaced around the world for whatever reason. In coming decades which will prevail, religion (take your pick) or economics (eg.Sony, Nokia, BP etc)?

Can I choose the military :)

Paul in NZ

20th August 2010, 12:30

Can I choose the military :)

I'm picking bad taste and uncertain personal hygiene....

imdying

20th August 2010, 12:42

How dare you congratulate anyone during the lunar solstice of the camshaft goddess's third moon you heathen overheadcamshaft worshiping swine - Its highly insulting to all us Pushrodians. I declare an unholy war upon your unnatural valve operation system ....Psssh... the vile blasphemy that spits from your unclean pie hole will only hasten your valve actuations untimely death! Bow before the might of the 2 stroke camshaftian... get an RS250 and REPENT!

:laugh: This could be kinda fun... we should definitely start a cult of the camshaft

F5 Dave

20th August 2010, 12:49

Paul in NZ

20th August 2010, 12:51

Psssh... the vile blasphemy that spits from your unclean pie hole will only hasten your valve actuations untimely death! Bow before the might of the 2 stroke camshaftian... get an RS250 and REPENT!

:laugh: This could be kinda fun... we should definitely start a cult of the camshaft

FUN? If there is one perversion all right thinking motorcyclists cannot tolerate it is the total lack of a camshaft. The motorcycle gods hate a void and yours is surely filled with evil, the manifestation of which is the blue clouds of satan's breath that follow your foul familiar as it goes about its perverted path. Truely, with one hand on the 1970 Triumph 650 workshop manual I vomit on your expansion chamber you befouller of the pure petroleum spirit. It is the unholy mixing of petrol and oil that condems you foul one - begone from this board and take your un natural practises with you before I smite you with the rattly tappet of destiny...

Paul N - Low Priest of the Pushrod Cult

Paul in NZ

20th August 2010, 12:52

Yeah - it is kinda fun eh - wonder how long before we get into trouble....

F5 Dave

20th August 2010, 12:58

. . .
Hadith number 2,562 in the collection known as the Sunan al-Tirmidhi says, "The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby."
. . . .
Sorry I am not very educated in this matter, but just doing a bit of maths. . .so for every chap in Muslim heaven there are at least 80,072 hangers on who have managed to get their tickets stamped for free?

Sounds like it might get a mite crowded.

+ surely if these other people weren't Muslims they must be Infidels?

So Muslim heaven is packed to the gunnels with Infidels? :blink:

Who worked this out?

Bald Eagle

20th August 2010, 13:01

Swoop

20th August 2010, 14:12

To be fair, the stoush is usually started by Johnny Foreigner - and lately Iranians...
Hmmm.
A country helping other countries... terrorist training camps.

avgas

20th August 2010, 14:20

avgas

20th August 2010, 14:21

The same people who bring you the Harley Davidson
The Chinese???????????

F5 Dave

20th August 2010, 14:30

So I was pondering as I was out for a lunchtime walk. . . (and periodically having to stop & bend over double laughing)

I mean the first thing that obviously comes up is What the heck would you do with 72 wives?
-Sure buddy.
Nah you'd spend your time stopping them fighting about the colour of the drapes in the west wing vs the ones that want vertical blinds anyway.

But more importantly what the heck do you do to keep 80,000 servants occupied? "Um, yeah, can, say. . . All of you,. . . pop up the the dairy & get me a pack of Benson & Hedgehogs please?" [assembled masses YES MASTER, AT ONCE MASTER]

I suppose you could declare war on your neighbour & fight the servants just for kicks. If you were game, you'd have horse traded a few extra wives for a few extra phalanxs of servants to gain numbers superiority. :2guns:

But I suppose in the end you & a bunch of yer mates would sit around harking back to when Muslim heaven was only for muslims.

Before all this Infidelization. :shutup:

Oscar

20th August 2010, 15:07

Exacary, the point of the thread. The to-ing & fro-ing of nations, beliefs & commerce.

General question. If you accept that their are a huge number of people being displaced around the world for whatever reason. In coming decades which will prevail, religion (take your pick) or economics (eg.Sony, Nokia, BP etc)?

Economics (aka money, wealth, riches, treasure) or land.
It always has, even when the fight was ostensibly about religion or what have you, the underlying cause was usually either wealth or occupation of land.

F5 Dave

20th August 2010, 15:31

cold comfort

20th August 2010, 17:03

ahhhh..... the never ending religous debate.

If anybody has ever bothered to read the Quran they will realise that Islam and Christanity are almost exactly the same. They share the same stories and beliefs about Moses and Jesus.
Its just unfortunate that a fundamentalist minority of each group has to make us all fear the whole group because of their radical views.
There are MORE things in common with both religions than there are differences so, its fucking absurd that we should not all get along.

If you have read the Quran you will be aware of the chronology and blending of Sura's whereby the call to deal with apostates and non-believers supersede the peaceful writings.
I have lived in Saudi where you can pop down to the square and see people getting bits lopped off for their transgression under sharia law and had friends attacked by the religious police. I have heard directly from many Brits who have left England to escape the tyranny of Islamic neighborhoods and freedoms being extinguished by local bodies so has not to offend the Muslims. It is all too easy to write off these warnings as the rantings of right wing pollies but ironically they do so when others are too scared to speak out for fear of being labeled racist in our PC society. Try living in an Islamic country-they are not PC and don't give a shit about YOUR rights or beliefs. "The price of freedom IS eternal vigilance"

blue109

20th August 2010, 17:22

Do the badass Muslims have bike gangs ? no they all ride around in hilux utes, all bang no balls. I don't think they have many comedians either, they are a strange bunch, if they called the shots we would all be in bored shitless on friday nights. So go to church, have babies and be nice to Jews! :innocent:

Berries

20th August 2010, 17:39

And eat more bacon.

Do the badass Muslims have bike gangs ?
Mad Mullah MC ?
Heavens Virgins ?
The Mullah Mob ?

toycollector10

20th August 2010, 17:40

No one is ever going to change any other persons mind on a forum like this.

But. Would we have been having this debate pre 9/11? The buses of 7/7 in the UK. Geert Wilders. Theo Van Gogh. The Shoe Bomber. It just goes on and on and on.

At one end of the scale are the Taliban and all the madness of honour killings and stonings and sharia law. And unfortunately at the other end are all the moderate mum and dad Muslims keeping their heads down. They're forbidden by their book to criticize. Or leave the faith, on pain of death.

And of course they all hate each other as well. The Sunnis, Shiites, Bathists, Wahhabis and who knows how many other minor sects are blowing each other up in their markets and mosques on a regular basis with Allah firmly in their hearts..

I read in the press about the flooding in Pakistan. I feel sorry for the women and children. Of note, of course, was that only one Muslim state had contributed money for supplies and that was Saudi Arabia. One lousy million USD.

How pathetic and it just proves my point above about mutual hatred for not following the one true sacred bloody path.

And by the way, I'm not a Christian, I'm an Atheist and will criticize both religions given the chance.

Berries

20th August 2010, 19:43

And unfortunately at the other end are all the moderate mum and dad Muslims keeping their heads down. They're forbidden by their book to criticize. Or leave the faith, on pain of death.
I don't believe in religion myself, and I really can't understand why people would willingly subscribe to something where that is the case. I know 1.5 billion people can't be wrong, but it seems more like a cult to me. Which in the end I guess they all are.

Rogue Rider

20th August 2010, 19:57

I mean the first thing that obviously comes up is What the heck would you do with 72 wives? [/QUOTE]

Here's an interesting thought, According to the Torah, which is the foundation chapters of the Bible and the Koran, we are created in the image of God. This being so, it also clarifies in both that God is genderless......

Now if our spirits in the afterlife are genderless, then all be it they do not mate, and thence forth they have no organs aside from the ones they both have.
What the hell good is that unless your gay lol.... and especially what good is 70 odd virgins, thats a tease and a fraud put in there by a cult leader branding himself as a god himself..........
Most of the wars in the past and today, well ok all of them, are largely over religion....... Religion is fundamentally changed by human revelation and greed claiming each is the only true way...... Some must be wrong? or are they all right?
I understand the foundation of "God believing" dates to the beginning of human existance, it's just interesting that its changed from love to hatred through the ages.......

I am a believer in God myself, but I have trouble with Islam, even though the Koran teaches from the same initial law as the Bible, and it is supposedly the same God.

pete376403

20th August 2010, 20:41

And eat more bacon.

Mad Mullah MC ?
Heavens Virgins ?
The Mullah Mob ?

Jahannams Angels M/C

Brian d marge

21st August 2010, 01:30

Sorry I am not very educated in this matter, but just doing a bit of maths. . .so for every chap in Muslim heaven there are at least 80,072 hangers on who have managed to get their tickets stamped for free?

Sounds like it might get a mite crowded.

+ surely if these other people weren't Muslims they must be Infidels?

So Muslim heaven is packed to the gunnels with Infidels? :blink:

Who worked this out?

I had a quick check for number of suicide bombers , since 1980 odd there has been about 2000
So , thats about 160 million servents and a large number of unshaggable wo-men up there ( must be unshagable or they wouldnt be virgins )

that's since 1980,

Stephen

meteor

21st August 2010, 07:24

.... suicide bombers , since 1980 odd there has been about 2000...

Suicide bombers aren't new in history... look at the Kamikaze pilots. Oh wait, they were just Asian drivers in planes were't they... my mistake, as you were.

F5 Dave

21st August 2010, 18:50

I had a quick check for number of suicide bombers , since 1980 odd there has been about 2000
So , thats about 160 million servents and a large number of unshaggable wo-men up there ( must be unshagable or they wouldnt be virgins )

that's since 1980,

Stephen
So is it only suicide bombers that get the 80,000 servants & 72 wives?
Well either way they must have run out of virgins & manservants a while back & you'd have quite a heap of pretty pissed off Suicide bombers.

I mean as a demographic to have in your midst & be disgruntled, well you'd be pushed to find a worse one huh?:shutup:

emaN

21st August 2010, 20:27

I've not checked this thread since my first post a few days ago.
I found a cute lil' red thing on my UCP which appears to be a red rep; being my first, I'm assuming this is what it is. Not bad, nearly took 5yrs.
I've posted some 'hairy' stuff on KB, notably the RR thread, and never once incited anyone to dish out a red rep; rather, we discussed, apologised if need be & moved on. Of course, this implies adult-ish behaviour, and at least an elementary form of communication skills.

Mattian doesn't appear to possess these. His subsequent posts on this thread have proven his downfall. A 'true' follower of the prophet Muhammed could never yoke themselves with a 'true' follower of The Christ, as has already been sufficiently outlined.

Should anyone be genuinely interested in names of visiting speakers (ie, no, you won't be able to throw molotovs at 'em) well known to Immigration and on global watch-lists, feel free to PM me.

Why? Purely 'cos I get the feeling there's rubber-necking going on in the thread now. Why do I get this feeling? There's been some incredibly accurate & valid posts written here, by people living in Europe now, that have been overlooked and barely (if at all) acknowledged.

We ignore the warnings at our peril.

Islamization is purpose driven & violent. Remove the distracting 'side dishes', look under the 'pretty' & harmless looking lettuce leaf & check out what lies under it.

Please don't forget, NZ is not as far from Europe (or Islamic countries!) as it once was.

One more thing, if I may; research for yourselves the true meaning of 'tolerant', 'tolerance' and decide for yourselves if they are correctly used in the media these days.

pritch

21st August 2010, 20:48

I think some hereabout need to read more?

In France the ghettoisation (new word) of muslims was Government policy. Some of the affected areas are basically Police no-go areas. An almost identical situation exists in parts of Britain but it was not official policy. Many muslims there just did not assimilate.

The British Labour Government had a policy of devolution, but that got put on the back burner when they realised that an election could result in a green flag being hoisted over the town hall somewhere like Bradford. The idea that the following Friday hands might be lopped off in the town square did not appeal.

The muslim bombers were British born. If they were in a sports team they'd have been described as English. They don't identify themselves as British however, rather as muslims.

Malaysia has been described as "moderate", I have it on good authority that it's a lot less moderate than it was. This from guys who lived there when I lived there, but who, unlike me, have been back subsequently.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do believe there is a problem. My preference would be for the problem to be somewhere else. If that makes me a redneck so be it. My impression though is that the people using that word are doing the Alfred E Neuman thing,
"Problem? What problem?"

Berries

21st August 2010, 21:44

Malaysia has been described as "moderate", I have it on good authority that it's a lot less moderate than it was. This from guys who lived there when I lived there, but who, unlike me, have been back subsequently.
I spent a bit of time in Borneo a few years back. I remember one story in the Kinabalu paper about three local girls being punished by whipping for dancing lewdly with Westerners. Saying that it seemed a bit harsh would be an understatement.

Banditbandit

25th August 2010, 14:37

Well Dutch crazies aside, what would happen if some european counties were outbreed by their immigrants?
Nah could never happen.

Err ... didn't that happen in Godzone 150 years ago ?

I Agree with your comments Hitch just like to point out this is also a NZ problem, we let great wads of the same nationality immigrate in very short periods of time.
... but NZ's immigration policy is one of the worst IMHO for what you say.

Errr .. yes. Definitely 150 years ago ...

So what's changed ?

Clockwork

25th August 2010, 14:42

They did a lot of things 150 years ago that we no longer thing were a good idea!

R-Soul

25th August 2010, 15:37

I seem to recall that Islam has come and gone like the tide in parts of Europe over quite a few centuries...

Surely you can't be that old!

R-Soul

25th August 2010, 15:46

At risk of invoking Godwins, National Socialism was either ignored or tolerated until its excesses couldn't be excused any longer (ie once they invaded other countries). Thus I expect it would be with extreme islam.

Interestingly enough, it is not the extremist islamists that have been doing the invading of copuntries recently... so lets keep things real here...

Banditbandit

25th August 2010, 15:59

They did a lot of things 150 years ago that we no longer thing were a good idea!

Yeah .. like what ? Taking over someone else's country ? Yeah right ..

R-Soul

25th August 2010, 16:12

Maybe I was too obtuse.
Islam states it is expected of believers to kill infidels (ie non muslims) - a few of quotes: (there are many like this)
"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)
"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

well since Christians and Jews worship the same God, that rules out most of the world as their next target....

R-Soul

25th August 2010, 16:34

Btw I haven't heard of an uprising by all the doctor type people against the extremists to stop the fanatics using their religion as an excuse to maim and kill. Although from what I read here the writings do make it easy for the extremists to operate?

well I dont see too many christians doing an uprising and stopping those American fanatics from destroying peples lives in countries that have bugger all to do with them either...

the fact is that moderates cannot be relied upon to do anything other than go upon their daily lives and try and get along - hence the term "moderate"

R-Soul

25th August 2010, 16:38

How about this.

Can anyone tell me who this quote is from

But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

From documents that "do not officially exist" at the heart of the pentagon?

R-Soul

25th August 2010, 16:43

Surely then its up to the majority to rise up against the few that are giving their religion a very bad image. Even if its just more strongly publicly condemning their actions?

so why aren't you throwing rocks at Americans? Whats your excuse?

R-Soul

25th August 2010, 17:13

But they are not portrayed very well publicly.

Well thats because videos of normal muslims going about normal dy to day stuff would be quite boring wouldn'tit?

They are shown to have mass prayer sessions Midday and at sunset (ish)?
How awful of them! Nearly as bad as not eating fish on a Friday!!

They are shown (at say at wake) to be out of control with grief not individually but as a mass

The specific circumstances of Iraq - notably high poverty of (especially) subsistence farmers tryng to scarth an existence out of the desert - mean that people are VERY community based. A person living in a slum shack township in South Africa put it into perspective for me. He said "One day, they dont have money, and we feed their children, the next day, we dont have money and they feed ours." When a person in a community dies, it has a large effect on all.

Also, when a US "smart bomb" happens to wipe out an entire wedding party, or the whole fucking market place - you can hardly blame the poor cunts for feeling grief "as a mass", can you? Jeez have you no imaginaton of what they must be going through? can you really not put yourself in their position and see through their eyes, and feel what they would feel?

and they are shown to have nothing but the desire to kill their own people ( and ours) in the name of god?

I tell you this: If a foreign power (or anyone for that matter- including my own government) had to wipe out my family and my existence on a scale that has been happening willy-nilly in Iraq on a daily basis, I would not rest until I had inflicted a similar misery on those that caused it. Revenge is a fairly natural human emotion. They claim its in the name of God - and maybe it is in the name of fairness and justice (which strangely enough equates with God to them?)

Its very hard not to think the Iraq/muslim part of the world is not filled with complete and utter nutters?? As I say I have never been there or even know any Muslims so the jury is out for me, but the look isn't good, thats for sure!

I also believe that the sensationalist taboid press has a lot to answer for. If you had to go according to some news reports, you would say tht 80% of muslims are all suicide bombers.

Meanwhile, ther are probably a group of about 20 desperate miserable individuals (that have probably had their lives and families forcibly removed from them by fuckups as described above) worldwide that would be willing to do this, maybe 2% of islamic followers that can be regarded as being fundamentalist in nature, and 98% (of some 1,2 BILLION people according to wikipedia) that just get on with their daily lives with no fuss and tolerance of others.

Your statements are sweeping in the extreme (ridiculously so).

Reckless

25th August 2010, 18:19

so why aren't you throwing rocks at Americans? Whats your excuse?
I'm not throwing rocks at any one and was very careful not to do so?

Your statements are sweeping in the extreme (ridiculously so).

What like this??

Look I don't even know any Muslims so I don't like or dislike them or their religion. .

I made no statements, all my posts where observations put out for comment and where generally started with "they are portrayed as" or "they are shown to". Which is true, our media does not create a very good image of the situation over there. A lot of your responses are very valid and I agree with some of your points.
They can have mass prayer sessions and eat fish any day they want and I never said what they did was aweful as you imply? to twist my words and meaning in that way is just bullshit. That particular portion of your post was way out of context.

I could go through a lot of peoples posts on KB and pull out individual lines and ignore ones like this
Anyway I knew it would create interesting discussion I really don't have to strong a view on the subject and create an image other than what was intended.

Here's another one but it doesn't support the case your trying to present

As I say I have never been there or even know any Muslims so the jury is out for me,?

Where you having a bad night??

Rogue Rider

25th August 2010, 19:00

well since Christians and Jews worship the same God, that rules out most of the world as their next target....

Islam is formed on the Torah which is the same book as the original Bible, thence one would have to argue they worship the same God, but the Prophets have differing ideologies....... Why can't people just agree to disagree and live in harmony...... cause blowin each other up is soooo much fun.......... Sad very sad.

I don't call myself or profess to be a "Christian" I do on the other hand believe in God, and that Christ did his work and wonders. I leave the rest for personal revelation. The Torah and Koran have some great teachings, but like any, they can be taken out of context, manipulated and contorted to the wim of any extremist.
I only hope that NZ will keep right out of the spotlight and stay an awesome holiday destination/ paradise.

pete376403

25th August 2010, 20:49

Interestingly enough, it is not the extremist islamists that have been doing the invading of copuntries recently... so lets keep things real here...

'Spose it depends how you define invading. In the usual sense, by force of arms, Islamists haven't invaded lately, but if you consider mass immigration as a form of invasion by stealth, then yep, they're invading.

Oscar

25th August 2010, 21:36

'Spose it depends how you define invading. In the usual sense, by force of arms, Islamists haven't invaded lately, but if you consider mass immigration as a form of invasion by stealth, then yep, they're invading.

Bullshit
How many have we let in over the last ten years?
5,000?

You don't invade with 5,000 refugees.
These people are running from hard line regimes and some are in fear of their life, and you say they're invading?
You're a real prince...

avgas

25th August 2010, 21:59

They did a lot of things 150 years ago that we no longer thing were a good idea!
Pretty much any nation in the world has that against them.
We should be so thank-full that there are not French or American concessions in NZ.

SS90

25th August 2010, 22:14

Bullshit
How many have we let in over the last ten years?
5,000?

You don't invade with 5,000 refugees.
These people are running from hard line regimes and some are in fear of their life, and you say they're invading?
You're a real prince...

As long as they assimilate into the NZ culture (my experience is that Somalian refugees do not assimilate for example), I have no problem

I am 33 years old, and I can remember when I was 6 or 7, starting to notice more and more Indian immigration to NZ.

Basically, I grew up with, and went to school with a small percentage of these children.

They spoke with the same dialect as me and my "natural Kiwi mates", had the same sense of humor, the only difference was that (oddly enough) their mum and dad owned the local dairy, when you went to their house for dinner it was vegetarian curry, and they had darker skin that the darkest of your Maori mates.

They where, born in NZ, and I always feel a little jealous that they had a rich culture, and our Kiwi culture is that we "have no culture" (we actually don't, compared to almost every other nation)

The key to this is "does a group of immigrants assimilate, or separate?"

I believe, no matter what the back ground of a group of immigrants, if they show a willingness to become part of NZ, generally speaking, they do become accepted, quickly.

For example, if you invite your new neighbor (of middle eastern decent) to a BBQ, and their answer is "No thanks, it's the fast of 1000 Virgins", then you sure as shit are not going to invite them again, are you.... However, if they say "sure, I would love to come, but it is the fast of 1000 virgins, and my family and I will not be able to consume any food, and, by the way, we don't drink alcohol any way, but we will see you and 7pm", then, in reality, they are compromising and showing their willingness to accept that they live in secular NZ.

I am all for an education class for all immigrants coming to NZ, that identify as a Muslum, encouraging them to act in such a way.

They would not be so tolerant if it was the other way round!

emaN

25th August 2010, 22:21

They would not be so tolerant if it was the other way round!

Ain't that the truth!
Try setting up a church over "there" & keeping all your digits and/or limbs intact, let alone holding onto your life!

Oscar

25th August 2010, 22:23

As long as they assimilate into the NZ culture (my experience is that Somalian refugees do not assimilate for example), I have no problem

I am 33 years old, and I can remember when I was 6 or 7, starting to notice more and more Indian immigration to NZ.

Basically, I grew up with, and went to school with a small percentage of these children.

They spoke with the same dialect as me and my "natural Kiwi mates", had the same sense of humor, the only difference was that (oddly enough) their mum and dad owned the local dairy, when you went to their house for dinner it was vegetarian curry, and they had darker skin that the darkest of your Maori mates.

They where, born in NZ, and I always feel a little jealous that they had a rich culture, and our Kiwi culture is that we "have no culture" (we actually don't, compared to almost every other nation)

The key to this is "does a group of immigrants assimilate, or separate?"

I believe, no matter what the back ground of a group of immigrants, if they show a willingness to become part of NZ, generally speaking, they do become accepted, quickly.

For example, if you invite your new neighbor (of middle eastern decent) to a BBQ, and their answer is "No thanks, it's the fast of 1000 Virgins", then you sure as shit are not going to invite them again, are you.... However, if they say "sure, I would love to come, but it is the fast of 1000 virgins, and my family and I will not be able to consume any food, and, by the way, we don't drink alcohol any way, but we will see you and 7pm", then, in reality, they are compromising and showing their willingness to accept that they live in secular NZ.

I am all for an education class for all immigrants coming to NZ, that identify as a Muslum, encouraging them to act in such a way.

They would not be so tolerant if it was the other way round!

What people seem to forget is that there have been Muslims in NZ for a long, long time.
It's just that the latest wave looks/dresses a bit different and therefore stands out.

The speed of assimilation seems to vary from group to group, and as alluded to above, some are more visible than others. Also what we take as being Muslim traits are actually cultural ones - a Somali probably only has religion in common with a Fijian Indian so they are as diverse as say, an English Protestant and a Catholic Croatian.

Oscar

25th August 2010, 22:28

Ain't that the truth!
Try setting up a church over "there" & keeping all your digits and/or limbs intact, let alone holding onto your life!

Where's "there"?

rustyrobot

25th August 2010, 22:28

They where, born in NZ, and I always feel a little jealous that they had a rich culture, and our Kiwi culture is that we "have no culture" (we actually don't, compared to almost every other nation)

Na, we just believe that the way we do everything is 'normal', and the way other people do things is 'culture'. I would suggest that this is racist, but can't be bothered dealing with the barrage of denial. Perhaps I could say 'ignorant' then?

Try setting up a church over "there" & keeping all your digits and/or limbs intact, let alone holding onto your life!

If only we responded the same way to loopy chriso evangelists eh?!

pete376403

25th August 2010, 22:30

Bullshit
How many have we let in over the last ten years?
5,000?

You don't invade with 5,000 refugees.
These people are running from hard line regimes and some are in fear of their life, and you say they're invading?
You're a real prince...

I think the original post was more about the mass immigration that is occuring in Britain and Europe, and to a lesser extent Australia.

And now a little light relief...

Banditbandit

26th August 2010, 10:03

As long as they assimilate into the NZ culture (my experience is that Somalian refugees do not assimilate for example), I have no problem

200 years and Pakeha have still not integrated into New Zealand culture ... sounds like a very familiar complaint right there ...

Banditbandit

26th August 2010, 10:14

They where, born in NZ, and I always feel a little jealous that they had a rich culture, and our Kiwi culture is that we "have no culture" (we actually don't, compared to almost every other nation)

Cheez Wayne, what are ya ? What a load of cods-wallop. You're a bit of a dag to sprout that ... you could blow me down with a feather ... the country's chock-a-block with culture .. and we're all pretty chuffed about it ... chrikey dick, our culture is what the Poms and Yanks tiki-tour around gawking at ... some of the culturati would throw a hissy fit and have ya guts for garters for saying that ... just 'cause it's pissing down out there you don't need to pack a sad ...

We have a strong and vibrant culture, with a distinct use of the English Language, a distinct quisine, distinct patterns of socal behaviours ... ask any foreigner who has moved here and had to adapt to fit in ...

MisterD

26th August 2010, 10:18

In the usual sense, by force of arms, Islamists haven't invaded lately,

Perhaps you would like to consider how many of the Taliban types in Afganistan are actually locals? They're overwhelmingly foreign fighters from places like Saudi Arabia and Birmingham. I'm sure we all remember the reports of the Taliban fighter with the Aston Villa tattoo...?

R-Soul

26th August 2010, 10:31

Here's another one but it doesn't support the case your trying to present

Where you having a bad night??
Alright, I apologise if I sounded sarcastic in the extreme - but really, how else do you interpret "They are shown to have mass prayer sessions Midday and at sunset (ish)?" straight after you say that they are portrayed as nut jobs? How is that being strange or nut-jobby? If they are spiritual persons, then good on them. It probably makes more sense than train spotting.

I interpreted your remarks as a person who had not fully applied their mind, and was basically stating that it was right to be afraid of that which they did not understand or weren't familiar with. A normal human reaction, but an incorrect one, and a reaction that we should have enough intelligence to overcome.

R-Soul

26th August 2010, 10:39

I'm not throwing rocks at any one and was very careful not to do so?

Well you want them to have amass uprising and chuck out their extremist leaders who give their religion a bad name. So what is stopping us from chucking out our leaders that are invading countries and causing misery on a huge scale, and giving Christians a bad name.

R-Soul

26th August 2010, 10:57

They where, born in NZ, and I always feel a little jealous that they had a rich culture, and our Kiwi culture is that we "have no culture" (we actually don't, compared to almost every other nation)

As an immmigrant, it has been quite an education for me that NZ is very much a land of immigrants. While the "standard" kiwi culture is the white suburban "have a nice day" culture, with a bit of the Maori influence, its pretty clear that when you walk around the main cities, there is a large mix of cultures.

The interesting thing is that the standard white Kiwi culture is typically very tolerant. BECAUSE of this tolerance, there has been assimilation of the immigrants to be pretty similar in culture.

However, as more and more immigrants move in, people start becoming more aware of increased competition for jobs, houses, etc, then fear kicks in, and hate starts to take over where tolerance once lived. This increased competition and hate speech then makes the cultures take a step back from each other, and become more wary, and less tolerant. And because the cultures spend less time together, the assimilation slows.

You cannot FORCE people to assimilate - you can only welcome them in, make friends with them , and encourage them to do so. You respect people because they are human, nt because they are your ethnicity.

We need to recognise that the strength in our NZ society comes from the wide variety of cultures and traditions that it nurtures. Each needs to be respected and to respect each other. Not feared because we dont understand it. Education is key here.

The Amercians used to treasure their variety and solidarity of nations within their society. But 9/11 and one idiot politician (with similar thoughts to the ACT party) that responded to it badly put paid to that, and now the US sounds like it is closer to a police state, based on fear and mistrust. They could not win votes on good givernance, so they won votes on fear.

avgas

26th August 2010, 11:07

200 years and Pakeha have still not integrated into New Zealand culture.
Or perhaps the culture is a changing? and the integrated ones are called kiwi's?

Banditbandit

26th August 2010, 11:14

Or perhaps the culture is a changing? and the integrated ones are called kiwi's?

Ka kōrero koe tēnā kōrero i te reo o te whenua? Kaori ? Ka whakaaro ahau, kaori i whakauru nga "kiwis".

rustyrobot

26th August 2010, 11:20

Ka kōrero koe tēnā kōrero i te reo o te whenua? Kaori ? Ka whakaaro ahau, kaori i whakauru nga "kiwis".

Ae, tika tōu kōrero! Pera hoki tōku whakaaro. Ko tō rātou tikanga anake te tikanga pai ki a rātou? Ko wai i tu ki te kōrero 'kotahi te tangata i te whenua ne"? Ko John Key? Ehara au i te tangata rite tonu ki a ia!

Swoop

26th August 2010, 11:24

You should see what the tallitubbies are doing to the locals in Afganistan...
Real nice people who need a high-speed injection of 5.56.

August 25, 2010: In Mogadishu, fighting over the last three days has left several hundred dead or wounded. Al Shabaab has declared this their latest offensive, but Ugandan peacekeepers, enraged over the al Shabaab terrorist attacks in the Ugandan capital last month, are increasingly aggressive in their attacks on the Islamic terrorists. Al Shabaab is energized by foreign Islamic terrorists, and recruits and cash from expatriate Somalis who want peace at any price in their homeland. Al Shabaab promises peace in the form of a religious dictatorship and a harsh Islamic conservative lifestyle, imposed by force. Al Shabaab has accepted the fact that it cannot defeat trained soldiers, like the AU (African Union) peacekeepers. So the Islamic terrorists are depending on suicide bombers, mortar attacks and roadside bombs to wear the troops down. In the last few weeks, the angry Ugandan troops have pushed al Shabaab out of many areas, so the Islamic terrorists are trying to push back any way they can.
On the Kenyan border, al Shabaab gunmen are increasingly active on the Kenyan border, attempting to intimidate Kenyan border guards, police and soldiers, to stop blocking al Shabaab movement across the border. Al Shabaab also has a network of radical mosques in areas of Nairobi (the Kenyan capital), where young Somalis are taught to admire al Shabaab, it's goals (religious dictatorship) and methods (terrorism). Most Somali refugees want nothing to do with al Shabaab, but Kenyan police are too corrupt to shut down the pro-al Shabaab mosques and schools.

August 24, 2010: Several al Shabaab suicide bombers and gunmen, disguised as Transitional Government soldiers to get past security, shot their way into a well guarded Mogadishu hotel, killing about three dozen people. This included six members of the Transitional Government parliament.

August 22, 2010: About three in the morning, in an area of Mogadishu controlled by the Transitional Government forces, a man working by the side of the road exploded. He was apparently placing a roadside bomb. Later in the day, in a part of the city controlled by al Shabaab, a building used by al Qaeda members exploded. This killed at least ten Islamic terrorists, several of them foreigners (three Pakistanis, two Indians, an Afghan and an Algerian). Apparently a bomb was being built, and mistakes were made.

August 21, 2010: Kenyan police arrested twelve suspected Islamic terrorists on Lemu island, near the coast of Somalia. Three of those arrested were from Somalia, and bomb making equipment was seized as well.

August 20, 2010: Al Shabaab has seized about 200 tons of food aid, and publicly destroyed about ten percent of it, claiming that it was expired. The rest of the stolen food was apparently sold to merchants, or used to feed al Shabaab members and their families. The UN insisted that no expired food was brought to Somalia. Al Shabaab wants foreign aid groups out of the country, as the Islamic terror group sees these NGOs (non-governmental organizations, like the Red Cross) as rivals for the loyalty of Somalis. About a third of the Somali population is dependent on the foreign food aid, and it's unclear what al Shabaab will do when these people begin to die from starvation in large numbers. Most likely, al Shabaab will insure that the foreign media does not see it. That's another reason for getting rid of the NGOs, no foreign witnesses to whatever al Shabaab is doing.

F5 Dave

26th August 2010, 11:33

. . . .

For example, if you invite your new neighbor (of middle eastern decent) to a BBQ, and their answer is "No thanks, it's the fast of 1000 Virgins", then you sure as shit are not going to invite them again, are you.... However, if they say "sure, I would love to come, but it is the fast of 1000 virgins, and my family and I will not be able to consume any food, and, by the way, we don't drink alcohol any way, but we will see you and 7pm", . . .

Well if he has a family he & his misus surely aren't part of the 1000. Let the Virgins fast as much as they want & sling a snarler on the barbie cuz.

(yes I know it was fictitious).

Banditbandit

26th August 2010, 11:41

Ae, tika tōu kōrero! Pera hoki tōku whakaaro. Ko tō rātou tikanga anake te tikanga pai ki a rātou? Ko wai i tu ki te kōrero 'kotahi te tangata i te whenua ne"? Ko John Key? Ehara au i te tangata rite tonu ki a ia!

E pae ana ki ahau ka panui tō tuhituhi i te reo rangatira. I tērā rau tau i kōrero a Hobson kei Waitangi "He iwi kotahi tatou". He kōrero kē i tēnā wa ... he kōrero kē tonu ... He kōrero o ngā kaipuwhenua anaki .... Ehara he kōrero o nga iwi katoa.

Hei aha ... te Ao hurihuri ... Ka puta ngā tamariki o ngā iwi katoa ia ra ia ra ... Ehara ngā tangata tiriti i whakawhanau ... no reira, e whakanui ana ngā iwi Māori, E whakaiti ngā Pākehā ... Ka wini matou ... I tēnei wa ka heke mai nei ka whakaoranga ngā rangatiratanga o ngā iwi katoa.

Oscar

26th August 2010, 11:41

Swoop

26th August 2010, 11:44

Er - that report is about Somali...hint - Afghanistan is on another continent:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh :
I know. Al Shabaab is now well set up in Somalia. A lot of the terrorists came out of Afganistan to fight in a new country.
Keep an eye on the islamic radicals in this location... things will get even hotter in Somalia.

avgas

26th August 2010, 11:46

Ka kōrero koe tēnā kōrero i te reo o te whenua? Kaori ? Ka whakaaro ahau, kaori i whakauru nga "kiwis".
Yes and if you look at history's text books it has been taught in schools as a COMPULSORY subject for about 35 years.
So being born here and brought through this education system while I can therefore qualify myself as Kiwi, my argument is stronger than that.
I believe people who have chosen to adapt NZ multicultural environment. Are kiwi.
Note that I am not saying at any point that Maori = kiwi or kiwi = Maori.
The 2 are interdependent of each other just are those with Chinese/Mongol heritage in the Russian boarder lands.
Note also that New Zealand English (particularly spoken) actually has a decreasing amount of the original tongue in it. So it too is an individual language.

NighthawkNZ

26th August 2010, 12:00

Here's an interesting thought, According to the Torah, which is the foundation chapters of the Bible and the Koran, we are created in the image of God. This being so,

The bible says God (singular) and then in our (which is plural) image...

Then God said "Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness"

Your soul is also genderless if you believe in spituality... (not regilion)

Crim

26th August 2010, 13:03

Mosques, churches and temples are all beautiful buildings. It's the twits who use them that are the problem. Religion is not a facade to hide behind. You are what you do, religious or not. This pontificating is thirsty work. I'm off to the pub, Cheers
:yes: yep totally agree - have often thought to myself "aren't religious wars just a fight about who has got the best imaginary friend?"

oldrider

26th August 2010, 13:20

:yes: yep totally agree - have often thought to myself "aren't religious wars just a fight about who has got the best imaginary friend?"

True! Undeniably logical thought! :yes:

Banditbandit

26th August 2010, 13:24

Yes and if you look at history's text books it has been taught in schools as a COMPULSORY subject for about 35 years.
So being born here and brought through this education system while I can therefore qualify myself as Kiwi, my argument is stronger than that.
I believe people who have chosen to adapt NZ multicultural environment. Are kiwi.
Note that I am not saying at any point that Maori = kiwi or kiwi = Maori.
The 2 are interdependent of each other just are those with Chinese/Mongol heritage in the Russian boarder lands.
Note also that New Zealand English (particularly spoken) actually has a decreasing amount of the original tongue in it. So it too is an individual language.

Kua kōrero koe ae, ēngari, kaore e kōrero koe i te reo o te Ao Marama ... ka korero koe i te reo o te Po. No reira ka whakautu au i te reo o te po.

Did anyone ask the indigenous people if they wanted to become bi-cultural? The Treaty is between the Crown and the hapū ... and can be read as the conditions that British subjects can come and live here ... who asked about imigration from other countries ?

oldrider

26th August 2010, 13:34

200 years and Pakeha have still not integrated into New Zealand culture ... sounds like a very familiar complaint right there ...

Well, maybe if you honour the treaty...."He Iwi Tahi Tatou" - We are now one people....you might feel differently about that!

Works OK for me!

rustyrobot

26th August 2010, 13:43

I tēnei wa ka heke mai nei ka whakaoranga ngā rangatiratanga o ngā iwi katoa.

Ko tērā te tumunkao e hoa, ko tērā te tumanako! Ka hurihuri tonu te ao ne? E tautoko ana ahau i tōu kōrero ki te ao Po. Hei aha, ā te wa... ka po, ka ao, ka awatea. Ahakoa he pākehā tuturu ahau, ka kimi ahau ki te ara tika.

The thing I never get with religion is why it is so endlessly important to push it on everyone else. Sure, you know the one true path to eternal bliss, good for you, why the need to convert the rest of humanity. Aren't there only 144,000 places in heaven (http://bible.cc/revelation/7-4.htm) anyway? Christian, hindu, muslim, whatever - enjoy your sundays (satudays, whichever days) stuck in the church, but don't begrudge us our days of play.

rustyrobot

26th August 2010, 13:46

Well, maybe if you honour the treaty...."He Iwi Tahi Tatou" - We are now one people....you might feel differently about that!

Works OK for me!

Works okay for you if we are all one people in the way you want it right? Well, no surprise there. At which point did 'we' make a decision what this 'one people' looked like? If I came to your house wouldn't you expect me to follow the rules for YOUR house? Even if we were going to move in together, surely we would work out the house rules together. It would be mightily unfair for one person to decide all the rules of the house, would it not?

Oscar

26th August 2010, 13:56

I know. Al Shabaab is now well set up in Somalia. A lot of the terrorists came out of Afganistan to fight in a new country.
Keep an eye on the islamic radicals in this location... things will get even hotter in Somalia.

Al Shabaab is indigenous to Somalia.
The Taliban are in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Things are shit in Somalia because they have no central government - not really a religious thing (just a nice place for terrorists).

avgas

26th August 2010, 14:01

Did anyone ask the indigenous people if they wanted to become bi-cultural? The Treaty is between the Crown and the hapū ... and can be read as the conditions that British subjects can come and live here ... who asked about imigration from other countries ?
You do not have to become bi-cultural. But regardless the world spins, and changes with parameters outside your control. You assume that pakeha/laowai/gaijan/buitenlander/palangi... wanted to assume the roles given to them. But the fact of the matter is that they moved to NZ to become a part of it. Many adopted the local culture - which had evolved past that of simply Maori to something completely different that the world has never seen.
The treaty is between the crown and hapū, but it is not the only arrangement between Maori and New Zealand/Aotearoa.
To simply believe so is rather naive. Especially considering that written language was a new concept for Maori at the time.
Its kind of like saying "No religion existed before the Bible - as its the oldest book", where facts as well as theories prove otherwise.
Also it is worth noting that many of whom are considered 'Pakeha' are actually of non-British decent. So applying the term Pakeha is like calling all Maori, from Hawaiki, Havaiki, Havai'i, or 'Avaiki...... aka Polynesian.

avgas

26th August 2010, 14:17

rustyrobot

26th August 2010, 14:22

Actually that is how NZ laws ARE made.
Very little of it comes from Brittan.......and a big chuck actually comes from the Maori version of the treaty.
Not only that - but with more Maori in parliament than ever before, new laws should reflect more in Maori ideals. Well that is the theory anyway - just like anyone else in parliament, there is no stopping greed. Regardless of culture - greed exists.

And it would work well if our laws were totally recreated. But they were transplanted here from the UK and have slowly mutated over time, with Maori input only over the last few decades. Besides, the entire (Westminster) system of governance was dumped onto the country.

And with this system, whoever you vote for a politician always gets in. Dammit.

I couldn't agree with you more about the greed.

R-Soul

26th August 2010, 14:26

R-Soul

26th August 2010, 14:37

Al Shabaab is indigenous to Somalia.
The Taliban are in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Things are shit in Somalia because they have no central government - not really a religious thing (just a nice place for terrorists).

yes, Somalia comes about as a result of no or very weak central government, resulting in a power vacuum fille dhappily by warlords, and then religious men attempting to bring some sort of order by any law - even sharia. But as soon as a person has any sort of power, they seem to get a thirst for it, and then instead of bringing law and order, they become 'above the law'.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely...

avgas

26th August 2010, 14:37

R-Soul

26th August 2010, 14:49

And it would work well if our laws were totally recreated. But they were transplanted here from the UK and have slowly mutated over time, with Maori input only over the last few decades. Besides, the entire (Westminster) system of governance was dumped onto the country.

And with this system, whoever you vote for a politician always gets in. Dammit.

I couldn't agree with you more about the greed.

The Westminster Parliamentary system showed iself to be eminently fallible under the Apartheid system. Established customary laws can be wiped out by the next legislative act, as long as they have a majority (and iit all depends on how you define majority, and who has a right to vote).

I much prefer the current SA law system, with a Bill o f Human Rights at its head as the highest law, and against which all other laws are subject to, and which guides interpretation of all other laws. And which requires a huge majority to change. That way some asshole politician cannot take away rights on a whim, or by some legal sleight of hand. All new acts can be challenged against the bill of rights by anybody, at the Constitutional Court - the ultimate court.

NZ has a Bill of Rights, but it is not teh highest law in the land, no other laws are subject to it, and it has as much force as any other act which may conflict it.

Its probably high time that NZ got a legal system extreme makeover.

Banditbandit

26th August 2010, 14:53

Ahakoa he pākehā tuturu ahau, ka kimi ahau ki te ara tika.

He mīharotanga tōu korero. Pai tō reo Māori. Pai tō whakaaro, tō tautoko mo te kaupapa. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe e hoa.

Oakie

26th August 2010, 19:16

Found it! I've been looking for this for a few days. It's in response to an earlier poster who provided some pretty scary quotes from the Koran about how 'infidels' should be treated. I wanted to say at the time that the Bible is just as bad and but just as western civilisation doesn't now act on it literally, neither does most of Islam act on all of the words contained in the Koran. Read on:

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, to an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet.

It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian :)

Edbear

26th August 2010, 19:48

oldrider

26th August 2010, 20:24

Works okay for you if we are all one people in the way you want it right? Well, no surprise there. At which point did 'we' make a decision what this 'one people' looked like? If I came to your house wouldn't you expect me to follow the rules for YOUR house? Even if we were going to move in together, surely we would work out the house rules together. It would be mightily unfair for one person to decide all the rules of the house, would it not?

I think you underestimate the intelligence and worldly understanding of the leaders of the day (Maori and Pakeha at the time of the treaty) I believe that they had great vision for this country!

The problem is not with the decisions that "they" made but more to do with the behaviour of their descendants to pick up the ball and run with it! (us)

No body ever said it was going to be easy and the only contribution you have any power or control over over are the ones that you (as an individual) make yourself.

IMHO Maori wasted too much valuable time sucking up to the Labour party and if they feel disadvantaged today it is mainly down to their lack of will to shake those shackles off and the subsequent loss of self esteem that is a consequence!

Love them or hate them, I think the advent of the Maori party is the best thing that has happened to raise the Maori profile and to show a willingness to "share" in the running of the country and to pull their collective weight in the decision making process for a change!

It's a bit like never attending public meetings and then moaning about the decisions that were made in your absence!

I could be wrong but I guess you will tell me that if you think I am!

Oscar

26th August 2010, 20:29

Edbear

26th August 2010, 20:31

!? Who are you, the humour police, or just good with the obvious?

That's very clever and very funny.

Sorry, yes it is...

SS90

27th August 2010, 07:32

Very funny, unless you know the scriptures, then it just seems pointless and silly. Sorry but he's being very selective and either doesn't know what he's talking about, or does know and is deliberately being facetious.

Islamisation? Not sure, but we are watching developments with interest. :yes:

Sorry Edbear, I just don't understand the "unless you Know the scriptures" Part of your reply.... How does Knowledge of the scriptures Change the Point that was bring made.... I.e.- Don't Pick and Chose what Part of the bible you take literally, and which Parts you consider "up for Interpretation"

Oakie

27th August 2010, 07:58

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 08:30

Well, maybe if you honour the treaty...."He Iwi Tahi Tatou" - We are now one people....you might feel differently about that!

Works OK for me!

OK. Let's all be one people - let's all be Māori - at least in culture ...

Oh, that's not what I mean I hear you say .. Yes, exactly. What you mean is; "Let's all be one people - let's all be White - or at least white culture" ...

Imposing European Culture on groups of people is no different to attempts to impose Islam on others ...

avgas

27th August 2010, 08:57

OK. Let's all be one people - let's all be Māori - at least in culture ...

Oh, that's not what I mean I hear you say .. Yes, exactly. What you mean is; "Let's all be one people - let's all be White - or at least white culture" ...

Imposing European Culture on groups of people is no different to attempts to impose Islam on others ...
Doesn't work that way, never has.
Culture is merged, and evolved. With each generation.
There would be strong elements of Maori in NZ culture, but in a 100 years time don't also be surprised if there are elements of Japanese, Korean, American.... in the NZ culture.
Don't feel too ripped off - this is happening all over the world. Be proud of Maori culture - As it has lasted the last 100 years of this change, and looks to be in use for the next 100. In the names of places, the festivals we celebrate, the culture and folk tales we tell.
But as for Maori being the only true NZ culture.......be prepared to isolate the country. As far as I know - Cuba is the only country that has reduced this change over time.

avgas

27th August 2010, 09:01

Out of interest - how are you guys typing in Maori tones? Is there some kind of crazy key combination to get those caricatures? Would be a handy thing to know.

R-Soul

27th August 2010, 09:18

OK. Let's all be one people - let's all be Māori - at least in culture ...

OK sweet! Hongi (Hangi?) at my place on Saturday!! (but can I put boerewors in too?)

R-Soul

27th August 2010, 09:22

R-Soul

27th August 2010, 09:25

R-Soul

27th August 2010, 09:37

How does Knowledge of the scriptures Change the Point that was bring made....

It doesn't - Edbear picks and chooses as much as the next religious man.

rustyrobot

27th August 2010, 09:42

Out of interest - how are you guys typing in Maori tones? Is there some kind of crazy key combination to get those caricatures? Would be a handy thing to know.

There is a Māori macron pack for windows available from Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=27AB0EC0-C2B3-409E-BDF1-D56CD5E90D9C&displaylang=en&displaylang=en).

I think that most Westerners are blind to what culture is because we have such a smug superiority about our own. For a lot of us we see culture as clothes, foods, dances. Those are just the most visual elements. The deeper fundamental aspects of our culture and subsequently all other cultures, totally misses us. We are saturated with our cultural perspective in movies and tv, books and magazines. We become oblivious to it.

There are HUGE differences between a Māori cultural world view, and a Western Anglo-Saxon world view. At the most basic level, our relationship with the land is completely different. Our ideas about family structures and relationships are completely different. The way we treat guests, even hostile or unwanted guests is different. The way our society is structured totally reflects Anglo-Saxon tastes and norms - the court system, the school system, work environments, council structures, housing.

A different language is only the beginning, and to think that by putting signs in two languages we are bi-cultural is so naive it is painful. (Not suggesting that you were doing that avgas). As far as the idea of being multi-cultural goes, I can't even imagine how that would be possible (a country of people FROM many cultures is a different thing though), or even desirable.

avgas

27th August 2010, 09:45

I am no NZ history buff BUT: Didn't the Maori's drive out another culture when they came in? If so, then common sense tells me that they have as much right to call it "true" NZ culture as whites do?
I would rather not go into what happened before Maori - for the very simple reason, that the only way Maori will embrace what NZ has become, is when they feel welcome.
To simply have a stand-off, stating "You weren't here first" - will only divide the individuals of NZ further. We are of 1 people. We are kiwi.

avgas

27th August 2010, 09:53

I think that most Westerners are blind to what culture is because we have such a smug superiority about our own. For a lot of us we see culture as clothes, foods, dances. Those are just the most visual elements. The deeper fundamental aspects of our culture and subsequently all other cultures, totally misses us. We are saturated with our cultural perspective in movies and tv, books and magazines. We become oblivious to it.
There are HUGE differences between a Māori cultural world view, and a Western Anglo-Saxon world view. At the most basic level, our relationship with the land is completely different. Our ideas about family structures and relationships are completely different. The way we treat guests, even hostile or unwanted guests is different. The way our society is structured totally reflects Anglo-Saxon tastes and norms - the court system, the school system, work environments, council structures, housing.
A different language is only the beginning, and to think that by putting signs in two languages we are bi-cultural is so naive it is painful. (Not suggesting that you were doing that avgas). As far as the idea of being multi-cultural goes, I can't even imagine how that would be possible (a country of people FROM many cultures is a different thing though), or even desirable.
Sorry - but I wasn't born an Anglo-Saxon. My blood line possibly may be - but only in the same way that Maori bloodline in Chinese.
Likewise I don't follow the culture that many Anglo-Saxon's follow. I have something unique. What I have doesn't fit with the rest of the world.....yet I have some things that fit with all.
Perhaps I am more accepting that others. But perhaps you could look at me - and I hope it shows you that the possibility does exist. And it is up to you to change first.
Re-read your first sentence. What assumptions have you made?

Oscar

27th August 2010, 10:04

I think that most Westerners are blind to what culture is because we have such a smug superiority about our own. For a lot of us we see culture as clothes, foods, dances. Those are just the most visual elements. The deeper fundamental aspects of our culture and subsequently all other cultures, totally misses us. We are saturated with our cultural perspective in movies and tv, books and magazines. We become oblivious to it.

There are HUGE differences between a Māori cultural world view, and a Western Anglo-Saxon world view. At the most basic level, our relationship with the land is completely different. Our ideas about family structures and relationships are completely different. The way we treat guests, even hostile or unwanted guests is different. The way our society is structured totally reflects Anglo-Saxon tastes and norms - the court system, the school system, work environments, council structures, housing.

That is such condescending bullshit.
The mere fact that you are talking about a "Western Anglo-Saxon Worldview" shows how pitiful your grasp on the subject is. I was born in the North of England and our culture is as vibrant and unique as any other - why you'd group it with the entire Western European culture is beyond me. It's like me grouping Maori with all of Polynesia. We have a connection to the land that goes back before Maori had left Asia, and a history as rich as any other. So stop trying to play the mystical caring society card, which is nothing unique and just makes you look like the pseudo-intellectual racist prat that you no doubt are. .

As for NZ Society, it isn't European and it isn't Maori, it's a blend of both.

Oh, and BTW - there was never any written Maori language, so please explain why you have the cultural insensitivity to insist on your own pronunciations and this macron bullshit in a language that you have borrowed from my people. After all - do I get a say in what's carved in the meeting house? And if I have to sing the National Anthem in Maori (which I quite like), why isn't some of the Haka done in English?

rustyrobot

27th August 2010, 10:07

Sorry - but I wasn't born an Anglo-Saxon. My blood line possibly may be - but only in the same way that Maori bloodline in Chinese.
Likewise I don't follow the culture that many Anglo-Saxon's follow. I have something unique. What I have doesn't fit with the rest of the world.....yet I have some things that fit with all.
Perhaps I am more accepting that others. But perhaps you could look at me - and I hope it shows you that the possibility does exist. And it is up to you to change first.
Re-read your first sentence. What assumptions have you made?

Well, to be perfectly honest I think that if you were born in the Westernised world (UK, USA, Europe, Canada, South Africa, Australia, NZ) then you have been socialised with Anglo-Saxon world-views and cultural norms. It is not a coincidence that the governmental, legal, justice, education and health systems in those countries are so similar (and they are, with some obvious differences in flavour).

I don't think my first sentence necessarily talks about you at all. One of the deficits of English language is the pro-nouns are so limiting. I am an Anglo-Saxon, raised in New Zealand. My cultural upbringing was entirely Anglo-Saxon, although I observed and participated in other cultural traditions that I saw around me. I speak at least for myself, for lots of my friends and for most of the people I meet in New Zealand who were raised in a similar environment. I tried to use the word Anglo-Saxon instead of Pākehā or Tau-iwi.

What I hear from those people is that we are now 'kiwis' or 'one New Zealand', but that 'one' has to be the one that reflects their cultural ideals. When challenged people might nod towards the haka or some Māori language signs, but most of them don't even have the decency to try to pronounce Māori words correctly, let alone think about what it might mean to absorb or practice some Māori cultural ideals.

Of course Māori culture would change over time, the same as any other culture does. What I am trying to emphasize is that underneath all of these visual signs of culture the deeper philosophical, existential, spiritual values that underpin our cultures are so fundamentally different that we can't just put a different colour paint on a 'house' that has been made from the building blocks of another culture and then consider it changed.

R-Soul

27th August 2010, 10:10

There is a Māori macron pack for windows available from Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=27AB0EC0-C2B3-409E-BDF1-D56CD5E90D9C&displaylang=en&displaylang=en).

I think that most Westerners are blind to what culture is because we have such a smug superiority about our own. For a lot of us we see culture as clothes, foods, dances. Those are just the most visual elements. The deeper fundamental aspects of our culture and subsequently all other cultures, totally misses us. We are saturated with our cultural perspective in movies and tv, books and magazines. We become oblivious to it.

There are HUGE differences between a Māori cultural world view, and a Western Anglo-Saxon world view. At the most basic level, our relationship with the land is completely different. Our ideas about family structures and relationships are completely different. The way we treat guests, even hostile or unwanted guests is different. The way our society is structured totally reflects Anglo-Saxon tastes and norms - the court system, the school system, work environments, council structures, housing.

A different language is only the beginning, and to think that by putting signs in two languages we are bi-cultural is so naive it is painful. (Not suggesting that you were doing that avgas). As far as the idea of being multi-cultural goes, I can't even imagine how that would be possible (a country of people FROM many cultures is a different thing though), or even desirable.

In SA, some populations have bth a westernised and an indigenous viewpooint on religion.
For example, they are both Christians and also believe in their ancestors and acting in a manner that placates their ancestors. The fact that these religions are completely at odds with each other just dosn't seem to bother them. And maybe sometimes we are blinded by our own conceptions of what we can handle spiritually and emotionally.

For example, most people aggree that "you can only love one person" and yet there are many that turn around and manage to love two or more quite easily, (more so than many who only love one). We all tend to think in black and white according to our upbringing, but in reality there is no black and white - just shades of grey.

marie_speeds

27th August 2010, 10:19

:scratch: I thought this thread was about Islamisation? Is it now about Maori and WASPS?

oldrider

27th August 2010, 10:21

rustyrobot

27th August 2010, 10:25

That is such condescending bullshit.
The mere fact that you are talking about a "Western Anglo-Saxon Worldview" shows how pitiful your grasp on the subject is. I was born in the North of England and our culture is as vibrant and unique as any other - why you'd group it with the entire Western European culture is beyond me. It's like me grouping Maori with all of Polynesia. We have a connection to the land that goes back before Maori had left Asia, and a history as rich as any other. So stop trying to play the mystical caring society card, which is nothing unique and just makes you look like the pseudo-intellectual racist prat that you no doubt are. .

As for NZ Society, it isn't European and it isn't Maori, it's a blend of both.

Oh, and BTW - there was never any written Maori language, so please explain why you have the cultural insensitivity to insist on your own pronunciations and this macron bullshit in a language that you have borrowed from my people. After all - do I get a say in what's carved in the meeting house? And if I have to sing the National Anthem in Maori (which I quite like), why isn't some of the Haka done in English?

Well, it may be that I am a psuedo-intellectual, you are welcome to believe I am a prat, and I think that yes I probably am racist, despite trying consciously not to be. I don't know what the mystical caring society card is, but you're welcome to explain.

I use the Māori macros when I remember where they go, because that denounces where the long vowel sounds go. You can't say Māori is not a written language because it clearly is.

I have no intention to discount your culture Oscar. I am proud to be a New Zealander of British descent. My family have lived near the bank of the Thames for as long as we know. Down the mighty Thames river flowed boats that explored the entire world. There are many cultural traditions that I am proud of, some actions I would rather forget (but choose not to), and a bright future that I look forward to. I know how different our cultures are because I know how hard it is for me to exist in a Māori cultural space, it requires a huge shift in my fundamental views and beliefs.

Yes, there are some small amounts of Māori culture that have penetrated the institutions in this country, but I would suggest that in the most part they are tokenistic. I don't hold one culture up above another, but I still do and will continue to say that the society in this country is based almost entirely on a cultural system imposed from England. To suggest we are now 'one New Zealand' and therefore must all accept this system does not make it any less English.

rustyrobot

27th August 2010, 10:28

...if I have to sing the National Anthem in Maori (which I quite like), why isn't some of the Haka done in English?

Perhaps you could rally people for some balance and there could be a fierce morris dance before sporting events too? :)

rustyrobot

27th August 2010, 10:29

:scratch: I thought this thread was about Islamisation? Is it now about Maori and WASPS?

I guess it was really about cultural imperialism all along.

R-Soul

27th August 2010, 10:29

I would rather not go into what happened before Maori - for the very simple reason, that the only way Maori will embrace what NZ has become, is when they feel welcome.
To simply have a stand-off, stating "You weren't here first" - will only divide the individuals of NZ further. We are of 1 people. We are kiwi.

Well then I would prefer to not go into any history predating 4 years ago (when I arrived), for the very same reason. And while I am not officially kiwi yet (show me the passport first son), I dont see why I should compromise my culture if its not reciprocated.

I also dont understand how Maori cannot feel welcome, since they predated mostly everyone. It may be because of the patronising racist attitude that westernised white cultures adapted (100's of years ago) in their colonisation of other's territories. But the Maoris should not feel alone in that - many other invaded cultures (Boers, Indians, Arabs, South American indians- you name it), hated the attitude of the colonial powers then - (and some still do, since the colonial powere departed when it suited them, leaving massive power vacuums that still cause conflict).

Perhaps this is where things fall apart though, because, in reality, life has moved on, the colonial powers are no longer colonial, imperialistic or even very powerful, frankly (although France still has an arrogant finger in a couple of West African pies) . And their descendants no longer view themelves as being British, French or any other of the colonial nations. They find themselves where they are, and love their land, and regard themselves as being as indigenous as any Maori.

For example the Afrikaners in South Africa dont see a "return" to any other "home" territory as an option. Similarly white Aussies and Kiwis do not think of any pending return "home to the motherland". This is it. Why should one portion of the Kiwi population feel any different- they have grown up in the same schools, with the same advantages? Yes there has been history, but the history that counts only goes as far back as the last generation.

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 10:32

Out of interest - how are you guys typing in Maori tones? Is there some kind of crazy key combination to get those caricatures? Would be a handy thing to know.

They're macrons. My computer is set up with a keyboard programme to create them. It's also possible to use what already exists in Word. If you go into Insert and Symbols, you'll find them all there, and yiou can set up your own hot keys.

Macrons denote a long vowel sound, which changes the meaning of the word. F'r instance

"Matou" means "fish hook"

"Mātou" means "us"

You can't really write in te reo Māori without macrons.

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 10:37

I think you underestimate the intelligence and worldly understanding of the leaders of the day (Maori and Pakeha at the time of the treaty) I believe that they had great vision for this country!

The problem is not with the decisions that "they" made but more to do with the behaviour of their descendants to pick up the ball and run with it! (us)

No body ever said it was going to be easy and the only contribution you have any power or control over over are the ones that you (as an individual) make yourself.

IMHO Maori wasted too much valuable time sucking up to the Labour party and if they feel disadvantaged today it is mainly down to their lack of will to shake those shackles off and the subsequent loss of self esteem that is a consequence!

Love them or hate them, I think the advent of the Maori party is the best thing that has happened to raise the Maori profile and to show a willingness to "share" in the running of the country and to pull their collective weight in the decision making process for a change!

It's a bit like never attending public meetings and then moaning about the decisions that were made in your absence!

I could be wrong but I guess you will tell me that if you think I am!

Yeah maybe .. I think the tipuna had great vision, but that was different from the colonizers vision, and the colonizsers became the majority.

I am unsure about thē rise of the Māori party. I don't disagree with what you are saying. However, holding elections is not tikanga, andf joining the colonizer's systems might not be the way forward. Note that I say I am unsure, not that I am oppossed. Like everything, it is an evolving process ...

I suppose my prime concern is that the majority of European-derived New Zealanders think that evolution should happen in the way they want .. and most Māori-derived New Zealanders see a different evolutionary path (except maybe the hard core essentialist radicals who want to remain static ..)

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 10:40

OK sweet! Hongi (Hangi?) at my place on Saturday!! (but can I put boerewors in too?)

I dunno .. what is it, and will it cook in steam for four hours ?

I hope it's tastey.

(and the word is Hangi - hongi is to press noses in greeting)

Oscar

27th August 2010, 10:44

Well, it may be that I am a psuedo-intellectual, you are welcome to believe I am a prat, and I think that yes I probably am racist, despite trying consciously not to be. I don't know what the mystical caring society card is, but you're welcome to explain.

I use the Māori macros when I remember where they go, because that denounces where the long vowel sounds go. You can't say Māori is not a written language because it clearly is.

I have no intention to discount your culture Oscar. I am proud to be a New Zealander of British descent. My family have lived near the bank of the Thames for as long as we know. Down the mighty Thames river flowed boats that explored the entire world. There are many cultural traditions that I am proud of, some actions I would rather forget (but choose not to), and a bright future that I look forward to. I know how different our cultures are because I know how hard it is for me to exist in a Māori cultural space, it requires a huge shift in my fundamental views and beliefs.

Yes, there are some small amounts of Māori culture that have penetrated the institutions in this country, but I would suggest that in the most part they are tokenistic. I don't hold one culture up above another, but I still do and will continue to say that the society in this country is based almost entirely on a cultural system imposed from England. To suggest we are now 'one New Zealand' and therefore must all accept this system does not make it any less English.

I didn't say Maori wasn't a written language, it is, but it's written in English.
The use of a macron is not common in English, long vowel or not, so the use of it here is pure pedantic wankery.

You say you don't hold one culture up over another, but you were perfectly happy to denigrate the entirety of Western Civilisation. Our culture was not "imposed" by England, the culture in NZ is unique - a combination of Polynesian, English, Welsh, Scots, Croatian, Asian and so on.

Where is this tokenism you speak of?
If we look at Government as an example, Maori had no concept of nationhood, so what strictly Maori input could be tendered? Where does the tokenism exist in the electoral system, apart from the positive aspect of Maori seats?

Oscar

27th August 2010, 10:49

Perhaps you could rally people for some balance and there could be a fierce morris dance before sporting events too? :)

I didn't say that - I said that if the strictly Western concept - the National Anthem - was sung in Maori, how come the haka couldn't have some English language components. The Morris Dance is a Southern tradition which has fuck all to do with my heritage and further exposes your cultural ignorance.

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 10:55

Doesn't work that way, never has.
Culture is merged, and evolved. With each generation.
There would be strong elements of Maori in NZ culture, but in a 100 years time don't also be surprised if there are elements of Japanese, Korean, American.... in the NZ culture.
Don't feel too ripped off - this is happening all over the world. Be proud of Maori culture - As it has lasted the last 100 years of this change, and looks to be in use for the next 100. In the names of places, the festivals we celebrate, the culture and folk tales we tell.
But as for Maori being the only true NZ culture.......be prepared to isolate the country. As far as I know - Cuba is the only country that has reduced this change over time.

Of course it doesn't work that way. I was being a little shocking to make a point ...

My ancestors who came here on the waka were not Māori - they were Pacific Islanders. They evolved a culture here dictated by the environment etc. New foods, new building material, new fishing methods - all needing new names and a new language ...

My ancestors from the British Isles are known as Anglo-Saxons, and had a culture. That culture starts as Picts and Jutes, adds Celts, Romans, Vikings, Saxons, Normans, Angles, etc etc ... but now England has basically one culture at the macro level ... abnd the language is English (one of the most polyglot languages on the planet)

I wonder what New Zealand will look like in 100 years - or maybe 500 years ?

As John Tamihare has said, race relations in this country are being sorted out in the bedrooms of this country. That's happened all round the world as populations move, conflict and merge. We just like sleeping with each other.

Trends in New Zealand's birth rates show that European-derived New Zealanders are not having babies at a level to sustain the population, while Māori and Pacific Island birth rates are higher than sustain level and th ppulation is growing. This probably means that the future New Zealand culture will be a modern Polynesian Culture (Pacific Islands and Māori) with elements of European-derived culture, and additions of Korean, Chinese (Many chnese families have been here longer than many European-derived families) and others ...

I love African food. One joy was to discover there's an Afrikaans-quisine restaurant near here. I listen to world-beat music, especially Africa - my own cooking comes from Italy -pasta - Europe - love lotkas for breakfast - Pākehā New Zealand - Sunday roast - and Māori - good boil up at least once a week - I speak both English very well and Māori - growing so what's the culture of my house? New Zealand culture of course.

What I do see is that most Pākehā New Zealanders expect Māori to behave in particular ways - to be part of white New Zealand culture - and that is simply perpetrating the colonizing system. And after 200 years of it, we're sick of it - and it's time the recent immigrant population woke up to itself.

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 10:57

We are of 1 people. We are kiwi.

You see, right there we disagree. I agree with most of what else you say ..
But we are NOT one people .. we are Becoming one people ... the question is On who's terms are we becoming one people ? And right now the answer is Pākehā New Zealanders' trerms .. that's stil colonization of a peoples ... Pākehā New Zealand has all the power and it's forcing others to adopt is ways of being.

rustyrobot

27th August 2010, 10:59

I didn't say that - I said that if the strictly Western concept - the National Anthem - was sung in Maori, how come the haka couldn't have some English language components. The Morris Dance is a Southern tradition which has fuck all to do with my heritage and further exposes your cultural ignorance.

It was meant to be a joke. And you are right, I am culturally ignorant of North England. Also Burkina Faso, the Ukraine, Noumea, French Guyana and a many other places. My limited knowledge of Northern English culture basically stems from Coronation Street and a month spent in Leeds.

Bald Eagle

27th August 2010, 11:02

It's probably time everybody got over themselves. We are all stuck on this planet together whether we like it or not and squabbling among ourselves is not going to achieve anything, except a lot of rich lawyers.

I consider myself a pacific islander ( I was born on an island in the Pacific - the north island )

My ancestors also came here on waka - a big one with sails.

rustyrobot

27th August 2010, 11:03

I didn't say Maori wasn't a written language, it is, but it's written in English.

I believe that is called the Latin alphabet, also known as the Roman alphabet. It is the most commonly used alphabet in the world today, and has no exclusive connection with the English language.

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 11:09

That is such condescending bullshit.
The mere fact that you are talking about a "Western Anglo-Saxon Worldview" shows how pitiful your grasp on the subject is. I was born in the North of England and our culture is as vibrant and unique as any other - why you'd group it with the entire Western European culture is beyond me. It's like me grouping Maori with all of Polynesia. We have a connection to the land that goes back before Maori had left Asia, and a history as rich as any other. So stop trying to play the mystical caring society card, which is nothing unique and just makes you look like the pseudo-intellectual racist prat that you no doubt are. .

As for NZ Society, it isn't European and it isn't Maori, it's a blend of both.

Oh, and BTW - there was never any written Maori language, so please explain why you have the cultural insensitivity to insist on your own pronunciations and this macron bullshit in a language that you have borrowed from my people. After all - do I get a say in what's carved in the meeting house? And if I have to sing the National Anthem in Maori (which I quite like), why isn't some of the Haka done in English?

OK, so first of all, we did not borrow the language from you. Your linguists used the alphabet to write down our language. And the alphabet was borrowd from the Arabs anyway ... Macrons are important as they change the meanings of words. I am sure that you would like clarity in a language ? So Tāra is "dollar" tara is "cunt". I am sure that if I was asking you how many dollars you needed you would not want me to ask how many cunts you needed.

Why do we insist on our pronunciations? Because we insist on people saying words properly - as no doubt you would in English ... No doubt you would be offended if we pronounced you name wrongly. There are dialectical differences of course, just as there are across the British Isles.

Secondly when we talk about cultures there are many levels. At the macro level when we talk of English culture it is a necessarily generalised statement, with the kinds of anomoloies you point out inherent and accepted in the discussion. At the level of smaller groups and down to the micro level, we can tak about the culture of a particular corporation, of a small community, of a group of scattered people doing similar things - such as the culture of bikers ... You need to acknowledge the framework of the discussion.

We group it with the other European and European-derived cultures because at the macro level, it is the colonizing culture that holds all the power in this country. Just as you group all iwi and all hapū under "Māori" culture. That leads to a massive misconception that all Māori have identical cultures. They don't. It's the same issue .. Generalizations are necessary - as long as we recognise the problems inherent in that generalisation.

Oscar

27th August 2010, 11:09

I believe that is called the Latin alphabet, also known as the Roman alphabet. It is the most commonly used alphabet in the world today, and has no exclusive connection with the English language.

Bullshit - the alphabet may be Latin, but the Maori language was translated to its written form by English Missionaries, adapting English pronunciation and spelling forms to Maori.

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 11:11

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 11:13

:scratch: I thought this thread was about Islamisation? Is it now about Maori and WASPS?

Good morning. I hijacked it ... didn't intend to ... but that's what happened ..

rustyrobot

27th August 2010, 11:14

Our culture was not "imposed" by England

Ummmmm. I really don't know what to say to that Oscar. You seem to have conveniently forgotten 150+ years of New Zealand history.

Or perhaps I'm forgetting the bit where English people were invited here and then there was lengthy discussion about which would be the primary language and religion, how the land would be used, how we might structure our governance (rangatiratanga) in a way which best suited both cultural perspectives and what form of health, education, justice and social system might best reflect those perspectives too.

Oscar

27th August 2010, 11:20

Secondly when we talk about cultures there are many levels. At the macro level when we talk of English culture it is a necessarily generalised statement, with the kinds of anomoloies you point out inherent and accepted in the discussion. At the level of smaller groups and down to the micro level, we can tak about the culture of a particular corporation, of a small community, of a group of scattered people doing similar things - such as the culture of bikers ... You need to acknowledge the framework of the discussion.

We group it with the other European and European-derived cultures because at the macro level, it is the colonizing culture that holds all the power in this country. Just as you group all iwi and all hapū under "Māori" culture. That leads to a massive misconception that all Māori have identical cultures. They don't. It's the same issue .. Generalizations are necessary - as long as we recognise the problems inherent in that generalisation.

Grouping all Western cultures together, is in equal parts stupid and insulting.

So instead of this superior "we're so different, and you can't understand us because you have no culture" bullshit - why don't you actually tell us where the differences lie?

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 11:24

Our culture was not "imposed" by England,

What do you mean by "Our Culture"?

The English forced a lot of culture change on my Scottish and Irish ancestors ... and were well practised at it by the time they gotr here to impose it on my Māori ancestors ...

Oscar

27th August 2010, 11:27

Ummmmm. I really don't know what to say to that Oscar. You seem to have conveniently forgotten 150+ years of New Zealand history.

Or perhaps I'm forgetting the bit where English people were invited here and then there was lengthy discussion about which would be the primary language and religion, how the land would be used, how we might structure our governance (rangatiratanga) in a way which best suited both cultural perspectives and what form of health, education, justice and social system might best reflect those perspectives too.

I'll type this slowly so you'll understand it - "English culture" (which in itself is actually many cultures) is not the only cultural input into NZ culture. NZ has taken parts of many cultures to make what we have now.

But perhaps you'd like to elucidate on the existing (pre-1840*) Maori form of health, education, justice and social systems and outline how the country would be better for imposing those systems on the population as a whole.

*It has to be pre-1840 to avoid cultural pollution form "the English".

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 11:27

Grouping all Western cultures together, is in equal parts stupid and insulting.

So instead of this superior "we're so different, and you can't understand us because you have no culture" bullshit - why don't you actually tell us where the differences lie?

I didn't make that statement - I would never suggest that a group has "no culture". That's a very stupid sdtatement. And I'm sure that RustyRobot did not either.

But the answer is huge and long ... and based in a radically different worldview - not one derived from, and influenced by, the Midle Eastern-derived monotheistic religions - and by long, I mean that I teach that stuff - over three years or more ... so I'm not prepared to give you a short answer in a forum on that one.

rustyrobot

27th August 2010, 11:28

we're so different, and you can't understand us because you have no culture

That's almost the exact opposite of what I have been trying to say.
It's more like 'We are so absorbed in our culture that we don't realise that it IS a culture.'

Oscar

27th August 2010, 11:34

What do you mean by "Our Culture"?

The English forced a lot of culture change on my Scottish and Irish ancestors ... and were well practised at it by the time they gotr here to impose it on my Māori ancestors ...

That's because the English had learned from those who oppressed them.
The Normans and the Romans and the Vikings imposed their will on what ever culture they found in England at the time.

What about the Scots imposing their culture on the Irish?
Your history is very one dimensional.
Basically every culture in Europe has a beef with another...

What arrived here post 1840 were "British" immigrants, but most Kiwi's like a good moan, so they identify with the Scots & Irish.

Oscar

27th August 2010, 11:35

I didn't make that statement - I would never suggest that a group has "no culture". THat's a very stupid sdtatement.

I withdraw that, I had you mixed up with the other apologist.

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 11:36

I'll type this slowly so you'll understand it - "English culture" (which in itself is actually many cultures) is not the only cultural input into NZ culture. NZ has taken parts of many cultures to make what we have now.

But perhaps you'd like to elucidate on the existing (pre-1840*) Maori form of health, education, justice and social systems and outline how the country would be better for imposing those systems on the population as a whole.

*It has to be pre-1840 to avoid cultural pollution form "the English".

Sheesh .. I'm trying to catch up .. just get to read and respond to page 14, to find my answers are on page 15 ..and now page 16 ... :laugh:

Who suggested we should do that? That's like suggesting that the British Isle return to the political, social, education, health and justice systems of the Middle Ages. We might be colonized but we are not stupid !

Why would we want to avoid "cultural pollution" ? Only the cultural essentialists want that. What reason have myself and RustyRobot given you to think we are cultural essentialists? There have been many waves of immigrants to this country, all bringing something new and beneficial that the ihabitants have appreciated.

The difference is that they were all assimilated intro the existing populations, with, of course, subsequent culture change. When the Europeans arrived, the tipuna were welcoming and jumped into the new world witrh both feet. They wrote the Declaration of Independence and named this country New Zealand, the first use of that name in an official document which was revognised by the USA, Britain and France, and it was a Māōri doucment. There were more than 60 trading ships registered to Māori owners during the mid-1800s. They were into world trade and capitalism with both feet, shipping wheat and flour in their own ships to the Australian colonies.

But that was not to the liking of the English colonizers, who subsequently took the land and relegated my people to the working classes - they wanted farm larbourers and domestic servants. We wanted to be doctors and lawyers.

Are you surpised that we are still angry about this? The Irish have been angry for hundreds of years about what the English did to them.

Oscar

27th August 2010, 11:39

That's almost the exact opposite of what I have been trying to say.
It's more like 'We are so absorbed in our culture that we don't realise that it IS a culture.'

So you didn't say:

I think that most Westerners are blind to what culture is because we have such a smug superiority about our own.

Mind you, your use of the word "Westerners" is very confusing - are you speaking of white NZers or people from Western Yrup?

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 11:42

That's because the English had learned from those who oppressed them.
The Normans and the Romans and the Vikings imposed their will on what ever culture they found in England at the time.

What about the Scots imposing their culture on the Irish?
Your history is very one dimensional.
Basically every culture in Europe has a beef with another...

What arrived here post 1840 were "British" immigrants, but most Kiwi's like a good moan, so they identify with the Scots & Irish.

Hang about .. "English" is a relatively modern term ... The Picts and the Jutes were probably there first, with immigant populations of Celts, Romans, saxons, Normans, heaps of others .. it was the intermingling of those groups that has created "English" or "Anglo/Saxons" ... so the "English" did not learn from the oppressors - the English as the descendents of the oppressors.

Of course, in a forum, it's pretty brief .. can't really give the broad sweep of our understandings .. and yes, the Scots were/are involved in Iereland .. but we identify with the oppressed not the oppressor ...

Oscar

27th August 2010, 11:44

Sheesh .. I'm trying to catch up .. just get to read and respond to page 14, to find my answers are on page 15 ..and now page 16 ... :laugh:

Who suggested we should do that? That's like suggesting that the British Isle return to the political, social, education, health and justice systems of the Middle Ages. We might be colonized but we are not stupid !

Why would we want to avoid "cultural pollution" ? Only the cultural essentialists want that. What reason have myself and RustyRobot given you to think we are cultural essentialists? There have been many waves of immigrants to this country, all bringing something new and beneficial that the ihabitants have appreciated.

The difference is that they were all assimilated intro the existing populations, with, of course, subsequent culture change. When the Europeans arrived, the tipuna were welcoming and jumped into the new world witrh both feet. They wrote the Declaration of Independence and named this country New Zealand, the first use of that name in an official document which was revognised by the USA, Britain and France, and it was a Māōri doucment. There were more than 60 trading ships registered to Māori owners during the mid-1800s. They were into world trade and capitalism with both feet, shipping wheat and flour in their own ships to the Australian colonies.

But that was not to the liking of the English colonizers, who subsequently took the land and relegated my people to the working classes - they wanted farm larbourers and domestic servants. We wanted to be doctors and lawyers.

Are you surpised that we are still angry about this? The Irish have been angry for hundreds of years about what the English did to them.

Why do you always refer to "English" colonisers?
They were British - Scots, Welsh and English mainly.

Some Scots and Irish have a grievance culture that belies their economic and political dependence on the United Kingdom. Why do you suppose that the Scots have yet to vote for division? The fact that their GNP would fall by a third, maybe?

And the Irish should learn their history - one of their main initial oppressors was a Scots army led by Robert Bruce's brother.

Oscar

27th August 2010, 11:48

Hang about .. "English" is a relatively modern term ... The Picts and the Jutes were probably there first, with immigant populations of Celts, Romans, saxons, Normans, heaps of others .. it was the intermingling of those groups that has created "English" or "Anglo/Saxons" ... so the "English" did not learn from the oppressors - the English as the descendents of the oppressors.

Of course, in a forum, it's pretty brief .. can't really give the broad sweep of our understandings .. and yes, the Scots were/are involved in Iereland .. but we identify with the oppressed not the oppressor ...

Wrong.
Firstly, the Anglo-Saxons were another invading culture.
They gave the place it's current name and were subsequently given a kicking by the Danes and the Normans. So the English have a lot of experience with oppression.

Secondly, and as I've pointed out in another post, your beef is with the British, not the English.

rustyrobot

27th August 2010, 11:49

Good grief this is hard to keep up with. Great conversation though.

That's because the English had learned from those who oppressed them.
The Normans and the Romans and the Vikings imposed their will on what ever culture they found in England at the time.

What about the Scots imposing their culture on the Irish?
Your history is very one dimensional.

So, leaving aside that just because something has happened before that doesn't make it okay ("well officer, someone stole a motorbike last week, so I thought it would be okay to steal one this week"), how do the Scottish, Welsh and Irish feel about someone saying "we're all English now"?! Oh wait, you keep reminding us that it's not right. So, just perhaps we aren't all 'one New Zealand' now.

It's less one-dimensional than necessarily brief. I don't see why you get so angry, this is a great dialogue and many more like it should be had. Have you ever been on a marae Oscar? Noticed that things run a little bit differently than when you last visited a community centre or town hall?

I'll type this slowly so you'll understand it - "English culture" (which in itself is actually many cultures) is not the only cultural input into NZ culture. NZ has taken parts of many cultures to make what we have now.

But perhaps you'd like to elucidate on the existing (pre-1840*) Maori form of health, education, justice and social systems and outline how the country would be better for imposing those systems on the population as a whole.

Okay, so who was it that defined the political structures in New Zealand? It wasn't the agents of the crown? Oh wait - it was.

So what, Māori culture has to be somehow frozen in time? I don't understand your concerted effort to not try and understand the idea of Māori having a fundamentally different underlying culture which doesn't match the one which birthed the system of governance, education, justice, etc. in this country.

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 11:50

But perhaps you'd like to elucidate on the existing (pre-1840*) Maori form of health, education, justice and social systems and outline how the country would be better for imposing those systems on the population as a whole.

You're assuming that there would be no change from the position negotiated 200 years ago - if it had been negotiated 200 years ago.

Of course there would have been change. Did the English invent radio/ No, but they use it.
Did they invent cars? No, but they use them.

We are not cultural essentialists. If you think we are, then we have a serious problem of misunderstanding ... Oh yeah ... that's right .. that's exactly the problem ...

What we are challenging is the power relationships that operate. They operate in a Western-dereived cultural format and are very different from Māori cultural formats.

Edbear

27th August 2010, 11:52

Sorry Edbear, I just don't understand the "unless you Know the scriptures" Part of your reply.... How does Knowledge of the scriptures Change the Point that was bring made.... I.e.- Don't Pick and Chose what Part of the bible you take literally, and which Parts you consider "up for Interpretation"

Exactly my point. Consistency. Don't you dare hold up their holy book and say "well this is what it says so this is exactly what they're going to do" then hold 'ours' up and say "well that's what it says but of course we don't take it literally". Of course that offering I found was selective ... as are the selective anti-Koran postings of others.

Oh, by the way. I'm an athiest but have tolerance and respect for those who do have their beliefs.

It doesn't - Edbear picks and chooses as much as the next religious man.

I don't want to risk tipping this thread into RR, but to briefly explain. Yes, the post was funny, I did see the joke. It's just that the Law was specifically given only to the Nation of Israel at the time and was not binding on any other nation, and after Christ it was replaced by Christianity as established by Jesus Christ in the 1st Cent.

The Mosaic Law was for the specific purpose of leading the nation to Christ who would redeem them from the Law and replace it with a new covenant which he established at "The Lord's Evening Meal."

So only the parts of the Law that Jesus reiterated would remain and these are found in the NT. We're no longer under the Sabbath or the clothing and food requirements, for example.

Sorry, but I'm not picking and choosing my own preferences as some would like to accuse me of, just clearing up the misinformation.

As you were...

Bald Eagle

27th August 2010, 11:53

Oscar

27th August 2010, 11:54

Good grief this is hard to keep up with. Great conversation though.

how do the Scottish, Welsh and Irish feel about someone saying "we're all English now"?!

Who said that?
I have Scots and Irish blood and I would never say that.
The reason I get wound up is when people say, the English did this or that, when they mean the British, or more correctly - people from the United Kingdom.

There are as likely as many pure blood Anglo Saxons left as there are pure blood Maoris.

Oscar

27th August 2010, 11:59

What we are challenging is the power relationships that operate. They operate in a Western-dereived cultural format and are very different from Māori cultural formats.

I would have to note that some Maori are quite adept at operating in both spheres.
And whereas the culture may be predominantly derived from western models, it has developed beyond that. It has a variety of unique indigenous facets - I don't see the Scots or the Cornish having their own seats in Westminster or the Lions doing a jig prior to each game for example.

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 11:59

Wrong.
Firstly, the Anglo-Saxons were another invading culture.

Isn't that what I said? And the invaders were not Anglo-Saxons. One was Saxon ansd the other Angle ... In fact Aglo-Saxon" is another conglomerate.

They gave the place it's current name and were subsequently given a kicking by the Danes and the Normans. So the English have a lot of experience with oppression.

Did they really call it "England" or the "British Isles" or "Great Britain"? They might have used the term "Briton" but even that's a bit doubtful, and it probably included Brittany in what is now France as well.

Secondly, and as I've pointed out in another post, your beef is with the British, not the English.

Yeah, you're probably right there. But as I come from a family that remembers its history in Scotland, Ireland and Aotearoa, our beaf is with the Sassenach :wacko: Oh come on .. laugh a little ... It's Friday .. and we all deserve a laugh ..

oldrider

27th August 2010, 12:03

You see, right there we disagree. I agree with most of what else you say ..
But we are NOT one people .. we are Becoming one people ... the question is On who's terms are we becoming one people ? And right now the answer is Pākehā New Zealanders' trerms .. that's stil colonization of a peoples ... Pākehā New Zealand has all the power and it's forcing others to adopt is ways of being.

Basically I agree with you and that is what I meant about the Maori Party and "Maori" participation in the affairs of running the country!

In simple terms following the treaty between the crown and the tribes (for whatever reason) Pakeha stepped up to the plate and Maori took a step back.

In recent years Maori have slowly stepped back up to the plate and become more assertive and with the evolution of the Maori political party are now taking a more active role in parliament.

The resurgence of Maori (albeit a somewhat mixed up modern version) seems to have had quite a disturbing influence on the previously Pakeha dominated society!

As "New Zealand culture" further evolves there will be mistakes but then again the adage, "The man who never made a mistake probably never made anything", springs to mind!

In keeping with the tenure of the thread, we all now have to consider the effects of the Islamic religious culture on our own very shaky situation!

It never rains but it pours! :shit:

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 12:04

Why do you always refer to "English" colonisers?
They were British - Scots, Welsh and English mainly.

Let me chuck in a little Marzism as well ... The dominant ideology of any society is the ideology of the dominant class ... the dominant class uses the structures of the society to create the hegemonic power structures which are most to their benefit.

The Scots and others had all bought into the power structures created by the English ... forced at times .. but the idea's the same.

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 12:07

They operate in a Western-dereived cultural format and are very different from Māori cultural formats.

That's because the country has been colonized. If Maori had won the land wars it would be a Maori derived cultural format wouldn't it.

Yes, that's almost certainly true. But it would be hard to make any statements about what that cultural format might look like. And the Land Wars were only a part of colonization.

Edbear

27th August 2010, 12:11

Who said that?
I have Scots and Irish blood and I would never say that.
The reason I get wound up is when people say, the English did this or that, when they mean the British, or more correctly - people from the United Kingdom.

There are as likely as many pure blood Anglo Saxons left as there are pure blood Maoris.

When asked, I say I'm a "pure bred Kiwi" - English, Scottish, Spanish and Danish with a touch of Irish, 5th Gen NZ'r. :yes:

Oscar

27th August 2010, 12:13

Isn't that what I said? And the invaders were not Anglo-Saxons. One was Saxon ansd the other Angle ... In fact Aglo-Saxon" is another conglomerate.

Did they really call it "England" or the "British Isles" or "Great Britain"? They might have used the term "Briton" but even that's a bit doubtful, and it probably included Brittany in what is now France as well.

Yeah, you're probably right there. But as I come from a family that remembers its history in Scotland, Ireland and Aotearoa, our beaf is with the Sassenach :wacko: Oh come on .. laugh a little ... It's Friday .. and we all deserve a laugh ..

No, it isn't what you said.
You said that Anglo Saxon described the last invaders.

Anglo Saxon is a term describing three Germanic Tribes (Angles, Saxons and Jutes) who invaded England (or more correctly the four or so kingdoms that then existed) in the fifth century. The fact that the local Britons referred to them by the one name suggests that the Anglo Saxons were at that point more or less one people.

They stepped into the vacuum left by the departing Romans and conquered or displaced (mainly to Wales) the local Britons, and established the kingdoms of Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria (the latter containing a swath of modern Scotland).

They themselves were attacked and conquered by Vikings and Danes and eventually the Normans (who were probably originally Danish).

The term England (Angle-lands) was used by the Anglo Saxons to describe their new lands.

Oscar

27th August 2010, 12:19

No, it isn't what you said.
You said that Anglo Saxon described the last invaders.

Anglo Saxon is a term describing three Germanic Tribes (Angles, Saxons and Jutes) who invaded England (or more correctly the four or so kingdoms that then existed) in the fifth century. The fact that the local Britons referred to them by the one name suggests that the Anglo Saxons were at that point more or less one people.

They stepped into the vacuum left by the departing Romans and conquered or displaced (mainly to Wales) the local Britons, and established the kingdoms of Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria (the latter containing a swath of modern Scotland).

They themselves were attacked and conquered by Vikings and Danes and eventually the Normans (who were probably originally Danish).

The term England (Angle-lands) was used by the Anglo Saxons to describe their new lands.

Think Arthurian Legends - Arthur was a Briton (or could have been Roman) - fighting the invading Saxons.

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 12:19

Basically I agree with you and that is what I meant about the Maori Party and "Maori" participation in the affairs of running the country!

In simple terms following the treaty between the crown and the tribes (for whatever reason) Pakeha stepped up to the plate and Maori took a step back.

I completely disagree with you there. Pākehā never honoured the Treaty, Māori have always tried to. That;s a whole other argument, but the wards and violent conflict were attempts by Māori to force Pākehā to live by the Treaty.

In recent years Maori have slowly stepped back up to the plate and become more assertive and with the evolution of the Maori political party are now taking a more active role in parliament.

The resurgence of Maori (albeit a somewhat mixed up modern version) seems to have had quite a disturbing influence on the previously Pakeha dominated society!

As "New Zealand culture" further evolves there will be mistakes but then again the adage, "The man who never made a mistake probably never made anything", springs to mind!

In keeping with the tenure of the thread, we all now have to consider the effects of the Islamic religious culture on our own very shaky situation!

It never rains but it pours! :shit:

Yes. The conflict we are facing, and which has been eluded to previously, is that we live in a society which values difference and tolerance, and modern fundamentalist versions of Islam essentially do not - just as modern fundamentalist version of Christianity (Destiny Church for example) does not..

Of course, we can look back into history and see how similar conflicts were resolved.

On a small Melanesian Island lived a people who were tolerant of others. When the Christian missionaries arrived, the Islanders told the missionaries they were quite content the way they were. The missionaries were quite welcome to come and stay, and to practie their religion, but the Islanders themselves did not want anything to do with Christianity.

The missionaries, of course, told the Islanders that they were wrong, and that Christianity was the truth, and the Islanders had to adopted it.

The Islanders explained that they were happy for the missionaries to believe they knew the truth. The Islanders begged to differ, but in the spirit of tolerance, each should accept the difference and learn to live together.

The missonaries, of course, could not accept that position.

The Islanders, in the true spirit of tolerance, did not wish to impose their beliefs in tolerance of others on the missionaries, as such an imposition was against the spirit of tolerance, were faced with a moral dilemma. How to protect their tolerant culture from a culture that did not believe in, or practice, tolerance towards others?

Being very practical people, the islanders solved the dilemma by removing the problem - rather than forcing the missionaries to become tolerant they simply ate the missionaries.