RIP Sweden

[Takhisis]

Quackers seem to be stuck to the status quo or the rearview mirror depending on the topic. I haven't gotten the wholesale engineering of society vibe from him.

Easy does it, no low blows now.

There is no movement for the U.S. to be ruled by Sharia, just Islamaphobes who think there is.

You sound like a Kenyan.

It doesn't take much for it to get a foothold in. Just look at England where Sharia is slowly being introduced there. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10717575/Sharia-law-in-UK-calls-for-Parliamentary-inquiry.html Al what is happening is step one on the path towards full Sharia, and these Sharia laws to be in effect are rather terrible in the first place and it will get worse from. Even before the pronouncement many areas were already effectively Sharia zones. It only gets worse from here unless steps are taken to stop the rot.

Am I the only person on this entire website who has studied UK constituional law?

Meanwhile, Anglican bishops sit in the House of Lords. So you have to wonder which religion actually represents the greater threat to liberal democratic values.

Again, law studies, anyone?

Must... not... post... the... multicultural... adventures... of... Captain... Sweden...

Still hasn't liberated Catalonia, though.

But all in due time.

Check out SatW next year for that.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'll admit, the 'Sharia law is coming!' mantra is always pretty funny to those who have studied law.

 

[Tahuti]

Quite a historical reason for positive correlation between xenophobia and anti-semitism. However, modern European xenophobia has somewhat evolved to be more against Arabs and Muslims immigrants, rather than Jewish population. Those anti-semite, classical fascists or Nazi sympathizers really need to catch up with time to see the hordes of Muslims Immigration from Middle East, and it is the very Jewish state, Israel, that fights against Middle East Arabian regimes.

Neo-nazis occasionally join up with radical Muslims, for instance, the Dutch NVU (a traditional antisemitic Nazi party that views Geert Wilders as a 'zionist') often declare support for Hamas and Al-Qaida. Likewise, since the party doesn't run for the second chamber, its leader votes for the Socialist Party instead of the PVV and despite being overall more despicable than Geert Wilders, he doesn't use the same aggressive language towards Muslim immigrants as Wilders does, and instead focuses hostility towards Eastern European migrants.

Of course, this all serves to further marginalise Neo-Nazis popularly, though I guess they don't have anything to lose in that department really.

 

[Traitorfish]

Unfortunately, it also provides an alibi for crypto-fascists, who can point these nutters and say "see, we are nothing like them".

 

[Angst]

Oh god that narrator is annoying and I have no idea what their point is 1 minute in beyond sensationalist nonsensual claims of Sweden drawing inspiration from North Korea or whatever. @Quackers, articles that lead with such claims are 99% of the time sensationalist and not worth your brainpower. That it is a video news segment doesn't help either.

Now, I'm going to watch the rest of it and hopefully they will come up with something substantial.

~

2 minutes in now. The multiculturalist powers in Sweden are not McCarthian in their nature, and Sweden has severe problems with the extreme right, be it terrorism or general violence. Breivik could've as easily happen there, the same in DK, to be blunt. We have those problems as well. We have these problems partly because the average skin and self-understanding of Scandinavia has been white for way longer than it has been in the UK, France, the US and so on. We're still getting used to having a minority. To be fair, I'm not sure if we ever had segregation and such things, but we never had a black minority to segregate anyways so it doesn't particularly count as humanism. Watching on. Now it is true that there is a multiculturalist tone in the popular and that you can become a social pariah by shouting racist things, but personally I have no issue with that as they are racist and it only leads to more rightist violence - you know, actual violence and terrorism compared to the Sovjet scaremongering. And this violence and its growth is demonstrable with data. Which I don't care enough for to dig up right now, I admit, you have to trust me.

Watching on.

~

3 minutes in. It's insanely easy for the majority to feel butthurt when they're told that their understanding of the world isn't monolithic and that they're supposed to give into immigration more than immigrants are supposed to assimilate. But the reason for this is to compensate for the insane institutional power balance that is present between the white Swede and the brown newcomer. Now, it is true that the experiment isn't throughoutly succesful as there are many weak points in Nordic immigration policies, but this video leaves out important points such as a powerful institutional force in the academia to drive the policies in a right direction and that part of the immigration problems are indeed there because of rightist reactionism, especially in racist governmental parties.

~

Also, don't listen to journalists that claim things. They don't have the education to claim things. Listen to who they cite instead, particularly academicians; journalism as a concept isn't an academic movement nor is it brilliant or sacred, rather, at news production that are intended to capitalize on people's expections.

~

LOL LARS HEDEGAARD HAHAHAHA.

Dude don't listen to that idiot. He has affliations with the Danish People Party whose voters are pretty much all racist grandmothers. And yes, we do have problems with racist grandmothers being way too representative in the polls. You know what mine said to me one Christmas dinner? "The only religion to be ok is the Protestant one. The Catholics are sometimes OK too. The rest are insane."

This was a statement of the natures of other religions, yes. You cannot, per this logic, possibly be a Shi'ite or a Buddhist and be a proper human being. Gandhi was evil.

I know this is anecdotical. But that is the power base that Lars Hedegaard and Danish People's Party builds on.

~

The video has no idea of what is happening in the Northern countries, it cites people without taking into consideration their affliations, it ignores rightist violence (which absolutely blows the small-time crimes of immigrant violence out of the water) so basically yeah whoever made it try living in Scandinavia mkay.

EDIT:

If I call metatron's name three times, will I summon him?

EDITEDIT: Also, what a terrible post to be #11,000 but what can you do.

 

[classical_hero]

Am I the only person on this entire website who has studied UK constituional law?

I said it is a step towards that. Just bring in small bits at a time and not totally change the system enough, but minor changes generally won't go unnoticed. There are already sharia loans and bank accounts in the UK. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lloyds-bank-removes-overdraft-fee-from-islamic-accounts-9291932.html

 

[Senethro]

I said it is a step towards that. Just bring in small bits at a time and not totally change the system enough, but minor changes generally won't go unnoticed. There are already sharia loans and bank accounts in the UK. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lloyds-bank-removes-overdraft-fee-from-islamic-accounts-9291932.html

A bank account that doesn't gain or lose interest. Downfall of civilization right here.

You'd be very difficult to parody, C_H

 

[Traitorfish]

Usury is also prohibited by the Christian faith, so Classical Hero should welcome these accounts with open arms. You shouldn't get pissy at Muslims just because they take their religion a little bit more seriously than you take yours.

 

[Borachio]

I don't know about other people, but my bank seems to have all but prohibited usury in the form of interest on my savings account about four years ago.

Have I witnessed a religious revival in banking?

Anyway. This is all wrong. Christianity would say that usury is the charging of unreasonable interest rates. While Sharia banking neatly sidesteps the issue in another way. Sharia banks charge interest all right. They just don't call it interest.

 

[Traitorfish]

“Our focus has always been on meeting the needs of UK businesses and personal customers. We offer a range of retail, business and investment products to meet the needs of our customers, available through all of our branches across the UK. The Islamic current account is for customers who cannot receive credit or debit interest due to their religious beliefs. All of our Islamic accounts comply with Islamic law and are available to anyone regardless of background or faith,” he said.

“These accounts are structured differently to our traditional accounts and do not offer credit interest or other features that are available on our other products. A comparison with the overdraft charging structure on other accounts is meaningless.”

The best bit about Classical Hero's scare-articles is that his hysteria is always refuted within the body of the article itself, proving that he doesn't actually read beyond the headline.

 

[Tahuti]

Anyway. This is all wrong. Christianity would say that usury is the charging of unreasonable interest rates. While Sharia banking neatly sidesteps the issue in another way. Sharia banks charge interest all right. They just don't call it interest.

Christianity used to be uncompromisingly against usury, similar to Islam today. The problem was that there a theological loophole in both Judaism and Christianity that allowed Christians to be indebted to Jews and vice versa. You also had the Knights Templar which simply played semantic loopholes around debt and emitted credit as well, as did some Italian guys like the Medici's. Over time, this prompted a reinterpretation of Christianity that saw the definition of usury shift to "overcharging" interest instead of charging interest.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. That makes sense.

And with the Medicis came modern banking and the direct line to capitalism, no?

Which, Marx notwithstanding, hasn't been all bad, has it?

I think Sharia banking has something to offer, in light of the recent crisis, too.

 

[classical_hero]

A bank account that doesn't gain or lose interest. Downfall of civilization right here.

You'd be very difficult to parody, C_H

The changes are small but they are changes. Sharia will not be introduced like it is in the ME, but to lull people into a false sense of security. There are already Sharia courts in the Uk, just right now they have a very limited scope. Doesn't mean it will stay the same in the future. http://www.islamic-sharia.org/ Just don't complain when there is far deeper Sharia creep into the UK, since we warned this would happen and before you know it, it wil be too late, in fact some ares inside of England ar effectively sharia zones due to the fact that those regions are majority Muslim.

Usury is also prohibited by the Christian faith, so Classical Hero should welcome these accounts with open arms. You shouldn't get pissy at Muslims just because they take their religion a little bit more seriously than you take yours.

Okay, where is the evidence of that? At least you could show that. Even Jesus used an example of money and making it work for you and not just sit around, so obviously Jesus had no problem with interest, the only problem the Bible has with money is if you are deceptive in your means of getting money, and that does include overcharging interest. One interesting thin g about OT law is the fact that after 7 years all debts were to be forgiven and everyone started with a clean slate. But another thing is that their financial is very different from our financial system so it is almost like comparing oranges to apples.

 

[Tahuti]

The changes are small but they are changes. Sharia will not be introduced like it is in the ME, but to lull people into a false sense of security. There are already Sharia courts in the Uk, just right now they have a very limited scope. Doesn't mean it will stay the same in the future. http://www.islamic-sharia.org/ Just don't complain when there is far deeper Sharia creep into the UK, since we warned this would happen and before you know it, it wil be too late, in fact some ares inside of England ar effectively sharia zones due to the fact that those regions are majority Muslim.

Israel has Shari'a laws that are binding to Muslims! Israel is PC hellhole! Prove of Judeo-Bolshevism!

 

[Traitorfish]

Okay, where is the evidence of that? At least you could show that.

It's common knowledge among the children of the True Church. Sure enough, heretics will have their own opinions, based on literalism and tea leaves and other Genevan nonsense, but there's no accounting for that.

 

[Borachio]

The changes are small but they are changes. Sharia will not be introduced like it is in the ME, but to lull people into a false sense of security. There are already Sharia courts in the Uk, just right now they have a very limited scope. Doesn't mean it will stay the same in the future. http://www.islamic-sharia.org/ Just don't complain when there is far deeper Sharia creep into the UK, since we warned this would happen and before you know it, it wil be too late, in fact some ares inside of England ar effectively sharia zones due to the fact that those regions are majority Muslim.

Is this so?

I think your opinion of England is misinformed. Is it based on the Daily Mail perhaps?

England does have its fair share of nutters though. And its ways of dealing with them.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/07/muslim-patrol-vigilantes-jailed-for-sharia-law-attacks-in-london-4221898/

It's a strange thing about Muslim extremists: they nearly all seem to be recent converts. And, purely coincidentally (I write with heavy irony), they, too, seem to think that reading a holy book is all that's necessary to know everything there is to know about a religion.

From your link:

Welcome to the Islamic Sharia Council. The Islamic Shari'a Council was formed to solve the matrimonial problems of Muslims living in the United Kingdom in the light of Islamic family law. The council is made up of members from all of the major schools of Islamic legal thought (mad'hab) and is widely accepted as an authoritative body with regards to Islamic law.

The Islamic Sharia council was established in 1982 in a meeting attended by various scholars representing a number of mosques in the UK.

The main function of this council is to guide the Muslims in the UK in matters related to religious issues as well as solving their matrimonial problems which are referred to it it by the Muslims of this country.

Oh dear! Oh my! You really don't read your own links, do you? "Sharia Law"! Boom! That'll do nicely.

They've actually developed a good reputation for resolving matrimonial disputes more efficiently than civil courts.

it is almost like comparing oranges to apples.

Oranges are roundish, as are apples. But oranges tend to be orange-coloured, while apples aren't.

Moreover they grow on different trees. And apples are usually a temperate zone crop, while oranges are found nearer the tropics.

How am I doing?

 

[JollyRoger]

I said it is a step towards that. Just bring in small bits at a time and not totally change the system enough, but minor changes generally won't go unnoticed. There are already sharia loans and bank accounts in the UK. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lloyds-bank-removes-overdraft-fee-from-islamic-accounts-9291932.html

Why do you hate capitalism and Bible-based finance?

 

[Tahuti]

Unfortunately, it also provides an alibi for crypto-fascists, who can point these nutters and say "see, we are nothing like them".

To some extent, that is true. Since nationalism seeks to elevate national interest over all else, and there are different conceptions of what that national interest entails (i.e. being friendly to Israel on anti-Islamic ground or hostile to it on antisemitic grounds).

However, Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen are essentially 19th century national liberals, whereas Nick Griffen and Jean-Marie Le Pen are genuine fascists.

 

[Takhisis]

EDITEDIT: Also, what a terrible post to be #11,000 but what can you do.

Indeed, inclusion of the word 'throughoutly' should be an infractable offense.

I said it is a step towards that. Just bring in small bits at a time and not totally change the system enough, but minor changes generally won't go unnoticed. There are already sharia loans and bank accounts in the UK. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lloyds-bank-removes-overdraft-fee-from-islamic-accounts-9291932.html

Once again, have you ever even bothered to learn law?

I don't know about other people, but my bank seems to have all but prohibited usury in the form of interest on my savings account about four years ago.

Have I witnessed a religious revival in banking?

I'm nearly positive that when a banker is offered money he'll say 'God, yes!'.

Anyway. This is all wrong. Christianity would say that usury is the charging of unreasonable interest rates. While Sharia banking neatly sidesteps the issue in another way. Sharia banks charge interest all right. They just don't call it interest.

How does that work? I'm interested.

Why do you hate capitalism and Bible-based finance?

I shudder to think what would've happened to the world if you'd decided to post longer posts.

 

[JollyRoger]

I shudder to think what would've happened to the world if you'd decided to post longer posts.

I think we are just going to have to trust the moderators here. The Red Diamond concept and other measures being taken are designed to get OT to a certain place and I am here to be a part of the change they want. We should put much thought into our posts and fully explain everything. We should be careful about quoting other posters and if we dare address a post, we should be very careful not to address a poster. It is even better not to address a post just so that it does not get construed as addressing the poster. Certainly, you should not attempt to impeach the credibility of a poster, even with their own words. We should assume that a poster's credibility will speak for itself and that having the ability to test credibility is just not a proper tool for debate, even in a non-RD thread. We should treat each post as if it is in a RD thread and be very careful. Better yet, you may want to run a post past a mod via PM (or maybe all the mods) and not post until you get a thumbs up from each of them. We cannot have OT descend into something that might offend the delicate sensibilities of the delicately sensible. If you do not have anything nice to post, you should not post at all. If there is a post you want to counter, you should wait at least 24 hours and make sure there are plenty of posts that have been made since then in the thread. Then you should make a post that makes your points but not in a way that would clue in anyone that you are addressing the post you disagreed with. That kind of posting just leads to strife and probably kills a few butterflies along the way. If you disagree with what someone posts, you should consider that they are right and you are wrong and once you realize the error of your ways, you should post a post that agrees with that post, but in a way that does not indicate that you were ever in disagreement with it. You should be very careful that your sincerely serious posts cannot be construed as some sort of sarcastic underhandedness. If you have a history of posting sarcasm, you should accept your fate that your history is your future and you should report all your posts to the mods with a recommendation of how many points they should give. You should probably accept at least a three day ban for every post that you make. That will slow down the debate enough so that things do not get overheated. If you have a history of disagreement, you should be careful in "what's your favorite cola" threads and the like. If you have posted in disagreement with another poster before and you see that they like pepsi, it could be considered as trolling if you select coke or as biting sarcasm if you select pepsi. It is best not to even open the thread so as to not alert a poster that is paying attention to what you are viewing that you may be considering either disagreeing with them or sarcastically agreeing with them. If a thread has a Red Diamond on it, you should concede that the opening post likely adequately covers the subject and any post whatsoever would be a rude attack on the opening post. There are so many ways to screw up a post, that posting should not even be attempted in a Red Diamond thread. If you are thinking about starting a Red Diamond thread, you should reconsider, because someone may disagree with your opening post and you put them in the uncomfortable position of either having to risk responding or letting something stay posted on the internet without opposition. You should probably browse the forum in invisible mode. If someone sees that you are on the forum, they may fear your disagreement with them and feel trolled by your mere presense. We have only 14 moderators here, so we should try to keep the number of active posters during any 24 hour period under 14 so that things can stay properly monitored. Just remember, we are trying to build a community here that is what we want. Downtown started a thread on the subject and it is frankly disappointing that the things leading that poll are actually things we do not want. Anyone who voted improperly in that thread should at least receive a warning and be told what they want so they are clear not to make the same mistake in the future. I probably should not have called out Downtwn there for staring that thread. It can either be construed as criticsm of Downtown or of promoting elitism. For that I apologize and if a mod wants to delete his name from this post, no hard feelings from me. To stop before I ramble on too much, just be careful out there on what you post - remember, if you don't post anything, it is more likely than not to improve the forum over what would have resulted if you did post something.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10710050&postcount=434