Christchurch mosque terror attack.

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,723
Seattle
These migrants you mentioned are most certainly of Romanian nationality / they have Romanian passport, but they are do not belong to Romanian ethnic group, because they are Romani, less political correct word for them gypsies. One can find different representatives of this ethnic group all over European continent and because of their way of life it is impossible to integrate them in the society, for example commies in the good ole days tried hard to do that, but even they failed.
I think in general, many have, mostly, integrated. It is not like every gypsy in the Soviet Union was nomadic. They were not. They lived in apartments, they spoke Russian, they were Orthodox. That they preferred not to work at factories but tell fortune and sing in their theater was not that dumb. I am thinking about it - integration - and think that for Soviet gypsies, it is 70/30. Partially the lack of full integration depended on the Russians who attributed gypsies with mystical power to foresee the future. I once went to a gypsy fortune-teller and it was all c@@p, sorry, if I were darker-looking I could make a better job of fortune-telling and palmistry, but people went to that woman and paid a lot for that nonsense. So, why toil at a communist factory when you can earn more money on people's superstitions?
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,723
Seattle
Small trivia: the Jewish community in Spain, persecuted by the new Spanish power in place, highly intolerant Christian, found refuge in Maghreb and Ottoman Empire.
The Spain was intolerant to such a degree that even when auto-da-fes stopped everywhere, they still continued in Spanish colonies.

But why did Spain become so intolerant? I think, it happened when Castile and Aragon united - a new, stronger state required stronger religion. And then, came greed, because Spanish Catholic monarchs were bad managers. (Wasn't there a law according to which the property of the heretic who acknowledged own heresy was taken by the church?)

It is all economic-based.

Today, we are somehow managing, yet. But if there will ever be the need to revive Christianity, or any other religion, not even one of the big three, just any, in an aggressive form to pursue huge financial gain...just watch.
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
And that's the (recurring) problem: it's not about intolerance being (or not) part of religion "x"!

It's about that religion, no matter what is promoting, can be (and it is) used as explanation, pretext for anything . It's why You will find intolerant persons/movements in "more pacifist" religions as tolerant persons/movements in "less pacifist" religions.
incorrect,if this was the case then we would have seen same number(or atleast somewhat comparable) number of religious genocide or mass murders by hindus as done by muslims or christians,as history shows,this simply isn't the case,even now the highest number of minorities in south asia are in india,and its the only place where minorities are actually safe(thousands of hindus migrate to india every year due to persecution in muslim dominated countries,yet you won't see the reverse pattern of muslim migrating to muslim dominated countries from india)

you are saying as if it doesn't matter what principles or ideology a person follows,because someone other may do it as well!!which according to me is totally incorrect,and history sides with me here.
 
Sep 2015
1,762
England
And that's the (recurring) problem: it's not about intolerance being (or not) part of religion "x"!

It's about that religion, no matter what is promoting, can be (and it is) used as explanation, pretext for anything . It's why You will find intolerant persons/movements in "more pacifist" religions as tolerant persons/movements in "less pacifist" religions.
Arent't you really thinking the one religion with some tolerant persons in "less pacifist" religions, will have a preponderance of less pacifist persons, than the other. It appears about as much.
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
It seems odd only because You look at it through the single religious lens and not taking into account other factors. And in real life, there is never only one factor contributing to an event, an evolution, a change.
I gave multiple factors on why gangetic plains did not convert(your initial premise was that since other places converted and india didn't,therefore islam is more peaceful or atleast was more peaceful 600 years ago,correct?)

and the reason why i am sticking to single lens,is because we are talking about that,rationally you would want to exclude every other variable if you want to compare one aspect of something,correct?like remove all other macros except one when comparing diets,right?


Ottoman Empire's occupation of Balkans concords with the America's occupation by Spanish/Portuguese. And if the Balkans weren't islamised, unlike America that was Christianised is not because of the specificities of the Qur'an/New The but because of specificities of OT, Spain, Portugal. Political, economical specifities plus specific -meaning different -interpretation of the scriptures.

Cordoba Caliphate can be considered as open, tolerant for the time frame. A "tolerant Islam". It felt because of the fundamentalist Islam. And fundamentalist Christianism.

Small trivia: the Jewish community in Spain, persecuted by the new Spanish power in place, highly intolerant Christian, found refuge in Maghreb and Ottoman Empire.

I have the impression that You take into account only how religion is shaping a society but You do not take into account how the society is shaping religion. It gives a partial vision, thus a wrong one in the end.
Yes when comparing religions,i only take religions into account,if religion was created in intolerant and bigoted atmosphere it would be more like that but it still would be intolerant,right?
 
Oct 2013
14,293
Europix
you are saying as if it doesn't matter what principles or ideology a person follows,because someone other may do it as well
Nope, it is not what I am saying.

I am saying that religion is interpreted accordingly to one's principles, that religion is "adapted" for fitting one's ideology.

It is why You can see through history totally oposite positions and actions based on the same, unchanged, scriptures.
 
Likes: arkteia
Oct 2013
14,293
Europix
Arent't you really thinking the one religion with some tolerant persons in "less pacifist" religions, will have a preponderance of less pacifist persons, than the other. It appears about as much.
It's obvious.

But "intolerance" and "tolerance" cames from society, and society is never exclusively "religion" (not even in
a theocracy). It's why one can find religiously based extremist even in societies passed on /majoritary fundamentally pacifist religions like Buddhism or Hinduism.
 
Last edited:
Likes: arkteia
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
Nope, it is not what I am saying.

I am saying that religion is interpreted accordingly to one's principles, that religion is "adapted" for fitting one's ideology.

It is why You can see through history totally oposite positions and actions based on the same, unchanged, scriptures.
you are incorrect then,you are saying religion doesn't effect one's life despite being raised around it,and contantly being told how true it is,which simply isn't true.

how exactly do you think principles are formed?religion plays an extremely important role in forming principles of person(it surely isn't the only one,but a major one at that,shivaji for example was a hindu king fighting for a hindu cause against muslim rulers yet he allowed contruction of mosques in lands he controlled,hardly possible if the person was a muslim fighting for islamic cause and fight off the "idolatory" and "polytheism" from the land),i find most people to be ignorant of the scriptures they tend to defend it only because they are told how great their religion is,infact most people haven't really gave it a read before someone smacks them with some uncomfortable verse.
 
Oct 2013
14,293
Europix
... when comparing religions,i only take religions into account,if religion was created in intolerant and bigoted atmosphere it would be more like that but it still would be intolerant,right?
False.

You do not compare religions in this thread. If You would, You would write about haddits, Golden boules, sutras, edits, fatwas, excommunications, etc, etc, etc.

You are comparing effects of religion on societies.

You cannot do that without looking at the other aspects of societies (social, cultural, political, economical), aspects that are not only influenced by religion but also influencing religion.

Russian Orthodoxy is not Spanish Catholicism. Tho both are based on the same scripture.

Ottoman Islamism isn't the Ommeyad Islamism. Tho both are based on the same scripture.
 
Last edited:
Likes: arkteia
Apr 2012
1,032
The Netherlands
No, you bring in cults. The problem (one of the many) is that in decision making circles there seems to be a total disconnect with large parts of the citizens.
The way we work with a coalition contract (which almost literally is one) is one of the most visible examples. As a party you sign your soul (the people you are supposed to represent) away for 4 years. Since all the giving and taking is being done outside of parliament, nobody understands it when they sign their supposed crown jewels away.
Um, I'm not talking about politician and scientist the same way as Baudet in his speech so I'm fairly certain I'm not the one starting the whole cult thing. Coalition systems do come with drawbacks but it also comes with it advantages, as does every system. Is multiple parties coming together until they represent(even if theoretically) the majority of the nation really that weirder then one party getting the presidential seat despite getting fewer votes, or another government having both a powerful prime minister and president that can get into conflict with each other?

There is a disconnect between citizens and politicians but that disconnect goes both ways. Some politicians look down on a sections of the citizens but some citizens also don't understand politicians in turn.

On almost any scientific subject (that is, one that is not "entirely" proven) there are renegades. The problem with the climate is that it is taken over by policy makers and politicians.\
That's probably because its important. Something must be done after all, especially if you live below sea level.

No of course it is their own problem, but it is quite telling that no one paused to think that that may be a consequence.
Probably because from the looks of it Turkey was going in the ''right'' direction. Turkey was always more like Europe than the other middle eastern countries so to many its entrance or at least its attempt to enter the European ''family'' must have seemed like a natural evolution. Or so they wanted to think.

I don't support him. I think he is too soft on immigration, islam and EU.
I'm somewhat curious on how Baudet is too soft on the EU. He already frequently criticizes if not demonizes it, started a referendum primarily to give the EU a bad day and desire a hard Nexit. I'm not sure how he could get any harsher aside from sending the armed forces at Brussels.

But if you check the newspapers and media they all start their "analysis" with populism this and that, to end up with just stopping short of comparing him to Goebbels/Himmler.
Depends on the source I guess or what sections you're reading. Generally the main journalistic pieces are more neutral and objective while the opinion pieces are more opinionated and hyperbolic. The volkskrant for example had a great many articles, the journalistic pieces generally being things like ''Who is Baudet'' or ''What does Forum want'' and yes, there has been an opinion piece called something like ''****, the fascists won'', but also another one saying Baudet shouldn't be viewed as the enemy.

But then I'd invite you to go say ''Not a Nazi but...'' to them instead. I'm pretty sure I never used the comparison myself. It just weakens the argument against the populists if you can't let them be terrible on their own merit.

If that is how you view referendums, then I cant see why you would support voting at all.
We have had referendums on the EU, Ukraine and IT surveillance. The last one had a turnout of 51%. Hardly a result that illustrates your point. For comparison the 2016 US presidential elections had 55% and our last EU election got a whopping 37%.
First of all I don't think Ukraine and the IT bill are much alike in this regard. The IT bill came from concerned students without any direct support from populists although they were supportive of it. Ukraine on the other hand was directly started by the populists who wore their bad intentions on their sleeve. Ukraine was a topic no one cared about, least of all the opponents who proudly bragged about it just being a way to bully the EU some more. The EU inspires some very passionate loathing. A certain crowd will make time in their day to give Brussel the middle finger, another just to give Rutte a bad day, but even those that like the EU probably don't do it so passionately as those that hate it and they won't be overly invested in a trade deal. There's also the question about whether or not to stay home out of principle or to ensure it doesn't get the required turnout which further splits the yes vote. And the anti camp very cleverly played into this.

Comparing it to regular elections doesn't really work because regular elections tend to be about real subjects and are held in good faith.
 

Similar History Discussions