# Shooting at Quebec City mosque, multiple dead



## james4beach

Breaking news. 6 dead, shot at a mosque by _multiple_ gunmen.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-mosque-gun-shots-1.3957686
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-mosque-shooting-idUSKBN15E04S
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38793071


----------



## james4beach

They've arrested two suspects, so this is _organized_. Not a lone gunman thing.

On a population-adjusted basis, it's about as major a terrorist attack as the Orlando nightclub shooting


----------



## tygrus

So many deranged people of all stripes in this world. Very sad.


----------



## james4beach

Yeah unbelievable. Death count is up to 6 now. Both PM and Premier calling it a terrorist attack.


----------



## carverman

Happy New Year indeed! The more things change the more they stay the same, and if this is any indication of terrorist attacks continuing this year, there may be more somewhere in the world.
Interesting that this mosque was targetted last year..with a pigs head being dropped off at the door of the mosque.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-centre-culturel-islamique-de-quebec-1.3957875

You would think that if even handling pork is forbidden in Islamic religion, it had to be the work of local terrorists living inside Quebec and born there. Quebec has been known to have terrorist/racial attacks against mosques and if you remember, under Pauline Maroise , certain types of headdress (Muslim) was forbidden in public.


----------



## bass player

Witnesses reported that the shooters were yelling the magic words... "Alahu Akbar", but most of the media is more concerned about a pig's head from last summer, which of course is just another deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking that white supremacists were responsible.

The lies never end.


----------



## bgc_fan

I would wait for more information before commenting. There is some eye witness account that one of the shooters shouted Allahu Akbar before shooting. Could said mockingly or it could be a sectarian issue. For the record, it was said in a Quebecois accent which would probably rule out a recent immigrant.


----------



## bass player

bgc_fan said:


> I would wait for more information before commenting. There is some eye witness account that one of the shooters shouted Allahu Akbar before shooting. Could said mockingly or it could be a sectarian issue. For the record, it was said in a Quebecois accent which would probably rule out a recent immigrant.


Well, you didn't wait for more information before suggesting that Alahu Akbar may have been said in jest and ruling out that it was an immigrant, but you want others to wait? Why don't you take your own advice??

For the record, there were 2 shooters, and although one of them may have had a French accent, the other one was named Mohammed and was of Moroccan descent. Both men were heard shouting "Alahu Akbar".


----------



## mordko

One suspect was of Moroccan origin. The second has a French sounding name.


----------



## bgc_fan

bass player said:


> Well, you didn't wait for more information before suggesting that Alahu Akbar may have been said in jest and ruling out that it was an immigrant, but you want others to wait? Why don't you take your own advice??
> 
> For the record, there were 2 shooters, and although one of them may have had a French accent, the other one was named Mohammed and was of Moroccan descent. Both men were heard shouting "Alahu Akbar".


Actually I posted at the same time that you posted. I was referring to James' assertion that it was a right wing nationalist. But now I see he edited his message so you don't see that anymore.

For the record, CBC has an update on the IDs if you care: Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed Khadir.


----------



## bass player

bgc_fan said:


> Actually I posted at the same time that you posted. I was referring to James' assertion that it was a right wing nationalist. But now I see he edited his message so you don't see that anymore.


So, he edited the comment rather than admit he was suckered by fake news...


----------



## SMK

Regardless of who the terrorists were, it's very sad and shocking for Canada. 

Interesting how Trudeau was able to correctly call this an act of terror, but not when 3 people were killed and hundreds injured in Boston.


----------



## bass player

Trudeau made that comment last night before their identity was known, and before it was confirmed what they were yelling during the attack.


----------



## wraphter

james4beach said:


> They've arrested two suspects, so this is _organized_. Not a lone gunman thing.
> 
> On a population-adjusted basis, it's about as major a terrorist attack as the Orlando nightclub shooting


James edited his original post but he didn't edit this one. He compares the Quebec attack to the Orlando attack by a Muslim
gunman. The implication is that the Quebec attack was by non-Muslims.


----------



## lonewolf :)

The political correct thing to do is condemn shooting. Look what happened in Europe after European governments invited Moslems as their citizens stood by letting it happen out of political correctness. Now Trudeau invites a radical faith here. Civil war in Europe is baked in the cake for Europe now the sooner it starts the less chance of Europe having Sharia law.


----------



## tygrus

All faiths are radical unhinged and illogical but 2/3rds of the world chose to follow unreason. That seems to be baked into the human condition.

However, our institutions can enforce secular values. Canada can be a leader here.


----------



## lonewolf :)

tygrus said:


> All faiths are radical unhinged and illogical but 2/3rds of the world chose to follow unreason.


 Faith the blind acceptance of ideas without any sensory evidence. I try to have zero faith instead a strong commitment to reason. Reason Judging that which is true by information provided by the senses with the use of logic. Most people value their lives if they valued death more they would most likely be dead. When a religion has a blind idea it wants death to those that do not have the same beliefs there is a problem. There has to be a restriction on how far religion can act out it beliefs when it in dangerous others or allows for rapping of women or maybe do like Russia did ban religion.


----------



## My Own Advisor

Horrific and very, very sad.... My thoughts go out to all the families.


----------



## SMK

tygrus said:


> *All faiths are radical unhinged and illogical* but 2/3rds of the world chose to follow unreason. That seems to be baked into the human condition.
> 
> However, our institutions can enforce secular values. Canada can be a leader here.


Hardly true. In any case, the spiritual human condition will continue. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/


----------



## mordko

Khadir no longer a suspect, which leaves Alexandre Bissonnette.


----------



## james4beach

mordko said:


> One suspect was of Moroccan origin. The second has a French sounding name.


Police also revised their statement to say one of the men detained was a witness, not a suspect.

Too early... we just have to wait.


----------



## james4beach

wraphter said:


> James edited his original post but he didn't edit this one. He compares the Quebec attack to the Orlando attack by a Muslim
> gunman. The implication is that the Quebec attack was by non-Muslims.


I didn't want to mis attribute the attack until I learned more about who caused it.

My comment about the Orlando attack is based on death count. 6 deaths population adjusted is about the same as 50 deaths in a US terrorist attack. The comparison is not a comment on who is Muslim or not, but on the magnitude of the event.

That means that the Quebec attack is about as major as the Orlando nightclub shooting.


----------



## steve41

Gunpowder and religion..... Mankind's two major accomplishments.


----------



## SMK

James4beach, it took you several hours to edit your post for a reason. It's a terribly sad day for Canada and we need no death toll comparison to understand the magnitude of what happened.


----------



## humble_pie

bass player said:


> Trudeau made that comment last night before their identity was known, and before it was confirmed what they were yelling during the attack.





SMK said:


> Interesting how Trudeau was able to correctly call this an act of terror, but not when 3 people were killed and hundreds injured in Boston.




trudeau would have received the breaking news from ste-Foy last night even before the media. It's likely trudeau had the names of the two identified last night as suspects, even though one has since been identified as a witness.

the boston marathon attack - which occurred when a different canadian was prime minister - was carried out in boston, massachusetts, US of A. Geographically challenged parties should remember that not even canadian prime ministers have priority access to foreign breaking news.

Vice News says it has screenshots of ste-Foy principal suspect alexandre bissonnette's social media pages taken before they were deleted early this am. Vice says bissonnette lives in cap-rouge, was studying anthropology at Laval U, appears from photographs to have had a slight military connection.

.


----------



## Beaver101

steve41 said:


> Gunpowder and religion..... Mankind's two major accomplishments.


 ... accomplishments? These would be "accomplishments" only what the human wants to accomplish with them otherwise the former is an invention and the latter a belief to the afterlife.


----------



## SMK

Trudeau's response to the Boston bombings hours and even days after it happened, was wrong. 

Those that are not convinced can compare his reaction and judge for themselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XRO4UGSiQo


----------



## olivaw

james4beach said:


> I didn't want to mis attribute the attack until I learned more about who caused it.


Seems reasonable to wait. CBC Reports:


> Six men died in the shooting during evening prayers at the Centre Culturel Islamique de Québec (Islamic cultural centre of Quebec). Nineteen people were also wounded.
> 
> Police also said it's too early to know the motive, what charges may be laid or when the suspect will appear in court.


Now is not the time for the angry right wingers of CMF to blame Trudeau, the left, Islam and the CBC. They should wait until we know what is going on before launching their familiar refrain.


----------



## james4beach

It's important to let the police and intelligence agencies do their work. I would have hoped that intelligence agencies would have caught this guy before he acted, sigh. Domestic terrorism is very difficult. It will be important to learn whether this was a solitary attacker, or organized? Associated with some ideology or movement? (I have my suspicions obviously as you can see under Hot Button forum). If there is an underlying ideology, there could be many more attackers out there. And where did he get the weapon? How was he trained with the weapon?

This is the most fatal terrorist attack in Canadian history since the Air India bombing in 1985, I think


----------



## carverman

bgc_fan said:


> Actually I posted at the same time that you posted. I was referring to James' assertion that it was a right wing nationalist. But now I see he edited his message so you don't see that anymore.
> 
> For the record, CBC has an update on the IDs if you care: A*lexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed Khadir*.


So which one is the "witness" and which one is the alleged shooter?

Is this just another case of a deranged Muslim going off on a shooting spree, (copy cat killing of the shooting spree in the Orlando gay nightclub last year),or because someone ticked him off at this mosque and it was revenge....
or some other underlying issue that has not been revealed yet.

So far no claim by ISIS, but it would be interesting to hear what the alleged shooter will reveal to police under interrogation.


----------



## james4beach

There's only 1 suspect, and CBC has removed their name from the story presumably while waiting for certainty.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-mosque-gun-shots-1.3957686


----------



## SMK

olivaw said:


> Now is not the time for the angry right wingers of CMF to blame Trudeau.


No one has done that.


----------



## carverman

james4beach said:


> Domestic terrorism is very difficult. It will be important to learn whether this was a solitary attacker, or organized? Associated with some ideology or movement? (I have my suspicions obviously as you can see under Hot Button forum). If there is an underlying ideology, there could be many more attackers out there. *And where did he get the weapon? How was he trained with the weapon?
> *


First news media reports last night mentioned an "AK47 assault rifle", but Ak47s are not the weapon of choice for the Canadian Military, so how would the shooter come by this kind of weapon in Canada?


> The C7A2 automatic rifle is the personal weapon used by the Canadian Armed Forces.


Trump was already cracking down barring most Islamic air travellers to enter the US
this weekend, resulting in many travellers refused entry into the US without passports
and Visas, you can bet your booties that after the Quebec City mass shooting, there
will be more restrictions for travellers, some even with Canadian passports but having
Islamic or Middle East names.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01...en-majority-muslim-nations-entering-us-unless


----------



## Beaver101

james4beach said:


> There's only 1 suspect, and CBC has removed their name from the story presumably while waiting for certainty.


 ... check mordko's post#20 for a hint.


----------



## wraphter

james4beach said:


> I didn't want to mis attribute the attack until I learned more about who caused it.
> 
> My comment about the Orlando attack is based on death count. 6 deaths population adjusted is about the same as 50 deaths in a US terrorist attack. The comparison is not a comment on who is Muslim or not, but on the magnitude of the event.
> 
> That means that the Quebec attack is about as major as the Orlando nightclub shooting.


What you say is very strange because you have made numerous statements comparing white terrorism to Islamic terrorism. My recollection is that you previously have said that right-wing extremism is a bigger threat than Islamist terrorism. There have been comparisons comparing 
the two based on population size. 

You have talked repeatedly about Breivik. You erroneously said he killed non-old stock people. In fact most of his victims were old stock native Norwegians,based on their names and pictures .


----------



## james4beach

wraphter you're misrepresenting what I said. I've said that all forms of extremism are dangerous and there are many types of terrorists that threaten us. I've spelled out pretty clearly in those other threads that both islamic extremism, and white/nationalist terrorists are huge threats. I post about the growing threat of white terrorism because the media is not reporting it properly, and I'm watching the white extremist threat grow right before my eyes.

My guess is that this was a white (right-wing) extremist terrorist attack, but we'll see.


----------



## wraphter

Really james,you think I'm misrepresenting what you said about the relative importance of white and Muslim terrorism?

Well,lets take a look at what you said when you started the thread 'White right-wing terrorists strike again'.

http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showt...s-strike-again?p=914057&viewfull=1#post914057



james4beach said:


> *The attack is, undoubtedly, another one from the USA's greatest terror threat: right-wing, usually anti-government extremism nearly always carried out by white people.* And it's not just a threat in the USA. Canada's Moncton shooter had killed 3 and Norway's shooter killed 77 (including many children)... both of them had right-wing, anti-government agendas.
> 
> *In fact, in a recent survey of law enforcement officials from many agencies identified anti-government extremism as the top threat, above Muslim extremists*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/op...reat.html?_r=0


You clearly said that right -wing white terrorism is the greatest terrorist threat,greater than the radical Islamist variety.


----------



## none

I just wish the western world could get a a handle on these right wing religious Christians. As a start how about if the government stops funding them by giving them tax exemption??? We might as well be lining up to have our people shot and our children molested by these sick christian wackos. Enough is enough. They can take their murderous child molesting god and go elsewhere thanks.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

None, I assume you are referring to the tax deduction you get if you contribute to a registered church? I agree with you that the tax deduction could be eliminated, and probably for many other so-called charities as well. If they have enough support in their community then presumably they will survive.
I do wonder though if the radical ones would be more successful in getting continued funding from their type? 
Also wonder how many of the real whack jobs are serious members of any of these rw organizations?


----------



## mordko

How exactly is the taxpayer funding of religious organizations linked to yesterday's attack? Why is it discussed in this topic? Is the suggestion to cut tax breaks for Christian organizations or are we suggesting to cut all taxpayer support for religious institutions, including for the Mosque which was attacked yesterday? Was the attacker a member of any Christian or "right wing" organization?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Mordko, taxpayer funding is a digression. It has nothing to do with yesterday or this thread. I was questioning whether any religious organization (and perhaps many other charities) should benefit at the taxpayers' expense. But that is part of a larger separate discussion of tax reform. 
None on the other hand does seem perhaps to have an axe to grind with Christians?


----------



## james4beach

The suspect has been identified as Alexandre Bissonnette facing 6 counts of 1st-degree murder



> The suspect was "unfortunately known to several activists in Quebec City for his pro-Le Pen and anti-feminist positions at Laval University and on social networks," wrote the Bienvenue aux réfugié.es


----------



## mordko

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Mordko, taxpayer funding is a digression. It has nothing to do with yesterday or this thread. I was questioning whether any religious organization (and perhaps many other charities) should benefit at the taxpayers' expense. But that is part of a larger separate discussion of tax reform.
> None on the other hand does seem perhaps to have an axe to grind with Christians?


Ah, ok. Hypothetically, I am all for removing taxpayer subsidies from religious organizations. Including religious schools. People should do religion in their own time and on their own dime.


----------



## lonewolf :)

mordko said:


> Ah, ok. Hypothetically, I am all for removing taxpayer subsidies from religious organizations. Including religious schools. People should do religion in their own time and on their own dime.


 +1
Get rid of the religious stat holidays as well. In fact get rid of all stat holidays. Want the day off take it without pay. Religious schools holy grail is a book with talking snakes LOL. Religion has put ethical restraints on the use of reason in schools. Mans biological distinguishable trait is reason or is ability to think. Back in the dark ages they turned away from reason.


----------



## new dog

Keeping Canada and its people safe which includes muslims should be a priority. Bringing in large numbers of people from any country that has extremist problems which includes christians should be done very carefully. Trudeau should take note of this and not swing the doors wide open to enter Canada no matter what Trump does. We may not be able to stop some of the home grown attacks but we can sure try not to import it.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

I have read - albeit from what I would consider unreliable news sources at this point- that Bissonnette had an AK47. Time will tell if that is true, but they are a prohibited weapon in Canada. A likely source would be the USA. 
If rump is truly concerned about Amercian safety and security he should consider the automatic weapons that Americans have access to. 
It will be ironic if in the end, the platitudes he voiced today would have been unnecesary if countless administrations had instead had the balls to restrict public ownership of automatic weapons.


----------



## bass player

Yup...blame the guns but not the ideology.


----------



## mordko

I also heard about AK47 from an unreliable source (CBC Radio). Not sure if it's legal in the US to have a fully automatic military machine gun like AK-47 but yeah... Should be banned. There is absolutely no use for it except for warfare.


----------



## mordko

James and none aren't the only people using this tragedy for their political ends. Trump's spokesman (Sean Spicer) claimed that Quebec City attack justifies 7-country entry ban. How???


----------



## james4beach

How am I "using" the tragedy, mordko? And what is my political end?

I don't have any affiliation with any religious group. And I didn't even vote Liberal, by the way (though I wish I had -- Trudeau is doing a great job)


----------



## james4beach

mordko said:


> Trump's spokesman (Sean Spicer) claimed that Quebec City attack justifies 7-country entry ban. How???


Yeah that one is wacky.


----------



## james4beach

I _do_ have a goal to counter-act the unfairness towards muslims in Canada, who have been inappropriately singled out as "the biggest threat" when in fact many other threats exist. Society has been beating up on muslims for quite some time now and it's unfair to them.

CBC opinion piece: Inconvenient truth is Canada's mass shooters are usually Canadian-born and Christian


----------



## tygrus

IMHO identifying yourself by religion should be as ridiculed as identifying yourself by your underwear color. 

Religion has stoked more division than anything.


----------



## lonewolf :)

james4beach said:


> How am I "using" the tragedy, mordko? And what is my political end?
> 
> I don't have any affiliation with any religious group. And I didn't even vote Liberal, by the way (though I wish I had -- Trudeau is doing a great job)


 200 million I think it was to Iraq , welcoming in Refugees that want to kill us @ tax payers expense, wanting us to go off fossil fuels in the future even though in the past green house gasses were 9 - 10 times higher in the past & earth was cooler. I dont like

Good point he has not announced a plan like the European commission to ban cash. Cash protects against negative interest rates & keeping money safe from poor banking practices


----------



## new dog

Tygrus at first I thought no but then I saw your point. Walking around and just introducing yourself by your religion when it doesn't matter, is kind of dumb. However I have no problem with religion as long as the religion teaches good values and helps create good people.


----------



## mordko

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.” 
― Steven Weinberg


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

To those tempted to act like trolls here and elsewhere, be careful you don't slip and fall in:

*Quebec City mosque attack suspect known as online troll inspired by French far-right *
_The suspect in the deadly attack on a Quebec City mosque was known in the city’s activist circles as an online troll who was inspired by extreme right-wing French nationalists, stood up for U.S. President Donald Trump and was against immigration to Quebec – especially by Muslims...
“He was someone who made frequent extreme comments in social media denigrating refugees and feminism. It wasn’t outright hate, rather part of this new nationalist conservative identity movement that is more intolerant than hateful.”_
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-city-mosque-attack-suspect-known-for-right-wing-online-posts/article33833044/


----------



## olivaw

none said:


> I just wish the western world could get a a handle on these right wing religious Christians. As a start how about if the government stops funding them by giving them tax exemption??? We might as well be lining up to have our people shot and our children molested by these sick christian wackos. Enough is enough. They can take their murderous child molesting god and go elsewhere thanks.


I assume this is satire. If so, good post. If the shooter had brown skin and a foreign sounding name, we would have been inundated with posts saying this very thing about Islam. 

On the off chance that it's not satire, WTF?


----------



## gibor365

mordko said:


> I also heard about AK47 from an unreliable source (CBC Radio). Not sure if it's legal in the US to have a fully automatic military machine gun like AK-47 but yeah... Should be banned. There is absolutely no use for it except for warfare.


From the beginning I was surprised to hear about AK- 47.How did it arrived to QC??
Later I read that weapon "looked like AK-47", maybe every unknown to journalists weapon is considered as AK-47?!


----------



## gibor365

Just googled how many guns per residents by country... I was extremely surprised that Canada on the top on the list  (12th place in the World).Per 100 residents Canada has 30.8 guns!!! Really?! This is insane! 
Even Israel (where war with terrorism is 24/7) has only 7.3 guns per 100 residents (79th place)


----------



## gibor365

Below is much more reliable source 



> despite Israel and Switzerland having very high gun possession rates, their firearm homicide rates are extremely low. In the data shown below, Switzerland had a firearms homicide rate of 0.77 per 100,000 people and Israel has a rate of just 0.09 per 100,000.





> 0.50-0.59: Canada, Taiwan


http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

So, looks like number of homicides is not related to number of how many guns have residents in specific country


----------



## none

olivaw said:


> I assume this is satire. If so, good post. If the shooter had brown skin and a foreign sounding name, we would have been inundated with posts saying this very thing about Islam.
> 
> On the off chance that it's not satire, WTF?


It's more fun when people interpret things the way they want 

But seriously, he was a Trump supporter! We need to stop entry of all Trump supporters into Canada until we figure out what's going on. Extreme vetting!


----------



## gibor365

none said:


> It's more fun when people interpret things the way they want
> 
> But seriously, he was a Trump supporter! We need to stop entry of all Trump supporters into Canada until we figure out what's going on. Extreme vetting!


As per https://electronicintifada.net/ he also liked Israel 


> The Facebook account of the man charged in the shooting attack that killed six persons and injured several more at a Quebec City mosque on Sunday evening indicates he was a fan of US President Donald Trump, French far-right leader Marine Le Pen, the Israeli army and other far-right groups.


 Funny that Israel Army is considered as "far-right group"  ... maybe you need to stop entry of all Jews and French?!


----------



## wraphter

tygrus said:


> IMHO identifying yourself by religion should be as ridiculed as identifying yourself by your underwear color.
> 
> Religion has stoked more division than anything.


Human beings are social animals and naturally form groups such as tribes,countries and sports team.We are naturally *groupish*. We all (most of us) root for the home team,for example look at the way the Blue Jays became popular two years in a row when they had a winning record.Why do we want the Blue Jays to win and Tampa Bay to lose? In investing there is the home country effect. In a group,some are included and some are excluded. The purpose
of religion is to reinforce the strong sense of group identity that humans have. It is a method of social control. It is also a method of enforcing
morality,controlling the baser instincts that lurk just beneath the surface in all of us. Thou shalt not do this ,thou shalt not do that. Religion controls sexuality and aggression. That is its job. It is a necessary part of human society. H. sapiens evolved with a capacity and need for religion and there is nothing your protestations can do to change it. It , or a modern substitute ,is coded into our DNA. 

We in the West live in a post-religious society but there are plenty of ideological substitutes to take religion's place.



Religion may well be baked in the cake,iow it is part of human nature.We evolved with a religious capacity. There are the leaders and the led. That is called authority and it too is baked in the cake. If countries exist,then some sort of ideology
or group identity which excludes those not part of the group will also exist.

We haven't graduated to the perfect state beloved of liberals described by John Lennon's song "Imagine"



> Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion, too
> Imagine all the people
> Living life in peace... You...


No countries,no religion .... the two are connected.You can't turn your back on two thousand years of Western civilization and pretend that it doesn't exist and that it doesn't influence our behaviour. 

'One world' hardly describes our state of social organization at the present. In fact the world is becoming more divided ,more 
us versus them.

There are some who preach that white ,right -wing terrorism is worse than Islamic terrorism. But is Western civilization,with
all its incredible accomplishments,science ,the Industrial Revolution,democracy,freedom of speech which makes a forum such as this possible,prosperity,worse than the Islamic civilization? Islamic civilization has not provided a better way
of life for its followers than Western civilization.Because it has failed in its mission of providing prosperity to its followers
there is so much hostility towards the West.

Trying to lay a guilt trip on us for the Quebec massacre ,is very short-sighted. Would any of you like to be a minority
living in an Islamic country? Look at the abysmal way Christians are treated in MENA. Look at the way the Shia treat the Sunnis and visa versa. Western society is largely successful. Why do you think Muslims come here in the first place?
Its because there own society has failed to provide them with an adequate way of life.

Obama said that Islamic terrorism is not an existential threat to our civilization. He completely underestimated the political effect Islamic immigration to the West has had. Look at the political turmoil it has caused.

Do you think that more Islamic immigration will make things better? We can barely cope with 
the Muslims we have now.

This very forum exists because we live in Canada,the West, and our tradition allows freedom of speech.
We can criticize our political leaders and Christianity. Do they enjoy such freedom of speech on the internet
in Muslim countries? In China? In Russia? I doubt it. Those who repudiate our society should realize that they have freedom of speech and thought because they live in this society.


----------



## mordko

Don't believe quite enough political points have been scored from Alexandre Bissonnette's Facebook likes. Some crucial clues have been overlooked:

- He didn't just like Trump's Facebook page - oh, no! He also "liked" Pope John Paul II. The Pope should take a very hard look at himself in the mirror. 

- And so should Mr Bean. To all those tempted to act funny here and elsewhere, be careful you don't slip and fall in. 

Furthermore, several vital clues have been overlooked in the hearsay from various people who claim that their cousins have crossed Bissonnette over the years. For example, he played chess. 

What is, however, truly remarkable about this terrorist attack is the complete absence of people and politicians claiming that it isn't.


----------



## mordko

gibor365 said:


> Below is much more reliable source
> 
> http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/
> 
> So, looks like number of homicides is not related to number of how many guns have residents in specific country


Israel's gun possession system is the exact opposite of that in the States. In the US they have a right to own guns. In Israel you have to prove that you need it (soldiers, security guards, those living in dangerous areas) and then you have to undergo 100 psychological evaluations and several training courses. And private, non-military machine gun ownership is non-existent.


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> And so should Mr Bean. To all those tempted to act funny here and elsewhere, be careful you don't slip and fall in.


Mr. Bean exists because he lives in England where individuals are allowed to criticize religion. 
A Muslim Mr. Bean wouldn't be so lucky in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.


----------



## tygrus

If Trump was serious about national security then these hate groups and militias in the US should have been put under extra surveillance as well. 

In principle, I believe that immigration needs to be closely managed for a number of reasons that are self evident. But he jumped the gun with his executive action. 

We also need to be aware that we may not need population replacement based immigration in the future as much as we do now. There wont be as many jobs some day in the future.

In Canada, I feel immigration should be limited until our indigenous peoples are fully integrated into society first.


----------



## bass player

It was only a matter of time until someone blamed Trump for the actions of a lone wolf terrorist.


----------



## Eclectic12

mordko said:


> I also heard about AK47 from an unreliable source (CBC Radio). Not sure if it's legal in the US to have a fully automatic military machine gun like AK-47 but yeah... Should be banned. There is absolutely no use for it except for warfare.


According to a couple of articles, if the AK47 in auto format is illegal without a special permit that is supposed to be expensive (where some rent out their AK47 at firing range to reduce costs) and invites lots of inspections by police etc. I did see references to AK-47 assault rifles build before 1986 as being legal.

The semi-automatic version is supposedly regulated by the same state/local laws setup that regulates hunting rifles.

2014 was supposedly when an import ban went into effect where as long as it is old inventory or a private sale where the Russian maker does not profit, it's okay.


Cheers


*PS*

Apparently despite the ban on imports from Russia, demand is high enough for the American importer to setup a US factory.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...ak-47s-could-soon-be-american-made-2015-01-22


----------



## sags

In July 1966, Richard Speck stabbed and strangled 8 nurses to death in their shared townhouse in Chicago.

A month later in August 1966, Charles Whitman climbed the 300 foot tower at the University of Texas after killing his mother and wife.

He shot 46 people, with 15 deaths and 32 seriously injured.

Point is..........lone gunman rampages are not a new phenomena. They are the result of mental illness leading to pure evil.

Today, people want to find someone, some group, or some philosophy or religion to blame.

History is littered with accounts of these kinds of violent unexplainable incidents.

I remember the above events well. I remember at the time that people and society struggled to make sense of what happened.

But the truth is that you will never discover the "sense" in a "senseless" act.

Charles Whitman was shot and killed at the scene of the rampage. 

Richard Speck was given the death penalty and it was commuted to 400 years in prison. He died in prison in 1991.

I use these cases as examples, because despite an interval of more than 50 years, it is still not known "why" they did what they did.


----------



## wraphter

tygrus said:


> If Trump was serious about national security then these hate groups and militias in the US should have been put under extra surveillance as well.


You know Trump is very serious about limiting immigration. He has proposed a wall to stop Mexican immigration plus a 20%
tax on Mexican imports. He signed an executive order denying entry to visa holders from 7 terrorist-prone countries.
The FBI has been on the case of the right-wing terrorist groups for years and that includes double agents infiltrating these groups.

A certain poster seemed to imply that Harper was as bad as Breivik. Do you believe that,tygrus?
Do you believe we are the problem not them. Do you know that to even make a distinction between us and them 
is unacceptable according to the gospel of political correctness? 



> In Canada, I feel immigration should be limited until our indigenous peoples are fully integrated into society first.


Don't hold your breathe, tygrus.


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
> ― Steven Weinberg


Without religion to bind them together the Jews would have vanished from history 2000 years ago.


----------



## mordko

Eclectic12 said:


> According to a couple of articles, if the AK47 in auto format is illegal without a special permit that is supposed to be expensive (where some rent out their AK47 at firing range to reduce costs) and invites lots of inspections by police etc. I did see references to AK-47 assault rifles build before 1986 as being legal.
> 
> The semi-automatic version is supposedly regulated by the same state/local laws setup that regulates hunting rifles.
> 
> 2014 was supposedly when an import ban went into effect where as long as it is old inventory or a private sale where the Russian maker does not profit, it's okay.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> *PS*
> 
> Apparently despite the ban on imports from Russia, demand is high enough for the American importer to setup a US factory.
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...ak-47s-could-soon-be-american-made-2015-01-22


Thanks. Isn't it fascinating? So wise of the founding fathers to anticipate that people in the 21st century will have a vital need for the right to bear private mass killing machines? I bet they actually had tanks in mind when they were drafting the second amendment and the lack of heavy weapons at downtown shopping malls is nothing short of infringement on our liberty. 

Then again, we have an even bigger problem here. The government, under the guise of fighting terrorism, is trying to snoop on our child porn downloads and naked girlfriend photo exchange traffic. It's a literal infringement on Magna Karta.


----------



## lonewolf :)

Apparently Tokyo is the safest large city in the world. Moslems are not allowed to practice their religion outside their homes or convert others to their religion. Japan is not concerned with political correctness. Sweden is now in second place for rape capital of the world behind South Africa after the immigration of Moslems.

According to a goggle search I did there are @ least 109 verses in the Quran that call Muslims to war with none believers some of them are graphic to chop off heads & fingers of infidels where ever they may be hiding. The Quran are also encouraged to lie & deceive to promote their religion.

It makes me wonder how smart the herd really is forming all the demonstrations against Trump for the Moslem Ban. Why does Canada even allow Mosques & the Quran shouldn't all types of cults be banned that promote death to none believers ? It is not moral to destroy long term happiness


----------



## mordko

Given lack distinction between Islamists and Muslims in general, and the thread where it's published, the above statement comes awfully close to supporting the attack on the Quebec City Mosque.


----------



## lonewolf :)

mordko I don't support attacks. I support laws that promote safety for everyone I like the way Japan does it. We follow the path of Europe we will get the same results. Government along with law enforcement needs to do the job.


----------



## mordko

In that case it helps to know a little bit about the place you are so impressed with.



> Tokyo is the safest large city in the world. Moslems are not allowed to practice their religion outside their homes


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mosques_in_Japan


----------



## bass player

Soon, it may be illegal to criticize Islam for any reason. Of course, the bill doesn't say that, but it's just step one in an attempt to silence anyone who dares to speak out. Who gets to decide what is "Islamaphobia? What happens when no one is allowed to speak out? Why doesn't the same bill make it illegal to criticize Christians or Buddha?

"Canada is inching toward a broadly-based law that would codify “Islamophobia” as a hate crime without even defining Islamophobia or demonstrating that it is a phenomenon requiring legal action.

After first passing a motion that condemns Islamophobia, last month, Iqra Khalid, a Member of Parliament (MP) from the governing Liberals, tabled Motion M-103 in the House of Commons. The motion demands that Islamophobia be treated as a crime without even bothering to define the offense.

Thomas Mulcair, the leader of the leftist New Democrat Party, read the first motion in the House of Commons:
“Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be seeking unanimous consent for an important motion based on the e-petition sponsored by the Hon. Member for*Pierrefonds–Dollard*that asks that we, the House of Commons, condemn all forms of Islamophobia,” Mulcair said."

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/26/canada-inching-towards-islamophobia-law/


----------



## lonewolf :)

mordko said:


> In that case it helps to know a little bit about the place you are so impressed with.
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mosques_in_Japan


 Mordko I couldn't get any of the internet info to down load from goggle search. Japan does try to keep a lid on the religion . Though they need trade with some of the Moslem countries for oil so some Moslems apparently can become citizens. Apparently the Japanese diplomats do not like to talk about why they do not want the religion freely practiced in their country because they know no matter what they say they will be viewed as raciest. Even though religion is not a race. China is also starting to crack down after seeing the problems in Europe


----------



## SMK

sags said:


> In July 1966, Richard Speck stabbed and strangled 8 nurses to death in their shared townhouse in Chicago.
> 
> Today, people want to find someone, some group, or some philosophy or religion to blame.


Not a good comparison example for this topic and probably neither are the other ones mentioned, and not because of when they took place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Speck 

You don't believe in terrorism, practice of violent "isms" and ideological threats? All evil is the result of mental illness? Nay.


----------



## gibor365

> In Israel you have to prove that you need it (soldiers, security guards, those living in dangerous areas) and then you have to undergo 100 psychological evaluations and several training courses.


Really?! When I just immigrated to Israel, couple of months later I started to work as security in the Hospital. I was given gun (Colt), without any check , without any test and even without one shooting range. I didn't ask for it,it was just like uniform, part of the job... . And 80% were guards like me (new immigrants). And when I just came to Israel, I lived 2 weeks in my friend's village just inside "green line", almost all families who lived there had semi-automatic weapon like Uzi. And weapon related homicides were extremely rare.


> And private, non-military machine gun ownership is non-existent.


 Funny to hear when everyone include girls should serve in army.+ annual reserve service for 30 days.. So when I served in army, yes, I didn't own machine gun, but I was 24/7 with M16. It was MANDATORY that this weapon will be in my possession. Same way that when worked in police I had 24/7 government owned Beretta .
If you live or drive as part of your work to or through "territories" ,there is no any problem to get permission to carry gun, unless you are some criminal


----------



## gibor365

wraphter said:


> Without religion to bind them together the Jews would have vanished from history 2000 years ago.


Jews didn't vanished mostly not because of religion, but because of antisemitism!



> We can criticize our political leaders and Christianity. Do they enjoy such freedom of speech on the internet
> in Muslim countries? In China? In Russia? I doubt it.


 Don't know about Muslim countries or China, but don't doubt Russia , I participated in many discussion in couple of Russian forums and they have exactly same discussions like we have here (the only difference that on Russian forums, other members were telling that I'm ultra-left)


----------



## mordko

gibor365 said:


> Really?! When I just immigrated to Israel, couple of months later I started to work as security in the Hospital. I was given gun (Colt), without any check , without any test and even without one shooting range. I didn't ask for it,it was just like uniform, part of the job... . And 80% were guards like me (new immigrants).


Let me guess... You came to Israel before 1996.


----------



## Nelley

gibor365 said:


> Jews didn't vanished mostly not because of religion, but because of antisemitism!
> 
> Don't know about Muslim countries or China, but don't doubt Russia , I participated in many discussion in couple of Russian forums and they have exactly same discussions like we have here (the only difference that on Russian forums, other members were telling that I'm ultra-left)


RT (Russian TV) is thriving on the internet because it is more open, less censored than USA or Canadian MSM.


----------



## gibor365

mordko said:


> Let me guess... You came to Israel before 1996.


Obviously  I came to Israel in 1990. In 1996 Iwas working as police crime investigator for 3 years,every morning I was reading criminal reports (real ones, not newspaper). And I can tell that weapon homicides were extremely rare(obviously exclude terrorist activities)


----------



## gibor365

Nelley said:


> RT (Russian TV) is thriving on the internet because it is more open, less censored than USA or Canadian MSM.


As I was telling earlier, many of USA or Canadian MSM remind me USSR propaganda


----------



## mordko

With regards to free-wheeling discussions on Russian internet forums = 100% BS. 

Yes there are discussions and arguments, but those who are based in Russia KNOW that they have to be careful. For example, one can get 5 years in prison for a pro-Ukrainian post. Lots of people have been arrested for "Likes" and "sharing": http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0274...russia-imprisoned-social-media-likes-reposts; https://lenta.ru/articles/2015/08/13/repost/

A couple of recent examples from my home region:

1. A Russian atheist blogger in Yekaterinburg posted a video of himself catching Pokemon in a church. He did it quietly and nobody noticed while he was in the church. However he was put in prison for posting the video on the web. https://www.theguardian.com/technol...uber-ruslan-sokolovsky-five-years-jail-church

2. Chelyabinsk city administration decided to build a church right near the entrance to town's university with the poor taxpayer forking the money. There are already 2 churches for every believer, so one of the students expressed verbal disagreement on the web. Someone snitched and there is an ongoing court case against the girl for "incitement of hatred or enmity".

Then an internet group which publishes jokes about "tough Chelyabinsk men" published a brief post supporting the girl. Someone snitched again and the group got shut down for 1 month: https://vk.com/hardchel

While many still get away with publishing opposing views here and there, the vast majority of people self-censor. Not a lot of Russians want to go to prison for a like or a share.


----------



## mordko

gibor365 said:


> Obviously  I came to Israel in 1990. In 1996 Iwas working as police crime investigator for 3 years,every morning I was reading criminal reports (real ones, not newspaper). And I can tell that weapon homicides were extremely rare(obviously exclude terrorist activities)


Yes, obviously. Because Rabin got murdered in 1996 and gun ownership laws were revised big time. You wouldn't have been given a gun without any tests and training and psychological evaluation had you arrived after 1996.


----------



## gibor365

> With regards to free-wheeling discussions on Russian internet forums = 100% BS.


 Probably we talk about different Russias 



> You wouldn't have been given a gun without any lots of tests and training and psychological evaluation had you arrived after 1996.


 I don't know where you are taking this info from  . Until 1999 , before I left police and Israel, there weren't any "training and psychological evaluation" ... Do you really need training when practically every one going to army for 2-3 years and using all possible kind of weapons there?! After 1996, you should go to Misrad ha Pnim (Ministry of interior) and request permission to carry weapon explaining reasons (and yes you need doc from police that you are not criminal ). It became a bit more difficult than before, but not too complicated.
btw, more conditions to get permission to carry weapon started about 1996 , but not because of Rabin, but because one case when one guard (immigrant from Kavkaz) got gun right away (like me) and used this gun for criminal activity.
In any case, there are a lot of weapon in Israel (doesn't matter guns or semi-automatic M16, Galil or Uzi) only because of Army.
When my son was 11 or 12 , he visited Israel with my wife and his first impression when he returned was: "Papa, Israel is so cool. Everyone has a weapon! Even on the beach!"


----------



## andrewf

Nelley said:


> RT (Russian TV) is thriving on the internet because it is more open, less censored than USA or Canadian MSM.


Well, it is still censored. RT is a propaganda arm of the Russian government. Next you'll tell me People's Daily is less censored than the eeeeevil MSM.


----------



## bass player

The MSM isn't censored...they're just a propaganda arm and willing partner of the Democrat party. Any news they report is carefully selected to further their interests.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Recent report says a rifle abandoned after jamming and a 9mm handgun were involved. Says handgun (a restricted weapon) was registered to shooter.


----------



## Saniokca

wraphter said:


> Without religion to bind them together the Jews would have vanished from history 2000 years ago.


They wouldn't have "vanished". The religion? The identifier? Maybe - but why does that matter so much other than for historical purposes.

My background is what people would call a "Russian Jew". Is it important for me that my daughter identifies herself as one? Not at all but don't tell that to some members of my family... 

I see so many friends post something like "important inventions by...." (insert nationality/religion here) and being very "proud" to belong to that group. I smile at that.


----------



## mordko

Люблю листки календарей,
где знаменитых жизней даты:
то здесь, то там живал еврей,
случайно выживший когда-то.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

Saniokca said:


> They wouldn't have "vanished". The religion? The identifier? Maybe - but why does that matter so much other than for historical purposes.
> 
> My background is what people would call a "Russian Jew". Is it important for me that my daughter identifies herself as one? Not at all but don't tell that to some members of my family...


I get what you're saying, but tradition and heritage is important. It's despised mostly these days because those in power want a people that are easier to control, and a licentious people are generally easier to control than a people who are rooted in heritage and tradition. Those with strong ties to identity and their past tend to be more family and community orientated rather than mavericks who tend to be selfish and self-serving. Their pride in their past makes them hard to eradicate in times of difficulty, like Jews and Armenians.

Tradition can be manipulated and used to abuse a people as well of course, but often it's an important part of a healthy society. Where you find it you also often find people are healthier and more prosperous, as in strong Judeo-Christian (particularly Protestant reformed) communities, like Jewish and Dutch communities.

So I get what you're saying, but there's another side to it as well.


----------



## gibor365

> but tradition and heritage is important.


 Sure. But you don't have to be religious remembering your "tradition and heritage"


----------



## bobsyouruncle

gibor365 said:


> Sure. But you don't have to be religious remembering your "tradition and heritage"


Often elements of it are inextricably linked.


----------



## gibor365

bobsyouruncle said:


> Often elements of it are inextricably linked.


Not really! My dad (as millions other Soviet Jews) was very pro-Jewish , however, he knew very little about Judaism as religion ... it's just was almost impossible in USSR


----------



## mordko

If we go back far enough, everyone was religious. And religion has always formed a mix of identity and ideology, like today we have Canadians, Liberals, etc... Things have changed since the Middle Ages though, religion and belief in the supernatural in general do not have to be a part of ones ideology. It's a choice.

Yes, back then religion was key to the formation of Jews as a people,which wasn't all that unusual. The system of beliefs was key to Jewish survival as a people. That is unique, given the time span.

"But human confidence in such an historical dynamic, if it is strong and tenacious enough, is a force in itself, which pushes on the hinge of events and moves them. The Jews believed they were a special people with such unanimity and passion, and over so long a span, that they became one. They did indeed have a role because they wrote it for themselves. Therein, perhaps, lies the key to their story.”

Paul Johnson, History of the Jews.


----------



## Saniokca

bobsyouruncle said:


> Those with strong ties to identity and their past tend to be more family and community orientated rather than mavericks who tend to be selfish and self-serving. Their pride in their past makes them hard to eradicate in times of difficulty, like Jews and Armenians.


I think people should live in the present. Immigrants come here for a reason - Canada is a great place to be. Why insist on importing the baggage as well? By not blending in and accepting local traditions/customs you risk ruining the very place you liked enough to move to.

I edited my original post because it could be easily misinterpreted.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

mordko said:


> If we go back far enough, everyone was religious. And religion has always formed a mix of identity and ideology, like today we have Canadians, Liberals, etc... Things have changed since the Middle Ages though, religion and belief in the supernatural in general do not have to be a part of ones ideology. It's a choice.
> 
> Yes, back then religion was key to the formation of Jews as a people,which wasn't all that unusual. The system of beliefs was key to Jewish survival as a people. That is unique, given the time span.
> 
> "But human confidence in such an historical dynamic, if it is strong and tenacious enough, is a force in itself, which pushes on the hinge of events and moves them. The Jews believed they were a special people with such unanimity and passion, and over so long a span, that they became one. They did indeed have a role because they wrote it for themselves. Therein, perhaps, lies the key to their story.”
> 
> Paul Johnson, History of the Jews.


Just as the Armenians were the first nation to declare themselves to be distinctly Christian. The history of both nations has created two of the strongest identities in human culture, and yet neither have (for the most part) ever used their religion to militarily destroy other peoples, but they have used it to maintain their own existence when under attack.

That's why I think such should maintain their traditions and heritage. It's a good thing. And they integrate well into other places and become fruitful people in any area.

The same cannot be said for Islam, which is why I consider all forms of it a blight on humanity. It is the perpetuation of an ideology that creates room for violence and using military might against other peoples, and has done so almost continually for 1400 years. A trait that even the most tragic periods of other religions cannot match.


----------



## mordko

Saniokca said:


> Immigrants come here for a reason - Canada is a great place to be. Why insist on importing the baggage as well? By not blending in and accepting local traditions/customs you risk ruining the very place you liked enough to move to.


Everyone decides on their identity and selects traditions they want to follow for themselves. You decided to shed your baggage and blend in and that's great - no issue there. Other people may select to keep their "baggage" and stay French Canadians, Italian Canadians, Nigerian Canadians, Chinese Canadians or Jewish Canadians. Frankly, it's none of your business which traditions they decide to import, as long as it does not involve violence. Why exactly is it your problem that Leonard Cohen and "Vova Ivanov" chose to keep their "baggage"?


----------



## mordko

@bobsyouruncle - it's a bit more complex. Philistines and Idumeans may not agree with the claim that Jews never used their identity to destroy other people. Armenia got awfully large at one point early on in its history; one has to assume that their identity was used and someone was destroyed. 

Islam spans quite a few brands, centuries and countries, so generalizing too much isn't right. Yes, it was formed during particularly violent times, spread by conquest and the founding texts fossilized some of the not very nice concepts, such as the Caliphate. Yet there are brands of Islam that have been peaceful, e.g. Ahmadi Muslims, and many Muslims want nothing to do with Islamism. And as we have just seen in Quebec, Islamism isn't the only ideological threat we are facing.


----------



## andrewf

mordko said:


> If we go back far enough, everyone was religious. And religion has always formed a mix of identity and ideology, like today we have Canadians, Liberals, etc... Things have changed since the Middle Ages though, religion and belief in the supernatural in general do not have to be a part of ones ideology. It's a choice.
> 
> Yes, back then religion was key to the formation of Jews as a people,which wasn't all that unusual. The system of beliefs was key to Jewish survival as a people. That is unique, given the time span.
> 
> "But human confidence in such an historical dynamic, if it is strong and tenacious enough, is a force in itself, which pushes on the hinge of events and moves them. The Jews believed they were a special people with such unanimity and passion, and over so long a span, that they became one. They did indeed have a role because they wrote it for themselves. Therein, perhaps, lies the key to their story.”
> 
> Paul Johnson, History of the Jews.


Also, if you back far enough, no one was religious. Religion seems to be a relatively new phenomenon in the 3 million=ish year history of human existence. It is a very successful meme, though.


----------



## SMK

mordko said:


> Frankly, it's none of your business which traditions they decide to import, as long as it does not involve violence.


+1 Seems poster forgot what makes this multicultural country great.


----------



## mordko

andrewf said:


> Also, if you back far enough, no one was religious. Religion seems to be a relatively new phenomenon in the 3 million=ish year history of human existence. It is a very successful meme, though.


Depends on how you define religion and "human". Religious burial predates **** Sapiens. And evidence for religion/superstition seems to go back through all continents and cultures as far back as we see first pictographs. There are biological/physiological and evolutionary explanations for religion.


----------



## tygrus

Its not the custom and traditions that are the problem, its the 1st century superstitious ignorant views that come with these religions. You may think a gay person has a right to live as they wish while someone else says their book told them to throw them off the roof. Thats not something thats over come just by being happy to come to canada.


----------



## Saniokca

mordko said:


> Frankly, it's none of your business which traditions they decide to import, as long as it does not involve violence. Why exactly is it your problem that Leonard Cohen and "Vova Ivanov" chose to keep their "baggage"?


I have no problem with that - as long as it doesn't involve violence as you say. Also, as long as you don't impose your beliefs on others why would I care? Where I do start to "care" is when the "Ivanovs" bring over "baggage" that is based on intolerance towards other cultures.


----------



## Saniokca

tygrus said:


> Its not the custom and traditions that are the problem, its the 1st century superstitious ignorant views that come with these religions. You may think a gay person has a right to live as they wish while someone else says their book told them to throw them off the roof. Thats not something thats over come just by being happy to come to canada.


Agreed - except it's not just religions at this point. The intolerance towards LGBT in Russia (include most soviet republics here) is not based on religious grounds at this point (for the most part).


----------



## bobsyouruncle

mordko said:


> @bobsyouruncle - it's a bit more complex. Philistines and Idumeans may not agree with the claim that Jews never used their identity to destroy other people. Armenia got awfully large at one point early on in its history; one has to assume that their identity was used and someone was destroyed.
> 
> Islam spans quite a few brands, centuries and countries, so generalizing too much isn't right. Yes, it was formed during particularly violent times, spread by conquest and the founding texts fossilized some of the not very nice concepts, such as the Caliphate. Yet there are brands of Islam that have been peaceful, e.g. Ahmadi Muslims, and many Muslims want nothing to do with Islamism. And as we have just seen in Quebec, Islamism isn't the only ideological threat we are facing.


Fair points. I think it's the fact there's no religion so strongly identified with violence presently and historically that makes it worse than anything. I think the Qur'an has inherent problems so that violence would be inevitable in future generations even if (hypothetically) every muslim right now was Ahmadi.



Saniokca said:


> Agreed - except it's not just religions at this point. The intolerance towards LGBT in Russia (include most soviet republics here) is not based on religious grounds at this point (for the most part).


And there are good reasons why the LGBTQ agenda should not be embraced. It's more than a lifestyle. It's presented as fighting for individual rights, but behind it is an ideology of licentiousness that is simply not good for any society. You don't have to "hate gays" to realize this.


----------



## mordko

There are problematic passages in any old text, but for historical reasons parts Quran and various Hadiths do have a particularly strong emphasis on violence, paedophilia, subjugation of unbelievers, etc. That is true and these passages are the basis of modern Islamism.

Then again, the most violent, sick and disgusting concept I have come across is the eternal torture by fire of those who don't believe in Jesus, which is rather vividly depicted in the Bible. 

As for Islam's identification with violence, so did Christianity for many centuries. Things can and do change over time, that's what reformation is all about.


----------



## mordko

Here is an excellent video of James Kirchick chatting to RT about persecution of gays in Russia

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ue_on_rt_to_bash_network_for_coverage_of.html


----------



## bobsyouruncle

mordko said:


> There are problematic passages in any old text, but for historical reasons parts Quran and various Hadiths do have a particularly strong emphasis on violence, paedophilia, subjugation of unbelievers, etc. That is true and these passages are the basis of modern Islamism.
> 
> Then again, the most violent, sick and disgusting concept I have come across is the eternal torture by fire of those who don't believe in Jesus, which is rather vividly depicted in the Bible.
> 
> As for Islam's identification with violence, so did Christianity for many centuries. Things can and do change over time, that's what reformation is all about.


I'm not going to discuss the merits or demerits of the eternal consequences of rejecting Christian belief. It's kind of irrelevant to the point, since we're discussing the effect of religion in _this_ life. One could argue that the view of eternal judgment has motivated Christians to do acts of extraordinary acts of kindness on an individual level out of love for people. But as I said, it's beside the point.

I wouldn't equate the Catholic branch of Christianity as representing Christianity, since it has a Head of State as its ruler making it more politically orientated. That's going to make it have political motivations in conflict with the New Testament text, and that's what has predictably happened over the centuries. I still think the Catholic Church is capable of atrocity as in the past if she had the same power as she once wielded. Thankfully, the Protestant Reformation occurred, which did much to stem the political power of the Vatican in the west. At least, that's how I view it based on my reading of things.



mordko said:


> Here is an excellent video of James Kirchick chatting to RT about persecution of gays in Russia
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ue_on_rt_to_bash_network_for_coverage_of.html


Precisely my point. LGBTQ advocates just shout and shout irrationally, trampling everyone underfoot to promote their agenda. Yet their agenda is inherently bad for society, which any objective consideration would conclude.


----------



## mordko

> Yet their agenda is inherently bad for society, which any objective consideration would conclude.


Phrases like "any objective consideration would conclude" = nothing meaningful to support your claim. 

I wouldn't call James Kirchick an "LGBTQ advocate", but the way he handled the disgusting state propaganda branch of the Russian regime was superb. And you supporting prosecution of gays in Russia... Really??? Perhaps you should welcome islamists after all.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

mordko said:


> Phrases like "any objective consideration would conclude" = nothing meaningful to support your claim.
> 
> I wouldn't call James Kirchick an "LGBTQ advocate", but the way he handled the disgusting state propaganda branch of the Russian regime was superb. And you supporting prosecution of gays in Russia... Really??? Perhaps you should welcome islamists after all.


I'm no fan of Russia, but just because a nation doesn't place the LGBTQ agenda front and centre, doesn't make it inherently bad.

Actually, islamist leaders who spout their offence at homosexuality are often doing it for show. Many of their leaders are homosexual and pedophiles, and that's been the case for centuries. Perhaps that's why the left don't see a contradiction in support both.

P.S. I could support my claims of the negative consequences of promoting a licentious society. Much of it is common sense, but there's plenty of evidence to back it up as well. However, it wouldn't go down too well. No one wants to admit that it increases pedophile behaviour, spreads more disease, and lowers average life expectancy.


----------



## mordko

Gee... and wow. 

Ok, here is a real world scenario. 

1. A couple of years ago my friend Sergei Kondrashev was arrested in St Petersburg for a peaceful 1-man protest in opposition to persecution of gays in Russia. He isn't gay, nor is he "left", but he is a lawyer and supports individual freedoms. 

Are you ok with that? 

2. John Baird, former Foreign Affairs Minister, happens to be gay. Our government under Steven Harper fought against persecution of gays in Muslim countries and Russia. 

Would you say Harper and Baird are "left", increase paedophilia and licentious society?


----------



## olivaw

*Alleged shooter in Quebec City attack was at mosque Thursday, member says*



> A member of the Quebec City mosque where six people were shot to death last Sunday says he met the alleged shooter at the mosque three days before the attack.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Our own flock of trolls should know the company they keep:

*Friend of mosque shooting suspect speaks out: ‘We never know how madness emerges’*
_He knew Bissonnette admired French far-right leader Marine Le Pen and that he was thrilled with the election of Donald Trump in the United States. “He liked his protectionism, his nationalism,” he said.

the friend said Bissonnette favoured American media. In his apartment, he constantly had CNN or Fox News on, and online he was a fan of the conspiracy-mongering sites Breitbart and Infowars._

Of course we realize this report comes from the disreputed "MSM":
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/friend-of-mosque-shooting-suspect-speaks-out-we-never-know-how-madness-emerges


----------



## bass player

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Our own flock of trolls should know the company they keep:
> 
> *Friend of mosque shooting suspect speaks out: ‘We never know how madness emerges’*
> _He knew Bissonnette admired French far-right leader Marine Le Pen and that he was thrilled with the election of Donald Trump in the United States. “He liked his protectionism, his nationalism,” he said.
> 
> the friend said Bissonnette favoured American media. In his apartment, he constantly had CNN or Fox News on, and online he was a fan of the conspiracy-mongering sites Breitbart and Infowars._
> 
> Of course we realize this report comes from the disreputed "MSM":
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/friend-of-mosque-shooting-suspect-speaks-out-we-never-know-how-madness-emerges


He also praised the NDP and Jack Layton, so your precious MSM isn't as honest and forthright as you like to think.


----------



## andrewf

When was this... 7 or 8 years ago? I think the relevant info is what was driving his thinking when he went on the murderous rampage.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

mordko said:


> 1. A couple of years ago my friend Sergei Kondrashev was arrested in St Petersburg for a peaceful 1-man protest in opposition to persecution of gays in Russia. He isn't gay, nor is he "left", but he is a lawyer and supports individual freedoms.
> 
> Are you ok with that?


He has a right to protest in my opinion, although I generally believe the best way to get change is to work through a lesser magistrate, getting elected officials to speak for you.



mordko said:


> 2. John Baird, former Foreign Affairs Minister, happens to be gay. Our government under Steven Harper fought against persecution of gays in Muslim countries and Russia.
> 
> Would you say Harper and Baird are "left", increase paedophilia and licentious society?


Both are fiscally conservative and in many ways socially liberal. There are very few socially conservative politicians in Canada, so the left/right distinction gets blurry with Canadian conservatives.


----------



## olivaw

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Our own flock of trolls should know the company they keep:
> 
> *Friend of mosque shooting suspect speaks out: ‘We never know how madness emerges’*
> _He knew Bissonnette admired French far-right leader Marine Le Pen and that he was thrilled with the election of Donald Trump in the United States. “He liked his protectionism, his nationalism,” he said.
> 
> the friend said Bissonnette favoured American media. In his apartment, he constantly had CNN or Fox News on, and online he was a fan of the conspiracy-mongering sites Breitbart and Infowars._
> 
> Of course we realize this report comes from the disreputed "MSM":
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/friend-of-mosque-shooting-suspect-speaks-out-we-never-know-how-madness-emerges


We don't know what drove this man over the edge but his participation in alt-right conspiracy sites like Infowars and Breitbart speaks to the danger of these wastelands. Trump is their number one supporter - shame on him.


----------



## mordko

bobsyouruncle said:


> He has a right to protest in my opinion, although I generally believe the best way to get change is to work through a lesser magistrate, getting elected officials to speak for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Both are fiscally conservative and in many ways socially liberal. There are very few socially conservative politicians in Canada, so the left/right distinction gets blurry with Canadian conservatives.


"Elected official"? "magistrate"? In Russia? Great idea!!! You deserve a Nobel, for the same approach can work equally well to resolve all the problems in Syria, N Korea and Cuba. Incidentally, I wasn't asking whether he has a right to protest - of course he does. I was wondering whether you are OK with arresting a man for expressing his views. Would that be acceptable to enforce your social norms on others?



> Both are fiscally conservative and in many ways socially liberal. There are very few socially conservative politicians in Canada...


Indeed. Or, like you said before, " licentious". Because there are very few homophobes in Canada. Funny how "morally sound" Russia has much lower life expectancy and far higher rates of AIDS/STD.


----------



## carverman

according to the latest media reports, Bissonette visited that mosque on a couple of occasions. 
He also asked for money, supposedly a drug addict. Wonder why he would do
that (ask for money in a mosque) if he was truly a drug addict/ WMaybe to see how what it looked like inside to see how he could carry out his heinous crime?

http://globalnews.ca/news/3220317/quebec-city-mosque-shooting-alexandre-bissonnette-visited-mosque/


----------



## wraphter

Violence isn't the exclusive possession of the right.
A writer for Breibart gets a hot reception at Berkeley. The demonstration featured a very big bonfire.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...federal-funds-berkeley-riots-shut-milo-event/



> President Donald Trump reacted to the massive rioting at UC-Berkeley in response to a scheduled campus speech by Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
> “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” Trump wrote on Twitter early Thursday morning.
> 
> News of the rioting made cable news last night as students smashed ATMs and bank windows, looted a Starbucks, beat Trump supporters, pepper sprayed innocent individuals, and set fires in the street. Others spray painted the words “Kill Trump” on storefronts.
> 
> The speech was canceled by UC-Berkeley police as security failed. Yiannopoulos was evacuated from the area.
> 
> *“The left is profoundly antithetical to free speech these days, does not want to hear alternative points of view, and will do anything to shut it down,”* Yiannopoulos told Fox News host Tucker Carlson in an interview on Wednesday night. “My point is being proven over and over and over again.”


Berkeley was a bastion of leftist radicalism back in the anti-war movement of the sixties. It was also associated with the hippies and drugs.


----------



## SMK

The money asking could simply have been a calculated way for the killer to get sympathy-trust from the mosque members, and to not raise suspicion while he was checking out the place ahead of the terror attack. 

He was also allegedly fascinated with guns from an early age. Sounds a bit like Adam Lanza, who killed 20 children and his mother - different motive but perhaps there were early signs of mental illness like sags would no doubt agree.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

mordko said:


> "Elected official"? "magistrate"? In Russia? Great idea!!! You deserve a Nobel, for the same approach can work equally well to resolve all the problems in Syria, N Korea and Cuba. Incidentally, I wasn't asking whether he has a right to protest - of course he does. I was wondering whether you are OK with arresting a man for expressing his views. Would that be acceptable to enforce your social norms on others?


I was just making a point of information about the generally the better way to make your point on an issue, not necessarily saying what someone should do in Russia. Furthermore, agreeing the with a persons right to protest is the same as agreeing with his right to express his views. I think you're allowing your sarcasm to get in the way of your reasoning.



mordko said:


> Indeed. Or, like you said before, " licentious". Because there are very few homophobes in Canada. Funny how "morally sound" Russia has much lower life expectancy and far higher rates of AIDS/STD.


I didn't say Russia is morally sound. The place is in ever-increasing poverty and a nasty place to live in general. The point I was making was, anything which threatens the traditional family setup is bad for society, and I think governments would be better off not giving so much attention to LGBTQ lobby groups. If it was about advocating for "rights" one might understand, but it's more than that. It's also about destroying the rights those who advocate for traditional values. It opposes the free speech of those who may contradict their view. The treatment of Dr Jordan Peterson is evidence of that, and he is right in his analysis of what is going on in Canada and beyond.

Anyway, this has gone off topic for too long.


----------



## sags

There was a discussion on the shooting on National Post radio this morning, and I agree with one viewpoint that was offered on the show.

Tens of millions of people voted for Trump, read Breitbart and Infowars and aren't driven to go on shooting rampages.

I wander over to some of those websites myself sometimes, to read something interesting.....even if they are a little bit wacky.

Another website with loads of conspiracy theories is www.beforeitisnews.com (Before it is news.com)

Conspiracy theories are interesting...911, JFK assassination, and some provide food for thought, but it doesn't mean people are going to get a gun and start murdering people.

I am convinced the people who do this are the ones on the edge of mental breakdowns in some form. Examination of some brains belonging to serial killers and others often shows substantially different brains than would be considered normal. Parts of the brain are larger or overlap other areas etc. People who do these kinds of things are often at a loss to explain why they do them.

Research into the brain has revealed that people have two major growth periods in their brains. One is at birth for a few years and then it stops for awhile. Everything is filed away nicely in the brain and behavior is routine and unremarkable.

The second growth period occurs at the teenage years. The brain grows.......moves things all around and often affects the teen's behaviors in ways they don't understand themselves. Parents of teenagers have long known that "something" happens to their kids around that age.

It could well be that this young man had mental issues, perhaps was delayed in his mental development and "things" got messed up when his brain grew. It sounds from his friend's accounts that he was conflicted. At one instance he was fiercely anti-feminist, anti-Muslim and another instance was a perfectly well adjusted happy young man. Often there is no "sense" that can be made from their behavior.

He is being interviewed by police and I wouldn't be surprised if he is frustrating them because he really can't explain why he did what he did.

I have wondered from time to time, how horrible it must be to wake up in a prison cell and be accused of doing something terrible you don't remember or can't explain. The thought of it is one reason I gave up drinking alcohol many years ago.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

I agree with you Sags. 
What I consider unfortunate is that the US president (I know its a different thread), who gets intense media coverage at any time, is now someone who intentionally tries to inflame and divide people - and quite possibly incite unstable people like Bissonnette into thinking they are doing something commendable. 
Case in point is the quote in #126 above, where he reportedly tweeted "no federal funds". What the he^^ does that accomplish except to polarize people further and get him more media coverage? He is not a statesman, he is a media clown and he risks making America a helhole.


----------



## bass player

Yeah, it's Trump's fault that violent anarchists beat people, loot stores, and start fires because they can't handle an opinion different than theirs.

Anyone who defends these violent anarchists is a sad and pathetic loser.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

bass player said:


> Yeah, it's Trump's fault that violent anarchists beat people, loot stores, and start fires because they can't handle an opinion different than theirs. Anyone who defends these violent anarchists is a sad and pathetic loser.


I certainly wasn't defending violence and anarchy. I was pointing out that a US president who glibly tosses out funding threats on twitter is only trying inflame the situation for his own puerile purposes. His 'parents' should take his cell phone away and tell him to grow up.


----------



## bass player

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I certainly wasn't defending violence and anarchy. I was pointing out that a US president who glibly tosses out funding threats on twitter is only trying inflame the situation for his own puerile purposes. His 'parents' should take his cell phone away and tell him to grow up.


There would be no situation to "inflame" if leftist thugs weren't beating people, starting fires, or looting stores. 

When a group of people have lost the argument, their only remaining action is violence. Berkley is a perfect example of this...the left can't stand that anyone be allowed to think differently and this is how they react time and time again. Almost as bad as the non-stop violence are the "tolerant" left who support it.

I hope that Trump does take away their funding. Perhaps then people will realize that their actions have consequences.


----------



## james4beach

sags said:


> Tens of millions of people voted for Trump, read Breitbart and Infowars and aren't driven to go on shooting rampages.


Not yet, but the Dylan Roof and Alexandre Bissonnette attacks show that white supremacist violence is on the rise. This was the most fatal terrorist attack in Canada since 1985, for heaven's sake -- *start taking the white supremacist threat seriously*.

Brietbart and Infowars (the whole alt right) have a radicalizing influence. Many of us mistook it for entertainment at first, but now I see that the alt-right is a ***********-inspired radicalization movement. This is a resurgence of white supremacy that is pushed by Trump/Breitbart/Infowars and that even has supporters here on the forums.


----------



## bass player

James...when will the left begin taking the alt-left anarchists seriously?

The recent rise of the violent alt-left has been almost completely ignored by the left who keep shrieking "white supremacy" every chance they get. It wasn't white supremacists who beat people at Berkeley last night. It wasn't white supremacists who looted and started fires.


----------



## wraphter

Breitbart contains a lot of informative articles. Instead of condemning it,perhaps some one could point out where it is engaging in hatred
, where it is instigating violence or where it is deliberately lying.

For example, here is a piece titled "Ex-Obama Official Suggests ‘Military Coup’ Against Trump"

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/02/ex-obama-official-suggests-military-coup-trump/



> In a blog post for Foreign Policy magazine, Rosa Brooks, a former Obama administration official, outlined four ways to “get rid” of President Trump, including declaring him mentally unfit for command or carrying out a military coup.
> 
> ...........
> 
> Brooks listed four ways to get rid of a “crummy” president.
> 
> Elect him out of office after his four-year term. “But after such a catastrophic first week, four years seems like a long time to wait,” she wrote.
> 
> 
> Impeachment. However, she lamented, “impeachments take time: months, if not longer — even with an enthusiastic Congress. And when you have a lunatic controlling the nuclear codes, even a few months seems like a perilously long time to wait.”
> 
> 
> Utilizing a claim of mental instability to invoke the 25th Amendment of the Constitution, which sets the path for the commander-in-chief’s removal if the “president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
> 
> 
> A military coup. She writes: *“The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders.”*


Did the author of the article in Foreign Policy , Rosa Brooks, suggest that there should be a military coup against Trump?

Is she pushing the idea that a military coup would be desirable?

It appears so.


http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30...rump-before-2020-impeach-25th-amendment-coup/

Breitbart has a definite point of view but it doesn't appear to be inflammatory in this piece.


----------



## bass player

Imagine the outrage had someone made the same suggestion about Obama. It's time to hold the left to the same standards that they demand of others.


----------



## Nelley

james4beach said:


> Not yet, but the Dylan Roof and Alexandre Bissonnette attacks show that white supremacist violence is on the rise. This was the most fatal terrorist attack in Canada since 1985, for heaven's sake -- *start taking the white supremacist threat seriously*.
> 
> Brietbart and Infowars (the whole alt right) have a radicalizing influence. Many of us mistook it for entertainment at first, but now I see that the alt-right is a ***********-inspired radicalization movement. This is a resurgence of white supremacy that is pushed by Trump/Breitbart/Infowars and that even has supporters here on the forums.


Hard to take the premise of white supremacy seriously-here is an example-you are a white male-and you are a total bubblehead, an idiot.


----------



## humble_pie

bass player said:


> There would be no situation to "inflame" if leftist thugs weren't beating people, starting fires, or looting stores.
> 
> When a group of people have lost the argument, their only remaining action is violence. Berkley is a perfect example of this...the left can't stand that anyone be allowed to think differently and this is how they react time and time again. Almost as bad as the non-stop violence are the "tolerant" left who support it.
> 
> I hope that Trump does take away their funding. Perhaps then people will realize that their actions have consequences.



those weren't leftists, those were the Black Bloc who are well known to the university & its police.

it was Black Bloc thugs, not progressive democrats, who disrupted the inauguration in washington on january 20th. Ideologically speaking the Black Bloc is much closer to the far right than to centrists & moderates.

.


----------



## bass player

humble_pie said:


> those weren't leftists, those were the Black Bloc who are well known to the university & its police.
> 
> it was Black Bloc thugs, not progressive democrats, who disrupted the inauguration in washington on january 20th. Ideologically speaking the Black Bloc is much closer to the far right than to centrists & moderates.
> 
> .


Lol. Yeah, every fringe group belongs to the right in your reality. 

However, my point remains...no one on the left condemns them, and no one demands their arrest while they burn cars, loot businesses, and beat people. It's acceptance by tacit approval.


----------



## humble_pie

Nelley said:


> Hard to take the premise of white supremacy seriously-here is an example-you are a white male-and you are a total bubblehead, an idiot.



given that alexandre bissonnette was a well-known far right troll in social media for at least a year before he carried out the massacre in sainte-foy, quebec police have now added 55 officers to the anti-terrorist team. Some will be assigned to monitor social media for threats & incitement of hatred.

one offender spreading hatred in social media has already been detained by montreal police. I doubt that anything he could have posted could have been worse than some of the remarks posted in cmf forum by the tiny cellule of well-known trolls on here.

.


----------



## humble_pie

bass player said:


> However, my point remains...no one on the left condemns them, and no one demands their arrest while they burn cars, loot businesses, and beat people. It's acceptance by tacit approval.



your point is false. Black Bloc are routinely arrested, charged & tried whenever they are caught.

.


----------



## new dog

Here is a nice tolerant pre school teacher in a Seattle protest. She swears like crazy, says white people should give everything they own to black and brown people. She says a ton and people cheer her on. This is worse then a white supremacists rally and I am sure the mainstream doesn't care.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAjr-Awyp3w

I took this from the fake news thread and clearly the left are far more dangerous then a rise in white supremacy.


----------



## Nelley

bass player said:


> Lol. Yeah, every fringe group belongs to the right in your reality.
> 
> However, my point remains...no one on the left condemns them, and no one demands their arrest while they burn cars, loot businesses, and beat people. It's acceptance by tacit approval.


100 Berkeley faculty members signed a petition against allowing the guy to speak (even though the event was sold out)-this violent disruption that cancelled the event had the tacit approval of those faculty members. What a farce-a federally funded university that will not allow discussion.


----------



## gibor365

> quebec police have now added 55 officers to the anti-terrorist team. Some will be assigned to monitor social media for threats & incitement of hatred.


 Democracy and freedom of speech 
And somebody here bashing Russia


----------



## bass player

humble_pie said:


> your point is false. Black Bloc are routinely arrested, charged & tried whenever they are caught.
> 
> .


Really? How many did they arrest last night? The rioting went on for hours...


----------



## Nelley

humble_pie said:


> given that alexandre bissonnette was a well-known far right troll in social media for at least a year before he carried out the massacre in sainte-foy, quebec police have now added 55 officers to the anti-terrorist team. Some will be assigned to monitor social media for threats & incitement of hatred.
> 
> one offender spreading hatred in social media has already been detained by montreal police. I doubt that anything he could have posted could have been worse than some of the remarks posted in cmf forum by the tiny cellule of well-known trolls on here.
> 
> .


I know it is the dream of fascists like yourself to have a society where calling an idiot an idiot sends dissenters to the Gulag but thankfully people with your twisted values are still in the minority.


----------



## humble_pie

new dog said:


> I took this from the fake news thread and clearly the left are far more dangerous then a rise in white supremacy.



yes, you did take this from your own quote in another thread! yes, you are repeating yourself!!

wottsamatter, you haven't got anything new to say? what does your friend in seattle have to do with canada? or with a tragedy in quebec in particular?


.


----------



## james4beach

Nelley said:


> Hard to take the premise of white supremacy seriously-here is an example-you are a white male-and you are a total bubblehead, an idiot.


Seriously? We just had the most fatal terrorist attack in decades by a racist white far-right guy ... and you're saying it's hard to take the premise of white supremacy threat seriously?


----------



## humble_pie

Nelley said:


> I know it is the dream of fascists like yourself to have a society where calling an idiot an idiot sends dissenters to the Gulag but thankfully people with your twisted values are still in the minority.



don't be silly nelley. I'm not a fascist & i'm not in the minority. 

moderates are by far the colossal majority in canada. It's time for moderates to speak out regarding the tiny-but-noisy handful of krypto alt-rights like yourself. I for one am happy to see the increased police surveillance of social media. 

.


----------



## Nelley

humble_pie said:


> don't be silly nelley. I'm not a fascist & i'm not in the minority.
> 
> moderates are by far the colossal majority in canada. It's time for moderates to speak out regarding the tiny-but-noisy handful of krypto alt-rights like yourself. I for one am happy to see the increased police surveillance of social media.
> 
> .


I am thinking of filing a restraining order against you-I don't want to come home and find a bunny rabbit boiling on the stove.


----------



## new dog

Now we can add some conclusions to the rise in white supremacy.

First of all any rise in white supremacy can be completely blamed on the left. White supremacy is always here and should be put down but like prostitution I don't think it will ever go away.

The left's horrible behaviour at rallies, constant hypocrisy and pumping up by the MSM is a nice fuel to help white supremacists recruit more people. It also helps fuel hatred and it can set off crazy people.

White supremacy is homegrown so we are stuck with the consequences of the left's actions.

The left also want to import crazy people, which again is helping white supremacists recruit more people.

The actions of Europe is giving rise to more Trump like figures the left hates so much to get in power. Again the tolerant left is responsible for this and white supremacist can recruit more easily as this is all over the news.

Conclusion is white supremacist are loving the left for opening the doors for them to recruit more and more people.


----------



## like_to_retire

new dog said:


> The left's horrible behaviour at rallies, constant hypocrisy and pumping up by the *MSM* is a nice fuel to help white supremacists recruit more people.


MSM - Methylsulfonylmethane is an organosulfur compound with the formula (CH₃)₂SO₂. It is also known by several other names including DMSO₂, methyl sulfone, and dimethyl sulfone.

Other than that reference, every other search returns back to Canadian Money Forum.

Could someone please explain the acronym MSM?

ltr


----------



## humble_pie

Nelley said:


> I am thinking of filing a restraining order against you-I don't want to come home



but you _are_ home, nelliekins. You're home in your allzie special residence, remember? i doubt they'd even let you into the kitchen, you'd be too cuckoo even with something as simple as a coffeemaker.

a hashtag for the new surété du quebec social media monitors is Marine le Pen. Just like alexandre bissonnette, nelley is on record here as being crazy for Mme le Pen. Both of them, bonkers crazy. Nelley said she prefers the french leader of le front national to donald trump.


.


----------



## bass player

james4beach said:


> Seriously? We just had the most fatal terrorist attack in decades by a racist white far-right guy ... and you're saying it's hard to take the premise of white supremacy threat seriously?


Unreported by the MSM...he also "liked" the NDP and Jack Layton. I guess that makes him both right wing and left wing, but right wing only for MSM purposes


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

like_to_retire said:


> ... Could someone please explain the acronym MSM? ltr


MSM= Main stream media. Used extensively by the alt-right CMF trolls who seem to think anyone who isn't with them is on the far left.
Their inability to perceive the middle ground that most of us inhabit is symptomatic of myopia that is as extreme as their views.


----------



## bass player

humble_pie said:


> your point is false. Black Bloc are routinely arrested, charged & tried whenever they are caught.
> 
> .


I'm still waiting...how many of the violent anarchists were arrested during the several hours of violence, looting, and fire setting?

Here's some help: ABC news says no arrests were made:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/berkeley-braces-protests-milo-yiannopoulos-talk-45204141


----------



## gibor365

bass player said:


> Unreported by the MSM...he also "liked" the NDP and Jack Layton. I guess that makes him both right wing and left wing, but right wing only for MSM purposes


Not only 


> On His Facebook page, before it was taken down, he liked and followed many Christian preachers such as Pope John Paul II, William Lane Craig, Edward Feser and others.


 yes, really,the Pope is extremely right wing


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

bass player said:


> I'm still waiting...how many of the violent anarchists were arrested during the several hours of violence, looting, and fire setting?
> Here's some help: ABC news says no arrests were made:
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/berkeley-braces-protests-milo-yiannopoulos-talk-45204141


H_P was not claiming black bloc were arrested at UC Berkely. 

What was said is that they are "routinely arrested" in response to your fishy claims that "no one on the left condemns them, and no one demands their arrest while they burn cars, loot businesses, and beat people. It's acceptance by tacit approval."

There were for example, a large number of anarchists among the 217 arrested in DC on Jan 20.

So chill out, go out bass fishing again so you have something to play with.


----------



## bass player

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> H_P was not claiming black bloc were arrested at UC Berkely.
> 
> What was said is that they are "routinely arrested" in response to your fishy claims that "no one on the left condemns them, and no one demands their arrest while they burn cars, loot businesses, and beat people. It's acceptance by tacit approval."
> 
> There were for example, a large number of anarchists among the 217 arrested in DC on Jan 20.
> 
> So chill out, go out bass fishing again so you have something to play with.


I accurately stated that no one was arrested last night in spite of several hours of violent rioting. Last night wasn't January 20.

But, thanks for trying out.


----------



## olivaw

The shooter was a sick individual. That doesn't excuse the behaviour of scaremongers who encourage us to treat our Muslim friends and neighbours with suspicion and revulsion. We simply do not know if this individual would have committed this hate crime were it not for the chat rooms at Breitbart and a US president who supports institutionalizd bigotry. What we do know is that he was drawn to online communities that confirmed and encouraged his apparent hatred of Muslims.


----------



## wraphter

Back in the sixties ,the leftists were the violent ones. There was the anti-war movement and the violent civil rights movement. 
The do-gooders were in full sail. There was a coalition of the left and the Arabs. The cause of the Palestinians was supported by the left
as it is today.

Look for the same coalition of the left and the Muslims again today. Look for it to tumble over the edge into violence.
History will repeat itself. 

Keith Ellison ,a Muslim with a past is a candidate for Chair of Democratic National Committee.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/politics/kfile-keith-ellison-nation-of-islam/



> Rep. Keith Ellison's past ties to the Nation of Islam and his defense of its anti-Semitic leader, Louis Farrakhan, are resurfacing as he campaigns to lead the Democratic National Committee.
> 
> Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, publicly renounced his association with the Nation of Islam in 2006 after it became an issue during his run for Congress, when local Republican bloggers began publishing his old law school columns and photos connecting him to the organization.
> 
> "I have long since distanced myself from and rejected the Nation of Islam due to its propagation of bigoted and anti-Semitic ideas and statements, as well as other issues," Ellison wrote at the time.
> But several outlets have resurfaced Ellison's past writings as he runs for DNC chair, raising new concerns about his own views and what they would mean for the Democratic Party if he were to be its leader. A CNN KFile review of Ellison's past writings and public statements during the late 1980s through the 1990s reveal his decade-long involvement in the Nation of Islam and his repeated defense of Farrakhan and other radical black leaders against accusations of anti-Semitism in columns and statements to the press. None of the records reviewed found examples of Ellison making any anti-Semitic comments himself.


How do we know Bissonnette was sick? He surrendered. He didn't want to die in a shoot-out. That shows some element of 
rationality.


----------



## humble_pie

wraphter said:


> ... the violent civil rights movement



the civil rights movement was violent? who knew

that's why the US has martin luther king day? to celebrate king & rosa parks & many civil rights volunteers who were assassinated for their beliefs in voter registration & school integration?

won't you please tell us about the violent side of the US civil rights movement ...

.


----------



## james4beach

bass player said:


> Unreported by the MSM...he also "liked" the NDP and Jack Layton. I guess that makes him both right wing and left wing, but right wing only for MSM purposes


You are selectively seeking out information to support your views, and I think you might be in denial. There's much more than his Facebook likes. According to this BBC article,



> Francois Deschamps, an official with an advocacy group, Welcome to Refugees, said the suspect was known for his far-right views.
> 
> Mr Bissonnette was "unfortunately known to many activists in Quebec for taking nationalist, pro-(French far-right politician Marine) Le Pen and anti-feminist positions at Laval University and on social media," Mr Deschamps posted on the organisation's Facebook page.


And additionally,



> "I wrote him off as a xenophobe," Mr Boissoneault said. "I didn't even think of him as totally racist, but he was enthralled by a borderline racist nationalist movement... [But] it never occurred to me he might be violent."
> 
> Mr Deschamps told The Globe and Mail: "He was someone who made frequent extreme comments in social media denigrating refugees and feminism. It wasn't outright hate, rather part of this new nationalist conservative identity movement that is more intolerant than hateful."
> 
> Both Mr Deschamps and Mr Boissoneault describe how the previously reticent and subdued student began expressing strong anti-immigration opinions which were especially directed towards Muslim refugees.


----------



## james4beach

Unbelievable! O'Leary posted a video to his social media showing him firing an automatic weapon (from a past visit to a firing range).
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/oleary-gun-range-shooting-thursday-1.3963724

There you go ... here is your nutcase candidate: O'Leary. Right-wing, pro-gun, anti-government.


----------



## sags

Conspiracy websites are entertainment for most people, but for a small number of people are fodder for a damaged brain.


----------



## sags

_Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale told reporters on Parliament Hill Thursday that he doesn't comment on the "strange and bizarre behaviour of Conservative leadership candidates."

But when pressed to comment on the timing of the video post, he said "it's obviously crass, insensitive and exceedingly dumb."

When shown the video, International Trade Minister François-Philippe Champagne said in French that he was speechless._

O'Reilly posted about the tragic shooting in the morning, added the gun video in the afternoon, and then took it down "out of respect".

The guy is a fool and a tool.


----------



## gibor365

james4beach said:


> Unbelievable! O'Leary posted a video to his social media showing him firing an automatic weapon (from a past visit to a firing range).
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/oleary-gun-range-shooting-thursday-1.3963724
> 
> There you go ... here is your nutcase candidate: O'Leary. Right-wing, pro-gun, anti-government.


This is not automatoc weapon, but gun 
"anti-government"?! What makes him to be one?!


----------



## wraphter

humble_pie said:


> won't you please tell us about the violent side of the US civil rights movement ...


There was the Black Power movement which rejected the non-violence of MLK and the civil rights movement. It was going on at the same time as the anti-war movement ,
which had a violent section ,and the counter culture, the hippies ,who were into drugs and love. It was a time of great social upheaval. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Power_movement



> The Black Power movement was a political movement to achieve a form of Black Power and the many philosophies it contains. The movement saw various forms of activism some violent and some peaceful, all hoping to achieve black empowerment. The Black Power movement also represented socialist movements, all with the general motivation of improving the standing of black people in society.[1] *Originated in the aftershock of the Civil Rights movement, some doubted the philosophy of the movement begging for more radical action, taking influences from Malcolm X. *The cornerstone of the movement was the Black Panther Party, a Black Power organization dedicated to socialism and the use of violence to achieve it.[2]* The Black Power movement developed in the criticisms of the Civil Rights movement in the early 1960s, and over time and into the 1970s, the movement grew and became more violent. *After years of violence, many left the movement and the police began arresting violent actors in the movement.[3] The Black Power movement also spilled out into the Caribbean creating the Black Power Revolution.
> 
> ...........
> 
> *By the late 1960s Black Power came to represent the demand for more immediate violent action to counter American white supremacy*. Most of these ideas were influenced by Malcolm X's criticism of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s peaceful protest methods. The 1965 assassination of Malcolm X coupled with the urban uprisings of 1964 and 1965 ignited the Black Power movement. By 1968 Black Power was a recognizable movement with a growing force of people who sympathize. New organizations began to form such as the Black Panther Party each supporting Black Power philosophies ranging from socialism to black nationalism.
> 
> ...............
> 
> Black Panthers later engaged the police in a fire fight in a Los Angeles gas station. In the same year Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated creating the nationwide King assassination riots, the widest wave of social unrest since the American civil war.[21] The King riots were not the only instances of social unrest in the year. In Cleveland, Ohio, in the neighborhood of Glenville the black radical group "Republic of New Libya" engages the police in a firefight. Open rebellion breaks out and militants begin sniping police officers, eventually the militants are neutralized. After the Glenville shootout, rioting began the next day, but was eventually ended.[22] The year also marked the beginning of the White Panther Party a group of whites dedicated to the cause of the black panthers.


Neither the right or left has a monopoly on violence.


----------



## james4beach

gibor365 said:


> "anti-government"?! What makes him to be one?!


Same as Harper and Trump: thinks government is too big, needs to be smaller, dislikes the civil service, thinks they are useless, and has an agenda to shrink government because he doesn't see the value in what they do. Quote from Kevin:



> “I’d like to shrink government by about a third. I think what’s happened – and there’s lots of evidence of it – is the government has grown too big. The way I look at it, for every dollar the government spends 33-1/3 cents is wasted, one third, because much of what they do is not market tested.


----------



## gibor365

> Same as Harper and Trump


 Oh, so you should specify "current Liberal government", and you can call almost half Canadians "anti-government"... Funny that just a year+ ago , he (Kevin) was pro-government 
btw, you, live in USA and you - anti-government ...
Harper, even though wasn't perfect, was the best Canadian PM in many many years


----------



## mordko

james4beach said:


> Same as Harper and Trump: thinks government is too big, needs to be smaller, dislikes the civil service, thinks they are useless, and has an agenda to shrink government because he doesn't see the value in what they do. Quote from Kevin:


Nuts. Former Prime Minister of Canada is not "anti-government". Wanting a more efficient government is not "anti-government". Seriously, lay off hard drugs or whatever you are taking.


----------



## sags

Harper is gone and doesn't matter anymore. Canadians already made their decision on him.

Under Trudeau, Canada has been accepting of refugees and our intelligence agencies are doing a good job of vetting them.

We shouldn't consider changing our refugee system because of a lone shooter with mental problems.


----------



## sags

The Canadian public shows strong support for our fellow Muslim Canadians.

The Canadian Muslim community shows strong support for all other Canadians.

Together we are stronger and should never let the ideology of a few radicals change that.

Some say Canada isn't different than other countries. I say we continually prove that we are a lot different.


----------



## wraphter

sags said:


> The Canadian public shows strong support for our fellow Muslim Canadians.
> 
> The Canadian Muslim community shows strong support for all other Canadians.
> 
> Together we are stronger and should never let the ideology of a few radicals change that.
> 
> Some say Canada isn't different than other countries. I say we continually prove that we are a lot different.


Kellie Leitch is a Canadian. She doesn't show strong support for Muslim immigrants.

Some posters on this website are Canadians. They don't support Muslims in Canada.

A scientist is objective. He doesn't ignore the data.


----------



## carverman

IMO Kelly Leitch is on the road to being discarded entrant as a candidate for the PC leadership.


----------



## gibor365

> “I’d like to shrink government by about a third. I think what’s happened – and there’s lots of evidence of it – is the government has grown too big.


 completely agree with Kevin, Canadian government is really too big, they just wasting taxpayers money.


----------



## tygrus

wraphter said:


> Some posters on this website are Canadians. They don't support Muslims in Canada.


No problem with muslims at all. Come here after being properly vetted through legal channels, work, live in peace and integrate into secular society. Learn our language customs and traditions and laws.

But leave the 1st century stuff out.


----------



## new dog

I agree Tygrus, we are just thinking of the safety of our citizens, laws and country. I like some here do not want big numbers of Muslims which we know will start to force their ways and hurt our country. We are realists, not racists and we are thinking of our future. The left doesn't think at all and would prefer to go head first into anything as long as it portrays them as tolerant which they are clearly not. They also don't care about bringing more people for free money and stuff because they honestly think money grows on trees.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

Canada is too open.

You can get in even when you're HIV positive, which seems nuts.


----------



## andrewf

^Maybe refugees on a compassionate basis, but I think immigrants with chronic/severe health problems are excluded.


----------



## james4beach

Did Trump ever make a "tweet" or other comment condemning right-wing radicals/nationalists, or white supremacists for this terrorist attack?


----------



## lonewolf :)

tygrus said:


> No problem with muslims at all. Come here after being properly vetted through legal channels, work, live in peace and integrate into secular society. Learn our language customs and traditions and laws.
> 
> But leave the 1st century stuff out.


 Leave the backward religion @ home or stay home. Why would Canada want to join Sweden as becoming one of the top rape capitals of the world. This is not a race problem it is a backwards ideology hiding under religion supported by those that conform to the political correctness. They can not be screened when their religion promotes lying & deceit to promote their religion. Their backwards beliefs are why their countries are a mess & their backwards beliefs are destroying the countries they migrate too. How is the integration going in Europe ? Inclusion is a sign of a market top this is going to be one mother of a top it better happen fast before we commit suicide with opening boarders.


----------



## lonewolf :)

safe zones in Moslem countries where women have to be treated equal & sharia law is forbidden should be set up. Anyone attacking safe zones should be killed. Either we set up safe zones or stay out of the fight. Once in place & running for x amount of years immigration from theses areas would be safer. If a none Moslem went to some of these countries the local citizens would kill them fast if they were not in safe zones. So why would we want to invite people that want to kill us into Canada ??? If they live in an area that forbid their backward ways for x amount of time & migrate here to become productive citizen with their old backward religion being forbidden in Canada or other countries they migrate to there would not be such a problem. In fact get rid of the backward ways in these countries the people would not want to come here.


----------



## james4beach

Amazing, the biggest terrorist attack in decades -- carried out by a white Canadian *against muslims* -- and we have people in this thread beating up further on immigrants & muslims. Disgusting.


----------



## bass player

james4beach said:


> Amazing, the biggest terrorist attack in decades -- carried out by a white Canadian *against muslims* -- and we have people in this thread beating up further on immigrants & muslims. Disgusting.


In other words, as soon as a white person commits a horrendous act, no one is allowed to criticize a backwards culture that preached death to non-Muslims and that treats their women horribly.


----------



## james4beach

bass player, you are a despicable person and a world class racist. These victims did not do any harm to anyone. The people who were killed did not preach death to anyone.

The one person in this whole story who carried out a crime was Alexandre Bissonnette. He committed mass murder, driven by a dangerous radical right-wing ideology.

A similar ideology to yours, actually: obsession with and hatred towards muslims / immigrants.


----------



## bass player

james4beach said:


> bass player, you are a despicable person and a world class racist. These victims did not do any harm to anyone. The people who were killed did not preach death to anyone.
> 
> The one person in this whole story who carried out a crime was Alexandre Bissonnette. He committed mass murder, driven by a dangerous radical right-wing ideology.
> 
> A similar ideology to yours, actually: obsession with and hatred towards muslims / immigrants.


Muslim is not a race, so how is it possible to be a racist? Perhaps you either need to buy a dictionary??

I never once defended Bissonette, but don't let the facts get in the way of your baseless attack. The fact is that he also praised Jack Layton and the NDP which indicates that he also has left wing tendencies...another fact that you conveniently ignore.


----------



## mordko

- Muslims are not a race, but there are racist fellow travellers who use Islam as a target as part of their overall world view and to enter the niche vacated by politicians too scared to use the words "radical" and "islam" in the same sentence. Le Pen is a good examples.

- Bissonnette liked Layton, but it does not look likely that he was an NDP supporter. More likely he was a BQ supporter. BQ is a left wing party but let's not hold this against the left in general.


----------



## ykphil

james4beach said:


> bass player, you are a despicable person and a world class racist. These victims did not do any harm to anyone. The people who were killed did not preach death to anyone.
> 
> The one person in this whole story who carried out a crime was Alexandre Bissonnette. He committed mass murder, driven by a dangerous radical right-wing ideology.
> 
> A similar ideology to yours, actually: obsession with and hatred towards muslims / immigrants.


Despicable is a very polite word for that kind of person. I wish I was as civil as you are.


----------



## bass player

ykphil said:


> Despicable is a very polite word for that kind of person. I wish I was as civil as you are.


Both of you have lost the ability to reason. I never once defended Bissonette or his ideology.


----------



## ykphil

bass player said:


> Both of you have lost the ability to reason. I never once defended Bissonette or his ideology.


Incidentally, I am a non-Muslim born in a country with a majority Muslim population. My own experience may be anecdotal, but I am more afraid of the alt-right white supremacist types being physically violent and extremist than any Muslim I have ever met in my lifetime, about 60 years.


----------



## mordko

ykphil said:


> Incidentally, I am a non-Muslim born in a country with a majority Muslim population. My own experience may be anecdotal, but I am more afraid of the alt-right white supremacist types being physically violent and extremist than any Muslim I have ever met in my lifetime, about 60 years.


In your opinion, how can we explain the following phenomenon:

- The proportion of non-Muslims in ~50 majority Muslim countries is a fraction of what it was not so long ago.
- The proportion of Muslims in western countries is increasing rapidly.


----------



## ykphil

mordko said:


> In your opinion, how can we explain the following phenomenon:
> 
> - The proportion of non-Muslims in ~50 majority Muslim countries is a fraction of what it was not so long ago.
> - The proportion of Muslims in western countries is increasing rapidly.


I am not an expert on Muslim issues, especially because of the vastly different demographics and cultures in all the Muslim countries, but in the cases I am very familiar with such as North Africa, some parts of what we call the Middle East, and other African nations, I would say that the situation we have today has nothing to do with religion but is the terrible results of hundreds of years of colonization (by European powers), then rapid de-colonization which left these countries completely gutted, then neo-colonialism and support of Western powers and corporations for tyrants and other dictators. Add to that the thirst for oil by Western powers, and you get the picture. Religion is only an easy scapegoat.


----------



## mordko

I see. So when Jews are robbed, killed and expelled or Coptic churches are burned in Egypt by Islamists, the real culprit is Queen Victoria?


----------



## ykphil

ykphil said:


> I am not an expert on Muslim issues, especially because of the vastly different demographics and cultures in all the Muslim countries, but in the cases I am very familiar with such as North Africa, some parts of what we call the Middle East, and other African nations, I would say that the situation we have today has nothing to do with religion but is the terrible results of hundreds of years of colonization (by European powers), then rapid de-colonization which left these countries completely gutted, then neo-colonialism and support of Western powers and corporations for tyrants and other dictators. Add to that the thirst for oil by Western powers, and you get the picture. Religion is only an easy scapegoat.


About migrations from Muslim countries to non-Muslim countries, I don't see much differences between migrations of French, Spaniards, British, Italians, Irish, Greeks, and other Europeans to the rest of the world not too long ago, to escape poverty, wars, famines, unrest, etc.


----------



## mordko

In that case, should we punish Queen Elizabeth for the terrorist attack on the Quebec Mosque? Wasn't Canada colonized too?


----------



## bass player

mordko said:


> I see. So when Jews are robbed, killed and expelled or Coptic churches are burned in Egypt by Islamists, the real culprit is Queen Victoria?


Yes. It's the Queen's fault that Malmo has become the rape capital of Europe, and not the fault of the Muslim rapists.


----------



## mordko

ykphil said:


> About migrations from Muslim countries to non-Muslim countries, I don't see much differences between migrations of French, Spaniards, British, Italians, Irish, Greeks, and other Europeans to the rest of the world not too long ago, to escape poverty, wars, famines, unrest, etc.


Some of the wealthiest countries in the world are Muslim-majority countries. How come we don't see refugees from the war-torn poverty stricken Ukraine taking up Saudi citizenship and setting up Orthodox Churches in Mecca?


----------



## bass player

ykphil said:


> About migrations from Muslim countries to non-Muslim countries, I don't see much differences between migrations of French, Spaniards, British, Italians, Irish, Greeks, and other Europeans to the rest of the world not too long ago, to escape poverty, wars, famines, unrest, etc.


You see no difference? Then why did Malmo become the rape capital of Europe immediately after an influx of Muslim refugees?


----------



## Nelley

ykphil said:


> Despicable is a very polite word for that kind of person. I wish I was as civil as you are.


Just go to your closet, get your ***** Hat and go find a march-make yourself useful.


----------



## ykphil

bass player said:


> You see no difference? Then why did Malmo become the rape capital of Europe immediately after an influx of Muslim refugees?


I was hoping to have an intelligent discussion but if you can reduce a couple of centuries of history to a few snapshots of current events, I am out of here. And James' description was really too mild.


----------



## wraphter

james4beach said:


> Amazing, the biggest terrorist attack in decades -- carried out by a white Canadian *against muslims* -- and we have people in this thread beating up further on immigrants & muslims. Disgusting.


Talk about cherry-picking the data. You didn't mention all the Muslim terrorists attacks--911,Paris Bataclan,Brussels airport,Istambul airport,San Bernadino,Orlando nightclub,Mumbai , all the terrorist attacks in Iraq, in Pakistan,13,000 hanged in Assad's prison ..........

And you want to open the borders....


----------



## mordko

^He is talking about Canada. The good thing about Canadian Islamic terrorists is that they:

- either fail in their attempts to murder lots of people (Toronto 18, Niagara Falls Bridge, Aaron Diver, Parliament Hill shooting etc...)
- or succeed in murdering lots of people but not in Canada (Algeria, Somalia, Nigeria, etc...)


----------



## wraphter

ykphil said:


> About migrations from Muslim countries to non-Muslim countries, I don't see much differences between migrations of French, Spaniards, British, Italians, Irish, Greeks, and other Europeans to the rest of the world not too long ago, to escape poverty, wars, famines, unrest, etc.


All those countries you mentioned are majority Christian and so share much in common with Canada and the US.They were not engaged in terrorist attacks against the West. For centuries there has been a clash of civilizations between the West and the realm of Islam.


----------



## bass player

ykphil said:


> I was hoping to have an intelligent discussion but if you can reduce a couple of centuries of history to a few snapshots of current events, I am out of here. And James' description was really too mild.


We can't have an intelligent discussion when you previously blamed the current problems caused by Muslims on Europeans.

It's the same story over and over...it's ******'s fault that Muslims do bad things. The difference today is that lie is finally being challenged. As it should. No one on the right blames the actions of white supremacists on anyone other than the white supremacists.


----------



## andrewf

26 Canadians were killed on 9/11, making that a bloodier terrorist attack on Canadians.


----------



## new dog

This was a horrible attack by someone who is probably a white supremacist. White supremacists and all hate groups should be watched or stamped out if they are doing crimes. We should not be importing people from countries that have a good chance of giving us white supremacists. Importing muslims give us a chance of getting some terrorists or in greater numbers will cause horrible problems for our society that no one wants even the left if they knew what was good for them.

Ykphil this I think is where the other members are coming from when they discuss white supremacists or muslims. I don't think anyone hates muslims at all and are probably happy with the muslims we have in our country now. They just don't want to push our luck and do serious damage to this country.


----------



## bgc_fan

mordko said:


> In your opinion, how can we explain the following phenomenon:
> 
> - The proportion of non-Muslims in ~50 majority Muslim countries is a fraction of what it was not so long ago.
> - The proportion of Muslims in western countries is increasing rapidly.


I would say the simplest explanation would be high birthrates within Muslim families. Are you suggesting some other motive? It is not too different from the traditional Catholic teaching to go forth and multiply.


----------



## mordko

bgc_fan said:


> I would say the simplest explanation would be high birthrates within Muslim families. Are you suggesting some other motive? It is not too different from the traditional Catholic teaching to go forth and multiply.


I would suggest persecution of non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries. Then Islamists move to the west and try to make it exactly like the place they came from.


----------



## sags

Any Muslims in Canada preaching Islamic fundamentalist hate propaganda stand out in their solitude and isolation.

They are advocating to Muslims exactly what those Muslims risked their lives and left everything behind to escape.


----------



## mordko

They don't SEEM to stand in isolation while in front of a crowded Toronto Mosque on Fridays handing out Islamist propaganda.


----------



## bass player

mordko said:


> They don't SEEM to stand in isolation while in front of a crowded Toronto Mosque on Fridays handing out Islamist propaganda.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW3K42zFa7U


----------



## bgc_fan

mordko said:


> I would suggest persecution of non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries. Then Islamists move to the west and try to make it exactly like the place they came from.


I can't really say much about persecution in muslim majority countries, but I haven't seen much effort or success to try to have Sharia law override Canadian law.


----------



## mordko

One step at a time. Blasphemy laws come first http://www.torontosun.com/2017/01/2...ti-islamophobia-motion-is-nothing-but-trouble


----------



## lonewolf :)

bgc_fan said:


> I can't really say much about persecution in muslim majority countries, but I haven't seen much effort or success to try to have Sharia law override Canadian law.


 The numbers are to low yet, Europe as the numbers have been higher its just a matter of time before a European country gets Sharia law. The Muslims want the men & women separated in schools as women are not seen as equals. I just read an article Emerson Manitoba one of the boarder towns they are coming across as it is not patrolled. Based on an internet article I read a while back the Mexicans are getting paid to drop off immigrants from Muslim countries along the USA Mexican border so they can sneak across. True or false don't know though if true we have a problem


----------



## gibor365

bass player said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW3K42zFa7U


Liked some comments

Ridiculous! I couldn't imagine such Toronto when I decided to move here...


> As an African, I HATE ISLAM and MUSLIMS. Fake people with bad intentions. Get rid of them from your country and live your lives without their idiotic trash.﻿





> How can I NOT be afraid of people like this?
> How can I walk Toronto streets knowing that people like this see me and my Western values as a threat and I am their enemy? How can I feel safe when he wants to grind me under his boot?


----------



## olivaw

The unsubstantiated claim that Muslims distribute hate propaganda from their Mosque is expected in the "Muslim-bashing threads. It appears out of place in a thread about the massacre of innocent Muslims by an alt-right murderer.


----------



## gibor365

> The unsubstantiated claim that Muslims distribute hate propaganda from their Mosque


 they're doing it from everywhere, include streets of Toronto


----------



## wraphter

olivaw said:


> The unsubstantiated claim that Muslims distribute hate propaganda from their Mosque is expected in the "Muslim-bashing threads. It appears out of place in a thread about the massacre of innocent Muslims by an alt-right murderer.


The blind sheikh,Omar Abdel-Rahman preached violent actions against the US while he was in the US. He is currently serving a life sentence in an American jail for his involvement the first World Trade Center bombing.How the Americans let him in the country in the first place 
is beyond comprehension. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Abdel-Rahman



> Omar Abdel-Rahman (Arabic: عمر عبد الرحمن‎‎, ‘Umar ‘Abd ar-Raḥman; born 3 May 1938), commonly known in the United States as "The Blind Sheikh", is a blind Egyptian Muslim leader who is currently serving a life sentence at the Butner Medical Center which is part of the Butner Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina, United States. Formerly a resident of New York City, Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy,[1] which requires only that a crime be planned, not that it necessarily be attempted. His prosecution grew out of investigations of the World Trade Center 1993 bombings.
> Abdel-Rahman was accused of being the leader of Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (also known as "The Islamic Group"), a militant Islamist movement in Egypt that is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and Egyptian governments. The group is responsible for many acts of violence, including the November 1997 Luxor massacre, in which 58 foreign tourists and four Egyptians were killed.
> 
> 
> ................
> 
> He traveled widely in the United States and Canada.* Despite the U.S. support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan, Abdel-Rahman was deeply anti-American and spoke out against it. He issued a fatwa in the US that declared it lawful to rob banks and kill Jews in the US. His sermons condemned Americans as the "descendants of apes and pigs who have been feeding from the dining tables of the Zionists, Communists, and colonialists".[14] He called on Muslims to assail the West, "cut the transportation of their countries, tear it apart, destroy their economy, burn their companies, eliminate their interests, sink their ships, shoot down their planes, kill them on the sea, air, or land".[15]*
> 
> ................
> 
> Abdel-Rahman was the spiritual leader of the terrorists who were conducting these attacks (the terrorists were members of his Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya).[18] At that time, he was recording his sermons in Brooklyn on cassette tapes and sending them to Egypt. These tapes were duplicated and given to tens of thousands of people in Cairo. In these tapes, Abdel-Rahman called for the murder of infidels, for the ousting of Hosni Mubarak, and for Egypt to become a pure Islamic state.[18]
> "Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman uses New York as a base", said Mamdouh Beltagui, the head of the state information service in Egypt. "He raises funds and sends money back to Egypt with couriers. He passes on messages to his followers, giving orders about what they should do next and who they should target. We do not understand why the U.S. authorities have allowed him to enter the country."[18]


"Muslim-bashing thread"? No, freedom of speech. Something Islam and sharia law doesn't permit.
Of course they wouldn't try to establish the Caliphate in Canada,would they? 
Segregated swimming pools, anybody?

"alt-right murderer"? I don't think so. Where is the empirical evidence of this? You operate in the post-fact realm. Bissonnette appears sane. He is responsible for what he did.


----------



## mordko

The point is being made in this thread agiain and again that "alt right terrorism" is more of a threat than radical Islam. That's demonstrably untrue and deserves a rebuttal.

If you stop using this tragedy for scoring cheap and false political points then you won't see references to mosques being used to spread Islamist propaganda. Which of course they are. Walk on Friday afternoon by the Islamic Center on Gerrard and if your hair is black, they will give you leaflets. The leaflets explain that Jews and Christians are all liars, that Muslims shouldn't be ruled by non Muslims and will provide a bunch of helpful quotes from the holy Quran and Mo, PBUH.


----------



## bgc_fan

mordko said:


> One step at a time. Blasphemy laws come first http://www.torontosun.com/2017/01/2...ti-islamophobia-motion-is-nothing-but-trouble


You might want to actually read the motion and not Fake News.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentari...849)/Motions?sessionId=152&documentId=8661986
It is a motion to study systematic racism and develop a whole of government strategy to deal with it. Including Islamaphobia. Nothing about blasphemy laws.

Unfortunately the link seems dead now, but it was a link to the motion.


----------



## mordko

bgc_fan said:


> You might want to actually read the motion and not Fake News.
> http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentari...849)/Motions?sessionId=152&documentId=8661986
> It is a motion to study systematic racism and develop a whole of government strategy to deal with it. Including Islamaphobia. Nothing about blasphemy laws.
> 
> Unfortunately the link seems dead now, but it was a link to the motion.


1. Postmedia is no more "fake news" than CBC. 

2. The motion proposes to “recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.” How exactly? What can't we say? I have a suspicion they are not referring to this annual glorification of mass murder: http://www.cjnews.com/news/toronto-police-investigate-teachers-comments-al-quds-day-rally

3. Then the motion redirects you to this petition: https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-411

The petition is full of blatant lies and spin. Using the same logic we can say that alt right is also a sweet and peaceful movement and certain extremist individuals, like the chap from Quebec, do not reflect its values (in fact, unlike Islamists he did not claim to represent alt right and did not use his ideology to recruit anyone).

Crucially, they are condemning "condemning all forms of Islamophobia". Based on the text of this petition, one can fully expect opposition to Sharia be condemned as "Islamophobia". Which is why it's a neat first step.

It is important to distinguish between opposition to ideologies like Communism, Nazism, Scientology, Islamism on one hand and racism on the other hand. Having a motion which tries to limit criticism of religion is not OK.


----------



## new dog

Mordko I think you hit it on the head there. I think it would be tough to recruit large amounts of people to be racist in a society like Canada today. It would be far easier to use one of the isms to bring people on board and from there you could branch out to racism, if they wish to. The left is using its organization to put out racist points against white people and there is no resistance to this.


----------



## mordko

^ not what I said; that's your own point.


----------



## new dog

True, that is why I said "I think" in regard to the last sentence of your post. But it is good to clarify it because it is my point, especially if one doesn't agree with it.


----------



## Nelley

The problem is that Islam isn't a religion (not if Buddhism is a religion)-it is a political ideology. Objectively speaking, Islam is far closer to Nazism than it is to Buddhism.


----------



## SMK

mordko said:


> The point is being made in this thread agiain and again that "alt right terrorism" is more of a threat than radical Islam. That's demonstrably untrue and deserves a rebuttal.


I agree that some comments made here are off-topic, but the above is absolutely true and proven by the OP on various threads of his own making.


----------



## olivaw

wraphter said:


> "alt-right murderer"? I don't think so. Where is the empirical evidence of this?


WIKI:


> The suspected perpetrator is Alexandre Bissonnette, who has been charged with six counts of murder





> People who knew him said he had expressed support for Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump,[29][28][32] and had far-right, white nationalist, and anti-Muslim views.[26][33][34] The manager of a refugee-support Facebook page said Bissonnette frequently denigrated refugees and feminists online.[28][29] A member of the mosque stated that he had met and talked with him outside the mosque on January 26, believing he was interested in Islam, but he veered away from the subject.[35][36]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_City_mosque_shooting


----------



## bass player

just because someone calls them alt-right, that doesn't make it true. Today, anyone who commits a crime and isn't a registered Democrat or Liberal is called "alt-right".


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> The petition is full of blatant lies and spin. Using the same logic we can say that alt right is also a sweet and peaceful movement and certain extremist individuals, like the chap from Quebec, do not reflect its values (in fact, unlike Islamists he did not claim to represent alt right and did not use his ideology to recruit anyone).
> 
> Crucially, they are condemning "condemning all forms of Islamophobia". Based on the text of this petition, one can fully expect opposition to Sharia be condemned as "Islamophobia". Which is why it's a neat first step.
> 
> It is important to distinguish between opposition to ideologies like Communism, Nazism, Scientology, Islamism on one hand and racism on the other hand. Having a motion which tries to limit criticism of religion is not OK.


The petition is perfectly reasonable. Here is the wording:



> Islam is a religion of over 1.5 billion people worldwide. Since its founding more than 1400 years ago, Muslims have contributed, and continue to contribute, to the positive development of human civilization. This encompasses all areas of human endeavors including the arts, culture, science, medicine, literature, and much more;
> 
> Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada; and
> 
> These violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world.
> 
> We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.


----------



## bass player

Why is a bill needed to prevent the very few cases of Islamophobia? Hate laws already exist. What more is needed to "protect" Islam that isn't already covered by the law?

In reality, Jewish people need more protection than those who practice Islam.


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> just because someone calls them alt-right, that doesn't make it true. Today, anyone who commits a crime and isn't a registered Democrat or Liberal is called "alt-right".


Bissonnette expressed far-right, white nationalist and anti-Muslim views. That's alt-right.


----------



## mordko

This is designed to persecute actual rather than fake liberals (including Muslims) like Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz, Tarek Fatah and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. 

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/31/bil...l_time_turns_ugly_on_barbaric_muslim_beliefs/
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/richard_dawkins_does_it_again_new_atheisms_islamophobia_problem/
https://www.change.org/p/southern-p...rom-the-splc-s-list-of-anti-muslim-extremists
http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/tag/tarek-fatah/


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> Why is a bill needed to prevent the very few cases of Islamophobia? Hate laws already exist. What more is needed to "protect" Islam that isn't already covered by the law?
> 
> In reality, Jewish people need more protection than those who practice Islam.


The bill is debatable. 

The petition, however, is fine. It was unfairly called _"blatant lies and spin"_. The best argument against that was to reproduce the petition.


----------



## mordko

Alt-Right is a world view of over 1.3 billion people worldwide. Since its founding, Alt-Right activists have contributed, and continue to contribute, to the positive development of human civilization. This encompasses all areas of human endeavors including the arts, culture, science, medicine, literature, and much more;

Recently a single extremist has conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for Alt Right. His actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-alt-right sentiments in Canada; and elsewhere.

This violent individual does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of philosphy of Alt Right. In fact, he misrepresents the movement. We categorically reject all of his activities. He in no way represent the movement, the beliefs and the desire of Alt-Right to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world.

We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that one extremist individual does not represent the Alt-Right, and in condemning all forms of Altrightphobia.


----------



## gibor365

bass player said:


> In reality, Jewish people need more protection than those who practice Islam.


Agreed! And more so-called "anti-Islamophobia" laws, we're(Jews) less protected.


----------



## bass player

^^

Well stated mordko.

Now, I eagerly look forward to similar media coverage of the "alt-left" and their anarchist and violent tactics.


----------



## gibor365

bass player said:


> ^^
> 
> Well stated mordko.
> 
> Now, I eagerly look forward to similar media coverage of the "alt-left" and their anarchist and violent tactics.


You won't find it in mainstream Western media


----------



## mordko

bass player said:


> ^^
> 
> Well stated mordko.
> 
> Now, I eagerly look forward to similar media coverage of the "alt-left" and their anarchist and violent tactics.


Just so long as you don't think that I actually defend alt-right.


----------



## bass player

gibor365 said:


> You won't find it in mainstream Western media


I know. I can just imagine how extensive the media coverage would have been over the Berkeley riots because some people from the right wanted to shut down a left leaning speaker. CNN would have been there 24/7.

Sadly, free speech doesn't exist on the left. Only approved progressive ideology is allowed...heaven forbid that someone from the left gets accidentally exposed to a differing opinion or is challenged to open their mind. The left knows the battle will be lost if they can't control the message...


----------



## bass player

mordko said:


> Just so long as you don't think that I actually defend alt-right.


Most of us don't defend extremists on either side. I think we all just want fair and balanced reporting


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> Alt-Right is a world view of over 1.3 billion people worldwide. Since its founding, Alt-Right activists have contributed, and continue to contribute, to the positive development of human civilization. This encompasses all areas of human endeavors including the arts, culture, science, medicine, literature, and much more;
> 
> Recently a single extremist has conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for Alt Right. His actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-alt-right sentiments in Canada; and elsewhere.
> 
> This violent individual does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of philosphy of Alt Right. In fact, he misrepresents the movement. We categorically reject all of his activities. He in no way represent the movement, the beliefs and the desire of Alt-Right to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world.
> 
> We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that one extremist individual does not represent the Alt-Right, and in condemning all forms of Altrightphobia.


Perhaps you think this is clever. It isn't. Alt-right is a collection of intolerant political views. Islam is a religion.

Most of us understand the obvious fact that Bissonnette doesn't represent every member of the alt-right. Al-right may hold views that we disagree with but I doubt that any sensible person would argue that they are all murderers or supporters of murder. 

The same cannot be said for Islamophobes. They believe that a tiny minority represents all Muslims. That's the sort of extreme over-generalization that leads bigotry and hate. Most of us recognize the poor logic of it but Islamophobes appear to be incapable of seeing their own error in judgement. The petition states the obvious.


----------



## mordko

Above I gave links to accusations against Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Maajid Nawaz, Tarek Fatah and Ayaan Hirsi Ali in "Islamophobia". 

That tells me all I need to know about this bullshit term. Me thinks "Islamophobes" are not at all people who generalize about Muslims (Fatah and Nawaz are Muslim themselves). It's people who are opposed to Islamism/Political and violent islam, as well as strong racist and misogynist strains within Islam. 

And how much of "minority" are misogynists, homophobes, caliphate/sharia-supporters and antisemites within modern Islam is a big question mark. Nor do we really know how many Muslims there are; most of the 50 Muslim countries persecute ex-Muslims. 

The petition spins and lies when it claims that "extremists" have nothing to do with Islam, just as anyone who claims that Bissonnette has nothing to do with Alt Right would be spinning and lying. Does not mean that all Muslims are Al Qaeda, but Islamists are most definitely Muslims. 

Crucially, the petition is against criticism of an ideology (in this case the religion of Islam), aka directly opposed to free speech.


----------



## bgc_fan

mordko said:


> 1. Postmedia is no more "fake news" than CBC.


This is where we differ, I don't consider the source of the media to be fake news. I consider the story itself. Basically, the story is saying that this motion will lead to people being accused of Islamophobia for disagreeing with certain teachings and lead to silencing of Islamic critics. All of this is based on a fragment of the last sentence of the petition "...and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia". 



mordko said:


> 2. The motion proposes to “recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.” How exactly? What can't we say? I have a suspicion they are not referring to this annual glorification of mass murder: http://www.cjnews.com/news/toronto-police-investigate-teachers-comments-al-quds-day-rally


That is essentially a throwaway and meaningless sentence. Basically, it is saying the government needs to recognize that this is an issue, and does not propose a way forward on how to deal that.

So, here is the full text:


> That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Basically the usual political claptrap that we want to study the issue. Nowhere do I see that it proposes limiting criticism of religion. Maybe your interpretation of Islamophobia includes criticizing Islam, but I doubt the majority of Canadians would agree.



mordko said:


> 3. Then the motion redirects you to this petition: https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-411
> 
> The petition is full of blatant lies and spin. Using the same logic we can say that alt right is also a sweet and peaceful movement and certain extremist individuals, like the chap from Quebec, do not reflect its values (in fact, unlike Islamists he did not claim to represent alt right and did not use his ideology to recruit anyone).
> 
> Crucially, they are condemning "condemning all forms of Islamophobia". Based on the text of this petition, one can fully expect opposition to Sharia be condemned as "Islamophobia". Which is why it's a neat first step.


So here is the text:
Whereas:
Islam is a religion of over 1.5 billion people worldwide. Since its founding more than 1400 years ago, Muslims have contributed, and continue to contribute, to the positive development of human civilization. This encompasses all areas of human endeavors including the arts, culture, science, medicine, literature, and much more;
Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada; and
These violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world.
We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.

Where does it say that it criticism of Islam should be silenced? Again, all it states the situation that a minority of the 1.5 billion Muslims is acting as the face of Islam. 

But then we're talking about percentages. So how big a percentage of the alt-right would agree with the Quebec City shooter? I would say a fairly large percentage simply because the alt-right is a small population. On the other hand, the percentage of Muslims who agree with Islamic terrorists is probably fairly small because of the large Muslim population. If the majority truly thought like extremists, we would have daily terrorist attacks in the US and Canada.



mordko said:


> It is important to distinguish between opposition to ideologies like Communism, Nazism, Scientology, Islamism on one hand and racism on the other hand. Having a motion which tries to limit criticism of religion is not OK.


So tell me, are you a proponent of the new antisemitism? Meaning that any sort of criticism of Israel makes one an anti-semite?


----------



## gibor365

> Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam.


 If you do little research, you will see that this is "pure" Islam.... They exactly repeat what did their Muhammad (whom Dante met in 9th circle of the Hell) 



> So tell me, are you a proponent of the new antisemitism? Meaning that any sort of criticism of Israel makes one an anti-semite?


 Obviously I'm!


----------



## mordko

> So tell me, are you a proponent of the new antisemitism? Meaning that any sort of criticism of Israel makes one an anti-semite?


That's impressive BS. Not what it means in any shape or form. Otherwise most Israelis (and me) would be "antisemites".


----------



## mordko

> Basically the usual political claptrap that we want to study the issue. Nowhere do I see that it proposes limiting criticism of religion. Maybe your interpretation of Islamophobia includes criticizing Islam, but I doubt the majority of Canadians would agree.


That's just ignorance. Islamophobia is a term promoted by the 57 (or 58?) nation Organizaiton of Islamic something (OIC) for 15 years or so. Second largest international organization in the world; it's dominated by Saudi money and is a front for Saudi Arabia. The purpose is exactly to prohibit any criticism of Islam; they are using UN for it as well. In KSA you go to prison for "Islamophobia" or "apostasy" or "blasphemy" or visiting Mecca while being non-Muslim. That's what their world-wide campaign is all about. 

And as I quoted above, western fans of KSA are routinely accusing critics of Islam of "Islamophobia". The fact this Saudi Campaign has penetrated Parliament is stupidity par excellence.


----------



## gibor365

mordko said:


> That's impressive BS. Not what it means in any shape or form. Otherwise most Israelis (and me) would be "antisemites".


Depends on what kind of criticism


> New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism has developed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, emanating simultaneously from the far-left, radical Islam, and the far-right, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. The concept generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies, is, in fact, tantamount to demonization, and that, together with an alleged international resurgence of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols, and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.


----------



## mordko

gibor365 said:


> Depends on what kind of criticism


He specified it:


> any sort of criticism


----------



## bgc_fan

mordko said:


> That's impressive BS. Not what it means in any shape or form. Otherwise most Israelis (and me) would be "antisemites".


Well, when Stephen Harper addressed the Knesset, he stated the following:



> But, this is the face of the new anti-Semitism.
> It targets the Jewish people by targeting Israel and attempts to make the old bigotry acceptable for a new generation.
> Of course, criticism of Israeli government policy is not in and of itself necessarily anti-Semitic.
> But what else can we call criticism that selectively condemns only the Jewish state and effectively denies its right to defend itself while systematically ignoring – or excusing – the violence and oppression all around it?


So if you criticize Islamic countries and Israel, you are good to go. If you decide only to criticize Israel, you're an anti-semite.

The ADL has a nice page about this where they point out that it is not necessarily true; however, it also points out that it can cross over to anti-semitism.

For what it's worth, there are number of articles related to this:
ABC - http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128580&page=1
Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criti..._Israel_who_have_been_accused_of_antisemitism
Mintpress News - http://www.mintpressnews.com/uk-to-...sm-which-includes-criticism-of-israel/223043/

Though to be honest the latter strikes me as the same level as this motion, because I can't figure out the definition the UK uses includes criticism of Israe. Though if the motion can define Islamophobia it would provide the boundaries for debate. If you could point to the definite definition of Islamophobia that would help on the debate, but basically from my Google search, all I find is that there is no real accepted definition.

The interesting thing is that I see the parallel between this motion and the INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE ALLIANCE defining Antisemitism: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred
toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed
toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish
community institutions and religious facilities.”

An example is as follows: Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish
collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be
regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it
is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms
and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits. 

The problem I see is that people usually take the first sentence and exclude the rest as the interpretation.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> The petition is perfectly reasonable. Here is the wording:


I think the word Islamophobia is itself problematic. We can talk about anti-Muslim bigotry, but there is nothing irrational about fear of the doctrine of Islam, and any criticism of that doctrine is labelled incorrectly as Islamophobia.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> Perhaps you think this is clever. It isn't. Alt-right is a collection of intolerant political views. Islam is a religion.
> 
> Most of us understand the obvious fact that Bissonnette doesn't represent every member of the alt-right. Al-right may hold views that we disagree with but I doubt that any sensible person would argue that they are all murderers or supporters of murder.
> 
> The same cannot be said for Islamophobes. They believe that a tiny minority represents all Muslims. That's the sort of extreme over-generalization that leads bigotry and hate. Most of us recognize the poor logic of it but Islamophobes appear to be incapable of seeing their own error in judgement. The petition states the obvious.


Religions are not special and do not deserve any special respect. They are sets of ideas that can be debated and critiqued on their merits. Islam is a disaster, but then again so are most religions. Unfortunately, large percentages of Muslims (not all, but significant percentages) seem to take their religion seriously when compared to other religions. And the values espoused in Islam are decidedly at odds with the foundational principles of western society.


----------



## lonewolf :)

andrewf said:


> I think the word Islamophobia is itself problematic. We can talk about anti-Muslim bigotry, but there is nothing irrational about fear of the doctrine of Islam, and any criticism of that doctrine is labelled incorrectly as Islamophobia.



Maybe its like the golden rule only with oil those with the gold/oil make the rules. Lot of oil money out there for pay offs. Golden rule those with the gold make the rules


----------



## wraphter

andrewf said:


> And the values espoused in Islam are decidedly at odds with the foundational principles of western society.


 Christianity is the foundational principle of Western Civilization. Religions have an important role in binding members of a group together.
Religion or morality binds and blinds.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/645384-morality-binds-and-blinds-it-binds-us-into-ideological-teams



> “Morality binds and blinds. It binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say.”


If the Emperor Constantine hadn't legalized Christianity in the fourth century AD and if Christianity hadn't been adopted by the Roman
Empire history would be very different. The Dark Ages,feudalism, the Renaissance , science, the Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment,
and the ascendancy of the West would never have happened.

If the word "religion" is difficult for you, you might substitute "culture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture



> Culture (/ˈkʌltʃər/) can be defined in numerous ways. In the words of anthropologist E.B. Tylor, it is "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society."[1]


----------



## sags

Christianity isn't even mentioned in the US Constitution.

_The only reference to religion, found in Article VI, is a negative one: “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” 

And of course we have the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
—John Adams_


----------



## mordko

Worth noting that 1000 years ago Islamic countries and an average Muslim were way more civilized than the Christian ones and an average Christian. Then again, we are not living 1000 years ago.


----------



## andrewf

wraphter said:


> Christianity is the foundational principle of Western Civilization. Religions have an important role in binding members of a group together.
> Religion or morality binds and blinds.
> 
> https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/645384-morality-binds-and-blinds-it-binds-us-into-ideological-teams
> 
> 
> 
> If the Emperor Constantine hadn't legalized Christianity in the fourth century AD and if Christianity hadn't been adopted by the Roman
> Empire history would be very different. The Dark Ages,feudalism, the Renaissance , science, the Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment,
> and the ascendancy of the West would never have happened.
> 
> If the word "religion" is difficult for you, you might substitute "culture:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture


No, Western civilization predates Christianity. It started with the Greeks, if not earlier.

And no, culture is not religion. That is foolishness, though I can see how you might be confused about this, since the Church dominated society and the arts for centuries. You can ditch all the supernatural mumbo-jumbo and keep the culture.


----------



## andrewf

To clarify, religions are characterized by two things:
-they make specific claims about the nature of the universe (most are provably false)
-they lay out moral directives, most of which are ignored for convenience, see wearing mixed-fibre clothing and shellfish


----------



## olivaw

Islamophia is the irrational fear of Islam. Islamophobes are likely to say that it is acceptable to fear Islam but unacceptable to fear Christianity or Judaism.

Maher is different. He criticizes all religion but saves the most severe criticism for Islam. It's an easy target - provocative enough to entertain his viewers but not so provocative as to alienate them.

ETA: a group of 65 civil society organizations have asked the Quebec government to launch a formal commission on the issue of systemic racism following the massacre. The use of the term "racism" is notable.


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> Religions are not special and do not deserve any special respect. They are sets of ideas that can be debated and critiqued on their merits. Islam is a disaster, but then again so are most religions. Unfortunately, large percentages of Muslims (not all, but significant percentages) seem to take their religion seriously when compared to other religions. And the values espoused in Islam are decidedly at odds with the foundational principles of western society.


 SCOC disagrees. Religion is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ideology is not.


----------



## james4beach

There are nearly 2 billion muslims in the world. BILLION. Humans can't even visualize numbers this big. Even when you get just 20 people in a room, you can't get them to agree on something. People are very diverse in individual opinions, perspectives -- even when they are part of the same religion.

Now think about those 2 billion muslims. Do you think they uniformly believe the same thing? No way in hell. This is why it's unfair and ignorant to paint them with the same brush. As if all muslims want the same thing. Just think of Iraq & Syria. ISIS is going around killing muslims. This is hardly a homogeneous group.

And yet some people (even Trump) are generalizing about 2 billion people. So the war mongers and people itching for biblical end times will say it's "Christians vs Muslims" or some such nonsense. Pure stupidity.

mordko is more fair with his criticisms, because he focuses on islamists ... the people who believe in islamic fundamentalism and governing by it. I don't like their agenda one bit either, but these are islamists (like the Saudi wahhabists), NOT islam as a whole.


----------



## olivaw

When criticism extends to labelling Muslims with secular political values as "bad" Muslims, it ceases to be "fair". The target of the fear becomes Islam (the religion), not Islamism (political Islam). 

The argument that Islam is an ideology is equally disturbing. Adherents of the same religion can hold vastly different political values. Indeed, members of the same denomination and the same parish often hold different political values.


----------



## mordko

The argument that Islam is an ideology is "disturbing"? 

That is so cool! Not often one comes across shrinking violets that are "disturbed" by a dictionary!

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/ideological


----------



## mordko

There is a generic attempt by one or two "liberals" here to shield all religions from any criticism, which is of course the exact opposite of the meaning of the word "liberal". 

The argument that there are a lot of Muslims and you can't assume they are all the same is absolutely true. Every individual should be treated on merit. And yes, there are different strains of Islam. At the same there is a clear problem in modern Islam, which is apparent by looking at the state of affairs in each and every one of the 50 plus Muslim countries. Can't be a mere coincidence that they are ALL homophobic, misogynist, autocratic and persecute minorities. And while the majority of Muslims are peaceful, most are racist and homophobic according to the polling data. And in the west Muslims also disproportionately hold abhorrent views. Others do as well but modern Islam has an obvious problem.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> Islamophia is the irrational fear of Islam. Islamophobes are likely to say that it is acceptable to fear Islam but unacceptable to fear Christianity or Judaism.
> 
> Maher is different. He criticizes all religion but saves the most severe criticism for Islam. It's an easy target - provocative enough to entertain his viewers but not so provocative as to alienate them.
> 
> ETA: a group of 65 civil society organizations have asked the Quebec government to launch a formal commission on the issue of systemic racism following the massacre. The use of the term "racism" is notable.


Do you think Maher is afraid to criticize Christianity?

I don't think the attack was racially motivated. I think it was anti-Muslim bigotry and a hate crime. That has little to do with collection of ideas that is Islam.

Islamophobia is a problematic term because it is applied to anyone who criticizes Islam. Almost no such criticism is irrationally fearful.


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> There are nearly 2 billion muslims in the world. BILLION. Humans can't even visualize numbers this big. Even when you get just 20 people in a room, you can't get them to agree on something. People are very diverse in individual opinions, perspectives -- even when they are part of the same religion.
> 
> Now think about those 2 billion muslims. Do you think they uniformly believe the same thing? No way in hell. This is why it's unfair and ignorant to paint them with the same brush. As if all muslims want the same thing. Just think of Iraq & Syria. ISIS is going around killing muslims. This is hardly a homogeneous group.
> 
> And yet some people (even Trump) are generalizing about 2 billion people. So the war mongers and people itching for biblical end times will say it's "Christians vs Muslims" or some such nonsense. Pure stupidity.
> 
> mordko is more fair with his criticisms, because he focuses on islamists ... the people who believe in islamic fundamentalism and governing by it. I don't like their agenda one bit either, but these are islamists (like the Saudi wahhabists), NOT islam as a whole.


James, I'm disappointed. 

You're just waving your hands saying we should ignore polling on Muslim attitudes by saying there are so gosh darn many of them and they are not all exactly the same (strawman fallacy). And so? No one here said anything about 'all Muslims'.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> When criticism extends to labelling Muslims with secular political values as "bad" Muslims, it ceases to be "fair". The target of the fear becomes Islam (the religion), not Islamism (political Islam).
> 
> The argument that Islam is an ideology is equally disturbing. Adherents of the same religion can hold vastly different political values. Indeed, members of the same denomination and the same parish often hold different political values.


Muslims who eat bacon and drink whiskey are 'bad Muslims' in exactly the same way as Catholics who use condoms and have sex before marriage are 'bad Catholics'. And when we say 'bad Muslims', that's usually a good thing. I wish everyone were 'bad' members of their religions, if they have to identify with the religion at all. It means they are discarding the parts of the 'collection of ideas' that don't make sense to them. Ie, they are thinking critically about the religion and deciding to ignore the parts that make living in a secular society difficult or impossible.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> SCOC disagrees. Religion is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ideology is not.


No, people are protected from discrimination for their religious beliefs or practices, religions themselves are not protected. 

We should respect people. Ideas should stand or fall on their merits.


----------



## SMK

james4beach said:


> There are nearly 2 billion muslims in the world. BILLION. Humans can't even visualize numbers this big.


Let me help you visualize it, that's nearly a quarter of the world's population, and growing. 

Can you visualize 60 million or roughly 2 Canadas from the 2 billion number? That's the "infinitesimally" number of fanatics that you don't worry about because the "white right-wing terrorists" are more dangerous and deserve more media attention. 

Hirshi Ali refers to that "infinitesimally" peaceful 3% as "Medina Muslims". http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/12/03/ayaan-hirsi-ali-wants-modify-muslims/

Islamic terrorism with their terror cells around the world, and the current mass migration crisis are not mere coincidences.


----------



## mordko

We shouldn't unduly focus on Maher. After all he is just a TV personality/entertainment although it is very wrong when islamists and "liberals" are trying to censor him for being "islamophobic".

There are worse examples of how the "Islamophobia" label is used to attack brave individuals who dare to criticize Islamism. Here is one: https://www.change.org/p/southern-p...rom-the-splc-s-list-of-anti-muslim-extremists

Hirsi knows exactly what she is talking about when she is calling for the reform within Islam. She has personally suffered and has been threatened and attacked. Yet Universities are banning her speeches. It's disgusting. 

Maajid Nawaz is a former Islamist and also knows exactly what he is talking about. He is a Muslim who is now fighting against extremism; he founded the Quilliam foundation. He is constantly under attack from and is threatened by Islamists and is in a very real danger - just like Hirsi. 

Formally respectable liberal organizations like Southern Poverty Law Centre have been subverted by Islamists. 

Gita Sahgal, a former head of Amnesty gender unit suffered in a similar manner for opposing misogyny practiced by islamist organizations. Again, a formally respectable organization has been subverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gita_Sahgal


----------



## gibor365

> Muslims who eat bacon and drink whiskey are 'bad Muslims' in exactly the same way as Catholics who use condoms and have sex before marriage are 'bad Catholics'. And when we say 'bad Muslims', that's usually a good thing. I wish everyone were 'bad' members of their religions, if they have to identify with the religion at all.


I agree . From my personal experience, 'bad Muslims' are usually good people


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> No, people are protected from discrimination for their religious beliefs or practices, religions themselves are not protected.
> 
> We should respect people. Ideas should stand or fall on their merits.


Actually, the Charter grants more than Section 15 protection against discrimination. Religion is one of the listed fundamental freedoms in Section 2. 

I think your erroneous assertion that religion is an ideology stems from the vagaries of language. 

Encyclopedia Britannica wrote: 


> "*The subject of ideology is a controversial one, and it is arguable that at least some part of this controversy derives from disagreement as to the definition of the word ideology*. One can, however, discern both a strict and a loose way of using it. In the loose sense of the word, ideology may mean any kind of action-oriented theory or any attempt to approach politics in the light of a system of ideas. Ideology in the stricter sense stays fairly close to Destutt de Tracy’s original conception and may be identified by five characteristics: (1) it contains an explanatory theory of a more or less comprehensive kind about human experience and the external world; (2) it sets out a program, in generalized and abstract terms, of social and political organization; (3) it conceives the realization of this program as entailing a struggle; (4) it seeks not merely to persuade but to recruit loyal adherents, demanding what is sometimes called commitment; (5) it addresses a wide public but may tend to confer some special role of leadership on intellectuals


Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  wrote:


> Ideology today is generally taken to mean not a science of ideas, but the ideas themselves, and moreover ideas of a particular kind. *Ideologies are ideas whose purpose is not epistemic, but political*. Thus an ideology exists to confirm a certain political viewpoint, serve the interests of certain people, or to perform a functional role in relation to social, economic, political and legal institutions. Daniel Bell dubbed ideology ‘an action-oriented system of beliefs,’ and the fact that ideology is action-oriented indicates its role is not to render reality transparent, but to motivate people to do or not do certain things. Such a role may involve a process of justification that requires the obfuscation of reality. Nonetheless, Bell and other liberal sociologists do not assume any particular relation between ideology and the status quo; some ideologies serve the status quo, others call for its reform or overthrow.


Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance wrote:


> *Defining the word "religion" is fraught with difficulty*. Many attempts have been made. Many people focus on a very narrow definition that matches their own religion, but few if any others.
> 
> A humorous case appears in Henry Fielding's novel "Tom Jones." where he has one character say:
> 
> "By religion I mean Christianity, by Christianity I mean Protestantism, by Protestantism I mean the Church of England as established by law."


The argument that the terms religion and ideology are interchangeable relies upon the loosest definition of each. As such, it is not a compelling argument because it is a non-argument. 

----

You are free to criticize religions, cultures, ethnicities, ideas and ideologies. Others are free to criticize your criticism. There is no assault on the freedom of expression underway here.


----------



## mordko

Criticizing "ethnicities" isn't at all the same as criticizing ideas, religions, ideologies. 

That's like criticizing someone for having hairy balls. It's stupid because:

- that's how they were born; hardly their fault.
- nothing they can do about it, nor should they.
- has no impact on how humans act. 

Criticizing ethnicity is not only a sign of stupidity and intellectual laziness, it's also vile.

Everything else in this list not only can but should be criticized, particularly belief in a set of supernatural dogmas which has been used as a reason to murder or persecute others. 

Of course, there are many countries where any criticism of religion is outlawed and we are observing an attempt to bring this to Canada. Spot the trend: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/


----------



## wraphter

> Everything else in this list not only can but should be criticized, particularly belief in a set of supernatural dogmas which has been used as a reason to murder or persecute others.


You mean like the Jews in Israel?


----------



## mordko

^ Either a major problem with the English language or impressive stupidity.


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> ^ Either a major problem with the English language or impressive stupidity.


So you can't answer the question. No problem.

To deny the centrality of the belief in God to Judaism shows you don't know anything about this religion.

The Old Testament is full of wars sanctioned by God.

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_war.htm#references



> For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.





> The Lord said to Moses, 2“Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”
> 
> 3So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites so that they may carry out the Lord’s vengeance on them. 4Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel.” 5So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.


"particularly belief in a set of supernatural dogmas which has been used as a reason to murder or persecute others. ".....exactly what is described in these two Biblical quotations.


----------



## mordko

The "question" is answered in #274.


----------



## mordko

> To deny the centrality of the belief in God to Judaism shows you don't know anything about this religion.


Gee... First, you edited your comment AFTER I responded. Why?

Secondly, your "question" said nothing about Judaism. Here

a) "You mean like the Jews in Israel?" 
b) "To deny the centrality of the belief in God to Judaism"

I will type a bit slower: nobody "denied the centrality of belief in god to Judaism". That would be as dumb as your attempts to say something only you know what.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> Actually, the Charter grants more than Section 15 protection against discrimination. Religion is one of the listed fundamental freedoms in Section 2.
> 
> I think your erroneous assertion that religion is an ideology stems from the vagaries of language.
> 
> Encyclopedia Britannica wrote:
> 
> 
> Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  wrote:
> 
> 
> Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance wrote:
> 
> 
> The argument that the terms religion and ideology are interchangeable relies upon the loosest definition of each. As such, it is not a compelling argument because it is a non-argument.
> 
> ----
> 
> You are free to criticize religions, cultures, ethnicities, ideas and ideologies. Others are free to criticize your criticism. There is no assault on the freedom of expression underway here.


Alright, if it makes you feel better, whenever I say ideology to describe religion, add a silent +dogma to it.

To say that religion has no political purpose is, frankly, laughable. Like, laugh all day and all night laughable. It's the boot under which humanity has been ground since the dawn of civilization.


----------



## wraphter

> It's the boot under which humanity has been ground since the dawn of civilization.


Russian communism repudiated Christianity but they were pretty good at grinding. 
The Nazis were anti-Christian and they too did a lot of grinding.

St. Peter's in Rome---raze it and build a condo.

Michelangelo's David, Moses, Pieta ----use it for gravel to pave roads.

Christopher Hitchens---furious atheist--hastened his early death by smoking and drinking.

Richard Dawkins --rabid God-hater, turns out he was molested as a young boy.
now he says a certain amount of child molestation is alright.

Nietzsche --German philosopher ---"God is dead"--- him completely crazy


----------



## andrewf

There's nothing wrong with art and architecture. These are not religion. Religion are the ideas, not the culture.

The Nazis were by no stretch of the imagination anti-Christian. 



> "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
> 
> -Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922


Hitler was Catholic until his death.


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> Alright, if it makes you feel better, whenever I say ideology to describe religion, add a silent +dogma to it.
> 
> To say that religion has no political purpose is, frankly, laughable. Like, laugh all day and all night laughable. It's the boot under which humanity has been ground since the dawn of civilization.


 I have demonstrated to you that the words religion and ideology cannot be used interchangeably. They are not the same thing. 

I'm not exactly sure what you are hoping to achieve with your last sentence. Most people will respond better to the promotion of secular democratic ideals than to the condemnation of religion. Does it relate to the Catholic Church? The church became a powerful political force during the middle ages. It had to. Other political and social institutions crumbled. 

Did you know that the abolition of slavery was an expression of Christianity? Did you know that "Amazing Grace" was written by an atheist slave trader who became a Christian? 

The boots "under which humanity has been ground since the dawn of civilization" belong to other men.


----------



## mordko

The words "religion" and "ideology" are not interchangeable just like words "chair" and "furniture" are not interchangeable. Not the same thing. One is a subset of the other. 

The reason the church became a powerful political force during the Middle Ages isn't because "it had to" but because it destroyed opposition and "blasphemous ideas"; usually with fire. Took humanity many generations back in development; for example ancient Greeks had a pretty good idea how the solar system works around 500 BC but it was all banned as "heresy" and "blasphemy" by religious nutters during the Middle Ages. Oh, and the burnings of heretics - great fun.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> I have demonstrated to you that the words religion and ideology cannot be used interchangeably. They are not the same thing.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what you are hoping to achieve with your last sentence. Most people will respond better to the promotion of secular democratic ideals than to the condemnation of religion. Does it relate to the Catholic Church? The church became a powerful political force during the middle ages. It had to. Other political and social institutions crumbled.
> 
> Did you know that the abolition of slavery was an expression of Christianity? Did you know that "Amazing Grace" was written by an atheist slave trader who became a Christian?
> 
> The boots "under which humanity has been ground since the dawn of civilization" belong to other men.


Of course persecution of humanity was done by other humans -- it sure wasn't god.

I'm not exactly so sure why it is so important to you that religions not be described as ideologies.


----------



## mordko

Hiter wasn't Catholic till death. Yes, he declared himself a Catholic and he was religious but it wasn't standard Catholicism. They called it "aryanized Christianity" (still a religion; which according to Olivaw we are not allowed to criticize). He did develop his philosophy on the basis of religion and Nazism owes a lot to Christianity. Fun facts:

1. In 1878 a Lutheran pastor, antisemite Adolf Stoecker founded German Christian Socialist Party. It was a left-wing socialist party which fought for the implementation of racist laws, rather similar to Nuremberg laws later introduced by the Nazis. 

In 1880 Stoecker and his pals submitted a petition, which demanded to deprive Jews of all rights. The petition was signed by 265 thousand German Christians. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Stoecker
http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?..

2. Houston Stewart Chamberlain developed a Christian-arian theology, which claimed that Jesus wasn't Jewish. In his antisemitic work Chamberlain constantly cites the New Testament, focusing on antisemitic passages. 

Chamberlain personally met Hitler and Gebbels many times; he participated in the formation of Nazi ideology. His philosophy had a major impact on Alfred Rozenberg. Rozenberg then developed the ideology of "positive Christianity" (aryan Christianity; a religion which therefore can't be criticized). 

3. A young Hilter was a huge fan of books by an Austrian monk, an ideologue of racial aryan purity called Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels. Hitler met him personally many times; another major impact on Hitler's world view. 

4. Julius Streicher constantly used blood libel in Nazi propaganda. Blood libel was developed in England in the Middle Ages on the basis of the New Testament. 

5. Nazis also popularized the work of Martin Luther "On Jews and their Lies", which was used in tandem with Mein Kampf. Luther demanded to burn synagogues, Jewish schools and houses and to treat Jews as "wild dogs". 

6. Catholic church actively supported Nazism. The relationship was described by both sides as "cordial": http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/holocaust-chronology-of-1933

7. The head of German Protestants was a huge supporter of Nazism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Müller


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> I'm not exactly so sure why it is so important to you that religions not be described as ideologies.


The reason I consider it important is that the protection of religion (and atheism) is an absolute necessity. Spiritual belief must be considered a fundamental human freedom. 

History is filled with examples of religious persecution. Such persecution usually extends to entire families, including children. Protection is absolutely necessary. 

Individuals have been persecuted for their ideology too, but that doesn't usually include persecution of families and children. 

IMO, there is a social aspect. I would readily sit in a restaurant with my friend and attack his ideas and ideology. I would never dream of attacking his religion. 

For example, it is, IMO, acceptable for me to attack Mordko's ideas. (Indeed, it is one of life's micro pleasures. ) It would be entirely inappropriate for me to attack his religion - and so it should be.



mordko said:


> The reason the church became a powerful political force during the Middle Ages isn't because "it had to" but because it destroyed opposition and "blasphemous ideas"; usually with fire.


Read up on fall of (Western) Rome. Then get back to me with your little hypothesis. Pretty sure it was the Goths that sacked the city, not the Catholics.


----------



## bass player

Spiritual belief is a freedom, but only up to the point when the religious ideology (yes, it's an ideology, regardless of what you claim) infringes on basic human rights and the laws of the land.

Therefore, Sharia law, FGM and, so-called "honour killings" are also subject to criticism and the laws of the land. Once laws are enacted that prevents criticism of a religion, then freedom of speech is lost. Once freedom of speech is lost, then special interest groups will use that to further silence opposing viewpoints...such as an "anti-Islamophobia" law.

Imagine the outrage if Scientology believers executed magazine staff for printing a cartoon of Ron Hubbard. Imagine the outrage if the Mormons executed someone for leaving the faith. So, why does Islam get away with it if no one else can?


----------



## mordko

I am quite familiar with the history of ancient Rome. Really struggling to see what is the connection to my statement that you quoted. 

Incidentally, the most Christian of all Emperors was Constantine. He pillaged old Roman temples while suppressing other religions. He also made up a lot of the stories in the basis of Christianity. Also murdered his oldest son and his wife. An awesome chap, one of many murderous Christian saints.


----------



## gibor365

> Last weekend, nearly 2,000 Edmontonians had a pool party at West Edmonton Mall’s fabulous indoor water park. It was supposed to be a family-friendly event for University of Alberta staff.
> 
> But according to police, one of Justin Trudeau’s Syrian refugees was there too. And he spent the night sexually assaulting teenaged girl after teenaged girl after teenaged girl.
> 
> Soleiman Hajj Soleiman, age 39, faces charges for molesting six different Canadian girls. Police believe Soleiman may have groped even more, and have asked other victims to come forward.
> 
> Please watch my video on the subject:
> 
> West_Edmonton_Mall_Assault.png
> 
> This is completely unsurprising. Mass Muslim migration into Europe has turned public swimming pools into no-go zones for women and girls. Muslim migrants, who have no respect for western women, have turned them into rape zones.



*Storm of reaction to news Syrian refugee charged with sex assaults*
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...mall-sexual-assault-reaction-racism-1.3973831


----------



## bobsyouruncle

To consider Constantine, Catholicism, Hitler, or Protestant liberal theologians influenced by German Higher Criticism as "Christian" is to redefine terms.

None of the above are truly Christian. The first three are political, and if passing references to Jesus help them attain their political goal, then it will be utilized (a bit like Trump in the present day). The latter deny the authority of their own sacred text making them opponents of their own faith.


----------



## gibor365

> None of the above are truly Christian


 ask Orthodox and they will tell you that both, Catholics and Protestants, are not Christian


----------



## mordko

bobsyouruncle said:


> To consider Constantine, Catholicism, Hitler, or Protestant liberal theologians influenced by German Higher Criticism as "Christian" is to redefine terms.
> 
> None of the above are truly Christian. The first three are political, and if passing references to Jesus help them attain their political goal, then it will be utilized (a bit like Trump in the present day). The latter deny the authority of their own sacred text making them opponents of their own faith.


This mirrors claims that Quran-quoting Islamists "are not Muslims". And it's just as valid, which is not in any way shape or form. Here is why:

- Not only did Constantine introduce a whole lot of beliefs that all Christians follow today, but he is a Christian saint. Claiming Christian saints are not Christian is a step beyond claiming that Pope isn't Catholic. 

- Prominent Christian theologians who influenced Hitler neglected some Christian texts but focused on other texts which were just as Christian. Founding Christian texts contain several different ideologies, some of them virulently Antisemitic. Again, this is similar to Islam - one can pick what he likes and following the hateful words of Jesus or Mohammed (as recorded in the Bible Quran) does not make you any less Christian or Muslim. 

Just wondering... would you say that Martin Luther wasn't Christian? How about St John Chrysostom, was he unchristian? 

The point to note about Christianity is that most today's strands are relatively benign and for the most part religion is separated from the state. That's a harder sell in today's Islam, were Islamists play a key role using centrality of the concepts of Sharia and Califate.


----------



## wraphter

The assessment of the contribution of Constantine the Great to Western culture and civilization is not understood upthread.
The murder of his oldest son and wife is not given large emphasis by the historians . He was responsible for the Christianization 
of the Roman Empire and the establishment of the city of Constantinople. 

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Constantine-I-Roman-emperor



> The reign of Constantine must be interpreted against the background of his personal commitment to Christianity
> ......
> 
> The suppression of paganism, by law and by the sporadic destruction of pagan shrines, is balanced by particular acts of deference. A town in Asia Minor mentioned the unanimous Christianity of its inhabitants in support of a petition to the emperor; while, on the other hand, one in Italy was allowed to hold a local festival incorporating gladiatorial games and to found a shrine of the imperial dynasty—although direct religious observance there was firmly forbidden.
> 
> ..............
> 
> Traditional country magic was tolerated by Constantine. Classical culture and education, which were intimately linked with paganism, continued to enjoy enormous prestige and influence; provincial priesthoods, which were as intimately linked with civic life, long survived the reign of Constantine. Constantinople itself was predominantly a Christian city, its dedication celebrated by Christian services; yet its foundation was also attended by a well-known pagan seer, Sopatros.
> 
> ...............
> 
> The establishment by Constantine of a new gold coin, the solidus, which was to survive for centuries as the basic unit of Byzantine currency, could hardly have been achieved without the work of his predecessors in restoring political and military stability after the anarchy of the 3rd century.
> 
> ...............
> 
> More to the point is the accusation that his generosity was only made possible by his looting of the treasures of the pagan temples as well as by his confiscations and new taxes; and there is no doubt that some of his more prominent supporters owed their success, at least partly, to their timely adoption of the emperor’s religion.
> 
> ............
> 
> The foundation of Constantinople, an act of crucial long-term importance, was Constantine’s personal achievement. Yet it, too, had been foreshadowed;
> 
> ..............
> 
> Above all, Constantine’s achievement was perhaps greatest in social and cultural history. It was the development, after his example, of a Christianized imperial governing class that, together with his dynastic success, most firmly entrenched the privileged position of Christianity; and it was this movement of fashion, rather than the enforcement of any program of legislation, that was the basis of the Christianization of the Roman Empire. Emerging from it in the course of the 4th century were two developments that contributed fundamentally to the nature of Byzantine and Western medieval culture:* the growth of a specifically Christian, biblical culture that took its place beside the traditional Classical culture of the upper classes;* and the extension of new forms of religious patronage between the secular governing classes and bishops, Christian intellectuals and holy men.
> 
> *Constantine left much for his successors to do, but it was his personal choice made in 312 that determined the emergence of the Roman Empire as a Christian state.* It is not hard to see why Eusebius regarded Constantine’s reign as the fulfillment of divine providence—nor to concede the force of Constantine’s assessment of his own role as that of the 13th Apostle.


The establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire was of momentous importance. Surely even our resident 
blasphemers and God haters will admit that.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> The reason I consider it important is that the protection of religion (and atheism) is an absolute necessity. Spiritual belief must be considered a fundamental human freedom.
> 
> History is filled with examples of religious persecution. Such persecution usually extends to entire families, including children. Protection is absolutely necessary.
> 
> Individuals have been persecuted for their ideology too, but that doesn't usually include persecution of families and children.
> 
> IMO, there is a social aspect. I would readily sit in a restaurant with my friend and attack his ideas and ideology. I would never dream of attacking his religion.
> 
> For example, it is, IMO, acceptable for me to attack Mordko's ideas. (Indeed, it is one of life's micro pleasures. ) It would be entirely inappropriate for me to attack his religion - and so it should be.
> 
> 
> Read up on fall of (Western) Rome. Then get back to me with your little hypothesis. Pretty sure it was the Goths that sacked the city, not the Catholics.


This is a problem. Treating religion with kid gloves (soft bigotry of low expectations) gives cover for truly evil ideas. Who am I to judge if a religion calls for mutilating children or not educating girls?


----------



## andrewf

bobsyouruncle said:


> To consider Constantine, Catholicism, Hitler, or Protestant liberal theologians influenced by German Higher Criticism as "Christian" is to redefine terms.
> 
> None of the above are truly Christian. The first three are political, and if passing references to Jesus help them attain their political goal, then it will be utilized (a bit like Trump in the present day). The latter deny the authority of their own sacred text making them opponents of their own faith.


You mean they were 'bad Christians'?


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> The establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire was of momentous importance. Surely even our resident
> blasphemers and God haters will admit that.


Indeed. So was the subsequent establishment of fascism as an official state ideology in Rome.


----------



## andrewf

wraphter said:


> The assessment of the contribution of Constantine the Great to Western culture and civilization is not understood upthread.
> The murder of his oldest son and wife is not given large emphasis by the historians . He was responsible for the Christianization
> of the Roman Empire and the establishment of the city of Constantinople.
> 
> https://www.britannica.com/biography/Constantine-I-Roman-emperor
> 
> 
> 
> The establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire was of momentous importance. Surely even our resident
> blasphemers and God haters will admit that.



No one can deny that Christianity has been a religion of momentous importance in general. It has been the dominant religion of the dominant civilization for centuries. But something being important is not the same as it being good. Hitler was important.


----------



## humble_pie

mordko said:


> So was the subsequent establishment of fascism as an official state ideology in Rome.



folks who chime on about their concept of history can be downright entertaining. Mordko is talking here about the Roman empire during the first centuries AD.

idk, he says the early christian emperors were all fascist? they had an official state ideology they called fascism? what is the latin name for fascism, one wonders? how doth Pliny the elder treat this overlooked quirk of roman history?

me i am only a poor dumb crumb from the scullery but i was always taught that roman historians appeared before the time of christ. Pliny & Livy did survive a few years into Anno Domini but i doubt they wrote about any fascism officially embraced by the leaders of Rome.

a dearth of roman historians next persisted for nearly five centuries. It lasted until gothic, frankish, gallo-roman & saxon chroniclers - mostly monks - appeared with their writings & preserved manuscripts around the 5th century AD. However, one never reads that their surviving oeuvres show any trend that can be identified as a precursor of 20th century fascism.

.


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> This is a problem. Treating religion with kid gloves (soft bigotry of low expectations) gives cover for truly evil ideas. Who am I to judge if a religion calls for mutilating children or not educating girls?


Did Alexandre Bissonnette believe that his victims engaged in child mutilation and refused to educate their daughters? If so, he was tragically ignorant. Among the dead were: a university professor who works alongside his educated wife; a grocer; a computer scientist, a civil servant and an accountant. 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ted-after-shooting-at-quebec-city-mosque.html
http://montrealgazette.com/news/que...uneral-held-for-last-3-victims-in-quebec-city



> Imam Hussein Guillet said the six dead, six widows, and 17 orphans aren’t only victims of the Quebec mosque shooting. He said the man who is charged with the killings, Alexandre Bissonnette, is also a victim: “Sombody planted ideas in his head more dangerous than his bullets.”
> 
> Guillet blamed some politicians, journalists and media outlets for “poisoning our atmosphere” by spreading misinformation about Islam.


The "misinformation about Islam" on CMF goes beyond anything that politicians, journalists and media outlets serve up. Indeed, there are those on this forum who complain that politicians, journalists and media outlets are not spreading enough "misinformation about Islam". Others just add their own misinformation to the tapestry of ignorance in the CMF Muslim bashing threads.


----------



## bass player

Don't worry olivaw...Canada will pass the anti-islamophobia law and anyone who dares to criticize Islam or Muslim extremists will be punished. It will be one more victory for Sharia creep in Canada that will surely be celebrated by the clueless left who have no idea what they have done.


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> This is a problem. Treating religion with kid gloves (soft bigotry of low expectations) gives cover for truly evil ideas. Who am I to judge if a religion calls for mutilating children or not educating girls?


Did Alexandre Bissonnette believe that his victims engaged in child mutilation and refused to educate their daughters? If so, he was tragically ignorant. Among the dead were: a university professor who works alongside his educated wife; a grocer; a computer scientist, a civil servant and an accountant. 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ted-after-shooting-at-quebec-city-mosque.html
http://montrealgazette.com/news/que...uneral-held-for-last-3-victims-in-quebec-city



> Imam Hussein Guillet said the six dead, six widows, and 17 orphans aren’t only victims of the Quebec mosque shooting. He said the man who is charged with the killings, Alexandre Bissonnette, is also a victim: “Sombody planted ideas in his head more dangerous than his bullets.”
> 
> Guillet blamed some politicians, journalists and media outlets for “poisoning our atmosphere” by spreading misinformation about Islam.


The _misinformation about Islam_ on CMF exceeds that politicians, journalists and media outlets serve up. Indeed, there are those on this forum who complain that politicians, journalists and media outlets are not spreading enough misinformation about Islam. Others are just happy add their own threads of misinformation to the tapestry of ignorance in the anti-muslim threads.


----------



## bgc_fan

bass player said:


> Don't worry olivaw...Canada will pass the anti-islamophobia law and anyone who dares to criticize Islam or Muslim extremists will be punished. It will be one more victory for Sharia creep in Canada that will surely be celebrated by the clueless left who have no idea what they have done.


You might want to actually point to some proof of this. Canada is debating a MOTION to essentially study Islamophobia. A far cry from a passing a law.

Note: Ah, but I see you changed your post from when I first saw it and the quote is now changed from "Canada passed the anti-islamophobia law" to "Canada will pass the anti-islamophobia law".


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> Hitler was important.


Godwinism already?


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> Did Alexandre Bissonnette believe that his victims engaged in child mutilation and refused to educate their daughters? If so, he was tragically ignorant. Among the dead were: a university professor who works alongside his educated wife; a grocer; a computer scientist, a civil servant and an accountant.
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ted-after-shooting-at-quebec-city-mosque.html
> http://montrealgazette.com/news/que...uneral-held-for-last-3-victims-in-quebec-city
> 
> 
> 
> The "misinformation about Islam" on CMF goes beyond anything that politicians, journalists and media outlets serve up. Indeed, there are those on this forum who complain that politicians, journalists and media outlets are not spreading enough "misinformation about Islam". Others just add their own misinformation to the tapestry of ignorance that weaves through the CMF Muslim bashing threads.


This is sick. You're lumping me in with a murderous bigot because I don't think religions are beyond reproach? I think failure to speak honestly about the failings of religion is a large part of what is driving right wing bigots. I suppose you would not criticize the Taliban, either.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> Godwinism already?


Incorrect application of Godwin's law, -50 internet points.


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> This is sick. You're lumping me in with a murderous bigot because I don't think religions are beyond reproach? I think failure to speak honestly about the failings of religion is a large part of what is driving right wing bigots. I suppose you would not criticize the Taliban, either.


Don't be silly. I didn't lump you in with anybody. I didn't say anything about you. I thought we were discussing ideas in a thread about the Quebec shootings. 

We don't know why Bissonnette went on the murderous rampage. It is my contention that it appears that his action stemmed from ignorance and intolerance, not religious conviction.


----------



## mordko

> Indeed. So was the subsequent establishment of fascism as an official state ideology in Rome.





humble_pie said:


> folks who chime on about their concept of history can be downright entertaining. Mordko is talking here about the Roman empire during the first centuries AD.
> 
> .


Eh... Not quite. Fascism was established as an official state ideology in Italy circa 1922. I was merely pointing out that having a huge impact isn't the same as having a positive impact. Your reading comprehension is... No comment.


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> Eh... Not quite. Fascism was established as an official state ideology in Italy circa 1922. I was merely pointing out that having a huge impact isn't the same as having a positive impact. Your reading comprehension is... No comment.


Well you have introduced some hilariously inaccurate history into these threads. Perhaps you will forgive people for assuming that you have been trying to channel Monty Python. :untroubled:


----------



## mordko

olivaw said:


> Well you have introduced some hilariously inaccurate history into these threads. Perhaps you will forgive people for assuming that you have been trying to channel Monty Python. :untroubled:


BS. All the history I have "introduced" is 100% accurate. If it does not agree with your fairy tale beliefs, it's kinda not my problem.


----------



## mordko

Then again, if you care to point to what you consider to be "hilarious" in the basic historic facts which I quoted, I will be more than happy to educate by providing the primary sources.


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> Then again, if you care to point to what you consider to be "hilarious" in the basic historic facts which I quoted, I will be more than happy to educate by providing the primary sources.





mordko said:


> The reason the church became a powerful political force during the Middle Ages isn't because "it had to" but because it destroyed opposition and "blasphemous ideas"; usually with fire.


More than one poster has pointed out your mistake. 



Olivaw said:


> Pretty sure it was the Goths that sacked [Rome], not the Catholics.





wraphter said:


> _Above all, Constantine’s achievement was perhaps greatest in social and cultural history. It was the development, after his example, of a Christianized imperial governing class that, together with his dynastic success, most firmly entrenched the privileged position of Christianity; *and it was this movement of fashion, rather than the enforcement of any program of legislation, that was the basis of the Christianization of the Roman Empire*._





humble pie said:


> a dearth of roman historians next persisted for nearly five centuries. *It lasted until gothic, frankish, gallo-roman & saxon chroniclers - mostly monks - appeared with their writings & preserved manuscripts around the 5th century AD*......


----------



## mordko

This is like me saying that 2x2=4 and you are pointing out a "mistake" because 3x3=6.

You seem to be under the impression that there is some kind of contradiction between 

1. Christian church physically murdering any ideological opposition to its ideas and burning books in the Middle Ages and

2. Germanic tribes destroying Rome in the 6th century. 

Why???


----------



## mordko

Regarding Constantine, yes he had a huge impact. Constantine's achievement wasn't just to murder his wife and son, but also to destroy ancient temples and to viciously persecute religious/ideological opposition. Romans were not exactly angels before Constantine - and things varied over the centuries - but there was A LOT more tolerance than from the time of Constantine onwards. Yes, I know about lions and Christians - it's a made up fairy tale. 

Of course sciences were suppressed big time (e.g. pre-existent knowledge of the solar system had to be rediscovered many centuries later) and books were annihilated as soon as the early Christians got to enforce their ideology on the empire. 

Ironically, this is one of the reasons we don't have any reliable accounts relating to Jesus himself. Christians made a special effort to annihilate all historic manuscripts relating to the time/location the New Testament (NT was written decades later by people who spoke a different language and didn't know the geography of the region). Josephus was "corrected" to introduce text he didn't write about Jesus, which was the only reason his work was saved. 

Instead Constantine's ideology created an institution lead by Church officials likes Saint John Chrysostom, whose writings make Goebbels appear quite moderate and spread vicious hatred through the centuries and continents.


----------



## humble_pie

mordko said:


> books were annihilated as soon as the early Christians got to enforce their ideology on the empire



books? please what books?

i know mordko seems to be mixed up about his centuries - ie to mordko early Rome of the first christian emperors means modern Rome of 1922 AD - but here we are talking about early christians. This phrase normally means christians of the first few centuries AD, as the religion spread.

afaik they had no books as we understand the word. What they had were hand-lettered manuscripts made from sheepskins. Some ancient inscribed clay tablets, some even more ancient papyrii, all mostly passed down from monastery to monastery. Literacy itself was largely restricted to monastic orders & clerics. The broad populace was illiterate.

.


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> Yes, I know about lions and Christians - it's a made up fairy tale.






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire



> Anti-Christian policies in the Roman Empire occurred intermittently over a period of over two centuries until the year 313 AD when the Roman Emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius jointly promulgated the Edict of Milan which legalised the Christian religion. The persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire was carried out by the state and also by local authorities on a sporadic, ad hoc basis, often at the whims of local communities. Starting in 250, empire-wide persecution took place by decree of the emperor Decius. The edict was in force for eighteen months, during which time some Christians were killed while others apostatised to escape execution.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_ad_bestias#Execution_of_Christians





> he use of damnatio ad bestias against Christians began in the 1st century AD. Tacitus states that during the first persecution of Christians under the reign of Nero (after the Fire of Rome in 64), people were wrapped in animal skins (called tunica molesta) and thrown to dogs.[28] This practice was followed by other emperors who moved it into the arena and used larger animals. Application of damnatio ad bestias to Christians was intended to equate them with the worst criminals, who were usually punished this way.[29]
> There is a widespread view among contemporary specialists[30] that the prominence of Christians among those condemned to death in the Roman arena was greatly exaggerated in earlier times. There is no evidence for Christians being executed at the Colosseum in Rome.[31]


----------



## mordko

humble_pie said:


> books? please what books?
> 
> i know mordko seems to be mixed up about his centuries - ie to mordko early Rome of the first christian emperors means modern Rome of 1922 AD - but here we are talking about early christians. This phrase normally means christians of the first few centuries AD, as the religion spread.
> 
> afaik they had no books as we understand the word. What they had were hand-lettered manuscripts made from sheepskins. Some ancient inscribed clay tablets, some even more ancient papyrii, all mostly passed down from monastery to monastery. Literacy itself was largely restricted to monastic orders & clerics. The broad populace was illiterate.
> 
> .


Books were not quite in the format suitable for a Kindle but history of books goes back quite a bit. Have a look at the Wikipedia entry for "books" under "History" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book#History Homer's work and the Hebrew Bible looked a bit different but that does not change the essence. 

By 326 Constantine had authorised the confiscation and destruction of anything that challenged Christian orthodoxy. Countless and extremely valuable classical works have been annihilated. (see Constantine and the Problem of Anti-Pagan Legislation in the Fourth Century by Scott Bradbary, Classical Philology, A Journal Dedicated to Research in Classical Antiquity, 1994). Or you can read the early Christian Law book (The Theodosian Code, 312) which specifically stated that "heretical" books should be annihilated. 

And Christian Monks did copy and write manuscripts in the Middle Ages, mostly about Jesus and how many angels would fit on a tip of a needle. That was the time when some classical literature was saved by compartively tolerant and developed and less fanatical Islamic countries in North Africa


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_ad_bestias#Execution_of_Christians


OK, you should read an actual history book, written by a reputable historian. Any history book on the period. You will find out that the lion story is a 4th century fabrication. And they "improved" texts by Tacistus and Flavius to include their own fairy tales, which was in a way lucky because that was the only reason these texts were not destroyed by the next generation of Christian "scholars".


----------



## wraphter

You are giving a distorted picture of the condition of Christians when you say that they were not fed to the lions in the colosseum .
They were killed for centuries before Constantine. Those are the facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_martyrs#Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire



> Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire[edit]
> Main article: Anti-Christian policies in the Roman Empire
> 
> The Christian Martyrs' Last Prayer, by Jean-Léon Gérôme (1883). The artist also commented on the religious fortitude of the victims who were about to suffer martyrdom either by being devoured by the wild beasts or by being smeared with pitch and set ablaze, which also never took place in the Circus Maximus.
> 
> Faithful Unto Death – Christianæ ad Leones (Christians to the Lions), by Herbert Gustave Schmalz.
> In its first three centuries, the Christian church endured periods of persecution at the hands of Roman authorities. Christians were persecuted by local authorities on an intermittent and ad-hoc basis. In addition, there were several periods of empire-wide persecution which were directed from the seat of government in Rome.
> Christians were the targets of persecution because they refused to worship the Roman gods or to pay homage to the emperor as divine. In the Roman Empire, refusing to sacrifice to the Emperor or the empire's gods was tantamount to refusing to swear an oath of allegiance to one's country.
> 
> Thus, many Christians would come to view persecution as an integral part of the Christian experience. The implications of this self-image have had far-reaching ramifications, especially in Western cultures.
> *This experience, and the associated martyrs and apologists, would have significant historical and theological consequences for the developing faith.[10]
> "Persecution was seen by early Christians, as by later historians, as one of the crucial influences on the growth and development of the early Church and Christian beliefs. (Frend) shows how the persecutions formed an essential part in a providential philosophy of history that has profoundly influenced European political thought."[11]*


----------



## mordko

^ have you read your own link? Like the whole page? And what the modern historians have to say about it all? Can you point to historical evidence as opposed to the cult of martyrdom (death cult) and literary martyrdom texts, created centuries after the supposed events. 

You may find that there likely was sporadic localized small scale persecution of Christians but never a government policy and definitely not on the scale introduced by Constantine against non-Christians. For one thing, during the first 2 centuries Christians were two insignificant to get noticed.


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> This is like me saying that 2x2=4 and you are pointing out a "mistake" because 3x3=6.
> 
> You seem to be under the impression that there is some kind of contradiction between
> 
> 1. Christian church physically murdering any ideological opposition to its ideas and burning books in the Middle Ages and
> 
> 2. Germanic tribes destroying Rome in the 6th century.
> 
> Why???


Rome was the centre of power in Western Europe. It was sacked by the Goths. Thereafter the Church became ascendant. It did not rise to power by destroying the Roman empire to establish itself as the new empire. It did so because it was the solitary remaining centre of education and knowledge. It became, by default, the centre of knowledge, education, charity and organization. 

The Catholic church enjoyed power from the 5th to the 15th century. During that thousand years, there was both evil and good done in it's name. Your statement: "_Christian church physically murdering any ideological opposition to its ideas and burning books in the Middle Ages_" is entirely too superficial.


----------



## mordko

... except that Christianity became the state religion of the empire during the Constantine's rule. And Byzantium wasn't destroyed "by the Goth" yet there was no scientific development anywhere in Christendom at all until after the Turks sacked Constantinople 1000 years after the sacking of the Rome. 

And the systematic burning and persecution and the destruction of ideas and the science by the state began at the point when Christianity became state religion. And the Catholic Church was directly responsible for the intolerance and the fires and the mass murders during the Middle Ages. They didn't just freeze the scientific development but turned the clock back. And it wasn't until the appearance of secularism and humanism during Renaissance that the classical scientific knowledge was rediscovered and the progress restarted.


----------



## wraphter

If the Christian era from the fifth to the fifteenth century was so bad how come it was able to change from the Renaissance onward? 
From your description of oppression it would be the last place that the modern world would take root. How come the scientific breakthroughs 
occurred in disease-ridden, impoverished Europe and not in the more advanced civilizations of the Islamic world or China? The Renaissance, the scientific revolution,the Enlightenment which brought freedom of thought ,speech and democracy ,the industrial revolution,capitalism, all these movements developed in the West and nowhere else. 

To say that Christianity didn't have some part to play in these dramatic changes is overstating the case. The Church was the patron of the arts in Italy. The preservation of classical knowledge during the dark ages was done by the Church.


----------



## wraphter

Look what happened when religion was overthrown in Russia.Atheism was central to the ideology of communism. Let's get rid of
the oppressive Church and create a better world. It created a disaster for seventy years resulting in the slaughter of millions and a very low standard of living for the rest. Look what the lack of religion can do.

Godless communism. Not such a good idea at all.


----------



## mordko

The preservation was largely done by Muslim countries. Monks used classical scripts as a writing medium for their own BS. Crucially, the logic and the science were forbidden and even repeating ancient discoveries were a reason for the burning of heretics because it was contrary to the Christian dogma.

After many centuries of Christian dogmatism the humans eventually rebelled. Political and religious fragmentation in Europe helped to end the oppression of the Church.


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> Look what happened when religion was overthrown in Russia.Atheism was central to the ideology of communism. Let's get rid of
> the oppressive Church and create a better world. It created a disaster for seventy years resulting in the slaughter of millions and a very low standard of living for the rest. Look what the lack of religion can do.
> 
> Godless communism. Not such a good idea at all.


Of cause Stalin studied for priesthood. He used what he learned. Communism borrowed from religion. The key was adherence to dogma and the words of the prophets and intolerance and persecution of anything and anyone disagreeing with the communist orthodoxy. Communism became a state religion and state religions don't appreciate competition. 

Anyone who spent even a day in the USSR would have realized that communism was a religion. The slogans were "Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live forever. Icons of the threesome - Lenin, Marx and Engels were on every corner. Mausoleum and the embalming, the Bible of das Kapital which everyone was forced to study, the communist interference in sciences, the belief in future heaven under the guise of communist utopia - these were the blatantly obvious signs that Soviets installed communism as the state religion.


----------



## humble_pie

mordko said:


> during the first 2 centuries Christians were two insignificant to get noticed.



each: it's true that two Christians were too insignificant to get noticed


----------



## humble_pie

wraphter said:


> The Renaissance, the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment which brought freedom of thought ,speech and democracy ,the industrial revolution, capitalism, all these movements developed in the West and nowhere else.
> 
> The preservation of classical knowledge during the dark ages was done by the Church.



+ 1

modern scholarship has pushed the dawning of the renaissance back a thousand years, to the discovery of gospels, botanic & agricultural texts, studies of stars, moons & heavenly bodies for navigators & sailors, as written by abbots, bedes & monks in western Europe, as early as the late 5th century.

shot through the early treasures are vestiges of the original pagan religions. These, too, have survived.

.


----------



## mordko

humble_pie said:


> each: it's true that two Christians were too insignificant to get noticed



Congrats, you spotted another typo on a chat board. Consider it a birthday present.


----------



## humble_pie

mordko said:


> Books were not quite in the format suitable for a Kindle but history of books goes back quite a bit. Have a look at the Wikipedia entry for "books" under "History" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book#History Homer's work and the Hebrew Bible looked a bit different but that does not change the essence.
> 
> By 326 Constantine had authorised the confiscation and destruction of anything that challenged Christian orthodoxy. Countless and extremely valuable classical works have been annihilated. (see Constantine and the Problem of Anti-Pagan Legislation in the Fourth Century by Scott Bradbary, Classical Philology, A Journal Dedicated to Research in Classical Antiquity, 1994). Or you can read the early Christian Law book (The Theodosian Code, 312) which specifically stated that "heretical" books should be annihilated.
> 
> And Christian Monks did copy and write manuscripts in the Middle Ages, mostly about Jesus and how many angels would fit on a tip of a needle. That was the time when some classical literature was saved by compartively tolerant and developed and less fanatical Islamic countries in North Africa





yea that's what i was saying

there were no books until the invention of the printing press.

Christianity did not destroy knowledge, it was Christianity that kept it alive. For a millennium & a half, knowledge, medicine, science, art & music survived in western Europe inside the far-flung roman catholic network.

aristocrats were taught to read & write by the clerics. Enlightened nuns & abbesses ran schools inside convents, although often these were only for the daughters of aristocracy. The bulk of the population remained illiterate, analphabétique.

Aliénore d'Aquitaine was perhaps the most famous of the literate queens - in the 12th century, she had been both a queen of france & also a queen of England - who became abbesses of big convents & devoted themselves to educating women. Aliénore's influence extends to Canada. Later a woman of the minor aristocracy from the same Loire valley region, Marguerite Bourgeois, would voyage to Canada on the first french ship of colonists to land at the harbour they would name Mont Royal in 1642. Bourgeois would found the teaching congregation of nuns that thrives to this day as a top-ranking bilingual private school in montreal.

.


----------



## mordko

humble_pie said:


> + 1
> 
> modern scholarship has pushed the dawning of the renaissance back a thousand years, to the discovery of gospels, botanic & agricultural texts, studies of stars, moons & heavenly bodies for navigators & sailors, as written by abbots, bedes & monks in western Europe, as early as the late 5th century.
> 
> shot through the early treasures are vestiges of the original pagan religions. These, too, have survived.
> 
> .


- "Discovery of the gospels"??? WTF is that? Gospels were written 60-120 years after the supposed date of the Crucifixion and never "lost". 
- With regards to the studies of the stars, Christian dogma claimed that the earth was flat and stationary and this was enforced while previously discovered scientific facts about the solar system were used as a reason for persecution.
- Abbots and monks in western Europe by and large rejected logic and engaged themselves with the study of how many angels would fit on the top of a needle or fighting heresies.


----------



## mordko

> Christianity did not destroy knowledge,


It sure did - as "heresy". Using fire.


----------



## humble_pie

mordko said:


> Abbots and monks in western Europe by and large rejected logic and engaged themselves with the study of how many angels would fit on the top of a needle or fighting heresies.



lol you have obviously never studied their writings. This thing about writing on the head of a pin is so Augustinian. You should get over it.

you'll also be happy to hear that powerful norse, druid & gaelic forebears injected notes of their own civilizations into western Christendom.

.


----------



## mordko

humble_pie said:


> lol you have obviously never studied their writings.
> 
> .


I most certainly did not study nun's writings. However I did study the history of science (mainly physics and astronomy). And gave lectures on this subject. There is a black whole from Constantine's time until Galileo, except for some minor activity in the Middle East/N Africa.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> I most certainly did not study nun's writings. However I did study the history of science (mainly physics and astronomy). And gave lectures on this subject. There is a black whole from Constantine's time until Galileo, except for some minor activity in the Middle East/N Africa.[/QUOTE
> 
> Since the stock market is a courious mixtrue of complancancy and enthusiasm, a boring state of affairs, I decided to puruse some other threads. This is a lively and possibly productive one.
> 
> 1. I think that the Judeo-Christian tradition promoted science despite the many errors and persecutions by some misguided Church authorities. The reason it implicitly promoted science is because they don't worship nature. Paganism, in contrast, worships nature or some aspect of it. It is their god, and one must not experiment with god. So science was inhibited by paganism. Christiabnity had no problem with experimenting, with the earth and nature, because it was not God, and therefore opened the dooor to learning about nature.
> 
> 2. Many of the greats in the histroy of science were Christians (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and others).
> Conflicts between Chruch authorities and Galileo, for example, was not a conflict between religion and science: it was a conflict internal to Christianity, and implicitly about the nature of Scripture - is it figurativly true, or literally true. Obviously Galileo took scripture figurativly where appropriate, and still believed in a creator God.
> 
> 3. So, I don't really get the thesis that religion, in this case, chrisitanity, is inherently opposed to science. some christians are opposed to some science, but they are in the tradition of literalists and they don't have a monopoly on defining the religion.
> 
> 4. The history of science can be taught from different perspectives and the idea that religon is the antithesis of science is only one perspective that has often been championed by the logical positivists, itself a fatally flawed philosophy of science. I'm not sure, but it sounds like you taught the history from that slant. As a teacher of the history s science, would you have encouraged your students to read "Personal Knowledge" by Polanyi, the books of Thomas Kuhn, the History of Science by Butterfield?


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> - "Discovery of the gospels"??? WTF is that? Gospels were written 60-120 years after the supposed date of the Crucifixion and never "lost".
> - With regards to the studies of the stars, Christian dogma claimed that the earth was flat and stationary and this was enforced while previously discovered scientific facts about the solar system were used as a reason for persecution.


1. Well the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered - so at one point maybe they were lost. maybe that's what she meant. 
2.Ancient people of many types, not just Hebrews and christains, believed that the earth was flat and the heavenly bodies, such as the sun, moved across the sky. So it wasn't a specifically christian metaphysics, it was an ancient metaphysics. Moreover, that flat earth metaphysics, with the sun moving across the sky was based on emperical observation. Their mistaken conclusion bears on the role of emperical obervation as a criterion for truth. 

Too, the aledged discovery by Columbus, a Christian funded by a Christian monarch, that the earth was a sphere flies in the face of the dogma that the religious are outside of and opposed to science.


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> ... except that Christianity became the state religion of the empire during the Constantine's rule. And Byzantium wasn't destroyed "by the Goth" yet there was no scientific development anywhere in Christendom at all until after the Turks sacked Constantinople 1000 years after the sacking of the Rome.


... except that Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion of the empire. Theodosius did.


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> I most certainly did not study nun's writings. However I did study the history of science (mainly physics and astronomy). And gave lectures on this subject. There is a black whole from Constantine's time until Galileo, except for some minor activity in the Middle East/N Africa.


*black hole*, not *black whole*. 

Mordko suggests that scientific and technological development ceased between 312 AD and 1564 AD. One needs only find a single scientific or technological development during that period to realize the flaw in his thinking .....

http://www.museumofvision.org/exhibitions/?key=44&subkey=4&relkey=35



> A simple historical timeline of eyeglasses starts with their invention, believed to be between 1268 and 1289 in Italy. The inventor is unknown. The earliest eyeglasses were worn by monks and scholars. They were held in front of the eyes or balanced on the nose. The invention of the printing press in 1452, the growing rate of literacy and the availability of books, encouraged new designs and the eventual mass production of inexpensive eyeglasses.


and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optics



> In the 13th century in medieval Europe, English bishop Robert Grosseteste wrote on a wide range of scientific topics, and discussed light from four different perspectives: an epistemology of light, a metaphysics or cosmogony of light, an etiology or physics of light, and a theology of light,[20] basing it on the works Aristotle and Platonism. Grosseteste's most famous disciple, Roger Bacon, wrote works citing a wide range of recently translated optical and philosophical works, including those of Alhazen, Aristotle, Avicenna, Averroes, Euclid, al-Kindi, Ptolemy, Tideus, and Constantine the African. Bacon was able to use parts of glass spheres as magnifying glasses to demonstrate that light reflects from objects rather than being released from them.


----------



## Pluto

I might add that I think HP is in the main, correct with her thesis that the church was a guardian of knowledge. The first universites, I'm told, were monestaries, and the teachers were monks. Apparently this came about when townspeople who could not read or write went to the church and asked to be taught. The monks, the only educated people at the time, obliged provided they pay a small fee. 

I do acknowledge that churches did, and do, make destructive mistakes, but I fear the logical positivists have not been fair in their assessment of the history of science and churches.


----------



## mordko

> 1. I think that the Judeo-Christian tradition promoted science despite the many errors and persecutions by some misguided Church authorities. The reason it implicitly promoted science is because they don't worship nature. Paganism, in contrast, worships nature or some aspect of it. It is their god, and one must not experiment with god. So science was inhibited by paganism. Christiabnity had no problem with experimenting, with the earth and nature, because it was not God, and therefore opened the dooor to learning about nature.


And yet the pagans knew that the earth was round, that it spins around the sun and measured the distance from earth to the moon and to the sun. And Christianity suppressed all this for many, many centuries. 




> 2. Many of the greats in the histroy of science were Christians (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and others).
> Conflicts between Chruch authorities and Galileo, for example, was not a conflict between religion and science: it was a conflict internal to Christianity, and implicitly about the nature of Scripture - is it figurativly true, or literally true. Obviously Galileo took scripture figurativly where appropriate, and still believed in a creator God.


The issue here isn't that of philosophical or scientific disagreement. The issue is that not only did the church authorities use Biblical physics and Astronomy, but they enforced their dogma on everyone else by burning books and "heretics". 

It has to be understood that religiosity and superstition was almost universal up until relatively recently when science reached a point where we no longer need god to explain simple natural events. As any ideology, religion can be applied differently. Christianity merged with the state and suppressed any ideological opposition. We still have elements of this, e.g. in relation to abortions in Poland and Ireland but for the most part Christianity has moved passed the middle ages. 



> 3. So, I don't really get the thesis that religion, in this case, chrisitanity, is inherently opposed to science. some christians are opposed to some science, but they are in the tradition of literalists and they don't have a monopoly on defining the religion.


Religion isn't inherently opposed but state religion invariably is. And as a state religion in Europe Christianity was in direct opposition to logical thinking and fact-based analysis. 



> 4. The history of science can be taught from different perspectives and the idea that religon is the antithesis of science is only one perspective that has often been championed by the logical positivists, itself a fatally flawed philosophy of science. I'm not sure, but it sounds like you taught the history from that slant. As a teacher of the history s science, would you have encouraged your students to read "Personal Knowledge" by Polanyi, the books of Thomas Kuhn, the History of Science by Butterfield?


[/QUOTE]

I am not a teacher; I occasionally get invited to present lectures to students on various subjects. I would certainly recommend Kuhn and Polanyi is awesome. Wouldn't recommend Butterfiled (I haven't read his books and in any case he is more of a propagandist), but you are welcome to read whatever you want.


----------



## mordko

> I too studies science (mainly physics).


If the focus is on picking typos then may I suggest you studieS your own posts.


----------



## mordko

olivaw said:


> *black hole*, not *black whole*.
> 
> Mordko suggests that scientific and technological development ceased between 312 AD and 1564 AD. One needs only find a single scientific or technological development during that period to realize the flaw in his thinking .....
> 
> http://www.museumofvision.org/exhibitions/?key=44&subkey=4&relkey=35
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optics


You may find that optics was developed by the Ancient Greeks, imported and enhanced by Arabs and then reintroduced to Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Optics

Arabs and Chinese used the magnifying lenses which were again imported into Europe. 

Making glasses out of lenses is great but it's not physics or astronomy. Nor is it science. 

In general there were technological developments, e.g. weapons, agricultural implements, beer etc... but that's not at all what I am talking about. 

The problem was with the concept of empirical, evidence, fact-based research of how the world works. Physics was substituted with religious dogma.


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> If the focus is on picking typos than may I suggest you studieS your own posts.


Oh do link to the post containing my typo. (And lest you say I edited it after I read your post, my post was last edited 3:25 while yours was made at 3:56. )

Typos are fine but one doesn't usually see a self-proclaimed science historian using scientific terms incorrectly. I'd let it pass for anyone else but you tend to make a big deal out of things like that.


----------



## mordko

olivaw said:


> Oh do link to the post containing my typo. (And lest you say I edited it after I read your post, my post was last edited 3:25 while yours was made at 3:56. )
> 
> Typos are fine but one doesn't usually see a self-proclaimed science historian using scientific terms incorrectly. I'd let it pass for anyone else but you tend to make a big deal out of things like that.


You made a typo in the sentence criticizing my typo, which is kinda funny - that is all.

And do help yourself to identifying every typo. I am having trouble with auto-correct + English isn't my native language (as you know) so when one types on a portable device nor am I being particularly careful; there are bound to be typos. Your help is much appreciated. I won't correct you or HP (who hasn't learnt to use capital letters) any more; it just shows how dumb and petty you both are.


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> You may find that optics was developed by the Ancient Greeks, imported and enhanced by Arabs and then reintroduced to Europe.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Optics
> 
> Arabs and Chinese used the magnifying lenses which were again imported into Europe.
> 
> Making glasses out of lenses is great but it's not physics or astronomy. Nor is it science.
> 
> In general there were technological developments, e.g. weapons, agricultural implements, beer etc... but that's not at all what I am talking about.
> 
> The problem was with the concept of empirical, evidence, fact-based research of how the world works. Physics was substituted with religious dogma.


You may find that science is about building on the work of others. A phrase like "invented by" doesn't mean much to a scientific historian. That term is usually used to help grade school students memorize a few important names.

Optics is a branch of physics but there is more to science than physics and astronomy. 

Your last sentence discusses *empiricism*. The concept arose in Italy - under the Roman Catholic church. 

Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) said, "_If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings_."


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> You made a typo in the sentence criticizing my typo, which is kinda funny - that is all


Link to my typo. You can't. It isn't there. 

I'll admit that I might have made that typo in the first draft of my post but I deleted that sentence long before your post. 

Either way, consider it a humorous payback for your focus on one of the definitions of statistics in another thread.


----------



## mordko

Obviously lost the point explaining the difference between science (e.g. understanding of basic concepts of how the world works, the solar system, laws of gravity, atomic structure) and technology (e.g. making glasses from imported magnifying glass or building a bigger boat). The church didn't burn the creators of the glasses or underwear because Jesus didn't talk about glasses and didn't wear underwear. Solar system? That's all there, black on white; well worth burning for. 

The concept of empiricism did not arise in Italy, as your own reference explains. In fact, your own article beautifully describes how Europe was taken out of scientific development, how the progress shifted from Europe to Islamic countries until introduction of humanism/secularism and capitalism. Amazing that concepts developed in Europe were for centuries only used outside Europe. During the Renaissance Italian city states were no longer under the direct Church Control, people gained a little freedom, which is what Renaissance was all about. Does not mean they stopped being Christian, but for the first time in centuries people gained elements of ideological freedom from the church.


----------



## humble_pie

mordko said:


> There is a black whole from Constantine's time until Galileo



it's a black hole each:


.


----------



## humble_pie

mordko said:


> I am having trouble with auto-correct



perhaps you could turn off auto-correct & learn to write properly each:

.


----------



## new dog

Olivaw and Humble will never write down my writing mistakes.


Because there is too many for them to have to write down. I am in a rush a lot and when I go back and read my post, sometimes it doesn't even make any sense to me.


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> Obviously lost the point explaining the difference between science (e.g. understanding of basic concepts of how the world works, the solar system, laws of gravity, atomic structure) and technology (e.g. making glasses from imported magnifying glass or building a bigger boat). The church didn't burn the creators of the glasses or underwear because Jesus didn't talk about glasses and didn't wear underwear. Solar system? That's all there, black on white; well worth burning for.
> 
> The concept of empiricism did not arise in Italy, as your own reference explains. In fact, your own article beautifully describes how Europe was taken out of scientific development, how the progress shifted from Europe to Islamic countries until introduction of humanism/secularism and capitalism. Amazing that concepts developed in Europe were for centuries only used outside Europe. During the Renaissance Italian city states were no longer under the direct Church Control, people gained a little freedom, which is what Renaissance was all about. Does not mean they stopped being Christian, but for the first time in centuries people gained elements of ideological freedom from the church.


The difference between science and technology is common knowledge. They are still inextricably linked. Technological progress cannot proceed without science and empirical evidence. Science cannot advance without technology. Galileo's observations were possible because he had access to the knowledge and technology required to make a telescope. 

My link illustrates that science thrived at that time in Italy. That Da Vinci referenced the work of Islamic scientists doesn't detract from the it. Science always builds upon the work of other. Galileo's work was based upon science done by Nicolaus Copernicus. 

non-Christian Europeans, Asian and Arabs didn't discover the solar system. You certainly can't blame the Christian church for it. The truth is, the solar system was discovered when the time was right. Had Galileo not discovered it, somebody else would have.


----------



## humble_pie

new dog said:


> Olivaw and Humble will never write down my writing mistakes.
> 
> Because there is too many for them to have to write down. I am in a rush a lot and when I go back and read my post, sometimes it doesn't even make any sense to me.




dawg i got to india in the googledoodle valentine

how did u do
did it make any sense to yoohoo too?

.


----------



## mordko

olivaw said:


> The difference between science and technology is common knowledge. They are still inextricably linked. Technological progress cannot proceed without science and empirical evidence. Science cannot advance without technology. Galileo's observations were possible because he had access to the knowledge and technology required to make a telescope.
> 
> My link illustrates that science thrived at that time in Italy. That Da Vinci referenced the work of Islamic scientists doesn't detract from the it. Science always builds upon the work of other. Galileo's work was based upon science done by Nicolaus Copernicus.
> 
> non-Christian Europeans, Asian and Arabs didn't discover the solar system. You certainly can't blame the Christian church for it. The truth is, the solar system was discovered when the time was right. Had Galileo not discovered it, somebody else would have.


Ancient Greeks discovered configuration of the solar system. They were non-Christian Europeans and their knowledge spread around the world to places like India. No, the Church can't be blamed for that. 

The Church can be blamed for turning the clock back by imposing an ignorant religious dogma about the solar system. Yes, the theocracy fell apart after more than 1000 years of suppressing science. Not without a fight. While HP probably is, I don't believe you are sufficiently ignorant and dim not to be aware that Galileo was taken to court for inventing the telescope and using it to make scientific discoveries. According to the Church dogma, the earth was in the Center, so anyone contradicting it was a criminal. So, one of Christian nuts (a professor and a monk, no less) snitched and the Church persecuted Galileo. 

And Bruno was burned at the stake for opposing Christian dogma. 

And da Vinci was persecuted for "sodomy". 

The Church and Christian theocratic regime which lasted for millennia CAN and SHOULD be blamed for persecution for heresy and apostasy. It suppressed science through burning of books and people. Also for genocide and for the mass murder of women. 

Still, I can see where your support for Islamists and the anti-blasphemy campaign is coming from.


----------



## lonewolf :)

The unintended consequences of political correctness of the Prime minister not condemning mosques, the Quran & banning the Moslim religion in Canada & doing the complete opposite has now led to an increase unlawful crossings of our boarders for the free handouts. The solidarity rallies in support of the Moslims after the shootings has unintended consequences an increase in immigration & those that do not want to take the path of Europe of having our women rapped & wanting Sharia law supporters in Canada should have not participated.


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> Ancient Greeks discovered configuration of the solar system. They were non-Christian Europeans and their knowledge spread around the world to places like India. No, the Church can't be blamed for that.
> 
> The Church can be blamed for turning the clock back by imposing an ignorant religious dogma about the solar system. Yes, the theocracy fell apart after more than 1000 years of suppressing science. Not without a fight. While HP probably is, I don't believe you are sufficiently ignorant and dim not to be aware that Galileo was taken to court for inventing the telescope and using it to make scientific discoveries. According to the Church dogma, the earth was in the Center, so anyone contradicting it was a criminal. So, one of Christian nuts (a professor and a monk, no less) snitched and the Church persecuted Galileo.
> 
> And Bruno was burned at the stake for opposing Christian dogma.
> 
> And da Vinci was persecuted for "sodomy".
> 
> The Church and Christian theocratic regime which lasted for millennia CAN and SHOULD be blamed for persecution for heresy and apostasy. It suppressed science through burning of books and people. Also for genocide and for the mass murder of women.
> 
> Still, I can see where your support for Islamists and the anti-blasphemy campaign is coming from.


Ancient greeks hypothesized a number of correct ideas, including a round earth but their reliance on naked eye observations limited their ability to develop a consistently accepted model for the solar system. The telescope would have increased their contribution significantly. \My point here is that science without observational technology is so limited as to barely be science. 

I believe that there was much evil done on the name of the Church but there was also much good. Certain astronomical observations were suppressed for fear that they would upset the social and economic order of the day. At the same time, the Church provided the organizational structure necessary to maintain order, learning and charity. My position is that misdeeds and charitable deeds are not inherent to religion. They are done by men. We see similar themes throughout Chinese history too and that cannot be blamed on the Catholic Church. 

Your last statement is interesting. Please point to a post where I expressed support for Islamists and the anti-blasphemy campaign. Like most CMFers, I believe that a secular democracy is the best form of government. I also believe in free political speech - I probably go further than most Canadians in that regard.


----------



## lonewolf :)

WD Gann often said the bible was the best astrology book ever written & often used the astrology in the bible to make money


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> And yet the pagans knew that the earth was round, that it spins around the sun and measured the distance from earth to the moon and to the sun. And Christianity suppressed all this for many, many centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue here isn't that of philosophical or scientific disagreement. The issue is that not only did the church authorities use Biblical physics and Astronomy, but they enforced their dogma on everyone else by burning books and "heretics".
> 
> It has to be understood that religiosity and superstition was almost universal up until relatively recently when science reached a point where we no longer need god to explain simple natural events. As any ideology, religion can be applied differently. Christianity merged with the state and suppressed any ideological opposition. We still have elements of this, e.g. in relation to abortions in Poland and Ireland but for the most part Christianity has moved passed the middle ages.
> 
> 
> 
> Religion isn't inherently opposed but state religion invariably is. And as a state religion in Europe Christianity was in direct opposition to logical thinking and fact-based analysis.


I am not a teacher; I occasionally get invited to present lectures to students on various subjects. I would certainly recommend Kuhn and Polanyi is awesome. Wouldn't recommend Butterfiled (I haven't read his books and in any case he is more of a propagandist), but you are welcome to read whatever you want.[/QUOTE]


1. you would certainly recommend Kuhn and Polanyi. I'm not sure you understand them. Do you agree with the following claim by Polanyi on the subject of Copernicus' rejection of the Ptolemaic model?


"Copernicus gave preference to man's delight in abstract theory, at the price of rejecting the evidence of our senses, which present us with the irresistible fact of the sun, the moon, and the stars rising daily in the east to travel across the sky towards their setting in the west."

Copernicus' implied epistemology rejected direct observation as an arbiter of truth, and preferred man's delight in abstract theory. The conflict was not between the church and science, the conflict was between two competing models of the solar system, and two competing epistemologies. While the Church at various times referred to scripture on the matter of heavenly bodies, we mus ask, where the heck did scripture get it from if not from the authors of scripture directly observing the movement of the heavenly bodies? Clearly, the saw with their own eyes, the sun rose in the east, and set in the west. hence, that observation got into scripture. It wasn't a matter of faith in God, it was a matter of faith in ones empirical observations. Such facts make for common ground between the authors of scripture, and Empiricist-Positivist ideas of science. The latter sought to push reason out from the foundations of science and base it entirely on observation. 



1. the abuse of power to suppress whatever: You seem to think that the church has a monopoly on abusing power to bully science into it's way of thinking. 


The atheist Stalin, and other Soviet ideologues engaged in tremendous suppression of of some scientific activity. You seem to think that for there to be an abuse of power it must be the chruch and god must be mixed up in it somehow. Apparently by the 1950's all scientific research had to be cleared by the state prior to publication to ensure it conformed to the goals of the state (regardless of its scientific import or veracity.). 

Chinese atheist ideological political leaders reportedly abuse their power on a regular basis.

I get your criticism of abuse of power of churches, but I don't get your apparent belief that only churches and only believers in god abuse power over science. Since many of the greats in the history of science did believe in God, it is obvious that a believer does not necessarily abuse their power. Your theory seems to be that abuse of power is inherent to only churches. 

Coincidently, Polanyi was reportedly a Roman Catholic.


----------



## Pluto

^


1. "Butterfield is a propagandist" could be, but if so your shoot and scoot style didn't allow for any substantiation. Apparently, you who seem to abhor faith expect me to have faith in your decrees. 




1. Kuhn Identified a phase in the structure of scientific revolutions in which adherents of the dominant paradigm were very rigid in their support, and overlooked anomalies. In such a phase some scientists themselves were oppressive to other scientists. He also, as did Polanyi, made use of the findings of gestalt psychology to explain the shift in perception required to abandon one paradigm, or model, for another which accounted for the anomalies ignored in the previous rigidly adhered to theory. Even recently a scientist testified that he was oppressed while working a NASA by other scientists and could only escape the oppression by getting another job. None of that abuse of power had anything to do with any church. 


In your writings it is clear to me that you consistently, and rigidly avoid some anomalies in your discourse. Instead you seem to adhere to a Empiricist Positivist model in the history of science which falsely assumes a separation of belief and fact, and a separation between values and fact. Based on that dubious assumption, you then rail away at the errors and abuses of the historical church, and Christian religion as if you are steeped in fact, and have no belief or faith. 
You excuse science for having adhered to erroneous theories, but you don't excuse the church for having erroneous theories that they have abandoned as well. 
You don't seem to give a single thought to justifying your claim to be steeped in fact, and not faith.


----------



## mordko

The Ancient Greeks may have guessed the atom structure but their model of the solar system was not just a hypothesis. Naked eye provides enough empirical evidence to create a fundamentally accurate conceptual model of the solar system. Without instruments Aristarchus may have got the angle a bit wrong and therefore underestimated the distance to the sun but the concept he used was bang on. 

Of course the additional evidence provided by the telescope wasn't enough to prove anything to the Church which was why it condemned Galileo. And I don't buy the argument that communism murdered tens of millions and persecuted scientists but the education was free and the ballet was ever so cool. 

And you are a vocal defender of Islamism. One example where you deny the bloody obvious:

http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showt...ty-mosque-multiple-dead?p=1460450#post1460450

That's denying factual evidence in the same way your predecessors did:
http://news.nationalpost.com/holy-post/toronto-imam-preaching-hate-instead-of-harmony
http://en.cijnews.com/?p=197695

I am also betting that you support the recent blasphemy motion in the Parliament - just a wild guess.


----------



## mordko

Pluto said:


> I don't get your apparent belief that only churches and only believers in god abuse power over science.


Nope, not at all. All totalitarian ideologies do that if/when they get power, not just the church.


----------



## mordko

Pluto said:


> Do you agree with the following claim by Polanyi on the subject of Copernicus' rejection of the Ptolemaic model?


I don't agree, but that's not a good reason not to read him.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> Your last statement is interesting. Please point to a post where I expressed support for Islamists and the anti-blasphemy campaign. Like most CMFers, I believe that a secular democracy is the best form of government. I also believe in free political speech - I probably go further than most Canadians in that regard.


The big problem is with anyone criticizing Islam being labeled expressly as a racist/bigot, or by implication. The fact that Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz were labeled as anti-Muslim extremists in an attempt to remove them polite society is a good example. There is a certain chilling aspect when even reasonable criticism of ideas gets people tarred as racists. You drive the reasonable people out of the conversation then the unreasonables take over the conversation (like the kooks from InfoWars or white nationalist organizations). This is how we end up with blanket muslim bans because we're not allowed to have honest conversations about how to address the problems with Islam and how it affects the political attitudes of many of its adherents, even in the west.


----------



## mordko

+1


----------



## new dog

+1 from me as well.

The more the extreme the left goes in shutting down people the bigger the extreme right will become to counter it. The problem is so big in Europe right now that it is going to take extreme governments to solve the problem which creates another problem.


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> The big problem is with anyone criticizing Islam being labeled expressly as a racist/bigot, or by implication. The fact that Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz were labeled as anti-Muslim extremists in an attempt to remove them polite society is a good example. There is a certain chilling aspect when even reasonable criticism of ideas gets people tarred as racists. You drive the reasonable people out of the conversation then the unreasonables take over the conversation (like the kooks from InfoWars or white nationalist organizations). This is how we end up with blanket muslim bans because we're not allowed to have honest conversations about *how to address the problems with Islam *and how it affects the political attitudes of many


Sounds similar to argument that was popular among individuals who attacked black culture in the United States. Why, they cried, weren't they allowed to have an honest conversation about how to address the "problems with black culture". 

Who are we to address the "problems with Islam"? We're not Muslims. If you are going to presume to understand more about a religion than its adherents, don't be surprised when some people think you intolerant or arrogant.


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> The Ancient Greeks may have guessed the atom structure but their model of the solar system was not just a hypothesis.


Not quite. The Ancient Greeks used a geocentric model of the universe (not just the solar system), known as the Ptolemaic model. They believed the Earth was spherical and that the Sun, Moon and stars revolved around it.



mordko said:


> And you are a vocal defender of Islamism. One example where you deny the bloody obvious:


You frequently repeat the unsubstantiated claim that you were handed hate propaganda by Muslims on the streets of Toronto. Asking you for proof doesn't make me an Islamist, it makes me a person who finds you less than credible. *shrug*


----------



## bobsyouruncle

mordko said:


> Claiming Christian saints are not Christian is a step beyond claiming that Pope isn't Catholic.


Many Christian 'saints' are not Christian, just as most of the popes are not Christian either. Study Catholic doctrine and compare it with the Bible and you will see that the institution is a sham. Perhaps the longest running successful business in the world, but little like Christianity.



mordko said:


> - Prominent Christian theologians who influenced Hitler neglected some Christian texts but focused on other texts which were just as Christian. Founding Christian texts contain several different ideologies, some of them virulently Antisemitic. Again, this is similar to Islam - one can pick what he likes and following the hateful words of Jesus or Mohammed (as recorded in the Bible Quran) does not make you any less Christian or Muslim.
> 
> Just wondering... would you say that Martin Luther wasn't Christian? How a
> bout St John Chrysostom, was he unchristian?


There's no biblical text that is antisemitic. There's strong language used against Jews and the Jewish nation that killed Jesus and said "his blood be on us and our children," but there's also lots of strong language used against many other gentile nations in the Old Testament, and Paul writes strong language against those from Crete. The Bible tends to give all sinners a hard time, including Israel.
As for Luther, some people are overtly non-Christian, others it's harder to say. Luther had a brilliant mind, yet greatly affected by his spiritual struggles and torments. I have reason to believe he was a Christian, yet his antisemitism (which developed in later years), has to be seen in the context of his frustration at usury, and the affliction it brought upon the German people (in his opinion). I'm not excusing his language, however. I'm less familiar with Chrysostom.



andrewf said:


> You mean they were 'bad Christians'?


In a certain sense there's no such thing. I mean, there are degrees of devotion, and some Christians can do some foolish things, but Constantine, the Popes, Hitler, etc, do not fall under such a description.


----------



## mordko

bobsyouruncle said:


> There's no biblical text that is antisemitic. There's strong language used against Jews and the Jewish nation that killed Jesus and said "his blood be on us and our children," but there's also lots of strong language used against many other gentile nations in the Old Testament, and Paul writes strong language against those from Crete. The Bible tends to give all sinners a hard time, including Israel.


I see you are not all that familiar with the New Testament. That's often the way. 

The charge of deicide against the "Jewish nation" is a later invention, along with the blood libel, well poisoning and other traditional beliefs. NT does not claim that; it is the Romans who crucify Jesus according to the NT. 

According to some of the story lines within the NT, some Jews urge Pontius Pilate to crusify Jesus, but Pilate (reluctantly) gives the order and Roman soldiers execute him. Oh, and Jesus himself, his mum and dad and all his disciples are Jewish, according to the story lines within the NT. So, saying that the "Jewish nation killed Jesus" is a lot further from the truth than saying "Canadian nation killed 6 people in Quebec City Mosque, even if you were to use NT as your only source.

If we step away from the NT then we find that, unlike Jesus, Pontius Pilate was a historic figure. There is independent evidence of his actions in Judea. Historical Pilate enjoyed mass murder, never hesitated before crucifying anyone and the last thing he would have done was listening to Jews. 

The NT is schizophrenic about its antisemitism, which is not surprising as it was written by a bunch of guys with different ideologies and objectives. According to Mathew Jesus came to save ONLY the Jews, so we have a nationalist line right there. And then John's Jesus says to "Jews" that "you are of your father the devil". We also discover that Jesus's blood will be on Jewish children and future generations of Jews. That is an interesting concept in itself and hard to argue how its not antisemitic. Like if I were to blame "German children" for the "sins" of their ancestors, I'd be racist. 

Of course the reason for these texts is historically obvious. It was written many years later by people who didn't live in the region and were trying to attract Romans to Christianity, so they did their best to try and shift the blame. There was also significant animosity between Jews and Christians as the former were rebelling and the latter chose to cooperate with the occupier and that was the exact time when the early parts of the NT were written.


----------



## mordko

bobsyouruncle said:


> As for Luther, some people are overtly non-Christian, others it's harder to say. Luther had a brilliant mind, yet greatly affected by his spiritual struggles and torments. I have reason to believe he was a Christian, yet his antisemitism (which developed in later years), has to be seen in the context of his frustration at usury, and the affliction it brought upon the German people (in his opinion). I'm not excusing his language, however.


Good ol' usury frustrations. That's a bit like blaming blacks for working plantations in the South. Jews were excluded from most professions but never mind that. In the real world Luther, in his later years, got upset that against all hopes and expectations adherents of Judaism did not all rush to convert to his brand new sect. As any totalitarian ideology, fundamentalist Christianity isn't particularly fond of competition. The exact same path was followed by Mohammed who also made overtures to Jews in his early years, was disappointed and followed up with a couple of little genocides against the Jews.


----------



## wraphter

The West is the most successful civilization on the planet. The fact that it is/was Christian is not just a footnote. Christian morality 
allowed science ,technology ,capitalism ,individual rights, democracy to emerge as they did no where else on the planet.

The world population more or less flatlined until the early 1800's when it was 1 billion. Then it increased dramatically to 7.5 billion today.
This dramatic increase was due to the application of Western science to medicine, in the form of vaccinations , sanitation etc. Modern medicine was developed in Europe. Most of us on this thread wouldn't be alive today if science had never been developed. 

If Constantine had never allowed Christianity to flourish modern science would never have emerged because it never was developed independently in any other culture, for example Islam or Chinese culture.

In the Christian West individual rights became established ,including the right to own property, as they did in no other civilization.
Christian morality was more permissive of individual rights and freedoms than any other morality in the world.That is the key to
the success and dominance of the West.

The American Declaration of Independence says that all men are endowed by their Creator with life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It was the Christian religion which granted such freedom,including sexual freedom,as it did nowhere else on earth. Christianity was more permissive and tolerant than
other religions and morality.


----------



## mordko

olivaw said:


> Not quite. The Ancient Greeks used a geocentric model of the universe (not just the solar system), known as the Ptolemaic model. They believed the Earth was spherical and that the Sun, Moon and stars revolved around it.


No. Just a big fat "No". "Ancient Greeks" did not "use Ptolemaic model". Seriously, read before you write. Ancient Greeks used different models. They developed impressively accurate models of the solar systems. Aristotle used a geocentric model but it was competing with other models, e.g. heliocentric model developed by Aristarchus. Ptolemaic model became popularized much later, under the Romans but again it wasn't enforced. It was Christianity that applied totalitarian methods by burning anyone promoting the wrong model.


----------



## mordko

olivaw said:


> You frequently repeat the unsubstantiated claim that you were handed hate propaganda by Muslims on the streets of Toronto. Asking you for proof doesn't make me an Islamist, it makes me a person who finds you less than credible. *shrug*


 It was a piece of paper with hate propaganda typed on it. Islamist organizations worldwide have the exact same texts on their websites. What proof are you expecting me to provide exactly? 

In the message that you are responding to I provided links to a video with hate propaganda preached in Canadian Mosques. We know that hateful islamist literature is being distributed in Canada. We know that children are being recruited into terrorist organizations. We know that some mainstream Muslim organizations also support Islamism. All of this has been widely publicised.

Only an apologist for Islamists can deny that this is happening.


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> The West is the most successful civilization on the planet. The fact that it is/was Christian is not just a footnote. Christian morality allowed science ,technology ,capitalism ,individual rights, democracy ... tra-ta-ta...
> If Constantine had never allowed Christianity to flourish modern science would never have emerged...


Just WOW. 

In the real world Constantine enforcement of Christian dogma froze scientific development for millennia and introduced a system that couldn't be further from "democracy". For centuries Europe slid into the darkest regime less developed than N Africa or China. 

Eventually Christianity and Europe underwent reformation and fundamentalist Christian totalitarian regimes were superseded by more tolerant, usually Protestant systems. Relative tolerance was born out of persecution by the Catholic church of the Protestants themselves. Even today we can clearly trace that countries with protestant history are far more tolerant than the ones with the Catholic or Orthodox background.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> The preservation was largely done by Muslim countries. Monks used classical scripts as a writing medium for their own BS. Crucially, the logic and the science were forbidden and even repeating ancient discoveries were a reason for the burning of heretics because it was contrary to the Christian dogma.
> 
> After many centuries of Christian dogmatism the humans eventually rebelled. Political and religious fragmentation in Europe helped to end the oppression of the Church.


You are very one sided in this. Thomas of Aquinas attempted a synthesis between Greek philosophy (Aristotles physics, for example) and christian thinking. Such a synthesis ended up with a dualistic worldview, namely, Nature/Grace. Accordingly, according to him, science held sway in the Nature compartment, and the church in the Grace compartment. 
He wasn't burned as a heritic and was in fact very influential. 

Your history of science is told from the point of view of logical empericism, a defunct, kaput, fatally flawed theory of knowledge. You pick and choose historical events, to substantiate your flawed religion vs science thesis. Some religion, sometimes is anti science. But religion per se is not anti science. You take the worst examples from history, and then generalize to all of relgion and all of history. you are using a flawed overgeneralizing method in an attempt to prove your misguided point.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

mordko said:


> I see you are not all that familiar with the New Testament. That's often the way.


You're a proud character, aren't you? 

You _think_ you know what you're talking about, but you don't. I've literally read the NT more times than I can count. The Jews were partly to blame for the murder of Jesus. As the disciples prayed in Acts 4, _"For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together."_ Thus, they include, Herod, Pilate, the Romans, and Israel as culpable for what happened. 

But I'm not going to continue this with you. I will take Solomon's advice on this occasion, _"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."_


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Ancient Greeks discovered configuration of the solar system. They were non-Christian Europeans and their knowledge spread around the world to places like India. No, the Church can't be blamed for that.
> 
> The Church can be blamed for turning the clock back by imposing an ignorant religious dogma about the solar system. Yes, the theocracy fell apart after more than 1000 years of suppressing science. Not without a fight. While HP probably is, I don't believe you are sufficiently ignorant and dim not to be aware that Galileo was taken to court for inventing the telescope and using it to make scientific discoveries. According to the Church dogma, the earth was in the Center, so anyone contradicting it was a criminal. So, one of Christian nuts (a professor and a monk, no less) snitched and the Church persecuted Galileo.
> 
> .


Wasn't the geocentric theory of the solar system devised by Ptolemy? I could be mistaken, but I don't think he was christian. In that case the church adopted a theory from outside the church which shows they can be influenced by outsde science. 

And speaking of dogma, there is such a thing a scientific dogma, political dogma, and so on there are many types of dogma. The fact that the church at the time preferred Ptolemy's theory and rigidly adhered to it doesn't make it purely christian dogma. 
As Kuhn describes scientists themselves rigidly adhere to the dominant paradigm, and reject scientific dissent. The rigid adherence to a dominant model is not peculuiar to organized religon. Its inherent in science too.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Nope, not at all. All totalitarian ideologies do that if/when they get power, not just the church.


You seem to assume that ideology can not exist within science, such as your apparent logicl empericist ideology. You seem to think that science has the grounds to eliminate belief and faith from within its boundaries. there is no criteria devised that successfully eliminated faith from science. All proposed criteria disolved into abusrdity.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> I don't agree, but that's not a good reason not to read him.


OK. after a brief preamble I have aniother quote for you. Polanyi laid out his theory of abiogenesis and evolution. He stated he believed this theory. Then he wrote, as a scientist,

"And that is also, I believe, how a Christian is placed when worshiping God". p. 405 Personal Knowledge.

Do you understand how a scientist believing in such a theory is the same as a Christian having faith in God? If not, what is it about science that you believe eliminates faith? The reality is that scientists have faith in theories they can not and have not proven while arrogantly claiming they have no faith.


----------



## mordko

bobsyouruncle said:


> The Jews were partly to blame for the murder of Jesus.


Please take a hike in the general direction of making love to yourself. This old antisemitic fairy tale is behind multiple genocides and is rejected by most modern Christians, at least the ones with any decency and brains.


----------



## mordko

Pluto said:


> If not, what is it about science that you believe eliminates faith? The reality is that scientists have faith in theories they can not and have not proven while arrogantly claiming they have no faith.


It's not the same "faith" and the word isn't really appropriate for an actual scientist who believes in a scientific theory even if it isn't proven.

Hypothetically, if Jesus were to walk in with wounds from crucification on his body, turn water into wine, walk on water for a bit, die and resurrect and provide actual evidence supporting his existence and divinity, I would buy it. 

Cardinals and monks were shown evidence that Copernicus heliocentric model was true but they still punished Galileo because it contradicted the scripture. Indeed there still are people whose faith drives them to follow the flat earth theory. Productive economy was destroyed by the communists because it didn't align with Marxism and even after it was amply demonstrated that socialism does not work believers are still following communist theories. Cargo cult worshipers have been given lots of evidence that planes and boats are human creations but there still are cargo cult worshipers. There is factual evidence that the world wasn't created 6000 years ago and yet there are people who continue to believe their biblical fairy tales. 

Religious faith and scientific theories = 2 completely different things.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Please take a hike in the general direction of making love to yourself. This old antisemitic fairy tale is behind multiple genocides and is rejected by most modern Christians, at least the ones with any decency and brains.


Mordko I have no strong view on this issue, but you declarations, and decrees without offering any substatiation is harming your credibility. Calling it a fairy tale while not offering an reason, is my point. Similarily, with your shoot and scoot claim that Butterfields origion of modern science book is propaganda. nary a hint yet as to wy you make such a claim.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

mordko said:


> Please take a hike in the general direction of making love to yourself. This old antisemitic fairy tale is behind multiple genocides and is rejected by most modern Christians, at least the ones with any decency and brains.


It's not antisemitic any more than it's anti-Roman. The ills of one generation are not reason to hold an entire people in contempt. No one sensible hates any nation or people on the basis of past horrors or crimes. I don't hate Jews, I love them as I love all peoples and nations. But at the same time, you can't delete history. Jewish religious leaders wanted Jesus dead. The old Edomite Herod, as well as the Romans were content to comply. They were all culpable.


----------



## mordko

Pluto said:


> Mordko I have no strong view on this issue, but you declarations, and decrees without offering any substatiation is harming your credibility. Calling it a fairy tale while not offering an reason, is my point.


Read #368. Or any book by modern biblical scholars, e.g. Bart Ehrman. You can even read what the Pope said on the issue: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...e-must-never-again-be-blamed-for-crucifixion/

In general, when racists blame ethnicity XYZ for XYZ, it does not require debunking, so I find your question interesting.


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> Religious faith and scientific theories = 2 completely different things.


Gregor Mendel was a religious official who conducted experiments with pea plants that founded the science of genetics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel



> Gregor Johann Mendel (Czech: Řehoř Jan Mendel;[1] 20 July 1822[2] – 6 January 1884) (English /ˈmɛndəl/) was a scientist, Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno, Margraviate of Moravia. Mendel was born in a German-speaking family[3] in Silesian part of Austrian Empire (today's Czech Republic) and gained posthumous recognition as the founder of the modern science of genetics. Though farmers had known for centuries that crossbreeding of animals and plants could favor certain desirable traits, Mendel's pea plant experiments conducted between 1856 and 1863 established many of the rules of heredity, now referred to as the laws of Mendelian inheritance.[4]
> 
> .................
> 
> 
> He published his work in 1866, demonstrating the actions of invisible “factors”—now called genes—in providing for visible traits in predictable ways.
> The profound significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century (more than three decades later) with the independent rediscovery of these laws.


----------



## mordko

bobsyouruncle said:


> I don't hate Jews, I love them as I love all peoples and nations.


Sure you do.


> Jewish nation that killed Jesus


Interesting way of expressing "love" through spreading of racist and long debunked lies behind multiple genocides. Your lies are are even contrary to NT.


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> Gregor Mendel was a religious official who conducted experiments with pea plants that founded the science of genetics.


So?


----------



## mordko

Anyway, we now know that Jews were never in Judea, that their Temple is actually a Mosque and the place was populated by Palestinians since pre-historic times. UN declared it. Can we all now agree that Jews have an alibi since they were not there and it could only have been Palestinians that killed Jesus?


----------



## bobsyouruncle

mordko said:


> You can even read what the Pope said on the issue: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...e-must-never-again-be-blamed-for-crucifixion/


Funny that you support the pope here, when the article says _"He uses both scholarship and faith to explain that the mob does not represent the Jewish people, but sinful humanity in general."_

That doesn't deny that Jews said what they said, only that wherever the event would have taken place humanity would have had a general rejection of Jesus.

Historically it doesn't change that it was Jews. Anthropologically it reveals the general condition of humanity. I agree with that. 

As I said earlier, the Bible (Old and New Testaments) does not speak favourably of any nation in and of itself, but speaks honestly of all and of the sinfulness of all.

The Jews of course had a national covenant with God as well, which made their rejection of their Messiah worse, but the above still applies. They reflected sinful humanity in general, as the article on pope said.


----------



## mordko

> Historically it doesn't change that it was Jews.


There is nothing "historic" about this vicious antisemitic claim of deicide in relation to an old fairy tale. As noted above it's ahistoric, not even the New Testament makes any claims that Jews killed Jesus. Nor was it historically possible. Not to mention that the prototype of Jesus was actually Jewish, that Jesus parents were Jewish and that all his disciples were Jewish. 

Historically there was a Roman Perfect of Judea called Pontius Pilate who was based in Caesaria rather than Jerusalem. He regarded Jews as barbarians and despised them, never listened to any Jews and any Jew who would demand anything would have been killed in no time at all. There were rebellions in Judea and Pilate crucified a lot of Jews. That is the end of history. 

The rest is a legend according to which Romans killed Jesus (who was Jewish) based on the urging of some priests. And then their are old antisemitic fairy tales, which you are fond of. Blaming Jews for the Roman murder of a Jew is a little bit like when the Holocaust is used against Jews.


----------



## mordko

> Pope Benedict takes further Nostra Aetate’s rejection of the deicide charge against the Jews by providing scriptural depth to our understanding of it. We have to see this in the context of the tragic history of such a charge, which has provided a rallying cry for anti-Semites over the centuries and whose effects still linger today.”





> Jewish nation that killed Jesus


I am thinking the Pope was talking about Bob.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

mordko said:


> There is nothing "historic" about this vicious antisemitic claim of deicide in relation to an old fairy tale. As noted above it's ahistoric, not even the New Testament makes any claims that Jews killed Jesus. Nor was it historically possible. Not to mention that the prototype of Jesus was actually Jewish, that Jesus parents were Jewish and that all his disciples were Jewish.
> 
> Historically there was a Roman Perfect of Judea called Pontius Pilate who was based in Caesaria rather than Jerusalem. He regarded Jews as barbarians and despised them, never listened to any Jews and any Jew who would demand anything would have been killed in no time at all. There were rebellions in Judea and Pilate crucified a lot of Jews. That is the end of history.
> 
> The rest is a legend according to which Romans killed Jesus (who was Jewish) based on the urging of some priests. And then their are old antisemitic fairy tales, which you are fond of. Blaming Jews for the Roman murder of a Jew is a little bit like when the Holocaust is used against Jews.


Conveniently you pick and choose what is legend and what is truth. Just as the New Testament mentions the slaughter of Galileans at the hands of Pilate (Luke 13:1), so it records what happened to Jesus. Jews called for his death, while Romans committed the act. That is what I've been saying all along, yet you want to take my statements of joint culpability and focus on exonerating the part-guilt of Jews living in that day, and also suggest I'm exclusively blaming them. I don't know why you are doing this repeatedly. Such denial doesn't change reality. It's not antisemitism regardless of what you say. Indeed, the more you use that word the way you are using it here, the less credibility you give it.

Even aside from Jesus, Jews had a history of rejecting and even killing their prophets long before Jesus. There was always a faithful remnant, but the nation as a whole often rejected those sent to them by God, like Jeremiah, Isaiah, and the murder of Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24. It's not antisemitic to state this. It's history.


----------



## mordko

None of it is history. Any person who is mentioned in the Bible and has no other evidence for his existence is like Father Christmas, Gilgamesh, Zeus or Hercules. 

The only reason Pilate is a historic figure is that there is evidence for his existence from multiple sources, including an inscriptions on stone. Similar evidence exists for David and several other kings. No such evidence for Jeremiah, Isaiah and Zechariah or, indeed, Jesus. 

Which is why historians (and me based on their research) differentiate between what is actually known from history and legends. And in some cases there is a clear disagreement between known historical events and legends. For example the killing of the first born is entirely made up. Jesus's birth in Bethleham is made up - to align with the prophecy in the Jewish Bible. Jesus's birth from a virgin is made up because the writers of the New Testament didn't speak Hebrew and didn't understand that the Jewish Bible was talking about "a girl". Greek mistranslation of the Jewish Bible referred to a "virgin". Virgin birth is of course implausible, just as Pilate acting on the demands of the Jews whom he was known to have despised and crucified in huge numbers. 

Believing a fairy tale is your own business. Spreading hateful lies like "Jews killed Jesus" is also your business.


----------



## mordko

Still, there is an irony here somewhere. Fundamentalist Muslims claim that Jews distorted their own religion and libeled Moses and other prophets. Having used the legends in the Jewish Bible they then blame Jews for deliberately distorting them.

Bob here is blaming "Jews" for killing their own prophets (and of course deicide) based on the fact that legends in the Jewish Bible were used by Christians to develop their own legends and, being a racist, Bob does not hesitate to blame the whole nation for events in the made-up stories.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

mordko said:


> and, being a racist...


As amusing as you are for the rest of us, you are to be pitied.


----------



## Pluto

bobsyouruncle said:


> Conveniently you pick and choose what is legend and what is truth. Just as the New Testament mentions the slaughter of Galileans at the hands of Pilate (Luke 13:1), so it records what happened to Jesus. Jews called for his death, while Romans committed the act. That is what I've been saying all along, yet you want to take my statements of joint culpability and focus on exonerating the part-guilt of Jews living in that day, and also suggest I'm exclusively blaming them. I don't know why you are doing this repeatedly. Such denial doesn't change reality. It's not antisemitism regardless of what you say. Indeed, the more you use that word the way you are using it here, the less credibility you give it.
> 
> Even aside from Jesus, Jews had a history of rejecting and even killing their prophets long before Jesus. There was always a faithful remnant, but the nation as a whole often rejected those sent to them by God, like Jeremiah, Isaiah, and the murder of Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24. It's not antisemitic to state this. It's history.


1. Bob, you are reading the Bible canonically, which you, and those who believe like you, are entitled to do. 

2. Other people, mordko, for example, are reading the bible from the point of view of a historian. Historians are obligated to corroborate what they claim is history. Much of the bible is not corroborated. Lack of corroboration by istself doesn't mean it didn't happen, it means it doesn't qualify as history. the fact that Jesus existance is not corroborated doesn't prove he didn't exist. It is possible that the bible stories are a blend of fact and fiction, much like a historical novel uses real historical figures, but places them in fictional situations. 

3. To me The gospels are stories. They have the charactor of stories by using hyperboyle, metaphors, and so on. Also the gospels contradict eachother on many things which implies that the authors did not intend them to be taking strictly historically, but more like a portrayal of Jesus's charactor. 

4. mordko does pick and choose. But we all do, and we all do it according to our own personal criterion that we have faith in....otherwise we wouldn't use it to pick and choose.


----------



## wraphter

Jesus is mentioned in the writings of the Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Sources



> Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that, while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.[31][32] Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.[33][34][35][36] There is a total of three references to the name 'Jesus' in Book 20, Chapter 9: "Jesus, who was called Christ" (i.e. ' Messiah'); "Jesus, son of Damneus", a Jewish High Priest (both in Paragraph 1); and "Jesus, son of Gamaliel", another Jewish High Priest (in Paragraph 4).
> 
> ..............
> 
> Roman historian Tacitus referred to 'Christus' and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[37] The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe.[38] The Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,[39] although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various different grounds.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

Pluto said:


> 1. Bob, you are reading the Bible canonically, which you, and those who believe like you, are entitled to do.
> 
> 2. Other people, mordko, for example, are reading the bible from the point of view of a historian. Historians are obligated to corroborate what they claim is history. Much of the bible is not corroborated. Lack of corroboration by istself doesn't mean it didn't happen, it means it doesn't qualify as history. the fact that Jesus existance is not corroborated doesn't prove he didn't exist. It is possible that the bible stories are a blend of fact and fiction, much like a historical novel uses real historical figures, but places them in fictional situations.
> 
> 3. To me The gospels are stories. They have the charactor of stories by using hyperboyle, metaphors, and so on. Also the gospels contradict eachother on many things which implies that the authors did not intend them to be taking strictly historically, but more like a portrayal of Jesus's charactor.
> 
> 4. mordko does pick and choose. But we all do, and we all do it according to our own personal criterion that we have faith in....otherwise we wouldn't use it to pick and choose.


1. Agreed.

2. I don't know what way mordko reads it. But if one reads it as real accounts of history, they will not be antisemitic. Yet mordko refuses to permit someone to believe its record about the events of Jesus' death and the desire of the Jewish religious leaders to see Jesus dead, without also accusing them of antisemitism. That is nonsense.

3. No one has ever claimed they are historical in the sense that they were written by historians as a technical recording of events. Yet, that doesn't mean they aren't historical in the sense that they record real history from the perspective of each writer. The more I read the Bible, the more I am amazed not at the apparent contradictions (which is what you would think as you become more familiar with it) but at its uniformity.

4. Indeed.


----------



## mordko

In the case of Josephus it is known for a fact that the entry was fabricated (which was lucky; without the fabricated entry his books would have been destroyed like everything else). 

In the case of Tacitus the entry was altered but is generally believed to be genuine. However Tacitus wasn't a contemporary of Jesus, was a little child at the time of the fire in Rome and would have been repeating legends he heard from others. He even used the wrong title for Pilate; consistent with Christian stories but inconsistent with the historical figure. So, his text serves as evidence for the existence of Christians at the time of Tacitus but not for Jesus himself.


----------



## mordko

> which is what you would think as you become more familiar with it) but at its uniformity.


Three of the Gospels were copypasted from each other. However the authors had very different ideologies, so they spun them in different ways. For these reason the number of contradictions is stunning. They even time the death of Jesus to different dates, depending on whether they want to present him as a sacrificial Passover lamb or not.


----------



## mordko

> Yet mordko refuses to permit someone to believe its record about the events of Jesus' death and the desire of the Jewish religious leaders to see Jesus dead, without also accusing them of antisemitism.


False. Here is your claim:


> Jewish nation that killed Jesus


The former claim is just a religious fairy tale. The second claim is antisemitic accusation of deicide, which was used to mass murder millions of people. Not the same.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

Yet they're not mutually exclusive.

Had Jewish religious leaders not wanted Jesus dead, he wouldn't have been killed. Thus, the Jewish leaders killed Jesus, though it was through the authority of Pilate. 

As Paul, a converted Pharisee, wrote:
_"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: *Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets*, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost."_ (1 Thes 2:14-16)


----------



## Pluto

bobsyouruncle said:


> 2. I don't know what way mordko reads it. But if one reads it as real accounts of history, they will not be antisemitic. Yet mordko refuses to permit someone to believe its record about the events of Jesus' death and the desire of the Jewish religious leaders to see Jesus dead, without also accusing them of antisemitism. That is nonsense.


I suspect you are touching on something: "mordko refuses to permit somone to believe". mordko has deep faith in what he terms "evidence" even though he has no sophisticated theory of evidence and other components of knowing. It looks like he has been subtly groomed in the perspective of logical empericism. I could care less except that logical empericism is, I beleive, the enemy of an open society. It points the finger at the dogma of others, but is blind to its own dogma. I'm a pluralist and so take issue with its enemies. I don't know that mordko has the power to stop you from believeing, but if he did, I somethimes wonder what he would do. 

Even so, when you call the bible history, it is history *for you*, but most of it does not qualify as history from the point of view of a professional histrorian. Chronicles, for example, is written in the style of history, as it implies an attempt at accuracy. But other writings are like stories, and some poetry (EG Isaiah), and symbolic writing. The literary style does not preclude it from being God's word. It doesn't have to be historically accurate to be God's word. some people believe that God inspired them to write about their faith in mostly a mostly literary form so their children could know of their faith and believe too. Many people use literary techniques to convey their worldview to others, and the Bible is an excellent example. Some believe it is the literary equivilant of Greek architecture, and Roman engineering. 

If you see the Bible as God's word in the form of literature, the critiques from the point of view of professional history have no power.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

Pluto said:


> Even so, when you call the bible history, it is history *for you*, but most of it does not qualify as history from the point of view of a professional histrorian. Chronicles, for example, is written in the style of history, as it implies an attempt at accuracy. But other writings are like stories, and some poetry (EG Isaiah), and symbolic writing. The literary style does not preclude it from being God's word. It doesn't have to be historically accurate to be God's word. some people believe that God inspired them to write about their faith in mostly a mostly literary form so their children could know of their faith and believe too. Many people use literary techniques to convey their worldview to others, and the Bible is an excellent example. Some believe it is the literary equivilant of Greek architecture, and Roman engineering.
> 
> If you see the Bible as God's word in the form of literature, the critiques from the point of view of professional history have no power.


Yes, that's the point I was making. Much of it is not written _technically_ as history, yet that doesn't inherently discount the record of history given.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> It's not the same "faith" and the word isn't really appropriate for an actual scientist who believes in a scientific theory even if it isn't proven.
> 
> Hypothetically, if Jesus were to walk in with wounds from crucification on his body, turn water into wine, walk on water for a bit, die and resurrect and provide actual evidence supporting his existence and divinity, I would buy it.
> 
> Cardinals and monks were shown evidence that Copernicus heliocentric model was true but they still punished Galileo because it contradicted the scripture. Indeed there still are people whose faith drives them to follow the flat earth theory. Productive economy was destroyed by the communists because it didn't align with Marxism and even after it was amply demonstrated that socialism does not work believers are still following communist theories. Cargo cult worshipers have been given lots of evidence that planes and boats are human creations but there still are cargo cult worshipers. There is factual evidence that the world wasn't created 6000 years ago and yet there are people who continue to believe their biblical fairy tales.
> 
> Religious faith and scientific theories = 2 completely different things.


 1. Its not the same faith, you say. This is circular, and contradictory. Belief and faith are synonyms. The fact that most scientists don't use the word faith, (Although Hawkings did with respect to his view of the evolution of the universe), is just a convention. You are assuming that this convention, designed to distance science from religion, is a real division. Its a fairy tale. 
2. Hypothetically, if Jesus were to walk in your presence and you demanded he prove his existence, people might ask you, "isn't walking in front of you enough proof?" When you walk down the street and see other people there, do you demand that they prove they really exist? Anyway mordko, to me the gospels are stories about a guy they loved. They were never intended to be history, not intended to scam anyone. If they intended to scam, they would have got together to get their stories consistent with each other. I could care less if Jesus lived or did' t live, the important thing is what he said and did. 
3. This story of Cardinals and monks punishing Galileo for not being politically correct goes on today even in the halls of science. the church backed the dominant paradigm and so Galileo got dealt with, just as today, backers of dominant paradigms in science deal with scientific dissenters. Even recently a backer of the dominant global warming theory promoted the idea of criminally prosecuting scientists who didn't back the current fashionable theory. The fact that Galileo got persecuted by a church is incidental. The fact that he got persecuted by the backer's of the dominant paradigm isn't incidental. it is the logical empiricists who want you to incorrectly focus on the church and thereby draw attention away from their own scientific dogma. There is no definitive single interpretation of what happened to Galileo. that's because evidence is always subject to interpretation, and evaluation. 
4. There is a deeper issue here that you haven't effectively grappled with. There is no real division between science and belief/faith. Science is permeated by faith, but they usually use the word "believe". These folks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism tried to separate fact from faith/belief and failed decades ago. You don't seem to be aware of it. One of the implications of their failure is people can believe what they want to.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> There is nothing "historic" about this vicious antisemitic claim of deicide in relation to an old fairy tale. As noted above it's ahistoric, not even the New Testament makes any claims that Jews killed Jesus. Nor was it historically possible. Not to mention that the prototype of Jesus was actually Jewish, that Jesus parents were Jewish and that all his disciples were Jewish.
> 
> Historically there was a Roman Perfect of Judea called Pontius Pilate who was based in Caesaria rather than Jerusalem. He regarded Jews as barbarians and despised them, never listened to any Jews and any Jew who would demand anything would have been killed in no time at all. There were rebellions in Judea and Pilate crucified a lot of Jews. That is the end of history.
> 
> The rest is a legend according to which Romans killed Jesus (who was Jewish) based on the urging of some priests. And then their are old antisemitic fairy tales, which you are fond of. Blaming Jews for the Roman murder of a Jew is a little bit like when the Holocaust is used against Jews.


Just because the story that some Jews complained to Pilate and managed to get him excecuted isn't cororborated doesn't make it false. You seem to want to promote your own legend and fairy tale, namely, it isn't possible for the Jews to have had a hand in it, as a substitute for the original uncoroborated story. Although you have an agenda, you have no clear grounds to claim Jewish adversaries were not involved. When you claim it isn't possible, you are just speculating within a domain that you already claim is legend.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Believing a fairy tale is your own business.


And speaking of corroboration, I still await some hints and clues concerning your claim that Butterfield's history of science is propaganda. In the meantime, I take it as one of your fairy tales.


----------



## mordko

Blaming any ethnicity for anything is racism. Simple. Blaming the Jews for deicide is a particularly murderous form of racism which has been formally regected by all Christian denominations.

The rest is a legend but not a plausible one, that is all because Pilate actually was a historic figure and his behaviour is known. Not only that, Judea was occupied and the high priest was appointed by the Roman prefect.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Blaming any ethnicity for anything is racism. Simple. Blaming the Jews for deicide is a particularly murderous form of racism which has been formally regected by all Christian denominations.
> 
> The rest is a legend but not a plausible one, that is all because Pilate actually was a historic figure and his behaviour is known. Not only that, Judea was occupied and the high priest was appointed by the Roman prefect.


I'm not sure that "Jewish" is a race. I thought it was a religion. I thought it was the nation being blamed, like for example, blaming Japan for attacking the US. the latter is a common accusation, but no one calls it a Racist statement. I'm not convinced at all that Christians are antisemetic. Quite possibly some are, but I haven't met any. 
Dieicide: I'm not convinced that Biblical authors thought of Jesus as God. As far as church doctrine goes, dieity wasn't officially articulated until about 300 Ad. Apparently it was a problematic controversial topic. 

You have your theories on Pilate's style, and your theory is possible, but your theory is not necessarily correct. You are extrapolating from beliefs about his style to what, in you mind, must have happened, or alternately what must not have happened. but your conclusions are not necessary conclusions. It's a theory. 

And still, I await some corroboration for the claim that Butterfield is a propogandist in his history of science. I like to hear all sides of an issue before drawing any conclusions so I'm interested in what this is all about.


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> No. Just a big fat "No". "Ancient Greeks" did not "use Ptolemaic model". Seriously, read before you write. Ancient Greeks used different models. They developed impressively accurate models of the solar systems. Aristotle used a geocentric model but it was competing with other models, e.g. heliocentric model developed by Aristarchus. Ptolemaic model became popularized much later, under the Romans but again it wasn't enforced. It was Christianity that applied totalitarian methods by burning anyone promoting the wrong model.


Wrong again. You're just BSing now - making up a false history as you go along. 

The most popular model among Greek scholars was that the universe revolved around the Earth. There was a hypothesis that the universe revolved around the Sun (which was pretty much my first statement on the matter) but it was not widely accepted. The Christian Church didn't suppress it - the Christian Church didn't even exist at the time.


----------



## olivaw

Pluto said:


> I'm not sure that "Jewish" is a race. I thought it was a religion.


I'm not expert on Judaism but, AFAIK, Ivanka converted. It is acceptable to say that she is Jewish. It's a religion, not an ethnic group.


----------



## wraphter

mordkoI said:


> t was Christianity that applied totalitarian methods by burning anyone promoting the wrong model.


They didn't burn Galileo.


----------



## mordko

Pluto said:


> I'm not sure that "Jewish" is a race. I thought it was a religion.


Wrong. Jews = ethno-religious group. "A Jew" can refer to either racial or religious characteristics. "Jewish nation" = reference to Jews as a people on the basis of race; nothing to do with religion.

A few examples: 

- Einstein, Spinoza, Feinmann, Weizmann, Ben Gurion, Leonard Cohen were all Jewish but not adherents of Judaism. 

- A large number; likely most of the Jews murdered by the Nazis were not the adherents of Judaism. They were murdered for being Jewish, for the race.

- Spanish and Portuguese inquisition/states gave the Jews a choice to convert or be murdered. Those who converted and became Christians were still, by and large, murdered. 

- All Soviet Jews were atheist yet they were still persecuted by the state and ethnicity "Jewish" was marked on our passports.

- Poland expelled Jews in 1970s, regardless of religion (again, mostly atheist).

- Most North African Muslim states expelled Jews and confiscated their property regardless of religion.


----------



## mordko

olivaw said:


> I'm not expert on Judaism but, AFAIK, Ivanka converted. It is acceptable to say that she is Jewish. It's a religion, not an ethnic group.


Again, it's an ethno-religious group. Most Jews are atheists.


----------



## mordko

olivaw said:


> The Christian Church didn't suppress it - the Christian Church didn't even exist at the time.


The simple point you seem to be unable to grasp is that none of the scientific theories were suppressed before the Christian Church came along. And when it did, a totalitarian system was established which did suppress "unchristian" scientific models.


----------



## wraphter

Jews comprise an ethnicity based on common ancestry. Conversion to Judaism is not encouraged. The elaborate and time-consuming rituals such as keeping the Sabbath,dietary restrictions,praying many times during the day, the wearing of certain clothing,reinforce the feeling of separateness and discourage conversion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group



> An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences.[1][2] Unlike other social groups (wealth, age, hobbies), ethnicity is often an inherited status based on the society in which one lives.
> 
> ..........
> 
> *Ethnic groups, derived from the same historical founder population, often continue to speak related languages and share a similar gene pool.*


Jews share a common ancestry, particularly European Jews who are called Ashkenazi Jews.

All European Jews alive today derived from a very small group of individuals 600 to 800 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect#Founder_effects_in_human_populations



> The founder effect occurs when a small group of migrants that is not genetically representative of the population from which they came establish in a new area.[3][4] In addition to founder effects, the new population is often a very small population, so shows increased sensitivity to genetic drift, an increase in inbreeding, and relatively low genetic variation. This can be observed in the limited gene pools of Icelanders, Parsis, Ashkenazi Jews, Faroe Islanders, Easter Islanders, and those native to Pitcairn Island. Another example is the remarkably high deaf population of Martha's Vineyard, which resulted in the development of Martha's Vineyard Sign Language.[citation needed]


http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/science/.premium-1.614893



> A model based on the genetic sequencing of 128 Ashkenazi Jews concludes that today’s Ashkenazim descend from the fusion of European and Middle-Eastern Jews during the medieval era, between 600 to 800 years ago.
> The math also indicates that today’s sprawling community of Ashkenazi Jews — there are more than 10 million around the world — derived from just 350 people or so. That previously postulated population bottleneck — a drastic reduction in population size — occurred between 25 to 32 generations ago, the scientists say.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

In the New Testament, Paul (and John in the book of Revelation) actually argues that 'Jews' who do not trust in Jesus as their Messiah, are not Jews at all. 

Thus, it would seem to the New Testament writers, 'Jew' is a true follower of God, not a nationality.


----------



## wraphter

> A large number; likely most of the Jews murdered by the Nazis were not the adherents of Judaism.


Citation please.

Leonard Cohen practiced his Jewish religion.

http://jewinthecity.com/2016/11/leonard-cohens-orthodox-jewish-upbringing-and-return-to-observance/



> Beloved singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen died last week at the age of 82. Most famous for penning the hauntingly poignant ballad “Hallelujah” among other songs in the past 40 years, as well as poetry and novels, not many people were aware that Cohen was born and raised Orthodox, spent some time involved in Buddhism then returned to his own form of Jewish observance in the 1980s. He was a practicing Jew until his death.
> 
> .............
> 
> ohen was a revered member of Shaar Hashomayim. Cohen said in Jeff Burger’s book Leonard Cohen on Leonard Cohen: Interviews and Encounters, “When I read the Psalms or when they lift up the Torah, ‘Etz chayim hi l’mah chazikim bah.’ That kind of thing sent a chill down my back. I wanted to be that one who lifted up the Torah. I wanted to say that…When they told me I was a Kohayn, I believed it… I wanted to wear white clothes, and to go into the Holy of Holies, and to negotiate with the deepest resources of my soul…That was poetry to me. And I think it’s available to everybody.”


----------



## mordko

bobsyouruncle said:


> In the New Testament, Paul (and John in the book of Revelation) actually argues that 'Jews' who do not trust in Jesus as their Messiah, are not Jews at all.
> 
> Thus, it would seem to the New Testament writers, 'Jew' is a true follower of God, not a nationality.


The "replacement" theology is also popular among antisemites and is rejected by mainstream Christians.


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> Citation please.
> 
> Leonard Cohen practiced his Jewish religion.
> 
> http://jewinthecity.com/2016/11/leonard-cohens-orthodox-jewish-upbringing-and-return-to-observance/


Cohen was an ordained Bhuddist Monk. As a minimum his orthodoxy is questionable. 

The proportion of non religious Jews murdered in the Holocaust is a guess based on proportion of religious ones in the countries with most murders. The point though is that the Jewish people were targeted based on race and it had nothing to do with beliefs. When my atheist ancestors were murdered at Baby Yar, nobody cared about religion one bit. It was a racist attempt to exterminate the Jewish people. 

When Iqra Khalid is claiming that Holocaust was an attack on Judaism, she is lying and using the tragedy for her own political ends.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

mordko said:


> The "replacement" theology is also popular among antisemites and is rejected by mainstream Christians.


I'm not talking about replacement theology (which is a misnomer). I'm talking about the plain teaching of the NT, that to be a Jew is not bound to being born in Israel, but requires what both OT and NT talk about 'heart circumcision' which is true, saving faith. Just a sample:

_"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."_ (Romans 2:28-29)

_"I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."_ (Revelation 2:9)

Furthermore, those who reject 'replacement theology' (as you call it), are found mostly in uneducated clergy, places with no clergy, and TV evangelists. There are exceptions, but since you're generalizing, so will I.


----------



## mordko

Neither Christian fundamentalists nor Islamists or cargo cult worshippers or whatever get to define what "Jewish" means, whatever the crazies think. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism

Here is a dictionary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews.


----------



## wraphter

> For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Romans 2:28-29)


The purpose of this passage is probably to allow non-Jews who were not circumcised to become Jews by dropping the requirement of circumcision. There was a time when Christian sects were considered part of the Jewish religion. Eventually they broke away.
This is an attempt by one of these Christian groups to get recruits by not insisting on circumcision.

Without onerous requirements like circumcision,keeping the Sabbath,prayers,keeping kosher,and other rituals designed to differentiate themselves from the gentiles, the Jews would have vanished from the annals of history millennia ago.




> Let me say it diplomatically: Most religions are tribal to some degree.





> Our moral sense really evolved to bind groups together into teams that can cooperate in order to compete with other teams.




........Jonathan Haidt


----------



## bobsyouruncle

mordko said:


> Neither Christian fundamentalists nor Islamists or cargo cult worshippers or whatever get to define what "Jewish" means, whatever the crazies think.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism
> 
> Here is a dictionary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews.


Your first link proves my point that it is not "rejected by mainstream Christians" but rather, is the normal view.

Your second link is fine, I've no issue with that. My point was, that according to the New Testament, 'a Jew' is someone who truly knows God, regardless of ethnicity.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

wraphter said:


> The purpose of this passage is probably to allow non-Jews who were not circumcised to become Jews by dropping the requirement of circumcision. There was a time when Christian sects were considered part of the Jewish religion. Eventually they broke away.
> This is an attempt by one of these Christian groups to get recruits by not insisting on circumcision.
> 
> Without onerous requirements like circumcision,keeping the Sabbath,prayers,keeping kosher,and other rituals designed to differentiate themselves from the gentiles, the Jews would have vanished from the annals of history millennia ago.


Indeed, Christianity was seen as a sect of Judaism in the first few decades, but they weren't dropping requirements out of convenience. Baptism replaced circumcision as the initiatory rite into the church community. However, Judaizers sought to maintain the need for circumcision, seeing it as necessary to salvation. Paul however, as a converted Pharisee, recognized that circumcision was never tied to salvation. Whether circumcised or not, one needs their heart circumcised (true salvation by the cutting away of unbelief).

So the point Paul is making is, one is not a Jew by the mere outward observance of circumcision, but by circumcision of the heart. He was circumcised, as were all the apostles, but it wasn't what made them a Jew. A Jew, he says, has unbelief cut from his heart and trusts the Messiah.


----------



## mordko

bobsyouruncle said:


> Your first link proves my point that it is not "rejected by mainstream Christians" but rather, is the normal view.


False. 



> Subsequent to and because of the Holocaust, some mainstream Christian theologians and denominations have rejected supersessionism






> My point was, that according to the New Testament, 'a Jew' is someone who truly knows God, regardless of ethnicity.


Cool. In that case, according to the New Testament, someone who truly knows god "belongs to his father the devil". Then again, when you say "Jewish nation that killed Jesus" me thinks you don't mean "someone who truly knows god, regardless of ethnicity, killed Jesus".


----------



## olivaw

[Deleted - duplicate post]


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> The simple point you seem to be unable to grasp is that none of the scientific theories were suppressed before the Christian Church came along. And when it did, a totalitarian system was established which did suppress "unchristian" scientific models.


Wrong again. The Church was not engaged in an ongoing effort to suppress science. Copernicus' heliocentric theory was taught in many Catholic universities. Indeed, here is a letter from a Roman cardinal to Copernicus:



> Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you ... For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe ... Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject ...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Copernicus


The theory was later opposed by religious and political leaders for political reasons but it was initially accepted - celebrated even. 

Galileo was caught up in the *inquisition*. That was an unfortunate moment in Church history but it was not representative of the entirety of it. Your opinion that the Catholic church spent 1,500 years surpassing scientific knowledge is incorrect.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

mordko said:


> False.


Seriously? You quote one sentence from a wiki entry? You seem to miss the word "some" and the fact that it's a wiki entry. Any theologian who's beliefs are reactionary to events such as the Jewish holocaust or Armenian holocaust, or whatever, can be made to believe anything. The popularization of trying to refute the churches (so-called) replacement of Israel came with the Scofield Study Bible which gained popularity during the last century. It's a load of nonsense and makes no sense in light of the plain teaching of the NT. 

The fact is, Christian churches with an educated clergy largely believe and teach that the gentiles are grafted into believing Israel (not replacing, and not ethnic Israel). Catholic (for what it's worth), Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, Reformed Baptists, Anglican, Lutheran, Congregational, and so on, all largely hold to and teach this. If that's not mainstream, I don't know what is. Again, there are exceptions, but I know what I'm talking about (not that that seems to mean anything to you, which is your prerogative).


----------



## mordko

> I know what I'm talking about


No you don't. For one thing there is no "plain teaching of the NT". NT is a bunch of different, often contradictory teachings. Same as any old religious text written and rewritten by a bunch of people.

Also, the Second Vatican Council specifically stated that 



> The covenant that God has offered Israel is irrevocable. Christian supersessionism - the notion (as the reflection describes it) that the people of God of Israel has ceased to exist" - is heresy and must be firmly rejected


----------



## mordko

olivaw said:


> Wrong again. The Church was not engaged in an ongoing effort to suppress science. .


The Church first created a list of forbidden books under Constantine. And of course the work by Copernicus got onto the list. He delayed publication of his book by 30 years - and dedicated it to the Pope because he was afraid. Justifiably, as others discovered a little later. He died almost immediately after the publication, which in a way was lucky. There is quite a long time span between Constantine's first ban and the eventual relaxation which started over 1000 years later. Still, persecutions didn't stop...

A very short selection of scientists, writers and philosophers persecuted by the Church :

- Hapatia of Alexandria; Mathematician, 5th century. Murdered by a Christian mob, which was lead by a bishop.
- Boethius, philosopher, 6th century. Execution ordered by Christian bishop.
- Serveturs; persecuted, tortured and burned at stake; the church didn't like his book (16th century physician)
- Lev Tolstoy; subjected to anathema; the church didn't like his beliefs (19th century writer)
- Campanella, physicist and philosopher, 16th century - persecuted and imprisoned by the church.
- Descartes, mathematics - persecuted by the church
- Isaac Newton (hope you've heard of him) - was forced to hide his religion until deathbed
- Darwin - was forced to delay publication of his work.
- Bertrand Russell - persecuted by Christians and banned from teaching. 
- Abelard, philosopher, 12th century. Charged with heresy and killed. 
- Roger Bacon, philospher. 13th century. Church didn't like him; got killed. 
- Erasmus, 15th century philospher. All his books were banned by the church. 
- Hochheim, 13s century philosopher - accused of heresy and persecuted.
- Georges Buffon - biologist, 18th century, persecuted by the church. 

Claiming that the church hasn't engaged in persecution of science is impressively ignorant.


----------



## bobsyouruncle

mordko said:


> No you don't. For one thing there is no "plain teaching of the NT". NT is a bunch of different, often contradictory teachings. Same as any old religious text written and rewritten by a bunch of people.


Yes, I actually do. And I don't have to resort to Google searches to copy and paste answers for what I'm talking about. Additionally, there _is_ plain teaching in the NT. Granted, some parts are less clear, but there's nothing contradictory on doctrine. But I know we're not going to resolve that issue here.



mordko said:


> Also, the Second Vatican Council specifically stated that


First, where does the Vatican II state that?

Second, supersessionism doesn't espouse that the people of the God of Israel have "ceased to exist." Only that the national covenant which made them "God's people" as it were, is annulled. Ethnic Israelites still exist.


----------



## olivaw

Mordko's fantasy history has exposed as nothing more than a snow job. He said that the Greeks had a working model of the solar system (wrong). He argued that Constantine burned his opponents (wrong). He said that Galileo was burned (wrong). He doesn't understand the relationship between science and technology. He said that science was surpressed (wrong). Then he said he meant only astronomy (also wrong). He said that Copernicus would have been persecuted (wrong, Copernicus was encourage by Rome and his work was taught in many catholic schools). At one point he linked Constantine to the Italian fascists of 1921 (????).

Now he cuts and pastes names from a Google search. It's telling that the list included Bertrand Russell, an American 20th century philosopher, atheist, Vietnam war protestor, anti-nuclear proliferation activist and vocal atheist. Russell advocated pre-marital sex so he was denied a teaching role at the College of the City of New York in 1940. Mordko thinks that it,proves 1500 years of scientific suppression by the Catholic Church.


----------



## mordko

olivaw said:


> Mordko's fantasy history has exposed as nothing more than a snow job. He said that the Greeks had a working model of the solar system (wrong). He argued that Constantine burned his opponents (wrong). He said that Galileo was burned (wrong). He doesn't understand the relationship between science and technology. He said that science was surpressed (wrong). Then he said he meant only astronomy (also wrong). He said that Copernicus would have been persecuted (wrong, Copernicus was encourage by Rome and his work was taught in many catholic schools). At one point he linked Constantine to the Italian fascists of 1921 (????).
> 
> Now he cuts and pastes names from a Google search. It's telling that the list included Bertrand Russell, an American 20th century philosopher, atheist, Vietnam war protestor, anti-nuclear proliferation activist and vocal atheist. Russell advocated pre-marital sex so he was denied a teaching role at the College of the City of New York in 1940. Mordko thinks that it,proves 1500 years of scientific suppression by the Catholic Church.


A pack of lies:

1. Ancient greeks most definitely did have a heliocentric system of the solar system, which was what I said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

2. I did not say that Constantine burned his opponents. He murdered them. 

3. At no point did I say that Galileo was burned. He was persecuted by the Church, which is what I said. 

4. Science was suppressed, books were burned, scientists were murdered. Only a complete ignoramus or a liar can deny that.

5. I drew the parallel between totalitarian regimes which existed at different times and which made big impacts on history. That is the only bit that is true in the whole pack of Olivaw's lies.

6. Benrard Russel was included because he was (successfully) persecuted by fundamentlist Christians and therefore belongs to the list. I did not say it's a list of suppression by the "Catholic Church" - that is another lie. Several of the others were persecuted by Christian churches other than the Catholic one, but an ignoramus wouldn't know that. 

Olivaw is such a blatant bearfaced liar, it's nothing short of stunning. It's like when he accused me of making a typo, made a typo in the very same sentence, corrected and then denied making the typo. Olivaw, admit it, are you 5 years old? Then everything is understandable, your brains are not fully formed.

Otherwise, why don't you tell us where exactly I claimed that Galileo was burned, etc?


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Otherwise, why don't you tell us where exactly I claimed that Galileo was burned, etc?


Why don't you tell me why Butterfield is a propagandist in his history of science?


----------



## mordko

^ That's my opinion. 

What Olivaw is claiming relates to facts. He is denying the historic fact that Christian church suppressed science and persecuted scientists. He is lying by claiming that I said things about Galileo and Constantine which I didn't say. 

You are entitled to your own opinion but not to making up lies about facts.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> The simple point you seem to be unable to grasp is that none of the scientific theories were suppressed before the Christian Church came along.


I'm not convinced you know that. Dominant scientific models, and dominant world views, tend to suppress dissenters. I'm not convinced that ancient history is detailed enough to know if there was suppression or not. Followers of Plato might have suppressed followers of Democratus, for example.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> ^ That's my opinion.
> 
> You are entitled to your own opinion but not to making up lies about facts.


Please tell me what formed your opinion.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> The Church first created a list of forbidden books under Constantine. And of course the work by Copernicus got onto the list. He delayed publication of his book by 30 years - and dedicated it to the Pope because he was afraid. Justifiably, as others discovered a little later. He died almost immediately after the publication, which in a way was lucky. There is quite a long time span between Constantine's first ban and the eventual relaxation which started over 1000 years later. Still, persecutions didn't stop...
> 
> A very short selection of scientists, writers and philosophers persecuted by the Church :
> 
> - Isaac Newton (hope you've heard of him) - was forced to hide his religion until deathbed
> 
> Claiming that the church hasn't engaged in persecution of science is impressively ignorant.


1. About Copernicus: a) so we have a monk apparently writing to Copernicus in a open welcoming way as Olivaw has claimed. Then b) we have Constantine banning Copernicus' writing. 

You value b) more highly than a) according to your personal worldview. So your facts are not free of values. 
olivaw values a), apparently a fact that does not support your (religious) worldview. 

I'm interestind in a theory that incorporates a) and b), whereas you seem to only be interested in a theory that incorporates b). In other words, you back a theory, or view of history, that can not account for the fact that belief in God is not inherently anti scientific. 

I might add that your intese devaluing of what the monk did in writing to Copernicus, has an idiological bent to it. 

2. About Newton: He makes numerous references to God in his Principia, for example. He was a God believer and it didn't stop him from advancing science. He wouldn't be welcome to do that these days due to bigotry toward believers in God. 
The conflict I am aware of that he got into with some chruch was that he did not believe in the Trinity, wheras the dominant paradigm in Christianity at the time backed the Trinity. Apparently he had conflict over that, but not, as far as I know, over what was important to natural science. Anyway, according to what he wrote in Pricipia about God, it looks to me, he didn't hide his faith. 

Science doesn't need athiesm to understand and explain natural phenomena.


----------



## mordko

My point isn't that scientists didn't believe in god - many did; in those times it was hard to explain basic natural events without a supernatural belief.

My point is that totalitarian regimes attempt to control thoughts. Constantine attempted to enforce Christian dogma and the system lasted for many centuries. Scientists, philosophers, writers think for themselves and don't follow dogma. For this reason totalitarian regimes have suppressed science, whether it's medieval Christian regimes, Islamic regimes, communist regimes or fascist regimes.


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> A pack of lies:
> 
> 1. Ancient greeks most definitely did have a heliocentric system of the solar system, which was what I said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos


Wrong - the exchange was: 
Post 340: Mordko _And yet the pagans knew that the earth was round, that it spins around the sun and measured the distance from earth to the moon and to the sun. And Christianity suppressed all this for many, many centuries. _
Post 365: Olivaw _Ancient greeks hypothesized a number of correct ideas, including a round earth_ b
Post 359: Mordko _The Ancient Greeks may have guessed the atom structure but their model of the solar system was not just a hypothesis._ 

Mordko's own link proves that Aristarchus work was hypothesis. 


> [Aristarchus of Samos] astronomical ideas were often rejected in favor of the geocentric theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy, which are now known to be incorrect. Nicolaus Copernicus had attributed the heliocentric theory to Aristarchus.[2]


The prevalent theory in Ancient Greek was the geocentric (Earth centric) model of the Universe. The model was later embraced by Roman scholars. The heliocentric (Sun centric) model was not seriously considered until Copernicus. As I have demonstrated, repeatedly, Copernicus' hypothesis was embraced by the Catholic Church.


> By mid-decade, Copernicus received a Frombork canon cathedral appointment, holding onto the job for the rest of his life. It was a fortunate stroke: The canon's position afforded him the opportunity to fund the continuation of his studies for as long as he liked. Still, the job demanded much of his schedule; he was only able to pursue his academic interests intermittently, during his free time. http://www.biography.com/people/nicolaus-copernicus-9256984#synopsis


Copernicus published his work in 1543. It was initially celebrated and taught in many Catholic universities. It was banned in 1616. 



> Copernicus gained ridicule from poets and Protestants, who condemned it as heresy. While the Catholic Church initially accepted heliocentricity, Catholics eventually joined the wave of Protestant opposition and banned the book in 1616. The Protestant churches accepted Copernicus’ findings after more evidence emerged to support it. The Catholic Church, however, remained ground in its anti-Copernican beliefs until the 19th century. The ban on Copernicus's views was lifted in 1822, and the ban on his book until 1835.


The flat-earth belief, mentioned in post 340 was not advanced by the Catholic church. 

Mordko's argument fails on the evidence. He has tried to promote the idea that the Church not only refused to allow scientific research but that it actively suppressed it. As evidence, he suggests that the ancient Greeks adopted a working sun-centric model of the solar system and that the Church later suppressed it. That is factually incorrect. 

----

Many have correctly pointed out in this thread that much good and much evil was done in the name of the Church. Mordko would have us believe that only evil was done. This, despite the evidence that the Church was the primary benefactor of the sciences for centuries . 

The logical weakness of Mordko's position becomes clear upon momentary reflection. Misdeeds have been done by every nation. During its brief history, America engaged in slavery, internment, McCarthyism, support for dictators and the killing of roughly a million Iraqis. America also funded the rebuilding of Europe after the war, put a man on the moon, gave the world the Internet, contributed medical advances and promoted the democratic ideal. One cannot gain a complete picture of America unless one examines both the good and the bad done in her name. Similarly, once cannot fully appreciate 1,500 years of the Catholic church without examining both the good and the bad done in its name.


----------



## mordko

Before you engage in further obfuscation of the bloody obvious (namely that the church enforced religious dogma which resulted in a step back in sciences), could we agree on three very simple facts:

- I did not say that Constantine burned his opponents. You lied about it.

- At no point did I say that Galileo was burned. You lied about it. 

- I did not claim that Bertrand Russell was persecuted by the* Catholic* church. You lied about it.


----------



## SMK

^ Is he worth your time, why not ignore him?

He has a habit of making false accusations without any evidence. A basic recent example on this thread, I had commented how different Trudeau's reaction had been to the Boston bombings, and for that harmless and correct observation not based on opinion, he labelled me "an angry right-winger blaming Trudeau, the left, Islam and the CBC" for the Quebec terror attack. What does that say about him? 



SMK said:


> Regardless of who the terrorists were, it's very sad and shocking for Canada. Interesting how Trudeau was able to correctly call this an act of terror, but not when 3 people were killed and hundreds injured in Boston. Trudeau's response to the Boston bombings hours and even days after it happened, was wrong. Those that are not convinced can compare his reaction and judge for themselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XRO4UGSiQo





olivaw said:


> Now is not the time for the *angry right wingers of CMF to blame Trudeau, the left, Islam and the CBC.* They should wait until we know what is going on before launching their familiar refrain.


Who's the one that sounds like the angry left winger?


----------



## mordko

No, not really. You are right. When someone fabricates what happened yesterday, discussing history is rather pointless.


----------



## SMK

Unbelievable. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...hooting-was-direct-result-of-tory-pq-policies


----------



## james4beach

It's unfair to blame Canadian politicians for the mosque massacre.

However it *is* fair to blame the groups that radicalized the shooter: American white supremacist and white nationalist groups, and alt-right, which are groups with extremist agendas that work hard to radicalize people (like this shooter).

I've shifted my opinion about Trump's role in all that. I now think that Trump himself has been radicalized, or at least influenced, by extremist alt-right forces. He fits the profile for the kind of person who can fall for their nonsense.


----------



## wraphter

And what profile would that be pray tell? Billionaire ,amoral master manipulator who is himself manipulated?
Who would have thought it. The con artist is himself conned. Amazing.


----------



## new dog

James then why would Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu come to visit Trump it then. If he is the manipulated king of the white supremacists then I think Netanyahu would have a clue.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> My point isn't that scientists didn't believe in god - many did; in those times it was hard to explain basic natural events without a supernatural belief.
> 
> My point is that totalitarian regimes attempt to control thoughts. Constantine attempted to enforce Christian dogma and the system lasted for many centuries. Scientists, philosophers, writers think for themselves and don't follow dogma. For this reason totalitarian regimes have suppressed science, whether it's medieval Christian regimes, Islamic regimes, communist regimes or fascist regimes.




1. "totalitarian regimes attempt to control thoughts". Essentially a reliable claim, I think. So far so good. However,
2. One doesn't need to be a regime to have a dogmatic view, and a totalitarian thought control attitude. I don't think you should excuse people for being dogmatic and exhibiting a totalitarian attitude simply because they are not a regime. 
3. "Constantine attempted to enforce Christian dogma..." I accept that. But I prefer it said in a more general way: Constantine enforced dogma". The reason I prefer it that way because many of the greats in the history of science were Christian or believed in God, if not Orthodox Christians. You seem to want to paint the entire religion with the sins of Constantine. You are implying a principle of original sin to this, as if all subsequent theists bear the guilt of Constantine, and as if all subsequent churches must be totalitarian. 
4. "Scientists, philosophers, writers think for themselves and don't follow dogma". I'm not convinced that is reliable. It looks like you believe science is based on immutable empirical fact, and therefore people should draw the same conclusions as you. Logical positivists believed and promoted the dogma of immutable fact. To their credit, they gave up in failure, but science continues to give lip service to their dogma. The idea that science is based is immutable fact is a dogma that contributes to the very thing you abhor, namely, totalitarian thought control as in the next point......
5. Science textbooks often, and usually near the beginning, have a little section about "what is science, and/or what is the scientific method" Often these little sections outline the dogma of logical positivism/empiricism, only they don't usually label it as such, possibly for purposes of manipulation. They state explicitly or implicitly that science isn't about belief (faith) or values, only about immutable "empirical facts" as if,there actually was a criteria to filter out belief, faith, and values from "facts". They ignore the reality that science is theories, and that no theory can be absolutely proven. Such sections in textbooks seep uncritically into the minds of students whereupon they unconsciously have faith in the dogma of immutable fact. 
6. for myself, in highscool physics, chemistry, and even social science, I was subtly indoctrinated into a logical empiricist dogmatic view of immutable fact and I did t even know it. I mouthed the words of the dogma without being aware it was the convoluted metaphysics of logical positivism. I doubt the teachers who were doing it even knew it was dogmatic logical positivism, for they too were likely indoctrinated they way I was. It was only through pure luck that I later chose teachers who would expose and weed out the dogma that I had uncritically embraced. they did it by critiquing my writing and thinking: they did it by showing how I assigned a value to facts, how I ignored some facts that I devalued, but highlighted facts I preferred in order to draw a preconceived conclusion. They also did it by showing what I considered fact was tied to methods that were not proven to be infallible, hence my facts were tied to faith in the method. 
7. Upon abandoning my false faith in the fairy tale of immutable facts I became pluralistic, the enemy of a totalitarian mindset. That's why I tolerate differing views such as yours, while not uncritically accepting them. I use differing views to assess and refine my own. I think pluralism was made possible by the failure of science to found itself on evidence. that implies that a theory of science that promotes the idea of immutable fact could be inherently totalitarian. 
8. Supernatural Belief: Atheists seem to gravitate towards a logical empiricist dogma, possibly because it battled against belief and faith. Some atheists have proposed a theory of everything, apparently under the label of Naturalism. When the theory of everything comes to the issue of the origin of the material of the universe, they have two options: 1. material always existed, or 2. material created itself. Either way it is an unprovable assumption, which is the same thing as faith. Theists in the Jeudeo-Christian tradition look at the universe as see it as a creation. They typically and honestly declare it as faith, while atheists try to hide their faith in pseudo scientific lingo in order to prove their preconceived conclusion that they have no faith or beliefs. I suspect such linguistic manipulation bears the seeds of ideology, and if institutionalized, totalitarian. 
9. My confrontational language, such as "pseudo scientific" and "linguistic manipulation" is not intended to insult or degenerate, or say they are wrong and I'm right. It is to challenge atheists and those of a logical positivist bent to think more deeply and to develop their world view in a more coherent way. It is also to expose myself to critique, and possibly learn something to refine the articulation of my own world view.


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> Before you engage in further obfuscation of the bloody obvious (namely that the church enforced religious dogma which resulted in a step back in sciences), could we agree on three very simple facts:
> 
> - I did not say that Constantine burned his opponents. You lied about it.
> 
> - At no point did I say that Galileo was burned. You lied about it.
> 
> - I did not claim that Bertrand Russell was persecuted by the* Catholic* church. You lied about it.




You are trying to change your argument again. You said that the Church suppressed science. Now you have changed it to say that the Church enforced religious dogma which resulted in a step back in science. 

If I were to later say that you claimed that the Church suppressed science, would you call me a liar? (Redundant question. Of course you would. You throw around the word "liar" like gibor throws around the phrase antisemitic.)


----------



## olivaw

SMK said:


> He has a habit of making false accusations without any evidence. A basic recent example on this thread, I had commented how different Trudeau's reaction had been to the Boston bombings, and for that harmless and correct observation not based on opinion, he labelled me "an angry right-winger blaming Trudeau, the left, Islam and the CBC" for the Quebec terror attack. What does that say about him?
> 
> Who's the one that sounds like the angry left winger?


LOL What on earth made you think that my comment about "angry right wingers" had anything to do with your post? Are you going to follow me from thread to thread and accuse me of terrorism again?


----------



## olivaw

james4beach said:


> I've shifted my opinion about Trump's role in all that. I now think that Trump himself has been radicalized, or at least influenced, by extremist alt-right forces. He fits the profile for the kind of person who can fall for their nonsense.


Probably not. In the press conference the giveaway antisemitism question appeared to make him uncomfortable. (instead of condemning antisemitism, he accused the reporter of lying). He didn't want to alienate a portion of his support but it didn't appear that he harbours secret antisemitic thoughts or animosity towards non-whites. 

Trump has always appealed to white fear. There are well meaning Americans who are afraid of what will happen when whites become a minority. Trump appeals to them, not the supremacists and neo-nazis

The Hail Trump/Heil Trump guy doesn't think that Trump is one of their own. He admitted that he considers Trump to be something of a useful idiot. No doubt Trump considers him a useful idiot too.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Neither Christian fundamentalists nor Islamists or cargo cult worshippers or whatever get to define what "Jewish" means, whatever the crazies think.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism
> 
> Here is a dictionary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews.


Unless I missed somethng, the article you cited doesn't seem to make much of a genetic distinction from other people in the area, Arabs, for example.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Before you engage in further obfuscation of the bloody obvious (namely that the church enforced religious dogma which resulted in a step back in sciences), could we agree on three very simple facts:
> 
> - I did not say that Constantine burned his opponents. You lied about it.
> 
> - At no point did I say that Galileo was burned. You lied about it.
> 
> - I did not claim that Bertrand Russell was persecuted by the* Catholic* church. You lied about it.


It's possible that he misremembered. It isn't necessary that it is a lie. 
In the meantime I'm trying to get more detail on how Bertrand Russell was persecuted. Haven't found any coroboration yet, which doesn't mean it isn't history.


----------



## olivaw

Pluto said:


> It's possible that he misremembered. It isn't necessary that it is a lie.
> In the meantime I'm trying to get more detail on how Bertrand Russell was persecuted. Haven't found any coroboration yet, which doesn't mean it isn't history.


Could be me misunderstanding/misremember or ...

On Constantine:
#314 Mordko: _Regarding Constantine, yes he had a huge impact. Constantine's achievement wasn't just to murder his wife and son, but also to destroy ancient temples and to viciously persecute religious/ideological opposition_. 
#322 Mordko: _... except that Christianity became the state religion of the empire during the Constantine's rule. And Byzantium wasn't destroyed "by the Goth" yet there was no scientific development anywhere in Christendom at all until after the Turks sacked Constantinople 1000 years after the sacking of the Rome. [p] And the systematic burning and persecution and the destruction of ideas and the science by the state began at the point when Christianity became state religion. And the Catholic Church was directly responsible for the intolerance and the fires and the mass murders during the Middle Ages. They didn't just freeze the scientific development but turned the clock back. And it wasn't until the appearance of secularism and humanism during Renaissance that the classical scientific knowledge was rediscovered and the progress restarted._

On Burning Galileo, I may be mistaken but in post 411, Mordko is quoted as saying: _t was Christianity that applied totalitarian methods by burning anyone promoting the wrong model._ to which a different poster clarified for him that they did not burn Galileo. So I'll take that as an error on my part. 

On Bertrand Russell, see post #430 in which he included Bertrand Russell as part of _A very short selection of scientists, writers and philosophers persecuted by the Church_. So yeah, he didn't say the _Catholic Church_ , he said _the Church_ (capitalized). The entire thread had been about the Catholic Church in the time of Constantine and the middle ages and it was referred to as the Church (capitalized). Either way, my point was, and is, that Russell's inability to gain a teaching job in New York is hardly proof of years of oppression by the Catholic Church. 

These are not the core of my disagreement with mordko. My position was summed up in post #440. I believe that Mordko's argument lacks merit because it is based on incorrect facts and poor logic.


----------



## humble_pie

me i was thinking this thread was supposed to be a serious lament for an appalling national tragedy.

but whizzing through we can see how the regulars have managed to turn it into bathos & farce. Mordko insists that the millennium from 500 to 1500 AD was nothing but a giant pigsty in western europe, where clerics either burned things like books & people at stakes or else busied themselves writing the little they knew on the heads of pins.


somehow though we have works like the magnificent 7th century Lindisfarne Gospels, illuminated by celtic bishop Ealdrith of island-based lindisfarne abbey off the northumberland coast.

here, the bishop shows saints Matthew & John writing their gospels. The resemblance to what would later manifest as eastern orthodox church icons is striking.
.









.











.


----------



## james4beach

humble_pie said:


> me i was thinking this thread was supposed to be a serious lament for an appalling national tragedy.


Exactly. The thread was supposed to be a lament.

But you can see where some people's priorities lie. What an insult to not only the people killed, but also to muslims across Canada (and US) who continue to live in fear


----------



## mordko

"Live in fear"? Really? 

Terrorist attacks happen every single day. Yesterday there was an attempt at Heathrow. In January there were 100 attacks in Israel, 4 people murdered, many injured. What would that be on a " population adjusted basis"? 

Six people killed, Muslims appear to have been targeted. Terrible. Yet it's not a reason to condemn criticism of religion. Such laws don't help Muslims one bit. This week 72 people were murdered in Pakistan. Pakistan has blasphemy laws.


----------



## mordko

humble_pie said:


> me i was thinking this thread was supposed to be a serious lament for an appalling national tragedy.
> 
> but whizzing through we can see how the regulars have managed to turn it into bathos & farce. Mordko insists that the millennium from 500 to 1500 AD was nothing but a giant pigsty in western europe, where clerics either burned things like books & people at stakes or else busied themselves writing the little they knew on the heads of pins.
> 
> 
> somehow though we have works like the magnificent 7th century Lindisfarne Gospels, illuminated by celtic bishop Ealdrith of island-based lindisfarne abbey off the northumberland coast.
> 
> here, the bishop shows saints Matthew & John writing their gospels. The resemblance to what would later manifest as eastern orthodox church icons is striking.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


I note you posted a bunch of messages in this thread which had nothing to do with lamenting anything. Including the quote above. Can you possibly be any more hypocritical?


----------



## mordko

Pluto said:


> It's possible that he misremembered. It isn't necessary that it is a lie.


There is a difference between forgetting and making up. And when one makes up one thing... could be a genuine mistake. But his whole post was made up of multile and blatant lies.


----------



## james4beach

mordko said:


> "Live in fear"? Really?


You don't think Canadian and American muslims are living in fear?


----------



## mordko

They seem to be migrating into Canada at rapidly increasing rate, which makes me think that the answer is an emphatic "no". Like Jews have been intimidated in France (through multiple attacks over many years) but they are moving out rather than in.


----------



## wraphter

james4beach said:


> You don't think Canadian and American muslims are living in fear?


 

And Canadian and American non-muslims aren't living in fear?

And Parisians aren't living in fear?

Talk about misplaced priorities!

Time to mention Breivik, right?

You know, Breivik and Harper are the same ,that kind of stuff.


----------



## gibor365

james4beach said:


> You don't think Canadian and American muslims are living in fear?


Then why they are so eager to immigrate here?! No! They just using democratic system to their advantage!
P.S. Do you think that many Jews tried to immigrate to Germany in mid 30's?!


----------



## olivaw

The morphing of this thread followed a predictable path. The discussion about the suspect's involvement with online Islamophobic speech was answered with rejection of the term "Islamophobic" by certain posters. The further discussion about whether it was appropriate to assert one's free speech right to attack Islam became a discussion about whether it was appropriate to assert one's free speech right to attack any religion. One poster decided to assert his free speech right to attack the Catholic Church and Christianity. 

Of course, this is a national tragedy. To the extent that the thread was hijacked with side issues, we do the victims a disservice. However, I do think that we need to recognize that the shooter expressed his intolerance towards Islam in the most extreme manner. We can't know his heart and we can't know the effect of Islamophobia on his actions. We can know that he was not alone in his hatred of Muslims and Islam.


----------



## humble_pie

alexandre bissonnette is one of the few mass killers in canada to have survived. A silence is surrounding him now, although he was not even injured. Presumably the police have asked for that veil silence.

it's possible the authorities can learn a lot from the situation. Not just the simple stuff like How was bissonnette able to acquire an illegal weapon. But the haunting stuff like What are the triggers that can send someone over the top.

there is a certain eerie similarity to Marc Lepine, who shot 14 women engineering students to death at the Ecole Polytechnique 27 years ago. Lepine, who ordered the students to separate themselves by gender, openly told his victims that he was going to kill them because he believed that they, as women, had taken his rightful place in engineering school. 

alexander bissonnette is said to have also posted on social media about doors & opportunities being closed to young white males, as women, minorities & persons of colour take up jobs & places in organized Canadian society.

.


----------



## lonewolf :)

What is bad about the shooting is all the fake news that Canadians want open boarders & welcome Muslims. The media has gone crazy hating trump more then they wants to protect citizens. reporting Merkel is well like with her welcoming immigrants. Pretending Muslims are not destroying Europe. When the media has to lie the collapse of the civilization is not to far behind.


----------



## new dog

I was talking to someone today about Trump and these issues and he was on the side of James on this issue. A young Chinese Canadian we know who came here when he was 16 happened to walk over. He said I hope you don't take this the wrong way but he thinks Trump is right not to let in Muslims. He said he is concerned Muslims would try to force their ways if enough of them come to Canada. In fact I have heard this from a number of Chinese Canadians who quietly support what Trump is doing on this issue. Of course almost every eastern European I meet feel the same way as well. It seems only Canadians born in Canada feel bringing lots of them over is a good thing.


----------



## james4beach

humble_pie said:


> alexandre bissonnette is one of the few mass killers in canada to have survived. A silence is surrounding him now, although he was not even injured. Presumably the police have asked for that veil silence.
> 
> it's possible the authorities can learn a lot from the situation. Not just the simple stuff like How was bissonnette able to acquire an illegal weapon. But the haunting stuff like What are the triggers that can send someone over the top.


One thing we're going to learn is that even in Canada, there are many people (like Bissonnette) who are going nuts with their fear of Muslims and are gathering and whipping themselves up into a racist, and dangerous, frenzy. This doesn't happen in isolation. These are groups of people who are nudged towards this. We are going to discover that Bissonnette was in these circles, perhaps through online exposure.

This is called radicalization.

One of the groups protesting at a Toronto mosque on Friday was "Rise Canada", an anti-muslim group. It's an operation headed (bizarrely) by two Indian men who really really dislike Islam. Through archival histories of their web sites, you can find all kinds of cute articles from these charming men: http://web.archive.org/web/20150817022842/http://www.risecanada.com/#sthash.FTUXL9wz.dpbs

One of the posts there criticizes Olivia Chow and asks "WHY IS SHE EVEN ALLOWED INTO CANADA ???" -- nice. Classy!

Rise Canada also circulated this text just two weeks before the Quebec City shooting:


 "Islam must be resisted and eventually outlawed in Canada and every civilized nation."
 "RiseCanada.com will use every lawful tactic to have Islam de-listed by authorities as a religion."

This group also likes Trump and, in very Nazi-like fashion, believes that muslims are responsible for the downfall of society:

Rise Canada says: "DONALD TRUMP has correctly defined Islamic immigration as the key issue behind the destruction of civilized societies"

Poke around a bit and this is what you'll find. Unbalanced, nutty people shrieking and screaming about how muslims will destroy civilization and praising Trump.

Now here's the important part. Some of these nutty people, like Rise Canada, start regularly harassing muslims in real life. Unfortunately some really unstable minds might take it further, to acts of violence.


----------



## gibor365

> In fact I have heard this from a number of Chinese Canadians who quietly support what Trump is doing on this issue. Of course almost every eastern European I meet feel the same way as well. It seems only Canadians born in Canada feel bringing lots of them over is a good thing.


 my daughter's best friends are 2 Coptic girls, both were born here, and both (include their families) strongly opposed bringing here those refugees. Thet suffered enough from them in Egypt. And Canadian-born are too naive.
P.S. Those fake news media always trying to find some Jews who support bringing those refugees.... . What a BS! I've never met one Jew (and I know a lot of then) who welcome refugees


----------



## gibor365

james4beach said:


> One thing we're going to learn is that even in Canada, there are many people (like Bissonnette) who are going nuts with their fear of Muslims and are gathering and whipping themselves up into a racist, and dangerous, frenzy. This doesn't happen in isolation. These are groups of people who are nudged towards this. We are going to discover that Bissonnette was in these circles, perhaps through online exposure.
> 
> This is called radicalization.
> 
> One of the groups protesting at a Toronto mosque on Friday was "Rise Canada", an anti-muslim group. It's an operation headed (bizarrely) by two Indian men who really really dislike Islam.


_Sandra Solomon is an ex Muslim of Palestinian origin. She has lived in Israel as well as Saudi Arabia, is extremely well versed in Islamic texts and the Koran, as well as being fluent in Arabic. She has lectured in universities and think tanks on the dangers and hatred within Islam and the dire threat it poses to civilization._ 

Sandra Solomon is a brave woman
_Niece of top Arafat aide so loves Israel she had it tattooed on her backRamallah-born Sandra Solomon, a convert to Christianity, says her dream is to come to Israel, salute the flag; she ‘grew up in a home that hated the Jews, hailed Hitler and praised the Holocaust’_
http://www.timesofisrael.com/niece-...loves-israel-she-had-it-tattooed-on-her-back/


----------



## olivaw

new dog said:


> I was talking to someone today about Trump and these issues and he was on the side of James on this issue. A young Chinese Canadian we know who came here when he was 16 happened to walk over. He said I hope you don't take this the wrong way but he thinks Trump is right not to let in Muslims. He said he is concerned Muslims would try to force their ways if enough of them come to Canada. In fact I have heard this from a number of Chinese Canadians who quietly support what Trump is doing on this issue. Of course almost every eastern European I meet feel the same way as well. It seems only Canadians born in Canada feel bringing lots of them over is a good thing.


Tolerance, or the lack of it, have more to do with education and experience than ethnicity. Those with exposure to different cultures are far less fearful than those with limited exposure.


----------



## james4beach

One thing I've learned in recent years is that just because someone is Chinese, Indian, Jewish, Hungarian, whatever... doesn't mean they have any empathy towards a group that is being discriminated against.

The Japanese probably understand it a bit better because the internment camps and scapegoating of Japanese (in Canada & US) is so recent.


----------



## olivaw

The rise of the far right in Europe is of particular concern. In Germany, France and Sweden, the rhetoric is directed at Muslims. Jews are the target in Hungary. Greece appears to be entertaining Neo-Nazis. 

The far right hasn't developed a large presence in Britain, but the anti-immigrant sentiment that drove some voters to support Brexit suggests an appetite for the alt-right Message.

Fortunately, we have not yet allowed the voices of intolerance to dominate Canadian politics but those voices seem to be growing bolder by the day. 

We don't know if the Quebec shooter was inspired by the alt-right and Islamophobes. Hopefully we'll find out soon.


----------



## mordko

Eh... what? Jews were put into concentration camps in Canada at the exact same time as the Japanese. The fact you are ignorant of your own recent history may explain why you don't understand the present. 

And Jews were at the forefront of genuine anti-racist movements, like the US civil rights movement. 

Empathy for Saudi anti-blasphemy movement is something else entirely.


----------



## new dog

Japanese people are probably the most concerned with who comes into the country. They are polite and quiet people that will never forget you if you help them like a good neighbour but will feel the opposite if you cross them. I remember a new house going up on my dad's street and the Japanese neighbour was hoping that it wouldn't be sold to a Chinese person. I haven't talked to any of them about muslims but I would think they would be concerned about it.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Eh... what? Jews were put into concentration camps in Canada at the exact same time as the Japanese. The fact you are ignorant of your own recent history may explain why you don't understand the present.


Are you sure it was a "concnetration camp"? Are you trying to imply it was built specifically for the Jews? did the Jews who stayed there call it a "concentration camp"?


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> These are not the core of my disagreement with mordko. My position was summed up in post #440. I believe that Mordko's argument lacks merit because it is based on incorrect facts and poor logic.


Partly, but it is deeper than facts and logic. It is his religious faith in his worldview that contributes to the assumptions of his logic, and contributes to deselecting and/or devaluing facts that don't comport well with his faithful adherence to his world view.


----------



## mordko

^ None of the above matters one bit. It's more irrelevant obfuscation. What matters is that Jews were placed into concentration camps in Canada during WWII, just as the Japanese were.


----------



## SMK

olivaw said:


> LOL *What on earth made you think that my comment about "angry right wingers" had anything to do with your post?* Are you going to follow me from thread to thread and *accuse me of terrorism again?*


LOL, you're a big time fabricator, mordko is right about that.

As a matter of fact, it is you who follows me around. I hardly ever respond to any of your comments, except when you attack me. 

When you gave your angry response filled with lies about what I had said, I had been the only one who had mentioned *Trudeau* and gave link of a *CBC* interview. 

What I said.



SMK said:


> Regardless of who the terrorists were, it's very sad and shocking for Canada. Interesting how *Trudeau* was able to correctly call this an act of terror, but not when 3 people were killed and hundreds injured in Boston. Trudeau's response to the Boston bombings hours and even days after it happened, was wrong. Those that are not convinced can compare his reaction and judge for themselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XRO4UGSiQo





olivaw said:


> Now is not the time for the *angry right wingers of CMF to blame Trudeau*, the left, Islam *and the CBC.*


 So yea, what on earth made me think you were attacking me when you picked isolated words from my quote? 

As noted from the beginning of this thread, like most Canadians I happen to think that *Trudeau's correct response to the Quebec terror attack* was very important as he seemed to have learned from the wide criticism he received for his ignorant response to the Boston bombings, and that's the reason why I had mentioned that event, so it was praising rather than criticizing Trudeau. Even after your personal attack, I did not respond in kind and simply denied your accusations.


SMK said:


> No one has done that.


And how did I accuse you of terrorism here or anywhere else? Why don't you ever quote as evidence? Another blatant lie of yours. You have a habit of labelling members, not just mordko and me, but Andrewf and others.


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> ^ None of the above matters one bit. It's more irrelevant obfuscation. What matters is that Jews were placed into concentration camps in Canada during WWII, just as the Japanese were.


"Concentration" camp is not the right word. A concentration camp is


> a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz.


The Jewish immigrants were not selected for extermination in Canada as in Germany. These were internment camps. Sometimes the Jews were housed in the same camps as German POWs. There was a fear that some of them were spies. It was Churchill who ordered the Jews to be interned.

More significantly, Jews were denied entry into Canada before and during WWII and so many of them perished.

This is the argument put forward now by pro-immigration advocates. Don't do to the Islamic refugees what you did
to the Jewish.


----------



## bgc_fan

mordko said:


> ^ None of the above matters one bit. It's more irrelevant obfuscation. What matters is that Jews were placed into concentration camps in Canada during WWII, just as the Japanese were.


Since you didn't actually provide any links to what you are referring to. I can only assume you are making reference to the fact that Canada had interned Jews with other people that Britain had expelled in World War II. So if I get the story correct, Jews were fleeing Austria and Germany at the lead up and beginning of WWII and found themselves in Britain looking for refugee status, but rounded up as enemy aliens. Britain thought that they could pose potential danger so sent them to Canada to be held here. Of course Canada was expecting POWs, so they prepared accordingly. The Wikipedia article talks about a total of 2300 people being interned, with the majority being Jewish, so they don't break it down that way. 

It might be worth noting that there is a bit of a difference treating aliens who were deemed to be dangerous to national security (as by Britain), vs Canadian citizens (just because). Not to mention that the 21,000 Canadians of Japanese descent also had all their property confiscated and sold and then round up into concentration camps.

Unless you have some sort of link that Canadians of Jewish descent were round up, had their property confiscated, and sent off to concentration camps, then there is quite a difference between these situations.

But since you seem to be quite indignant about refugees fleeing a situation where they stood a chance of being killed and then deported to another country where they were held in segregated camps. I'm sure you support the idea that Syrian refugees should be relocated to Canada and allowed to integrate into society.


----------



## mordko

1. During WWII Jews were a persecuted minority.
2. Canadian government which was full of virulent antisemites imprisoned large numbers of Jews in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities to provide forced labour. 
3. Jews were placed in concentration camps in Canada



> The Jewish immigrants were not selected for extermination in Canada as in Germany.


Several mistakes here: 
- Not a single extermination camp was located in Germany.
- Concentration camps and death/extermination camps -> not the same thing. Neither Soviet nor German concentration camps were designed primarily for extermination. 

The basic point I was making was that contrary to what one of the ignorant commentators stated, Jews in Canada were treated just as badly as the Japanese at the same time. Simple, strictly factual point. 



> Don't do to the Islamic refugees what you did to the Jewish.


Yes, this ignorant point is often made. The reality is that the vast majority of Muslims arriving to Canada are not refugees in a sense that they are not coming from places were their lives are under threat. Turkey or UN camps in the Middle East are not the places were Muslims are being murdered for being Muslim - or at all. There are indeed some cases, e.g. when opponents of Mullahs are coming from Saudi Arabia or Iran or gays from Muslim countries... Refuge absolutely should be provided to these individuals.


----------



## mordko

Wow. Bgc_fan justifies placing Jews fleeing Nazi Germany into concentration camps by the virulently Antisemitic Canadian government of the day. Apparently "it's different just because". Just wow.


----------



## mordko

The real difference, of course, was that not one of the interned Jews was a threat or had any reason to have sympathy for the country that Canada was at war with. Not even hypothetically. One and only reason for placing Jews into concentration camps in Canada was state racism. Apparently that's ok just because.


----------



## mordko

Let me guess... the support I am seeing here for the Antisemitic actions of the past Canadian government is coming from liberal supporters. Just a wild guess, could be NDP.


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> Let me guess... the support I am seeing here for the Antisemitic actions of the past Canadian government is coming from liberal supporters. Just a wild guess, could be NDP.


^Absolute nonsense this. Not one poster expressed pride or support for Japanese and refugee internment camps in World War II. 

Perhaps we've learned from the mistakes of the past. We won't listen to scaremongers as readily .... or perhaps not.


----------



## SMK

james4beach said:


> Exactly. *The thread was supposed to be a lament.* But you can see where some people's priorities lie. What an insult to not only the people killed, but also to muslims across Canada (and US) who continue to live in fear


Firstly, the thread went off-topic, but that does not show in any way any disrespect for the victims of the Quebec terror attack. 

Secondly, you're not being sincere but an utter hypocrite as your motive for posting was hardly to lament the victims. While others expressed immediate sadness, *you did not in any of the postings*. You saw the victims as mere numbers, it's all you talked about, and in a warped manner even compared it to the number of deaths in other countries to sort of prove your point that the Quebec "white right-wing extremist terrorist" was the worst of all. Shame on you.

Your initial posts -



james4beach said:


> Breaking news. 6 dead, shot at a mosque by _multiple_ gunmen.





james4beach said:


> They've arrested two suspects, so this is _organized_. Not a lone gunman thing. On a population-adjusted basis, it's about as major a terrorist attack as the Orlando nightclub shooting





james4beach said:


> Death count is up to 6 now.


*You in fact did just that, attributed immediate blame to white terrorists in your initial post below, but took that part out about 7 hours later when by that time no suspects had yet been identified.*



james4beach said:


> I didn't want to mis attribute the attack until I learned more about who caused it. My comment about the Orlando attack is based on death count. 6 deaths population adjusted is about the same as 50 deaths in a US terrorist attack. The comparison is not a comment on who is Muslim or not, but on the magnitude of the event. That means that the Quebec attack is about as major as the Orlando nightclub shooting.





james4beach said:


> This is the most fatal terrorist attack in Canadian history since the Air India bombing in 1985, I think


You did not express sadness in any of your posts, that was never your goal. You've shown the most disrespect of all.


----------



## bgc_fan

mordko said:


> Wow. Bgc_fan justifies placing Jews fleeing Nazi Germany into concentration camps by the virulently Antisemitic Canadian government of the day. Apparently "it's different just because". Just wow.


Wow, that's a real stretch. Take everything out of context and say that I justify it. 

State where I justified it. What I said is that the situation between the internment of aliens is different then interning citizens.

If you bothered to read any of the links, most of those those interned from Europe were released within 3 years. Conversely, for the Japanese Canadians didn't get back full citizenship rights until 1949, and I doubt you'd find that any had sympathies for Japan or have any hypothetical danger.

Was interning what Britain expelled bad? Yes, but then they did have to sort through who actually were Nazi sympathizers and victims because Britain sent them in a batch. You know, to screen out who might be a danger. Funny, this is the same argument against Syrian refugees, but you still didn't answer the question whether you agree with it.


----------



## olivaw

SMK said:


> As a matter of fact, it is you who follows me around. I hardly ever respond to any of your comments, except when you attack me


If that's what you think, then let's agree not to interact. I promise that I will not follow you from thread to thread. Perhaps you'll promise the same. :encouragement:


----------



## wraphter

james4beach said:


> Exactly. The thread was supposed to be a lament. But you can see where some people's priorities lie. What an insult to not only the people killed, but also to muslims across Canada (and US) who continue to live in fear


 I am indifferent to the deaths of these Muslims in Quebec City. I don't care. I find the discussion of Constantine, Christianity and science
very interesting. 

Your efforts to make us feel guilty aren't working.


----------



## olivaw

wraphter said:


> I am indifferent to the deaths of these Muslims in Quebec City. I don't care. I find the discussion of Constantine, Christianity and science
> very interesting.


Indifferent? Not even a hint of compassion for the tragedy that this community suffered? Six dead, 19 injured, six widows, and 17 orphans. 

http://montrealgazette.com/news/que...uneral-held-for-last-3-victims-in-quebec-city


----------



## SMK

wraphter said:


> I am indifferent to the deaths of these Muslims in Quebec City. I don't care. I find the discussion of Constantine, Christianity and science
> very interesting.
> 
> Your efforts to make us feel guilty aren't working.


That's heartless but brutally honest, unlike the masquerader and author of this thread.


----------



## wraphter

So now m-103 is being debated in Parliament and will soon be passed. It calls for the government to denounce "Islamophobia" and to do research
on the best ways to prevent it.

It could result in a bill restricting freedom of speech regarding Islam. This is not a good thing. No doubt certain members here would applaud such restrictions. 

Here is the latest radical Islamist attack in Pakistan.
http://www.rferl.org/a/pakistan-clo...der-crossing-sufi-shrine-attack/28317441.html



> A February 16 attack at the Lal Shahbaz Qalander shrine in the city of Sehwan killed 88 people and wounded more than 100. The bombing was claimed by the Islamic State (IS) extremist group.
> 
> Pakistan closed the border at the Torkham crossing hours after the bombing, a senior army official said.
> 
> Torkham connects Pakistan to Afghanistan's Nangarhar Province and Chaman is located near Spin Boldak in Kandahar.
> 
> Pakistani security forces have launched nationwide operations against alleged terrorists since the shrine bombing and claim to have killed more than 100 in that effort.


How soon before an Islamist attack in Canada grabs the headlines?


----------



## gibor365

> More significantly, Jews were denied entry into Canada before and during WWII and so many of them perished.


 Exactly! Some time ago I published article that just after WWII for Nazi criminals were much easier to come to Canada than for Holocaust survivors... "None is too many" was Canada's politics toward Jews.



> Anti-Semitism was not limited to one province; it existed - indeed thrived - elsewhere in Canada. In English Canada such organizations as the Social Credit Party, the Orange Order and the Native Sons of Canada were rife with anti-Jewish sentiment. For Canadian Jews in the 1920s and 1930s, quotas and restrictions were a way of life. Many industries did not hire Jews; educational institutions such as universities and professional schools discriminated against them. Jewish doctors could not get hospital appointments. There were no Jewish judges, and Jewish lawyers were excluded from most firms. There were scarcely any Jewish teachers, and Jewish nurses, engineers and architects had to hide their identity to find jobs in their fields.
> Furthermore, there were restrictive covenants on properties preventing them from being sold to Jews. As well, many clubs, resorts and beaches were barred to Jews. Signs warning "No Jews or Dogs Allowed" or "Christians Only!" could be found on Halifax golf courses, outside hotels in the Laurentians and throughout the cottage areas of Ontario, the lake country of Manitoba and the vacation lands of BC.


http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anti-semitism/



> while many nations were complicit in the Holocaust for their refusal to admit Jewish refugees during the Nazi era, the Canadian government did less than other Western countries to help Jewish refugees between 1933 and 1948. The most infamous example of Canada's immigration policy was the refusal to admit the MS St. Louis, a German ocean liner carrying refugees. Only 5,000 Jewish refugees entered Canada from 1933 until 1945, which the book argues was the worst of any refugee receiving nation in the world.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> ^ None of the above matters one bit. It's more irrelevant obfuscation. What matters is that Jews were placed into concentration camps in Canada during WWII, just as the Japanese were.


Given the reason Churchill had, I'm glad they did that. And your typifying it as a "concentration camp" is sickening and insulting.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> The morphing of this thread followed a predictable path. The discussion about the suspect's involvement with online Islamophobic speech was answered with rejection of the term "Islamophobic" by certain posters. The further discussion about whether it was appropriate to assert one's free speech right to attack Islam became a discussion about whether it was appropriate to assert one's free speech right to attack any religion. One poster decided to assert his free speech right to attack the Catholic Church and Christianity.
> 
> Of course, this is a national tragedy. To the extent that the thread was hijacked with side issues, we do the victims a disservice. However, I do think that we need to recognize that the shooter expressed his intolerance towards Islam in the most extreme manner. We can't know his heart and we can't know the effect of Islamophobia on his actions. We can know that he was not alone in his hatred of Muslims and Islam.


Bissonette is not an Islamophobe, a meaningless term. He is an anti-Muslim bigot, murderer and terrorist.


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> One thing I've learned in recent years is that just because someone is Chinese, Indian, Jewish, Hungarian, whatever... doesn't mean they have any empathy towards a group that is being discriminated against.
> 
> The Japanese probably understand it a bit better because the internment camps and scapegoating of Japanese (in Canada & US) is so recent.


The most openly racist people I have met have been Chinese. I have heard some really appalling comments about black people from them. I guess they thought it was okay to say these things to me because I am white.


----------



## gibor365

Pluto said:


> And your typifying it as a "concentration camp" is sickening and insulting.


Internment camps for Jews in Canada is known fact. For example
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ttleknown_piece_of_new_brunswick_history.html

Internment camps are the same as Concentration camps. Search wikipedia for 2nd and you will be redirected to 1st


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> 1. During WWII Jews were a persecuted minority.


I'm sure most Canadian's are aware of this. 

Reportedly, the camp that the Jews were in was origionally built in the 1930's for unemployed men. They were homeless, starving and freezing to death due to the unemployment of the depression. They were given work, food and shelter, but I'm told it was very sparten. 

Suddenly, once Jewish refugees were housed there, according to you, it became a "concentration camp". Given the implcations of the term "concentration camp" I think you exaggerate. 

Many Canadians were conscripted to fight, meaning they had no choice, so the fact that the Jewish refuge's freedom of mobility was restricted for a time is a moot point. compare the "faclities" that Canadian infantry got on the front lines to the "facilites" of the Jews in that camp got, and I say the Jewish camp was like a holiday camp.


----------



## Pluto

wraphter said:


> So now m-103 is being debated in Parliament and will soon be passed. It calls for the government to denounce "Islamophobia" and to do research
> on the best ways to prevent it.
> 
> It could result in a bill restricting freedom of speech regarding Islam. This is not a good thing. No doubt certain members here would applaud such restrictions.


Freedom of expression in Canada has never been absolute freedom, and I don't think it should be. It remains to be seen but I doubt Muslim's will get protection from hate speech that exceeds what other groups have. 

I don't think it means you can't critique Islam, rather it seems to mean you can't engage in hate speech.


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> Bissonette is not an Islamophobe, a meaningless term. He is an anti-Muslim bigot, murderer and terrorist.


Meaningless? - hardly. Vague? - debatable.


----------



## new dog

wraphter said:


> I am indifferent to the deaths of these Muslims in Quebec City. I don't care. I find the discussion of Constantine, Christianity and science
> very interesting.
> 
> Your efforts to make us feel guilty aren't working.


This is a terrible thing to say about some innocent Canadians being killed.

If this happened in my community I would be horrified to have my community touched by something like this.

I am for a strong Canada and all the citizens of this country are a part of it. I am also in favour of bringing in smart professional people that will help our country. I am against muslims immigrating here in big numbers because of how they can weaken our country and cause problems as i have said here many times.


----------



## olivaw

Pluto said:


> Freedom of expression in Canada has never been absolute freedom, and I don't think it should be. It remains to be seen but I doubt Muslim's will get protection from hate speech that exceeds what other groups have.
> 
> I don't think it means you can't critique Islam, rather it seems to mean you can't engage in hate speech.


I generally oppose hate speech laws. It is better to combat bad ideas with words than coercion. My concern is that it can be difficult to determine when criticism crosses the line into hate speech. *William Whatnot*  believed that he was involved in religious expression when he created anti-Gay fliers. SCOC held that Saskatchewan could ban speech that is “likely to expose” certain groups to hatred. 



> “The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm,”


But if we are going to have hate speech laws, I agree. Protections must be identical for everybody.


----------



## james4beach

new dog said:


> I am against muslims immigrating here in big numbers because of how they can weaken our country and cause problems


The same thing was said about Jews
The same thing was said about Italians
The same thing was said about Ukrainians
The same thing is said about the Roma in Europe
The same thing is said about Africans in Europe
The same thing is said about Polish in Europe and UK

You're just joining today's bandwagon and beating up on the unpopular group of today -- muslims. In a few decades, society will look back on you and ... newsflash ... they're not going to call you a brave patriot or a hero.

They're going to call you a racist, the same thing we say about people who said that our country shouldn't accept Jews because of how they can weaken our country and cause problems


----------



## new dog

So where are the Jews that are going to try force their ways on me? Where are the Jews in Canada that are trying to blow up and shoot things? Where are the Jews that create no go zones like they have in Europe and Sweden? Where are the Jews that are going to just walk in illegally and suck off the system? Muslim countries are almost all complete failures and wherever they go in numbers they cause big problems for countries and if they were to become the majority the country would become a failure.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> There are problematic passages in any old text, but for historical reasons parts Quran and various Hadiths do have a particularly strong emphasis on violence, paedophilia, subjugation of unbelievers, etc. That is true and these passages are the basis of modern Islamism.
> 
> Then again, the most violent, sick and disgusting concept I have come across is the eternal torture by fire of those who don't believe in Jesus, which is rather vividly depicted in the Bible.
> 
> As for Islam's identification with violence, so did Christianity for many centuries. Things can and do change over time, that's what reformation is all about.


I don't really know where you get this eternal torture by fire. In the Old Testament era they didn't believe in eternal life. However they did use metaphors for pureifying people - by purifying I mean teaching, and the usual means of socilizing children and dealing with criminals.
Telling the story of the flood where the impure were swept away, is similiar to today when parents might tell their children, get educated, get a job, be a good person, obey the rules or else you will end up a loser or worse, in jail. Similarily with the metaphor of seperating the wheat from the chaff. it is a process where the pure (the good) gets seperated from the impure (losers). Also in the OT some writer or writers used a similar metaphor , namley applying heat by fire to ore to obtain the pure metal. It is a metaphor that means socialzing people. They didn't mean torturing people with fire.
By New Testament times they believed in everlasing life and the metaphor of fire comes up, but it is used metaphorically and symbolically in the tradition of the Old Testament era metaphors.

Taking metaphors literally, thereby not understading them, and then labeling them disgusting, and sick, and violent is a flawed method that results in false conclusions.


----------



## james4beach

new dog said:


> So where are the Jews that are going to try force their ways on me? Where are the Jews in Canada that are trying to blow up and shoot things? Where are the Jews that create no go zones like they have in Europe and Sweden? Where are the Jews that are going to just walk in illegally and suck off the system? Muslim countries are almost all complete failures and wherever they go in numbers they cause big problems for countries and if they were to become the majority the country would become a failure.


Have you ever read about how Americans and Canadians treated Italians? They were accused of all the same things ... dirty ghettos of Italians. Weird dangerous cultural habits (they just don't share our values!). Riddled with crime. Dirty, scary Italians lingering behind every corner, going to hurt us!! And what a failure of a country, Italy, do we really want to import all their horrible habits?

Europeans have just about always had the same gripes about immigrants from Africa and other poor countries.


----------



## james4beach

In fact, I get so bored reading and hearing the same racist epithets said about every other historically disliked immigrant group.

I challenge you, new dog: come up with something original! Come up with an original complaint about muslims, something that the historians will look back and say... wow this guy 'new dog', he wasn't just another xenophobe, he really had a NEW and UNIQUE angle to his fear.

Because all this other stuff about dangerous cultural practices, not sharing our values, threatening our women, and being riddled with crime... it's just so boring. And we've heard it before over hundreds of years of immigration for so many different groups.

Heck, Americans still say all this about black people after 400 years because they still can't handle the idea of black people in their society! Bo-oring!


----------



## new dog

I didn't live during the time the Italians came over but if they were riddled with crime and mafia I sure wouldn't have wanted them here. As for treating people poorly I do disagree with people doing this because you could be treating someone who doesn't deserve it poorly. I also don't want to see illegal immigrants in the country as well.

If you want excitement however then open the floodgate and let them in like Europe and I can assure you that you won't be bored. 

By the way if you read my comment above I said I was horrified by the killing of innocent Canadians who in this case happens to be Muslims.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> Meaningless? - hardly. Vague? - debatable.


Islam or Muslims, indeed. One can have sympathy or compassion for people, while disliking the ideas they believe. It's like saying people who are anti-cult hate the victims of said cult. This is why the term is worse than meaningless, it is actively unhelpful.


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> As for Islam's identification with violence, so did Christianity for many centuries.


The Old Testament has many violent passages. For some reason you did not mention them.

The Israelites conquer the Canaanites and take their land with God's approval. David commits adultery with another man's wife and then sends him to the front where he is killed. The plagues inflicted upon the Egyptians , including the death of the firstborn are rather nasty.
The Israelites are spared by putting a mark on their door. The penalty for adultery was stoning I believe. Sodom and Gommorah was destroyed because the inhabitants were engaging in homosexuality.

From the 10 Commandments



> You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_violence



> Make ready to slaughter the infidel’s sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and possess the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.[24]
> 
> 
> Then I heard God say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.”[25]
> 
> 
> Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.[26]
> 
> 
> If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.


If Israel will follow God's ways, they will be rewarded by success in battle. That is a major theme of the Old Testament.


----------



## gibor365

> I didn't live during the time the Italians came over


 me 2  ,james likes to bring "Italians" in different threads, but I doubt that in Canada was popular sign "No dogs or Italians",that Italians was kept in concentration camps etc.
Also were those Italian refugees or independent immigrants?


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> Islam or Muslims, indeed. One can have sympathy or compassion for people, while disliking the ideas they believe. It's like saying people who are anti-cult hate the victims of said cult. This is why the term is worse than meaningless, it is actively unhelpful.


Islamophobia is defined as _Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force._ It's a word that describes a real thing. Neither helpful nor unhelpful until put into context. 

The House of Commons unanimously agreed to *condemn Islamophobia* last October. What's with the sudden refusal to recognize the term?


----------



## andrewf

Dislike of Islam and dislike of Muslims are two entirely different things. An analogous term would be addictophobia, a dislike or prejudice against addiction or addicts. I don't know how I can make this any clearer for you. Islamophobia is used as a weapon to silence criticism of Islam to make those critics seem like bigots.


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> Dislike of Islam and dislike of Muslims are two entirely different things. An analogous term would be addictophobia, a dislike or prejudice against addiction or addicts. I don't know how I can make this any clearer for you. Islamophobia is used as a weapon to silence criticism of Islam to make those critics seem like bigots.


Islamophobia does not mean _criticism of Islam_. It means _prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force_. Why attack the word instead of the problem? 

Your argument appears to be that the word might be used inappropriately so it should never be used. Words like homophobia, xenophobia, antisemite, SJW can be misused too. Let's not try to create virtual safe-spaces by limiting words.


----------



## wraphter

olivaw said:


> Islamophobia does not mean criticism of Islam. It means prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force. Why attack the word instead of the problem?





> “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
> 
> The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
> 
> “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”


.........Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There by Lewis Carroll.

Obama wouldn't even use the term "radical Islam" lest he provoke a backlash.(I heard Van Jones on CNN use the term "whitelash" once.)

Merkel brought a case against a German comedian for making a joke about Erdogan. The case collapsed.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...h-after-collapse-of-case-against-german-come/



> Angela Merkel is facing a backlash following the collapse of a criminal case her government authorised against one of Germany’s most popular comedians for insulting the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
> 
> Jan Böhmermann lashed out at Mrs Merkel’s government in his first public comments since prosecutors announced this week they were dropping the case against him for lack of evidence.
> 
> “If a joke causes a constitutional crisis, it’s not the joke that’s the problem, it’s the state,” Mr Böhmermann said.
> Although the 35-year-old did not mention Mrs Merkel by name, the remark was clearly aimed at her government’s decision to allow the prosecution under Germany’s rarely invoked lese-majeste law.
> 
> His lawyer went further, accusing Mrs Merkel of prejudicing the case against him.


Salman Rushdie comments about the erosion of free speech and the term "Islamophobia".

http://www.frontpagemag.com/



> Meanwhile, the BBC has been instructed we are told that the term “Islamic terrorist” can’t be used because it discriminates against Muslims. Never mind that all the terrorists who claim to be acting in the name of Islam tell us that it is Islam that is their motivation, the BBC can’t say that they’re Islamic terrorists because that’s now this new crime of what’s called “Islamophobia.” I mean I just have some problem with the word because it seems to me if you have a set of ideas which I don’t like, it’s perfectly OK for me to be phobic about them. There were plenty of people who seemed to have no problem being phobic about mine but, you know, “Salmanophobia” didn’t enter the language somehow




M-103 could lead to a law which would stifle speech on the internet. Who knows what will happen?


----------



## olivaw

The definition of Islamophobia above was courtesy Oxford, not an egg. Obama isn't a Canadian MP. Neither is Merkel. 

I am not terribly worried by M-103. It's a motion, not a bill. It won't stifle speech. It won't become law. It does not compel Cabinet to act.


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> The Old Testament has many violent passages. For some reason you did not mention them.


If you reread what I had said, you may discover the reason. I wasn't talking about violent legends. I was talking about religious dogma used to support the actual violence on a massive scale, like when the heretics used to be burned at the stake or Crusades. Christianity reformed itself (for the most part), there is no reason Islam can't do the same, regardless of the text in the Quran.


----------



## mordko

andrewf said:


> Dislike of Islam and dislike of Muslims are two entirely different things. An analogous term would be addictophobia, a dislike or prejudice against addiction or addicts. I don't know how I can make this any clearer for you. Islamophobia is used as a weapon to silence criticism of Islam to make those critics seem like bigots.


Very clear and precise.


----------



## mordko

The word "islamophobia" was invented by Muslim Brotherhood and heavily promoted internationally by the Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia.

It is in countries like KSA, Iran and Pakistan where we have seen Islamophobia laws in action. Raif Badawi, a secular blogger was imprisoned and flogged for posts criticizing Mullahs and promoting tolerance. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5916/raif-badawi-saudi-justice


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> Islamophobia does not mean _criticism of Islam_. It means _prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force_. Why attack the word instead of the problem?
> 
> Your argument appears to be that the word might be used inappropriately so it should never be used. Words like homophobia, xenophobia, antisemite, SJW can be misused too. Let's not try to create virtual safe-spaces by limiting words.


You mean, prejudice or *dislike*. One can reasonably say that a critic of something dislikes it. Therefore all critics of Islam can be described as Islamophobes. And because of its mushy definition, all critics of Islam and all anti-Muslim bigots can conveniently be bucketed under the umbrella term Islamophobe. Please explain to me where I have misused the definition of the term you provided.


----------



## SMK

mordko said:


> The word "islamophobia" was invented by Muslim Brotherhood


Prior to 9/11 the word was hardly ever used never mind understood, but it may have been invented in the 70s by Iranian fundamentalists according to French writer Pascal Bruckner. https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...minister-manuel-valls-on-islamophobia/384592/

Those who scream loudest about Islamophobia, like the Liberal MP who recently blamed the Conservatives for the Quebec terror attack, or the MP who authored the M-103 motion, how loud did they scream and vote about other issues? For example, were they 2 of the majority members who initially voted against the Conservative motion to declare ISIS atrocities as genocide? How about the Minister of Heritage Melanie Joly, how did she vote on that issue? The Liberal party so concerned with justice and so called defenders of human rights needed a lot of convincing by the UN before allowing said motion to pass. You would think the members never heard about ISIS atrocities before 2016. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=54247#.WKsaA_K85AM

Do terrorists ever get blamed for Islamophobia?


----------



## Spudd

I googled "no-go zones Sweden" and found an article in RT.com that referenced an article in Expressen (a Swedish newspaper). I clicked through to the Expressen article and found a lot of high-strung hand-wringing about crime and immigrants in a particular shopping centre. But almost at the end of the article they had this information (translated using Google Translate):



> During the past five years, since 2012, the number of reported crimes inside the shopping center increased 2890-3250.
> Theft crimes have increased during the period, and particularly it is the cases of pickpocketing, which increased. Meanwhile, violent crimes decreased and police analyst Thomas Pettersson says that collectively can not see any drastic deterioration for the worse in the shopping center.


It also says in the article that gangs of kids hanging out there has been a problem for many years. (And part of the problem is apparently the mall is not allowed to close except between 12-6am, although the stores start closing at 8pm, so it's a great warm indoor unsupervised space for kids to hang out.) I don't see how this is any different from say Jane/Finch in Toronto or the east side of Vancouver. So Sweden has a few spots where there is higher crime than elsewhere. Big deal. So do we.


----------



## mordko

> Prior to 9/11 the word was hardly ever used never mind understood, but it may have been invented in the 70s by Iranian fundamentalists according to French writer Pascal Bruckner. https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...phobia/384592/


Interesting. Here is the claim that the term was first promoted by the Institute for Islamic Thought (which is a front for MB): http://www.investigativeproject.org/2217/moderate-muslim-speak-out-on-capitol-hill#

Bruckner is probably a more accurate source.

In any case, Saudi Arabia/Pakistan and Iran have all been very active in promoting the "Islamophobia" blasphemy laws.

Saudi-based Organizaiton of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) regularly publishes reports on Islamophobia (http://ww1.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/islamphobia_rep_may_07_08.pdf) and Pakistan/Saudis are promoting it at the UN via the "human rights" commission, which is dominated by totalitarian regimes. Recently the new head of UN claimed that Islamophobia causes terrorism - of course he chose Saudi Arabia as the best place to make the statement.


----------



## mordko

CBC has been all over the demonstration that took place last week in front of the Toronto Mosque. By a lucky coincidence that is the exact Mosque where I got my Hizb-ut-Tahrir leaflets explaining how nasty Jews and Christians really are and how Muslims shouldn't be "ruled" by them. 

CIJ News has extracts from hateful propaganda and calls for violence which emanate from Mullahs inside that same Mosque: http://en.cijnews.com/?p=207226

CBC and the Liberal government do not seem all that bothered about the Islamist calls for racist violence: https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/02/...ly-get-serious-about-addressing-antisemitism/


----------



## SMK

mordko said:


> Recently the new head of UN claimed that Islamophobia causes terrorism - of course he chose Saudi Arabia as the best place to make the statement.


Yea, it's not radical Islam that causes Islamophobia says the former socialist PM of Portugal. 

Ban Ki-moon looks good in comparison already.


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> You mean, prejudice or *dislike*. One can reasonably say that a critic of something dislikes it. Therefore all critics of Islam can be described as Islamophobes. And because of its mushy definition, all critics of Islam and all anti-Muslim bigots can conveniently be bucketed under the umbrella term Islamophobe. Please explain to me where I have misused the definition of the term you provided.


The definition I used came from Oxford. It said _prejudice_, not _dislike_. Collins defines it as _hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture_. Atlantic wrote a reasonably balanced article about the term in 2014. 



> Nathan Lean isn't enthusiastic about the term, but he hasn't come across a better alternative. “Do some people use the word ‘Islamophobia’ irresponsibly? Sure,” he said. “Does that mean that the word is bad on the whole or that we should ditch it? Absolutely not. Doing so denies the existence of a real threat facing Muslim communities by handicapping the way we talk, write, and think about it. It also prevents [us] from finding a more equitable way forward.”


---

Do you really need me to explain that you misused the term by painting with too broad a brush?


----------



## olivaw

More to the topic, *Quebec mosques are already dealing with the aftermath of this hate crime*. 



> From hiring security guards to installing close-circuit cameras, Montreal area mosques are looking for ways to ensure worshippers feel safe following the attack in Quebec City that left six men dead..


----------



## Pluto

gibor365 said:


> Exactly! Some time ago I published article that just after WWII for Nazi criminals were much easier to come to Canada than for Holocaust survivors... "None is too many" was Canada's politics toward Jews.
> 
> 
> http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anti-semitism/


I believe you that there were and are antisemetic people in Canada. I'm not convinced that the government was inherently antisemetic. The article you cite states the leaders of Canada "..saw Jews as city people in a country that wished to build up its rural base." They wanted rural types, not city types, and that is discriminating, but isn't bigotry. 

Even today the Canadian Government has criteria for the type of people it wants for immigrants, and it is quite possible that the type they don't want and were denied, perished recently. 

It is somewhat analogous to you having the authority to invite who you want into your house, and decline those you don't want. did you ever read an article about some homless individual who perished on the streets? Did you think if only I had invited them into my house they wouldn't have perished? The fact that you didn't save that last guy who died on the streets, doesn't make you a bigot. 

It is true that Jews were turned away at the ports of many nations in the 1930's but that doesn't prove the governemnt had a policy based in hate. I doubt they had any idea how bad it was going to get. 

I was unaware that Jews encountered so much hostility in the earlier years of Canada. That is sad. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. 

I think we need to be careful about how facts to prove bigotry are formed, as facts do not exist all by themselves in a vacuum. Context to observations helps to put observations into perspective. To wit, the camp Jews were given in Canada, was reportedly previously used for Canadian homless unemployed men. so if we thsay the faclities prove anti semitism, what does that make of the homelss Canadain men? 

The enemy of pluralism is the cult of the fact. You see Goebbels framed the Jews partly by leaving out context, so he could create "facts" so support the conclusion. 
When we leave out context of what the Canadian camps were originally for to prove antisemitism, we use the same method as Goebbels.


----------



## mordko

Brian Mulroney: “The prime minister [Mackenzie King] had a visceral distrust of Jews".

Leading the attack on Jews in Quebec was the respected French-Canadian intellectual Abbé Lionel Groulx. In many ways what Goldwin Smith was to English Canada in the 19th century, Groulx was to French Canada in the 20th century. His savage denunciations of the Jews influenced the province's elite - its clerics, politicians, teachers and journalists. Not only were Jews denounced in the Catholic press but popular newspapers also joined in the assault. Out of this was created the "Achat Chez Nous" movement, an attempt by Church and nationalist leaders to institute a boycott of all Jewish businesses in the province, thus forcing the Jews to leave. 

Canadians also spread antisemitism abroad. In the US the number one propagandist of virulent antisemitism in the years leading up to the war was Canadian Catholic Priest Charles Coughlin. 

After the war, in the 1950s in Toronto there were signs "no dogs or Jews allowed" http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/bernie-farber/human-rights-canada_b_1510399.html


----------



## wraphter

You seem very dissatisfied with Canadian society. Have you ever considered relocating?


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> You seem very dissatisfied with Canadian society. Have you ever considered relocating?


No, but you really should. Perhaps to the past, you'd fit like a glove. See, I am actually rather satisfied.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> The definition I used came from Oxford. It said _prejudice_, not _dislike_. Collins defines it as _hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture_. Atlantic wrote a reasonably balanced article about the term in 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> Do you really need me to explain that you misused the term by painting with too broad a brush?


You quoted in 501 this definition, from Oxford:



> *Dislike* of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.


Are you going to apologize for telling me that I misread that definition?

There are better terms. Anti-muslim bigotry is a better, clearer term. Islamophobia is a carefully constructed term to discredit political opponents of Islam and Islamism. It's like rolling antisemitism and antizionism into one and calling it jew-phobia. I reject the term as loaded.


----------



## gibor365

> "..saw Jews as city people in a country that wished to build up its rural base." They wanted rural types, not city types, and that is discriminating, but isn't bigotry.
> 
> Even today the Canadian Government has criteria for the type of people it wants for immigrants, and it is quite possible that the type they don't want and were denied, perished cently.


 Are you serious?! We're talking about refugees that were escaping from Nazis who major aim was to eliminate this nation! btw, majority of European Jews were higher educated, doctors, dentists, scientists 
*Jewish émigrés who fled Nazi Germany revolutionized U.S. science and technology*
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/german-jewish-inventors-081114.html
Sure, Canada preferred farmers?! About 5,000 Nazi criminal came to Canada (were they farmers?!).No one ever was persecuted.



> I was unaware that Jews encountered so much hostility in the earlier years of Canada.


 Unfortunately me too 



> the camp Jews were given in Canada, was reportedly previously used for Canadian homless unemployed men. so if we thsay the faclities prove anti semitism, what does that make of the homelss Canadain men?


 are you serious?! So, it's OK to take my family from our house and place into "homless unemployed men" camp?!


----------



## gibor365

wraphter said:


> You seem very dissatisfied with Canadian society. Have you ever considered relocating?


First we'll try to change it


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> The definition I used came from Oxford. It said _prejudice_, not _dislike_. Collins defines it as _hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture_. Atlantic wrote a reasonably balanced article about the term in 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> Do you really need me to explain that you misused the term by painting with too broad a brush?


Also, I can't believe you read that Atlantic piece as a good defense of the word. The only person speaking in favour of it is Reza Aslan, a notorious apologist for Islamism. He tries to conflate Jesus and Mohammed as equivalent. He talks about women and men being equal in one Muslim country (debatable), therefore the West has no business being concerned with the subjugation of women elsewhere in the Muslim world. He lies/misrepresents about his opponents' positions and constantly appeals to his supposed superior study of Islamic teachings to try to stifle debate. I don't know whether you are familiar with him, but he is not an honest or trustworthy interlocutor. 

If you read the rest of that piece, it is pretty damning about the appropriateness of the term. The final paragraph is basically a concession that despite its harmful and muddied meaning, it is the de facto term for anti-Muslim bigotry. I don't see why we should concede this ground to the Islamists.


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> You quoted in 501 this definition, from Oxford:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to apologize for telling me that I misread that definition?
> 
> There are better terms. Anti-muslim bigotry is a better, clearer term. Islamophobia is a carefully constructed term to discredit political opponents of Islam and Islamism. It's like rolling antisemitism and antizionism into one and calling it jew-phobia. I reject the term as loaded.


You're right. I made a silly mistake, by misquoting the definition that I originally quoted correctly. Oops. I have no intention of apologizing for the mistake. At no time did I attack you. If your feHave a cry and you'll feel better tomorrow. 

Of course the term is loaded. Terms like antisemitic and bigot are loaded too. When used appropriately they convey meaning. When used inappropriately they serve no constructive purpose. 

You can be a political opponent of Islamism (which is a theocracy based on Islam). You cannot be a political opponent of Islam because it is a religion. You can be a political opponent of Christian theocracy. You cannot be a political opponent of Christianity.


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> Also, I can't believe you read that Atlantic piece as a good defense of the word. The only person speaking in favour of it is Reza Aslan, a notorious apologist for Islamism. He tries to conflate Jesus and Mohammed as equivalent. He talks about women and men being equal in one Muslim country (debatable), therefore the West has no business being concerned with the subjugation of women elsewhere in the Muslim world. He lies/misrepresents about his opponents' positions and constantly appeals to his supposed superior study of Islamic teachings to try to stifle debate. I don't know whether you are familiar with him, but he is not an honest or trustworthy interlocutor.
> 
> If you read the rest of that piece, it is pretty damning about the appropriateness of the term. The final paragraph is basically a concession that despite its harmful and muddied meaning, it is the de facto term for anti-Muslim bigotry. I don't see why we should concede this ground to the Islamists.


I said it was a "_reasonably balanced article_" . Why put words into my mouth and thoughts into my head? 

It is not an Islamist term. If you had read the linked article you would have learned:


> Some chart the popularization of the term 'Islamophobia" back to a series of studies in the 1990s by the Runnymede Trust, a left-leaning British think tank. A 1997 reported entitled “Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All” documented “closed” views of Islam in the U.K., including perceptions of the religion as a single bloc that is barbaric, sexist, and engaged in terrorist activities.


If you dislike Islam (the religion) because you hold different spiritual beliefs then you are not an islamophobe. 
If you are politically opposed to theocracy based on Islam then you are not an islamophobe. 
If you perceive the religion as a "single bloc that is barbaric, sexist, and engaged in terrorist activities" then you are an Islamophobe.


----------



## wraphter

gibor365 said:


> btw, majority of European Jews were higher educated, doctors, dentists, scientists


You are overstating the case. According to this, there were plenty of poor Jews who lived in the shtetls of Eastern Europe.
https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007689



> When the Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, Jews were living in every country of Europe. A total of roughly nine million Jews lived in the countries that would be occupied by Germany during World War II. By the end of the war, two out of every three of these Jews would be dead, and European Jewish life would be changed forever.
> 
> ............
> 
> In 1933 the largest Jewish populations were concentrated in eastern Europe, including Poland, the Soviet Union, Hungary, and Romania. Many of the Jews of eastern Europe lived in predominantly Jewish towns or villages, called shtetls. Eastern European Jews lived a separate life as a minority within the culture of the majority
> 
> ................
> 
> Jews could be found in all walks of life, as farmers, tailors, seamstresses, factory hands, accountants, doctors, teachers, and small-business owners.* Some families were wealthy; many more were poor.* Many children ended their schooling early to work in a craft or trade; others looked forward to continuing their education at the university level. Still, whatever their differences, they were the same in one respect: by the 1930s, with the rise of the Nazis to power in Germany, they all became potential victims, and their lives were forever changed.


So the Jews of Europe lost 6 million people because they had no country it is said. So they found a country
in a bad neighbourhood. How did that work out?


----------



## mordko

Great! Millions of Jewish refugees have been saved since, from places like N Africa and communist Poland. 

Israelis remember the sacrifice of brave Canadians who fought for Israel in 1948. For example, about 100 Canadian WW2 hero pilots volunteered to serve in the newly created Israeli Air Force. Several sacrificed their lives, like the best Canadian ace of WW2 George Beuring. Others faced persecution by the British for downing RAF planes which fought for the Arabs.


----------



## wraphter

Really Mordko? What's so great about Israel Apartheid Week?
http://apartheidweek.org/



> The 13th Annual Israeli Apartheid Week will take place all around the world between March – April 2017.
> Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) is an international series of events that seeks to raise awareness of Israel’s settler-colonial project and apartheid system over the Palestinian people and to build support for the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
> 
> Inspired by the popular resistance across historic Palestine and struggles worldwide, IAW 2016 included a wide range of events, from lectures, film screenings, cultural performances, BDS actions, to postering in metro stations, setting up apartheid walls on campuses, and many more. These actions took place in more than 225 cities across the world.
> 
> The coming year (2017) will mark 100 years of Palestinian resistance against settler colonialism, since the inception of the Balfour Declaration. IAW will be an opportunity to reflect on this resistance and further advance BDS campaigns for the continued growth and impact of the movement. Despite all the legislative attacks on BDS internationally, IAW and the BDS movement continue to build linkages and solidarity with other struggles to achieve freedom, justice, and equality.


----------



## mordko

Nothing. Then again, antisemitism did exist before Israel was founded. Jewish businesses were boycotted in Quebec during WW2, now Quebec is at the forefront of the BDS. We are better organized though and will fight back.


----------



## SMK

wraphter said:


> You are overstating the case. So they found a country in a bad neighbourhood. How did that work out?


And you're nitpicking. Yea, just a "bad neighbourhood", why didn't it work out?


----------



## Pluto

gibor365 said:


> Are you serious?! We're talking about refugees that were escaping from Nazis who major aim was to eliminate this nation! btw, majority of European Jews were higher educated, doctors, dentists, scientists
> *Jewish émigrés who fled Nazi Germany revolutionized U.S. science and technology*
> http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/german-jewish-inventors-081114.html
> Sure, Canada preferred farmers?! About 5,000 Nazi criminal came to Canada (were they farmers?!).No one ever was persecuted.
> 
> Unfortunately me too
> 
> are you serious?! So, it's OK to take my family from our house and place into "homless unemployed men" camp?!


1. "..saw Jews as city people in a country that wished to build up its rural base." That came from the link you gave - canadian encyclopedia. 
2. Escaping from the Nazis - Hindsight is 20/20. No one knew how bad it was going to get. I'm not convinced anyone knew about the eventural plan to eliminate the "nation". (History tells of one very luck Jew, however. He was the doctor of Hitler's mother who was dying. Prior to unleashing his brownshirts on the Jews, Hitler arranged for the doctor to get out of Germany.) 

3. Taking your family from home to a camp: I have no knowledge of this or the circumstances, so how would I know if it is OK or not? So if you want me to comment you have to elaborate.


----------



## wraphter

^

There are many young secular Israelis like gibor ( which means strong in Hebrew) who leave the Promised Land for more a tranquil
environment. Over the years I have seen many young Israeli families in my apartment building in central Toronto. They are speaking
Hebrew and I know what it sounds like. They are voting with their feet. This attrition is not a good sign.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Brian Mulroney: “The prime minister [Mackenzie King] had a visceral distrust of Jews".
> 
> His savage denunciations of the Jews influenced the province's elite - its clerics, politicians, teachers and journalists. Not only were Jews denounced in the Catholic press but popular newspapers also joined in the assault.


1. Distrust is not bigotry.
2. As to savage denunciations - It would be enlightening to read the origional source so I know what you are talking about. 
To me, you do the same thing by taking Biblical metaphors literally and then based on false interpretation smear a religon. Also, you use a pick and choose method of reframing the history of science - (same method Goebbels used to smear the Jews) to unfairly smear catholics. That's mordko's fire used to try to purify minds in the way you prefer. I'd be happier if you used a method that is fair to other people. 

There is no world view that is guaranteed to be true to reality, even your world view. Hence pluralism is justified.


----------



## mordko

Is Google too technical for you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin

And yes, distrust based on race = bigotry. 

The officer in charge of one of the camps specifically stated that internment was required because Jews haven't changed since they crucified Jesus. I don't have the source at hand right now but I am sure someone competent in googling should be able to find it.


----------



## SMK

Pluto said:


> 1. Distrust is not bigotry.
> 2. As to savage denunciations - It would be enlightening to read the origional source so I know what you are talking about.


If you need convincing and interested in the truth, why ask others for sources when you can look it up yourself? 

Do you trust CBC, LOL. http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP13CH4PA2LE.html
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anti-semitism/


----------



## mordko

> Also, you use a pick and choose method of reframing the history of science - (same method Goebbels used to smear the Jews) to unfairly smear catholics.


^ Good example of modern antisemitism. Idiotic, ignorant and malicious.


----------



## SMK

Pluto said:


> I'm not convinced that the government was inherently antisemetic. Even today the Canadian Government has criteria for the type of people it wants for immigrants, and it is quite possible that the type they don't want and were denied, perished recently.


What a ridiculous comparison.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Is Google too technical for you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin
> 
> And yes, distrust based on race = bigotry.
> 
> The officer in charge of one of the camps specifically stated that interment was required because Jews haven't changed since they crucified Jesus. I don't have the source at hand right now but I am sure someone competent in googling should be able to find it.


mordko I have no idea what your point is here so I'll attempt to stimulate you to clarify. 
1. If your post is to try to [porve that anti semetism existed and/or exists, you are preaching to the choir. so I don't get the point about Charles C. 
2. distrust based on race = bogotry. I don't agree that it is necessarly true. Also, you gave me a link previousy showing that Jewish is not a race. 
3. So you conjoure up some guy in charge of some unnamed camp somewhere in the world who has some idea that the Jews haven't changed since they crucified Jesus so they should be interned - Are you trying to say this was a Canadian Government policy? I thought it was about Churchill being concerned that a spy might be among them so they should not be released. 

I my life I never heard any anti semetic talk - directly to me I mean - until I was about 50. And they guy who was talking unfairly about Jews was an athiest. His claim was that the Jews controled all the banks in the world and therefore controled all the money and we had to do somthing about it. I mentioned to him that I doubted Jews controled all the money in the world and so on. I mentioed also that in some contries they were outlawed from owning property so that exclued them form a lot of opccupations. Maybe some of them got into other fields, such as finance. he was quite rieistant to my views and so it went on and on. 

Now I encounter you. You are similiar to that anti semetic guy, but I don't think you see it. 

Other vigenettes I heard from people over the years were about christians in european countries during WW2 risking their lives and the lives of their families to hide Jews from the Nazi's. Too, the WW2 era Pope did not support the Nazi's and was reportedly supported a plot to assasinate Hitler. The theologian Dietrich Bonhoffer was involved with such plotters and ended up getting caught and hung on a meat hook with piano wire. 

Claus von Stauffenburg was a Catholic. I'm sure his name means somthing to you. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_von_Stauffenberg#Family_name

You hammer away at all the negative aspects, and overlook other facts, just like Goebbel's did. You sound like a bigot. 

I was acquainted with some Jews and one day I heard them talking amongst themselves in the lunch room. They were argueing about something I couldn't identify as voices were too low. But then one guy loudly blurted out, "you are the kind of Jew who makes the rest of us look bad." Then everything went silent.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> ^ Good example of modern antisemitism. Idiotic, ignorant and malicious.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-American_organized_crime


----------



## Pluto

SMK said:


> If you need convincing and interested in the truth, why ask others for sources when you can look it up yourself?
> 
> Do you trust CBC, LOL. http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP13CH4PA2LE.html
> http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anti-semitism/


I don't see anything in there that proves Canadain Government policy was based in Jesus was killed by Jews therefore in ww2 Jews should be kept in some camp in Canada. 

As to the existence of anti semetic individuals, in Canada, I agree.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Great! Millions of Jewish refugees have been saved since, from places like N Africa and communist Poland.
> 
> Israelis remember the sacrifice of brave Canadians who fought for Israel in 1948. For example, about 100 Canadian WW2 hero pilots volunteered to serve in the newly created Israeli Air Force. Several sacrificed their lives, like the best Canadian ace of WW2 George Beuring. Others faced persecution by the British for downing RAF planes which fought for the Arabs.


Thank you for finally noticing and saying something positive. Long time coming. 

Britian's motives for being in the Mid East in the first place can be questioned. Primarily self interest I'm told.


----------



## SMK

Pluto said:


> I don't see anything in there that proves Canadain Government policy was based in *Jesus *was killed by Jews therefore in ww2 Jews should be kept in some camp in Canada.


Jesus, why don't you stick with *Mackenzie King*, the part you quoted and responded to.



mordko said:


> Brian Mulroney: “The prime minister *[Mackenzie King] had a visceral distrust of Jews"*.





Pluto said:


> 1. *Distrust is not bigotry.*





SMK said:


> Do you trust CBC, LOL. http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP13CH4PA2LE.html
> http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anti-semitism/


----------



## Pluto

gibor365 said:


> First we'll try to change it


Change Canada to what? 

If you do to "them" what "they" did to you, what do you achieve? 

And what's this thing about your family (who in your family?) taken from home(what location?) to some homeless camp? When? What camp? Are you making this up?


----------



## Pluto

SMK said:


> Jesus, why don't you stick with *Mackenzie King*, the part you quoted and responded to.


It wasn't King's "savage denuciations", it was somone elses. See post 530. Apparently the way I edited the quote, it made it look like it was King's "savage denuciations" - which is an example of how picking and choosing/editing contributes to false conclusions. 

If you are trying to prove that there were individual Canadains who were antisemetic, it isn't disputed. What's being disputed is pointing out the bad guys, but not the good guys apparently in order to paint everyone in the same negative light. I'm also challenging whomever to prove that anti semitism was a Canadian government policy.


----------



## SMK

Pluto said:


> If you are trying to prove that there were individual Canadains who were antisemetic, it isn't disputed. What's being disputed is pointing out the bad guys, but not the good guys apparently in order to paint everyone in the same negative light. *I'm also challenging whomever to prove that anti semitism was a Canadian government policy.*




I didn't say anything about any individual. The only part-person I was addressing was Mackenzie King, so yes, the Canadian policy at the time. Nothing to challenge there.


----------



## olivaw

The victims of the shooting were Muslim, not Jewish. 

An Imam feels that Bissonnette is also a victim. 



> Imam Hassan Guillet, whose remarks at the funeral for three of the shooting victims were shared around the world, said on CBC Montreal's Daybreak it will take more than just prosecuting the alleged shooter to fix the issues that led to the attack.
> 
> "No, the problem will not be solved. It's not an individual, we have a problem as a society," he said, reiterating the idea from his eulogy that Bissonnette was a victim of the political climate in Quebec.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/alexandre-bissonnette-to-make-court-appearance-1.3991803


----------



## gibor365

Pluto said:


> Change Canada to what?
> 
> If you do to "them" what "they" did to you, what do you achieve?
> 
> And what's this thing about your family (who in your family?) taken from home(what location?) to some homeless camp? When? What camp? Are you making this up?


1. To whom, to "them"?! Is there a new Holocaust?! Somebody is trying to eliminate one nation just because?! 

2. Somebody is mentioned that it's not too bad that Jews were taken into interment camps (btw, together with Nazis) that were used before for homeless, unemployed people.
I just gave an example, about my family being taken from our home (here in Canada) and placed in such camp. What is not clear here.


----------



## gibor365

wraphter said:


> ^
> 
> There are many young secular Israelis like gibor ( which means strong in Hebrew) who leave the Promised Land for more a tranquil
> environment. Over the years I have seen many young Israeli families in my apartment building in central Toronto. They are speaking
> Hebrew and I know what it sounds like. They are voting with their feet. This attrition is not a good sign.


Majority of Israelis (and everyone whom I know) immigrating from Israel because of the constant terrorist attacks from you know whom. ... Suicidal attacks, firing rockets from Gaza and Lebanon ... people just scared for their families.
This is why , currently, there are big immigration from France to Israel.
And now Liberals are bringing (wasting our taxes) tens thousands of so-called Syrian refugees that for ages tried to eliminate us.I doubt thta you wi;; find even one former Israeli who supports it


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> You're right. I made a silly mistake, by misquoting the definition that I originally quoted correctly. Oops. I have no intention of apologizing for the mistake. At no time did I attack you. If your feHave a cry and you'll feel better tomorrow.
> 
> Of course the term is loaded. Terms like antisemitic and bigot are loaded too. When used appropriately they convey meaning. When used inappropriately they serve no constructive purpose.
> 
> You can be a political opponent of Islamism (which is a theocracy based on Islam). You cannot be a political opponent of Islam because it is a religion. You can be a political opponent of Christian theocracy. You cannot be a political opponent of Christianity.



You have conceded my argument. The term is nebulous and unclear, and using the definition you provided can be used to lump bigots together with legitimate critics of Islam.

All religions have political dimensions, to varying degrees. They all prescribe human behaviour. Christianity was somewhat neutralized with some helpful passages ("render unto Caesar") that allows it to coexist better with secular society. Islam is much less so equipped. Islam has many explicitly political directives. Pretending they don't exist is willful blindness. You make it sound like theocracy is an unexpected coincidence of religion rather than its goal.


----------



## mordko

Pluto said:


> mordko I have no idea what your point is here so I'll attempt to stimulate you to clarify.
> 
> 2. distrust based on race = bogotry. I don't agree that it is necessarly true. Also, you gave me a link previousy showing that Jewish is not a race.
> 3. So you conjoure up some guy in charge of some unnamed camp somewhere in the world who has some idea that the Jews haven't changed since they crucified Jesus so they should be interned - Are you trying to say this was a Canadian Government policy?
> 
> You hammer away at all the negative aspects, and overlook other facts, just like Goebbel's did.


- assigning negative characteristics to a race (like you do) = racism. 
- I never gave a link showing that Jews are not a race. For 100s time, Jews are an ethno-religious group. It's an ethnicity as well as religion. 20th century antisemitism, including Nazi antisemitism, was directed against Jews as a race. 
- the Goebbels comparison that you are obviously so proud of is ignorant, stupid and Antisemitic. It's stupid and ignorant because Goebbels is primarily known for propaganda of genocide and justification of the Antisemitic Nazi regime of which he was a senior member. And comparing Jews whose family members were murdered by the nazis to Goebbels is Antisemitic. 

Major Elwood, a commandant of one of the camps, expressed racial bigotry just like you are doing. He specifically referenced the charge of deicide in justifying his bigotry. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...dian-prison-camps-during-the-second-world-war

What I am saying is that at the time Canada was institutionally Antisemitic, starting from the Liberal Prime Mininster, immigration minister (one is too many) and down to the prison guard in Jewish camps.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> ^ Good example of modern antisemitism. Idiotic, ignorant and malicious.


Besides my post 551 in which I told a short story of my first encounter with an antisemite, I'd like to add the following. I hung around with a Jewish guy for a couple of yers. He was my tennis partner and we played at the Jewish community center. There I saw some of the older guys in shortsleve shirts with the Nazi tatoos on their arms. It almost made me weep. At no time with my friend or others at the Jewish community center did I encounter the misplaced anger, and distorted ideological view of history that you have exhibited. Admitedly, some of your ideological spin of history isn't specifically Jewish, rather, athiest and logical empericist. 

You shoot from the hip, and, according to you, have all the answers. You are blind to your own jumping to conclusions, dogma and prejudices.


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> You have conceded my argument. The term is nebulous and unclear, and using the definition you provided can be used to lump bigots together with legitimate critics of Islam.
> 
> All religions have political dimensions, to varying degrees. They all prescribe human behaviour. Christianity was somewhat neutralized with some helpful passages ("render unto Caesar") that allows it to coexist better with secular society. Islam is much less so equipped. Islam has many explicitly political directives. Pretending they don't exist is willful blindness. You make it sound like theocracy is an unexpected coincidence of religion rather than its goal.


I concede a small portion of your argument. My son agrees with you and helped to convince me that the term Islamophobia should be better defined in a parliamentary motion. 

I do not concede your argument that the term is meaningless, nebulous, unclear etc. It is useful in the open and free exchange of ideas because it describes a real thing.

The term can, of course, be used to inappropriately lump bigots together with legitimate critics of a religion. Is "legitimate" a nebulous and unclear term? When does criticism become "illegitimate". When does criticism cross the line into bigotry - and yes - Islamophobia? 

Theocracy is not the goal of religion. Pluto is better equipped to address that argument than I. 

On topic: 
Six men are dead. Is their death reflective of a growing irrational fear of Islam?


----------



## humble_pie

pluto the link below is arguably one of the best pieces about the detention camps in eastern canada during the early years of WW II that has ever been written.

graeme hamilton has taken the trouble to visit with & personally interview as many of the jewish detainees as he could find still alive. And what a magnificent group of plus-90-year-olds they are. Each one is a hero & a legend.

please read in detail the excerpt from emeritus rabbi Erwin Schild's unpublished article "A Canadian Footnote to the Holocaust."

there are a lot of ludicrous falsehoods floating in this thread about the camps, but Schild - who was 20 when he arrived in 1940 - remembers the camps as adequately comfortable (here in cmf forum, we should remember that canadian soldiers & sailors, on active duty against hitler during those very same days & years, were serving in far more unpleasant & far more dangerous circumstances.)

there are many astonishing facts in this article. Among them:


all of the detainees had been selected by winston churchill's government in england; they were sent to canada along with actual german & italian military prisoners of war; canada had no say in either their selection or their internment;


until june 1941 when hitler invaded russia, stalin was an ally of hitler. Churchhill however had determined to fight both, alongside whatever Allies he could recruit. Conditions in wartime england were lonely, critical, dangerous & hectic, it appears to have been easy for churchill to decide that detainees from europe - including innocent jewish men & youths - were dangerous "fifth columns;"


all of the detainees sent to canada had already been interned in england, principally in camps on the Isle of Man, to which rabbi Schild refers;


none of the jewish detainees were children; the youngest two were teenagers aged 15 years, says Fred Kaufman, one of the 15-year-olds, who grew up to become a distingished lawyer & legal scholar, serving for 20 years as a Quebec court of appeals judge;


a number of the european detainees sent from england were Hasidim, says rabbi Schild, who describes how surprised intake workers were to see the tall black hats, black frock coats & long ringlets of hair worn by these detainees as they debarked from their ship in quebec city.




i would like to add that the inclusion of Max Stern in the jewish detention group sent over from england totally baffles me. Stern was 36 years old when his ship docked at quebec. He was already a world-famous art dealer, holding a doctorate in art history from the university of Bonn & having succeeded his father as owner of the famous Stern Gallery in dusseldorf. He had also established a Stern Gallery in london, england, which his sister managed for the family.

in 1937, Max Stern was able to escape germany & make his way to london. History then falls silent, so we do not know how or why the next bizarre event could have ever even happened. But churchill chose to detain max stern. Churchill sent stern to a manx island detention centre, then onwards to canada. 

hopefully some day historians will be able to find out how this shocking mixup could have occurred. Indeed, to me it seems 100% likely that every single one of the jewish detainees selected by england as "dangerous" & therefore requiring detention in canada, was as innocent as was stern himself.

there is so much in this article that is stunning & inspiring. For example, how the older men passed time in the camps teaching the younger men. Physics, mathematics, medicine, politics, philosophy, the detainees included expert scholars in all fields. Evidently they had started the teaching practice on the Isle of Man, then continued when they reached the camps in canada.

in closing, please scroll down in graeme hamilton's article & look at the portrait, near the bottom, of emeritus rabbi Schild, seated in his Adath Israel synagogue in toronto. A wiser or more beautiful face is not possible. When the photograph was taken, Schild was 94 years of age. His is the face of a grandfather for the centuries.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...dian-prison-camps-during-the-second-world-war


.


----------



## mordko

> canada had no say in either their selection or their internment


False. Canada didn't want to accept them and did so under pressure but there was no constraint whatsoever in relation to giving them freedom.

In fact,


> Although the British soon admitted their mistake, Canada, saddled with refugees it did not want, settled into a policy of inertia regarding their welfare, their status, and their release. Antisemitic immigration policy and public sentiment precluded opening Canada’s doors to Jews, and that included through the “back door” of internment.


http://www.vhec.org/currentexhibits.html


----------



## Eclectic12

Pluto said:


> I believe you that there were and are antisemetic people in Canada. I'm not convinced that the government was inherently antisemetic ... It is true that Jews were turned away at the ports of many nations in the 1930's but that doesn't prove the governemnt had a policy based in hate. I doubt they had any idea how bad it was going to get ...


Individuals and not the Canadian gov't?

When the MS Saint Louis appealed to Canada for the nine hundred refugees, a Canadian immigration agent is quoted as saying "none is too many". 

If that isn't enough, PM Mackensie King thought it was not a "Canadian problem". The PM was appealed to by Canadian academics and clergy to provide sanctuary. 

Frederick Blair, director of the Canadian immigration branch convinced him to deny entry. He was the architect and champion for the Liberal gov'ts closed door policy, where in Sept 1938 he wrote to the PM:


> Pressure by Jewish people to get into Canada has never been greater than it is now, and I am glad to be able to add that, after 35 years of experience here, that it has never been so carefully controlled.


http://www.vaniercollege.qc.ca/events/holocaust04/st_louis.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/none-is-too-many-memorial-for-jews-turned-away-from-canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Blair




Pluto said:


> ... To wit, the camp Jews were given in Canada, was reportedly previously used for Canadian homless unemployed men. so if we thsay the faclities prove anti semitism, what does that make of the homelss Canadain men?


Was the camp one of the ones that Canada incarcerated enemy aliens despite some of them being friendly to the British Empire that the British Gov't urged Canada to not incarcerate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Canadian_internment
http://ww1.canada.com/home-front/internment-camps-a-dark-shadow-in-war-time-canada

Then there's camps during WWII for Italians and Japanese as well.


Cheers


----------



## sags

I worked with a fellow who was a German POW housed in Canada.

He said they were treated very well and it was basically a camp.

He liked Canada so much that he stayed.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> - assigning negative characteristics to a race (like you do) = racism.
> - I never gave a link showing that Jews are not a race. For 100s time, Jews are an ethno-religious group. It's an ethnicity as well as religion. 20th century antisemitism, including Nazi antisemitism, was directed against Jews as a race.
> - the Goebbels comparison that you are obviously so proud of is ignorant, stupid and Antisemitic. It's stupid and ignorant because Goebbels is primarily known for propaganda of genocide and justification of the Antisemitic Nazi regime of which he was a senior member. And comparing Jews whose family members were murdered by the nazis to Goebbels is Antisemitic.
> 
> Major Elwood, a commandant of one of the camps, expressed racial bigotry just like you are doing. He specifically referenced the charge of deicide in justifying his bigotry. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...dian-prison-camps-during-the-second-world-war
> 
> What I am saying is that at the time Canada was institutionally Antisemitic, starting from the Liberal Prime Mininster, immigration minister (one is too many) and down to the prison guard in Jewish camps.


I'm not assigning negative characteristics to a race, I'm assigning negative characteristics to your method that Goebbels also used. I don't see Jews the way I see you. 
the article you linked previously did not support any claim Jewish = a race. It indicated that Jews were not genetically distinguishable from other people in the area, Arabs, for example. Ethno-religious group I accept, but Ethno - religious denotes culture, and religion, not genetics. 

The Jewish fellow in the article, Mr, Koch, seems to be a gentleman and a scholar. I admire him. He indicates in the article they were not interned because they were Jews, but because they were German. In a previous article it stated they were interned because Churchill feared there may be German spies among them. He, Mr, Koch, also states when they got to the camp it was in disrepair, and the internees were put to work fixing it, after which it was perfectly comfortable. That stands in contrast to previous spin that it was a concentration camp with substandard facilities specifically for the Canadian Government to persecute Jews. Mr. Koch states that he was released after 18 months. Sorry it took so long for the bureaucracy to vet Mr Koch. I don't know if the Nazi's among them were released at that time as well, but somehow I doubt it. 

I'm sorry that Major Elwood was insulting. You are apparently blind to your own insults. In any case, insults do not constitute bigotry. Despite the fact we have not heard Mr Elwood's side of the story, it appears that Mr, Koch is a finer human being. 

the article does not prove that that the Canadian Government had a policy to persecute Jews, and the claim, even if true, that Elwood was insulting to a Jew does not prove antisemitism was institutionalized. If true, it at least proves that Elwood was a jerk, but not that the entire institution was antisemitic.


----------



## Pluto

Eclectic12 said:


> Individuals and not the Canadian gov't?
> 
> When the MS Saint Louis appealed to Canada for the nine hundred refugees, a Canadian immigration agent is quoted as saying "none is too many".
> 
> If that isn't enough, PM Mackensie King thought it was not a "Canadian problem". The PM was appealed to by Canadian academics and clergy to provide sanctuary.
> 
> Frederick Blair, director of the Canadian immigration branch convinced him to deny entry. He was the architect and champion for the Liberal gov'ts closed door policy, where in Sept 1938 he wrote to the PM:
> 
> 
> http://www.vaniercollege.qc.ca/events/holocaust04/st_louis.html
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/none-is-too-many-memorial-for-jews-turned-away-from-canada
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Blair
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was the camp one of the ones that Canada incarcerated enemy aliens despite some of them being friendly to the British Empire that the British Gov't urged Canada to not incarcerate?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Canadian_internment
> http://ww1.canada.com/home-front/internment-camps-a-dark-shadow-in-war-time-canada
> 
> Then there's camps during WWII for Italians and Japanese as well.
> 
> 
> Cheers


As per a link supplied by a Jewish friend on this forum, in the 1930's the Jews were seen by the Canadian Government as city people where as imigration policy was to admit rural people to enhance Canada's rural based economy. there is no proof so far that they were low on the priority list simply because they were Jews. 

Italy was an ally of the Nazi's, as was Japan... that might have somtething to do with it. Justified or not is not clear, especailly if the Italians and Japanese were Canadain born. If it was an over reaction, maybe hindsight is 20/20 so we might cut them some slack. However, it is quite sad the japanese lost their homes, job, and businesses with no compensation for many decades. Obviously, had there been no war, the internments wouldn't ahve happened.


----------



## Pluto

humble_pie said:


> pluto the link below is arguably one of the best pieces about the detention camps in eastern canada during the early years of WW II that has ever been written.
> was 94 years of age. His is the face of a grandfather for the centuries.


thanks, for my education, I'll have a look at it.


----------



## humble_pie

mordko said:


> False. Canada didn't want to accept them and did so under pressure but there was no constraint whatsoever in relation to giving them freedom.



not false at all. In fact, definitely true.

Canada had no say whatsoever in the selection of what were said to be prisoners of war, spies & 5th columnists. England selected each & every detainee to be sent to Canada. In face, all were pre-detained in british camps, principally in the Isle of Man. It was the overfilling of the manx camps that caused wartime england to urgently beg canada & australia to take some of the detainees ASAP.




mordko said:


> In fact,
> 
> " Although the British soon admitted their mistake, Canada, saddled with refugees it did not want, settled into a policy of inertia regarding their welfare, their status, and their release. Antisemitic immigration policy and public sentiment precluded opening Canada’s doors to Jews, and that included through the 'back door' of internment. "
> 
> http://www.vhec.org/currentexhibits.html



the above quote is not scholarly history, it is simply an anonymous blurb from a museum brochure. 

what teenage camp resident Fred Kaufman declared is that england soon realized her mistake & invited the jewish refugees to return to england _if they wanted_. Or they could remain in canada _if they wanted_. Kaufman himself chose to stay in canada. So did Max Stern. So, apparently, did many others, including all of the distinguished nonagenarian canadians interviewed by journalist graeme hamilton.

delays would have been due to the fact that, at first, there was nowhere for the youths & young men to go. Where would they live in canada? where would they study? where would they work? who would be their communities & their surrogate families? as with refugees today, individual plans had to be painstakingly crafted for each individual. As with refugees today, a typical time span could easily last two years.

in the meantime, the WW II refugees were not badly off in the camps, so they waited in the camps while synagogues & jewish community groups in the cities prepared for their release.

as i understand the history, nearly all were out of the camps within 2 years. Fred Kaufman would later describe the waiting period as endurable. Because if he had remained in his native vienna, kaufman said, he would likely have never survived.

.


----------



## gibor365

Pluto said:


> As per a link supplied by a Jewish friend on this forum, in the 1930's the Jews were seen by the Canadian Government as city people where as imigration policy was to admit rural people to enhance Canada's rural based economy. there is no proof so far that they were low on the priority list simply because they were Jews.


You other friend quoted


> Jews could be found in all walks of life, as farmers, tailors, seamstresses, factory hands, accountants, doctors, teachers, and small-business owners.


Thus, your statement is BS! You're just trying to find lame excuses that Canada wasn't anti-Semitic those times. The facts shows opposite.
As per your logic, current Liberal government immigration policy is to bring Muslims who intended to pray and not to work?!
P.S.Interesting why Canada is not so eager to accept refugees from Eastern Ukraine?! hence Ukraine conflict death toll nears 8,000. I bet that 80-90% of those refugees would like to come to Canada. imo, the answer is obvious


----------



## mordko

Pluto said:


> the article you linked previously did not support any claim Jewish = a race. It indicated that Jews were not genetically distinguishable from other people in the area, Arabs, for example. Ethno-religious group I accept, but Ethno - religious denotes culture, and religion, not genetics.


This is nonsense. Jewish genetics is irrelevant, except to a racist. 

In general, races are a social construct and have nothing to do with genetics. Afroamericans are genetically closer to Americans of European extraction than to African blacks. This statement explains the issue in detail: http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583

Antisemitism = a form of racism which is directed against Jews. Claiming anything else = ignorance/stupidity.


----------



## mordko

> delays would have been due to the fact that, at first, there was nowhere for the youths & young men to go.


This is made up. One person's experience isn't representative of all people. Most camps where Jews were imprisoned remained active for 3 years. As such, many Jews spent over 3 years in the camps before they were released. Not one of them wanted to stay imprisoned in the camp, there is no basis for the claim whatsoever. There was plenty of support from the community which was fighting for their release. 

Here:



> Many people call on the Canadian Government to release the refugees, but Canada, which is doing everything to resist pressures from all sides to accept Jewish refugees, does not want these refugees to manage to enter Canada through the door of internment. The duration of the internment of these refugees varies between a couple of months and three years. Some of whom will be liberated in 1941, will undertake military service in the Canadian Army.


http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-ca/bronnenbank.asp?aid=410266

Claiming that Jews *chose *to be interned is a blatant lie, designed to deny the obvious.


----------



## mordko

Pluto said:


> I'm not assigning negative characteristics to a race


Sure you are.



> Given the reason Churchill had, I'm glad they did that.


 (in support of imprisonment of Jewish refugees trying to escape a certain death from the Nazis).




> I'm not convinced that the government was inherently antisemetic. The article you cite states the leaders of Canada "..saw Jews as city people in a country that wished to build up its rural base." They wanted rural types, not city types, and that is discriminating, but isn't bigotry.
> 
> Even today the Canadian Government has criteria for the type of people it wants for immigrants, and it is quite possible that the type they don't want and were denied, perished recently.


Today's criteria are not based on race. As a racist you are confused when you are arguing that it's OK to apply racial stereotypes (which are of course false; there are plenty of Jewish farmers and Israel supplies agricultural products to the whole of Europe). 

You also provided a link to Jewish criminals. How is that relevant to anything???? Why exactly would you do that in the topic about Jews fleeing the Nazis? What would be the reason if not to stereotype Jews as criminals? In what world is that not antisemitic?

Then you claimed that me talking about Church persecuting scientsts being the same as Goebbels. Another example of blatant antisemitism, as explained above. 



> and I say the Jewish camp was like a holiday camp.


 Just disgusting. 

Oh, and you have a "Jewish friend". Pathetic.


----------



## gibor365

> and I say the Jewish camp was like a holiday camp


 some "people" say the same about ghettos and extermination camps


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> In general, races are a social construct and have nothing to do with genetics.


Ashkenazi or European Jews have a distinctive genetic profile that distinguishes them from other Europeans. 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from-350-people-study-finds/

Notice that the source of this article is The Times of Israel.



> *A new study concludes that all Ashkenazi Jews can trace their ancestry to a “bottleneck” of just 350 individuals, dating back to between 600 and 800 years ago.*
> 
> The study, published in the Nature Communications journal Tuesday, was authored by Shai Carmi, a computer science professor at Columbia University, and more than 20 medical researchers from Yale, Columbia, Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and other institutions.
> 
> Researchers analyzed the genomes of 128 Ashkenazi Jews and compared them to those of non-Jewish Europeans in order to determine which genetic markers are unique to Ashkenazi Jews. They found that the Ashkenazi Jews’ genetic similarities were so acute that one of the study’s researchers, Columbia professor Itsik Pe’er, told the Live Science website tha*t among Ashkenazi Jews, “everyone is a 30th cousin.”*
> 
> “Our study is the first full DNA sequence dataset available for Ashkenazi Jewish genomes,” said Itzik Pe’er, an Israeli computer scientist at Columbia University, who led the study. “With this comprehensive catalog of mutations present in the Ashkenazi Jewish population, we will be able to more effectively map disease genes onto the genome and thus gain a better understanding of common disorders. We see this study serving as a vehicle for personalized medicine and a model for researchers working with other populations
> 
> Ashkenazi Jews are known to have origins in the Levant, which Israel is smack dab in the middle of. But exactly who “European” Ashkenazi Jews are has long been debated. An analysis of the gene database shows that the original Ashkenazi Jews were about half European and half Middle Eastern.* They lived in the medieval era, about 600 to 800 years ago, according to the analysis – and numbered just 350 or so people.*
> 
> “Our analysis shows that Ashkenazi Jewish medieval founders were ethnically admixed, with origins in Europe and in the Middle East, roughly in equal parts,” said Shai Carmi, a post-doctoral scientist who works with Pe’er and conducted the analysis. “[The] data are more comprehensive than what was previously available, and we believe the data settle the dispute regarding European and Middle Eastern ancestry in Ashkenazi Jews.”


The study was led by an Israeli computer scientist at Columbia University .

Sequencing the genome is real science.


----------



## mordko

One last time... Genetics is not in any way irrelevant to the simple fact that Jews have been persecuted as a race and by racists who are called "antisemites".


----------



## mordko

Actual refugees are coming to Canada, but, unlike Syrians, without Trudeau photo-ops. For obvious reasons: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...to-1200-primarily-yazidi-refugees-by-year-end

Meanwhile illegal migrants are coming from the US and CBC keeps referring to them as "refugees" while the government actually encourages illegal migration. Is there an ongoing war in the US that I am not aware of?


----------



## new dog

Illegals mean more tax payers money being wasted and more homeless, something Canada needs right now. Although maybe more votes for the Liberals down the road so tax money well spent for the Liberal buddies here.


----------



## olivaw

It was argued that the German refugees might be Nazi fifth columnists. 

Nowadays, it is argued that Syrian refugees might be Islamic terrorists. 

We haven't come as far as we think.


----------



## gibor365

olivaw said:


> It was argued that the German refugees might be Nazi fifth columnists.
> 
> .


If by German refugees you mean Nazis , then they were Nazis indeed.
If by German refugees you mean Jews Holocaust survivors, you are nuts if you think that Jew can be Nazi


----------



## gibor365

new dog said:


> Illegals mean more tax payers money being wasted and more homeless, something Canada needs right now. Although maybe more votes for the Liberals down the road so tax money well spent for the Liberal buddies here.


International PR for Trudeau is much more important then some Canadians


----------



## olivaw

gibor365 said:


> If by German refugees you mean Nazis , then they were Nazis indeed.
> If by German refugees you mean Jews Holocaust survivors, you are nuts if you think that Jew can be Nazi


No, they were nuts when they argued that Jews, homosexuals and communists might be Nazis. 

Now we hear similar nutty arguments about Syrian refugee.


----------



## gibor365

Jews in 1930's didn't have any country . Now, there are 50+ muslim countries (majority muslim-arab countries). So, why do they have to go to "racist" Canada or Germany?! Simply because they want high welfare?!


----------



## olivaw

Syrians don't have a country either. They used to have a county but civil war, chemical weapons and bombing runs by helpful outsiders turned it into a wasteland.


----------



## new dog

Syrians still have the land to go back to but the devastation caused by a stupid war for someone to make more money hasn't been good for them that is for sure. However shipping muslims around the western world destroying it as well isn't very good, instead of limiting it to Syria and a few surrounding countries.


----------



## Pluto

gibor365 said:


> You other friend quoted
> Thus, your statement is BS! You're just trying to find lame excuses that Canada wasn't anti-Semitic those times. The facts shows opposite.
> As per your logic, current Liberal government immigration policy is to bring Muslims who intended to pray and not to work?!
> P.S.Interesting why Canada is not so eager to accept refugees from Eastern Ukraine?! hence Ukraine conflict death toll nears 8,000. I bet that 80-90% of those refugees would like to come to Canada. imo, the answer is obvious


1. gibor, my friend, the link provided by my Jewish friend, stated the Canadian government saw Jews as city people, and they wanted rural type immigrants. If they were mistaken, take it up with the Government, the Canadian encylopedia. I'm only using links you provided. 
2. *Some* Canadians were antisemetic. That doesn't prove all Canadians were. Supposing we look at this link about Jewish gangsters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-American_organized_crime and then say, "Jews are gangsters". Would that be fair? Also all of the Jews interned were, as far as I know at this time, *German*. Now if you had for example, Polish Jews interned by Britian, and Canada, that would help your antisemitic case. Presently facts show, however, all Jews interned were German. The reason Germans were interned was obvious.


----------



## mordko

Syrian refugees are coming to Canada from Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Not one of these country has an on-going war within its borders. Jordan and Lebanon are Muslim Arab countries. Turkey is a Muslim country. There is no threat to live of Syrians in any of these places. Let's be clear: Canada isn't saving anyone by accepting "Syrian refugees".

"Refugees" coming from the US are not refugees in any way shape or form. There is no threat to anyone's life in the US. These are illegal immigrants who do not want to wait in queue or follow immigration procedures that the legal immigrants have to follow. 

Yazidis coming into Canada are actual refugees. They make up a small fraction of the total refugee numbers. There is an on-going genocide and sexual enslavement against Yazidis, which is being executed by Islamic gangs in Iraq and Syria. Yazidis absolutely deserve our help. I would have thought the taxpayer shouldn't be forced to pay for it though; we can easily collect enough donations.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> This is nonsense. Jewish genetics is irrelevant, except to a racist.
> 
> In general, races are a social construct and have nothing to do with genetics. Afroamericans are genetically closer to Americans of European extraction than to African blacks. This statement explains the issue in detail: http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583
> 
> Antisemitism = a form of racism which is directed against Jews. Claiming anything else = ignorance/stupidity.


RAce is based on genetics: 
http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/

You may have a social scientific theory claiming otherwise, but that doesn't make your theory correct. 

The Nazi's believed there was such a thing as the Aryan race, and they wanted a "pure" Aryan race. Jews were not considered Aryan so the issue was historically framed in terms of race. But there is no Aryan race, nor Jewish race. 

Read some biology on the evolution of life forms. With plants for example, within a specific species of plant, there are different *varieties*. Within the species of Humans there are different varietes, only they don't use the word variety, with humans, they use the word race but it means the same thing, a variety within a species. 

There is nothing derogoatory in this classification system. Sorry, it is not racism, it is science.


----------



## SMK

mordko said:


> Yazidis coming into Canada are actual refugees.
> 
> "Refugees" coming from the US are not refugees in any way shape or form. There is no threat to anyone's life in the US. These are illegal immigrants who do not want to wait in queue or follow immigration procedures that the legal immigrants have to follow.


At last the Yazidis are getting the help after the Conservatives and NDP pushed to save them, while the Liberals were waiting for a UN report to make up their minds. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...-to-recognize-yazidi-assault-as-genocide.html

The illegals coming from the US can be blamed not only on Trump. Get ready for a crisis indeed. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...border-in-february-how-many-will-come-by-june


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> This is made up. One person's experience isn't representative of all people. Most camps where Jews were imprisoned remained active for 3 years. As such, many Jews spent over 3 years in the camps before they were released. Not one of them wanted to stay imprisoned in the camp, there is no basis for the claim whatsoever. There was plenty of support from the community which was fighting for their release.
> 
> Here:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-ca/bronnenbank.asp?aid=410266
> 
> Claiming that Jews *chose *to be interned is a blatant lie, designed to deny the obvious.


Mordko, you keep oevelooking the fact that they were German, and there was foundation to be suspicious of Germans at the time. If you can ferret out some facts to show there were also Polish, Czech, French, Jews intenred in Britian and Canada, I'd be likly to drift to your side of the debate. 
But you devalue the *fact* that as far as we know right now, they were all German Jews, and they were not singled out because they were Jews, it was because they were German. 

You have a preconcieved prejudiced view, and you try to substantiate that view by devaluing the fact they were German. so your facts are not free of your personal values/prejudice.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Sure you are.
> 
> (in support of imprisonment of Jewish refugees trying to escape a certain death from the Nazis).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today's criteria are not based on race. As a racist you are confused when you are arguing that it's OK to apply racial stereotypes (which are of course false; there are plenty of Jewish farmers and Israel supplies agricultural products to the whole of Europe).
> 
> You also provided a link to Jewish criminals. How is that relevant to anything???? Why exactly would you do that in the topic about Jews fleeing the Nazis? What would be the reason if not to stereotype Jews as criminals? In what world is that not antisemitic?
> 
> Then you claimed that me talking about Church persecuting scientsts being the same as Goebbels. Another example of blatant antisemitism, as explained above.
> 
> Just disgusting.
> 
> Oh, and you have a "Jewish friend". Pathetic.


mordko, you have gone off the rails. 
1. I was given a link by a Jewish friend to to the Canadian encylopedia article where it said the government at the time saw Jews as city type people, whereas they wanted rural immigrants. If you don't agree with the link my Jewish friend supplied, take it up with him, the governement, and/or the Canadian encylopedia. 
2. Link to Jewish mobsters. I don't stereotype, mordko, you do. You give me a link to a ww2 era antisemetic catholic Canadain ant then say all canadians are antisemetic. It's you who stereotype. Too, you stereotype all catholics in the light of Constantine. It is you who are prejudiced, mordko. Wht you do is the same as Goebbels.


----------



## mordko

> Within the species of Humans there are different varietes


Complete ignorance; typical for a racist. Varieties exist among animals. Races exist among animals. Human "races" are too close and too mixed to differentiate; biologically and genetically all humans fall within the same race. Human "race" is a purely social contract. Simple as that.


----------



## mordko

Pluto said:


> You give me a link to a ww2 era antisemetic catholic Canadain *ant then say all canadians are antisemetic.*


This a lie. One hundred percent false, fabricated, libelous claim. Not surprised.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> This a lie. One hundred percent false, fabricated, libelous claim. Not surprised.


calhoun was the catholics name, I think. look back in your posts and the links you offered. 

By the way, in the Battle of Britain, you know, early part of the war when Germany was bombing British ports, airfields, and cities, there were many Jewish airmen in the RAF, shooting down Nazi bombers. Why weren't these Jews interned? Probably because they were not German Jews. Such facts do not fit your theory that Britain and Canada were inherently antisemetic. 

I'm sorry that German Jews were under suspicion, but it was not because they were Jews.


----------



## mordko

Pluto said:


> calhoun was the catholics name, I think. look back in your posts and the links you offered.


Father Coughlin was spearheading antisemitic/pro-Nazi propaganda.

This is your lie, in bold: You give me a link to a ww2 era antisemetic catholic Canadain* ant then say all canadians are antisemetic.*

From now on, go and make love to yourself.


----------



## Eclectic12

Pluto said:


> ... I'm sorry that German Jews were under suspicion, but it was not because they were Jews.


You sure?

Major W.J.H. Ellwood, the commandant of the Sherbrooke camp wrote in his official war diary that despite the fact they were anti-Nazi, they are German born Jews. Jews that according to him, had the same instincts of years ago. He didn't seem concerned about them being German born but their Jewish instincts were the problem.


BTW, at least one of the Sherbrooke camp inmates had managed to be freed from the Nazis’ Dachau concentration camp in 1938, make his way to England to absurdly end up imprisoned in Canada as a suspected German sympathizer.


Other writings indicate that Jewish refugees ended up being in the same Canadian internment camps as the Nazi they had fled. 

Britain is reported to have not told Canada that mixed in with the POWs were Jewish refugees as Canada’s immigration policies were well-known where the British realized that identifying the enemy aliens as Jews would have led Canada to refuse them. Roughly a quarter of the total sent were judged by British tribunals to be of low or no risk.


Cheers


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Father Coughlin was spearheading antisemitic/pro-Nazi propaganda.
> 
> This is your lie, in bold: You give me a link to a ww2 era antisemetic catholic Canadain* ant then say all canadians are antisemetic.*
> 
> From now on, go and make love to yourself.


You mean you were not claiming Canadians and the Canadian Government were anti semetic? If you were not claiming Canadians were anti semetic, what were you claiming? I agree that Father Coughlin was spreading antisemetic pro Nazi propoganda. But you brought that up in the context of claiming the Canadain Government was persucuting Jews by holding them in a camp despite the fact that they were held due to being German. Since Jews were suspicious of Germans by that time, why is it bad that Britain and Canada were suspicious of Germans? 

It is apparently true that Jews were not a top priority for immigration at the time, but the reason for that is not necessarily persecutory. Mr Koch was reportedly released into Canada in 18 months, but I hear that the immigration process now takes 5 years or more. Maybe the usual timeframe back then was was 5 years too, I don't know.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> RAce is based on genetics:
> http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/
> 
> You may have a social scientific theory claiming otherwise, but that doesn't make your theory correct.
> 
> The Nazi's believed there was such a thing as the Aryan race, and they wanted a "pure" Aryan race. Jews were not considered Aryan so the issue was historically framed in terms of race. But there is no Aryan race, nor Jewish race.
> 
> Read some biology on the evolution of life forms. With plants for example, within a specific species of plant, there are different *varieties*. Within the species of Humans there are different varietes, only they don't use the word variety, with humans, they use the word race but it means the same thing, a variety within a species.
> 
> There is nothing derogoatory in this classification system. Sorry, it is not racism, it is science.


The differences between races are pretty superficial genetically. Humans are remarkable homogenous genetically compared to many species. Mostly because humans have only existed for a few hundred thousand years up to about a million. The 'races' are not so distinct as to be able to describe them as varieties.


----------



## Pluto

Eclectic12 said:


> You sure?
> 
> Major W.J.H. Ellwood, the commandant of the Sherbrooke camp wrote in his official war diary that despite the fact they were anti-Nazi, they are German born Jews. Jews that according to him, had the same instincts of years ago. He didn't seem concerned about them being German born but their Jewish instincts were the problem.
> 
> 
> BTW, at least one of the Sherbrooke camp inmates had managed to be freed from the Nazis’ Dachau concentration camp in 1938, make his way to England to absurdly end up imprisoned in Canada as a suspected German sympathizer.
> 
> 
> Other writings indicate that Jewish refugees ended up being in the same Canadian internment camps as the Nazi they had fled.
> 
> Britain is reported to have not told Canada that mixed in with the POWs were Jewish refugees as Canada’s immigration policies were well-known where the British realized that identifying the enemy aliens as Jews would have led Canada to refuse them. Roughly a quarter of the total sent were judged by British tribunals to be of low or no risk.
> 
> 
> Cheers


It isn't fair to generalize from Mr Elwood to all Canadians and to claim based on reprots of Mr Elwoods acts that the Candian Government was persecuting Jews. 
to look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-American_organized_crime

and then say Jews are mobsters is the similiar to Elwood didn't like Jews, elwood was a 
Canadian, so Canada persecuted Jews. 

Jews were in the RAF fighting Nazi bombers over Britain, but there is no evidence they were German Jews in the RAF. The discrimiating factor for camps was German, not Jew.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Complete ignorance; typical for a racist. Varieties exist among animals. Races exist among animals. Human "races" are too close and too mixed to differentiate; biologically and genetically all humans fall within the same race. Human "race" is a purely social contract. Simple as that.


I could be mistaken, but presently I think Humans are part of the Animal Kingdom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)


----------



## SMK

Eclectic12 said:


> When the MS Saint Louis appealed to Canada for the nine hundred refugees, a *Canadian immigration agent is quoted as saying "none is too many".*


It was only because the government wanted rural types and were merely using immigration criteria, like it's done today, believes Pluto. What do they say about confirmation bias? :hopelessness:



Pluto said:


> I'm not convinced that the government was inherently antisemetic. *They wanted rural types, not city types, and that is discriminating, but isn't bigotry. *
> 
> *Even today the Canadian Government has criteria for the type of people it wants for immigrants,* and it is quite possible that the type they don't want and were denied, perished recently. It is true that Jews were turned away at the ports of many nations in the 1930's but that doesn't prove the governemnt had a policy based in hate.


But in the same post admits his lack of knowledge about the "hostility" against Jews as he called it, and reason for the ridiculous comparisons, because you know, it was just hostility that he wasn't even aware of.



Pluto said:


> It is somewhat analogous to you having the authority to invite who you want into your house, and decline those you don't want. did you ever read an article about some homless individual who perished on the streets? Did you think if only I had invited them into my house they wouldn't have perished? The fact that you didn't save that last guy who died on the streets, doesn't make you a bigot.
> 
> *I was unaware that Jews encountered so much hostility in the earlier years of Canada.*


Through government inaction and Blairs bureaucratic anti-Semitism, *Canada emerged from the war with one of the worst records of Jewish refugee resettlement in the world.* Between 1933 and 1939, Canada accepted only 4,000 of the 800,000 Jews who had escaped from Nazi-controlled Europe.

In November 2000, Rev. Doug Blair apologized for his great-uncle, Frederick Blair - director of immigration, at a reunion for Holocaust survivors from all over the world who had been turned away by Ottawa.

"I stand before you in great fear for I understand that my name is not one dear to your heart," the Baptist pastor from Sarnia, Ontario told 25 survivors. "That which was done to you was so wrong. To the extent that my family was party of that, Im sorry." http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP13CH4PA2LE.html

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/none-is-too-many-memorial-for-jews-turned-away-from-canada


----------



## SMK

mordko said:


> CBC has been all over the demonstration that took place last week in front of the Toronto Mosque. By a lucky coincidence that is the exact Mosque where I got my Hizb-ut-Tahrir leaflets explaining how nasty Jews and Christians really are and how Muslims shouldn't be "ruled" by them.


I recall a poster here didn't believe you and was asking you for proof. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...ondemn-imams-who-called-for-the-death-of-jews


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> The differences between races are pretty superficial genetically. Humans are remarkable homogenous genetically compared to many species. Mostly because humans have only existed for a few hundred thousand years up to about a million. The 'races' are not so distinct as to be able to describe them as varieties.


I believe his point was that those minor genetic differences are what determines race as opposed to individuals or groups declaring themselves to be a separate race to shield themselves from criticism. 

In 1962 Charles S **** proposed the most widely accepted racial categories: Australoid, Capoid, Caucasoid, *********, *******.


ETA:, mordko is attempting to claim that a respected poster on this forum is racist. It's not the first time that mordko has levelled an unfair accusation of racism to shut down a debate that didn't go his way.


----------



## Pluto

SMK said:


> It was only because the government wanted rural types and were merely using immigration criteria, like it's done today, believes Pluto. What do they say about confirmation bias? :hopelessness:
> 
> 
> 
> But in the same post admits his lack of knowledge about the "hostility" against Jews as he called it, and reason for the ridiculous comparisons, because you know, it was just hostility that he wasn't even aware of.
> 
> 
> 
> Through government inaction and Blairs bureaucratic anti-Semitism, *Canada emerged from the war with one of the worst records of Jewish refugee resettlement in the world.* Between 1933 and 1939, Canada accepted only 4,000 of the 800,000 Jews who had escaped from Nazi-controlled Europe.
> 
> In November 2000, Rev. Doug Blair apologized for his great-uncle, Frederick Blair - director of immigration, at a reunion for Holocaust survivors from all over the world who had been turned away by Ottawa.
> 
> "I stand before you in great fear for I understand that my name is not one dear to your heart," the Baptist pastor from Sarnia, Ontario told 25 survivors. "That which was done to you was so wrong. To the extent that my family was party of that, Im sorry." http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP13CH4PA2LE.html
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/none-is-too-many-memorial-for-jews-turned-away-from-canada


1. I'm sorry about what happened too, but all these apopogies are occuring in hindsight. Hindsight is 20/20. Monday morning quarterbacking. Don't you get that? In the 1930's they didn't know of the coming holocaust. 
2. the theory was presented in this forum that the British and Canadian Government persecuted Jews by interning them in a camp in Canada. But they were German. I have no knowledge of French Jews, Polish Jews, and so on being interned in Canada or Britain. So to me, the theory that interning the German Jews in Canada was to persecute Jews falls short of proof. They weren't in that camp because they were Jews, they were there because they were German. 
3. The fact that some Canadians were antisemetic is not in dispute. 
4. One of my Jewish friends on this forum thread has written that he doesn't want Syrians in Canada. Is that persecution of Syrians by a Canadian Jew? And if it is, does that mean that Canada persecutes Syrians? If not why not? Syrians seem to be experiencing their own catastrophy (holocaust). 
5. Why is it that the indifference of Canada to the Jews in the 1930's is bogotry, while Jewish Canadian indifference to the plight of Syrians isn't? Well I think they might say Syrians are against us (Jews). Well, in WW2 wasn't Germany against us? and wasn't the occupants of the internment camp German? What's the difference between ww2 era Canadians being suspicious of Germans, and present day Canadian Jews being suspicious of Syrians? 
The pot seems to be caliing the kettle black.


----------



## mordko

In the 19th century scientists made even wilder claims. Over the last few decades genetic research has confirmed that differences between supposed human "races" are too small and humans mix so much that unlike in the animal kingdom the boundaries cannot be drawn and human races cannot be defined in the biological/genetic sense. 

Regardless, claims that antisemitism isn't racism because Jews are not a race, usually come from antisemites.


----------



## olivaw

Believing Jews are not a race does not mean a person is antisemitic. It means a person is aware of what anthropologists say.


----------



## mordko

For 57484848th time, Jews are an ethnoreligious group. Antisemitism is a form of racism. Denying the latter in the face of 2000 years of ample evidence tends to be a sign of antisemitism.


----------



## olivaw

Pluto said:


> 5. Why is it that the indifference of Canada to the Jews in the 1930's is bogotry, while Jewish Canadian indifference to the plight of Syrians isn't? Well I think they might say Syrians are against us (Jews). Well, in WW2 wasn't Germany against us? and wasn't the occupants of the internment camp German? What's the difference between ww2 era Canadians being suspicious of Germans, and present day Canadian Jews being suspicious of Syrians?
> The pot seems to be caliing the kettle black.


My neighbour is Jewish. She personally participates in her Synagogue's sponsorship of a Syrian family. I haven't seen any surveys but I suspect that mordko (and to a lesser extent gibor) are not expressing prevailing Jewish sentiment in Canada.


----------



## Eclectic12

Pluto said:


> As per a link supplied by a Jewish friend on this forum, in the 1930's the Jews were seen by the Canadian Government as city people where as imigration policy was to admit rural people to enhance Canada's rural based economy. there is no proof so far that they were low on the priority list simply because they were Jews.


Interesting idea.

Toronto in the '20's and '30's are reported to have commonly on hotels, beaches, golf courses and parks signs says "No Jews Allowed" or "Gentiles Only". At least one city pool limited how many Jews could be swimming at any given time, with other pools outright banned Jews and Italians (heat or no heat). In 1933, a group of Toronto Hitler admirers formed the Balmy Beach Swastika Club. One of the group’s objectives was to stop “undesirables” — recent immigrants in general, but mainly Jews — from using the Eastern Beaches.

Manitoba, Nova Scotia, BC are also reported to have had similar signs. In Quebec in 1934, the hiring of a Jewish intern by Montreal's Notre Dame Hospital resulted in protests that forced the intern to resign.


Yet according to the "Canada was looking for farmers" theory - the gov't was immune somehow?
What were they doing ... screening the employees/ministers to make sure they did not fit the population?


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

Pluto said:


> ... But you brought that up in the context of claiming the Canadain Government was persucuting Jews by holding them in a camp despite the fact that they were held due to being German. Since Jews were suspicious of Germans by that time, why is it bad that Britain and Canada were suspicious of Germans?


If it is that simple, why did Britain intentionally avoid telling Canada that around a quarter of those sent to Canada for internment had already been classed by Britain as "little or no threat"? Why avoid telling Canada that among the POWs were concentration camp survivors?


As I say in my previous post ... if as suggested, it's because the internees were German-Jews, why did the Sherbrooke commandant admit they were anti-Nazi then move from German-Jews to only talking about the Jewish instincts as being the problem?


Cheers


----------



## gibor365

olivaw said:


> My neighbour is Jewish. She personally participates in her Synagogue's sponsorship of a Syrian family. I haven't seen any surveys but I suspect that mordko (and to a lesser extent gibor) are not expressing prevailing Jewish sentiment in Canada.


Don't know about "your neighbour", but believe me, I know much more Jews than you , NO ONE support bringing here Syrians! Don't you understand that WE came to Canada in order to escape Syrian-like individuals because for ages they did anything to eliminate us.


----------



## mordko

I actively support providing refuge to actual refugees, such as Yazidis and other targeted minorities. I also support the right for people with Syrian nationality in general to immigrate, subject to extensive checks. According to polls 90 percent are Antisemitic, a significant minority supports ISIS, there will also be a lot of homophobia,etc... so the checks have to be rigorous.


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> Complete ignorance; typical for a racist. Varieties exist among animals. Races exist among animals. Human "races" are too close and too mixed to differentiate; biologically and genetically all humans fall within the same race. Human "race" is a purely social contract. Simple as that.


Complete nonsense by Comrade mordko. resident member of the flat earth society.


----------



## SMK

Pluto said:


> 1. I'm sorry about what happened too, but all these apopogies are occuring in hindsight. Hindsight is 20/20. Monday morning quarterbacking. Don't you get that? In the 1930's they didn't know of the coming holocaust.
> 2. the theory was presented in this forum that the British and Canadian Government persecuted Jews by interning them in a camp in Canada. But they were German. I have no knowledge of French Jews, Polish Jews, and so on being interned in Canada or Britain. So to me, the theory that interning the German Jews in Canada was to persecute Jews falls short of proof. They weren't in that camp because they were Jews, they were there because they were German.
> 3. The fact that some Canadians were antisemetic is not in dispute.
> 4. One of my Jewish friends on this forum thread has written that he doesn't want Syrians in Canada. Is that persecution of Syrians by a Canadian Jew? And if it is, does that mean that Canada persecutes Syrians? If not why not? Syrians seem to be experiencing their own catastrophy (holocaust).
> 5. Why is it that the indifference of Canada to the Jews in the 1930's is bogotry, while Jewish Canadian indifference to the plight of Syrians isn't? Well I think they might say Syrians are against us (Jews). Well, in WW2 wasn't Germany against us? and wasn't the occupants of the internment camp German? What's the difference between ww2 era Canadians being suspicious of Germans, and present day Canadian Jews being suspicious of Syrians?
> The pot seems to be caliing the kettle black.


Again, I wasn't talking about any individuals nor drawing analogies, like the monstrous ones you made. All I was agreeing with - with what others said, is that PM Mackenzie King's policies were anti-Semitic. You wish to remember this period of time as just discriminatory, and that's your business but it' false. King admired Hitler and thought of him "as sweet, sincere, and one of the world's saviours".


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> Complete nonsense by Comrade mordko. resident member of the flat earth society.


Apparently Wikipeida is an encyclopedia for the Flat Earth society:



> Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[10] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[11][12][13][14][15]





> Even though there is a *broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, *scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.[16] While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behaviour that has not been invalidated as a taxonomic construct,[17] others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[18] or simplistic way,[19] and argue that, *among humans, race has no taxonomic significance* by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, **** sapiens, and subspecies, **** sapiens sapiens.[20][21]


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> For 57484848th time, Jews are an ethnoreligious group. Antisemitism is a form of racism. Denying the latter in the face of 2000 years of ample evidence tends to be a sign of antisemitism.


For the 57484849th time mordko is wrong.

Believe me guys he is in denial.


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> For the 57484849th time mordko is wrong.
> 
> Believe me guys he is in denial.


Go argue with the dictionary:



> The Jews (/dʒuːz/;[11] Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎ ISO 259-3 Yhudim, Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group[12]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews



> Antisemitism (also spelled anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews.[1][2][3] A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism


----------



## Eclectic12

Pluto said:


> It isn't fair to generalize from Mr Elwood to all Canadians and to claim based on reprots of Mr Elwoods acts that the Candian Government was persecuting Jews.


He is the gov't appointee to run the camp, is he not?

If the Canadian gov't was neutral, why'd they pick him and why did the British gov't lie to the Canadian gov't as to the background of who they were sending to Canada for internment?


Then too, with "No Jews Allowed", "Gentiles Only" and "Christians Only" signs being widely reported for the time - is it more likely he is a one off or part of the larger group?




Pluto said:


> Jews were in the RAF fighting Nazi bombers over Britain, but there is no evidence they were German Jews in the RAF.


Really?

Sir Ken Adam begs to differ.


> Adam, 88, is *the only German to have served as a pilot in the Royal Air Force* during the Second World War. As a Sergeant Pilot in 609 Squadron, flying Typhoon fighter-bombers on low-level strikes across northern France, he would have been put in front of a firing squad if captured and identified. *Jewish-born but still the holder of a German passport, he was to the Nazis a traitor.*


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/5220598/Britains-secret-German-army.html




Pluto said:


> ... The discrimiating factor for camps was German, not Jew.


If I understand, you are arguing that being German, Jewish or not meant one would be barred from fighting and presumably result in internment/being locked up.


How come there are there references to 10,000 German & Austrians who escaped Nazi persecution and joined the British forces in the Second World War?
http://www.helen-fry.com/books/churchills-german-army/

Or the Daily Mail in the UK says similar?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...German-refugees-fled-Nazis-fight-Britain.html


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

Pluto said:


> 1. I'm sorry about what happened too, but all these apopogies are occuring in hindsight. Hindsight is 20/20. Monday morning quarterbacking. Don't you get that? In the 1930's they didn't know of the coming holocaust.


I'm not so sure.

I would not think that Indiana would be a place to be finding current world news yet in approximately a year of Dachau being founded in 1933, info about murders of Dachau camp inmates can be found. Enough had been reported by Toronto newspapers of the Nazi doings in Germany to Jews that when the swastika was displayed on a sheet at the end of a baseball game in Christie Pits in 1933 that six hour riot ensued.

BTW ... one of the young Jewish teens who was there later enlisted, fought the Nazis but on returning to Toronto, he couldn't buy a house in a new development for returning vets as he was Jewish.




Pluto said:


> ... They weren't in that camp because they were Jews, they were there because they were German.


So what's you theory on why some Germans escaping the Nazis were setup to fight with the Allies against the Nazis while others where shipped with Nazis to Canada to the camps?




Pluto said:


> ... 3. The fact that some Canadians were antisemetic is not in dispute.


When "No Jews" signs and similar are common across large chunks of the country, is it really "some Canadians"?

Even after the war, my dad recalls a Jewish friend of his being called in by his professor. His message was that despite being a top student, he'd be better to transfer out of engineering as no engineering firm would hire a Jew.




Pluto said:


> ... wasn't the occupants of the internment camp German?


Japanese and Japanese Canadians worked out to something like 27K. German POWs sent from Britain are reported to be something like 7K but had 2.5K of refugees mixed in, for a total about 9.5K. About 850 German Canadians were interned despite the bulk of them having not visited Germany in over sixty years. Over seven hundred German sailors captured in East Asia were also interned. About 700 Italians were interned.


Cheers


----------



## SMK

Eclectic and mordko, you're way too patient.


----------



## olivaw

gibor365 said:


> Don't know about "your neighbour", but believe me, I know much more Jews than you , NO ONE support bringing here Syrians! Don't you understand that WE came to Canada in order to escape Syrian-like individuals because for ages they did anything to eliminate us.


Sure, you probably do know more Jews than me. :I don't often ask the Jews that I know for their opinion of Muslims and refugees. Usually we talk about things like hockey, the weather, health etc. 

My adult son's best friend is Jewish. Their social group included young people of Muslim descent; Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, hindus, sikhs etc. They seem a lot more interested in good times and social support than in arguing about historical differences.


----------



## mordko

SMK said:


> Eclectic and mordko, you're way too patient.


No kidding. Interesting stuff though; kinda unexpected. And there was me thinking that the "Jewish friend" thing has become such a joke that nobody would actually use it.


----------



## olivaw

In mordko's world, Jews and gentiles don't mix.


----------



## mordko

Well, they must mix a little bit given that my wife is English. 

And the word "gentiles"... I don't think I have ever heard it from Jews. In fact it's only the likes of olivaw and Pluto that tend to use it these days.


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> In the 19th century scientists made even wilder claims. Over the last few decades genetic research has confirmed that differences between supposed human "races" are too small and humans mix so much that unlike in the animal kingdom the boundaries cannot be drawn and human races cannot be defined in the biological/genetic sense.
> 
> Regardless, claims that antisemitism isn't racism because Jews are not a race, usually come from antisemites.


This is hate speech, pure and simple. You are as bad as the commissars in Russia like Lysenko who denied the Theory of Evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism



> The pseudo-scientific ideas of Lysenkoism built on Lamarckian concepts of the heritability of acquired characteristics.[2] Lysenko's theory rejected Mendelian inheritance and the concept of the "gene"; it departed from Darwinian evolutionary theory by rejecting natural selection.[3] Proponents falsely claimed to have discovered, among many other things, that rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds could spontaneously transmute into food grains, and that "natural cooperation" was observed in nature as opposed to "natural selection".[3] Lysenkoism promised extraordinary advances in breeding and in agriculture that never came about.


Here is a video by Itsik Pe'er , an Israeli Phd mathematician giving a lecture at Columbia University on the genome of the Ashkenazi Jews.
He is mentioned in the article I quoted upthread. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHMYGuXEBZI


There are services like 23 and me which will tell a person what % of the various races he possesses.
Google was involved with the founding of this company.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/technology/23google.html



> In Silicon Valley’s version of “The Bachelor,” Anne Wojcicki not only landed one of America’s richest men, Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, but she also got her husband’s company to finance her start-up.
> 
> The filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission also stated that Mr. Brin had provided $2.6 million in interim debt financing to 23andMe and that his loan was being repaid as part of the financing of 23andMe.
> 
> “Our audit committee requested that we disclose this in order to be completely transparent with our investors about the facts underlying this investment,” said Jon Murchinson, a Google spokesman.
> 
> According to 23andMe’s Web site, by encouraging individuals to learn about their own genetic information, the company will create a common, standardized resource that has the potential to accelerate drug discovery and bring personalized medicine to the public.
> 
> Google said Tuesday that it invested $3.9 million this month in 23andMe, the biotech company co-founded last year by Ms. Wojcicki, a former health care industry analyst.




DNA fingerprinting is used to detect criminals in forensic cases. It's the same science.

Mordko goes to great lengths to describe how Christianity repressed science. Now he is doing the exact same thing.
He is repressing science.

The Israeli scientist at Columbia University isn't purveying junk science. Mordko is.
Sergey Brin and his wife aren't purveying junk science. Mordko is.

Don't believe him.

Dare to know!


----------



## olivaw

Apparently you can't be English and Jewish in mordko's alt-world. Hilarious stuff this. :cat:


----------



## mordko

I have never met anyone who identified as an "English Jew". Lots of British Jews, yes. And how is this relevant to anything???

Ok, that's it. When a plonker is trying to be deliberately obtuse (and lies without the shadow of embarrassment), it's no longer funny.


----------



## mordko

duplicate


----------



## olivaw

In mordko's alt-world you can't be both English and British. :hopelessness:


----------



## mordko

Duplicate


----------



## mordko

SMK said:


> I recall a poster here didn't believe you and was asking you for proof. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...ondemn-imams-who-called-for-the-death-of-jews


Apparently, he "misspoke": http://en.cijnews.com/?p=212100. Multiple times. While his congregation didn't raise an eyebrow. It's a Friday thing.


----------



## SMK

An Imam and a teaching assistant at a university, what a surprise.


----------



## Pluto

Eclectic12 said:


> Interesting idea.
> 
> Toronto in the '20's and '30's are reported to have commonly on hotels, beaches, golf courses and parks signs says "No Jews Allowed" or "Gentiles Only". At least one city pool limited how many Jews could be swimming at any given time, with other pools outright banned Jews and Italians (heat or no heat). In 1933, a group of Toronto Hitler admirers formed the Balmy Beach Swastika Club. One of the group’s objectives was to stop “undesirables” — recent immigrants in general, but mainly Jews — from using the Eastern Beaches.
> 
> Manitoba, Nova Scotia, BC are also reported to have had similar signs. In Quebec in 1934, the hiring of a Jewish intern by Montreal's Notre Dame Hospital resulted in protests that forced the intern to resign.
> 
> 
> Yet according to the "Canada was looking for farmers" theory - the gov't was immune somehow?
> What were they doing ... screening the employees/ministers to make sure they did not fit the population?
> 
> 
> Cheers


I believe you. Some Canadians were antisemetic. But that doesn't prove all Canadians were antisemetic and that the Government had a policy of persecuting Jews. How did these Canadian Jews get into Canada in the first place? They immigrated. How does the fact they immigrated to Canada prove the Goverment had a policy of persecution?


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> My neighbour is Jewish. She personally participates in her Synagogue's sponsorship of a Syrian family. I haven't seen any surveys but I suspect that mordko (and to a lesser extent gibor) are not expressing prevailing Jewish sentiment in Canada.


I believe that. that makes sense. This example fits more with the Jews I have known personally.


----------



## wraphter

I apologize if I am repetitive but when a certain poster disparages scientific knowledge as well as religion and morality I must fight back.
Molecular biology is a beautiful,useful science and it is worth preserving.

Mordko has repeatedly said there is no genetic basis for Jewish identity. How wrong he is. It turns out that the State of Israel
uses genetic testing to determine who is a Jew and who is eligible to emigrate to Israel under The Law of Return or who is eligible
to visit Israel under a program for young people . This genetic test is used particularly for Russian Jews who frequently are the offspring
of marriages between Jew and non-Jew and are secular and do not practice the traditions of Judaism. 

https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/2/2/469/826237/Genetic-citizenship-DNA-testing-and-the-Israeli



> Genetic citizenship: DNA testing and the Israeli Law of Return
> .
> The Israeli State recently announced that it may begin to use genetic tests to determine whether potential immigrants are Jewish or not. This development would demand a rethinking of Israeli law on the issue of the definition of Jewishness.
> 
> Masha Yakerson, like many of her Jewish, college-age peers, attempted to sign up for a Birthright Israel1 trip in the summer of 2013.2 Birthright told Yakerson, whose family is from Russia, that to prove that she was Jewish, and eligible for the trip, she would need to take a DNA test.3 Birthright claimed that the test was required by the Israeli consulate, and further that a DNA test would be required if Yakerson ever wanted to make aliyah (immigrate to Israel).4 Yakerson's father called the policy ‘blatant racism toward Russian Jews’.5 Generally, the requirements for teenagers from other countries to participate in Birthright are much less stringent and many participants do not meet strict definitions of Jewishness. In fact, ‘ince Taglit-Birthright doesn't accept candidates who have visited Israel before, its participants often come from nonaffiliated homes, many of them the products of mixed marriages’
> 
> After the news of this one student's experience made headlines, the Israeli Prime Minister's Office confirmed that many Jews from the Former Soviet Union (‘FSU’) are asked to provide DNA confirmation of their Jewish heritage in order to immigrate as Jews and become citizens under Israel's Law of Return.9




Race is not just a social construct. This is the old view promulgated by anthropologists before the advent of the science of DNA.
Not every geographically separate group of people have the same DNA ,the same sequence of nucleotide bases.The letters A,T,G,and C
are used to represent these bases. One can tell looking at the DNA of an African American what stretch of DNA represents African origin,
European origin, or Native American origin. This science is not some idle parlour game.If this knowledge is denied by the politically correct,that is their problem.

It is used to in modern medicine everyday.
Every year the new flu virus is sequenced so the proper vaccine can be manufactured against it. A lot is known about the genetics
of cystic fibrosis. 
https://www.cff.org/What-is-CF/Genetics/CF-Genetics-Basics/

Do not listen to the anti-science of mordko. He is a false prophet from a godless brutal country. He will lead you back to the Dark Ages,
where 40% of the Eastern Mediterranean population died in the Plague of Justinian. 

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourcei...ie=UTF-8#q=plague+of+justinian+vs+black+death


----------



## Pluto

Eclectic12 said:


> He is the gov't appointee to run the camp, is he not?
> 
> If the Canadian gov't was neutral, why'd they pick him and why did the British gov't lie to the Canadian gov't as to the background of who they were sending to Canada for internment?
> 
> 
> Then too, with "No Jews Allowed", "Gentiles Only" and "Christians Only" signs being widely reported for the time - is it more likely he is a one off or part of the larger group?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Sir Ken Adam begs to differ.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/5220598/Britains-secret-German-army.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I understand, you are arguing that being German, Jewish or not meant one would be barred from fighting and presumably result in internment/being locked up.
> 
> 
> How come there are there references to 10,000 German & Austrians who escaped Nazi persecution and joined the British forces in the Second World War?
> http://www.helen-fry.com/books/churchills-german-army/
> 
> Or the Daily Mail in the UK says similar?
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...German-refugees-fled-Nazis-fight-Britain.html
> 
> 
> Cheers


OK, Ken Adams begs to differ, and there was a German Jew in the RAF. Now there is some evidence. How does that help the theory that Britain and Canada had a government policy to persecute Jews? 

It could be mordko has the answer. He kindly would admit Syrians after extensive checks. Similarily, I suspect the German Jew in the RAF passed extensive checks. Too, I suspect that the German Jews in Canada were released after extensive checks. Mr Koch was released aftger 18 months and apparently went to the Uof Toronto despite the fact that immigration policy gave priority to rural oriented people. How is that anti semetism? If Mr Koch had been turfed from the country that would help sup0port your theory. Or if Mr. Koch had been, because he was Jewish, refused entry to UofT, and forced to work on a farm, for example, that might help your theory. 

In terms of proving that Britaish and Canadian Governemtns were bent on persecuting Jews, I have no proof. 
In terms of proving some Canadians were antisemetic, that's a slam dunk.


----------



## Pluto

gibor365 said:


> Don't know about "your neighbour", but believe me, I know much more Jews than you , NO ONE support bringing here Syrians! Don't you understand that WE came to Canada in order to escape Syrian-like individuals because for ages they did anything to eliminate us.


So you support doing to them, what was done to Jews. You paint them all with the same brush and don't consider the possiblity that any of them might be moderates. Too, you don't seem to have faith in Canada's pluralism and willingness to prevent elimination. I don't think Canada exists to prevent the elimination of Jews only, but other ethnic groups within Canada as well.


----------



## Pluto

SMK said:


> Again, I wasn't talking about any individuals nor drawing analogies, like the monstrous ones you made. All I was agreeing with - with what others said, is that PM Mackenzie King's policies were anti-Semitic. You wish to remember this period of time as just discriminatory, and that's your business but it' false. King admired Hitler and thought of him "as sweet, sincere, and one of the world's saviours".


Alegedly that's indicitive of King's personal sentiment, but you didn't give me a reference to check. It doesn't prove policy. If King had made his aledged personal sentiment into a duty of government employees to persecute Jews, and you could prove it, you would have made your point. 

The circumstances are this: a camp in Canada in WW2 era with some German Jews interned. Mr Elwood was in charge of the camp. According to Mr. Koch, an admirable German Jew interned there, Mr Elwood insulted him and exhibitied some anti Jewsish sentiment. Mr. Elwood's aledged acts are taken to prove government policy. But you haven't proven it. If you could prove, for example, that it was Mr Elwood's duty as a government employee to persecute Jews, you would have your proof. And if that duty was laid on him from the prime ministers office that would be additional proof that it came from high up. But there is no evidence Mr Elwood had the duty as a government employee to persecute Jews. The Jews there were German, and the goverenment apparently had the duty to do extensive checks, as mordko states the Syrians shoudl be subjected to prior to admision to Canada. Apparently, you are tyrying to say that performing similiar extensive checks on German Jews in ww2 is bigotry towards Jews. I don't agree.


----------



## new dog

Pluto if one looks at Europe and what is happening one would be very worried that Canada would repeat the same mistake. Gibor is worried that if enough of them come in they will target Jews like they did from their own countries. Jews though are not the only ones that will have a problem because those sorts of people will target all of us and cause problems. Again a small number isn't going to hurt anyone and we are welcome to that I would think.

Then gibor left a link of what was probably a white supremacist type that vandalized a Jewish persons home and this sort of thing also comes along from people mad at the immigration thing. I overheard someone talking the other day that they should find a white supremacist group to push back at the muslims coming in. They got this view from seeing the destruction of Europe on the internet. If they were to join such a group they would soon learn that these groups don't like jews either.

One can see that the misguided idiotic policies and views of the left are causing all the problems. Amazingly however they still want to double down on the left and make it so bad that some countries in Europe may go into a civil war. They are also blind to the fact that white supremacy thrives under the conditions the left wants us to have.


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> I apologize if I am repetitive but when a certain poster disparages scientific knowledge as well as religion and morality I must fight back.
> Molecular biology is a beautiful,useful science and it is worth preserving.
> 
> Mordko has repeatedly said there is no genetic basis for Jewish identity.


Out of curiosity... Where did I say that??? And how exactly did I "disparage scientific knowledge"?

I mean if you are making crazy stuff up why not make it a little bit similar to something I said?


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> Out of curiosity... Where did I say that??? And how exactly did I "disparage scientific knowledge"?
> 
> I mean if you are making crazy stuff up why not make it a little bit similar to something I said?


Where did you learn your propaganda technique? Is there a special school in Moscow where they teach you to deceive and undermine the moral values of the West?

You have repeatedly denied the genetics of Jews . You have said repeatedly said race is not biological.You are denying molecular biology. You have repeatedly said race is a social construct. Well boychik DNA is not a social construct. 

I quoted an Israeli mathematician computer scientist at Columbia 
University who explains the genome of the Ashkenazi Jews. I referred to a genetic test done by the Israeli government to determine who is a Jew so they can emigrate to Israel. That is not a social construct. Now you pretend you never said race doesn't exist. Impossible!

You are denying science for your own political purposes just like Lysenko denied the Theory of evolution.That is obvious. 
You are repressing scientific knowledge plain and simple . Ethnicity and race means the members of a group are related to each other and have similar stretches of DNA. Most Jews are born into this group. That is part of the definition.


Anthropology has been superseded by molecular biology.


You present a distorted picture of Christianity. You only emphasis the negative. I suspect this is how you feel about Judaism.
You are not a member of the tribe.


----------



## gibor365

> Jews though are not the only ones that will have a problem because those sorts of people will target all of us and cause problems. Again a small number isn't going to hurt anyone and we are welcome to that I would think.


 This is what many Canadians don't understand . They think that if they're not Jews, it won't affect them... I'd suggest talking to some Egypt Coptic or Jordanian christians,who escaped to Canada because of Islamic oppression...


----------



## gibor365

> . Ethnicity and race means the members of a group are related to each other and have similar stretches of DNA. Most Jews are born into this group.


 Who cares?! Go explain you findings to Nazis or Islamofashists


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> Where did you learn your propaganda technique? Is there a special school in Moscow where they teach you to deceive and undermine the moral values of the West?


^That is the exact example of style for writing a typical Pravda article.



wraphter said:


> You have repeatedly denied the genetics of Jews .


Give us the quote where I did it. (FYI I said nothing of the kind, not even close. From a purely genetic point of view Ashkenazim are like fourth cousins to each other) 



wraphter said:


> You have said repeatedly said race is not biological.


 True. It's a social notion. Biologically and genetically humans are too close, the differences are too minute and humans mix too much to try and draw a line between "races". 



wraphter said:


> You are denying molecular biology.


You must be on drugs. I haven't even used the word "molecular" once in this thread. And if I did I doubt you would know what it means.




wraphter said:


> You have repeatedly said race is a social construct. Well boychik DNA is not a social construct.


 This is like saying: "You have repeatedly said that 2x2=4. Well boychik 3x3=6". The two assertions are not in any way contradictory. 



wraphter said:


> I quoted an Israeli mathematician computer scientist at Columbia
> University who explains the genome of the Ashkenazi Jews. I referred to a genetic test done by the Israeli government to determine who is a Jew so they can emigrate to Israel. That is not a social construct. Now you pretend you never said race doesn't exist. Impossible!


I will try to type a bit slower for you. There are genetic similarities between Ashkenazi Jews. There are genetic similarities between certain other groups of people which were genetically isolated for many years, e.g. Australian Aboriginals. Biologically the difference with other groups of **** Sapience amounts to nothing. And there is no way of grouping people into "races" in biological and genetic terms. 

One last time, the following two statements are in no way contradictory:

1. Humans have genes.
2. "*Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans -- genetic differences*,"https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php (according to *Professor Alan R. Templeton, evolutionary and population biologis*t) 



> You are denying science for your own political purposes just like Lysenko denied the Theory of evolution.That is obvious.


Lysenko didn't deny the Theory of Evolution. He was still an ignoramus just like yourself.



> Anthropology has been superseded by molecular biology.


What? Do you understand yourself what you are trying to say? 



> You present a distorted picture of Christianity. You only emphasis the negative.


I was talking about the history of Christian church rather than about the current "picture". That would be the history which includes genocides, burning of witches, banning of books and suppressing science. Suppose I am a bit negative about those things. 



> I suspect this is how you feel about Judaism.


 Judaism had a huge advantage over Christianity of not having any power for a couple of millennia so it couldn't do as much harm. 



> You are not a member of the tribe.


No, I am not a member of any "tribe". I am, however, Jewish and that is not up to you in any way shape or form.


----------



## olivaw

gibor365 said:


> Who cares?! Go explain you findings to Nazis or Islamofashists


Isn't it the position of at least one member of this forum that Jews are a race and Muslims are not - therefore it is racist to criticize Jews but not racist to criticize Muslims? 

Race is a social construct that is usually irrelevant to any constructive conversation. At the same time, those who care about race can identify racial ancestry using genetics. 

Fun video: 





ETA: FWIW, the only races that most people recognize are Caucasian (White), ********* (Asian) and ******* (Black). It's a pointless distinction for any non-medical reason.


----------



## gibor365

> Jews are a race and Muslims are not


 obviously that Muslim is not race, but religion...


----------



## mordko

- Islam can be criticized like any other ideology. In the same manner adherents of Islam can be criticized. They follow a certain set of views; for one thing it's a fairy tale. 
- Judaism can be criticized like any other ideology. Adherents of Judaism can be criticized. 
- Jews are not a "race". There are no "races", except as a social construct.
- However there are rac*ists* who believe that a made up concept defines how people behave. 
- People who "criticize" Jews are adherents of one of the most pernicious forms of racism which is called antisemitism. There is nothing that can be plausibly criticized when talking about people who hold no common views
- People who "criticize" any ethnicity or "race" are racist for the same reason.


----------



## olivaw

gibor365 said:


> obviously that Muslim is not race, but religion...


Islam is a religion. Judaism is a religion. Criticizing other people's religion is lame.


----------



## mordko

> Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
> But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.


― Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize for Physics.


----------



## olivaw

An argument that lacks empathy for the subjective importance of faith comes across as meddlesome and quarrelsome.


----------



## gibor365

olivaw said:


> Islam is a religion. Judaism is a religion. Criticizing other people's religion is lame.


Believe me, I criticized Judaism (ultra-ortodox version of it) much more than you when I lived in Israel...


----------



## olivaw

gibor365 said:


> Believe me, I criticized Judaism (ultra-ortodox version of it) much more than you when I lived in Israel...


Criticizing your own religion or religious heritage is OK - well it's not intolerant, anyway. 

I don't recall criticizing Judaism. That would be lame.


----------



## olivaw

*Terry Glavin: How bad is Islamophobia? Someone finally asked Canadian Muslims*

Lots of good stuff. Here are a few snippets. 



> It is only a little more than three weeks since six innocent Canadians were murdered while at prayer at a mosque in the Quebec City suburb of Sainte-Foy, we should remember. And yet Islamophobia, whatever that term might mean, has given way to what you could call Islamophobia-phobia, and the state of play now is best captured by the gonzo maxim: when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.





> Last April, a CBC-Environics poll revealed that Muslims in Canada are annoyed less by discrimination in this country than by all the damn snow. About a third of the Muslim respondents said the really lousy thing about Canada was the weather. Only nine per cent said it was discrimination. One of five respondents said they couldn’t identify anything about Canada they didn’t like. Eight in ten said Muslims are treated better in Canada than any other Western country.





> As for the persistent conspiratorial insinuation that Muslims are devoted to some shadowy allegiance that supersedes their devotion to Canadian values, a 2015 Environics survey found that 83 per cent of Muslim Canadians declared they were “very proud” to be Canadian, compared to only 73 per cent of the rest of us. Freedom and democracy turned up as the main reason why Muslims are proud to be Canadian, followed closely by multiculturalism and diversity.


----------



## mordko

Christian church and Islamic regimes have been persecuting and murdering Jews over such a long period of time and with such remarkable consistency that "criticizing" is the least that is owed to both of these religions. Cargo cult worshipping... fair enough, I shall obstain.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> - Islam can be criticized like any other ideology. In the same manner adherents of Islam can be criticized. They follow a certain set of views; for one thing it's a fairy tale.
> - Judaism can be criticized like any other ideology. Adherents of Judaism can be criticized.
> - Jews are not a "race". There are no "races", except as a social construct.
> - However there are rac*ists* who believe that a made up concept defines how people behave.
> - People who "criticize" Jews are adherents of one of the most pernicious forms of racism which is called antisemitism. There is nothing that can be plausibly criticized when talking about people who hold no common views
> - People who "criticize" any ethnicity or "race" are racist for the same reason.


What about people who criticize the structure of thinking and content of thinking of a particular Jew? For example, your thinking has been questioned and criticized, and in response you intensely claim racisim, but no one I know of criticized you because you were a Jew.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> Islam is a religion. Judaism is a religion. Criticizing other people's religion is lame.


So, can't critique the Christian sects with child brides? Or Scientology? Raelism? Rev Jim Jones?

I think you are unbelievably wrong on this point.


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> Christian church and Islamic regimes have been persecuting and murdering Jews over such a long period of time and with such remarkable consistency that "criticizing" is the least that is owed to both of these religions. Cargo cult worshipping... fair enough, I shall obstain.


Not everything in the world revolves around Jews ,you know. (Apparently you don't know).


----------



## mordko

Pluto said:


> What about people who criticize the structure of thinking and content of thinking of a particular Jew? For example, your thinking has been questioned and criticized, and in response you intensely claim racisim, but no one I know of criticized you because you were a Jew.


All depends on the type of criticism. You should check out the mirror:

- You supported imprisonment of Jews fleeing the Nazis during the war: "_Given the reason Churchill had, I'm glad they did that._" There is no reasonable way to explain such support except prejudice against Jews (=antisemitism). 

- You repeatedly compared me to Nazis. That's antisemitic. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120147388696520647

- Statements like this reek of antisemitism: _"I say the Jewish camp was like a holiday camp."_ 

- Your link to Jewish mobsters was completely irrelevant to the discussion. There was no reason to provide the link other than to stereotype Jews by ethnicity (aka antisemitism).

And it all ties in with your racist beliefs: "_Within the species of Humans there are different varietes_ (sic)" 

Your level of blatant lying when you are "criticizing" me is also peculiar but that's probably just the way you are: ("_...ant (sic) then say all canadians (sic) are antisemetic (sic) _".)


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> And it all ties in with your racist beliefs: "Within the species of Humans there are different varietes (sic)"


You are ignoring the findings of modern science,the sequencing of the human genome. The State of Israel uses a genetic test to determine who is a Jew and who is not. The fact that 75% of the NBA is African American or that runners of West African heritage dominate the sprint events is not a social construct. You are a certified member of the politically correct flat earth society. You are repressing the science of genetics just like your countryman Lysenko.


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> The State of Israel uses a genetic test to determine who is a Jew and who is not


^ fabrication. The rest is just idiocy.


----------



## andrewf

wraphter said:


> You are ignoring the findings of modern science,the sequencing of the human genome. The State of Israel uses a genetic test to determine who is a Jew and who is not. The fact that 75% of the NBA is African American or that runners of West African heritage dominate the sprint events is not a social construct. You are a certified member of the politically correct flat earth society. You are repressing the science of genetics just like your countryman Lysenko.


The genetic differences are pretty superficial, though. I think this is what you are not getting.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Christian church and Islamic regimes have been persecuting and murdering Jews over such a long period of time and with such remarkable consistency that "criticizing" is the least that is owed to both of these religions. Cargo cult worshipping... fair enough, I shall obstain.


What is your view of Sicut Judaeis?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicut_Judaeis


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> All depends on the type of criticism. You should check out the mirror:
> 
> - You supported imprisonment of Jews fleeing the Nazis during the war: "_Given the reason Churchill had, I'm glad they did that._" There is no reasonable way to explain such support except prejudice against Jews (=antisemitism).
> 
> - You repeatedly compared me to Nazis. That's antisemitic. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120147388696520647
> 
> - Statements like this reek of antisemitism: _"I say the Jewish camp was like a holiday camp."_
> 
> - Your link to Jewish mobsters was completely irrelevant to the discussion. There was no reason to provide the link other than to stereotype Jews by ethnicity (aka antisemitism).
> 
> And it all ties in with your racist beliefs: "_Within the species of Humans there are different varietes_ (sic)"
> 
> Your level of blatant lying when you are "criticizing" me is also peculiar but that's probably just the way you are: ("_...ant (sic) then say all canadians (sic) are antisemetic (sic) _".)


1. I am glad they did that. They were all German and they had to ensure there were no German spies among them. One or mor of them could have been Nazi spies with a fake identity. The fact that you would require "extensive checks" on Syrians, but not on a group that could have contained spies is strange. I fear you have gone off the rails. 
2. compare to what frint line Candaian infantry got, The German (Jews) in canada got a rustic holiday camp, that the kindly Mr. Koch, and admirable German Jew inhterned there, described as "perfectly comfortable". Mordko your pick and choose editing is like what Goebbels did to the Jews. 
3. you interpret the link to Jewish mobsters in a very defensive way. I fear that you would suppress the facts of Jewish mobsters if you could. And you do try to suppress such facts by smearing anyone who brings it up. If I painted all Jews as mobsters, that would be doing what you do to other people, and what Goebbels did to the Jews. 
You are so bent on playing the victim, to gain moral superiority, that you smear other people and other nations to achieve that goal. 

Distorting circumstamces to gain moral superiority is not going to work with me.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
> But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.― Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize for Physics.


Weinberg should stick to physics. Everybody has a world view mordko, and world views are tied to faith. Just because you don't belong to an organized, instituionalized Religion, doesn't mean you are not religious. You have faith in your world view just like everyone else. Your view of the world is socially constructed and there is no guarantee you have special corner on the truth. 

An article of your faith is Weinberg's dogma. It implies that mordko must be doing good because mordko does not belong to a organized religion. That is an extremely superficial faith/religious belief.


----------



## mordko

Sicut Judaeis was first issued by Calixtus following massacres, robbery and forced conversions of Jews in Europe which were called "The First Crusade". The Crusade was instigated by the Pope Urban who preceded Calixtus.

The letter reiterated legal discrimination against Jews as well as provided a measure of protection in the wake of religiously motivated mass murders. 

Calixtus was followed by several vigorously antisemitic Popes, e.g. Innocent III, Honorius III and Gregory IX. All issued antisemitic bulls, forcing special taxes and special closing including the wearing of a distinctive badge. They also accused Jews of "blasphemy" and ordered the burning of Jewish books, including ancient texts. 

The above isn't particularly surprising given that principle founders of the church as well as major Saints were also antisemitic. 
http://www.yashanet.com/library/fathers.htm

Of course this didn't stop in the Middle Ages. John of Kronstadt acted as the senior official of the Russian orthodox church in Kishinev and helped to instigate one of the worst pogroms of the Tsarist era. There were mass rapes and murders and John justified the murderers by claiming that Jews deserved it. He also persecuted Lev Tolstoy - just because John was an ignorant illiterate scumbag. Recently he was canonized and is now a saint of the Russian Orthodox Church. 

And there would have been decent people among church officials too. It's like Steven Weinberg said, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. "


----------



## gibor365

> The State of Israel uses a genetic test to determine who is a Jew and who is not.


 What?! Are you insane?! 
It would be even imposssible in theory as many non-Jews converted to Judaism (ex. Elizabeth Taylor,Marilyn Monro, Ivanka Trump and so on ) and their children are 100% Jews


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> Your level of blatant lying when you are "criticizing" me is also peculiar but that's probably just the way you are


Criticize mordko's alt-world narrative and he calls you a liar, an antisemite/racist and astoundingly ignorant. Pluto isn't the first to be labeled by mordko. He won't be the last.


----------



## olivaw

gibor365 said:


> What?! Are you insane?!


LOL, isn't that a prerequisite for participation in this thread.


----------



## mordko

Let's sum up:

- according to Pluto I am Goebbels. Pluto is glad that Jews were imprisoned during the war. Pluto thinks that science is my religion.

- according to wraphter I am too politically correct. Also a member of the flat earth society. Wraphter thinks that I am suppressing science. 

- according to Olivaw I am alt-right. Olivaw supports Pluto, who is glad that Jews were imprisoned during the war. Olivaw believes that all criticism of religion is bigotry. Olivaw is in love with HP who in turn thinks that not having anglo-saxon blood in ones veins precludes a person from commenting on Brexit.

Glad you are all in agreement.


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> - according to Olivaw I am alt-right.


I never said alt-right, I said alt-world. Not the same thing at all. The world you describe appears to be nothing like the real world. 

Take your last post for example. :stupid:


----------



## mordko

Sure. Alt-world. Because Christian church was simply awesome in pushing civilization forward in the Middle Ages. Got it. And if it wasn't I would be a bigot for saying it. Got it.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Let's sum up:
> 
> - according to Pluto I am Goebbels. Pluto is glad that Jews were imprisoned during the war. Pluto thinks that science is my religion.
> 
> - according to wraphter I am too politically correct. Also a member of the flat earth society. Wraphter thinks that I am suppressing science.
> 
> - according to Olivaw I am alt-right. Olivaw supports Pluto, who is glad that Jews were imprisoned during the war. Olivaw believes that all criticism of religion is bigotry. Olivaw is in love with HP who in turn thinks that not having anglo-saxon blood in ones veins precludes a person from commenting on Brexit.
> 
> Glad you are all in agreement.


This of course is an example of your dogma and ideology. I can say that the people interned temporarily in canada during WW2 were German Jews. But you don't say they were German due to your apparent desire to smear British and Canadian governemts. That's the type of thing that Goebbels did to the Jews to smear them. Obviously, no one said you were Goebbels, just similiar to him. His target was Jews, your target is anyone who doesn't accept your dogma. 

Something is awry with you mordko. It looks like your modus operandi is to smear people hoping they respond in kind, then you would take their in kind response to "prove" they are out to get you. It is a very tireing and fruitless strategy my friend mordko. You waste a lot of good energy on bad endeavours.


----------



## Eclectic12

Pluto said:


> It isn't fair to generalize from Mr Elwood to all Canadians and to claim based on reprots of Mr Elwoods acts that the Candian Government was persecuting Jews ... The discrimiating factor for camps was German, not Jew.


I am not sure why you are putting word into my mouth.

The point of Major W.J.H. Ellwood's activity was to indicate that despite claims that the only thing that mattered was that the internees were German with being Jewish irrelevant - without much effort, it is easy to show that in at minimum one case - being Jewish, despite being anti-Nazi mattered.

It is intended to prompt more investigation. After all, anti-Jewish sentiment is easy to find documented as being widespread across Canada. The Canadian Gov't drew their employees and MPs from the population ... so why wouldn't something is in the population show up in gov't?


Bottom line is there seem to be a lot of arguments/statements being made in a blanket fashion that have easy to find exceptions or contractions.




Pluto said:


> ... to look at this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-American_organized_crime
> and then say Jews are mobsters is the similiar to Elwood didn't like Jews, elwood was a Canadian, so Canada persecuted Jews ...


Not even close, IMO.

There's no opening claim along the lines of "Jews were jailed in the US for vagrancy, not organised crime as claimed". There should also be no "all Jews are mobsters" as the "Major W.J.H. Ellwood is antisemetic = all Canadians are antisemetic" is not a claim I was making.

He was however, appointed by the gov't as the camp commandant - where he felt comfortable his superiors would tolerate, if not believe the same ideas about Jews.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

Pluto said:


> I believe you. Some Canadians were antisemetic. But that doesn't prove all Canadians were antisemetic and that the Government had a policy of persecuting Jews.


The point is that it is wide spread in Canada, in blantant ways. 




Pluto said:


> How did these Canadian Jews get into Canada in the first place? They immigrated. How does the fact they immigrated to Canada prove the Goverment had a policy of persecution?


Some years in the past, the Jewish immigrated was as much as 30K ... during the time were are discussing, it's way down in comparison. 

Then too, if there's the gov't officials who the Jewish families are making a case to for bringing their desperate relatives to Canada that write about how Jewish immigration is tightly controlled, despite the requests. One wrote how there was an international Jewish conspiracy to get around Canadian immigration laws.

There's also RB Bennett, who is PM for part of this time, who in a 1907 speech in BC, talked about:


> We must not allow our shores to be overrun by Asiatics, and become dominated by an alien race. *British Columbia must remain a white man’s country*


The 907 Jews about the SS St. Louis would have made a negligible difference or the Jewish refugees that the Montreal Jews had raised the money to support - in both cases, Canada turned them away.


Then there's those I have talked to who lived through it who think the gov't was anti-Semitic, matching what they were seeing in Canadian society.


Cheers


*PS*

This is pretty much the same time that the KKK expanded into at minimum Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. There's bombings, murders and for the one of the most prominent groups, the Ku Klux Klan of Kanada, a requirement for members to pledge that they were white, gentile, and Protestant.


----------



## Eclectic12

Pluto said:


> 1. I'm sorry about what happened too, but all these apopogies are occuring in hindsight. Hindsight is 20/20. Monday morning quarterbacking. Don't you get that? In the 1930's they didn't know of the coming holocaust ...


So the Canadian Jews with letters from their relatives about how bad it was didn't bother with details when pressing the gov't officials, all the way up to the PM?

Never mind that Indiana newspapers had mentions of Dachau inmates being murdered as early at 1935. The Toronto papers would have to be checked in detail but the articles they were publishing was cited as one of the factors that meant the display of a swastika resulted in a six hour riot (Toronto's worst).

The full scale might not have been known but that it was dire seems to have been published. 




Pluto said:


> 2. the theory was presented in this forum that the British and Canadian Government persecuted Jews by interning them in a camp in Canada. But they were German. I have no knowledge of French Jews, Polish Jews, and so on being interned in Canada or Britain. So to me, the theory that interning the German Jews in Canada was to persecute Jews falls short of proof. They weren't in that camp because they were Jews, they were there because they were German.


Yet for at minimum, one group - the UK investigation classed them as "low to no risk", where one would have thought they'd be released. Instead they were passed off as POWs to Canada. The Canadian camp commander at some point came to realise they were anti-Nazi but argued they should be kept in the camp *because of their Jewish instincts.*

It does not seem as cut and dried as is described.




Pluto said:


> 2.3. The fact that some Canadians were antisemetic is not in dispute.


How wide ranging the anti-semitism was seems to be the issue. Despite it being common - any gov't examples are being dismissed as exceptions.


Cheers


----------



## SMK

^ You won't convince Pluto of the truth. Best to let him have the last word.


----------



## Pluto

Eclectic12 said:


> I am not sure why you are putting word into my mouth.
> 
> The point of Major W.J.H. Ellwood's activity was to indicate that despite claims that the only thing that mattered was that the internees were German with being Jewish irrelevant - without much effort, it is easy to show that in at minimum one case - being Jewish, despite being anti-Nazi mattered.
> 
> It is intended to prompt more investigation. After all, anti-Jewish sentiment is easy to find documented as being widespread across Canada. The Canadian Gov't drew their employees and MPs from the population ... so why wouldn't something is in the population show up in gov't?
> 
> 
> Bottom line is there seem to be a lot of arguments/statements being made in a blanket fashion that have easy to find exceptions or contractions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close, IMO.
> 
> There's no opening claim along the lines of "Jews were jailed in the US for vagrancy, not organised crime as claimed". There should also be no "all Jews are mobsters" as the "Major W.J.H. Ellwood is antisemetic = all Canadians are antisemetic" is not a claim I was making.
> 
> He was however, appointed by the gov't as the camp commandant - where he felt comfortable his superiors would tolerate, if not believe the same ideas about Jews.
> 
> Cheers


1. Good. I'm glad you were not making the claim that all Canadians were anti semetic.
2. Some Canadians who worked for government were personally ( as individuals) anti semetic. There is no proof that it was part of their job to be anti semetic. that includes Elwood and who ever else was quoted as being anti semetic. 
3. They were not interned because they were Jews, they were interned because they were German and it was prudent to do extensive checks before releasing them. some of them could have been Nazi spies with false id's - ie pretending to be Jewish when they were not and hoping ot be released into Britian or Canada to spy. 
4. Once they were cleared, they were released. For example, the story of Mr. Koch (which mordko presented as proof of persecution) wrote that the camp was perfectly comfortable, that he was released after 18 months whereupon he went to Toronto and enroled in U of T. even though Canada wanted rural oriented immigrants at the time. Now, if Mr Koch had been forced to move to a rural area, work on a farm for food and no pay because he was a Jew that would be evidence of government sanctioned anti semitism. But that didn't happen. He got into Canada and into university in 18 months, while normal immigration times are reportedly 5 years. 

If you can provide evidnece that the Canadian government had a policy of persecutiing Jews, I will consider changing my mind. Presently there is no evidence that persecuting Jews was a duty of any Canadian government employee. There is no allegation that, for example, it was Major Elwood's duty as a government employee, to persecute Jews. The complaint was that Major Elwood insutled Mr. Koch. But there is no proof that Major Elwood's duties as a government employee required him to insult Mr. Koch because he was Jewish. Mr Elwood did it on his own. He was not required to do it as a part of his job. 

So no proof has been presented that the Government had a policy whereby employees were required to persecute Jews.


----------



## Pluto

Eclectic12 said:


> How wide ranging the anti-semitism was seems to be the issue. Despite it being common - any gov't examples are being dismissed as exceptions.
> Cheers


It may be the issue for you, but not for me. I don't know how widespread anti semitism was or wasn't. So far as I know there was no statistical study on it. And define "widespread". Is widespread 1%, 10%, 30%, or what % of Canadian citizens? If you know of a statisical study on this subject, I'll look at it. In the meantime you are just speculating. 

the issue was: some German Jews were in Britian as refugee claimants. But a claim is not proof. So they had to undergo extensive checks. During the process Churchill, who had higher priorities managed to have them transferred to Canada. There they were given housing in a camp. The camp was originally built for Canadian unemployed men in the 1930s as unemploymebnt had reached 25% in the depression. mordko apparently felt the camp facilities, or lack of facilities, was proof of persecution of these Jews, even though it was good enough for Canadian unemployed men. Then mordko gave me a reference, a link to the story of Mr. Koch who wrote a book of his experiences at the camp. He book was called "Deemed Suspect" or somthing like that. I kind of like the Jew, Mr Koch, who weems to be to be a gentleman and a scholar. As Mr. Koch explains they were Deemed Suspects, not because they were jews, but because they were German. They could have been Nazi spies with false documents falsely portraying them as Jewish refugees. Once extensive checks were done, Mr. Koch and others were released. 

I see nothing is this story that would prove the Canadain Government had a policy or program that required Canadian Government employees to persecute Jews.


----------



## Pluto

SMK said:


> ^ You won't convince Pluto of the truth. Best to let him have the last word.


What "truth"? 

The apparent claim was that the canadian Government in WW2 era had a policy and program to persecute Jews. the proof was offered by showing Canada interned some Germans in a camp that was previously used for Canadian unemployed men. The fact that these Germans claimed to be Jews and were refugees needed to be substantiated before releasing them. Once it was established they were not Nazi's pretending to be Jews, they were released. 

I don't see any conspiracy aganst Jews in that story.


----------



## gibor365

> ou won't convince Pluto of the truth. Best to let him have the last word.


+1


----------



## gibor365

I already told my story...let me repeat for pluto...
In 2002 I was working for company that 50% belong to the government.... suddenly I was fired, I talked to HR who told me that the reason was that I lived in last 5 years in country that on the special list indicates that who lived in those specific countries -> cannot work for government. HR even gave me copy of this letter that was sent from some government screening department in ottawa... 
I went with this letter to lawyers from Bnai Brit who was really surprised and send inquiry to this department.... and really, she got list of 5 or 6 countries and if somebody lived in those countries for last 5 years they cannot work for government.
List included: Afganistan, North Korea, Iraq, Iran and ...Israel! btw, together with me worked Iraqi girl who just came to Canada and she continued to work without any problem... imo, it's just "new antisemitism" from Canadian government, but Im sure that Pluto will find justification for such law


----------



## olivaw

gibor365 said:


> +1


-1. Some members of this forum need to learn to attack the idea, not the person.


----------



## Pluto

gibor365 said:


> I already told my story...let me repeat for pluto...
> In 2002 I was working for company that 50% belong to the government.... suddenly I was fired, I talked to HR who told me that the reason was that I lived in last 5 years in country that on the special list indicates that who lived in those specific countries -> cannot work for government. HR even gave me copy of this letter that was sent from some government screening department in ottawa...
> I went with this letter to lawyers from Bnai Brit who was really surprised and send inquiry to this department.... and really, she got list of 5 or 6 countries and if somebody lived in those countries for last 5 years they cannot work for government.
> List included: Afganistan, North Korea, Iraq, Iran and ...Israel! btw, together with me worked Iraqi girl who just came to Canada and she continued to work without any problem... imo, it's just "new antisemitism" from Canadian government, but Im sure that Pluto will find justification for such law


You story does not say that you were fired because you were a Jew. Anti semitisim seems to be prejudice because you are Jewish. But you didn't get fired because you were Jewish. 

I don't know how that policy is justified, but obviously the policy is *not* to fire you because you were Jewish.


----------



## gibor365

> I don't know how that policy is justified, but obviously the policy is not to fire you because you were Jewish.


 Obviously government won't fire because you're a Jew, but fires because you lived in Israel ... new antisemitism !


----------



## Eclectic12

Pluto said:


> ... 3. They were not interned because they were Jews, they were interned because they were German and it was prudent to do extensive checks before releasing them. some of them could have been Nazi spies with false id's - ie pretending to be Jewish when they were not and hoping ot be released into Britian or Canada to spy.
> 
> 4. Once they were cleared, they were released ...


Makes you wonder why it is written up completely differently in Britain and Canada.

Before the tribunals and the enemy alien internment in Britain, there were reported to be over 80K Jewish refugees.
The Nazis invade Holland, which sparks the tribunals. The tribunals use category A "high risk", Category B "doubtful cases" and Category C "no risk". 

Category A has a bit under six hundred who are interned immediately. Category B has six thousand five hunder, who were supervised and subject to restrictions, Category C has around sixty four thousand with about fifty five thousand recognised as refugees from the Nazis, with the vast majority Jewish. They are left a liberty.

This changes in the spring of 1940 where the failure of the Norwegian campaign led to an outbreak of spy fever and agitation against enemy aliens. 

The previous determination of "refugee" was ignored so that everyone was rounded up, no matter what the previous tribunal had decided. One of Britain's internment camps on the Isle of Mann is reported to have had eighty percent of it's internees Jewish. Canada and Australia were the two countries that took over seven thousand of the internees. 

It wasn't tribunals or a second round of tribunals that sparked releases from the British internment camps but a combination of easing of fears of a Nazi invasion and outrage. Reports of humiliating treatment / terrible conditions, where the British military guard stole internees possessions stolen or threw them overboard for those on the Dunera, that was headed to Australia. 

The Arandora Star, on the other hand, was bound for Canada - on it's own (i.e. not part of a convoy). It was torpedoed by a German U-boat off of Ireland, where seven hundred fourteen were lost - mostly internees. As the lost included many prominent anti-fascists who had escaped from Germany, Austria and Italy, questions in British Parliament / outrage resulted. About a year later, Britian started releasing internees.

Canada asked for help distinguishing between the levels, the British sent Alexander Paterson, His Majesty’s Commissioner of Prisons and a renowned social reformer. They expected Paterson would be able to make short work of it in about two weeks. Instead the Canadian gov't resisted, where Patterson had to stay in Canada for over eight months in order to clear the refugees individually. Infuriated by what he was seeing, he unleashed a volley of criticism at the Canadian government, urging Ottawa to lift military control because, he argued, “in many cases, the better brains [are] inside the wire.”

C.D. Howe, the influential munitions minister who essentially ran the war effort, intervened after discovering that the camps held some highly skilled people whose help he could use.


So yes, Mr. Koch did get his opportunity ... but not, apparently from quick action by the Canadian gov't or trust between Britain who had sent them and Canada.


Cheers


----------



## mordko

I think the "idea" is that it was right for the Canadian government, lead by Antisemitic prime minister and immigration minister to imprison Jews trying to escape Nazi Germany. 

I don't think this idea needs to be attacked. The promoter of this idea, and his pals, are beyond contempt.


----------



## olivaw

^ After suffering defeat in an earlier debate, mordko launches another of his petty attacks on a respected member of the forum. The MO is to paraphrase the argument in an attempt to unfairly paint him as a bigot. Not the first time, won't be the last.


----------



## gibor365

Pluto said:


> You story does not say that you were fired because you were a Jew. Anti semitisim seems to be prejudice because you are Jewish. But you didn't get fired because you were Jewish.
> 
> I don't know how that policy is justified, but obviously the policy is *not* to fire you because you were Jewish.


Your logic (and probably Canadian's government) was exactly like USSR's !
Until 1991 , every one who was immigrating from USSR with Israeli visa , was required to give up Soviet citizenship and pay 3 average monthly salary fees. USSR couldn't say directly that every Jew that leaving country should give up citizenship. Thus, they introduced law that everyone who is immigrating to country that is potential enemy of USSR , should give up citizenship and pay fees. Interestingly that on this "list", was only one country - Israel (interesting that more than 70%of immigrant with israeli visa went directly to USA). People immigrating to US or Germany didn't require to give up citizenship. 
So, as Pluto said, this policy wasn't against Jews


----------



## wraphter

> lead by Antisemitic prime minister


Talk about tunnel vision. As if some label was the essence of the man and his numerous accomplishments count for nothing. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lyon_Mackenzie_King



> William Lyon Mackenzie King OM, CMG, PC (December 17, 1874 – July 22, 1950), also commonly known as Mackenzie King, was the dominant Canadian political leader from the 1920s through the 1940s. He served as the tenth Prime Minister of Canada in 1921–1926, 1926–1930 and 1935–1948. He is best known for his leadership of Canada throughout the Second World War (1939–1945) when he mobilized Canadian money, supplies and volunteers to support Britain while boosting the economy and maintaining home front morale. A Liberal with 21 years and 154 days in office, he was the longest-serving prime minister in Canadian history. Trained in law and social work, he was keenly interested in the human condition (as a boy, his motto was "Help those that cannot help themselves"), and played a major role in laying the foundations of the Canadian welfare state.[1]
> 
> ............
> 
> *A survey of scholars in 1997 by Maclean's magazine ranked King first among all Canada's prime ministers, ahead of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. As historian Jack Granatstein notes, "the scholars expressed little admiration for King the man but offered unbounded admiration for his political skills and attention to Canadian unity."*[8] On the other hand, political scientist Ian Stewart in 2007 found that even Liberal activists have but a dim memory of him.[9]


Then again some people don't know the difference between a concentration camp and an internment camp.

However bad Canadians were, the Germans were worse. That's why Canada went to war.

Canadian and American Jews at least made it through WWII. Not so for European Jews.

After the war the treatment of Jews in Canada improved a great deal.


----------



## gibor365

> Canadian and American Jews at least made it through WWII. Not so for European Jews.
> 
> .


 Really?! Do you think mordko and myself were born in North America?! 



> After the war the treatment of Jews in Canada improved a great deal


just do some research and you will find out that after the war, it was easier to come to Canada for nazi criminals then for Holocaust survivors...

I;m not even talking about posters "No dogs and Jews"


----------



## mordko

The claim that Canada was less Antisemitic than Germany during WW2 is accurate. Good stuff.


----------



## Pluto

gibor365 said:


> Obviously government won't fire because you're a Jew, but fires because you lived in Israel ... new antisemitism !


You don't know that it is new anti semitisim. You are speculating. Did you go to Human rights commission? The media? do anything about it? I don't see a theme of anti semitism in the countries you listed. You should have dug deeper to get the actual reason.


----------



## mordko

Talking of WW2 history, through most of the war there were fewer Canadians who fought the Nazis than Canadians who served in Canada, doing such important duties as guarding Jews. For the most part, one had to volunteer to be sent overseas. There was a shortage of volunteers and those who did were severly short staffed and resented "zombies" who "served" in Canada. Those who did volunteer were heros and some 50 thousand sacrificed their lives. 

This was another example of the political accomplishments of Mackenzie King.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> I think the "idea" is that it was right for the Canadian government, lead by Antisemitic prime minister and immigration minister to imprison Jews trying to escape Nazi Germany.
> 
> I don't think this idea needs to be attacked. The promoter of this idea, and his pals, are beyond contempt.


Once again they were German, there could have been a spy among them pretending to be a German Jewish refuge, and you leave that fact out.


----------



## Pluto

Eclectic12 said:


> Canada asked for help distinguishing between the levels, the British sent Alexander Paterson, His Majesty’s Commissioner of Prisons and a renowned social reformer. Patterson had to stay in Canada for over eight months in order to clear the refugees individually. Infuriated by what he was seeing, he unleashed a volley of criticism at the Canadian government, urging Ottawa to lift military control because, he argued, “in many cases, the better brains [are] inside the wire.”
> 
> C.D. Howe, the influential munitions minister who essentially ran the war effort, intervened after discovering that the camps held some highly skilled people whose help he could use.
> So yes, Mr. Koch did get his opportunity ... but not, apparently from quick action by the Canadian gov't or trust between Britain who had sent them and Canada.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Doesn't sound like anti semitism from Patterson or Howe. Sounds like the usual government bureaucracy.


----------



## Eclectic12

wraphter said:


> ... As if some label was the essence of the man and his numerous accomplishments count for nothing ...
> However bad Canadians were, the Germans were worse ...


If I recall the sources correctly, the rest of the world taking so few German Jews was one of the reasons Hitler felt justified in accelerating the final solution.

Either way ... what comfort is the "somebody else was worse" when one knows that the "better ones" could have chosen to save one's relatives but didn't?




wraphter said:


> ... After the war the treatment of Jews in Canada improved a great deal.


Not so much in the immediate aftermath. Articles in Canadian newspapers are detailing the extent of the Nazi atrocities in 1945 yet the 1946 gallup poll reports that forty nine percent are against selective Jewish immigration.

It's also a nice reward for fighting in the Canadian army to be told "no Jews allowed" for a veteran's housing area of Toronto, right?


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

Pluto said:


> Doesn't sound like anti semitism from Patterson or Howe. Sounds like the usual government bureaucracy.


The same gov't bureaucracy that desires farmers by requiring the farmer have $10,000 and later $15,000 to be acceptable. 
Strangely - no $$ requirement and land was being given away for improving it over a couple of years that had been the previous policy was more effective.

But we wouldn't want more effective policies or other details get in the way of the claims that farmers were the priority.


Cheers


----------



## bgc_fan

Eclectic12 said:


> Not so much in the immediate aftermath. Articles in Canadian newspapers are detailing the extent of the Nazi atrocities in 1945 yet the 1946 gallup poll reports that forty nine percent are against selective Jewish immigration.
> 
> It's also a nice reward for fighting in the Canadian army to be told "no Jews allowed" for a veteran's housing area of Toronto, right?
> 
> Cheers


I guess the point of this thread is that racism only applies to Jews correct? 

I mean we overlook the fact that there was the Military Voters act in 1917 that allowed all people in Canada (including non-citizens) who served in the military to have the right to vote, unless you were a member of a racial minority, including Status Indians.

Or that in 1920, the Solicitor General Hugh Guthrie stated:



> So far as I know, citizenship in no country carries with it the right to vote. The right to vote is a conferred right in every case ... This Parliament says upon what terms men shall vote ... No Oriental, whether he be Hindu, Japanese or Chinese, acquires the right to vote simply by the fact of citizenship ...
> 
> Debates April 29, 1920; 1821


Or the fact that First Nations people didn't have the unconditional right to vote until 1960.

But apparently none of that matters.


----------



## mordko

What?


----------



## gibor365

Pluto said:


> You don't know that it is new anti semitisim. You are speculating. Did you go to Human rights commission? The media? do anything about it? I don't see a theme of anti semitism in the countries you listed. You should have dug deeper to get the actual reason.


As I told I went to Bnai Brit lawyer, who promissed to fight it, but warned me that it can take years... I didn't follow it as I needed another job...needed to earn money for family... bur as Quebec guys are telling "I remember"


----------



## olivaw

bgc_fan said:


> I guess the point of this thread is that racism only applies to Jews correct?
> 
> I mean we overlook the fact that there was the Military Voters act in 1917 that allowed all people in Canada (including non-citizens) who served in the military to have the right to vote, unless you were a member of a racial minority, including Status Indians.
> 
> Or that in 1920, the Solicitor General Hugh Guthrie stated:
> 
> Or the fact that First Nations people didn't have the unconditional right to vote until 1960.
> 
> But apparently none of that matters.


Bigotry, misogyny and racism are an unfortunate part of our national history. Everyone who wasn't a white male Christian was subjected to some form of inequality. We've come a long way in recent decades, but we still have a long way to go.


----------



## mordko

james4beach said:


> One thing I've learned in recent years is that just because someone is Chinese, Indian, Jewish, Hungarian, whatever... doesn't mean they have any empathy towards a group that is being discriminated against.
> 
> The Japanese probably understand it a bit better because the internment camps and scapegoating of Japanese (in Canada & US) is so recent.


Let's remind ourselves what started the discussion about war time antisemitism in Canada. It was James's claim that Jews, Indians and others don't have empathy like the Japanese do because the camps and scapegoating for the latter was "so recent".


----------



## bgc_fan

mordko said:


> Let's remind ourselves what started the discussion about war time antisemitism in Canada. It was James's claim that Jews, Indians and others don't have empathy like the Japanese do because the camps and scapegoating for the latter was "so recent".


No, this started with the claim that Jews were interned like the Japanese were during WWII, but that wasn't shown to be the case, i.e. CANADIANS of Jewish descent were being rounded up in larger numbers (say over 20,000), having their property confiscated and interned. Does that excuse the Canadian policy of closing doors to Jewish refugees during WWII? Not in the least.

Then this thread ended up being Canada is antisemitic and how certain leaders in the early 1900s were specifically antisemitic. But let's be honest here, they weren't specifically antisemitic, they were just bigoted and racist against anyone who wasn't from British stock. Even the Canadians of French descent weren't really treated fairly (but better than most), and the First Nations people who here long before Europeans arrived were and are still being discriminated against.

Let's take a look at the right to vote in Canada. At the beginning, only Protestants who were landowners were allowed to vote (following along British laws), while that right was extended to those of Christian faith, yes Jews were not allowed to vote. But all of this was mainly resolved in the early 1800s. Then again, this is pre-Confederation, so let's take a look afterwards where disenfranchisement was essentially a game to cut people out during the early 1900s. Again it may be more fun to take look at the actual legislation that targeted minorities: the Electorial Franchise Act in 1885 specifically excluded Canadians of Chinese descent. In 1898 they received it, but lost it in 1920 under the Dominion Exclusion Act, because if a province discriminated against a specific race, they would not have the right. As BC and Saskatchewan discriminated against those of Chinese and (in the case of BC) Japanese and South Asian descent, they could not vote until 1949 for the Canadians of Japanese descent. I don't see anything in CANADA's history (i.e. post-Confederation) about specifically excluding Jews from the right to vote.

But then again, how about immigration? We have all this uproar about Foreign Temporary Workers, but this isn't a new thing. Think about the railway and how Canada imported Chinese workers in the 1880s to do the dangerous work, i.e. many people died during the construction. What was the thanks? The Chinese Immigration Act of 1885 that had a $50 head tax for anyone from China... which got higher and higher until they were essentially banned in 1923 through the Chinese Exclusion Act.

But hey, not Jewish, so doesn't count right?


----------



## Eclectic12

bgc_fan said:


> I guess the point of this thread is that racism only applies to Jews correct?
> I mean we overlook ... But apparently none of that matters.


It does matter to me as where there's one form, there's likely others.

The number of posts on one particular type, for me at least, is being driven by the contradiction of things like "I had no idea that 'No Jews' signs were common" then later a high degree of confidence that despite being drawn from the public at large, employees as well as elected officials were immune from such sentiment.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

bgc_fan said:


> ... Then this thread ended up being Canada is antisemitic and how certain leaders in the early 1900s were specifically antisemitic. But let's be honest here, they weren't specifically antisemitic, they were just bigoted and racist against anyone who wasn't from British stock.


"No Jews" and "Gentiles Only" signs are for more than ... Jews?
Said leaders have specific references to Jews, with special steps taken for them ... so while there may be more they were against - some were specifically against Jews.




bgc_fan said:


> ... Again it may be more fun to take look at the actual legislation that targeted minorities ....
> But then again, how about immigration?


On one hand, certain leaders are supposed to be against anyone who wasn't from British stock. On the other hand, the preferred country list that had only included America and Britain had something like twelve additional countries added to it. I'll have to dig it up again to confirm but as I recall, being from one of the fourteen preferred countries means only needing convince the immigration agent one had enough to get by until getting a job to be admitted.

Being from anywhere else meant being a farmer who had enough to get the farm going, which is documented as $10K later raised to $15K.


It seem to me to be far more complex than "anyone who wasn't from British stock".




bgc_fan said:


> ... But hey, not Jewish, so doesn't count right?


No ... it just hasn't been explored versus the contradictions for some other claims.


Cheers


----------



## SMK

bgc_fan said:


> But hey, not Jewish, so doesn't count right?


You sound bitter and tired to hear about the suffering-persecution of Jews before-during-after the war maybe?

This thread went off-topic and nothing stopped you from talking about anyone-anything else. Why did you wait and stew for so long?


----------



## SMK

Eclectic12 said:


> It does matter to me as where there's one form, there's likely others.
> 
> The number of posts on one particular type, for me at least, is being driven by the contradiction of things like "I had no idea that 'No Jews' signs were common" then later a high degree of confidence that despite being drawn from the public at large, employees as well as elected officials were immune from such sentiment.
> 
> Cheers


+1 There was a lot of good information here.


----------



## Pluto

gibor365 said:


> Your logic (and probably Canadian's government) was exactly like USSR's !
> Until 1991 , every one who was immigrating from USSR with Israeli visa , was required to give up Soviet citizenship and pay 3 average monthly salary fees. USSR couldn't say directly that every Jew that leaving country should give up citizenship. Thus, they introduced law that everyone who is immigrating to country that is potential enemy of USSR , should give up citizenship and pay fees. Interestingly that on this "list", was only one country - Israel (interesting that more than 70%of immigrant with israeli visa went directly to USA). People immigrating to US or Germany didn't require to give up citizenship.
> So, as Pluto said, this policy wasn't against Jews


I don't buy your excuse that since you needed a job, you couldn't go to the Human Rights Comission. Getting another job doesn't stop you from complaining at the Human Rights Commission. You don't need a lawyer to go to HRC, and they don't charge a fee. If you go there it is possible they might be able to investigate and ferret out the actual reason. Since other countries on the list were Mid East, non-Jewish countries, I'm having a difficult time concluding that this was driven by anti Jewish prejudice. 

In the meantime you try to muddy up the issue with what the USSR did 26 years ago, and in an unclear way try to connect Canada to the USSR policy that you dislike. 

Write out your story of being fired, sign it, and mail it to HRC. See what happens. Maybe send it to the papers too. They love stories like this if there is merrit to it. It iwll cost you some paper, ink, and postage.


----------



## olivaw

Lets remind ourselves that this thread is about the senseless murder of Muslims by a young Canadian man. 

Does the bigotry of the early 20th century teach us anything about the bigotry of the 21st?


----------



## gibor365

> I don't buy your excuse that since you needed a job, you couldn't go to the Human Rights Comission. Getting another job doesn't stop you from complaining at the Human Rights Commission


 Until now I didn't even know that such organization exists ,obviously I didn't know about it when I was 2 years in the country. Anyhow, I doubt that would do anything, if I were some Syrian refugee than maybe....



> In the meantime you try to muddy up the issue with what the USSR did 26 years ago, and in an unclear way try to connect Canada to the USSR policy that you dislike.


 I just said that you logic regarding what happened to me 15 years ago very similar to USSR logic that was 26 years ago


----------



## mordko

bgc_fan said:


> But hey, not Jewish, so doesn't count right?


Tell me how you *really* feel.


----------



## mordko

bgc_fan said:


> No, this started with the claim that Jews were interned like the Japanese were during WWII, but that wasn't shown to be the case, i.e. CANADIANS of Jewish descent were being rounded up in larger numbers (say over 20,000), having their property confiscated and interned. Does that excuse the Canadian policy of closing doors to Jewish refugees during WWII? Not in the least.


Nope. Check the order of posts. It started with James saying that Hungarians, Jews and others don't feel empathy but the Japanese do because they suffered recently. 

Categorizing people by ethnicity and assigning negative characteristics is racism. As all racist claims, it's ignorant and stupid. Suffering isn't a competition but claiming that Japanese suffered more than the Jews during WWII is ludicrous. 



> Then this thread ended up being Canada is antisemitic and how certain leaders in the early 1900s were specifically antisemitic. But let's be honest here, they weren't specifically antisemitic, they were just bigoted and racist against anyone who wasn't from British stock. Even the Canadians of French descent weren't really treated fairly (but better than most), and the First Nations people who here long before Europeans arrived were and are still being discriminated against.


1. Not everyone in Canada was racist - then or now. Then Canada was institutionally antisemitic. Up until 1960s Jews were discriminated against not just in immigration but also employment and education, and yes - entering shops "No dogs or Jews allowed". 

2. There was racism against Japanese and lots of other ethnicity.

3. Racism wasn't limited to anglos. Quebec was more antisemitic than Ontario.

4. " Jews were not picked on compared to others" - that's blatantly false.

Let's take immigration. The Honourable Chrystia Freeland, the current Liberal Minister likes to talk how her grandfather came in as a refugee and how Canada should welcome refugees today. Her grandfather served the Nazis. He published nazi propaganda in Poland, was an editor for the journal expropriated from the Jews. He specifically engaged in the propaganda of Holocaust. 

He wasn't imprisoned on arrival to Canada. Apparently some refugees were more equal than others.


----------



## bgc_fan

Eclectic12 said:


> "No Jews" and "Gentiles Only" signs are for more than ... Jews?
> Said leaders have specific references to Jews, with special steps taken for them ... so while there may be more they were against - some were specifically against Jews.


I am not sure what your point is here. So basically you are saying that some people don't acknowledge that these signs existed so let's concentrate on that. So are people acknowledging that certain populations of Candian citizens were disenfranchised? Or do we place greater importance on beach access than the right to vote?



Eclectic12 said:


> On one hand, certain leaders are supposed to be against anyone who wasn't from British stock. On the other hand, the preferred country list that had only included America and Britain had something like twelve additional countries added to it. I'll have to dig it up again to confirm but as I recall, being from one of the fourteen preferred countries means only needing convince the immigration agent one had enough to get by until getting a job to be admitted.


Got it. So acknowledgement that Canadian society was bigotted and racist and not just antisemitic.


----------



## bgc_fan

SMK said:


> You sound bitter and tired to hear about the suffering-persecution of Jews before-during-after the war maybe?
> 
> This thread went off-topic and nothing stopped you from talking about anyone-anything else. Why did you wait and stew for so long?


Your point being I am not allowed to voice my opinion on this? I had already responded previously and don't really care about it going off the rails. What I object to is the idea that Canada has a virulently antisemitic history where in fact there were other minorities that were traditionally disadvantaged with legislation specifically targetting them. But hey, antisemitism is all that matters even though the only "proof" I have seen are speeches some old politicians made, but I haven't seen any specific, federal legislation that specifically targetted Jews.


----------



## bgc_fan

olivaw said:


> Lets remind ourselves that this thread is about the senseless murder of Muslims by a young Canadian man.
> 
> Does the bigotry of the early 20th century teach us anything about the bigotry of the 21st?


Fair enough. Do you just want to talk about the last 30 years then? Why not use 1982 as starting point as that is when the Charter was signed. What federal policy disadvantaged minorities? All I can think of is the residential school system, but I am sure someone can think of something worse than taking children away from their parents and indoctrinate them into a different culture.


----------



## bgc_fan

mordko said:


> Categorizing people by ethnicity and assigning negative characteristics is racism. As all racist claims, it's ignorant and stupid. Suffering isn't a competition but claiming that Japanese suffered more than the Jews during WWII is ludicrous.


Yet apparently it isn't ludicrous to say that being interned upon arrival from overseas for up to 3 years is the same as having your property confiscated and locked up for years and losing the right to vote just because?



mordko said:


> 1. Not everyone in Canada was racist - then or now. Then Canada was institutionally antisemitic.
> 
> Well it should be easy to point to legislation to support your point here. What legislation pointedly disadvantaged Jews?





mordko said:


> Up until 1960s Jews were discriminated against not just in immigration but also employment and education, and yes - entering shops "No dogs or Jews allowed".


So you have proved that people are antisemitic. Congrats. Where is your proof that the Canadian government supported this?

So are you saying people aren't discriminating for employment now? Or just against Jews? Because there have been quite a few studies that people submitting identical resumes with ethnic sounding names getting fewer callbacks.



mordko said:


> 4. " Jews were not picked on compared to others" - that's blatantly false.


And here you were trying to make the argument all suffering was equal and that it was not a competition on who suffered more.



mordko said:


> He wasn't imprisoned on arrival to Canada. Apparently some refugees were more equal than others.


And the differenc if during wartime is likely.


----------



## mordko

- i will not accept that it was ok to imprison Jews running away from the Nazis any more than it was ok to imprison any other innocent person, whatever the nationality. There was no shadow of a doubt that Jews were not pro-nazi. Australians received Jews in exactly the same manner and didn't imprison them. It was a crime committed by the Canadian state.

- Canadian minister responsible for immigration hated Jews. Canadian prime minister was an antisemite. Jews were systematically discriminated against by the state. Not just Jews but Jews were. Seems simple. 

- No, it's not a competition. But to claim that Japanese were persecuted more than Jews during the war is ludicrous. See, almost every if not every modern Canadian Jew had ancestors murdered during WW2. So, saying that Japanese have empathy because they were persecuted during the war and others don't is nuts as well as racist.

Then again, I don't expect you to understand. In fact... you probably do. That seems to be exactly what's pissing you off.


----------



## olivaw

bgc_fan said:


> Fair enough. Do you just want to talk about the last 30 years then? Why not use 1982 as starting point as that is when the Charter was signed. What federal policy disadvantaged minorities? All I can think of is the residential school system, but I am sure someone can think of something worse than taking children away from their parents and indoctrinate them into a different culture.


NO, we have to learn from history. My question was serious. What can the past to teach us about combatting intolerance and bigotry in the present?


----------



## Pluto

gibor365 said:


> Until now I didn't even know that such organization exists ,obviously I didn't know about it when I was 2 years in the country. Anyhow, I doubt that would do anything, if I were some Syrian refugee than maybe....
> 
> I just said that you logic regarding what happened to me 15 years ago very similar to USSR logic that was 26 years ago


1. You are trying to say that because you needed a job, you were barred from compalining via the lawyer. But it isn't so. You could work at a new job and still complain. 
2. Now you know the HRC exists. You can still complain. Jewish people in Canada have used the HRC with success in Canada. 

Look here for example: A Jew claims to have published proven hate speech, and was let off by the HRC. The same hate speech by a Christian was convicted. He also claims no Jew has ever been convicted by the HRC. 

http://www.ezralevant.com/the_jewish_exemption_section_1/


gibor if you don't complain, you know what they say, you are part of the problem.


----------



## Pluto

bgc_fan said:


> What I object to is the idea that Canada has a virulently antisemitic history where in fact there were other minorities that were traditionally disadvantaged with legislation specifically targetting them. But hey, antisemitism is all that matters even though the only "proof" I have seen are speeches some old politicians made, but I haven't seen any specific, federal legislation that specifically targetted Jews.


I haven't seen any specific legislation that specifically targeted Jews either. mordko and gibor's point seems to be that Canadian government had a policy and programe to persecute Jews but so far have presented evidence that there were anti semetic individuals. They seem to want to generalize from those individuals to then claim there was legislation, policy and programs to persecute Jews. 
I don't despute the fact there were anti semetic individuals. 
Some evidence they presented was a sign saying no beech access to Jews, Gentiles only. The implication is that the Canadian Government owned the beach and the sign was a Canadian government sign backed by legislation. But they haven't got to proving the latter part yet. 

Anyway, it might help gobor and mordko to know that according to the following site, a Christian guy was found guilty of hate speech, but a Jewish guy posting the same speech was found not guilty. 

http://www.ezralevant.com/the_jewish_exemption_section_1/


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> - i will not accept that it was ok to imprison Jews running away from the Nazis any more than it was ok to imprison any other innocent person, whatever the nationality. There was no shadow of a doubt that Jews were not pro-nazi. Australians received Jews in exactly the same manner and didn't imprison them. It was a crime committed by the Canadian state.
> 
> - Canadian minister responsible for immigration hated Jews. Canadian prime minister was an antisemite. Jews were systematically discriminated against by the state. Not just Jews but Jews were. Seems simple.
> 
> - But to claim that Japanese were persecuted more than Jews during the war is ludicrous. See, almost every if not every modern Canadian Jew had ancestors murdered during WW2. So, saying that Japanese have empathy because they were persecuted during the war and others don't is nuts as well as racist.


1. They were German's claiming to be Jews. Their claims had to be substatiated prior to relase into the general population. 
2. Australia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Australia#Recent_history

so far I have no evidence that WW2 era Germans claiming to be Jews were automaticlly released into Australia just because they said they were Jewish. 
3. Seems to me Canadian Japanese were treated worse thatn Canadian Jews. I have no evidence that Canadian Jews were rounded up and sent to camps as the Japanese were. If you give me some evidnece I'll consider it. 

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Canada
IN that link notable violations include Japanese, and others, but not Jews. If you feel Jews were overlooked here you can complain to HRC. 

In the meantime, here is a story about a Christian guy convicted of hate speech, and a Jewish guy who published the same speech but was found not guilty by HRC. 

http://www.ezralevant.com/the_jewish_exemption_section_1/


----------



## wraphter

If Canada treated the Jews so badly what country treated them well? Germany? Russia? Hardly. Where is this paradise on earth where fairness and justice reigns for the Jews? 

I mean you only have so many choices . You have to choose from real world options, not make - believe ones.Of course persecution of the Jews didn't start with the Germans in WWII. Spanish Inquisition,expulsion from Britain,numerous pogroms and ill treatment for 2000 years. The Jew as perennial victim. 

Israel is a partial solution but it has serious problems, including the threat of annihilation by Iran. 

Jews are a minuscule fraction of the world population. 

People vote with their feet, be it Mexicans crossing the border into the US or a million Jews leaving the Soviet Union when it collapsed.

Canada is a very attractive destination for immigrants. It didn't undergo a sudden personality change from pre-WWII times until now.
There is a certain continuity from one era to another. The conclusion to be drawn is Canada wasn't so bad way back then as some here would portray it. An authoritarian oppressor which doesn't care about the life of its citizens doesn't suddenly wake up one day and start believing in equality and human rights. It doesn't work that way.

There is continuity in social norms from one generation to the next. A country that was oppressive in one generation will be oppressive in the next. Case in point: Russia. The Soviet Union collapses, there is a glimmer of hope that justice and freedom will emerge and then there is reversion to the mean, reversion to authoritarianism. Now Cold War 2.0


Canada is #9 on the Transparency International's rating of country honesty. Russia is # 131. The number of countries is 176.

https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016#table

We weren't so bad back then and suddenly became good now. It doesn't work that way.


----------



## gibor365

> I haven't seen any specific legislation that specifically targeted Jews either


 Except Nazi Germany,last 100+ years no country has "any specific legislation that specifically targeted Jews", neither USSR nor Iran or Iraq or Syria etc (officially they targeted Israel, but not Jews). It deosn't mean that unofficially they didn't target Jews.



> You are trying to say that because you needed a job, you were barred from compalining via the lawyer. But it isn't so. You could work at a new job and still complain.


 you read my post selectively .... twice I wrote that complained to Bna'i Brit lawyer (google if you are not familiar with this organization). I gave them all documents, they were shocked when received answer from Ottawa.... They promissed that they will fight ,but it will take several years.... I lost lawyer's contact , so couldn't follow up and have no idea if something got changed....
My point was, that decision to fire me because I lived in Israel, wasn't HR, or some individual, but decision of Canadaian government as per specific government law.


----------



## gibor365

According to Statistics Canada, Canadian Jews who comprise 1% of the population were the most targetedv minority group in Canada, 8 times more likely to be the victims of a hate crime than Canadian Muslims, who make up 3% of the population. In 2013, Canadian Muslims were victims of 6.2 hate crime incidents per 100,000 people while Canadian Jews experienced 54.9 incidents per 100,000 people.

In a 2015 Annual Hate/Bias Crime Statistical Report, Toronto Police again listed the Jewish community, which is on the receiving end of nearly one in every three reported hate crimes incidents, as the most targeted group for hate crimes, followed by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community. 

http://en.cijnews.com/?p=213386


----------



## gibor365

and guess who is blamed for Shooting at Quebec City mosque?!



> At Western University in London, Ontario, anti-Semitic flyers targeting the Jewish community were circulated on campus. The flyers, printed by the Canadian National Independence Party (C.N.I.P.), *accused Jews for the murder of 6 Muslim worshippers at a mosque in Quebec in late January*, blamed “Jewish Zionist terrorists in Israel” for assassination of Muslims in Palestine and demanded that that all Zionists in Canada be tried as terrorists and imprisoned.


http://en.cijnews.com/?p=213386


----------



## Eclectic12

bgc_fan said:


> Eclectic12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Jews" and "Gentiles Only" signs are for more than ... Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what your point is here ...
Click to expand...

I wasn't clear enough?

The statement was made:


> ... let's be honest here, they weren't specifically antisemitic, they were just bigoted and racist against anyone who wasn't from British stock.


To me this suggests anyone but British stock was equally targeted. 

If so, why is one group named in the signs but the many other groups apparently acceptable? Or why's the "Gentiles Only" include groups that area also affected by racism when the more exclusive "British Only" would complete the job?

Or perhaps it is clearer that if it's all about being non-British stock - where's the Ukrainian or Italian or Jewish head tax? 


In other words, while there's more than just anti-semitism going on - there's clear targets, with different impacts.




bgc_fan said:


> ... So basically you are saying that some people don't acknowledge that these signs existed so let's concentrate on that.


As that's what I saw plus had sources of contradictory information ... that's where I started. Where it went from there, depended on what was written.




bgc_fan said:


> ... So are people acknowledging that certain populations of Candian citizens were disenfranchised?


I didn't see arguments that the disenfranchisement was justified by some other factor ... so I presume it is being agreed with.





bgc_fan said:


> ... Or do we place greater importance on beach access than the right to vote?


??? ... those were to show it was widely known, blatant. 

No idea if the Jewish intern fired due to public protest of his Jewish background in Montreal would have preferred a vote to a job. 




bgc_fan said:


> ... So acknowledgement that Canadian society was bigotted and racist and not just antisemitic.


LOL ... not sure why my acknowledgement means that much to you while others are claiming that gov't was immune to the anti-semtics in Canadian society.

I wouldn't want to put words in their mouth but it would be consistent for them to approach other forms of bigotry and racism the same way.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

bgc_fan said:


> ... What I object to is the idea that Canada has a virulently antisemitic history where in fact there were other minorities that were traditionally disadvantaged with legislation specifically targetting them.


The Jewish intern who was fired from his position in a Montreal hospital due to public protests about hiring a Jew or that is barred from being an engineer should be what? Happy? What is the benefit of the lack of legislation?

The Ukrainian who has the education for an office job but is restricted to farm work only should console themselves that there's no legislation - just people?

The Chinese or First Nations or Italian who was interned should say "I had it worse because it was written down"?


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

Pluto said:


> 1. They were German's claiming to be Jews. Their claims had to be substatiated prior to relase into the general population.


Because Britain who sent them and had already had a tribunal for them was not, what? Trustworthy? Didn't want a fifth column in Britain but was willing to create one in Canada by suggesting releases?

Britain told the Canadian Gov't, in line with the time the boats were arriving.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

Pluto said:


> bgc_fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... What I object to is the idea that Canada has a virulently antisemitic history where in fact there were other minorities that were traditionally disadvantaged with legislation specifically targetting them.
> 
> 
> 
> ... I haven't seen any specific legislation that specifically targeted Jews either ...
Click to expand...

This is where I wish I had more time to research (anyone want to sponser me?).

The idea here seems to be that since other legislation has specific targets, the lack of legislation proves what groups weren't a target.

It seem that the department in charge of immigration wrote a memo to PM King in 1938 that is alleged to say:


> We do not want to take too many Jews, but in the circumstances, we do not want to say so.
> *We do not want to legitimise the Aryan mythology by introducing any formal distinction for immigration purposes between Jews and non-Jews.*
> 
> The practical distinction, however, has to be made and should be drawn with discretion and sympathy by the competent department, without the need to lay down a formal minute of policy.


It sounds that unlike say the Chinese Head Tax - documentation in policy or legislation is being avoided of what is being done.


Cheers


----------



## bgc_fan

mordko said:


> - i will not accept that it was ok to imprison Jews running away from the Nazis any more than it was ok to imprison any other innocent person, whatever the nationality. There was no shadow of a doubt that Jews were not pro-nazi. Australians received Jews in exactly the same manner and didn't imprison them. It was a crime committed by the Canadian state.


So I guess you don't agree with the detention of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in 2010 because they might be militants?



mordko said:


> - Canadian minister responsible for immigration hated Jews. Canadian prime minister was an antisemite. Jews were systematically discriminated against by the state. Not just Jews but Jews were. Seems simple.


But really being Jews are all that matters. The acknowledging the fact that other minorities were treated poorly seems to bother you.



mordko said:


> - No, it's not a competition. But to claim that Japanese were persecuted more than Jews during the war is ludicrous.


So the fact that Japanese Canadians were treated worse than Jewish Canadians seems to bother you.


----------



## bgc_fan

olivaw said:


> NO, we have to learn from history. My question was serious. What can the past to teach us about combatting intolerance and bigotry in the present?


Not much. Everyone has their own prejudices and bring that to the table. I suspect nothing will ever change. Those who push for more tolerance get derided as elites and snowflakes and not taken seriously.


----------



## bgc_fan

Eclectic12 said:


> If so, why is one group named in the signs but the many other groups apparently acceptable? Or why's the "Gentiles Only" include groups that area also affected by racism when the more exclusive "British Only" would complete the job?


Ever been to Hong Kong in the early 1900s? The signs the British had for certain parks were "No does or Chinese allowed". Maybe they should have added Jews and Gentiles only. Somehow I doubt that they would have accepted other minorities as well. Not knowing the demographics of the area at that time, I couldn't say.



Eclectic12 said:


> Or perhaps it is clearer that if it's all about being non-British stock - where's the Ukrainian or Italian or Jewish head tax?


Fair enough, so where are they? My point is that the idea that only Jews were targeted for racist activities is fairly insulting to other minorities.



Eclectic12 said:


> I didn't see arguments that the disenfranchisement was justified by some other factor ... so I presume it is being agreed with.


I didn't see anyone say that disenfranchisement was a bad thing so I assumed people thought it was acceptable.



Eclectic12 said:


> No idea if the Jewish intern fired due to public protest of his Jewish background in Montreal would have preferred a vote to a job.


I probably missed a post so I don't know what you are referring to. Except that wouldn't be the right comparison. It would be more he would rather have is job and be disenfranchisement rather than not have a job and be disenfranched.



Eclectic12 said:


> LOL ... not sure why my acknowledgement means that much to you while others are claiming that gov't was immune to the anti-semtics in Canadian society.


Not really you per se. It is just the fact this whole thread degenerated into Jews had it worse than anyone else in Canada.


----------



## bgc_fan

Eclectic12 said:


> The Jewish intern who was fired from his position in a Montreal hospital due to public protests about hiring a Jew or that is barred from being an engineer should be what? Happy? What is the benefit of the lack of legislation?
> 
> The Ukrainian who has the education for an office job but is restricted to farm work only should console themselves that there's no legislation - just people?


No. The point is that there are people making these decisions based on their prejudices. Are you saying that it would be ok for the government to pass legislation to do so? Given that we do have regulatory (government) bodies to appeal towards when these things happen mean that they actually have an outlet for recourse. Whereas actual government legislation banning your Ukrainian worker from an office job has no recourse.

Is it that difficult to make the distinction between the fact that individuals have prejudices, and the idea that the government sanctions and condones this activity?


----------



## mordko

Legislator is irrelevant. Stalin's constitution proclaimed compete equality and the legal system in 1930s Russia was antiracist just as USSR engaged in genocidal mass murders based on ethnicity. The state was institutionally racist. Modern Iran does not discriminate against minorities in law and yet it discriminates and often murders minorities, be it Ahwazi Arabs, Baha'i, Afghans, Jews and Christians.


----------



## mordko

bgc_fan said:


> So I guess you don't agree with the detention of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in 2010 because they might be militants?
> 
> 
> 
> But really being Jews are all that matters. The acknowledging the fact that other minorities were treated poorly seems to bother you.
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that Japanese Canadians were treated worse than Jewish Canadians seems to bother you.


This is fabrication. It contradicts what I actually said in this very thread. Canada persecuted Natives, Japanese, Chinese and others.

What I do object to is racist lies. Like when someone claims that Jews, Hungarians et al don't have empathy and only the Japanese do because they suffered. 

In reality, not only did the Jews suffer (only a complete ******* would have a problem with achknowledging it), Jewish organizations were at the forefront of the civil rights campaign to emancipate blacks and Jewish organizations like ADL and b'nai brith oppose all racism, whoever is the subject. And there are plenty antiracist Hungarians and whoever.


----------



## james4beach

mordko said:


> What I do object to is racist lies. Like when someone claims that Jews, Hungarians et al don't have empathy and only the Japanese do because they suffered.


You're referring to my earlier statement. I did not say that Jews/Hungarians don't have empathy and that only Japanese do. I meant that just because a group suffered a past experience like this themselves, does not necessarily mean that they will have any empathy towards a modern repeat of it. Here was my text:



james4beach said:


> One thing I've learned in recent years is that just because someone is Chinese, Indian, Jewish, Hungarian, whatever... doesn't mean they have any empathy towards a group that is being discriminated against.


That's a general statement referring to any group under the sun. I include Japanese in that list.

This following part seems to have really bothered you:



james4beach said:


> The Japanese probably understand it a bit better because the internment camps and scapegoating of Japanese (in Canada & US) is so recent.


Again, I'm not saying that only the Japanese can understand this. I know that Jews suffered terribly. This was a reference to the displacement of Japanese in Canada that continued until 1949. As late as 1949, Canadians with Japanese backgrounds... who were already citizens/residents... were held in camps and jails. Their assets were stolen, lives ruined, and were relocated to random places within Canada.

In contrast, my understanding is that a few thousand Jewish refugees to Canada were held in internment camps upon entry, up to maybe 1943. What's the number, a couple thousand?

My understanding is that on home soil, in Canada, the injustice against Japanese-Canadians was more severe and more recent. Compared to the few thousand refugees with Jewish background, on the order of 20,000 to 25,000 Japanese-Canadians were displaced and sent to jails.

The reason I think the persecution of Japanese-Canadians sounds more severe is that:

(1) they were actually citizens and residents, not newly arriving refugees (as with the Jewish internment)
(2) the persecution happened on home soil, this wasn't overseas
(3) the numbers of people affected are an order of magnitude greater, more than 10x
(4) the Japanese internment continued many years later

We're not in Europe. I'm talking about on home soil, in Canada, the injustices against citizens here. I think it's reasonable to hypothesize that Japanese Canadians/Americans are a group who might be sympathetic to what Muslim Canadians/Americans are experiencing these days, because it has many parallels to what they faced.

But perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe Japanese Canadians don't see the parallels, and maybe it's Jewish Canadians who are rallying in support of Muslims and speaking out against the racism they're facing now.

But let's face it, mordko, you don't sound too sympathetic to the discrimination and violence that Muslim Canadians are facing. This is a thread about a massacre of Muslim Canadians, and every time the topic of discrimination against Muslims comes up, you pivot it towards the plight of other groups instead ... and you mainly cite incidents in other countries when you do so.


----------



## olivaw

<deleted> (cross posted with James and don't want to distract from his point)


----------



## james4beach

An additional point regarding severity of the Japanese internment camps:,



> Just over 90 per cent of Japanese Canadians — some 21,000 people — were uprooted during the war. The majority were Canadian citizens by birth. (reference)


This was basically the *entire Japanese-Canadian population*. I stand by my statement that this was a horrible injustice and yes, I think Japanese Canadians suffered more than Jewish Canadians, on home soil.

mordko... perhaps your point is that on the global scale, European Jews suffered the most by far (six million killed in the Holocaust) and continue to face racism, and that is why Jews are best positioned to empathize with racial persecution. I can understand this argument too.


----------



## olivaw

Mordko and gibor's comments about Islam are not representative of Canadian Jewish sentiment. 

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...e-formed-around-7-mosques-across-toronto.html



> A group of Toronto-based Jewish organizations is leading an interfaith effort to express support for Canada’s Muslim community on Friday.
> 
> A local rabbi has galvanized synagogues and organized groups throughout the city to form “rings of peace” around mosques during Islamic mid-day prayer services.
> 
> The peace rings are among many rallies and other community-based efforts to reach out to Canadian Muslims in the wake of Sunday’s massacre at a mosque in Quebec City.


----------



## james4beach

olivaw said:


> Mordko and gibor's comments about Islam are not representative of Canadian Jewish sentiment.


Thank goodness. I'm happy to see this article.


----------



## gibor365

james4beach said:


> Thank goodness. I'm happy to see this article.


I bet that this rabbi group is " not representative of Canadian Jewish sentiment." 

There are different "rabbis"



> anti-Zionist Neturei Karta sect is currently visiting Teheran to meet with senior officials and express their support for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his calls to eliminate Israel. In a statement to Iran's official IRIB radio, the group called for "the disintegration of the Zionist regime" and defended the Iranian president, saying that it "is a dangerous deviation to pretend that the Iranian president is an anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic personality." They added that they were "upset about the recent ploys, propaganda and tensions which have been created by the West regarding the statements of the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about a world free of Zionism, since this is nothing more than wishing for a better world dominated by peace and calm." On Sunday, m


http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Neturei-Karta-sect-pays-visit-to-Iran


----------



## olivaw

Naturei Karta is tiny. They managed to get five or ten demonstrators together in GTA.

The Canadian ring of peace had hundreds of participants in GTA and hundreds more across the country. 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...g-canadians-rings-of-peace-mosques-solidarity


----------



## mordko

james4beach said:


> An additional point regarding severity of the Japanese internment camps:,
> 
> 
> 
> This was basically the *entire Japanese-Canadian population*. I stand by my statement that this was a horrible injustice and yes, I think Japanese Canadians suffered more than Jewish Canadians, on home soil.
> 
> mordko... perhaps your point is that on the global scale, European Jews suffered the most by far (six million killed in the Holocaust) and continue to face racism, and that is why Jews are best positioned to empathize with racial persecution. I can understand this argument too.


That's not what you said. There was nothing about home soil. There was a statement about Jews, Hungarians and others not having empathy. 

With regards to measuring how bad Japanese Canadians and Jewish Canadians were treated - its idiotic. In 1930s Canadian Jews used to be attacked by swastika-brandishing crowds. In Quebec the attack against Jews was spearheaded by Catholic Nazi party called Party National Social Chrétien. There were similar parties in other provinces and soon signs "no dogs or Jews allowed" became mainstream. Organizations banned Jews from joining, establishments from entering. This was reflected in the policies of Mackenzie King's government. Refugees from Nazism were not allowed to enter Canada until 1947 while nazis were brought in. 

Discrimination against Jews did not end in 1940s in Canada. Jewish children were discriminated against at schools. They faced regular beatings for being Jewish. Universities restricted the number of Jews and required higher grades until 1960s. Jews faced discrimination in employment until at least 1960s. Organizations such as golf and Yacht clubs continued to exclude Jews into 1970s.

Jews in Canada faced discrimination over a far longer period of time and until a far later time than the Japanese Canadians did. Which discrimination was worse? I don't know but that's an idiotic question to ask.

With regards to not having empathy because Jewish or Hungarian, the point is racist and false and you should just admit it. Justifying it by claiming that Jews on Canadian soil had it swimmingly - factually wrong. Not only that. The vast majority of today's Jews (the very ones who don't have empathy) are children of survivors of:
- the Holocaust
- Campaign of ethnic cleansing, expropriation and murder of Jews in Islamic countries 
- Soviet state antisemitism.


----------



## mordko

And if going off topic bothers you, you should have protested #38, 39. Both completely off topic and pivoted discussion to other subjects. Up to that point all comments dealt with the shooting in Quebec City. You didn't seem to have an issue.


----------



## mordko

gibor365 said:


> I bet that this rabbi group is " not representative of Canadian Jewish sentiment."
> 
> There are different "rabbis"


There are also different "Canadian Jewish sentiments". But the esteemed rabbi is very sweet and her campaign is awesome. And reciprocated: http://www.torontosun.com/2017/02/22/police-probe-imans-sermons

What I find so interesting isn't that a few imams call to murder Jews in Toronto and Montreal mosques. What I find peculiar is that there are huge crowds listening to these Antisemitic sermons. And that not one person objected at the time. Not only that, the calls to murder Jews were recorded and placed on the web so that Muslims all over the world can absorb the wisdom of Canadian imams.


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> The vast majority of today's Jews (the very ones who don't have empathy) are children of survivors of:
> - the Holocaust
> - Campaign of ethnic cleansing, expropriation and murder of Jews in Islamic countries
> - Soviet state antisemitism.


I doubt that very much. Most Jews arrived before WWII. They faced discrimination but overcame it to become successful,prosperous members of Canadian society. The vision of the life of Canadian Jews you present is quite morbid and paranoid.

For example "Honest Ed " Mirvich didn't become a successful department store owner,theatre impresario and real estate developer
by dwelling on injustices and injuries inflicted on him and his ethnic group. He overcame them through his good nature and energy.
There are lot of Jews like him.Jews have overcome adversity for 2000 years . They know how to do it.

Your vision is essentially dark and divisive and doesn't comport with reality.


----------



## mordko

You doubt it very much because you know very little about the subjectyou are talking about. And, yes many Jews have been successful in Canada and all over the world. That does not make persecution any less real.


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> You doubt it very much because you know very little about the subjectyou are talking about. And, yes many Jews have been successful in Canada and all over the world. That does not make persecution any less real.


Most Jews don't go around saying Oi Vey the ***** hate me. You're back in the USSR baby.


----------



## mordko

Most Jews don't use the word "*****". I only ever heard it from antisemites. Ditto for "oi vey".


----------



## humble_pie

mordko said:


> Talking of WW2 history, through most of the war there were fewer Canadians who fought the Nazis than Canadians who served in Canada, doing such important duties as guarding Jews. For the most part, one had to volunteer to be sent overseas. There was a shortage of volunteers and those who did were severly short staffed and resented "zombies" who "served" in Canada. Those who did volunteer were heros and some 50 thousand sacrificed their lives.



i beg your pardon? the above is one of the most disgraceful lying botch-ups of fake canadian *history* that canadians have ever seen.

there are canadian soldiers & air force officers in every generation of my family. An uncle was an RCAF fighter pilot in WW II - he recently (aged 94 at the present time but with perfect memory intact) told me that for the final stage of his training, canada had sent him to a british RAF fighter training base in northumberland, england.

"That's where i got my Wings," he said.

he flew & fought in the Rommel air campaign in north africa. He was shot down but survived. To this day he still carries a visible scar above his right eyebrow from the crash.

on the other side of the family, my children's great-grandfather was killed in the Allied advance northwards up italy. The desperate italians had brought in german panzer divisions & these were occupying the hilltops. It was the canadian battalion's task to fight their way up each hillside & take each hilltop, one by one. 

the canadian soldiers kept cover behind small shrubs on the treeless hillsides, creeping upwards from one shrub to the next when opportunity might present. The young canadian lieutenant detected a momentary lull in panzer fire. He stood up for a split second in order to be visible, in order to call his men forward & urge them onwards. In that seconnd, a panzer sniper shot him.

how dare anyone desecrate these heroes.

mordko, it's clear to the entire forum that you are a miserably unhappy person who knows nothing about canada or canadian history. It appears you chose the wrong country for migration. Canada is, very obviously, not to your liking. Have you considered trying to be happier in another country.

.


----------



## Pluto

gibor365 said:


> you read my post selectively .... twice I wrote that complained to Bna'i Brit lawyer (google if you are not familiar with this organization). I gave them all documents, they were shocked when received answer from Ottawa.... They promissed that they will fight ,but it will take several years.... I lost lawyer's contact , so couldn't follow up and have no idea if something got changed....
> My point was, that decision to fire me because I lived in Israel, wasn't HR, or some individual, but decision of Canadaian government as per specific government law.


gibor, again you are making excuses. You current excuse is "I lost lawyer's contact, so I couldn't follow up and I have no idea if something got changed...."
Even though you have no idea if something got changed you make allegations about me and Canada being like the USSR or some convoluted thing like that. Yet in in your own words, "have no idea if something got changed". You are mixed up. You successfully criticized you own allegations by stating that as far as you know, it hasn't even been investigated. do the investigation first, then make allegatiosn if you have any. 

Since you claim you "can't" I looked it up for you:
Toronto 
15 Hove St.
M3H 4Y8
Tel. 416-633-6224
Fax. 416-630-2159
[email protected]

Now, make a phone call, write a letter or email enquiring as to the status of your complaint.


----------



## Pluto

james4beach said:


> An additional point regarding severity of the Japanese internment camps:,
> 
> 
> 
> This was basically the *entire Japanese-Canadian population*. I stand by my statement that this was a horrible injustice and yes, I think Japanese Canadians suffered more than Jewish Canadians, on home soil.
> 
> mordko... perhaps your point is that on the global scale, European Jews suffered the most by far (six million killed in the Holocaust) and continue to face racism, and that is why Jews are best positioned to empathize with racial persecution. I can understand this argument too.


Reportedly the Nazi's also exterminated 6 million non-Jews as well. 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...mparison-between-my-religion-and-these-crimes


----------



## Pluto

wraphter said:


> I doubt that very much. Most Jews arrived before WWII. They faced discrimination but overcame it to become successful,prosperous members of Canadian society. The vision of the life of Canadian Jews you present is quite morbid and paranoid.
> 
> For example "Honest Ed " Mirvich didn't become a successful department store owner,theatre impresario and real estate developer
> by dwelling on injustices and injuries inflicted on him and his ethnic group. He overcame them through his good nature and energy.
> There are lot of Jews like him.Jews have overcome adversity for 2000 years . They know how to do it.
> 
> Your vision is essentially dark and divisive and doesn't comport with reality.


Yes, you might also add the Reichman's as well as Ed Mirvich. Mordko is bent on telling a very one sided story, apparently to gain moral superiority over the whole world. the Reichman's developed a lot of Toronto land, and moved on to build the World Trade Center and Canary Warf. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichmann_family


----------



## james4beach

mordko is correct that Jews in Canada have faced persecution and discrimination for a very long time... I never disputed this fact. We should not underplay how bad the treatment of Jews has been. The fact that many Jews have been successful in the face of this adversity does not change the fact that the persecution was real.

My hope is that people of all these heritages recognize that they have faced a common experience of discrimination, at different times in history and I hope that means there is sympathy shown: First Nations, Jews, Japanese, Italians, Ukrainians, Africans, Caribbean, and Muslims

What bothers me about mordko and gibor are their apparent lack of sympathy to what muslims face in Canada. Not all muslims are extremist or Islamists[1]. _Most muslims in Canada are just trying to live their lives_ and *it is every citizen's right to live their life with freedom and safety from harm, and to practice their religious beliefs* - this is a core Canadian value.

These core Canadian values are in fact spelled out, as you can read verbatim in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html


[1] mordko and gibor, surely you are aware that this same accusation ("there are many extremists among them!") was used against Jews. In Europe they were painted as disruptors of society, and even as refugees to Canada they were suspected of being militantly pushing Jewish concerns. Today, the American alt-right and neo-nazis still portray Jews as "controlling elites" and as disrupting American society. Early Italian immigrants were discriminated against for having an alien religion with dangerous practices, and people said it was going to taint and ruin American society.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> That's not what you said. There was nothing about home soil. There was a statement about Jews, Hungarians and others not having empathy.
> 
> With regards to measuring how bad Japanese Canadians and Jewish Canadians were treated - its idiotic.


1. In the context he meant home soil. 
2. "idiotic" The kindly Jewish man interned in Canada because he was German complained about being insulted by Major Elwood because he (Koch) was Jewish. You called that circumstance a crime and racist. Yet you are by far one of the most insulting people on this forum that I have read. You are steeped in scactimony, and your insults imply you have nothing of substance to say. 
3. Camps for japanese etc: My recolection is that you equated what happened to the Canadian Japanese to German claiming to be Jewish refugees being temporarily interned until vetted. Apparently you have now decided that the equation doesn't compute so you call what you did idiotic, but blame it on somone else. 

By the way, I'm still trying to figure out your policy of border crossings. consider the folloing scenario. 

a) you are Jewish. So supposing you plan a trip to another country. Upon reaching the border you say to the cusoms official, "I am Jewish". Based on what you have said previously about the interned German Jews, you seem to be implying that the customs official must immediatly let you pass other wise he is "racist". If he questions you to check your story, asks you to pull over to be interviewed, and maybe you have to sit in a room and wait to be interviewed - in otherwords detained pending an interview - that is a crime according to you. Is that what you mean to say?


----------



## gibor365

olivaw said:


> Naturei Karta is tiny. They managed to get five or ten demonstrators together in GTA.
> 
> The Canadian ring of peace had hundreds of participants in GTA and hundreds more across the country.
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...g-canadians-rings-of-peace-mosques-solidarity


There are many groups like Neturei Karta.

I;ve read complaints from Holy Blossom Temple supporters, that no other Jewish organiztion except this one, didn't take similar actions, CIJA and others said "We're sorry to hear this", btw, I was sorry too ...


----------



## gibor365

> mordko and gibor, surely you are aware that this same accusation ("there are many extremists among them!") was used against Jews. In Europe they were painted as disruptors of society, and even as refugees to Canada they were suspected of being militantly pushing Jewish concerns


As per http://global100.adl.org/#map/meast , all ME arab countries have 80% of population who are antisemitic.
So do you really think that we will be willing ,on our tax money, bring to Canada 80% of people that hate us?!


----------



## olivaw

humble_pie said:


> i beg your pardon? the above is one of the most disgraceful lying botch-ups of fake canadian *history* that canadians have ever seen.


I was born in UK and educated in a few other countries. I can assure you that Canada's sacrifice and contribution during WWII is recognized and admired throughout the western world - at least by those who paid attention in primary and secondary schools. Mordko's desecration of Canadian history can be dismissed as another of his fact-flexible rants.


----------



## gibor365

olivaw said:


> - at least by those who paid attention in primary and secondary schools.


Both my kids studied in primary and secondary schools, from what they learned (practically nothing) about WWII, they could've make conclusion that Canada won WWII . 

Role of Canada in WWII
http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/1379966


----------



## olivaw

gibor365 said:


> Both my kids studied in primary and secondary schools, from what they learned (practically nothing) about WWII, they could've make conclusion that Canada won WWII .


Sorry about your kids' education. When I grew up, we all learned about the war. We all knew people with first hand experience. 

I didn't read your link because my Russian is a little rusty. I hope it isn't Russian propaganda.  

Here's a better link: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/second-world-war-wwii/


----------



## gibor365

olivaw said:


> Sorry about your kids' education. When I grew up, we all learned about the war. We all knew people with first hand experience.
> 
> I didn't read your link because my Russian is a little rusty. I hope it isn't Russian propaganda.
> 
> Here's a better link: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/second-world-war-wwii/


You can easily to read using google translator ... . imho, it's better to read different sources 

My daughter told me that she can take World History ,as elective, only in grade 11 and 12,but she cannot take it as she need other elective subjects for university



> When I grew up, we all learned about the war.


 believe me ,we too! But knowdays in Canadian schools , they practically don't learn anything not only about WWII, but also about World History at all.... Very sad


----------



## olivaw

gibor365 said:


> You can easily to read using google translator ... . imho, it's better to read different sources


Not easy at all. I am on a mac using Safari. No translate. Anyway, why visit Russian sites to learn Canadian history? 

The Americans recognize Canada's contribution: https://www.historians.org/about-ah...eighbor/what-was-canadas-role-in-world-war-ii



> Canada, of its own free will, entered the war in September 1939 because it then realized that Nazi Germany threatened the very existence of Western civilization.
> 
> Almost from the beginning Canadians were in the thick of the fighting—in the air. In that element the Dominion made its most striking contribution to the general war effort. On the outbreak of hostilities, the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan was established in Canada to develop the air forces of Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as of Canada. It was under the direction of the Royal Canadian Air Force, and it cost the Canadian government well over 1.5 billion dollars.
> 
> Here it may be well to note that Canada’s population is only about one-eleventh that of our country. We have to multiply Canadian figures by eleven, therefore, to get the approximate American equivalent of Canada’s war effort.





> Canada did not receive a cent of lend-lease aid from us. Instead of receiving, she supplied it to the United Nations. The total at the end of 1944 was some 4 billion dollars, which is more dollars per capita than our lend-lease contribution. On the economic side, the war placed a more severe strain on Canadians than on us. The average Canadian citizen paid more taxes and, on the whole, was subject to more rigid controls. He knows what the war cost and, let us be frank, he knew it longer than we did.


----------



## gibor365

> why visit Russian sites to learn Canadian history?


 for better understanding ,this is why I like visit US and German sources to read about Russian history


----------



## mordko

Not sure I would trust a Russian source on anything to do with history. http://khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1256514534

Here is my primary source on Canada's role and the Canadian "zombie" soldiers during WW2, https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B007ME5BUG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1. It's corroborated by https://www.amazon.com/Military-History-Canada-Desmond-Morton/dp/0771064810


----------



## humble_pie

mordko said:


> Here is my primary source on Canada's role and the Canadian "zombie" soldiers during WW2, https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B007ME5BUG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1. It's corroborated by https://www.amazon.com/Military-History-Canada-Desmond-Morton/dp/0771064810




those links go nowhere. Nothing about the disgraceful lies mordko keeps trying to perpetrate here in cmf forum.

it's possible that mordko - in his ignorance - is attempting to write about the famous conscription rallies that divided french canadians during World War I. The conscription issue continued to plague canada throughout the 1930s & it came to the fore again during WW II.

anti-conscription rallies had everything to do with french-english relations in canada. They had nothing to do with canadian participation in the Allied forces during WW II, which was crucial to england from 1939 onwards, since the US did not join until after Pearl Harbour.

certainly a significant number of french in canada - very understandably - opposed the idea of joining a british war. A prominent anti-conscription leader was mayor Camilien Houde of montreal, who for his anti-british views was interned in 1940 in the exact same kind of detention centre that mordko wishes to label a concentration camp. There the duly-elected mayor of montreal would spend his next four years.

the WW II fighter pilot of whom i wrote upthread - the 94-year-old hero who trained with the RCAF in victoriaville, quebec while still a teen-ager, then in prince edward island, then finally three years later at an RAF base near newcastle, england - this pilot is french. He is canadian. He brought honour to this country. In both languages.


.


----------



## bgc_fan

mordko said:


> This is fabrication. It contradicts what I actually said in this very thread. Canada persecuted Natives, Japanese, Chinese and others.


You said no such thing. The whole time during this thread your point has been that Jews in Canada were persecuted and were targeted institutionally in Canadian society.

I point out legislation that indicated that other minorities were targeted and you now brush it off saying that other countries don't need legislation to target minorities. But that's completely irrelevant since we are talking about Canada and there has been historical legislation that singled out certain minorities. Basically, you are arguing that Canada is institutionally antisemitic, but doesn't need to pass legislation to make this official. Yet Canada has no issue about passing legislation against other minorities. So basically your proof that Canada is institutionally antisemitic is what exactly? Some anecdotal tales from the past?

And for some odd reason you seem to think that people who are antisemitic will welcome other minorities. I suspect that at least 9/10 are just as bigoted or racist towards other minorities.

I guess that Canada is so institutionally antisemitic, that Parliament unanimously  condemned antisemitism, and passed a motion to condemn the BDS movement. Both didn't have much in the way of opposition. But now that Parliament is trying to pass a motion to condemn Islamophobia (based on the motion condemning antisemitism), all hell breaks loose.


----------



## bgc_fan

humble_pie said:


> those links go nowhere. Nothing about the disgraceful lies mordko keeps trying to perpetrate here in cmf forum.
> 
> it's possible that mordko - in his ignorance - is attempting to write about the famous conscription rallies that divided french canadians during World War I. The conscription issue continued to plague canada throughout the 1930s & it came to the fore again during WW II.
> 
> anti-conscription rallies had everything to do with french-english relations in canada. They had nothing to do with canadian participation in the Allied forces during WW II, which was crucial to england from 1939 onwards, since the US did not join until after Pearl Harbour.


No, he is referring to conscription in WWII where Mackenzie King had a one time levy of 17,000 conscripted men. But, the relevance to this thread is non-existent. He is trying to say that they ended up guarding these 3,000 detainees.

Too bad he doesn't check his dates. The conscription happened in 1944, whereas the detainee camps closed in 1943. 

These "zombie" soldiers did mainly stay in North America, but irrelevant to the topic on hand.


----------



## mordko

bgc_fan said:


> You said no such thing. The whole time during this thread your point has been that Jews in Canada were persecuted and were targeted institutionally in Canadian society.
> 
> I point out legislation that indicated that other minorities were targeted and you now brush it off saying that other countries don't need legislation to target minorities. But that's completely irrelevant since we are talking about Canada and there has been historical legislation that singled out certain minorities. Basically, you are arguing that Canada is institutionally antisemitic, but doesn't need to pass legislation to make this official. Yet Canada has no issue about passing legislation against other minorities. So basically your proof that Canada is institutionally antisemitic is what exactly? Some anecdotal tales from the past?
> 
> And for some odd reason you seem to think that people who are antisemitic will welcome other minorities. I suspect that at least 9/10 are just as bigoted or racist towards other minorities.
> 
> I guess that Canada is so institutionally antisemitic, that Parliament unanimously  condemned antisemitism, and passed a motion to condemn the BDS movement. Both didn't have much in the way of opposition. But now that Parliament is trying to pass a motion to condemn Islamophobia (based on the motion condemning antisemitism), all hell breaks loose.


This is gibberish which again has zero bearing to what I actually said. For example, at no point did I say "Canada is institionally antisemitic". I said "was". Which makes your whole tangent about recent condemnation beyond irrelevant. 

And Islamophobia isn't racism just as anti communism isn't racism. Condemning any type of racism = full support from me, be it against blacks, Hungarians, native Americans, Arabs, whoever. Banning criticism or indeed fear of ideologies - not acceptable.


----------



## mordko

humble_pie said:


> those links go nowhere. Nothing about the disgraceful lies mordko keeps trying to perpetrate here in cmf forum.
> 
> it's possible that mordko - in his ignorance - is attempting to write about the famous conscription rallies that divided french canadians during World War I. The conscription issue continued to plague canada throughout the 1930s & it came to the fore again during WW II.
> 
> anti-conscription rallies had everything to do with french-english relations in canada. They had nothing to do with canadian participation in the Allied forces during WW II, which was crucial to england from 1939 onwards, since the US did not join until after Pearl Harbour.
> 
> certainly a significant number of french in canada - very understandably - opposed the idea of joining a british war. A prominent anti-conscription leader was mayor Camilien Houde of montreal, who for his anti-british views was interned in 1940 in the exact same kind of detention centre that mordko wishes to label a concentration camp. There the duly-elected mayor of montreal would spend his next four years.
> 
> the WW II fighter pilot of whom i wrote upthread - the 94-year-old hero who trained with the RCAF in victoriaville, quebec while still a teen-ager, then in prince edward island, then finally three years later at an RAF base near newcastle, england - this pilot is french. He is canadian. He brought honour to this country. In both languages.
> 
> 
> .


Funny that. Every time I click, they take me to books which I referenced. Guess HP isn't familiar with a concept called "a book".


----------



## bgc_fan

mordko said:


> This is gibberish which again has zero bearing to what I actually said. For example, at no point did I say "Canada is institionally antisemitic". I said "was". Which makes your whole tangent about recent condemnation beyond irrelevant.


So basically you are saying Canada is no longer antisemitic. Why don't you say when this happened?



mordko said:


> And Islamophobia isn't racism just as anti communism isn't racism. Condemning any type of racism = full support from me, be it against blacks, Hungarians, native Americans, Arabs, whoever. Banning criticism or indeed fear of ideologies - not acceptable.


Right. So you have an issue about the term Islamophobia? Then no problem if reworded to anti-Muslim. Of course only critics have actually stated that criticism of Islam would lead to charges of being Islamophobic.


----------



## mordko

For example: "Canadian units were dangerously under strength because Mackenzie King's government didn't dare send soldiers abroad to fight against their will. The equivalent of five divisions remained in Canada guarding German prisoners of war, and little else. This, of course, provoked great resentment among Canadian volunteers who shivered through that winter of mud and ice, the wettest since 1884... [British] officers suffered their own manpower problems, which although not as acute as in Canadian formations, were still grave enough." 
https://www.amazon.ca/Second-World-War-Antony-Beevor-ebook/dp/B007ME5BUG/ref=sr_1


----------



## mordko

bgc_fan said:


> So basically you are saying Canada is no longer antisemitic. Why don't you say when this happened?
> 
> 
> 
> Right. So you have an issue about the term Islamophobia? Then no problem if reworded to anti-Muslim. Of course only critics have actually stated that criticism of Islam would lead to charges of being Islamophobic.


Canada stopped being institutionally Antisemitic at some point in th 1970s.

The charge of Islamophobia is routinely levelled against people who oppose present totalitarian, mass murdering, homophobic, Antisemitic, racist and misogynistic strands within modern Islam. It has been levelled against brave people like Hirsi Ali, Tareq Fatah, Maajid Nawaz, David Horowitz, Christopher Hitchens and many others. This charge has been used to call for murders of these people. Am I being Islamophobic when I say that it's scary when murder of Jews is being preached to crowds in mosques in Toronto and Montreal and said crowds don't raise an eyebrow? Am I being islamophobic when I found it scary to learn that my local school bus driver participated in a terrorist plot? Perhaps. Was I being unreasonable being scared that there are large numbers of people adhering to an ideology calling to murder my children?


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> Funny that. Every time I click, they take me to books which I referenced. Guess HP isn't familiar with a concept called "a book".


Your links were to books , not what was in the books. They weren't to actual text that supported you claim that Canada did not contribute its fair share to the war effort. Your links proved nothing.

While there was some trouble with conscription and there were so-called "zombies there were also volunteers who went overseas.



> Canadian pilots fought side-by-side with the British air force in repelling the German Luftwaffe's attacks on the U.K. in the summer of 1940. The Royal Canadian Air Force engaged in direct combat with enemy planes for the first time in the war.
> 
> Repelled in the Battle of Britain, the Germans turned to night bombing of London and other cities. During the Blitz, which lasted until May 1941, the British buckled but did not break.
> 
> Canada also waged war at sea, doing battle with German U-boats that were attacking convoy ships. The German boats even breached Canadian waters, sinking 23 ships in the Battle of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
> 
> More than 3,000 Canadian sailors and merchant seaman died in fighting on the Atlantic Ocean during the war years. The navy, which had just six destroyers and a few smaller ships when the war began, was among the world's largest military fleets by 1945.
> 
> ............
> Canadian forces saw direct combat with the Japanese almost immediately at the Battle of Hong Kong, which began on Dec. 8, 1941. The Canadians were all volunteers and far from battle-ready, having arrived just three weeks earlier.
> 
> The colony surrendered on Christmas Day, and the surviving Canadian, British and Indian soldiers became prisoners of war.
> 
> The Japanese sent 1,685 captured Canadian soldiers to four prisoner of war camps. By the time Hong Kong was liberated in 1945, more than 550 of them had died.
> 
> ......
> 
> The raid on Dieppe in August 1942 was the Allies' first major combined operation of army, navy and air forces. It was seen as a test run for the eventual invasion of France — but became one of the darkest chapters in Canadian military history.
> 
> Almost 5,000 soldiers and officers from the 2nd Canadian Division joined the fight. Problems began before the men even reached the shore when a German convoy learned of the attack.
> 
> When the Allied forces hit the beach, they ran into a wall of machine-gun and mortar fire. Entire platoons were mowed down as they stepped out of their landing craft.
> 
> An estimated 907 Canadians were killed, and 1,946 became prisoners of war. No major objectives were accomplished, but some later believed that valuable lessons were learned that would be later applied on the beaches of Normandy.
> 
> ..............
> 
> The invasion of Sicily in July 1943 was, at the time, the largest amphibious invasion in history. The island fell quickly to the Allies, creating a base for an invasion of the Italian mainland.
> 
> The government of Benito Mussolini fell just two weeks later, but the Germans swept into power, turning from Italian ally to occupier.
> 
> ...........
> 
> After weeks of brutal fighting — sometimes hand-to-hand combat — the Canadians pushed German forces back to the medieval town of Ortona. By the end of December 1943, the Germans were forced to retreat, a victory won at the cost of more than 1,300 Canadian casualties.
> 
> *At the height of the battle, 76,000 Canadian soldiers were fighting in Italy. They played a major role in the campaign's eventual success.*
> 
> D-Day triumph
> 
> Operation Overlord, the long-planned Allied invasion also known as D-Day, brought the biggest armada in history to the shores of Normandy.
> 
> Five heavily fortified beaches were attacked on June 6, 1944. Canadian responsibility centred on Juno beach.
> 
> In the first six days of battle, about 3,000 Canadians were killed or wounded. Yet Canadian infantry pressed on, moving inland to capture enemy positions throughout June and July.
> 
> The war's direction had been decisively turned in the Allies' favour.
> 
> After fighting key battles in Belgium and along the Rhine, the Allies began a final push to secure northwestern Europe and end the war.
> 
> Canadian moved through The Netherlands in early April 1945. It quickly became clear, however, that the dire hunger of Dutch citizens was a far more pressing need than driving out the Germans. Food drops for civilians were organized.
> 
> The Germans refused to surrender without a fight, though, and the liberation of Holland wasn't complete until the German surrender in May. *About 7,600 Canadian servicemen died while fighting in Holland.*
> 
> Because of Canada's role in liberation, a close affinity between the countries remains to this day. After the war, The Netherlands thanked Canada with a gift of 100,000 tulip bulbs and still sends Canada 20,000 bulbs annually.


Battle of Britain,North Atlantic,Hong Kong, Dieppe ,Sicily, Italy, Normandy,Belgium,Netherlands ---Canada contributed to
the war effort .


----------



## humble_pie

bgc_fan said:


> No, he is referring to conscription in WWII where Mackenzie King had a one time levy of 17,000 conscripted men. But, the relevance to this thread is non-existent. He is trying to say that they ended up guarding these 3,000 detainees.
> 
> Too bad he doesn't check his dates. The conscription happened in 1944, whereas the detainee camps closed in 1943.




bgc the conscription issue caused riots & crises in canada across the early part of the 20th century. I for one believe its root cause lay in quebec. Your linked source says as much, although it's obviously an anglo-sided source, very much in one solitude, with zero insight into the attitudes & sentiments of rural french quebecers. These ranged from indifferent to england to rampantly anti-british.



> Conscription can be linked to the larger narrative of French and English Canadian tensions. The conscription crisis added fuel to the flames of the already fuming tensions.




btw, bgc, there's one other theme i'm surprised has not been brought forth in this thread. In the 1930s there was definitely sympathy in europe & also in north america with communism in the soviet union. One might say among the intelligentsia. But certainly the interest & the sympathy existed. In canada, for example, we had labour leaders visiting the soviet union throughout the 1930s. 

in 1939, when england declared war, stalin was allied with hitler. The molotov von ribbentrop pact lasted until june 1941, when hitler invaded russia. Only then did stalin turn to the Allies for help, although the war itself had commenced nearly 2 years previously.

nearly all of the jewish detainees whom churchill sent first to the isle of man, thence to canada, arrived in canada in 1940. IE they arrived while communist russia was still in bed with adolf hitler.

i'm left wondering whether churchill was not only concerned with possible german nazi sympathizers, he was also concerned with possible russia communist sympathizers, among the jewish intellectuals whom he plucked from british universities & sent into detainment on the isle of man.


_moscow, august 1939 - german foreign minister joachim
von ribbentrop signs a peace pact with russia's joseph stalin
& foreign minister viacheslev molotov_
.










.


----------



## mordko

And what am I to do if my references are books written by reputable historical authorities on the subject of WW2 rather than wiki? Are books somehow not good enough any more? Amazing what one comes across while talking to complete ignoramuses.


----------



## mordko

humble_pie said:


> bgc the conscription issue caused riots & crises in canada across the early part of the 20th century. I for one believe its root cause lay in quebec. Your linked source says as much, although it's obviously an anglo-sided source, very much in one solitude, with zero insight into the attitudes & sentiments of rural french quebecers. These ranged from indifferent to england to rampantly anti-british.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw, bgc, there's one other theme i'm surprised has not been brought forth in this thread. In the 1930s there was definitely sympathy in europe & also in north america with communism in the soviet union. One might say among the intelligentsia. But certainly the interest & the sympathy existed. In canada, for example, we had labour leaders visiting the soviet union throughout the 1930s.
> 
> in 1939, when england declared war, stalin was allied with hitler. The molotov von ribbentrop pact lasted until june 1941, when hitler invaded russia. Only then did stalin turn to the Allies for help, although the war itself had commenced nearly 2 years previously.
> 
> nearly all of the jewish detainees whom churchill sent first to the isle of man, thence to canada, arrived in canada in 1940. IE they arrived while communist russia was still in bed with adolf hitler.
> 
> i'm left wondering whether churchill was not only concerned with possible german nazi sympathizers, he was also concerned with possible russia communist sympathizers, among the jewish intellectuals whom he plucked from british universities & sent into detainment on the isle of man.
> 
> 
> _moscow, august 1939 - german foreign minister joachim
> von ribbentrop signs a peace pact with russia's joseph stalin
> & foreign minister viacheslev molotov_
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


This is an old nazi favoured concept of "Jews = Bolsheviks". No, antisemitism isn't justified.


----------



## mordko

And incidentally, prior to signing his pact with Hitler, Stalin fired Jewish foreign minister Litvinov (who was opposed), declared that he was going to clean out the synagogue (foreign ministry) and intensified Soviet campaign against Jews.


----------



## mordko

Claims that Churchill was personally Antisemitic are false; although it's quite obvious that Churchill is being used by HP and Pluto to justify their own Jew hatred. The opposite is true, Churchill was philosemitic. British Foreign office - absolutely, it was full of virulent antisemites. 

http://www.martingilbert.com/book/churchill-and-the-jews/


----------



## humble_pie

mordko said:


> Claims that Churchill was personally Antisemitic are false; although it's quite obvious that Churchill is being used by HP and Pluto to justify their own Jew hatred.



there you go again, everybody that you can't bully into a pulp is antisemitic

when you get really worked up it's spelled Antisemitic

:biggrin:

.


----------



## bgc_fan

mordko said:


> Canada stopped being institutionally Antisemitic at some point in th 1970s.


Fine, so while First Nations people have been persecuted and marginalized from the arrival of the Europeans until at least the 1980s though practically it is still ongoing, but Jews were targeted more in Canada.



mordko said:


> Am I being islamophobic when I found it scary to learn that my local school bus driver participated in a terrorist plot? Perhaps. Was I being unreasonable being scared that there are large numbers of people adhering to an ideology calling to murder my children?


Again you dodge another question. Would you be fine if the motion was specifically anti-Muslim as the term Islamophobia is the issue?


----------



## wraphter

mordko said:


> And what am I to do if my references are books written by reputable historical authorities on the subject of WW2 rather than wiki? Are books somehow not good enough any more? Amazing what one comes across while talking to complete ignoramuses.


Negative tonality is a sure sign of spinning.


----------



## bgc_fan

humble_pie said:


> bgc the conscription issue caused riots & crises in canada across the early part of the 20th century. I for one believe its root cause lay in quebec. Your linked source says as much, although it's obviously an anglo-sided source, very much in one solitude, with zero insight into the attitudes & sentiments of rural french quebecers. These ranged from indifferent to england to rampantly anti-british.


Yes... there were the riots during WWI, and it was primarily the rejection by Quebecois. But there was a mild re-occurrence during WWII and Mackenzie King tried to lessen the impact of breaking his promise of no conscription by trying to keep most of the conscripts in North America.

But like I said, irrelevant to this thread and doesn't support Mordko's belief that Canada conscripted people to guard the Jewish detainees.


----------



## wraphter

hp said:


> i'm left wondering whether churchill was not only concerned with possible german nazi sympathizers, he was also concerned with possible russia communist sympathizers, among the jewish intellectuals whom he plucked from british universities & sent into detainment on the isle of man.


You have a good point hp. There was good reason to consider some Jews a security risk. The head of the Manhattan Project ,J. Robert
Oppenheimer was a suspect. 

And of course the Rosenbergs, Julius and Ethyl did enormous damage to American military status when they leaked the Atomic Bomb secrets to the Russians.


----------



## wraphter

Jews had prominent positions in the Communist Party and in Stalin's government . Some were actively involved in putting to death the enemies of the state. Eventually Stalin purged them.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html



> We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.
> 
> Whole population strata were eliminated: Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, "opposition members" who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself.
> 
> In his new, highly praised book "The War of the World, "Historian Niall Ferguson writes that no revolution in the history of mankind devoured its children with the same unrestrained appetite as did the Soviet revolution. In his book on the Stalinist purges, Tel Aviv University's Dr. Igal Halfin writes that Stalinist violence was unique in that it was directed internally.
> 
> *And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the "bloodthirsty dwarf."*
> 
> 
> 
> *Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We'll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD's special department and the organization's chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.
> 
> In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges.*
> 
> *Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of "our hangmen," who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin.*


The majority of Jews are on the left. They want to improve the human condition. Communism and strongly appealed to them .
At last the victims get a chance to get revenge and also supposedlt make the world a better place.


----------



## humble_pie

bgc let's see now, you were saying that in 1944 william lyon mackenzie king conscripted 17,000 soldiers for the first time during WW II, while more than 23,000 canadian forces had already been killed while fighting overseas?


what i object to: this unspeakable lie from mordko, suggesting that canadian forces were cowards who stayed at home:



mordko said:


> Talking of WW2 history, through most of the war there were fewer Canadians who fought the Nazis than Canadians who served in Canada, doing such important duties as guarding Jews.


.


----------



## gibor365

> And of course the Rosenbergs, Julius and Ethyl did enormous damage to American military status when they leaked the Atomic Bomb secrets to the Russians.


 and Rudolf Abel who "did enormous damage to American" was British, so what?!


----------



## wraphter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country

Percent of population killed in WWII

Australia----- .58

Canada------ .38

New Zealand--.72

UK-------------.94

US------------.32

So Canada was a little light compared to the other Anglo ex-colonies. However it was in line with the US death rate.

Mordko's argument that Canada drastically under-performed is not sustained.


----------



## gibor365

wraphter said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country
> 
> Percent of population killed in WWII
> 
> Australia----- .58
> 
> Canada------ .38
> 
> New Zealand--.72
> 
> UK-------------.94
> 
> US------------.32
> 
> So Canada was a little light compared to the other Anglo ex-colonies. However it was in line with the US death rate.
> 
> Mordko's argument that Canada drastically under-performed is not sustained.


All contribution of countries you listed was rather limited... They mostly started 2nd front because were scared that USSR will capture all Europe.


> *The Soviets were fighting over 200 divisions while in the western front(America, Britain etc.) were fighting 10.* 95% of the casualties against the axis was in the eastern front. The *Soviets lost more men in one battle(The Battle of Stalingrad) than all the other allies lost combined all throughout the war*.


----------



## wraphter

gibor365 said:


> and Rudolf Abel who "did enormous damage to American" was British, so what?!


So there was a strong association between Jews and communism , that's what.And there was reason to view them as a security risk,
that's what.

And there still is a strong association between the Jews and liberalism and the quest for social justice.

I mean we have been listening to a solid litany of how terrible Canadians are, how terrible Christians are, maybe its time for some
payback. Even the score a little.


----------



## gibor365

You forgot that Jesus was also a Jew


----------



## humble_pie

gibor365 said:


> All contribution of countries you listed was rather limited... They mostly started 2nd front because were scared that USSR will capture all Europe.



what. total. bunk.

great britain, canada, australia, new zealand all declared war against germany in late 1939 because they were "scared" of the USSR?

gibor's got this thingie on the brain about russia & WW II. Even though cmffer uptoolate explained to gibor clearly how russia may have lost more lives during WW II than any other country, but that was because it had also lost more battles than any other country.

stalin also hopscotched from allying with hitler during the first third of the war, to trying to ally with the west, an effort that did not go down entirely smoothly after the war, when the leaders of great britain, the US & the soviet union gathered at crimea & yalta.

alas, even though uptoolate was & remains a superb 20th century military historian, gibor could never understand him, so gibor continues to rabbit on about how russia *won* World War II ... how the US only entered WW II because it was *scared* of the soviet union ... et patati et patata ...

.


----------



## gibor365

> great britain, canada, australia, new zealand all declared war against germany in late 1939 because they were "scared" of the USSR?


 declaring is really nice , but they started really to fight in summer 1944
*The Soviets were fighting over 200 divisions while in the western front(America, Britain etc.) were fighting 10* 

as per HP, role of USSR was minor ... what an idiot!

From 1941 to 1944 the Red Army was the only force in Europe that was fighting the Nazis. The Normandy invasion didn't come until after the Red Army had turned the tide of the war and was well on its way to Berlin.
If Hitler was not bogged down with his Eastern Front all the EU would be speaking German now.


----------



## humble_pie

gibor365 said:


> declaring is really nice , but they started really to fight in summer 1944
> 
> The Soviets were fighting over 200 divisions while in the western front(America, Britain etc.) were fighting 10


gibor is raving again .:biggrin:





gibor365 said:


> as per HP, role of USSR was minor


now you're getting it


.


----------



## gibor365

It's a joke how history is learnt in the West 

*The United States receives the most credit for defeating Adolf Hitler's Germany during World War Two, according to a YouGov poll*
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-than-UK-and-USSR-to-defeat-Nazi-Germany.html


----------



## humble_pie

gibor365 said:


> From 1941 to 1944 the Red Army was the only force in Europe that was fighting the Nazis



try telling that to the ghost of my grandfather-in-law, who died under panzer gunfire during the famous canadian long march up the spine of italy & who lies buried with hundreds of other canadian heroes in italian graves high in the apennines

.


----------



## gibor365

> In 1945, most French people thought that the Soviet Union deserved the most credit for Nazi Germany's defeat in World War II - even though the Soviets did not play much of a role in France's liberation, relative to the US and Britain. 57% vs 20%
> 
> By 1995 and 2004, however, the French had changed their minds, and were crediting the US as the biggest contributor to victory in Europe (survey data from the French Institute of Public Opinion).


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-09/who-beat-hitler-usa-britain-or-russia?page=1

History just got re-written...

Only small number of Canadians participated in minor operation in Sicily in June 1943.... majority were idle in Britain waiting for Normandy operation in 1944


----------



## james4beach

ZeroHedge (the reference you cited) ... a place I used to read regularly ... transformed over the last 2 years into pure Russian/soviet propaganda.

It also became an alt-right hangout, spreading conspiracy theories about everything. ZeroHedge runs constant stories about how much America sucks, why America's collapse is imminent, and how great Russia is.

This is what US intelligence agencies were referring to when they talked about Russian influence in the elections. I firmly believe ZeroHedge was one example of this -- the place was co-opted by Russian interests, and spread stories that were specifically meant to harm America (and western allies) while boosting Trump and Putin, constantly.

Don't read this garbage. And this is coming from a guy who used to read ZH on a daily basis, up until a couple years ago.


----------



## gibor365

*The successful 70-year campaign to convince people the USA and not the USSR beat Hitler*
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/581427...r-campaign-to-convince-people-the-usa-and-not


----------



## gibor365

> specifically meant to harm America (and western allies) while boosting Trump


 james, you are funny....how same time ZH can harm America and boost it's President?!


----------



## james4beach

Watch the articles over the span of a month. A significant portion of the articles are very anti-US and anti-Europe. They feed conspiracy theories to breed distrust of government and tell Americans that their country is on the brink of collapse.

It's the same kind of thing InfoWars and other alt-right outlets do. Their message is always consistent: the country is a mess, on the brink of collapse, anarchy is imminent.


----------



## new dog

Refugees are overrunning Europe.

There is real problems going on with China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and then you have the mess in the middle east.

Debt is huge in America, Europe and around the world.

Police are getting shot all over America and shooting people all over America.

Race relations are at their worst in decades in America.

All of this before Trump is even president and before any so called alt-right has even helped Trump.


----------



## james4beach

The xenophobia in Canada & US is spreading faster than I thought, to groups beyond Muslims.

A Sikh man in Seattle was shot by a gunman who approached him on his driveway. He was told: "go back to your own country". This is very shortly after a previous shooting of an Indian man in a Kansas bar.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/sikh-man-shot-seattle-1.4010790

This kind of violence from white nationalists, like the Quebec City shooting, will spread as a general xenophobia takes hold. White nationalist ideology is powerful in the US and there will be acts of violence against all visible minorities. This toxic thinking also spreads into Canada, radicalizing people such as Alexandre Bissonnette.

Those of you (like gibor) cheering on the anti-muslim crowd are just strengthening a movement _that will come after you too_.


----------



## mordko

bgc_fan said:


> Fine, so while First Nations people have been persecuted and marginalized from the arrival of the Europeans until at least the 1980s though practically it is still ongoing, but Jews were targeted more in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> Again you dodge another question. Would you be fine if the motion was specifically anti-Muslim as the term Islamophobia is the issue?


1. First Nations persecuted into 1980s - possibly. So? 

2. "Jews were targeted more in Canada". Find out were I said that and provide a quote so that I can try to figure out what you are trying to argue about. Again, this comparison is utterly moronic in the first place - not a competition. 

3. Being "anti-Muslim" isn't the same as being Antisemitic, anti-black or anti-Hungarian because it's not racism. It's the same as anti-Catholic or anti-Judaism or anti-Jehovah's Witnesses. People have a choice of adhering to Islam or not, it's an ideology they choose. I do agree that being wholesale anti-Muslim is a type of prejudice and I am ok condemning it along with condemnation of prejudice against evangelicals which James keeps promoting here. 

My opposition is specifically to political Islam, or Koranically-based violence against innocent people, because I do not believe that Jews, women and gays deserve to be persecuted. I would also very much prefer it if newly minted Canadians from the most antisemitic part of the world did not think that the Jewish people were the unnatural cosmic offspring of swine and orangutan in need of a good slaughtering in the name of Allah.

Does this make me a bad, or ignorant, person? Fair enough.


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country
> 
> Percent of population killed in WWII
> 
> Australia----- .58
> 
> Canada------ .38
> 
> New Zealand--.72
> 
> UK-------------.94
> 
> US------------.32
> 
> So Canada was a little light compared to the other Anglo ex-colonies. However it was in line with the US death rate.
> 
> Mordko's argument that Canada drastically under-performed is not sustained.


That's not my argument. I just pointed out that Mackenzie King sent out troops into battle that were severely under strength, which resulted in unnecessary deaths. Brave Canadian soldiers resented that huge numbers were left to twiddle their thumbs in Canada. That was a good example of Kings statesmanship. In the same way he complied with the prevailing mood of antisemitism and instituted Antisemitic policies. 

Crucially, "under-performance" during the war should not be measured by death rate, that's another idiocy.


----------



## mordko

wraphter said:


> So there was a strong association between Jews and communism , that's what.And there was reason to view them as a security risk,
> that's what.
> 
> And there still is a strong association between the Jews and liberalism and the quest for social justice.
> .


This is typical Neo nazi line of thinking. Here is another example of the same logic: http://nationalvanguard.org/2016/09/eckart-and-hitler-on-jewish-bolshevism-part-4/

Conversely, the far left hate Jews for capitalism: https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/capitalism-is-jewish-usury/

If you are Antisemitic, you will always find the right cause to blame the "Jews" for.

People with brains realize that there were and there are communist and anti-communist Jews. Ethnicity does not define how people think.

In reality, during the Bolshevik revolution, the vast majority of Jews were anticommunist. The majority were running tiny businesses. Most of Jews in politics in the 1917 Russia belonged to Zionist parties and were persecuted by Lenin and co who put them in prison. Many Jews were strong supporters of the Provisional government, which gave them freedom. Many Jewish soldiers gave their life fighting the communist putsch in Petrograd, my great grandfather survived after being captured by the Bolsheviks by escaping from the washroom window. Others continued resisting; communist butcher Uritsky was killed by a Jew and Lenin was shot by a Jew. 

Later on many Jews were forced to support Bolsheviks because Whites initiated pogroms on a more systematic scale than the Reds. It is true that several people of Jewish background became prominent among Bolsheviks, like Trotsky (who was an antisemite). In the 1930s most of these prominent communist Jews were killed by the Soviets. But that does not mean that "Jews" were communist or pose security risk any more than its right to suggest that French Canadians pose a security risk because of Jeffrey Delisle.

There are a lot of Jews among prominent scientists but it's dumb to suggest that "Jews" should get Nobel prizes for being Jewish.


----------



## mordko

gibor365 said:


> All contribution of countries you listed was rather limited... They mostly started 2nd front because were scared that USSR will capture all Europe.


I have to say... What the ****??? Up until June 1941 USSR contributed quite a lot. To the nazis. A lot of grain, oil, rubber and metals which were vital to sustain the Nazi assault on Britain, which fought alone, although US provided supplies. Also Soviet attack on Poland, from behind was a great contribution. To the Nazi war effort. 

And after Hitler forced Soviets into the war against Germany, USSR did provide a major contribution but only lasted thanks to allied help, which included crucial supplies, military action in Africa and allied bombing campaign in Germany.


----------



## humble_pie

.



gibor365 said:


> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-09/who-beat-hitler-usa-britain-or-russia?page=1
> History just got re-written





gibor365 said:


> The successful 70-year campaign to convince people the USA and not the USSR beat Hitler
> http://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/581427...r-campaign-to-convince-people-the-usa-and-not




hey we all know gibor is illiterate - can neither write nor read, at least not in english - but these two (2) separate citations from two (2) separate posts, Nos 800 & 802 upthread, are actually the same article. One has been plagiarized from the other. Although the earlier datelined text may itself have been a piece of plagiarized garbage.

in addition, the text cited is not really an article, despite an effort having been made to tart it up with graphics & pretentious references. All the text has to say for itself is that russia lost 8.6 million soldiers plus more than 16 million civilians in World War II, whereas total US losses in all theatres were less than half-a-million, therefore it must have been russia that won WW II.

the misleading grift to this absurd text is that it fails to treat the Allied air battles or the north african or asian theatres, which commenced the Allied victory long before juno beach & sister invasions along the coast of normandy.

sorry about the russian losses. But they're another illustration of how badly josef stalin strategized, so much of the time. One would have thought that napoleon bonaparte had definitively shown russia, long time before, how it's a dumb idea to slaughter foot soldiers & civilians like locusts. But evidently stalin never got the memo.

.


----------



## SMK

mordko said:


> If you are Antisemitic, you will always find the right cause to blame the "Jews" for.
> 
> In reality, during the Bolshevik revolution, the vast majority of Jews were anticommunist.


Such people - the true anti-Semites, blaming Jews from ISIS to Ebola and everything in between, are blind obsessive fanatics. 

Some good highlights on Jewish Bolshevism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> And what am I to do if my references are books written by reputable historical authorities on the subject of WW2 rather than wiki? Are books somehow not good enough any more? Amazing what one comes across while talking to complete ignoramuses.


Since you asked for instruction on this freshman level stuff, give a page number in the referenced book that backs you claim.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> although it's quite obvious that Churchill is being used by HP and Pluto to justify their own Jew hatred.
> 
> http://www.martingilbert.com/book/churchill-and-the-jews/


mordko, you have gone off the rails. My facts came from links to articles that you (and gibor) gave me. Based on your references/linked articles, that apparently you never read, to "prove" the camp was a "concentration camp" to persecute Jews. You poster child persecuted Jew what the gentleman, Mr. Koch. You said they were in substandard facilities that equated to a "concentration camp, but you poster child Jewish fellow said the facilities were "perfectly comfortable". Despite you claims of persecution Mr. Koch was released and reportedly in hius own words was admited in Uof T. He may have had 2 years of post secondary education before the war even ended. 

What I hate is your Goebell's like disrespect for the truth - Spinning, fabricating "facts", and lying by ommision. Previously you claimed Polanyi's book Personal Knowledge was "fabulous". So I asked you to comment on two quotes from his book. You responses revealed to me that you had no clue what you were talking about. You portray yourself as one who is an expert on virtually eveything under the sun, but in reality you are full of sophomoric pretensions, bombast and bluster with your main concern to "prove" preconcieved conclusions using phony references, fabricated fact, and Goebell's like spin.


----------



## Eclectic12

bgc_fan said:


> So I guess you don't agree with the detention of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in 2010 because they might be militants?


Did they have a tribunal by a Canadian ally that cleared them before said ally requested Canada intern them?




bgc_fan said:


> ... So the fact that Japanese Canadians were treated worse than Jewish Canadians seems to bother you.


It does bother me ... I'll have to check to be sure but I don't much comment when I mentioned far more Japanese were interned while adding Italians as well as the 800+ Germans who either were born in Canada or had made no return visit to German in something like sixty years. I'd have to dig further to see if any Canadian tribunals were held or any releases were made before the end of the war.




bgc_fan said:


> Ever been to Hong Kong in the early 1900s? The signs the British had for certain parks were "No does or Chinese allowed". Maybe they should have added Jews and Gentiles only. Somehow I doubt that they would have accepted other minorities as well. Not knowing the demographics of the area at that time, I couldn't say.


Not sure the relevance ... either way, Canada did have Jews as well as other "undersirables" such as the Italians or Ukrainians yet at minimum - had specific blatant signs.




bgc_fan said:


> ... Fair enough, so where are they? My point is that the idea that only Jews were targeted for racist activities is fairly insulting to other minorities.


Having mentioned Japanese Canadians, Italians etc. as others that internment was questionable for ... I am not sure why pointing out that some racist activities had a clear target is an issue or disputing "it's all because they were German" means I am saying this.

For that matter ... can you remind me which posts claim only the Jews were targets? 
I seem to have missed those posts.




bgc_fan said:


> Eclectic12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see arguments that the disenfranchisement was justified by some other factor ... so I presume it is being agreed with ...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see anyone say that disenfranchisement was a bad thing so I assumed people thought it was acceptable.
Click to expand...

??? ... doesn't silence usually mean agreement?




bgc_fan said:


> I probably missed a post so I don't know what you are referring to.


You claim Jews weren't targeted yet being the top of the class at the Université de Montréal with four older brothers already doctors was meaningless as being Jewish was an affront to his co-workers. It triggered Canada's first medical strike at a Canadian hospital in 1934. I'd have to find the newspaper articles again that decried the hiring of the first Jew to a hospital staff position but this article notes that the strike *spread* to four other hospitals, with nurses threatening to join the strike.

It seems a Catholic hospital in St. Louis did not care like the Montreal Catholic workers/community did.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/169/12/1329.full


For those that know their Canadian history, it should not be surprising. Ezekiel Hart was elected in 1807 and again in 1808 by the voters in Trois-Rivières. He was expelled officially as being Jewish which according to the vote, prevented one from sitting or voting. The newspaper Le Canadien, published letters to the editor against Hart, including the recommendation that Trois-Rivières voters be reprimanded for electing a Jew to office.




bgc_fan said:


> ... Not really you per se. It is just the fact this whole thread degenerated into Jews had it worse than anyone else in Canada.


Nice to know it's not me per se ... I'm just not sure why the main disagreements/information being posted being in regards to Jews means other groups discriminated against had it better.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

bgc_fan said:


> No. The point is that there are people making these decisions based on their prejudices ...
> Is it that difficult to make the distinction between the fact that individuals have prejudices, and the idea that the government sanctions and condones this activity?


Is it that difficult to notice that the gov't appointed some of these people, had reports of what was going on yet took no action?

In the case of the Montreal intern - are you arguing the Canadian gov't didn't know about the strike?




bgc_fan said:


> ... Given that we do have regulatory (government) bodies to appeal towards when these things happen mean that they actually have an outlet for recourse.


I'm curious as to what regulatory bodies gave an outlet for recourse before WW2?

There's lots of info of elected officials all the way up to the PM being appealed to, including for the MS St. Louis, a telegram to the PM from forty or so academics & clergy asking the PM provide sanctuary to the ship's passengers, where Canada took none.

In previous posts, the discrimination against any non-British stock is mentioned, which one would think comes from British thinking. If so, it makes for an interesting contradiction that Canada took none while after Canada's rejection, Britain took over 32% of the MS St. Louis passengers as refugees (288 passengers).


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

olivaw said:


> The Americans recognize Canada's contribution ...


The Dutch far more so ... their history can tell you which Canadian or American, crossed which bridge, was shot etc. They are also still assigning school kids to tend the graves as well as personally subsidizing trips back to the Netherlands by Canadian/American vets. As of 2003, the twenty something Dutch army guys the tour ran into were excited about having pictures with the Canadian vets, not to build the vets photo album but to show their neighbours they'd met a Canadian vet.

Moving on from the sidebar, I question the "realized that Nazi Germany threatened the very existence of Western civilization." 

PM King's visit with Hitler was to make sure Hitler was aware that should Britain go to war with Germany, Canada would follow suit. He had the chance to raise Nazi actions with Hitler directly or the next day, when he met with a top Nazi official but he did not. I seem to recall some of his diary entries recording that while he felt Canada could/would ignore any call to war from anywhere else, Britain going to war would force Canada to join suit.


Cheers


----------



## Pluto

gibor365 said:


> *The successful 70-year campaign to convince people the USA and not the USSR beat Hitler*
> http://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/581427...r-campaign-to-convince-people-the-usa-and-not


I have some sympathy for the view that USSR had Hitler beat already prior to D-Day. However, USSR reportedly received a great deal of needed equipment and supplies from the USA. Origionally the supplies were flown from Michigan, and ossibly other states to Alaska. There Russian pilots would fly the stuff to Siberia. (Apparetnly there was also an exchange of Vodka for Bourbon.) But the USSR's need for supplies outweighed what could be flown at the time, so the US Army Engineers built the Alaska Highway through Canada to Alaska specifically to supply the USSR by truck for the war effort. I don't know if USSR could have won without such supplies. (Also, and incidently, the suspension and track system on the very successful T-34 tank was an American invention and USSR bought the patent from the US patent holder.)

Similarily in Britain: Reportedly, from relatives who were there, the equipment and other supplies that came from, the US was overwhelming and by far out stripped what other countries supplied. so although I kind of resent the Hollywood, and other portrayal's that the US did it all by themselves, it isn't clear that the USSR did it all by itself either.


----------



## bgc_fan

Eclectic12 said:


> Did they have a tribunal by a Canadian ally that cleared them before said ally requested Canada intern them?


My understanding about the WWII situation is that the Jews weren't cleared and sent with other Germans as a collection of people to be detained. But the argument was made that they should have just said they were Jews and they would be free to go. Are we not to do the same thing with the Tamil refugees? I suspect they ended up being cleared and not militants after the fact.



Eclectic12 said:


> For that matter ... can you remind me which posts claim only the Jews were targets?
> I seem to have missed those posts.


This whole thread? The fact that the narrative that Canada was antisemitic, as opposed to racist, emphasizes the Jewish persecution and excludes the fact that any other minorities also were also mistreated.



Eclectic12 said:


> ??? ... doesn't silence usually mean agreement?


Not always on the Internet. Silence can also mean disagreement, but you don't want to write it down.




Eclectic12 said:


> You claim Jews weren't targeted yet being the top of the class at the Université de Montréal with four older brothers already doctors was meaningless as being Jewish was an affront to his co-workers. It triggered Canada's first medical strike at a Canadian hospital in 1934. I'd have to find the newspaper articles again that decried the hiring of the first Jew to a hospital staff position but this article notes that the strike *spread* to four other hospitals, with nurses threatening to join the strike.


Here's my point. If you replaced that person with a Japanese Canadian, do you not think the same thing would happen? Aside from the fact that Japanese Canadians weren't allowed from professional jobs at that time.



Eclectic12 said:


> For those that know their Canadian history, it should not be surprising. Ezekiel Hart was elected in 1807 and again in 1808 by the voters in Trois-Rivières. He was expelled officially as being Jewish which according to the vote, prevented one from sitting or voting. The newspaper Le Canadien, published letters to the editor against Hart, including the recommendation that Trois-Rivières voters be reprimanded for electing a Jew to office.


So the same with Japanese Canadians in the early 1900s. Can we now say that Japanese Canadians were targeted?



Eclectic12 said:


> Is it that difficult to notice that the gov't appointed some of these people, had reports of what was going on yet took no action?


Reports that this Major had antisemitic tendencies? 

Let's put it this way, I was talking to a young Army officer, of Asian descent, who was talking about a conversation he had when meeting veterans at a legion during Remembrance Day. The veteran's comment was "When did they start allowing gooks in the army?" Does that mean the government condones and accepts bigotry against Koreans?




Eclectic12 said:


> I'm curious as to what regulatory bodies gave an outlet for recourse before WW2?


I was referring more to the present day, as I assumed that was what you were talking about.


----------



## Eclectic12

humble_pie said:


> ... btw, bgc, there's one other theme i'm surprised has not been brought forth in this thread. In the 1930s there was definitely sympathy in europe & also in north america with communism in the soviet union ... in 1939, when england declared war, stalin was allied with hitler. The molotov von ribbentrop pact lasted until june 1941, when hitler invaded russia. Only then did stalin turn to the Allies for help, although the war itself had commenced nearly 2 years previously.
> 
> nearly all of the jewish detainees whom churchill sent first to the isle of man, thence to canada, arrived in canada in 1940. IE they arrived while communist russia was still in bed with adolf hitler.
> 
> i'm left wondering whether churchill was not only concerned with possible german nazi sympathizers, he was also concerned with possible russia communist sympathizers, among the jewish intellectuals whom he plucked from british universities & sent into detainment on the isle of man ...


British sources say in 1939 only about six hundred (Category A - high risk) were interned. Six thousand five hundred were supervised (Category B) and sixty four thousand were left at liberty (Category C), after tribunals. The mass internments are reported to have started in the spring of 1940.

Odd timing to not be worried then be worried enough for large numbers of internees then be releasing easily in the thousands of internees as early as August 1940.


There may have been some communist sympathizers but it seems strange to ignore the issue for months, then scoop up the majority then start releasing them so quickly.


Cheers

*PS*

Isle of Mann internment camps are supposed to have operated from May 27th, 1940 to Sept 5th, 1945. The time for the highest numbers is August 1940.


----------



## Eclectic12

bgc_fan said:


> My understanding about the WWII situation is that the Jews weren't cleared and sent with other Germans as a collection of people to be detained.





> It was not long, though, before fears of a German invasion heightened and Britain decided it could not have the enemy aliens, a possible fifth column, on its soil. It pressured its former colonies Canada and Australia to accept the internees, and Canada agreed to take 7,000 “dangerous type” civilians and prisoners of war. Among the men who boarded the Canada-bound ships there were certainly Nazis, but *there were also roughly 2,300 men who had been judged by British tribunals to pose a slight risk or no risk at all.*


http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...dian-prison-camps-during-the-second-world-war

When I find it again, I'll post the BBC article that goes into more detail by saying the category C group had been cleared by British tribunals, were at liberty until being scooped up in the spring of 1940. I seem to recall that also being one of the sources talking about how Britain having not captured enough category A "high risk" Germans to fill out the numbers Britain asked Canada to take so that category B and C were sent instead. 

Two different countries say the Jewish refugees were vetted by the British.




bgc_fan said:


> ... the argument was made that they should have just said they were Jews and they would be free to go. Are we not to do the same thing with the Tamil refugees?


Britain said they should go free as well as released thousands from their interment camps.

The Tamils, as far as I know, didn't have a Canadian ally saying they were okay. It would interesting to see if significant numbers of Tamils were vetted/released and whether it was faster than the slow progress the British rep complained about.


BTW ... there are reports that some Canadian guards recognised there was an issue when the Nazis POWs greeted the Jewish refugees by breaking into a song that includes "When Jewish blood spurts off the knife, things will be twice as good.” They are reported to have built barriers to keep the Nazis and the refugees apart.




bgc_fan said:


> ... This whole thread? The fact that the narrative that Canada was antisemitic, as opposed to racist, emphasizes the Jewish persecution and excludes the fact that any other minorities also were also mistreated.


As I say ... I mentioned others, including the much larger number of Japanese Canadians. A downplaying of the racism against Jews so far has been the bigger response.




bgc_fan said:


> ... Not always on the Internet. Silence can also mean disagreement, but you don't want to write it down.


If no one is writing what they think - then one won't know for sure.




bgc_fan said:


> ... Here's my point. If you replaced that person with a Japanese Canadian, do you not think the same thing would happen? Aside from the fact that Japanese Canadians weren't allowed from professional jobs at that time.


So Japanese Canadians, Chinese and Jews, as well as others were targeted ... not sure what difference that makes to some who claim only a few bigots targeted Jews and that without a written policy like the Chinese head tax, the Canadian gov't didn't do anything to target Jews.




bgc_fan said:


> ... So the same with Japanese Canadians in the early 1900s. Can we now say that Japanese Canadians were targeted?


Said it a while ago ... but if you are happy, sure.




bgc_fan said:


> ... Reports that this Major had antisemitic tendencies?
> 
> Let's put it this way, I was talking to a young Army officer, of Asian descent, who was talking about a conversation he had when meeting veterans at a legion during Remembrance Day. The veteran's comment was "When did they start allowing gooks in the army?" Does that mean the government condones and accepts bigotry against Koreans?


The vet would have to be have been in charge of a bunch of Koreans with other observers reporting the comment as well as other actions against Koreans up the chain of command to be a closer situation.


Cheers


----------



## mordko

SMK said:


> Such people - the true anti-Semites, blaming Jews from ISIS to Ebola and everything in between, are blind obsessive fanatics.
> 
> Some good highlights on Jewish Bolshevism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism


Exactly. Perhaps Wiki editors should add CMF to the section "Outside Nazi Germany". 

If you are interested in a more in-depth historical analysis, this work is really, really, really good: http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14908.html


----------



## mordko

And here is a well written history of Jews in Canada. https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B005DB7ANG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 The bigots here won't be interested but some of the others might. Unfortunately the author died last year...


----------



## gibor365

> I have some sympathy for the view that USSR had Hitler beat already prior to D-Day. However, USSR reportedly received a great deal of needed equipment and supplies from the USA. Origionally the supplies were flown from Michigan, and ossibly other states to Alaska. There Russian pilots would fly the stuff to Siberia. (Apparetnly there was also an exchange of Vodka for Bourbon.) But the USSR's need for supplies outweighed what could be flown at the time, so the US Army Engineers built the Alaska Highway through Canada to Alaska specifically to supply the USSR by truck for the war effort. I don't know if USSR could have won without such supplies. (Also, and incidently, the suspension and track system on the very successful T-34 tank was an American invention and USSR bought the patent from the US patent holder.)


 I agree that US helped USSR during the War shipping equipment and supplies, without this help, it would take much longer to beat Germany and more lifes would be lost.

Yes, many of T34 used Christie suspension ,but it was developed in late 20's , much earlier then war started. .. The first production T-34s were completed in September 1940, completely replacing the production of the T-26 .... btw


> The USSR donated two combat-used Model 1941 T-34s to the United States for testing purposes in late 1942


Not lesser then T34 role in victory ,played also Katyusha rocket launcher... 



> I don't know if USSR could have won without such supplies.


 Look from other point.  Without USSR , would US and Britain destroy Hitler?! Wouldn't be now all Central and Western Europe speaking German?!


----------



## gibor365

> hey we all know gibor is illiterate


 not sure, but we all know that HP is an idiot :beguiled:


> sorry about the russian losses. But they're another illustration of how badly josef stalin strategized, so much of the time


 you're probably retarded if you repeat same bullshit all the time...

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nat...-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii

The biggest number of German divisions on Eastern front - 189, on Western - 79 (Jan 45). This is considering that after Eastern front, Western for Germans was like vacation.
Only in one Stalingrad battle total Axis casualties (Germans, Romanians, Italians, and Hungarians) are believed to have been more than 800,000 dead, wounded, missing, or captured and 1,100,000 Soviets....

For comparison , for whole WWII there were combined US and UK about 800,000 deaths + 45,400 Canadians

The successful 70-year campaign to convince people the USA and not the USSR beat Hitler

For especially dumb people like HP, who doesn't understand graphs , I have to repeat
in 1945 ,57% French thought that the biggest contributor to victory in Europe was USSR and 20% that US
In 2004,those numbers became opposite 20% vs 58% respectively


----------



## Pluto

gibor365 said:


> not sure, but we all know that HP is an idiot :beguiled:
> you're probably retarded if you repeat same bullshit all the time...
> 
> http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nat...-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii
> 
> The biggest number of German divisions on Eastern front - 189, on Western - 79 (Jan 45). This is considering that after Eastern front, Western for Germans was like vacation.
> Only in one Stalingrad battle total Axis casualties (Germans, Romanians, Italians, and Hungarians) are believed to have been more than 800,000 dead, wounded, missing, or captured and 1,100,000 Soviets....
> 
> For comparison , for whole WWII there were combined US and UK about 800,000 deaths + 45,400 Canadians
> 
> The successful 70-year campaign to convince people the USA and not the USSR beat Hitler
> 
> For especially dumb people like HP, who doesn't understand graphs , I have to repeat
> in 1945 ,57% French thought that the biggest contributor to victory in Europe was USSR and 20% that US
> In 2004,those numbers became opposite 20% vs 58% respectively


Don't you think it is possible that Stalin was a fool for relying on that fake "non-agression pact"? Instead of using it to buy time to get ready, it seems he did little, and made USSR vulnerable. 
Here is another perspective on USSR Casualties with reference to the article:

"It was the heroic resistance of the British Commonwealth under Churchill’s leadership, and the vision and courage of U.S. President Roosevelt in “making war without declaring it” on Hitler, that drove Hitler to attack Russia and Japan and Germany to make war on the U.S., which made the defeat of Nazism and deliverance of the European Jews possible. And their strategic genius assured that the Soviet Union would take 90 per cent of the casualties and 99 per cent of the physical damage in subduing Hitler, while France, Germany, Italy (and Japan), were gathered in or restored as flourishing democratic allies of the West."

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...mparison-between-my-religion-and-these-crimes


----------



## humble_pie

gibor365 said:


> For especially dumb people like HP, who doesn't understand graphs , I have to repeat
> 
> in 1945 ,57% French thought that the biggest contributor to victory in Europe was USSR and 20% that US
> In 2004,those numbers became opposite 20% vs 58% respectively



gibor you are making a fool of yourself

this is your 3rd attempt with your foolish :biggrin: graph
nothing to talk about here


all your graph shows is that, in the immediate aftermath of WW II & in the first flush of victory, some french persons may have mistakenly thought the soviet union had "won" the war

but by the 21st century, the majority of french had become far better informed

.


----------



## humble_pie

gibor365 said:


> not sure, but we all know that HP is an idiot :beguiled:
> you're probably retarded if you repeat same bullshit all the time...
> 
> http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nat...-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii
> 
> The biggest number of German divisions on Eastern front - 189, on Western - 79 (Jan 45). This is considering that after Eastern front, Western for Germans was like vacation.
> Only in one Stalingrad battle total Axis casualties (Germans, Romanians, Italians, and Hungarians) are believed to have been more than 800,000 dead, wounded, missing, or captured and 1,100,000 Soviets....
> 
> For comparison , for whole WWII there were combined US and UK about 800,000 deaths + 45,400 Canadians





thanks for offering such a perfect example of stalin's strategy failures. The only solution to the german invasion of stalingrad that the soviet dictator could come up with, was to slaughter his own russian people on a genocidal scale.

stalin knew the luftwaffe would bomb stalingrad into rubble. Early on, he removed grain, cattle & fuel from the city, so that the residents would starve. He refused to evacuate civilians. Historian Antony Beevor wrote that stalin believed that the presence of besieged starving civilians in the city of stalingrad would motivate russian soldiers to fight.

as elsewhere, stalin recruited the women & even the children of stalingrad into the soviet army, sending these innocents, sometimes unarmed, into firefights & towards certain death from german soldiers. As elsewhere, stalin executed stalingrad residents who were unable or unwilling to fight, or who malingered after recruitment.

however, what finished the germans in stalingrad was not the genocidal strategy of the mad soviet dictator. What finished hitler's campaign were 1) the necessity to divert german forces away from russia & send them to north africa instead, where the british were waging the victorious el Alamein campaign during the fall of 1942, the exact same moment of the german advance on stalingrad; & 2) the extreme intensity of cold during the russian winter, something the german military was not prepared for. It was the same intense cold that had vanquished napoleon bonaparte's invading army in the winter of 1812.

immediately following World War II, it was the United States that rebuilt europe under the grandeur of the Marshsall Plan. AFAIK ruined russia contributed nothing.

.


----------



## gibor365

> but by the 21st century, the majority of french had become far better informed


 Sure,by the 21st century youth learning history as per PS/XBOX games like Call of Duty


----------



## gibor365

> Don't you think it is possible that Stalin was a fool for relying on that fake "non-agression pact"? Instead of using it to buy time to get ready, it seems he did little, and made USSR vulnerable.


Even though I hate Stalin a lot,I don't think this "pact" was foolish... 


> Stalin explained, as Khrushchev later recalled, that he considered war with Germany unavoidable, but had momentarily tricked Hitler and bought time. The Soviet premier described the treaty with Germany as a game of "who outwits whom."





> Inside the USSR, an intensive armaments production program was under way. During 1938, it had increased by 39 percent, compared to 13 percent in civil industry. Emphasis was placed on armor, development of artillery and aeronautics. In September 1939 the USSR defense committee contracted the construction of nine aircraft production plants, and seven more to manufacture aircraft engines.
> 
> This was supplemented by the conversion to fabrication of aviation components of a number of consumer goods factories. In 1940, Soviet production of modern combat airplanes increased over 70 percent from the previous year. The ground forces experienced a parallel upgrading of weaponry. *Between January 1939 and June 1941, the Red Army received over 7,000 new tanks and 82,000 artillery pieces (including mortars)*.
> 
> On June 26, 1940, a law was enacted extending the Soviet workday from seven to eight hours, and to seven days per week. Disciplinary action for tardiness or slothfulness in the factories was imposed on the work force. These are measures normally introduced during wartime.
> 
> Conscription swelled the ranks of the Red Army. A force numbering 1 million men in the spring of 1938 surpassed 5 million by June 1941. The growth was summarized by the historian *Roger Reese: "There were 198 rifle divisions in 1941, compared to fewer than 30 in 1927; 31 motorized rifle divisions in 1941 and none in 1927; 61 tank divisions in 1941 and none as late as 1939.*"7


Also USSR got a "buffer" zone- Eastern Poland and Baltic countries...
Sure, until 1941 it wasn't enough time to fully prepare to war .... but it wasn't USSR decision to start war in 1941.
After , in 1938, England and France "sold" Czechoslovakia to Hitler, there weren't many illusions about those allies


----------



## humble_pie

gibor365 said:


> Sure,by the 21st century youth learning history as per PS/XBOX games like Call of Duty




when my offspring attended elementary school in france, all his french classmates used to tell my son how it had been glorious France herself, none other, who had won World War II singlehandedly

we also heard how the french had invented denim, but that story did turn out to be true (tissu de Nain)

.


----------



## gibor365

> I agree that US helped USSR during the War shipping equipment and supplies


 On the other hand many US corporations provided big help to Nazi Germany


> "General Motors was far more important to the Nazi war machine than Switzerland," said Bradford Snell, who has spent two decades researching a history of the world's largest automaker. "Switzerland was just a repository of looted funds. GM was an integral part of the German war effort. The Nazis could have invaded Poland and Russia without Switzerland. They could not have done so without GM."





> "When you think of Ford, you think of baseball and apple pie," said Miriam Kleinman, a researcher with the Washington law firm of Cohen, Millstein and Hausfeld, who spent weeks examining records at the National Archives in an attempt to build a slave labor case against the Dearborn-based company. "You don't think of Hitler having a portrait of Henry Ford on his office wall in Munich."





> When American GIs invaded Europe in June 1944, they did so in jeeps, trucks and tanks manufactured by the Big Three motor companies in one of the largest crash militarization programs ever undertaken. It came as an unpleasant surprise to discover that the enemy was also driving trucks manufactured by Ford and Opel -- a 100 percent GM-owned subsidiary -- and flying Opel-built warplanes.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm

Among Top 10 American Companies that Aided the Nazis, you will find familiar names, like IBM, GM, Ford, Alcoa, DOW etc.

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-american-companies-that-aided-the-nazis.php

The question is "whom US helped more"?!


----------



## Pluto

gibor365 said:


> On the other hand many US corporations provided big help to Nazi Germany
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm
> 
> Among Top 10 American Companies that Aided the Nazis, you will find familiar names, like IBM, GM, Ford, Alcoa, DOW etc.
> 
> http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-american-companies-that-aided-the-nazis.php
> 
> The question is "whom US helped more"?!


es, I know US headquartered international companies profited from making equipment for German government. It is valid a to ask if that was appropriate. But that isn't your point.

Your point is to blame the US Government for what international corporations did, and I am not sure that is valid. You equate the named corporations with the US Government eventhough they are not the same entity. the office of the President isn't the same as the Head office of Ford. And Ford was paid by the Germans, not the US government. So the answer to your quesion about who the US, as a nation, helped more is they helped USSR more.

Reportedly, by the time the Nazi's reached Moscow, 30-40% of USSR tanks available to defend the city were imports.

Equipment that came from the US that was destroyed in battle was never paid for. It was considered a "common loss". Even by 1972 USSR had not repayed the US for the equipment, and the Governemnt accepted a paltry sum of about 700 million to call it even. In short, the US taxpayers paid for whatever the USSR didn't pay. Apparently Britain didn't pay off its debt to the US until 2006, and at 2% interest a great deal of the value of the loan was lost to inflation. And getting back to those 30 - 40 % of tanks defending Moscow - they came from Britian apparently paid for by the British.

But the underlying theme of your posts in this thread are you don't want Muslims, apparently in particular, Syrians, in Canada because they are out to get you. Another themes is Canada is like theUSSR and has persecuted you because you are a Jew, eventhough you decline to follow up on your investigation. Your latest implication, that the US helped the Nazi's more than USSR is strange, and apparently connected to some sense of national pride tied to a theory that the USSR did it all by themselves. Nobody did it all by themselves. And you might want to consider that the US reportedly took in more Jewish refugees than all other countries combined.

I don't really get your apparent strategy of alienating people by your jumping to conclusions and making unfounded accusations. Stereotyping Syrians as out to kill you, and Canada is like USSR, for example. 

You need to slow down and carefully consider what justifies, if anything, your conclusions. If your conclusions are justified, you have a chance of getting fair minded people supporting you.


----------



## gibor365

> Your point is to blame the US Government for what international corporations did, and I am not sure that is valid. You equate the named corporations with the US Government eventhough they are not the same entity. the office of the President isn't the same as the Head office of Ford. And Ford was paid by the Germans, not the US government.


Interesting logic ... so if US government places embargo on Cuba, private companies could've trade with Cuba?! now US imposed sanctions Russia, you think that provate companies can still trade?!
If US government was imposing sanctions against Germany, Ford and GM couldn't sell equipment to nazis, but US government didn't do it...



> Your latest implication, that the US helped the Nazi's more than USSR is strange


 I didn't imply it, I ask a question, as I don't know  . My point was that telling that US should get much more credit than USSR in defeating Hitler - is re-writing history



> But the underlying theme of your posts in this thread are you don't want Muslims, apparently in particular, Syrians, in Canada because they are out to get you


 I posted link with interactive map showing that 80% population of those countries are antisemitic , so why I should support them coming here on our taxes ?!



> even though you decline to follow up on your investigation


 so how this follow up gonna help me? It happened to me and I consider this as discrimination, others on CMF (except I think Toronto.gal) said this is fine to place Israel together with other 5 terrorist countries on this list... Whatever...


----------



## Pluto

gibor365 said:


> Interesting logic ... so if US government places embargo on Cuba, private companies could've trade with Cuba?! now US imposed sanctions Russia, you think that provate companies can still trade?!
> If US government was imposing sanctions against Germany, Ford and GM couldn't sell equipment to nazis, but US government didn't do it...
> 
> I didn't imply it, I ask a question, as I don't know  . My point was that telling that US should get much more credit than USSR in defeating Hitler - is re-writing history
> 
> I posted link with interactive map showing that 80% population of those countries are antisemitic , so why I should support them coming here on our taxes ?!
> 
> so how this follow up gonna help me? It happened to me and I consider this as discrimination, others on CMF (except I think Toronto.gal) said this is fine to place Israel together with other 5 terrorist countries on this list... Whatever...


1. Apparently every generation writes their own history. Part of the reason is classified documents get declassified and historians have an obligation to incorporate new information into their theories. 
2. 80% of those people are anti semetic. What about the other 20%? And how do you define "anti-semetic"? An operational definition seems to be anyone who disagrees with you (and mordko) is "anti-semetic". The definition is too broad to be meaningful. Canada is now supposed to be pluralistic, so tolerance to differing views is the goal. 
3. You don't want to follow up on your complaint because how would it help you? Why is it all about you? You make the outrageous claim that Canada and I have same logic as USSR and there is, according to you, a plot to persecute Jews by our government and you have first hand knowledge of it. What what about all the other Jews who are going to get caught up in this alleged persecution? Don't you think of anyone besides yourself?


----------



## gibor365

1. Don't get how your statement is relevant to point that US corporations supplied equipment to Hitler and government didn't do anything to prevent it
2. you may check at http://global100.adl.org/ (it's not my or mordko's assumptions) ... so if Canada bringing 50,000 Syrian refugees, 40,000 will be antisemits?! In the World there are millions of refugees, then way to bring those who hate us just because we exists?
3. I did my part, I submitted all docs I had to Bnai Brit, to organization that dealing with such issues.


----------



## lonewolf :)

Apparently in service @ mosques they start off with a prayer to wage war with the infidels & to kill them off. 

The world is @ war with these radicals & the political correct is concerned about a few shootings. Where is the out rage of their raping & killing of infidels ?


----------



## gibor365

I'm curious if anybody tried reading very "peaceful" book called Koran?! I didn't , but my friend did in Russian translation ... he told that whole book is 654 pages, "fights" with infidels starts from page .... 2  and it's continue whole book. Word "infidel" mentioned 1531 times , infidels + polytheists 2331 times, more mentioned only word Allah 6058 times


----------

