[valve bouncer]

Good old Austria, they don't wanna sully the name of their most famous citizen (to be fair, like their second most famous citizen, he did his best work elsewhere) by letting the darkies into the club.....
Quick update for those that aren't following it- Austria don't want to let Turkey into the EU because they aren't EURO enough. I guess that means white.

 

[Changleen]

There are some pretty good economic reasons why Turkey probably shouldn't join the EU...

And frankly threatening to walk away from the talks when you're the ones who want to join is kinda ghey.

 

[Kevin]

Plus they have different opinions on human rights etc.
The EU have lowered their standards allready on a couple of subjects just to get Turkey to join.
I think Austria is just doing what they think is best for their country and I think people should stop calling everyone a racist while stuff has nothing to do with racism.
People like to use the term racism a little bit to quick just so they can be the guy that say's racisme is wrong without looking at the facts...

 

[Silver]

Turkey's per capita GDP isn't too far off of Lativa or Lithuania. It's better than Croatia's.

As far as Austria being racist, I don't know much about the country, but when the third Austrian to ring a bell after my much beloved Governor and Adolf Hitler is Haider, well, you understand why people might think bad things...

 

[manimal]

..... because they aren't EURO enough. I guess that means white.

no....it's not because they're not white enough, it's because the turks believe in dentistry and EU obviously does not

 

[Westy]

For such transgressions Austria should have their mountains confiscated and relocated to one of our needier states like Ohio or Michigan.

 

[Changleen]

Here you go:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4298408.stm

Analysis: EU views on Turkish bid

Most EU countries officially welcome the prospect of Turkish membership: albeit at least a decade from now and subject to consistent evidence of Turkey's commitment to democratic values.

In contrast, public opinion in most EU countries appears, with varying degrees of intensity, to oppose Turkish membership.

Reasons cited for opposition include: Turkey's large population (70 million and rising fast); its relative poverty and doubts about its cultural compatibility with Europe. The French, Germans and Austrians seem especially unhappy with the idea.

Here is a breakdown of attitudes in some of the EU member states:

GERMANY: Opinion polls say up to three-quarters of the population oppose Turkish membership. Of the two largest political parties, the Social Democrats (SPD) say they want a "modern Turkey in the EU"; the Christian Democrats (CDU) oppose membership - proposing instead a "privileged partnership". Angela Merkel - the CDU candidate for chancellor - has appealed to EU leaders not to "encourage" Turkey.

FRANCE: Has the largest percentage of Muslims (7%) in the EU. Officially backs Turkey's membership bid. But Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin says Turkey must first recognise Cyprus. However, Nicolas Sarkozy - leader of the ruling UMP party and likely future presidential candidate - is opposed. Only 20% of public opinion says Yes to Turkey joining. A leading political pundit, Guillaume Parmentier, says: "The Turkish elite has been European for centuries; but the vast democratic expansion of Turkey involves Anatolian peasants, who are not European by culture, tradition or habit". The French have been promised a referendum after the conclusion of negotiations.

AUSTRIA: Opinion polls show 75% of 15-24 year-olds opposed to Turkish membership; rising to 82% among people over 55. This is the highest No rating in the EU.

NETHERLANDS: Has the EU's second largest Muslim population in terms of percentage (6%) after France - and is struggling to cope with the issues of religion, immigration and integration - particularly after the murder of film-maker Theo van Gogh. Remains strongly divided over Turkey.

BRITAIN: An enthusiastic supporter of Turkish membership. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says Turkey in the EU would become "a beacon of democracy and modernity"; and a Muslim country providing "a shining example across the whole of its neighbouring region" - ie the Arab world. Turkish membership would disprove the "clash of civilisations" theory.

ITALY: Another strong supporter of Turkish membership. The government stresses historical links between Italy and the "Near East"; the need to "anchor" Turkey in the West; and the commercial opportunities offered by the Turkish market. Public opinion, while not particularly hostile, appears less enthusiastic - actual support for Turkish membership standing at below 40%.

POLAND: The largest of the 10 "new" EU members, who joined in May 2004 - with more than half of their combined population. 54% of the public support Turkish membership. Officials say Turkey would strengthen pro-American attitudes within the EU and consolidate Western influence on the approaches to the Middle East and the Caucasus. Poles also cite a history of close bilateral relations going back several hundred years.

SPAIN: A poll showed 33% opposing Turkish membership, but 42% in favour - as is the government. Back in June, following the French and Dutch rejection of the EU draft constitution, Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos suggested postponing the Turkish accession talks until a more advantageous time.

GREECE: was under Ottoman occupation for more than 400 years. Some Greeks still regard Istanbul as a "Greek" city. Another country where politicians and public opinion diverge. Opinion polls suggest only 25% of Greeks believe Turkey has a place in the European Union. The government, meanwhile, is keen to resolve bilateral tensions through Turkish integration. But it says the fate of Turkey's EU application depends, primarily, on the Turks themselves - especially where recognition of Cyprus in concerned. .

HUNGARY: was under Ottoman occupation for 150 years, in the 16th and 17th centuries. But there is little anti-Turkish feeling - around half the population supporting Turkish membership. However, like Austria, Hungary is also pressing the case of neighbouring Croatia: which, according to Foreign Minister Ferenc Somogyi, is "spectacularly further ahead" than Turkey on most accession criteria.

DENMARK: Strong public resistance to Turkish membership. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen - until recently supportive - has been heard talking of "special partnerships" as well.

SWEDEN: Strong popular resistance. However, the government sees Turkish membership in terms of "supporting Turkey's reform process and increasing contacts with Turkish society" - as well as Swedish business opportunities.

Basically people don't want it. I personally don't advocate taking such a religious country into a largely progressive club where traditional religion is a dying force. It just gives religion room for noise. And religion can STFU.

 

[Changleen]

Awesome resource:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2003/inside_europe/default.stm

 

[fluff]

Is there any data on the feeling of the various member nations' populations on the previous expansion of the EU to include former Eastern-bloc states (Poland, Hungary)?

It is interesting to note that the newer members seem to have less opposition. Often it is based purely on fears of causing the economic prosperity of the EU overall to fall and the fear that freedom of movement for employment will see imigrants taking jobs.

 

[fluff]

Good stuff from the BBC:

However, there are three factors that point towards eventual success, whatever the present difficulties.

One is that Turkey has demonstrated a willingness to adapt to European democratic standards.

The second is that while it is Muslim by religion, it has a strong secular tradition.

The third is that Turkey is a member of Nato, defending helping to defend the Europe that it now seeks to join. This will count.

On the democratic front, Turkey has already changed a whole series of repressive laws and has banned the death penalty as it prepared itself for the start of negations.

These standards will have to be maintained; otherwise accession talks will be broken off.

As for the issue of Islam, this is sometimes misunderstood.

Turkey's population of some 70 million (which could overtake that of Germany if and when it joins) is certainly overwhelmingly Muslim by religion. But ever since Kemal Ataturk founded the modern state in 1923, it has turned its back on government by religion.

Indeed, the problems that Europe has had with Turkey have had nothing to do with religion. It was the authoritarian role of generals that had to be tackled.

 

[Changleen]

They're not that willing to embrace western ideals, Fluff. Witness the recent protests.

I still have a problem with letting a bunch of seriously religious people into the EU. I know the government isn't theocratic, but that doesn't change the fact that 80%+ of the population really really believes in god to the point of devout worship. I frankly don't have a lot of time for that and can't see anything good in it for the EU.

 

[fluff]

They're not that willing to embrace western ideals, Fluff. Witness the recent protests.

I still have a problem with letting a bunch of seriously religious people into the EU. I know the government isn't theocratic, but that doesn't change the fact that 80%+ of the population really really believes in god to the point of devout worship. I frankly don't have a lot of time for that and can't see anything good in it for the EU.

Why do you have such a problem with people who believe in God?

 

[Changleen]

Why do you have such a problem with people who believe in God?

Did you do history?

 

[fluff]

Did you do history?

Yes, lots. So give me an answer.

 

[Changleen]

1) A large percentage of the people I've met in my life who class themselves as religious, especially the ones who are devout enough to regularly worship are irrational and often highly intolerant.
2) Religion has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else, ever.
3) Religion is not necessary. People shouldn't / don't need to be handed a moral framework from some almighty power. Those that feel they do should probably be locked up before they hurt someone.
4) Religion is regressive. It actively and passively prevents human progress.
5) Religion actually encourages people to stop thinking for themselves.

etc.

 

[ohio]

1) A large percentage of the people I've met in my life who class themselves as religious, especially the ones who are devout enough to regularly worship are irrational and often highly intolerant.
2) Religion has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else, ever.
3) Religion is not necessary. People shouldn't / don't need to be handed a moral framework from some almighty power. Those that feel they do should probably be locked up before they hurt someone.
4) Religion is regressive. It actively and passively prevents human progress.
5) Religion actually encourages people to stop thinking for themselves.

etc.

That's some good specific history, you've got there. I could quite easily substitute "human nature" for every time you used "religion" and I would get a similarly vague, meaningless list...

 

[Changleen]

That's some good specific history, you've got there. I could quite easily substitute "human nature" for every time you used "religion" and I would get a similarly vague, meaningless list...

So you're saying that there hasn't been that many wars due to Religion? Frankly I can't be arsed to produce such a list. Hopefully you know as well as I do that it would be a fairly long list.

 

[Changleen]

I disagree with your substitution thing too.

 

[ohio]

So you're saying that there hasn't been that many wars due to Religion? Frankly I can't be arsed to produce such a list. Hopefully you know as well as I do that it would be a fairly long list.

What I'm saying is that it's in human nature to form groups... unfortunately its also in human nature to fear differences and to try to gain superiority. Religion is a human construct that has been abused as a result of these aspects of our nature, but it could just as easily be another "ism."

Religion doesn't CAUSE these these horrendous acts (as evidenced by the majority of religious in the world that co-exist peacefully with their neighbors), but it does FACILITATE them for those people with awful inclinations. You can't eliminate religion, and even if you could there would be other causes for people with those inclinations to rally around.

What is needed to battle fear and hatred is education and socialization with varied people and cultures from an early stage. Suppressing religion as you seem to want to do would only enable those most willing to abuse religion.

 

[ohio]

I disagree with your substitution thing too.

Yeah, you get some odd sentences, huh?

 

[Changleen]

What I'm saying is that it's in human nature to form groups... unfortunately its also in human nature to fear differences and to try to gain superiority. Religion is a human construct that has been abused as a result of these aspects of our nature, but it could just as easily be another "ism."

Religion doesn't CAUSE these these horrendous acts (as evidenced by the majority of religious in the world that co-exist peacefully with their neighbors), but it does FACILITATE them for those people with awful inclinations. You can't eliminate religion, and even if you could there would be other causes for people with those inclinations to rally around.

What is needed to battle fear and hatred is education and socialization with varied people and cultures from an early stage. Suppressing religion as you seem to want to do would only enable those most willing to abuse religion.

I pretty much agree, but I will add that there are and have been a lot of other types of groups at large in the world, and none of them have started sh1t to the extent of religious groups. Not even ethnic ones.

I take your point about religion often being used as an excuse or facilitator for war, but again, it seems to have worked better for that purpose than an other ism. Once you've convinced people that the ultimate answer is 'God' because 'it just is', you've pretty much got them under your thumb. No other phenomena encourages people to be so blind and regressive on such an important scale. (Except maybe the Bush administration )

I also basically agree with your last paragraph, but I still can't help but feel humanity would be better off if Religion was discarded by humanity as a whole at the same time as the ancient greeks realized it was a waste of time.

 

[fluff]

1) A large percentage of the people I've met in my life who class themselves as religious, especially the ones who are devout enough to regularly worship are irrational and often highly intolerant.
2) Religion has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else, ever.
3) Religion is not necessary. People shouldn't / don't need to be handed a moral framework from some almighty power. Those that feel they do should probably be locked up before they hurt someone.
4) Religion is regressive. It actively and passively prevents human progress.
5) Religion actually encourages people to stop thinking for themselves.

etc.

All you have done is to demonstrate your own prejudice, to wit:
1) Apart from being anecdotal you are as intolerant of certain things (e.g. religion) as others here are of some of your views, yet you take an egocentric view of intolerance. Also anecdotally the most intolerant people I have ever met were not particularly religious (e.g. English football supporters).
2) Bull****. The bloodiest wars in history were about power not about religion - examples: WWI and WWII. For every example of a religious-caused conflict I'll give you 5 caused by power/greed.
3) Nothing is necessary, however religion arguably provides a far better moral framework than 'survival of the fittest'. Given that you do not believe in God clearly you cannot think that the moral frameworks offered by religion came from anyone other than man so they can be no better or worse than any other framework generated by man from any other source.
4) & 5) How on earth did we get so far?

Furthermore when you look at societies and leaders who have been actively or passively irreligious (examples - Stalin, Mao. Pol Pot) they have hardly been shining examples of compassionate and progressive leaders.

So, in summary, you have provided no reasons, just a tired list of prejudices that put you in no better a position than those you seek to criticise and place yourself superior to.

 

[Changleen]

1) Apart from being anecdotal you are as intolerant of certain things (e.g. religion) as others here are of some of your views, yet you take an egocentric view of intolerance. Also anecdotally the most intolerant people I have ever met were not particularly religious (e.g. English football supporters).

I'm tollerant of tollerance. As for your football supporters, Hmm, irrational support of favourite figureheads based on birthplace and peers? What does that sound like?

2) Bull****. The bloodiest wars in history were about power not about religion - examples: WWI and WWII. For every example of a religious-caused conflict I'll give you 5 caused by power/greed.

Whatever. In the history of Man, most wars have been justified with Religion, whatever they've been 'actually' about. (And that always depends on your viewpoint). The combined death toll of these wars eclipse WWI + II combined a few times over. Whatever the figures are, you cannot deny that Millions of people have been killed and many more tortured, persecuted and repressed in the name of Religion. It is a highly persistant cause of violence through history.

3) Nothing is necessary, however religion arguably provides a far better moral framework than 'survival of the fittest'. Given that you do not believe in God clearly you cannot think that the moral frameworks offered by religion came from anyone other than man so they can be no better or worse than any other framework generated by man from any other source.

Great 1/0 logic there Fluff. "Religious morals are better than no morals (law of the jungle)" Well done. Great point. The problem with a religious moral viewpoint is that it is inflexible, just like religion itself. Do you not consider your morals more fair and suitable for this age than someone who hates fags because god said so?

4) & 5) How on earth did we get so far?

We haven't got that far. We could have probably got far further if for hundreds of years at a time various cultures spent their whole time worshiping fairy stories. The dark ages, the last 2/3s of the Ottoman empire, where ever you look, religion generally causes a lack of scientific progress. We have made progress by listening to people who are capable of objective and rational thought, without closing their minds with prescribed answers. We certainly have not made progress by believing the Sun revolves aroung the Earth and burning anyone who says otherwise.

Furthermore when you look at societies and leaders who have been actively or passively irreligious (examples - Stalin, Mao. Pol Pot) they have hardly been shining examples of compassionate and progressive leaders.

Great examples again dude. Again these societies are extreme examples Contemporary 1st world society is responsible for the greatest progress in history, and it is largely secular.

So, in summary, you have provided no reasons, just a tired list of prejudices that put you in no better a position than those you seek to criticise and place yourself superior to.

That would be true if your rebuttal wasn't so weak, and frankly childishly black and white.

 

[fluff]

So basically you just recite the same tired old crap rather than give me any decent reasoning or facts?

You have already had to concede that most wars are not about religion. Now prove to me that more people have died in earlier wars than the millions who died in WWI and WWII.

You deride my examples yet provide none of your own, you mock my logic yet you cannot refute it, you state that we have not get that far yet you have no data to back up your position, you accuse me of being manichean yet you make such stupid blanket statements about religion and religious people that you see no shades of grey yourself.

I expected better from you. You are merely a frother for the anti-religious.

BTW - check your facts before you attribute dumb ideas to religion.

 

[Changleen]

So basically you just recite the same tired old crap rather than give me any decent reasoning or facts?

You have already had to concede that most wars are not about religion. Now prove to me that more people have died in earlier wars than the millions who died in WWI and WWII.

You deride my examples yet provide none of your own, you mock my logic yet you cannot refute it, you state that we have not get that far yet you have no data to back up your position, you accuse me of being manichean yet you make such stupid blanket statements about religion and religious people that you see no shades of grey yourself.

I expected better from you. You are merely a frother for the anti-religious.

BTW - check your facts before you attribute dumb ideas to religion.

Your answer sucked more than mine.

I provided more examples examples than you, neither of us provided stats. I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about what happens when organised religion and society meet on a large scale.

Why do you insist on specific examples when we are talking about trends over the last 3000 years anyway? Why are you so pedantic that you will not recognise wars like the Crusades, like the Seikhs vs. Hindus that have been ongoing for thousands of years unless I specifically refer to them? Is your knowledge of history so poor that you need me to spell it out for you? I doubt it. Stop being so boringly pedantic. I don't intend to referrence every line of what I type just to make you happy. I'll concede points when I think you make a good point. WWI + II - Good points, but come on, the rest of your points were 1/0 frothing at it's finest, and you accuse me of not seeing in shades of grey?

Look, I'm not saying all religious people are evil, I'm saying in my opinion religion has caused too much death and destruction to be classed a positive influence on humanity. Humanity does not need blind belief, it needs science and reason to progress.

What has religion uniformly achieved over the last 3000 years?

War, repression, and the supression of independant rational thought.

 

[fluff]

Your answer sucked more than mine.

I provided more examples examples than you, neither of us provided stats. I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about what happens when organised religion and society meet on a large scale.

Why do you insist on specific examples when we are talking about trends over the last 3000 years anyway? Why are you so pedantic that you will not recognise wars like the Crusades, like the Seikhs vs. Hindus that have been ongoing for thousands of years unless I specifically refer to them? Is your knowledge of history so poor that you need me to spell it out for you? I doubt it. Stop being so boringly pedantic. I don't intend to referrence every line of what I type just to make you happy. I'll concede points when I think you make a good point. WWI + II - Good points, but come on, the rest of your points were 1/0 frothing at it's finest, and you accuse me of not seeing in shades of grey?

Look, I'm not saying all religious people are evil, I'm saying in my opinion religion has caused too much death and destruction to be classed a positive influence on humanity. Humanity does not need blind belief, it needs science and reason to progress.

What has religion uniformly achieved over the last 3000 years?

War, repression, and the supression of independant rational thought.

You have taken a position of attributing most of the world's evils to religion, I expect you to back that up with some decent reasoning which you have so far failed to do.

I provided specific examples of regimes where religion was removed from the system and they don't look good. You have provided none (good or bad), merely attacked mine. Whilst perhaps a valid (if poor) debating technique it does not back up your original position.

Religion is undoubtedly a good tool to organise and marshall large numbers of people but that simply makes it a tool of evil people, not an evil in itself. Likewise other tools are available and have been used (e.g. antisemitism, fear). You are confusing that with basic causes.

Also the claim you make of wars that have been going for 'thousands of years' does not bear examination - the crusades lasted for much less and Sihkism has not existed that long. In any case when you look deeper at most conflicts they are clearly not about religion but are about power.

Your reference to 1/0 logic goes back to where I pushed you to find a better moral framework than those generated by religion, you still haven't addressed that.

You also have not expanded or backed up the rest of your anti-religious claims about progress. The first printing press was made to print Bibles, much education was orginally undertaken by the Churches, many early scientists were church educated. You have no data to support your statements, merely supposition.

I am no fan of organised religion nor religious zealots but I find antireligous bigots equally distasteful. If you truly want to know why I am pedantic it is because I find being so very useful in ascertaining accuracy and truth.

So don't resort to childish comments or insults, it does you no credit

 

[Changleen]

You have taken a position of attributing most of the world's evils to religion, I expect you to back that up with some decent reasoning which you have so far failed to do.

Sometimes I wonder if you actual read my posts.

I provided specific examples of regimes where religion was removed from the system and they don't look good. You have provided none (good or bad), merely attacked mine. Whilst perhaps a valid (if poor) debating technique it does not back up your original position.

None? I cited contemporary 1st world countries did I not? Are they not largely secular? Has everyone in Europe been rushing to church whilst my back is turned?

Religion is undoubtedly a good tool to organise and marshall large numbers of people but that simply makes it a tool of evil people, not an evil in itself. Likewise other tools are available and have been used (e.g. antisemitism, fear). You are confusing that with basic causes.

I covered this already with Ohio. Yes religion is and has been used as a tool for 'evil'. At what point do you realise that if that particular tool was removed as a crutch, a lot of this violence and oppression would have been harder to perpitrate? It's like a gun. it facilitates violence. Rather than making it easy to actually perform the physical act of killing, it helps the brain ignore what it is doing by excusing it in the name of higher purpose.

Also the claim you make of wars that have been going for 'thousands of years' does not bear examination - the crusades lasted for much less and Sihkism has not existed that long.

Read it: Wars LIKE... Do you have to take everything I say at absolute face value without trying even a bit to see my point?

In any case when you look deeper at most conflicts they are clearly not about religion but are about power.

As religion is used by humanity as a means of exerting power for the most part this could be said to be a moot point. Religion was the excuse, religious people fought and died like idiots because they were told it was their faithful duty. That makes them religious wars.

Your reference to 1/0 logic goes back to where I pushed you to find a better moral framework than those generated by religion, you still haven't addressed that.

Jeeze, read my answer again..

You also have not expanded or backed up the rest of your anti-religious claims about progress. The first printing press was made to print Bibles, much education was orginally undertaken by the Churches, many early scientists were church educated. You have no data to support your statements, merely supposition.

No Fluff. I admit it. You got me. I just made this opinion up based on blind prejudice. I'm just assuming everything I know about the role of religion in history.

I am no fan of organised religion nor religious zealots but I find antireligous bigots equally distasteful. If you truly want to know why I am pedantic it is because I find being so very useful in ascertaining accuracy and truth.

What part of 'Religion has been responsible the deaths and suffering of many millions of people over the last 3 millenia and preaches ideals at odds with progressive logic, reasoning and science' is untrue?

So don't resort to childish comments or insults, it does you no credit

I won't if your Mum doesn't.

 

[fluff]

Sometimes I wonder if you actual read my posts.
None? I cited contemporary 1st world countries did I not? Are they not largely secular? Has everyone in Europe been rushing to church whilst my back is turned?

I covered this already with Ohio. Yes religion is and has been used as a tool for 'evil'. At what point do you realise that if that particular tool was removed as a crutch, a lot of this violence and oppression would have been harder to perpitrate? It's like a gun. it facilitates violence. Rather than making it easy to actually perform the physical act of killing, it helps the brain ignore what it is doing by excusing it in the name of higher purpose.Read it: Wars LIKE... Do you have to take everything I say at absolute face value without trying even a bit to see my point? As religion is used by humanity as a means of exerting power for the most part this could be said to be a moot point. Religion was the excuse, religious people fought and died like idiots because they were told it was their faithful duty. That makes them religious wars. Jeeze, read my answer again..No Fluff. I admit it. You got me. I just made this opinion up based on blind prejudice. I'm just assuming everything I know about the role of religion in history. What part of 'Religion has been responsible the deaths and suffering of many millions of people over the last 3 millenia and preaches ideals at odds with progressive logic, reasoning and science' is untrue?I won't if your Mum doesn't.

I sometimes wonder if you read your posts. You often modify your position when you see it is untenable yet your earlier posts (and some in other threads) remain and you restate your prejudices with alarming regularity.

Europe is fairly secular now although there is still a huge amount of religious belief but this is a relatively recent thing. However being fairly secular and eliminating religion (as you have proposed) are entirely different propositions. Most (if not all) of Western Europe's leaders claim to be Christian, few admit to atheism/agnosticism and religion still claims a prominent role (witness the Pope's funeral). States that put religion out of the frame are few and generally less progressive. Does that make the point any clearer?

Regarding the wars question; if you make blanket statements that religion is responsible for more wars and bloodshed than anything else I expect you to back that up with fact if challenged. Not to attack the challenge. They are not religious wars, if they are about power; they are what they are and the tools remain tools. Just as the war in Iraq is about power, not oil, fear, terrorism, liberation or WMD.

What part of 'Religion has been responsible the deaths and suffering of many millions of people over the last 3 millenia and preaches ideals at odds with progressive logic, reasoning and science' is backed up by fact? You made the statement, you prove it. (BTW, trying to get me to prove a negative is somewhat disingenuous.)

 

[MMike]

So basically you just recite the same tired old crap rather than give me any decent reasoning or facts?

.

Are you accusing him of being..."Bizarro N8"?

 

[fluff]

Are you accusing him of being..."Bizarro N8"?

He's the anti-N8. N8 posts links without opinion, Changleen posts opinion without links.

If they ever meet in person they will both burst into flame.:devil:

 

[DRB]

Fluff its interesting you brought up the football hooligans and violence. There was a short report on one of the sports shows about the increasing presents of overt racist behavior and "support" during football matches in England (national Front) and the rest of Europe. Showed open displays of Nazi flags and nazi salutes including one in which a player actually made the salute to fans after scoring a goal. It went on with how many "nationalistic" movements were centering their efforts around football as the clubs and governing bodies weren't doing much to counteract them. It was pretty spooky. The one thing I missed was how religion was responsible for it but I'm sure it was on the opening part I missed.

 

[fluff]

Fluff its interesting you brought up the football hooligans and violence. There was a short report on one of the sports shows about the increasing presents of overt racist behavior and "support" during football matches in England (national Front) and the rest of Europe. Showed open displays of Nazi flags and nazi salutes including one in which a player actually made the salute to fans after scoring a goal. It went on with how many "nationalistic" movements were centering their efforts around football as the clubs and governing bodies weren't doing much to counteract them. It was pretty spooky. The one thing I missed was how religion was responsible for it but I'm sure it was on the opening part I missed.

Well the queen (who is head of the church of England (kinda like an English Pope)) lends her name to Queen's Park Rangers and then there is all the 'crosses' that David Beckham (high priest of English football) plays, plus the CROSSbar (part of the goal). The symbolism is subtle but, undeniably, football is a trojan horse for the new crusades.

 

[MMike]

He's the anti-N8. N8 posts links without opinion, Changleen posts opinion without links.

If they ever meet in person they will both burst into flame.:devil:

Yeah...that's what I meant. Putting them in the same room would be like cold fusion......or something...

 

[fluff]

Yeah...that's what I meant. Putting them in the same room would be like cold fusion......or something...

Yeah, right.... like they can build a room to contain that...

 

[valve bouncer]

Fluff its interesting you brought up the football hooligans and violence. There was a short report on one of the sports shows about the increasing presents of overt racist behavior and "support" during football matches in England (national Front) and the rest of Europe. Showed open displays of Nazi flags and nazi salutes including one in which a player actually made the salute to fans after scoring a goal. It went on with how many "nationalistic" movements were centering their efforts around football as the clubs and governing bodies weren't doing much to counteract them. It was pretty spooky. The one thing I missed was how religion was responsible for it but I'm sure it was on the opening part I missed.

I think you'll find the impact of the National Front and displays of overt nationalism and racism in English football to be decreasing since their peak in the 80's. It's still a problem in other European countries though, most noticeably Spain.

 

[DRB]

I think you'll find the impact of the National Front and displays of overt nationalism and racism in English football to be decreasing since their peak in the 80's. It's still a problem in other European countries though, most noticeably Spain.

Well what they were saying was that the presence in English football had decreased for several years, it is now on the rise again. It talked about an initiative that Thierry Henry is funding an initiative to shed light on it. It did specifically say that in the European countries it was a big problem and becoming bigger. Lastly it went on about the almost complete lack of effort by the clubs and UEFA to do anything about it.

 

[valve bouncer]

Well what they were saying was that the presence in English football had decreased for several years, it is now on the rise again. It talked about an initiative that Thierry Henry is funding an initiative to shed light on it. It did specifically say that in the European countries it was a big problem and becoming bigger. Lastly it went on about the almost complete lack of effort by the clubs and UEFA to do anything about it.

I read a really comprehensive article on this very subject in May. I think it was in the Observer.
Here it is;
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,6903,1476271,00.html

 

[DRB]

I read a really comprehensive article on this very subject in May. I think it was in the Observer.
Here it is;
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,6903,1476271,00.html

Very interesting. The overtness of it is shocking.

 

[valve bouncer]

Very interesting. The overtness of it is shocking.

Yeah, it's not very far below the surface wherever you go anywhere in the world.

 

[MikeD]

"Religion" (in its mass-social aspect, not its personal/spiritual one) is window-dressing, just like nationalism and every other group-think out there.

Religion doesn't really cause anything more than any other human phenomenon, and if it went away, it wouldn't really change anything. People would still be as hateful, jealous, spiteful, and power-hungry as always. (Nor, conversely, do I think people would become worse if religion went away, which doesn't speak well for the social goals of most major religions, either...)

People co-opt religion into their ways of thinking and bend it and justify themselves with it rather than bending themselves to the religion. If the Middle East didn't have Islam to radicalize, those wanting massive change there, in the form of the rejection of western values, would be using a nationalist/social agenda to incite people to strap bombs to themselves.

MD

PS: Oh, and EVERYWHERE you go in Vienna, you'll find a statue of someone standing on a dead Turk. It's where they stopped the Ottoman incursion into Europe, and they don't forget it.

You're talking long-standing, serious emnity between them, not to mention a rabid post-WWI affinity of Austrians for Germanic, and only Germanic, culture. They were kinda lost after losing their giant multinational empire, which had only faint geographical roots in what's now Austria, and searching for identity, grasped wildly towards Germany and the Reich. They threw flowers when the tanks rolled in and Hitler finally annexed them. Then, of course, got themselves declared the 'first victims of Nazi aggression.'

I like Austria, quite a lot, but it's a place with a troubled past.

As to Turkey, well, its longstanding, ongoing, violent oppression of the Kurds is something that's never troubled the US, and we can easily gloss it as just an internal 'war on terror' these days.

I wish I understood the economics of the situation better.

MD