Thread: Muslims Converting Empty European Churches into Mosques

Originally Posted by janpor

Sorry, but I gave you another chance and you -- to put it mildly -- blew it, dude.

I really have had enough of your childless practices...

Its rather apparent you are too stuck in your left-liberal European fantasy where you think you have the right to control people's lives and demand they pay for your preferential vision of society. Pathetic, but nor surprising.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Its rather apparent you are too stuck in your left-liberal European fantasy where you think you have the right to control people's lives and demand they pay for your preferential vision of society. Pathetic, but nor surprising.

No, no, no.

I knew exactly that you were thinking that, and since I also know that you are an extremist -- I tried to explain to you, and to anyone reading our posts, that society isn't solely based on taking but also on giving. On solidarity, which seems to be a word not be found in English dictionaries...

This is called pluralism.

Thanks for listening, and for the time being I've had enough of your behaviour and extremism -- thanks and goodbye.

Classical pluralism is the view that politics and decision making are located mostly in the framework of government, but that many non-governmental groups use their resources to exert influence. The central question for classical pluralism is how power and influence is distributed in a political process. Groups of individuals try to maximize their interests. Lines of conflict are multiple and shifting as power is a continuous bargaining process between competing groups. There may be inequalities but they tend to be distributed and evened out by the various forms and distributions of resources throughout a population. Any change under this view will be slow and incremental, as groups have different interests and may act as "veto groups" to destroy legislation that they do not agree with.

Originally Posted by janpor

No, no, no.

I knew exactly that you were thinking that, and since I also know that you are an extremist

Extremist? LOL Well I'm tempted to take that as a compliment, however I'd like to know what you mean by the word, exactly?

Originally Posted by janpor

-- I tried to explain to you, and to anyone reading our posts, that society isn't solely based on taking but also on giving. On solidarity, which seems to be a word not be found in English dictionaries...

What you describe is not solidarity - it is tyranny.

This is called pluralism.
Definition of pluralism:
plu·ral·ism
   [ploor-uh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
Philosophy .
a.
a theory that there is more than one basic substance or principle. Compare dualism ( def. 2 ) , monism ( def. 1a ) .
b.
a theory that reality consists of two or more independent elements.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pluralism

Nothing there about paying for other people to have buildings preserved.

Originally Posted by janpor

Thanks for listening, and for the time being I've had enough of your behaviour and extremism -- thanks and goodbye.

I accept your concession as a defeat.

Departing from the original question ?
WHY SHOULD MUSLIMS BE ALLOWED TO CONVERT CHURCHES ABANDONED OR NOT WHEN THEY REFUSE TO ALLOW MOSQUES INTO CHURCHES IN "THEIR MUSLIM LANDS" ?????
On the contrary - In Egypt they are refusing to allow old churches to be REPAIRED

Originally Posted by mutmekep

What islamisation of Europe? most immigrants are black christian Africans ! .

Half true. You're talking about 1204, when Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo took the most vicious revenge on Byzantium.
Byzantium was never the same. It had been a bulwark against muslim attempts to conquer Europe for 800 years.
You seem to be forcusing on THAT period only and pretending the other 800 years of muslims trying to force their ways on non-muslims (still happening NOW with the assistance of people like yourself) never happened.

Originally Posted by Phil K

Departing from the original question ?
WHY SHOULD MUSLIMS BE ALLOWED TO CONVERT CHURCHES ABANDONED OR NOT WHEN THEY REFUSE TO ALLOW MOSQUES INTO CHURCHES IN "THEIR MUSLIM LANDS" ?????

Because anyone should be allowed to own and acquire property and then do with it what they will.

Originally Posted by Phil K

On the contrary - In Egypt they are refusing to allow old churches to be REPAIRED

So what? Doesnt change the fact anyone should be allowed to own and acquire property and then do with it what they will.

Originally Posted by Phil K

Departing from the original question ?
WHY SHOULD MUSLIMS BE ALLOWED TO CONVERT CHURCHES ABANDONED OR NOT WHEN THEY REFUSE TO ALLOW MOSQUES INTO CHURCHES IN "THEIR MUSLIM LANDS" ?????
On the contrary - In Egypt they are refusing to allow old churches to be REPAIRED

Because schoolyard arguments should really stay there?

Just because people who are Muslim do bad things in other countries does justify doing bad things to Muslims in our own, especially when there isn't necessaerialy and great connection between the Muslims there and here. Should I base my attitude towards you on the actions of selected "Christians" around the world?

If a policy of allowing convertion of religious buildings for use by another faith is correct, it remains correct regardless of what anyone else is (or is not) doing.