Given the birth rate in some European countries it is conceivable that the Muslim populations in those countries could become the majority in the foreseeable future. If as a minority they are trying to implement Sharia law, what could happen if they were the majority? It this a major concern? Some think it is and I guess that is one of the points of this thread. It is a whole lot easier doing something about it now rather than leaving it to others in the future to sort it out. Assuming it is worth sorting out, of course.
Muslims can immigrate, Muslims can give birth and Muslims can form the majority of my country. Just like Christians do. These thing are not and (for as long as I can breathe) will not be illegal. Those who disagree can also pound sand.
I assure you my mouth is quite without froth. SEE??? 
I have never said we should use mob rule or fascism. The “pitchforks and torches” scenario was invented by Tomndeb, not by me.
But we must not be afraid to use the law, and to defend it. The problem is that we have too many bleeding-heart knee-jerks who believe that if you can identify something as “cultural” and if it is practised by a visible minority, somehow it is sacrosanct and anyone opposed to it is a racial bigot and a fanatic. Like those bigot racist fascist Brits in India who stopped the poor Indians from burning widows with their dead husbands.
It is legal in the west to print cartoons of Mohammed or Jesus or anyone. We have to be ready to defend that right against thug fanatics. We have to defend an author like Salman Rusdie, not because he is necessarily a good author, but because a man should not be murdered in one of our western Democracies for writing a book that displeases theocratic Muslim fascists in another country. At least one or two translators of the *Satanic Verses * were murdered in the west.
Not all situations are covered by law. When Muslims in the west demand a separate locker room for Muslims high school students because the circumcised cannot change in the same room as the “impure” we have to stand firm and tell them that this is not how it works here.
When a Muslim man says he has a right under the Koran to “discipline” his wife physically, he must accept that our laws on assault and our criminal codes OVER-RULE the Koran.
If a woman dies because a Muslim husband would not let a male doctor treat her, we must not be afraid to charge him with criminal negligence or whatever else applies.
Or take the example of Sharia law. Muslims in some western countries are pushing for the establishment of Sharia law as part of the country’s legal system. For example, it could be applied to Muslims in family courts or by arbiters in marital disputes.
One such proposal was made in the Province of Ontario, Canada about a year or two ago (there was also a provision for Jewish family law to be applied as well). The people of Ontario rose up in demonstrations across the provice and demanded that ALL religious-based family arbitration be banned. I am proud to say I took part in those demonstrations. Ex-Muslim women who have escaped the horrors of Sharia law in their own countries came forward with GREAT courage, putting their very lives in danger, to speak at these rallies. The government of Ontario quickly backed down and dropped the idea of ANY religion-based arbitration in our courts, Jewish, Muslim or Christian. One law for all.
The most absurd claim by Muslims pushing for Sharia law was that Muslim women would be “free” to voluntarily accept arbitration of their family dispute under Sharia law or the common law of Ontario :rolleyes: :dubious:
Excuuuuuuuse me??? :rolleyes: The same Muslim woman who has been raised in and is surrounded by her sexist and patriarchal religion and family, who in many cases does not even speak English after years of living in Canada because she is so tightly controlled in her daily contacts. … . . . . this woman is going to stand up, face the family, and in her non-existant English demand that the matter be tried under common law? :dubious:
The Imam of a local mosque in my city was interviewed by the newspaper and said that he and his wife had lived in London and now (English-speaking) Ontario, Canada for the past 20 years. But could his wife be interviewed as well? No, because she does not speak English!
Now the point here is not that I demand that she must speak English. The question is, can you imagine what a world of sexist control this woman has lived in, and how limited her world and her contacts must be, that she can have lived TWENTY YEARS in two major English-speaking societies and still speak no English?
If this woman were in domestic conflict with her husband and there was a choice of Sharia law or the common law of Ontario, do you honestly believe her appearance in the Sharia-based court would be 100% voluntary?
At a public debate in my city, that same Imam assured us that the death Fatwah (works along the same lines as a mob contract, but it is done in the name of Allah) against Salman Rushdie was the result of long and reasoned debate by Islamic scholars. As if that makes murder OK. He did not condemn the Fatwah. When we asked him what he, as a Canadian resident, would do if he knew of a Muslim who was about to kill Salman Rushdie in Canada (which would be murder under Canadian law) he simply refused to even say if he would go to the police and kept repeating that it was “hypothetical”.
I support the law 100%. That is the reason for my concern.
By the way, Phil, learn the difference between “their” (= belonging to them) and “they’re” (= they are). What you meant was “they’re threatening our values”. And yes, Islam (but not every individual Muslim) is a growing threat to our values.
So you’re of the ‘if you repeat a lie often enough, people might start to believe it’ school?
What I don’t get is how you can say with a straight face that we are under attack when it has been the west (esp. France, England and the US) that has been meddling, colonizing and occupying the Islamic/non-western regions of the world. I don’t see any Dubai troops in the US or Canada do you? We have overturned democratically elected governments, “pre-emptively” attacked countries that did not have the ability or desire to attack us and a very long list of atrocities over the past 100 years. We have killed gays, lynched our citizens without trials (in the US), bombed federal buildings, and a whole host of things that by your logic should condemn the entire west or western values as a whole.
Is fundamentalism a problem? Sure it is (both Christian and Islamic), but so is xenophobia and using a list of anecdotes to condemn an entire people.
Western dominance of North Africa and the Middle East is a relatively recent development. Islam has a long history of aggression against non-Muslims. Long before the First Crusade, Muslims had invaded and conquered two thirds of the Christian world, and over the course of centuries Muslim invaders killed millions of Hindus in India. As recently as the early nineteenth century, Muslims were still raiding European shipping and coastal towns to take slaves and justified their aggression against Westerners with religion. To paraphrase H.G. Wells, were the Muslims such apostles of mercy as to complain if Westerners warred in a similar spirit?
Next time, take a look at the whole picture, not just the parts that make Westerners look bad. Your post is yet another example of the weird, inverted anti-white racism of the white liberal.
So you object to my post pointing out the flaw in Valteron’s argument by turning around on the west and now I’m a racist? Your post is an example of the inability to look at the world in anything other then black and white terms that is indicative of the white conservative (I don’t actually believe that all white conservatives think like you but I thought it would nice to play the same game you’re playing).
Excuse me? You go into a tirade about Westerners persecuting the poor widdle Muswims, without taking into account Muslim aggression against Christians and Hindus dating back for more than a thousand years, and I’m the one who’s looking at the world in simplistic black and white terms?
Tirade? I don’t care to go tit for tat on atrocities of the West vs. Islam, but I’m sure I could. That was not my point, I was using Valteron’s own method against the west to point out the very flaw in his argument (hint: I was not condemning the west). Then you called me racist. If you see that as a tirade and me as a racist so be it, I’m done trying to reason with the unreasonable.
The Muslim invasion of Christian lands for the purpose of conversion wrapped up within 110 years of the death of the Prophet. That invasion ended around 1300 years ago. Raids on Europe by pirates were not inspired by religious motives but by the same greed that prompted Europeans to go after Africans. (Europeans also raided Muslim North Africa for slaves for many years, but happened to get out of the habit a bit earlier when they discovered they could make better profit going after people and/or plunder in the Americas and the South of Africa. It was very likely the European activity cutting into Barbary pirates’ African profits that encouraged many of those pirates to continue to look to European sources of slaves.) The Barbary pirates were also not above capturing Muslims from the East end of the Mediterranean when they thought they could get away with it.
Similarly, the invasion of India had far less to do with spreading Islam than it did simple conquest. In fact, for the first eighty years, or so, most “Muslim” invasions of “India” were simply raids by the new Arab conquerors of Persia on old Persian lands. Later, under the pressures of internal squabbling in Persia, various princes and generals headed for India in search of new territory to conquer. Conversion to Islam did occur, sometimes at swordpoint, but often by missionary work that was unrelated to the conquests.
(Similarly, the later Turkish incursions aimed at the Holy Roman/Austrian Empire were not inspired by faith but by greed–the same greed that drove Europeans into the Americas, Asia, Africa, and, finally, back into the Middle East.)
The story that Islam has been steadily forcing its way across the world, compelling converts by the sword for 1350 continuous years is nothing more than alarmist revisionist history.
The Quakers are alive & well. Celibacy was the main cause of the decline in Shaker numbers.
Can you give an example of a “bleeding heart” liberal who has argued that Muslims ought to be exempt from the law when the law violates their religious principles?
Also, I’d still like to know exactly what we’re supposed to do with all the Muslims already living in Western nations and threatening our values.
Why do I get the feeling that if someone pointed out the long perioids in history when Islam was the most scientifically advanced, pluralistic, and egalitarian society in the world, you’d wave it away by saying, “That was a long time ago, I’m talking about Islam today”?
Lust4Life writes:
I realize the satiric point you’re making here, but I have to point out that Kali-worship isn’t and never was identical with the Thugee cult. The Thuggee/Phansigars were, indeed, Kali-worshippers, but the vast majority of devotees of Ma Kali aren’t Thuggee, and never were.
– CalMeacham, who gets letters asking for money from Kali Worshippers in California twice a year.
Are you asked to kill anyone?
Sorry, Miller, I cannot give you an example of a " ‘bleeding heart’ liberal who has argued that Muslims ought to be exempt from the law when the law violates their religious principles?" because that is not what I said in the posting that you quoted.
What I said was: “The problem is that we have too many bleeding-heart knee-jerks who believe that if you can identify something as “cultural” and if it is practised by a visible minority, somehow it is sacrosanct and anyone opposed to it is a racial bigot and a fanatic.”
If you would read my posting of today, #223, you will see numerous examples of this happening.
Most specifically there is the issue of the recent attempt by Muslims to have Ontario incorporate Sharia law into our legal system for use in family and domestic arbitration. As you will see from post #223, widespread protests in Ontario put an end to this. I will not repeat everything I said in that post. Scroll up and read it. Or click here
Similar attempts have been made to introduce Sharia law into Britain, France and other western countries. Advocates of ONE LAW and equality for all citizens end up being the ones accused of racism and bigotry.
Much of the surrender is taking place in schools. Supposedly public schools are supplying prayer rooms to Muslim students in a building paid for with my taxes.
There are school cafeterias in France that now serve only “halal” meats in what is supposed to be a secular, non-confessional school system. And French students who bring a ham sanwhich or other “uncleanliness” into the cafeteria are quickly told to abide by the “rules”.
The problem is not people who get up and say Muslims ought to be exempt from the law in so many words. It is gutless school principals who would rather give in to Muslim demands that violate the separation of church and state than stand firm and be accused of bigotry and racism.
It is gutless school administrators who claim they heard and knew nothing of the gangs of Muslim youths who went around the school telling every Muslim girl to start wearing the hijab as has happened in France and other European countries. If you are a teacher with your pension in view, it is much easier not to rock the boat, say you heard nothing about intimidation, and pretend that every Muslim girl just decisded to start wearing the hijab on the same day.
This is one of the reasons that France, with a 10% Muslim minority, the largest in Western Europe, passed a law forbidding all religious headgear and displays in public schools. Because no administrator or police force can effectively stop all cases of intimidation by Muslim fundies. The only answer was a complete ban.
By the way, would you like me to put you in touch with a network of women, many of whom are victims of Sharia law in Muslim countries, who are bravely fighting its introduction into the west, often with risk to their very lives? Plase see http://www.nosharia.com/ Perhaps a visit to this site will open your eyes a little.
As to the second question, I do not propose that we do ANYTHING to the Muslims who are here, other than stand up to their demands when they ask us to violate our principles and values, and tell them they can conform to our society or, if they are immigrants, they can go back to their Islamic paradise.
ASlthough this is old news (2006) what you see here is a specific example of the west standing up to Islam and demanding that OUR values be respected in OUR countries.
I have personally sent money to Homa Arjomand, the btave woman who carries on this fight.
Another good example is the Mohammed cartoons. Freedom of the press is a western value. If you want to make a movie like “The Last Temptation of Christ” or publish cartoons about Mohammed IN WESTERN, DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES like Denmark and France, it is your right to do so. I am proud of all the western newspapers that published these cartoons, NOT because I want to see Mohammed insulted, but because Islamic rage and fanaticism does NOT overrule our rights in the west.
By the way, would someone PLEASE note that my OP is entitles “Defending western values against ISLAM.” Not Muslims. Islam.
Well, you’re counseling us to Stand Up for Western Values against The Islamic Threat. What have you done lately?
(I don’t think this thread counts. You haven’t made any converts.)
The last place I saw that statement (or something quite similar to it) was from a dude named Boggs. He’s kind of infamous for his illegal actions.
May we have a citation for this assertion of yours about the locker rooms. When I played on the JV soccer team for my high school and my brother played on the varsity soccer team for the same school, we both had Muslim team-mates and Jewish team-mates. And nobody complained about having to share the locker room with the “impure.”
Oh, and if you deign to provide a citation for your assertion, please be so kind as to show what Sharia law would have to say about the “offended Muslim’s” stance you describe.
Aside from the fact that you didn’t use the word “liberal,” what exactly is the difference between what I said and what you said?
Actually, looking at your post #223, I don’t see a single example of “bleeding-heart knee-jerks who believe that if you can identify something as “cultural” and if it is practised by a visible minority, somehow it is sacrosanct and anyone opposed to it is a racial bigot and a fanatic.” Who are the bleeding heart knee jerks who believe that it’s okay to beat your wife if you’re a Muslim? Who are the bleeding heart knee jerks who think that practicing Islam gives you a pass on murdering homosexuals?
Okay, so some Muslims wanted Sharia law, most Canadians did not want it. End result: no Sharia law in Canada. What, exactly, is the problem, here? Where’s the threat to our Western values?
So what? They’re not taking any more of your taxes to pay for it, right? Are the schools handing out prayer mats, too? Who cares if the school sets aside an empty classroom so that Muslim students can fulfil their religious obligations?
I don’t know how it works in Canada, but in the US, the state cannot force anyone to make a religious observance, nor can they prevent anyone from making a religious observance. If the law requires someone be in a certain place (such as a public school) at a time when their religion requires a particular act, what’s wrong with a reasonable accomodation to allow them to do so?
I didn’t realize that a ham sandwich was one of our cherished Western values.
I’d like to see a lot more about the context in which these schools operate. How much of the student body in these schools are Muslim? If they’re doing this to placate 5% of their students, then yeah, that’s dumb. But if this is happening in schools where the overwhelming majority of the students are Muslim, then it strikes me as kind of dumb to spend all that money on a cafeteria that most of your students can’t eat in.
Or, maybe they actually think their policies are the best way to serve the communities in which they their schools are found. I know, sounds crazy, but maybe - just possibly - people who disagree with you are doing so out of principle, and not cowardice.
What I want to know is, when is the French government going to crack down on harrassment of members of the school chess club, computer club, marching band, or theater?
Well, maybe that’s not fair. I don’t actually know how much of a problem bullying is in French schools. Maybe they’ve got all the other sort of harrassment that students subject each other to under control, and this was the last outbreak of such behavior they needed to bring to heel. Or maybe the French government only cares about the victims of schoolyard bullies when the bullies are members of an unpopular minority, and not when the bullies are jocks and rich kids. I wouldn’t know, I’ve never attended a French public school.
No, thanks, I’ve got enough appeals to emotion to deal with as it is, I don’t need a spare.
So, if someone immigrates to this country, and doesn’t like some aspect of it, they should not be allowed to agitate for any sort of change or reform? Let’s say someone moves to the US from, say, Italy. And our hypothetical Italian doesn’t like US involvement in Iraq. Should he not be allowed to express this opinion, because he’s not a native born American? Should any attempt by an immigrant to engage in the political process of his adopted country be met with threats of deportation? Does free speech only apply to native born members of your nation? Because I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works in mine.
An extreme example of survival of the fittest. You see that LDS is growing strongly because of their relatively high birth rate combined with an emphasis on proselytizing and tithing. Religions that don’t prosletyze, like Juadaism, are not growing (and of course the genocide was a factor as well). Catolicism spread all over the world because of their emphasis on missions (TomnDeb has that changed?). As for Quakers, there are only about 350,000 worldwide.