That’s a good point. There was no real survey taken and the point was mostly anecdotal. That said, the article noted that while Muslims make up 5% of Sweden’s population they account for more than 40% of direct Welfare benefits (that is, direct payments made to an individual).
That’s a rather disproportionate figure. Sweden has never had a majority-Muslim colony. Further, there is little if any connection between Sweden and the Middle-East so I question both how and why this number of immigrants are allowed to enter Sweden.
There is a massive cultural disconnect between the two and it doesn’t appear that there is any economic benefit for the host country. I would ask, why let any more in? Why not place a full moratorium on immigration from certain countries and see how the current immigrants and their children will assimilate over time?
It seems rather logical and a lot safer than the alternative.
From the above I read that you have given in to the fear trip. I might be repeating myself, but remember that the Muslim population in Western European nations are very low, most in the less than 5% bracket, France at around 7%. Next, there are many different Muslims, a Muslim from Arabia is from a very different culture than that of a Muslim from Asia. Third, not every Muslim is a Muslim, ie a believer, a survey by Le Monde some years ago put the figure in France at only 25%. So it’s not like 100% of Muslims are devoted to their religion.
There are actually a few million Muslims in America too, and America has not have any problems of the kind some people say we have in Europe.
Neither area’s many implementations of sharia law are in any way acceptable to me so I don’t see that my brush is needlessly broad. Adultery is still a stonin’ in Nigeria.
Sharia by its very nature as the law of god derived from the Koran and the life of Mohammed is intrinsically anathema to women’s rights, gay rights and free speech. That is not a broad brush, it is a factual description.
I haven’t given in to a ‘fear trip’. I just don’t like values I hold dear compromised to pander to religious fantasies. My free speech is already constrained by fear of Muslim violence as is any writer or artist. And if 100,000 plus in my own country think society needs to be violently overthrown then my freedom is doubly chilled.
It is a book review of one of those scare-mongering anti-immigrant rants. (While Europe Slept, by Bruce Bawer.) Choice quotes: “The Scandinavian countries are bringing disaster upon themselves.” “…how to explain the extraordinary blindness of the Scandinavians in years past?”
Which ‘European’ countries have been historically ‘tolerant’?
I can’t think of more than 2 (and they are ‘small countries’) that haven’t passed ‘anti-muslim’ or ‘anti-immigrant’ style laws, disguised as ‘inclusive efforts’ … there is plenty of lip service to tolerance, but that has been it… lip service
It is a disproportionate figure, absolutely, though research do show that immigrants contribute to the economy from the second generation, and forward. In my opinion the biggest problem isn’t benefits, but high unemployment among immigrants - which leads to crime. Which is why, in my opinion, we need to do a better job of integrating immigrants into our societies, they need to know our language and our code of conduct.
Contributing to the anecdotal evidence, a report on state television a few months back told the story of a Muslim woman who had migrated to Germany, only later to move to America to become head of a local bank there. She said she never got a chance to prove her worth in Germany.
Europe is dependent on the immigrants economically to uphold our standard of living. The anti-immigrant crowd will say that’s a political correct lie, but it’s a fact. A sad one maybe, but a fact nontheless.
Speaking of my homecountry, Norway, the first wave of immigrants came in the 1960s as guest workers and they played a vital role in building the country. The second wave began in the 1980s. These were mainly refugees, and most of them came from Iran, Iraq and Somalia. There was also a third wave in the 1990s from former Yugoslavia, later many have returned. Additionally, many immigrants are allowed in due to family reunification laws.
As you can see the situation in Norway is a bit different from the situation in former European colonial powers like the Netherlands, France etc - whose laws allow residents of their former colonies to migrate - as those we have accepted have fled dictatorships.
The total number of new immigrants in Norway and most other countries however is not very high (and lower than ever). You might argue Europe should stop accepting immigrants all together, but that doesn’t solve the challenge with those who are already here and who hasn’t been integrated into our societies. At the going low rate new immigrants are only “icing the cake” so to say.
I know that’s just one of your arguments. But your “free speech” is already restricted by hundreds of laws - strangely none of them concerns Islam.
As I said, if your survey is anything to go by there are probably far more Brits praying for a ultra-conservative Christian England, than Muslims wanting a Sharia England. Just because a few of them blew up some bombs doesn’t mean the rest of them wants to do the same. In fact, bombs have gone off in Europe almost since the dawn of time. You should know.
[QUOTE=Frankenstein MonsterIt is a book review of one of those scare-mongering anti-immigrant rants. (While Europe Slept, by Bruce Bawer.) Choice quotes: “The Scandinavian countries are bringing disaster upon themselves.” “…how to explain the extraordinary blindness of the Scandinavians in years past?”
[/QUOTE]
It was a book review but so what? Nice of you to dismiss it as scare mongering. Very rational of you. Let’s not debate the issues but instead just go on the offensive.
It was further supported by an editorial in the WSJ questioning the role of Islam in Europe. Indeed, the review made some very relevant points and asked some important questions about the ability of immigrants from majority Islamic countries to assimilate and the benefits of having such immigrants in the first place.
Since western europe is a negative growth population… if they DONT have immigration, they can no longer function as they do now… immigration is the only thing keeping a number of those countries from losing up to 30% of their economic base (and workforce)…
It isn’t a question if they should… but rather, if they don’t; what happens…
I’m not sure that is true. Having a large, cheap source of labour will only serve to drive wages down. If that is the case then the tax base will continue to shrink. Coupled with welfare payments and other social costs (health care, sprawl, etc.) it is debateable as to economic benefits of immigrants.
I do agree, however, that more effort needs to be made to assimilate the existing immigrants. My point is that it won’t help with their isolation if they are constantly being replinished and emboldned by fresh arrivals of their fellow countrymen.
It’s true. Remember that many of them work in low-paid public sector jobs, ie they are paid by tax money. But this is a different debate and I don’t feel much like throwing numbers on the table right now.
New arrivals or not, I just don’t think it will make tat much of a difference. And when a woman is fleeing a place like Iran I have no problems letting her in. But I agree that the situation in some European cities is completely unacceptable and I would certainly not give up any of my freedoms - not for any religion.
Heh, no worries. I didn’t like how he wrote it up but we can agree to disagree. As an aside, I get the WSJ print edition and it’s expensive enough. You have to pay extra for the online service which I am just not willing to do.
As for political asylum, I’d have to ask how many are too many? That is, there are millions upon millions who would like to be somewhere else. Should a tiny country like Denmark or even Norway be expected to take them all?
I didn’t read the book but from the review alone I think it is entirely reasonable to characterize it as scare-mongering. The facts quoted in the review range from one-sided to unlikely to utter nonsense. The reviewer, who is himself already biased, has to correct this howler: “(The percentage of Muslims in Switzerland, let it be noted in passing, is 5% to 6%, not 20%, as Mr. Bawer states.)”
I live in Scandinavia, too, and I have lived in the Netherlands. Over the years I have met immigrants from all walks of life, from particle physicists to pizza delivery boys. Not one of them - not a single one - seemed to have problems adjusting to our culture. Many of them - typically second generation - are what you might call “hyper-assimilated”, i.e., more native than the natives, in all respects except eye color. Speech, customs, tastes, you name it. Many first generation immigrants I know are hardworking small business owners, operating a restaurant (and typically running it better than a typical native) or something like that.
That does not mean I deny that there is crime among immigrants. I read that stuff in the papers, too. Every day another sad new case of a native stabbing or shooting his wife in an alcoholic rage. And every once in a while, an immigrant doing something like that.
It also does not mean I condone any of the more extreme morals in other cultures. Stoning of adulterers, forced marriage, the belief that a woman’s worth is half a man’s - those are barbaric, disgusting, outrageous. As it happens, I agree that our tolerance of some those practices might have gone too far in the past - or that the enforcement of the laws we already have against them has fallen short. So yes, I agree it’s a needed discussion and I agree with some of the measures that are being taken in remedy.
Errmm? I’m not sure where you picked up that notion. It may well be that some conservative ulema have declared an arbitrary end to itjihad et al in the 19th ( or 15th or 11th, like the Wahabis like to ) century and of course the phrase ‘the gates of itjihad are closed’ gets bandied about some in relation to the codification of the four Sunni madhabs ( which was far, far earlier and thus of some conflict for some conservative scholar who says “no, no - they closed in the 19th” ). But there being no central authority in Sunni Islam, it’s awful hard to to make any such declaration stick :). Interpretation and re-interpretation has continued to exist. Here’s one article on ther founder of the Sanusi order and his controversial views on ijtihad in the 18th/19th centuries:
That aside, the Shi’a have never abandoned ijtihad, witness Khomeini’s theological innovations.
What could be accurately said is that active practice of ijtihad at the scholarly or ( even more liberally ) the individual level is currently a minority view in Sunni Islam. But I’ve never been to crazy about the “No True Scotsman” arguments that says that liberal Muslims/Christians/Jews/Hindus etc. aren’t really Muslim/Christian/whatever.
As it happens I personally agree with you on the preference for secular law. But agree more with Dead Badger ( I think ) that voluntary submission to religious family law which does not violate the secular law of the land is an acceptable compromise for the devout.
). But there being no central authority in Sunni Islam, it’s awful hard to to make any such declaration stick :). Interpretation and re-interpretation has continued to exist. Here’s one article on ther founder of the Sanusi order and his controversial views on ijtihad in the 18th/19th centuries: