Seems to me that any group you feel free to import into the country, you ought to be able to imagine making up eighty percent of the country and feel comfortable about such a demographic scenario. Not because that’s actually going to happen, but because why would want to increase the numbers at all if you could not handle that concentration?
And I would feel fine in a country that was 80% atheists from Europe, East Asia, etc. Even Catholics from Latin America, Italy, and Africa would not be too scary. But 80% Muslims or Dutch Calvinists like in Steve King’s district? Count me out—I will find another country posthaste.
You just won’t acknowledge the point about the Dutch. Is that bigotry too?
And tell me: what 80% or greater Muslim country would be comfortable for an out lesbian or gay man to live in? Or a straight woman who likes to wear tank tops? How about an outspoken atheist regardless of gender or sexuality?
You ruminate on those questions; I will be back on Monday.
It’s irrelevant, because you only brought it up so you could say “what about the Dutch?” when I call out your anti-Muslim bigotry.
I haven’t been to every single Muslim country, but based on my personal experience, Morocco would probably be fine for most or all of those categories (which isn’t to say that there isn’t discrimination in Morocco), at least in the big cities.
But geopolitics are complicated. Poor countries generally aren’t great for any of those categories – and Muslim-majority countries tend to be poor, in the present. This says a lot about history, geography, economics, etc., but I see no reason to believe it tells us anything about the religion. African countries with majority Christian populations aren’t generally any better for these categories (or any richer) than African countries with majority Muslim populations, in my understanding.
:eek: Jesus fucking Christ, are you listening to yourself? You are actually going to claim with a straight face that anything I post which might help advance my argument is inherently invalid simply because of that fact, that it might bolster my case? :smack:
It doesn’t bolster your case, any more than, “I can’t be racist” is bolstered by, “I married an Asian woman.” It’s no more than a smokescreen: I can’t be racist in the actual policies I call for now, because I make a ludicrously implausible call for a policy that stood no chance of passage a handful of centuries ago.
It is simply a fact that my concern is about religious ideology, regardless of race or ethnicity. And I’m sick of seeing it called “bigotry” to be against religion generally, including being against some religions more than others. This is taken as a given in the U.S. in particular (less so in the rest of the West), and it’s bogus. Religion is just a belief system. The bigoted asshole I had in my car last weekend also had a belief system, including that people shouldn’t get health care unless they have a job (when I pointed out that the ranks of the uninsured include many people who do have jobs, he claimed that Trump and Republicans in Congress were going to get those people covered real soon—pffft). We don’t privilege his belief system as something immune to disparagement. Why does belief in an ancient book about magic beings in the sky, not to mention all the stuff about raping and pillaging your enemies, get a pass? It’s really annoying.
“Being against some religions more than others” is kind of what the term “religious bigotry” means, though. If you’re “against” other people having beliefs different from your own, that’s a form of bigotry.
Sure, we can oppose specific beliefs that we consider pernicious without necessarily being bigoted against an entire religion or culture. But some people find it very difficult to draw that line.
I don’t agree that having a negative opinion overall of a religion or culture is bigoted, or a bad thing in principle. (That word “entirely” concerns me, since obviously it’s nearly impossible for any complex system to be ALL bad in every particular.)
Depends how specific the “negative opinion” in question is, ISTM. If one says “This particular religious doctrine promotes gender discrimination or class oppression or whatever, which is contrary to my ethical principles, so I have a negative opinion of it”, I don’t think that’s necessarily bigoted. (Although of course many would argue that it is bigoted to have a negative opinion of a religious doctrine that promotes, say, acceptance of homosexuality or equal rights for women, so where do we draw the line?)
But generalizations on the order of “Religion X or Culture Y is bad” are less likely to be about specific ethical disagreements and more likely to be about plain old bigotry.
Well, you do whatever makes you comfortable. I don’t have the time to keep track of who likes me or who’s mad at me on the Dope, but I have no objection to being ignored by any poster who decides they’re happier ignoring me.
Long before the Muslims would take over demographically, we would inevitably have a Right Wing Nativist backlash that would make Donald Trump look like Noam Chomsky. I think that’s the more immediate danger.
Seems like a quite easy danger to avoid. Europeans and liberals have long been comfortable with the concept of, “If economic anxiety gets too bad due to free markets, better control can calm the masses and save us from a socialist takeover”. Seems like a similar concept would apply to xenophobia. If xenophobia starts to become a problem, control immigration better to satisfy the voters, rather than just ignoring them because all of a sudden the political class develops moral principles in THIS ONE CASE and let’s their societies fall apart.
Who is actually advocating for “uncontrolled” immigration or “[letting] their societies fall apart”? I don’t know of any mainstream political movement or body, in the US or Europe, that is “ignoring” the problems of large-scale immigration or suggesting that it doesn’t need to be controlled or limited in any way. Not even in the case of refugees.
The idea that liberals are demanding to let in massive numbers of foreigners who will rapidly become demographically dominant and change our whole way of life is just a right-wing boogeyman. No liberals in mainstream politics are ignoring or denying the fact that assimilation of large numbers of immigrants places some burden on society. It’s just that the liberals are much less prone to hysterically exaggerating those burdens than the conservatives are.
Let’s dispense with the semantic sophistry. Is it your position that European liberals/progressive parties do not favor letting in significantly more immigrants than the fascist parties intend to?
