People who are fleeing from regions that are overrun by ISIS in order to avoid being killed by ISIS? That’s too subtle for you?
Heck, it’s a better reason than my ancestors had. They came to America because all the potatoes went bad.
That’s true. They’re still clinging to the nineteen-thirties version of fascism.
Yeah, like the march around, clad in black with banners and beat up people.
Oh, hang on, that’s AntiFa.
To the contrary, it’s too simplistic.
Firstly, not everyone is fleeing “to avoid being killed by ISIS”. That whole country has fallen apart, and you don’t have to actively fear being killed by ISIS (or one of the other actors there) to think a more stable country might be a better idea.
But more importantly - and pay attention here because although the following is fairly simple, it seems to have eluded you - not everyone who fears being killed by ISIS is therefore aligned with Western thought on this or other matters. There are Shiites who fear being killed by ISIS but who would wholeheartedly support killing Sunnis (not to mention Jews or Christians or other infidels) and there are Sunnis who fear Shiite militias but who would wholeheartedly support killing Shiites (not to mention Jews or Christians or other infidels).
And even for people who don’t actively support killing other people, there can still be a lot of distance between that and Western thought, as outlined in the OP. E.g. in many Muslim countries, people who are not Muslims have legal second-class status to one extent or another, as has been the case for hundreds of years. (E.g. in Iran today, one member of a non-Muslim family who converts to Islam inherits the entire estate.)
In sum, the notion that Muslim refugees coming to Western countries can be assumed to share Western values is ignorant and simplistic.
It’s interesting how Islam has grown since the 9/11 attacks and the London bombings of 2005. Not just the increased number of women wearing veils and men growing bushy beards e.t.c but people, wanting a bit of the action, converting to the joys of Islam.
That’s a good summary. And although it’s a secular quasi-religion in the US to look at past immigrant groups through rose colored glasses or be ‘un-American’, they also often left their home countries for good reasons any reasonable person would share, yet at the same time sometimes brought with them, once they arrived in real numbers, negative aspects of their home cultures. This is the ‘simple’ reality of immigration, that it isn’t so simple.
And IMO the fundamentally wrong POV about this is to somehow say the existing inhabitants of a country have no right to make value judgments about this sort of thing. Case by case value judgments. IOW just because the negative native view of immigrant group X long ago is now judged to have been exaggerated doesn’t automatically mean any view that any group might bring more negative than positive, compared to all the other people in the world who want to come into the US, is necessarily mistaken. And it’s counterproductive to try to stifle this debate by shouting ‘BIGOT!’ How is immigration by Muslims in the overall public interest? The burden of proof is on those saying it is.
This is wholly, legally, different from people already in the US especially though not only US citizens. All citizens have the same rights under the Constitution, end of story. Nor OTOH is a consciousness about the cultural background of immigrants a call for anyone to change or abandon their religion let alone be literally forced, or have harm done to them. The relevant question isn’t what religion someone is going to practice but which small fraction of the people seeking to get into the US are allowed in, with every ‘yes’ to a person who is not provably a threat individually meaning a ‘no’ to somebody else who is also not provably a threat individually. But the probability of threat might vary by background, and there is no global US Constitutional right to enter the US.
I have absolutely no problem with being careful with who immigrates to this country. My problem is we are apparently so careful with Syrian refugees, we are taking in less than half of Canada, a country with a population far smaller than ours. We have a vetting process for Syrian refugees that takes years to get through. Despite these apparent signs we are being abundantly careful, this debate still exists and politicians are able to get political points for desiring “extreme vetting”. At what point is the height of the hurdle we are building due to bigotry instead of caution? At what point does the hurdle become a wall?
What are we gaining from this behavior? We are losing our reputation as a nation that welcomes immigrants. We are inward looking and more authoritarian without any obvious benefit to these attitudes. We are building an environment of irrational suspicion when considering anyone who is Muslim. How does that serve us?
An analogy I found interesting is with the Mafia, I think everyone would agree that it is a part of Italian culture; it would be bonkers to call speaking out against that particular part of the culture and stating that measures need to be taken to curb it “Italophobia”.
The issue here is that the people that would cry out “Italophobia” in that case are the ones that read “Mafia is part of the Italian culture” and would assume the claim is an indictment of all Italians and all their culture, so really, who would be doing the overgeneralization and negative stereotyping of a whole culture then?
This must have escaped your notice, Islam doesn’t not equate to terrorism.
Wanting to fight terrorism or organized crime is completely uncontroversial. Wanting to blame organized crime in America on Italians (which is ridiculous) and terrorism in America on Muslims (similarly ridiculous) is when a person comes under suspicion of mere bigotry instead of attempting to solve a problem in keeping with our values. Stating there is an inherent problem with Muslim immigration because of their propensity for terrorism is clearly a bigoted statement. Stating you want to provide a safe haven for refugees, learn about them and the problems they face with adjusting to the USA, and apply policies to mitigate the effects of the problems is not a bigoted statement.
I sort of agree with this…the Bible and the Qur’an could easily compete 1 on 1 for viciousness of text and history–at least, the viciousness of the Old Testament and the Qur’an.
So maybe war, conquest, economics and colonialism fixed the western world to be what it is today, but whatever the reason for WHY it is different, it is different, substantively, from the Muslim-majority nations. And observation by the west of how “different” those Muslim-majority nations end up being is the fundamental thing driving Islamophobia.
Not the texts. Any reasonable reading of the Old Testament and the history of the Jews would drive anti-semitism. But places where Jews are in the majority are much more reasonable places to live and work than are Muslim-majority nations, even for those at odds with the religion itself.
I would much rather be a Muslim living in Israel than a Jew living in Saudi Arabia…
And I would much rather be a gay person living in an Israeli city like Tel Aviv, than a gay person living in most Muslim countries.
At best, you’ll be discriminated against, at worst, you’ll find yourself hanging from a crane.
The pattern is universal. Exceptions do not disprove a pattern.
But if you want to reassure yourself that there is not pattern to Muslim-majority nations driving the culture and laws under which the vast majority of Muslims in Muslim-majority nations live, enjoy whatever little victory your word-game has brought you.
LOL
Terrorism is a bit of a strawman, in my opinion. It is real,and a surprising number of Muslims across the world support it, but the burden of living in a Muslim-majority nation extends well beyond the burden of a high number of “terrorists,” however you want to define that.
In Muslim majority nations, “Islam” does frequently “equate” to a significant percentage being in favor of Sharia, severe oppression of apostasy/freedom of expression, practical oppression of women, and so on…
Clearly, you don’t know what “universal” means, even after I went to the trouble of showing you the definition.
Your sloppy, unsubstantiated argument remains sloppy and unsubstantiated. At least you’re getting a laugh out it.
I think you’ve missed my issue with your argument on the prior page to this post - you don’t seem to have provided any evidence or argument for the “observation by the west… is the fundamental thing driving Islamophobia” part. So far as I can tell you’ve just asserted it repeatedly.
What “Muslim country” was it that a gay man was tied to a fence after being severely beaten and left to die there? United something-or-another?
Yes, but that is because Israel is a modern “Western style” democracy which makes it an outlier in that part of the world. It has little to do with the country’s maiority religion. Discrimination against homosexuals is a cultural issue in pretty much all of the Middle East and Africa and it transcends the borders of religion. You would not want to be a homosexual in any part of that region. Singling out Israel is cherry picking. You could also say you’d rather be a homosexual in Turkey than in Uganda.
Matthew Shepard wasn’t beaten and left to die because he was gay. His murder was the result of a meth-fueled would-be drug and money robbery gone bad. Cite
Well, McKinney says it was not gay-bashing, just drugs and money. He also denies having known Shepard even though several mutual acquaintances point to multiple occasions when they interacted. And even McKinney’s story notes that the beatings began when Shepard put his hand on McKinney’s leg. In light of his dishonesty, his claims that Shepard’s sexuality had nothing to do with the crime are, at best, suspect.
So it appears that drugs and robbery were certainly a factor in the attack, but the evidence also suggests that the perception of Shepard’s sexuality was a trigger for the violence and its extreme nature. McKinney’s denial of it, now, looks a lot like a desire to be regarded as a drug-addled thief while avoiding the accusation of also being homophobic.