Best laugh I’ve had all day, thanks.
Aw, now I feel bad for you.
Ah, here’s source of our disagreement. Sam Stone, to whom I was initially responding, was talking about the dangers of mass immigration in Europe, as was I. The refugee crisis in Europe is one of the biggest migrations of people the world has ever seen. It’s an unmitigated catastrophe and there is virtually no vetting whatsoever. In fact, the vetting process in Europe has historically been a total shambles. That’s how we end up with Gallup polls taken in Britain in 2009 which show that, among 500 Muslims polled every single one of them without exception thinks homosexuality is immoral.
This seems like a really good idea, honestly.
Too bad we couldn’t require citizens to sign it, we could deport Huckabee.
I have seen many Christians kneel.
Agreed.
Listen, I’m definitely on the liberal side. But, the logical twists that are required to deny that there is currently a violence problem in this religion are reminiscent of Republicans dodging evolution or climate change.
It’s OK to disagree with your team every once in awhile.
Regardless of what you may have been responding to, the statement that you made was “if 100,000 Tunisians were to emigrate to the US, you would know in advance that over 90% would be homophobes, 83% would be anti-choice, 93% would be sexist, 19% would be extremely sexist, and just over one tenth are cool with suicide attacks against civilian targets”. And you and I both know that if such immigration happened, they would be thoroughly vetted and those admitted would be a lot more like the groups I cited than the undesirables you claim they would be. The context of your comments was clearly about immigration, so you can’t even argue that you made a poor choice of words – you clearly stated “I’m not presuming that all immigrants of a given faith are going to be bigots. I’m stating as fact that a significant percentage of them (in many cases the vast majority) definitely are, because of their faith.”
And that goes for refugees as well as normal immigrants – Canada has committed to admitting and resettling 25,000 Syrian refugees within the next three months. Is it your assertion that they’re not being vetted? Because I assure you that they are. In fact many of them were pre-screened months if not years ago. I have some concerns about the numbers, but not about the principle.
And your statement about British Muslims conveniently omits the two major points that made that Gallup poll newsworthy. First, the extent to which these beliefs are unique to British Muslims who appear to significantly differ from other European Muslims. There goes your broad-brush “all Muslims are evil” argument right there. While none of the British Muslims surveyed may support homosexuality, 35% of French Muslims do, and likewise French and German Muslims had radically different attitudes than British Muslims on other moral issues like pornography and unmarried sex. Only 3% of British Muslims believed that unmarried sex was acceptable, while 48% of French Muslims and 27% of German Muslims did.
Secondly, and even more significantly, is the finding that western Muslims strongly embrace western values in areas outside of sexual/gender issues where they tend to be conservative. The Gallup Coexist Index 2009 found that European Muslims “not only accepted but welcomed the freedoms, democratic institutions, justice, and human rights that characterized their societies.” It found that European Muslims perceive themselves as loyal citizens, and in Germany and the UK they have higher confidence in the police and judiciary than the general public (but not in France, and for good reason, because they’ve been subject to significant discrimination). In all countries surveyed, Muslims were more socially integrated than others, and much less likely than members of the general public to want to live in communities of their own ethnic and religious background.
The survey, in short, seems to show that Muslims embody all the religious and sexual conservatism that Republicans are always clamoring about, while also embodying the values of freedom and democracy and respect for the institutions of law and order that Republicans claim as their sacred values. So why do Republicans hate them so much? Are they seeing too much of themselves in them?
I haven’t been involved in this particular conversation and I don’t claim that you yourself have necessarily been inconsistent, but I do have to interject here that libertarians in general certainly have.
Libertarians don’t give a flying fig about civil liberties – all they care about is abolishing all forms of government except what’s needed to protect property rights. They think discrimination is horrible if it’s the government doing it, because to them anything the government does is horrible. But if it’s private enterprise doing it, they’re fine with it. If a landlord won’t rent to blacks, a business won’t serve a gay person, a Muslim won’t hire a woman or a Jew, they’re fine with it. They suggest the victim just try somewhere else, and if it’s the only business in town, or if all the businesses in town are all the same, they suggest the victim try some other town. If all the towns are the same, I don’t know what they suggest. Just don’t tell a libertarian that the government should step up and guarantee civil liberties, because they’ll rip your throat out.
This has got to be the most common straw man on this message board these days. One certainly does not have to think “all Muslims are evil” to be concerned about enlarging the membership of intolerant communities, communities which are known to be homophobic, misogynist, anti-Semitic, and openly hostile to Western societies, cultures and morals. It’s no secret that these attributes are widespread among Muslim communities in the West, and scientifically conducted surveys aren’t even needed to discover this, although they do confirm what is common knowledge for many already. All that is required is to befriend a Muslim who is willing to be frank about it.
Those numbers are not encouraging.
So basically you’re saying “all Muslims are evil.”
No, what people have said on here is that on average, muslims have different values that are incompatible with secular small l liberal democratic values that are the majority in western countries. The evidence for this has been prevented in depth, check the Pew polls and read the CDHRI and its all there to be seen.
Truer words were never typo’ed.
meh, typos happen.
Not one of the people on here disagreeing has actual dared to comment on the CDHRI.
It’s the official position of the OIC that they want to bow out of international human rights standards and have their own human rights commission where everything is subject to sharia:
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/04/13/70568.html
Having two fundamentally incompatible views of human rights is kind of a problem don’t you think?
There are more Christians in the United States that think homosexuality is immoral than there are human beings of all descriptions in the United Kingdom.
Which is why I would be leery about accepting too many immigrants from the Deep South.
Besides, you’re comparing apples and oranges. The UK Gallup poll indicates that virtually all of Britain’s 3 million Muslims (+ or - 5%) think homosexuality is immoral. Another Gallup poll shows that 56% of Americans think homosexual relationships are not immoral. Frankly, I think that’s still a shamefully low number, but never mind.
The poll gives a rough breakdown by Christian denomination. 41% of Protestants think gay relationships are moral while 66% of Catholics do. Obviously, there are probably some wacky far-right denominations which are far more intolerant, but the UK poll wasn’t a poll of Muslim extremists. It was a poll of 500 random British Muslims. I would wager everything I own that a poll of 500 random US Christians would return far more encouraging results than the UK poll.
“Straw man”? It’s not a straw man when I’m responding to the allegation that “among 500 Muslims polled every single one of them without exception thinks homosexuality is immoral” (emphasis mine). A claim which might lead one to believe that Muslims are a monolithic entity, uniformly intolerant, which turns out to be an outrageously incorrect conclusion.
As long as you interpret “openly hostile to Western societies” to mean “more supportive of western societies than the average citizen” on most issues – as that same survey concluded. :rolleyes:
They’re encouraging when disputing the other poster’s allegations.
Then let me be the first to “dare”.
It seems clear to me that the CDHRI reflects, more than anything else, the prevailing cultures of the mostly backward countries that are its signatories. Otherwise, you couldn’t have the kind of support for western human rights among western Muslims that the previously cited survey shows. Nor could you have this kind of news story:
Largest U.S. Muslim Organization Supports LGBT Anti-Discrimination Bill
Having said that, I don’t want to be misinterpreted or take this point too far. I’m not a fan of any kind of religious extremism and Islam is arguably one of the most extremist. I’m on record here as having been severely critical of many aspects of it. What I object to is the argument that there’s no moderate form of Islam, the implied argument that western Muslims can’t be moderate in their beliefs, law-abiding in their actions, and tolerant of those who are different, because the evidence is that they certainly can. Hank Beecher seems to feel that they cannot, and that “all that is required is to befriend a Muslim who is willing to be frank about it”. Well I have, and I’ve found that they can. Or maybe the Muslims I’ve known haven’t been frank about it, in which case they deserve at least some kind of minor Oscar for their acting skills.
I find that I’ve gradually been moderating my views on these issues, especially with respect to the integration of Muslims in western society. With due acknowledgment for the fact that there are hateful factions in the Middle East who pose real and true dangers to the west and to civilized societies, in the final analysis Islam in a modern western context is just a religion, no more and no less. I’d like to see less religious intermingling with secular social issues in general, but that’s a different discussion.
This is just a “no true muslim” argument. CDHRI has been signed by supposedly “tolerant” countries such as Morocco, Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey and by rich countries like Bahrain, Qatar and Saudia Arabia. The cultures that have signed it range from Arabic to Persian to South East Asian ones. Indonesian and Saudi Arabian culture have almost nothing in common, except their dominant religion.
Another page comparing the UNDHR and the CDHRI:
Well, they do have one other important thing in common – they’ve taken international heat for human rights abuses:
The CDHRI has been criticized for being implemented by a set of states with widely disparate religious policies and practices who had “a shared interest in disarming international criticism of their domestic human rights record.”
It’s ironic that you accuse me of a “no true Scotsman” argument because that in fact is what you and some others here are doing. A previous poster just claimed that Muslims are “homophobic, misogynist, anti-Semitic, and openly hostile to Western societies, cultures and morals” and when I showed that a great many American and European Muslims are not that way at all (and are actually in many ways even more embracing of western values than many average citizens) I can practically hear the unstated “But no true Muslim…” at the beginning of the refutations! Think about it. That’s exactly the implication of blaming the religion – that those who are enlightened are simply not true believers. Funny we don’t hear that about Christians when they refuse to follow Biblical exhortations to stone adulterers and unbelievers.
All I’m really saying here is stop prejudging people as a group because of their religion. If they fit the description I just quoted, then to hell with them – they probably wouldn’t be living here anyway. But if they don’t, don’t condemn them. And I say again that I completely reject the view that some of them have that one must follow religious gobbledygook in social policy rather than logic and conscience, but that equally applies to any other religion, including the ones that are revered in western society.