Incidentally, here’s a link with a picture of the White Sheep/Black Sheep poster: Proposed Swiss immigration laws show 'rise of new racism and xenophobia' | Daily Mail Online
Just so we’re all clear about which side is bringing racism into the discussion.
Oh, please. And do you have any evidence that the people being targeted by this are doing those things? Should we apply the same standard to them, and blame Swiss Christians for the invasion of Iraq and the persecution of gays in Uganda?
And again, how does this ban stop any of that?
This op-ed says pretty much all of it in my view. A sample:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/opinion/02iht-edcordone.html?ref=global
Just to be accurate the Ottomans conquered Constantinople in 1453, an important event in the development of a catchy tune. The Turkish government (or maybe just private organizations) is/are also working to restore and protect the Christian mosaics in the building.
The basis of the entire exercise was bigotry. The cartoonists were making the assumption that they could not make illustrations of Muhammad without “the Muslims” coming to get them. It’s a stereotype and the assumption springing from the stereotype is that “the Muslims” are a bunch of fundamentalist terrorists who will punish any cartoonist’s depiction of Muhammad.
Many of the cartoons seemed mild, neutral or respectful, but those that equated Muhammad, and by extension Islam, with terrorism effectively tarred an entire group of people with a negative stereotype. I assume a children’s book depicting Muhammad would have been mild or respectful and not met with anything but the mildest condemnation from the minority of super-idiots found in any group of people. Of course a cartoonist willing to take on the assignment of depicting Muhammad could just ask religious leaders what the proper method is – that is if they respect the people they share their society with.
An excellent representation of the bigotry involved in the rationale for the cartoons is evident in post #220: “the Muslims” would do this; “the Muslims” would think that. Every year on this message board there are several threads that ask “Why don’t the Muslims blah blah blah” as though there is some expectation that “the Muslims” are these people that all think the same or can act in a collective fashion. The non-prejudiced (maybe bigoted is over the top) question is to ask about all the individual differences of people that also happen to endorse Islam as their religion. Acting without prejudice means you get past things like religion and see the individuals that make up some particular social group.
After post #223 I am surprised this was brought up again. It is possible that among the 53% that approved the referendum many just did not want to see minarets everywhere and it had nothing to do with their perceptions of immigrants. This cannot be said for those that proposed the referendum. They wanted to tar a minority population in Switzerland with the Muslim fundamentalist stereotype. What they got in the end was a referendum that only included what they could get away with, but at least made their message clear.
In line with reasons for supporting the referendum, I am troubled by those who think this is some battle to preserve their culture. I am not sure why the Swiss culture would vanish when minarets are built.
Your statements here are a bit inconsistent, no? On the one hand you think it unlikely that voters were motivated by anti-immigration sentiments per se–only by dislike of minarets “everywhere”–and on the other you are troubled by those who perceive the issue in light of a battle to preserve Swiss culture.
Of course, it isn’t rational to believe that Swiss culture would vanish because of a few minarets but then, as you yourself suspect, some of these people may envision mass building of minarets–untrue, but evoked by some of the publicity used to campaign for this measure.
I think what you ignore is that while many doubtless know that the actual threat (cultural or otherwise) posed by minarets is minimal, they’re motivated to deal some kind of symbolic blow to a group of people they consider outsiders (regardless of what those people actually do and where they were born).
I don’t think it’s possible to disconnect that kind of irrational aversion to anti-immigration sentiments.
Why it would need to be in order to make sense to you? That is, why do you believe that anti-immigration is not a factor here?
I’m not religious, but I love the small churches in New England with their tall steeples topped by crosses. I like seeing them and it would be real jolt if I looked out from a Vermont hill and saw a bunch of minarets with crescents. This is especially true since I equate Islam with anti-women and anti-Israel sentiments and lived through an attack on the US performed by a group of people from different countries and socio-economic backgrounds united solely by being Muslims. It’s like looking at a sign saying “Women Oppressed Here” or “Get Your Fresh Hot Antisemitism”. All religions are stupid, but Islam seems to be the current leader in that department now that the Christians are done with the Inquisition and the Crusades.
Okay but you’re aware that not all Islamic cultures are the same, right? By assuming that Islam=misogyny and antisemitism, aren’t you being just as bigoted as the people you purport to dislike?
I’m sorry. The correct answer is “What is McDonald’s?” and remember to phrase your answer in the form of a question.
Gosh, Dan, can’t you step back from that prejudice and ignorance and recognize that you are equating millions of people with the acts of a minority of extremists? How would you feel if all Christians were judged from the perspective of Waco or all Americans associated with David Duke or Timothy McVeigh?
It’s been established repeatedly in this thread that there are no “bunches” of minarets–we’re talking about a small handful that were contemplated in all of Switzerland.
Not all Muslims oppress women.
Swiss Muslims are largely moderate and many are secular. (I wonder how many Muslims you think live in the US right now and if you also worry about their religious buildings, their treatment of women, and views toward Israel.)
I don’t know what the typical Swiss Muslim thinks of Israel or why. Do you?
Why isn’t any of this registering for you? Is it somehow enjoyable to air naked prejudices in cyberspace behind a shield of anonymity?
(Or is this the kind of stuff you also enjoy sharing with your friends and co-workers. I don’t mean to get personal here, but I find your views really hard to digest.)
Well, there’s that and the fact that it can be easy to justify racism when you already hate the target. They’re raping our women, they stand for hate, their values aren’t our values. I’m not racist–they’re genuinely bad people. I’ve seen people on these boards go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to prove that in some cases blacks bring racism and bigotry on themselves.
To be sure Freudian Slit, but I’m trying to get at the mental process that allows one to believe what one ought to know isn’t true: i.e., that the few who can be genuinely hated for their reprehensible deeds are indistinguishable from the many who have done nothing but who have the same religious identification as the few.
I would love to see DanBlather explain how he can justify that.
Excellent set of assertions I suppose, giving you a reason to pipe up again.
However, I asked for numbers and cites, as so far his “excellent posts” are merely assertions.
Now, as I picked up two articles giving a bit of profile on the question I directly opined on, let us get back to that:
The history of “nativist” family promotion policies is not particularly strong. I draw attention to these papers (PDF) on family policy over 20th century in Europe.
[ol]
[li]http://www.ipss.go.jp/webj-ad/WebJournal.files/population/2003_6/3.Neyer.pdf[/li][li]http://www.ipss.go.jp/webj-ad/WebJournal.files/SocialSecurity/2008/winter/JJSSP%20vol.7%20no.2_%20Dec%202008%20-%202%20Marie-Therese%20Letablier.pdf[/li][li]http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2006-010.pdf[/li][li]http://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa500d_0x001c9ea4.pdf[/li][/ol]
I think it fair to say that despite extensive programs, the record for fertility promotion programs as directly impacting fertility is rather unclear.
Re France, although having a very long history of “natalist” policies nevertheless saw long-term demographic decline. I have seen, in French, analyses suggesting the bump is driven more by naturalised populations rather than by “French French” (to adopt the prejudiced view of real French).
Emphasis added.
Cite to your reason for said assertions, including the assertion often. As far as I am aware, econometric studies generally find immigrants add more to the economy than they cost in Anglo Saxon cases. I also have never seen any analytical work indicating that “cheap labour” in an immigrant situation to developed economies in any way “retards” technological growth.
Your assertion of an “easy way out” should be supported by data, not merely asserted to support pre-existing prejudice.
I am not clear as to what numbers, but relative to immigration policy and the tightening of immigration standards in Europe, first please clarify on what data you are indicating there is “growth” - aggregate stock or flows?
I repeat, you have not brought a single actual fact to the discussion, you have simply made a series of skewed assertions, some of rather dubious actual factual veracity. I am happy to have a debate off of objective numbers and non-partisan analysis, but see no point in dueling assertions.
I have to say this is an extraordinary summary of fundamental prejudice.
I’m actually quite puzzled about how anti-Israel sentiments get in the same category with discrimination against women. I know Israel has reached a near-sacred status in the US (unhealthy I think to have another country virtually deified). Anti-Jewish sentiment I can see, but that is not the same as being anti Israel in many instances.
No moreso than any of your claims. There have been numerous studies showing that mass immigration reduces wages. Howver, let’s not get into that. Instead, let’s look at it this way. If I’m wrong then we can turn on the immigration spigot easily enough. If you’re wrong, however, then the genie is already out of the bottle.
Dr. Borjas from Harvard has done extensive research on immigration’s affect of wages.
http://borjas.typepad.com/the_borjas_blog/2007/12/the-great-mexic.html
That’s an assertion on your part is it not? It seems that there has been some success in France which suggests that the policies may well work. However, just because one set of policies didn’t work it doesn’t mean that we should abandon the aspiration. It is my view that more should be done to encourage natural growth rather than import it.
Data has been provided. I do hope you’ll take some time to read Borjas numerous studies on the issue.
That’s really a question for you to answer. You claimed stricter immigration controls so I asked you why the numbers have continued to rise. Natural birth? Illegals?
.
Prior to your post on birth programs nor had you. Here is a great link to some further articles of interest: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications_for_download.html
He’s citing an opinion. I have to say that you seem rather obsessed with finding racism where there really isn’t any. It highlights a glaring deficiency in your argument, tossing your toys out of the pram if you will.
In the first place, I agree that the ban on minarets is weird and ineffective. But I also predict that similar measures will spring up all over Europe and the Americas in coming years.
Why? Because everywhere liberal western democracies feel assaulted and unable to deal with growing numbers of Muslims in their midst. As Sam Harris said in “The End of Faith”, it is as though a rip had occurred in the fabric of time and millions of people from the middle ages are flooding into our modern world.
This ineffective measure in Switzerland is just a symptom of the jutifiable fear and desire for self-preservation being felt by normally tolerant societies that see the growth of Islam within their borders, the startling Muslim birth-rate, and Muslim refusal to compromise or adapt, as a threat they do not know how confront.
We see campaigns to kill Salman Rushdie and the actual murder of translators of “The Satanic Verses”. Danish cartoonists live in fear of death for doing something they have a perfect right to do. Chanting Muslim mobs in London hold up signs that actually read “Behead anyone who calls Islam violent!”, too fanatical and brainwashed by their religion to even understand the irony in what they are saying.
"We read in news stories that Swiss feminists were in favour of the ban. Feminists in every western country know instinctively that Sharia law and Islam are threats to all women have fought for and gained over the past 100 years.
As an atheist and a gay man, do you have any idea how personally terrified I am of the growth of Islam in my society? Do you think I want to end up like gays in Muslim countries, hanging from piano wire in a jail cell after I “committed suicide (wink, wink)”?
The simple fact is that Islam is NOT just another religion, any more than the Nazis were just another political party.
If you want more information, I recommend two books by Bruce Bawer, “While Europe Slept” and “Surrender, Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom”.
I recently attended a lecture by Mr. Bawer here in Canada, and I was amazed at the number of people from the liberal left to the conservative right, gay and straight, atheist and religious, young and old, who attended and expressed deep concern about the need for our society to stand up to Islam. I was especially impressed at the number of ex-Muslims who even in the west run the danger of being killed for abandoning Islam.
But here is the truly frightening fact. Nobody, including Bruce Bawer or the members of that audience, really seemed to know WHAT we can do. How do you fight a force like this without destroying the very freedoms you want to preserve?
Any ideas?
By limiting the numbers of new immigrants entering a given country.
For example, Australia modified it’s “asylum” program by moving their processing facilities out of Australia. Asylum numbers plummeted.
It can be done. If you limit current immigration then existing immigrant populations will, over time, generationally integrate into the host countries cultuer while still maintaining their own identity.
It can be done but limitless immigration will prevent this from happening.
I notice that a lot of apologists for Islam are trotting out the old “They are not all like that” argument.
Obviously not. Is it necessary for every single Muslim to oppress women in order for us to be alarmed at suggestions that we adopt Sharia law?
I find it impossible to believe, for example, that every single member of the NSDAP (the Nazi Party) which had some 5 or 10 million adherents in the 1930s, was a militaristic, agressive, warmongering, racist, anti-semitic fanatic. There MUST have been some wonderful, exemplary people in a group that large. And there must have been millions who joined the party just to protect their jobs, because of societal pressure, etc.
But it is Naziism and its actions we judge, not the fact that some Nazis were not bad people.
One critic of the minaret ban noted in an article published in the (Canadian) Globe and Mail yesterday that according to recent polls, 82 per cent of French Muslims “believe that violent attacks on civilians are never acceptable under any circumstances.”
Let’s just look at that statistic another way, shall we? Eighteen per cent of the 3.5 million Muslims in France, or 630,000 Muslims living and moving around freely in that country, do NOT agree that violent attacks on civilians are never acceptable.
How many people did it take to bring about 9-11, by the way?
And? Do you have any evidence to think that the Christians are better? And do you have any evidence that laws like this will do anything but make the extremists stronger?
Exactly who in this thread is advocating the adoption of Sharia law? Exactly what European government is suggesting that Sharia law be adopted?
So let me get this straight–you are now equating the entirety of the European Muslim population with the members of the Nazi Party?