In other words, the problem isn’t Islam at all. It’s theocracy. Christian theocracies have been every bit as ruthless and oppressive as any Islamic ones. Do you have any evidence that the Muslims of Switzerland, which by all I’ve heard tend to be only moderately religious and are massively outnumbered have either the desire or realistic ability to impose such an Islamic theocracy?
As for the nonsense about the Islamic hordes outbreeding everyone, never assimilating ( because your religion and culture are inherited, apparently ) sweeping in and taking over that’s standard xenophobic alarmism. It’s all the same sort of nonsense, whether it’s panic over the Yellow Peril, Islamic hordes or Mexicans swarming in and taking over. I live in California, and I hear rhetoric that sounds remarkably like what I’m hearing in this thread fairly often; it’s just that the words like “Mexican” or “illegal immigrant” are used instead of “Islamic”.
With the unspoken understanding that only non-white illegal immigrants are being spoken of, naturally.
Well maybe that is because it’s what’s more likely to make the news or even a self-fulfilling prophesy of yours? What about those “ex-Muslims” who marched alongside you in Canada? Or you can you only cognitively justify their participation in that opposition to Sharia by understanding them to be ex-Muslims? Has it occurred to you that those people you marched with probably see themselves not as ex-Muslims but as secular people of Muslim descent or as moderate Muslims?
Do you remember the demonstrations in Iran a few months back? The ones in which mass gatherings of students risked their lives to protest in favor of democracy after the elections?
Well as fate would have it I just this morning got an email urging me to take part in London rally in support of the pro-democracy movement in Iran.
Here’s a few quotations from the announcement:
The invitation comes from someone named Jalal: another “ex-Muslim” in your view?
Now I’m not actually sure why I got this email: I only live in London for a short time every year.
But it is probably because I support many groups favoring peace in the Middle East, including groups in which American Jews (I am half Jewish) urge Israel to respect human rights in their treatment of the Palestians, etc. etc.
Is it possible Valteron–and this could apply to you too DanBlather–that your prejudicial attitudes toward Muslims are preventing you from even knowing what secular and moderate Muslims are doing? Much less befriending and allying with them.
Reactionary attitudes breed self-fulfilling prophecies in a number of ways.
So if the imam you heard speak in Canada wasn’t moderate enough for you–because he deflected your question–try talking to a different one or to secular Muslims.
Don’t assume in other words that behind every “moderate” face is some lurking threat to your values–that’s just paranoia. Who knows why this guy answered as he did–maybe the question made him uncomfortable? Do you think he’s off plotting to kill Rushdie now? Or anyone else? Do you think every Muslim would answer the question the same way that he did? What about those 82% who oppose violence against civilians (even while, I would add, the kinds of bombings the US undertakes in its wars in this region always involve harm to civilians–as do all bombings in urban areas).
Presumably part of those values you are keen to protect is resistance to unreasoning prejudice.
Maybe if you change your attitude you’ll one day find yourself on a different set of email lists.
Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, I don’t see how one could argue that immigration from Mexico has not radically changed the culture of CA. Up here in Oregon we complain about the immigration of Californians and how that has changed our lives. Do the Swiss have a moral obligation to absorb Muslim immigrants to the degree that CA has absorbed Hispanics? Should they do it to the point that Turkish or Arabic needs to be added to their three current official languages?
Whether or not they do consider this. We are not discussing the Swiss government’s decision to reduce the flow of immigration. We are discussing a referendum that has no bearing on the number of immigrants that can enter Switzerland and one that prejudicially treats people are already citizens of Switzerland.
The current adminstration in Switzerland opposed the ban and now regrets that it did not do so more vocally–the measure was expected to fail.
So let’s be clear that we are talking about apples and oranges here–and that the moral obligation to absorb Muslim immigrants is a separate question entirely from the banning of minarets (if an interesting and legitimate question, to be sure).
In my opinion, no. I doubt anyone is contemplating it.
I do, as a matter of fact, have a number of friends who are Muslim or have a Muslim background, and I have worked with many more. All of them are either moderate or apolitical. I also marched in the rallies against the first Gulf War. I know there are moderate Muslims as well as those working towards democracy and against extremism. What I don’t see are the same large crowds protesting the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia or Muslim on Muslim violence as I see for anti-Zionism marches. The one exception being Iranians who always gather to protest any Iranian official visiting the US.
Can you honestly say that word-wide, anti-extremism protests are as common as pro-extremism ones? Do you think there are as many Muslim groups opposing attacks on Israel as there are Jewish organizations that fight Israel’s policies?
I was responding to the charge that the fears of Californians who think immigration has or will change their culture are unfounded. It clearly has. Personally I’m glad, as I prefer the Hispanic culture to the strip-malled, chain-brand environs of Orange County.
Ohhhh, how crafty. They might have been—in the past. But today’s Christianity, even in it’s extreme, is nowhere near Islam in barbarism. Nice try, though.
Uh, the point might be to keep the numbers from flipping, in order to prevent such an imposition. Kinda obvious, really.
Equating the collateral damage done in a military operation with the intentional killing of innocents—the bombing of schools, for instance—is disgusting and morally bankrupt.
I’d say there is prejudice. But it’s hardly unreasoned. Civilized people tend to not want schools blown up. They’re funny that way.
I think their tightly related. The effectiveness of the ban may be questionable, but it is a symbolic move that goes directly to the larger issue: should Switzerland remain as it is or move closer to becoming a more Muslim nation?
And they won’t be as long as the numbers remain as they are. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to prevent that. and the time to think about it is sooner rather than later. because if you wait too long, the change will simply happen with little to zero chance of undoing it.
I don’t think so. I think we would likely see generationally integration like we have in the US and other countries with groups as disparate as the Irish and the Chinese. Second and third generation immigrants, particular when their core group isn’t being constantly replenished from their home country, will integrate readilly into the host country as their connection to their parents/grandparents home country losens.
And look at it this way, my way has the double benefit of being more likely to work and if it didn’t then we could just turn on the spigot and let more immigrants in.
Absolutely but then when have I been claiming it’s an inherently Muslim “thing”? I’m not sure a million Irish people suddenly dropped into Switzerland would be a good thing. Again, see my point on generational integration and we can nip the theocrats in the bud.
They do tend to have significantly larger families. Couple that with increased numbers of immigrants and you can see where it can start to be a concern. You say it’s nonsense but while I agree it’s hysterical it’s not an issue that can be hand waived away. Snopes gives a nice breakdown. http://http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/demographics.asp
In your mind evidently. Again, throwing out the racism claim when losing an argument is weak. Any race or culture can and will integrate into the host country if there is measured immigration. Peaks and valleys if you will. Slow it or limit it for a couple of generations and all these issues vanish.
A ridiculous statement. The primary difference is more brown people; so what? I’ve lived here my entire adult life, and there’s been no “radical change”. Occasionally hearing someone speak Spanish or play Mexican music isn’t a “radical change”.
Garbage; its just as barbaric as Islam; its just less powerful. Less in control of the governments of those countries, so its evil is suppressed.
And kinda obviously, I was making the point that that never actually happens. The Chinese haven’t taken over, despite the racist ranting about the “Yellow Peril” back in the day. And the evil brown Islamic hordes aren’t going to take over either, despite the xenophobic ranting you hear right now.
Yeah, right. Dead is dead. And a lack of concern for human life, labelling your victims “collateral damage” or “terrorists” ( lacking any evidence that they are ) to excuse your behavior is hardly morally superior.
Only if the schools are full of white kids, and not brown kids. “Civilized” people in this context meaning “white Christians”, since that is what this dispute is really about. Race and religion, not human rights or architecture.
Not when they are under constant persecution by bigoted people who don’t want them to integrate. The Jews didn’t “integrate”. Blacks didn’t “integrate”, despite being here centuries. They weren’t allowed.
Yeah, right. :rolleyes: The Swiss version of the KKK is really going to go for that.
If it’s not, then the whole “Islam=Tyranny, Christianity=Civilization” nonsense becomes a nonissue.
Nonsense. First, where’s your evidence that these ARE theocrats? And not people fleeing them? Where’s your evidence that they weren’t already integrating? You sound like the people who interred the Japanese Americans during WWII.
For that matter, what makes you think that persecution like this will do anything but strengthen any extremists? And what makes you think that the people banning minerets aren’t the theocrats in this? Does it only count as religious oppression when Islamic people do it?
So? That doesn’t tell you what kind of familes they’ll have the next generation. Unless of course they are persecuted and kept “in their place”; people on the bottom rung tend to have larger families. So if they want to make their families smaller, the Swiss are doing the opposite of what they should.
Denial of the obvious is what is weak.
Provably wrong. As I said, blacks never integrated, nor did Jews, nor have quite a few other persecuted minorities.
So bringing in lots more of them will help how exactly? Further, most Jews have integrated into Western society as have a lot of blacks. Indeed, why don’t we focus our effort on solving the race issues in the US rather than importing news ones? And having a black President suggests to me that we’re at least onour way. So no, you are wrong.
Eh? You’re getting less rational and that’s a shame. Can we have a Godwin rule for the KKK as well?
To me, it’s mostly a numbers issue coupled with human nature.
If they were fleeing religiosity then we probably wouldn’t be having the issues we are having today. As noted above, you appear to be getting more and more hysterical. Take a step back. By integrating different cultures into Western norms then we’ll have another ally against religiosity of any sort.
If we slow down the numbers and allow generational integration to work then we can make a good guess as to what kind of families they will have, families more attuned to their host country.
Actually I disagree entirely. The Jews have clearly integrated in most all Western countries. The black issue in America is complicated but at least it’s getting a lot better than it once was.
You seem to actually see everything in black and white. You demonize the Swiss, Europeans. whites etc. because it makes it easier for you to blame anyone but the immigrants themselves. There are many groups of immigrants who could make a much better effort at integration but then you don’t want to see this.
Countries and indeed cultures have a right to their own existence. That often means limiting or eliminating immigration entirely. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. My view, my position is that “peak and valley” immigration and integration can and does work.
Not by the standard being used here. This is not “integration” as in working with everyone else; this is “integrated” meaning “culturally annihilated”. Jews are still Jewish and still build synagogues and use Jewish symbols like the menorah. Just like Islamic people building minarets. And blacks still regard themselves and are regarded as a separate group, so no they haven’t been integrated by those standards. How long do you think that it will take these people to no longer regard themselves as Islamic, when they are constantly being harassed for being Islamic, and no doubt their Islamic ancestry being tracked and held against them?
Because someone posted a thread on the Swiss minaret ban in Great Debates.
Don’t be ridiculous; the “Swiss version of the KKK” is what is behind this. That’s why I made the comparison.
Nonsense.We are “having issues” because a bunch of xenophobic Swiss are indulging in religious persecution. This IS theocracy in action, not a fight against it.
What makes you think they already weren’t? What makes you think that thing will do anything but reverse that? What makes you think that persecution will do anything but make them unwilling to even try? And what makes you think that “integration” has anything to do with this?
No, it is you who are just taking on faith that they aren’t and won’t integrate. Another parallel with America, where it is taken on faith that Mexicans immigrants aren’t integrating.
This is just a break with reality. Show me the current beheadings. The stonings. The bombings of schools and intentional killing of innocents done by Christians today.
The numbers are frightening. The chance of being overrun is real. Hell, you can see this beginning to happen in southern California, due to the number of illegals coming from south of the border. The push-back in Switzerland, France, etc., is proof that the numbers are effecting the culture. When the numbers were tiny, no one cared. I guess you’d prefer to wait until the problem manifested itself and fixing it would be impossible. Sorry, but not all people are required to sit idly by as the way of life they love is changed. Don’t you think that people have a right to craft a society to their own liking?
Intent matters. LOTS. If I kill you with my car by 1) intentionally aiming for you, 2) driving drunk, or 3) me having a heart attack at the wheel and hitting you accidentally, those three things are world’s apart. You’re really not aware of this? It’s different morally and legally. In fact, the legal differences are due to the moral ones. So, yeah, those who might kill innocents by accident are indeed morally superior to the barbaric scum that chooses to intentionally kill innocents.
No, civilized people meaning those who think that it is unacceptable to intentionally target innocent children. How can anyone—even you—have a problem with this?
What are you talking about. The jews haven’t integrated? They have in my world. As have blacks. Though that is still happening. You must have a different definition of “integrate” than is commonly understood.
We’ve done bombings and killings of innocents that in Iraq. And there’s the Christian encouraged homosexual extermination campaign in Uganda. Just because we bomb people from the air doesn’t make it morally superior.
Not if that includes religious tyranny. Which is what you are supporting, not opposing. And the numbers are only “frightening” to xenophobes looking for an excuse, and the chance of being overrun judging from history is pretty much zero.
Ever hear the phrase “depraved indifference to human life”? That’s us. And I fail to see why killing people because you are indifferent to their lives or guilt is better than killing innocents. Innocents die either way.
But that isn’t the standard you are using. Plenty of Islamic people care about children and avoid hurting them; plenty of Christians do the opposite. This isn’t about any campaign against Islamic people who behave badly; this is a campaign against Islamic people regardless of how they behave.
And I don’t think that our indifference to the lives and welfare of children is any better than killing them on purpose. “Collateral damage” is still just as dead.
They haven’t integrated by the standards being used here. Like I said; the Jews are still Jews, and are still build synagogues, like the Islamic people are Islamic and build minarets. To “integrate” in the sense given here, they’d all have to convert to whatever version of Christianity dominates in Switzerland. And time travel back to alter history and have Swiss ancestors, most likely.
