The Islamification Of Europe

[Michael Hardner]

Jerry,

Good post, Argus. Really, the litmus test is freedom to criticize, freedom from fear.

As I recall, the last temptation of christ and some other provocative films caused some uproar amidst catholics. There were some signs and demonstrations and articles.

But I don't recall the kind of worldwide violence against innocents that occurs when someone makes an unflattering film/cartoon/article/book about Islam.

Some examples:

Worldwide rampages of killing and violence from Danish cartoons including setting fire to the Danish embassy in Lebanon Syria, a nun being shot in the back (and killed), and a worldwide bountry put on the head of the cartoonist who to this day lives under protection and fear.

Did this same thing happen to Mel Gibson?

The demanding that the chocolate swirl on the top of the burger king ice cream cone be pulled because it resembled the arabic symbol for Allah.

The demanding of the removal from stores of a blow up sex doll called "Mustafa Shag" (shouldn't Islam be more concerned about eliminating REAL blow up mohameds?)

The murder of Danish filmaker Theo Van Gogh who made an unflatteering film about Islam.

Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Van Gogh in the early morning of 2 November 2004, in Amsterdam, in front of the Amsterdam East borough office (stadsdeelkantoor) on the corner of the Linnaeusstraat and Tweede Oosterparkstraat , while he was bicycling to work. Bouyeri shot van Gogh eight times with an HS 2000 handgun, and Van Gogh died on the spot. Bouyeri then cut Van Gogh's throat, nearly decapitating him, and stabbed him in the chest. Two knives were left implanted in his torso, one attaching a five-page note to his body. The note (Text) threatened Western governments, Jews.

Has this happened to Mel Gibson?

Certainly all religions have zealots who don't like their religion being criticized. But in the modern day the followers of Islam take the cake for being by far the most murderous and violent.

What confuses me is why so many peoplee in the west are hell bent on apologizing to Islam every time some nutter jihadist blows something up.

We think it shows an attempt of understanding. But very few have considered that they don't see it that way. They see it as weakness.

As the leader of Hezbollah once said:

"We are not fighting to win something from you in negotiation. We are fighting to destroy you." - an attitude about which President Obama appears sadly ignorant.

I don't see why you want to lump all Muslims together, including Muslims who - like Christians - protest depictions of their religious icons and others who advocate violence. We've been discussing this for long enough on these boards, and it's still not clear why this is done. It may be done to make people feel happy with themselves, but it's not reasonable.

[Argus]

I have no idea how often that happens. My question is why is it relevant ? What specifically does the fact that that happens mean to the discussion ?

Because this notion of violence comes from the top, it comes from violent sermons that inspire rage and violence in those who hear them.

It bothers me because it seems too often that the point is to tar all members of that religion with the same brush, or to make people feel self-satisfaction, i.e. that they're Christian or some other religion

.

Well, I'm not much of a Christian, and I don't need to hear about barbarity in others to feel self-satisfied. I'm arrogant enough for lots of other reasons.

I'll admit, though, that I was surprised by the other stats you published - especially the 78%. The situation in Britain with Muslim immigration always seems to be worse than other countries. Why is that ?

I don't know that it is. Has anyone taken a similar poll in France? British Muslims appear to be more conservative than Muslims elsewhere in Europe, so that could be a part of it. For example, about 30% of French Muslims felt homosexual acts ought to be tolerated. None of the British Muslims polled (out of 500) felt homosexuality was morally acceptable.

Yes, that was an embarrassment and we have Egypt, Pakistan and Iran to thank for it.

The entire Islamic Congress pushed it. That's something like 41 countries.

If there is going to be a real discussion around religion, race, and culture, then it has to be done right. That means looking at the problem rationally, not emotionally.

Is that not what we're doing? I don't think it is irrational to point out that Muslims have become notorious for religious violence.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus

QUOTE (Michael Hardner @ Oct 18 2009, 11:22 PM) *

I have no idea how often that happens. My question is why is it relevant ? What specifically does the fact that that happens mean to the discussion ?

Because this notion of violence comes from the top, it comes from violent sermons that inspire rage and violence in those who hear them.

When you use the term "top", it assumes that the religion is strictly heirarchical. Unlike Catholicism, there is no "top" and while any single cleric can say or do something that will bring negative attention to his religion, it doesn't mean that the religion itself stands behinds his words and actions. Similarly, while the misdeeds of any priest bring shame upon his church, it doesn't mean that his religion is the cause of his actions, or that it is tied to them somehow.

QUOTE

It bothers me because it seems too often that the point is to tar all members of that religion with the same brush, or to make people feel self-satisfaction, i.e. that they're Christian or some other religion

.

Well, I'm not much of a Christian, and I don't need to hear about barbarity in others to feel self-satisfied. I'm arrogant enough for lots of other reasons. tongue.gif

Don't be so modest...

QUOTE

I'll admit, though, that I was surprised by the other stats you published - especially the 78%. The situation in Britain with Muslim immigration always seems to be worse than other countries. Why is that ?

I don't know that it is. Has anyone taken a similar poll in France? British Muslims appear to be more conservative than Muslims elsewhere in Europe, so that could be a part of it. For example, about 30% of French Muslims felt homosexual acts ought to be tolerated. None of the British Muslims polled (out of 500) felt homosexuality was morally acceptable.

I was thinking about this, and coincidentally on Saturday I met a stranger at a party who started to explain the different regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The CIA has described Waziristan as "the most dangerous place on earth".[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waziristan

French Muslims, in my experience, are North African Arabs. The ones I knew were all definitely Muslim, and identified as such. They would not eat pork, and went to prayers during the holiest of holy days. They also drank, chased women and had a general European outlook.

My familiarity with those people is at the heart of my objections to blanket statements about Muslims on these boards.

QUOTE

Yes, that was an embarrassment and we have Egypt, Pakistan and Iran to thank for it.

The entire Islamic Congress pushed it. That's something like 41 countries.

QUOTE

If there is going to be a real discussion around religion, race, and culture, then it has to be done right. That means looking at the problem rationally, not emotionally.

Is that not what we're doing? I don't think it is irrational to point out that Muslims have become notorious for religious violence.

It's not irrational to point out that Muslims have become notorious for religious violence. They are. It's irrational to start out discussing a complicated problem by proposing the banning of Muslim immigration, for example.

But it appears to me that some of those who argue on the other side of the line from me have added a nuance to their arguments, such as Wild Bill does here:

-------------

Fundamentalist Islamic immigrants do NOT accept the laws of Canada as supreme! By definition, their Islamic code is supreme. In any conflict between the two the Canadian law would be ignored.

I would agree that perhaps the majority of Muslims are no threat to changing our culture, particularly politically. However, those aren't the folks we need to worry about! One fundamentalist with a bomb is more dangerous than thousands of those who, for lack of a better word, are civilized!

For it is not the religion of Islam that we should fear. It is really the culture of SOME primitive, fundamentalist Islamic countries! The distinction is important. Most Christians are not violent. Some wackos are! That doesn't mean we should fear all Christians.

Still, it is not "Islamophobia" (I really hate that term! As much as 'homophobia'. It is very poor English with a meaning totally different from the word 'phobia' itself. Both terms grate on me like the word 'irregardless'!) to fear and to take steps to protect ourselves from MILITANT, fundamentalist Islamists! It is just simple prudence!

What's more, the numbers of fundamentalist Islamists tend to be far higher than one might assume. For every one willing to commit violence there are many others who approve of it, even if they wouldn't commit violence themselves.

When it comes to immigration it is a very naive notion to think that we have a duty to be fair to everyone of every culture, even if it means erring on the side of allowing some folks into the country that may be a risk. We have NO duty to anyone not already a Canadian citizen! Immigration is ONLY for the benefit of Canada! Governments should set immigration policies that act to increase the security and prosperity of Canadians, NOT immigration applicants! While those policies should be racially blind it only makes sense that if the CULTURE of certain countries fosters values contrary to our own we should not accept applicants from that culture!

At this point in history it is not the Catholics. Irish or southern Europeans who are committing suicide bombings.

This argument is more difficult to rebuke with an accusation of racism.

[Argus]

Argus

When you use the term "top", it assumes that the religion is strictly heirarchical. Unlike Catholicism, there is no "top" and while any single cleric can say or do something that will bring negative attention to his religion, it doesn't mean that the religion itself stands behinds his words and actions. Similarly, while the misdeeds of any priest bring shame upon his church, it doesn't mean that his religion is the cause of his actions, or that it is tied to them somehow.

Fine, then. I recognize this as being a problem. Yet the difference between Islam and Christianity is that the various "top level" Christian sects have all decided that violence is not the way of God. We don't hear them demanding death and punishment for those who insult God or violent various religious edicts because they don't believe in that stuff any more.

The problem with Islam is that, unlike the Christians sects, Islam has not evolved in its interpretation of the messages contained in its scripture. It froze them in place centuries ago and from then on regarded any questioning of them as heresy (still punishable by death in some Muslim countries). There was a project underway in Turkey to try and reinterpret at least some of the accompanying text to the Koran, but I haven't heard anything from it for a while.

My familiarity with those people is at the heart of my objections to blanket statements about Muslims on these boards.

Well, the last suggestion I had re immigration was that we test potential immigrants regarding their behaviour and cultural value set to see which would find it problematical in adapting to our secular culture.

Prior to that I suggested that we examine the "success rate" of immigrants from different geographical areas and then cease "recruiting" from areas with the lowest success rates.

Success, to me, would be an immigrant who has been succesfully working at a job which pays more in taxes than he recieves for himself and his family, has accepted Canadian culture values at least to some extent, and has not run afoul with the law.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

Prior to that I suggested that we examine the "success rate" of immigrants from different geographical areas and then cease "recruiting" from areas with the lowest success rates.

Success, to me, would be an immigrant who has been succesfully working at a job which pays more in taxes than he recieves for himself and his family, has accepted Canadian culture values at least to some extent, and has not run afoul with the law.

I'm going to throw you a bone here. I think this is a good idea but not politically viable, ok ?

Also - you can't determine 'accepted Canadian cultural values', and I would include some poll of how satisfied the family is with their experience. After all, it's a two way street. Why bring people to Canada if they're unhappy here ? The families of the Toronto 18 also complained about how much they disliked Canada.

[Argus]

Argus,

I'm going to throw you a bone here. I think this is a good idea but not politically viable, ok ?

Also - you can't determine 'accepted Canadian cultural values', and I would include some poll of how satisfied the family is with their experience. After all, it's a two way street. Why bring people to Canada if they're unhappy here ? The families of the Toronto 18 also complained about how much they disliked Canada.

I think most Canadians would support the idea, actually. We could start by making all potential immigrants watch a video - like the Dutch now do. The video depicts life in the Netherlands, including gay men kissing, girls in miniskirts, etc. The message is "This is the life here. Don't like it? Don't come."

Tests to determine aptitude and sociability are widspread throughout industry. As I've said earlier, we test people for their ability to get along all the time in hiring and promotion. Oh it's imperfect. I'll be the first to admit there are still idiots who work here. But I think we do keep out most of the more frenzied anti-social types.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

Your video idea includes an aspect of social liberalism, which will help it.

From my experience, many immigrants - especially from South Asia - are willing to work extremely hard to learn, and to get along and succeed. In 19th century America, Jewish merchants from Germany had the toughest time and had the hardest work to do in the new world.

And their children ran the biggest banks in New York...

[bush_cheney2004]

....From my experience, many immigrants - especially from South Asia - are willing to work extremely hard to learn, and to get along and succeed. In 19th century America, Jewish merchants from Germany had the toughest time and had the hardest work to do in the new world.

Really? Toughest time compared to who / what kind of "work"?

And their children ran the biggest banks in New York...

As did the children of J. P. Morgan (and other non "Jews").

[Michael Hardner]

BC,

Really? Toughest time compared to who / what kind of "work"?

Read 'Our Crowd' for a description of what the earliest Jewish merchants had to do in order to live.

As did the children of J. P. Morgan (and other non "Jews").

That's a testament to how well immigration worked for America and for the Jewish men who built their businesses to that level.