The Ill feeling between left and right on immigration

[dialamah]

Just now, Bonam said:

Insofar as people pigeon-hole themselves into rigid ideological frameworks, yes, you need both kinds so that society can follow a middle way between the extremes. Of course, it would be nicer if people could use their brains instead of just throwing their lot in with the entire party line of whoever wins them over on some wedge issue. 

 

Entirely agree!   Which is why I'm quite willing to vote conservative and have done so in the past and may well do so in 2019, since JT failed to deliver on certain promises.  Still, I'm not going to vote for random celebrities or those who campaign on half-truths and misrepresentations.  Unfortunately for the Conservative party, that's practically all I see from them on their FB feed.  But hey, with a different leader, they may refocus on actual and realistic issues instead of bullshit, we can hope.  

[Bonam]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Depends on how much power the religion has within the society.  In closed Christian societies, women wear very modest clothing, are segregated and not allowed to go into public places without men.  Sometimes they aren't allowed to speak to men outside their family, same as some Muslim women.  The niqab is the only practice that doesn't seem to have appeared in Christian groups, although it does appear in the other Judeo-Christian religion, Judaism.

I agree that at least in Western countries, such extreme practices are much less common - but the point isn't who does it more or who does it less, but that the drivers for that kind of extreme oppression exist in both Muslim and Christian religions when their power is left unchallenged and unchecked.

Islam and Christianity are two sides of the same coin. The relevant difference today is that a huge portion of people who nominally call themselves Christians around the world are not very devout... most Europeans consider themselves Christian for example, and yet their enthusiasm for and devoutness to Christianity is minimal at most. On the other hand, the vast majority of Muslims around the world take their religion a lot more seriously. So when one talks about immigration, if you're recruiting immigrants from Muslim countries in the middle-east, Africa, and southeast Asia, you are for the most part getting quite devout followers of that religion. On the other hand, if you're recruiting immigrants from Europe, you're getting a mix of atheists, agnostics, Christians-in-name-only, and only a very small portion of devout followers of a religion. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

To talk of 'liberals' like this is misleading. Only a few people at either end of the spectrum will show such a contrast in values. I would consider myself a liberal but I would not have an unconditional open door attitude to immigration 

[dialamah]

Just now, Bonam said:

Islam and Christianity are two sides of the same coin. The relevant difference today is that a huge portion of people who nominally call themselves Christians around the world are not very devout... most Europeans consider themselves Christian for example, and yet their enthusiasm for and devoutness to Christianity is minimal at most. On the other hand, the vast majority of Muslims around the world take their religion a lot more seriously. So when one talks about immigration, if you're recruiting immigrants from Muslim countries in the middle-east, Africa, and southeast Asia, you are for the most part getting quite devout followers of that religion. On the other hand, if you're recruiting immigrants from Europe, you're getting a mix of atheists, agnostics, Christians-in-name-only, and only a very small portion of devout followers of a religion. 

 

Again, I don't disagree with you.  I think it's also important to recognize that immigrants from any country are more likely to be of the 'liberal' sort - those who value change more than sticking with tradition.      Perhaps not so much for refugees, but since they are also given a choice of whether to stay or leave, it seems logical to me that it is still going to be those who lean more toward change and less toward traditionalism.    

[Bonam]

Just now, dialamah said:

Again, I don't disagree with you.  I think it's also important to recognize that immigrants from any country are more likely to be of the 'liberal' sort - those who value change more than sticking with tradition.      Perhaps not so much for refugees, but since they are also given a choice of whether to stay or leave, it seems logical to me that it is still going to be those who lean more toward change and less toward traditionalism.    

Maybe. Then again, missionaries were over-represented in the initial waves of immigration from Europe to the new world. They came not because they were seeking change but because they saw it as their mission to "enlighten" the "savages" they found in new lands. Islamic extremists have urged Muslims on many occasions to immigrate to Europe and America and change the demographics of these countries, declaring that they can achieve victory that way. Not to say this is a driving motivation for many Muslims coming here, but just saying your premise is not necessarily correct. 

Coming back to the issue of what should Canadian immigration policy be rather than considering the motivations of individual immigrants though, it seems to me that if the reason for immigration is primarily economic in nature, we should be focusing on getting the most employable immigrants we can. As Argus has cited many times, these usually come from Europe and India. Chinese immigrants also do well. Some weight can be given to wanting a diversity of immigrants, but that shouldn't be the main driver of the system. For example, the US immigration system focuses on people who have job offers, and it is stuffed mostly with immigrants from India, China, and even Canada. And to supplement this they have a diversity visa lottery that people from anywhere can apply to, which contributes about 5% of the overall immigrant flow into the US. 

The result of the difference in economic focus for immigration in the US and the diversity focus for immigration in Canada? About 20% of immigrants to Canada are Muslims (roughly matching their % of the world population), whereas they make up only about 5% of the immigrants to the US. 

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Bonam said:

it seems to me that if the reason for immigration is primarily economic in nature, we should be focusing on getting the most employable immigrants we can. As Argus has cited many times, these usually comPe from Europe and India

1

How many Europeans actually want to come to Canada?   Probably not enough to meet our needs for even maintaining, never mind growing our economy.   It seems people from India have more interest in coming to Canada, but again - are there enough to maintain/grow our economy?     

[Bonam]

Just now, dialamah said:

How many Europeans actually want to come to Canada?   Probably not enough to meet our needs for even maintaining, never mind growing our economy.   It seems people from India have more interest in coming to Canada, but again - are there enough to maintain/grow our economy?     

I'm not sure, but given the youth unemployment rates of over 50% in many European countries and the massive overcrowding in India (not to mention it's still a developing country), I think there's a lot more potential immigrants there than we are getting. Wait lists for Indian immigration to the US are measured in decades... how many of these millions of people would be just as happy to come to Canada if they could? 

[eyeball]

34 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Insofar as people pigeon-hole themselves into rigid ideological frameworks, yes, you need both kinds so that society can follow a middle way between the extremes. Of course, it would be nicer if people could use their brains instead of just throwing their lot in with the entire party line of whoever wins them over on some wedge issue. 

If people were afforded more opportunities to vote on a range of issues they likely would think and act more appropriately.  IMO the only way through this bottleneck is through regular referendums on a range of issues or maybe proportional representation. I think I doubt the latter and would put more faith in the former. 

Edited April 21, 2017 by eyeball

[Bonam]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If people were afforded more opportunities to vote on a range of issues they likely would think and act more appropriately.  IMO the only way through this bottleneck is through regular referendums on a range of issues or maybe proportional representation. I think I doubt the latter and would put more faith in the former. 

I agree with you, I support the idea of people voting directly on more issues. Here in WA state, it seems to work pretty well. Popular referenda are on the ballot every 2 year election cycle and have resulted in significant results in many areas including tax policy, marijuana legalization, minimum wage, transit & infrastructure investment, gay marriage, etc. 

[eyeball]

We're still in the dark ages that way around here.

[Bonam]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We're still in the dark ages that way around here.

Despite the prevalence of popular referenda here, where people do seem to vote somewhat independently of their party-alignment... they are still hopelessly polarized and partisan when it comes to federal politics. While being able to vote directly on specific issues may make people stop and think about those issues a bit more than they otherwise would, it doesn't seem to cure the inherent tendency towards partisanship, ideology, and alignment based on wedge issues. 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Exactly what many Muslims say:  "They aren't following the Quran, therefore they aren't true Muslims".  

When my Muslim brother-in-law started telling me what he believed, I was amazed at how very similar to Christianity it was.  

They consider themselves Christians, and they tell me that you have the wrong interpretation of what it means to be Christian.   You all say the same things.

I'm aware.  Previously, this meant that women could not vote and that their 'Christian' husbands had the right to discipline them, or rape them.  Only through secular pressure have those husbandly "rights" been eliminated in Western society.  It certainly wasn't because the Christian Church had any interest in allowing women equal rights.

Exactly what devout Muslims say!

I agree, with the caveat that this is true of Christians in Western countries much more so than Christians in other countries.  

The more conservative and religious a society is, the more likely that society is going to engage in oppressive behaviors.  It doesn't matter if the religion of choice in that country is Islam or Christianity.   They all use the same arguments to support their oppressive practices; the only difference in the arguments are these words:  Christianity, Islam, Christian, Muslim, God, Allah, Jesus, Mohammed.   

With all due respect, what you are saying is completely false.  I tried to explain as much as I could but obviously you either skipped over it and ignored it or just plain are unwilling to accept a different view.

Christianity and Islam are as different as night and day.  There is no comparison whosoever.

Who was given the vote and when women were give the vote has nothing to do with christians.  Governments are made up of a cross section of society, not necessarily christian although there may be some there.   Christians dont run the government. 

In any church I have been in the last 37 years, I have never heard anything about husbands disciplining wives or raping them.  That is bizarre and false. 

Christians do not engage in oppressive behavior.  Another false statement.   You obviously know nothing about christianity or the bible.  You really should do some research or talk to some christians who study the bible and know what they are talking about.  Maybe a baptist or presbyterian or reformed church minister might be able to help you.  Your idea that christians are oppressive shows you are completely off the track.

[dialamah]

14 minutes ago, Bonam said:

how many of these millions of people would be just as happy to come to Canada if they could? 

Why wouldn't they be applying here rather than the States then? I haven't seen anything suggesting that we turn away Europeans or Indians in favor of Middle Eastern and African applicants.  Do we?

[dialamah]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Christianity and Islam are as different as night and day. 

No, they aren't.  Do you even know what Muslims believe?

[dialamah]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Your idea that christians are oppressive shows you are completely off the track.

If you go back and read what I posted, you will see that I specified situations where Christians are in positions of political and/or social power: closed Christian groups such as Mennonites, countries such as Uganda where people are very religious and throughout history where Christians held power.  I also pointed out that as Christianity lost political and social power in Western countries, patriarchal attitudes decreased along with oppression of minorities.

I spent quite a few years studying the Bible and discussing it with people from different evangelical churches.  

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Followers of Luther and Calvin. Not Luther and Calvin. 

So there were no Catholics killed in Europe's religious wars? Catholics were never persecuted in Britain and Ireland? 

This is what religion can do to people if you take it too literally. 

I never said Catholics were not killed in Europe's religious wars.  The religious wars would have had losses of life on both sides.  They were probably partly political, partly religious.

But the Inquisition was a religious persecution, torture, and genocide on a large scale over a long period of time run out of the Holy Office in the Vatican.  The  Reformation churches in Scotland, England, the Netherlands and Germany did not conduct a church based persecution, torture, and killing of people to the best of my knowledge and I have read quite a bit over the years.  I am not saying there was not the isolated case of someone being killed, but I don't believe there was any church sanctioned killing of Catholic people.

When you ask about Catholics persecuted in Britain and Ireland, I have not heard of it.  If you have any information or links about it, you can give the links.  There was no Reformation in Ireland;  Ireland remained Roman Catholic to this day, with the exception of Northern Ireland, which became partly Protestant and remained partly Roman Catholic. 

To find out all you have to do is Google Inquisition or Spanish Inquisition to learn more about that.

Edited April 21, 2017 by blackbird

[blackbird]

18 minutes ago, dialamah said:

If you go back and read what I posted, you will see that I specified situations where Christians are in positions of political and/or social power: closed Christian groups such as Mennonites, countries such as Uganda where people are very religious and throughout history where Christians held power.  I also pointed out that as Christianity lost political and social power in Western countries, patriarchal attitudes decreased along with oppression of minorities.

I spent quite a few years studying the Bible and discussing it with people from different evangelical churches.  

I found a website that describes the differences between Islam and Christianity.  They are quite different.  What similarity do you see?

 

" Compared to Christianity, Islam has some similarities but significant differences. Like Christianity, Islam is monotheistic. However, Muslims reject the Trinity—that God has revealed Himself as one in three Persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Muslims claim that Jesus was one of the most important prophets—not God’s Son. Islam asserts that Jesus, though born of a virgin, was created like Adam. Muslims do not believe Jesus died on the cross. They do not understand why Allah would allow His prophet Isa (the Islamic word for "Jesus") to die a torturous death. Yet the Bible shows how the death of the perfect Son of God was essential to pay for the sins of believers (Isaiah 53:5-6; John 3:16; 14:6; 1 Peter 2:24).

Islam teaches that the Qur'an is the final authority and the last revelation of Allah. The Bible, however, was completed in the first century with the Book of Revelation. The Bible warns against anyone adding to or subtracting from God’s Word (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6; Galatians 1:6-12; Revelation 22:18). The Qur’an, as a claimed addition to God’s Word, directly disobeys God’s command.

Muslims believe that paradise can be earned through keeping the Five Pillars. The Bible, in contrast, reveals that sinful man can never measure up to the holy God (Romans 3:23; 6:23). Only by God’s grace may sinners be saved through repentant faith in Jesus (Acts 20:21; Ephesians 2:8-9).

Because of these essential differences and contradictions, Islam and Christianity cannot both be true. The Bible and Qur’an cannot both be God’s Word. The truth has eternal consequences. "

https://www.gotquestions.org/Islam.html

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Followers of Luther and Calvin. Not Luther and Calvin. 

So there were no Catholics killed in Europe's religious wars? Catholics were never persecuted in Britain and Ireland? 

This is what religion can do to people if you take it too literally. 

In Medieval times, don't forget the Roman Church was the main power in the western world (Europe) at the time.  It was very powerful.  It controlled kings and emperors.  So it had no interest in giving up any of it's power.  It was not just a religious power but claimed power over all spheres.  Rome sponsored Crusades when it deemed useful. 

Anyone or any group that did not bow to the authority of the Pope and Rome would be considered as an enemy and needed to be destroyed. 

Pope "Innocent also sponsored a crusade under the leadership of Simon de Montfort against the Albigenses of southern France in 1208.  The Albigenses were members of a heretical sect known as the Cathari.  Because they claimed their beliefs were based on the Bible, the Roman church later forbade the people to possess the Bible.  The crusade got under way in 1209 and virtually exterminated the Cathari in southern France after many bloody battles.  This crusade was strongly supported by both the Dominican and Franciscan orders.  Heretics as well as temporal rulers had to bow to the supreme head of the Roman church."   page 216 from book "Christianity Through The Centuries" by Cairns.   Has Rome ever apologized for all these massacres and exterminations or taken responsibility?  Of course not.  They believe it was all justified because they claimed temporal authority and believed in unlimited power over the Holy Roman empire.

[Bonam]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Why wouldn't they be applying here rather than the States then? I haven't seen anything suggesting that we turn away Europeans or Indians in favor of Middle Eastern and African applicants.  Do we?

I don't know about actively "turning away" certain applicants for others, but we only let in a capped amount of immigrants. Our system is not great at selecting more employable immigrants over less employable ones, so we end up with a roughly even mix of immigrants based on how many apply from each area. I would suspect that whether one is from Europe or from the middle-east or from Africa or from Asia, one has about the same chance of their immigration application to Canada being accepted. But that shouldn't necessarily be the case if we have data showing immigrants from Europe tend to contribute more to the economy more quickly. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

When you ask about Catholics persecuted in Britain and Ireland, I have not heard of it.  If you have any information or links about it, you can give the links.  There was no Reformation in Ireland;  Ireland remained Roman Catholic to this day, with the exception of Northern Ireland, which became partly Protestant and remained partly Roman Catholic. 

For England, one place to start:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation

Many of these people were hanged, drawn and quartered.

For Ireland, well, start anywhere. British policy was anti-Catholic from the Reformation on. The Reformation did come to all of Ireland and they had an established Anglican Church that Catholic farmers had to pay tithes to until 1871:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Church_Act_1869

 

 

 

 

 

[kactus]

10 hours ago, Bonam said:

Islam and Christianity are two sides of the same coin. The relevant difference today is that a huge portion of people who nominally call themselves Christians around the world are not very devout... most Europeans consider themselves Christian for example, and yet their enthusiasm for and devoutness to Christianity is minimal at most. On the other hand, the vast majority of Muslims around the world take their religion a lot more seriously. So when one talks about immigration, if you're recruiting immigrants from Muslim countries in the middle-east, Africa, and southeast Asia, you are for the most part getting quite devout followers of that religion. On the other hand, if you're recruiting immigrants from Europe, you're getting a mix of atheists, agnostics, Christians-in-name-only, and only a very small portion of devout followers of a religion. 

I agree that the devoutness and enthusiasm of europeans to Christianity is minimal atmost but do not share the same sentiment for americans....I think americans do take christianity very seriously to the point of fanatism just like some muslim countries.

But don't you think you get the same thing with other religions? I mean someone of judaic faith can also be a moderate or nor religious or ultra orthodox.

[kactus]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

For England, one place to start:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation

Many of these people were hanged, drawn and quartered.

For Ireland, well, start anywhere. British policy was anti-Catholic from the Reformation on. The Reformation did come to all of Ireland and they had an established Anglican Church that Catholic farmers had to pay tithes to until 1871:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Church_Act_1869

 

 

 

 

 

I would go as far as saying that whatever reformation the anglican church experienced in the Middle Ages Britain is what we are witnessing to a certain extent in the Middle East today. It will take time....

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

For England, one place to start:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation

Many of these people were hanged, drawn and quartered.

For Ireland, well, start anywhere. British policy was anti-Catholic from the Reformation on. The Reformation did come to all of Ireland and they had an established Anglican Church that Catholic farmers had to pay tithes to until 1871:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Church_Act_1869

 

 

 

 

 

As a Catholic, I probably should be entitled to some compensation.  Or at the very least, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission should be struck.

[DogOnPorch]

Immigration?? Falling populations??

One word: robots.

Forget Islam...it's not gonna save Canada.

[dialamah]

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

What similarity do you see?

Just off the top of my head:  Belief in one true God, belief that their holy book is the word of God, belief that women submit to men, that women's role is nuturer and child raiser, that man's role is to support, direct and control women, belief that homosexuals are unacceptable to God, belief in charity and mercy, belief that they submit to earthly authorities, unless that means going against God's law, belief that God will take care of wrongdoers.