Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
rebelconservative

Restricting Muslim Immigration?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I presume it will be taken as given that Islam does not respect individual rights. With Western fertility rates declining so rapidly (less than 1.5 when it needs to be over 2.11 children per woman), combined with mass immigration from Muslim countries and their much larger family sizes, it is possible that Muslims will be a majority in Europe in around 50 years.

Can we, therefore, restrict immigration to prevent the Islamic take-over of Europe and the loss of liberty that would undoubtedly follow? Or is restricting the individual rights of foreigners for the sake of protecting our individual rights oxymoronic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume it will be taken as given that Christianity does not respect individual rights. With atheist fertility rates declining so rapidly (less than 1.5 when it needs to be over 2.11 children per woman), combined with mass immigration from Christian countries and their much larger family sizes, it is possible that Christians will be a majority in Europe in around 50 years.

Can we, therefore, restrict immigration to prevent the Christian take-over of Europe and the loss of liberty that would undoubtedly follow? Or is restricting the individual rights of foreigners for the sake of protecting our individual rights oxymoronic, or, in short, moronic?

So, yeah, fascism for the sake of protecting our freedoms is ill-planned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it is possible that Muslims will be a majority in Europe in around 50 years.

Can we, therefore, restrict immigration to prevent the Islamic take-over of Europe and the loss of liberty that would undoubtedly follow?

Which is it, "possible" or "undoubtedly"?

If it is undoubtedly, you have not presented any reason to think that. I would guess most Muslims in America for instance vote Democrat, not "The Islamist Front for the Introduction of Sharia in NY State". Why would Muslims who escape the Middle East decide to vote for Islamists in Europe, rather than simply integrate into a free society, in one generation, as large groups of economic migrants have been doing forever.

I think if Europe manages to stay relatively free, with its current culture moving away from fascist tendencies, Muslims are not a threat to its freedom, no matter how many of them come. Their children will be born into an open society, and interact with it the same way Christian children do.

And if European culture deteriorates further, I'm sure Muslim immigration won't be an issue, because fascist governments tend to close down the borders, in both directions. There will be other issues, such as the government terrorizing the population, persecuting minorities, destroying productivity and art, starting needless wars, etc.

So, either way, this bizarre theory that Europe is being taken over by Islamists throught the "weapon" of demographics, some people have, is nothing to be worried about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I presume it will be taken as given that Islam does not respect individual rights. With Western fertility rates declining so rapidly (less than 1.5 when it needs to be over 2.11 children per woman), combined with mass immigration from Muslim countries and their much larger family sizes, it is possible that Muslims will be a majority in Europe in around 50 years.

Can we, therefore, restrict immigration to prevent the Islamic take-over of Europe and the loss of liberty that would undoubtedly follow? Or is restricting the individual rights of foreigners for the sake of protecting our individual rights oxymoronic?

There was a time when I would have agreed.

However, you assume:

1. In the next 50 years there will be no increase of life span in Europeans and no AI.

2. In the next 50 years the "Muslim's" fertility rate will stay as high as it is today.

3. In the next 50 years there will remain a large welfare state despite debt levels.

And yes, immigration restriction is against liberty. Fight Islamism, fight for open immigration - do both!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if one did consider it justifiable to restrict the immigration of a religious group the definitions have become mutable.

Practicing Muslim? Born Muslim? From a Muslim country? Culturally Muslim but non practicing?

Do they have to renounce their religion publicly and defile one of their relious artifacts to proves that while raised Muslim and coming from a Muslim nation they themselves are non believers?

Apply that to Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu and you can see how impractical this seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead, lets have a constitution, not up for vote, that respects individual rights.

Fascist!!! :P:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I presume it will be taken as given that Christianity does not respect individual rights...

no, it would not be. Christianity may not acknowledge the right to abortion, for example and its adherents may not have the best historical track record, but it gave us the concept of the seperation of Church and State, dividing God and Government into different competencies - Islam does not recognise this. It was not Enlightened atheists that gave us the concept of religious liberty, it was Christian dissenters.

but back to the present day... I don't see huge mobs of Christian demonstrators demanding the murder of critics or satirists, I don't see many Christians calling for an end to freedom of speech. Christians oppose gay marriage. Islam would ban homosexuality. moderate Islamic scholars support suicide bombing against Jewish civilians in Israel - there is no Christian parallel here (one mentally ill Christian who murders an abortionist is not comparable).

So, yeah, fascism for the sake of protecting our freedoms is ill-planned.

ill-planned it may be, but restricting immigration is not fascism.

Which is it, "possible" or "undoubtedly"?

Islam may possibly become a majority, if that occurs, there will undoubtedly be restrictions on liberty

I would guess most Muslims in America for instance vote Democrat, not "The Islamist Front for the Introduction of Sharia in NY State". Why would Muslims who escape the Middle East decide to vote for Islamists in Europe, rather than simply integrate into a free society, in one generation, as large groups of economic migrants have been doing forever.

you know voting for a 3rd party is a wasted vote. it will take a lot longer in the US due to demographics, but rather than creating their own party, they will slowly take over the Democratic party (as they are doing here with the Labour party) despite repressive restrictions inthe name of anti-terror, our leadership is craven in its relationship to Islam. the former (Labour) Mayor of London invited Yusuf al-Qarawi as an honoured guest to the city - this is a supposedly 'moderate' Muslim scholar, who supports killing gays, beating wives and bombing Jews.

don't forget, not all emigrants think they have 'escaped' the repressive regime they lived under, many left searching for prosperity. Many Muslims who have left Pakistan and come to the UK for work still practice their religion, veil their wives, even mutilate their daughters and force them into marriages.

if you look at the Europe as an example, we have seen forced marriages, rape within marriage, 'honour' killings, mobs on the streets, demonstrations against the Danish cartoons, protests against foreign policy, support for terrorist groups esp. in Israel, waves of anti-Semitism once almost eradicated from the UK etc etc etc - and the murder of several Dutch men for the crime of criticising Islam (possibly comparable to the murder of Tiller until you consider the numbers)

There was a time when I would have agreed.

However, you assume:

1. In the next 50 years there will be no increase of life span in Europeans and no AI.

2. In the next 50 years the "Muslim's" fertility rate will stay as high as it is today.

3. In the next 50 years there will remain a large welfare state despite debt levels.

1. yes. due to diet, lifestyle etc the European life-span is actually falling. whilst it is possible that there will be an advance in medical technology, we should operate on the precautionary principle.

2. not necessarily that it will remain as high as it is today, but that it will remain larger than the Western population, yes.

3. I am not sure why this is relevant, but yes, I expect that there to be a welfare state of some sort. I was not suggesting that Muslims are attracted to the West solely to scrounge on welfare (they tend to be more enterprising that the natives)

I am also assuming that there is no increase in fertility rates amongst Europeans, based on long-term trends. it is possible that this will change, though I doubt it.

Even if one did consider it justifiable to restrict the immigration of a religious group the definitions have become mutable.

true, good point. the law is a blunt instrument, but it is the only one we have; in practice it would mean preventing a person from a majority Muslim country from immigrating. some Muslims would get in, some atheists, Christians etc would be kept out unnecessarily, but the net effect would be to greatly reduce Muslim immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual issue in Europe is that they combine immigration with a values-system that plays to the Muslims' contempt of western values, a welfare system which allows the unproductive Muslims to idle and encourages the worst in any country to move there in hopes of a free meal ticket for life.

A rational, capitalist country would attract only the best from any segment of any population; only the most rational, this-worldly Muslims, Christians, atheists, etc. This is because, unlike in Europe, an immigrant could not count on being able to live off the public teat. The problem is not immigration per se (it never is,) the problem is why is your country attracting the scum of the earth? Those thousands (millions?) of "idle youths" in France, for example, would not be idle, if they were honest men; and they would not be there, if they came to a capitalist country expected to be fed and housed for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christianity may not acknowledge the right to abortion, for example and its adherents may not have the best historical track record
Christianity opposes the right to abortion. And its adherents have a demonstrably bad track record.
but it gave us the concept of the seperation of Church and State, dividing God and Government into different competencies
Christianity did not give us the concept of separation of Church and State, certain nominal Christian individuals did. You might want to read up on the history of Europe over the past couple of thousand years. Christian apostacy has long been a crime, so of course any thinker who wants to advocate a concept of individual rights will need to wear Christian vestements.
(one mentally ill Christian who murders an abortionist is not comparable).
It is exactly comparable: the causes are the same.

Show me your evidence that Muslims in the US are working to deprive individuals of their rights. Where are the mass Muslim rallies in Los Angeles demanding the imposition of Ahmedinejad-style socialism and mullah-control of our lives. Conspicuously missing, despite there being about a half-million of the buggers in the greater LA area. Why is that?

ill-planned it may be, but restricting immigration is not fascism.
The state forcefully preventing a man from pursuing his rational goals out of an arbitrary and collectivist fear is.

Perhaps I can help you to discover the roots of your illogic, though I think you ought to discover most of this yourself. Start by asking yourself how a major increase in Muslim population could possibly result in a curtailment of individual rights in the west. You're making an invalid assumption about the nature of government. Once you correctly identify your false assumption -- which pertains to the political process -- you should be able to see why. Check your assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't a place like Israel need restrictions on immigration?

Israel is in an official state of war with several countries around it. The war should be won, its enemies should be crushed, the Israeli Welfare State disolved, a constitution that separates state and church adopted, and then their gov. should allow open immigration.

But the subject of this thread was the theory according to which Europe is going to become majority Muslim, and those Muslims will establish Islamic rule over the continent, if the borders were to open. It is a ridiculous theory, with no basis in reality. Europeans should not worry about that theory, but Israel has every reason to worry that its enemies are crossing the border to destroy freedom, not profit from it. They can't allow people they are at war with to move freely into Israel, for reasons related to the war, not to demographics.

Even in Israel's case, politicians who envision a future in which, instead of winning the war, Israel can just isolate itself forever from the murderous fanatics all around it, and live in peace with its borders closed, are quite out of touch with reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christianity opposes the right to abortion. And its adherents have a demonstrably bad track record.

do its current adherents present a genuine threat to liberty? I think not, unless you judge the right to slaughter your unborn child as the sole criterion of liberty

It is exactly comparable: the causes are the same.

don't let your hatred of Christianity cloud your judgment.

there is absolutely no comparison.

you can not compare an isolated mentally ill adherent killing in the name of his faith who was condemned by almost all his co-religionists (albeit in equivocal terms perhaps) and a world renowned, well respected, moderate, scholar of a religion openly advocating murder as a religious duty.

Show me your evidence that Muslims in the US are working to deprive individuals of their rights.

I think I specifically mentioned that I was referring primarily to Europe, though given that this is a US website, I understand the confusion. I have no evidence regarding the USA because I have not looked for it, nor am I asserting that is exists. I was asking in principle, using Europe as an example.

Perhaps I can help you to discover the roots of your illogic, though I think you ought to discover most of this yourself. Start by asking yourself how a major increase in Muslim population could possibly result in a curtailment of individual rights in the west. You're making an invalid assumption about the nature of government. Once you correctly identify your false assumption -- which pertains to the political process -- you should be able to see why. Check your assumptions.

my assumption is that when the Muslim population increases it finds its voice, becomes increasingly vociferous and demanding. this is already happening. muslims are already demanding that Britain changes its legal system, laws and foreign policy to mollify their anger (introduction of sharia for divorce disputes, legal protection for their religion, restrictions of freedom of speech, acts of terrorism if we do not change policy in the middle east (7/7) and continued threats.

my assumption is that we (UK) live in a democracy in which politicians attempt (sometimes at least) to reflect the views of their constituents and draft and pass legislation accordingly.

my assumption is that the British political class panders to p.c. special interest groups, particularly minorities and fashionable lefty causes which for some unknown reason has taken the Islamic cause as its own.

my assumption is that the British political elite are prepared to trash our traditions, national interest, sovereignty, liberty - indeed, they do so willingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do its current adherents present a genuine threat to liberty? I think not, unless you judge the right to slaughter your unborn child as the sole criterion of liberty
Your question is irrelevant, since I made it clear that Islam and Christianity are comparable in the kind of threat that they pose to rights. I don't at all downplay the threat from religion: I deny your implication that there is any actual difference in threat-level posed by Islam.
don't let your hatred of Christianity cloud your judgment.I think I specifically mentioned that I was referring primarily to Europe
The threat that exists in Europe is completely independent of Islam -- it is entirely European in origin. Europe is self-destructing when it comes to questions of individual rights. The threat would exist even if there didn't exist a single Muslim anywhere.
my assumption is that we (UK) live in a democracy in which politicians attempt (sometimes at least) to reflect the views of their constituents and draft and pass legislation accordingly.
Good. You're starting to identify the real threat. Focus on what actually causes erosion of rights, and stay away from red herrings like Muslims or Africans or the Welsh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your question is irrelevant, since I made it clear that Islam and Christianity are comparable in the kind of threat that they pose to rights. I don't at all downplay the threat from religion: I deny your implication that there is any actual difference in threat-level posed by Islam.

I think I have already showed fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity and their approach to individual rights. opposing abortion and gay marriage is not the same as suggesting wives can be beaten and homosexuality banned or even stoned to death.

The threat that exists in Europe is completely independent of Islam -- it is entirely European in origin. Europe is self-destructing when it comes to questions of individual rights. The threat would exist even if there didn't exist a single Muslim anywhere.

this is partially true, individual rights are being consistently undermined irrespective of Islam. but Islam poses an additional threat, one we do not need to import.

Good. You're starting to identify the real threat. Focus on what actually causes erosion of rights, and stay away from red herrings like Muslims or Africans or the Welsh.

yes, our craven politicians are the problem at the moment. but if Muslims were to form a majority in Europe, or even a significant minority, Islam would wield a lot of political power.

p.s. don't get me started on the Welsh... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I have already showed fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity and their approach to individual rights. opposing abortion and gay marriage is not the same as suggesting wives can be beaten and homosexuality banned or even stoned to death.

Fundamental is a word with a very specific meaning, in Epistemology. You have shown some differences in the behaviors of members of the two religions, in very different socio-political contexts. You have not addressed the fundamental nature of religion, or any fundamental difference between these two religions. (There aren't any.)

You have not shown any difference between the two religions in the same socio-political context: the US, where religious freedom is guaranteed and religion is separate from the State, and therefor it is assured that both religions are treated equally by the Law and by government. Please show Muslims in the US standing outside abortion clinics, intimidating teenage girls into falling in line with their views, or urging the State to clamp down on all vice, to the extent Christians are doing this.

I think you are confusing Western culture with Christianity. You are wrong, Western culture is fundamentally secular in nature. If you want to establish what Christianity is, fundamentally, you have to do two things:

1. Study the Bible, its view of God, man, its commandments and recommended punishments.

2. Look at times in history when the Church ruled over a territory. You'll find that they were at least as brutal and inconsiderate of human beings as Islam is, on the lands its mullahs control.

The fact that even in the most free country in the World, Christian teachings are driving people to murder, intimidate and oppress, shows how vicious and evil the Christian religion is. Fundamentally.

P.S. Dr. Tiller has been shot before, and has received hundreds of death threats, from hundreds of different Christians. There have been campaigns of terror bombings and murders against clinics and doctors in the US, in the past. Rumors of this being and isolated incident are highly exaggerated, and the only people who are rushing to call it isolated are the ones who, in the past, called Tiller a murderer who deserves to die.

And the reason why these Christians are running away from this: they fear the free, secular culture in the US, which would not tolerate them continuing to spread fundamental Christian ideology on network TV, now that its consequences have been revealed. Christianity has not improved, in its fundamentals, in the West, it has been driven out of the limelight by a superior ideology. But Christian teachings are exactly the same as they have been in the Dark Ages- the Bible wasn't rewritten.

Edited by Jake_Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fundamental is a word with a very specific meaning, in Epistemology.

I see, I accept I misused the term.

You have shown some differences in the behaviors of members of the two religions, in very different socio-political contexts.... You have not shown any difference between the two religions in the same socio-political context

the different behaviours I detailed were not in "very different socio-political contexts," for instance, three of the four 7/7 bombers were British born and raised. these guys were not from a backward arab culture, they were from the UK, all their lives, they went to a secular comprehensive school etc. many of the muslims calling for the death of Salman Rushdie in London were British born. most of the muslims calling for an end to free speech and the death of the danish cartoonists were born and raised in Britain.

I am not going to address the rest of your post in detail, as we are getting rather far away from the OP. but don't worry, your contempt of Christianity is duly noted. I won't try to stop you if you wish to irrationally assert that there are no differences between a religion that preaches death to unbelievers, resulting in thousands of deaths, in many different instances - in a variety of socio-political contexts - and a religion that preaches against judging others and love for one's neighbour and is, perhaps, responsible for the death of a handful of people in the past forty years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Muslim immigration; the question Europe has to ask itself is why hasn't there been the same success when it comes to integration as in other countries? racism within Europe may not be overt but I can assure you that it exists as a strong undercurrent in many of these countries. Europeans may prance around boasting about their 'enlightened' socialist paradise but underneath it all is an insidious collectivist and xenophobic under current where they're happy to 'respect' other people as so long as they conform not just to share values but to drop all remnants of their identity in favour of this newly constructed one by the collective.

Edited by Kaiwai Gardiner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not going to address the rest of your post in detail, as we are getting rather far away from the OP. but don't worry, your contempt of Christianity is duly noted. I won't try to stop you if you wish to irrationally assert that there are no differences between a religion that preaches death to unbelievers, resulting in thousands of deaths, in many different instances - in a variety of socio-political contexts - and a religion that preaches against judging others and love for one's neighbour and is, perhaps, responsible for the death of a handful of people in the past forty years.

Fundamentally, the two religions are very similar. The churches of one of them however have very little control of the society they are a part of. When they had that control, the society they controlled was just as murderous as the ones Islamists control today. That's not an expression of contempt, that is a factual statement about history.

Also, where specifically do Christian religions preach not judging others? To my knowledge, according to the Bible, under any of the major religions' interpretation: everyone will be judged by God, and sent to Hell if they don't measure up, in accordance with some arbitrary, destructive and extremely intolerant standards.

As for loving one's neighbor, that is an unbelievably stupid teaching Christianity has. Even if they meant it literally, but especially if you interpret it to mean that one must love everyone, indiscriminately.

and is, perhaps, responsible for the death of a handful of people in the past forty years.

The religion is responsible for nothing. The people who espouse and live for it, however, are responsible for plenty of murders, and many other crimes, including quite a few more than a handful of instances of erect penises inserted into children. Definitely not just a few. And the more any murderer or molester was raised as a Christian, or is a true believer, the more his actions are influenced by those beliefs. Surely, you agree that everyone's actions are influenced by their beliefs, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christianity opposes the right to abortion.

Christianity does not specifically oppose abortion, unless you wish to make the claim that the central governing body of less than a third of American Christians programs the opinions of all. Christianity in the U.S. is primarily Protestantism. Think for just a few seconds about what that term means, and what it tells you about the fundamental difference between modern Christianity, historical Christianity, and Islam past and present. Context is an important thing.

And its adherents have a demonstrably bad track record.

You are using the present tense here. Is that a typo?

Christianity did not give us the concept of separation of Church and State, certain nominal Christian individuals did.

Christianity apparently gave us everything bad done by Christians, but nothing good done by Christians. Or am I missing something?

You might want to read up on the history of Europe over the past couple of thousand years. Christian apostacy has long been a crime, so of course any thinker who wants to advocate a concept of individual rights will need to wear Christian vestements.

"Christian apostasy has long been a crime" ????? Where "has it long been a crime?" In the US? In what country are Christians stoned or decapitated or shot for turning away from Christianity? Tell me you are not conflating the entire history of the adherents of a religion into the reality of current adherents.

It is exactly comparable: the causes are the same.

The act of a lone person is "exactly the same" as the policies of the accepted leadership of a group (and therefore of the group)? because the "causes are the same?" So if an atheist goes out and kills a Christian because he has delusions that Christians are somehow a threat to him, that makes atheism "exactly the same" as Islam and Christianity? Wow.

Show me your evidence that Muslims in the US are working to deprive individuals of their rights. Where are the mass Muslim rallies in Los Angeles demanding the imposition of Ahmedinejad-style socialism and mullah-control of our lives. Conspicuously missing, despite there being about a half-million of the buggers in the greater LA area. Why is that?

The state forcefully preventing a man from pursuing his rational goals out of an arbitrary and collectivist fear is.

Here's your evidence: Muslim is Arabic for "one who submits" which is a hell of a lot more PC translation than "slave." One who submits takes orders from those to whom he submits. Read the koran and try to distill the essence of Islam ("submission" in arabic). It is submission to the will of God, through submission to the will of Muhammed, through submission to the will of the clerics, through submission to the will of Imams, through submission to the husband, for instance. Sound familiar? That's a classic fascist hierarchy, with disobedience commonly punishable by death, and always by force. Apostasy is commonly and openly punishable by death, as supported by mainstream Islamic leaders in the Middle East. This isn't a chapter in a history book, this is what Islam is. Today. This is what Muslims everywhere, if they are what they claim to be, i.e. followers of the teachings of Muhammed, believe.

If Islam did want to take over the world (just... hypothetically), would it serve their purpose to demonstrate loudly for the forced enslavement of all Americans? Or do you think that might tip their hand and wake up Americans to what they really wanted. Muslims don't need to do anything but be in a nation for their leaders to gain gradual control of that nation. It is a gradual process, not of wholesale demographic shifting, but of pocketing and pooling into Islamic strongholds, imposition of sharia in limited areas, growing those areas slowly, gradually. It is happening in Europe, yes, largely in response to the weakness of western socialism, but happening just the same. You need to read fewer history books about the evils of Christianity, and start reading the newspaper, and the demographic data of western states.

Perhaps I can help you to discover the roots of your illogic, though I think you ought to discover most of this yourself. Start by asking yourself how a major increase in Muslim population could possibly result in a curtailment of individual rights in the west. You're making an invalid assumption about the nature of government. Once you correctly identify your false assumption -- which pertains to the political process -- you should be able to see why. Check your assumptions.

I'll try: An increase in Muslims to a majority in a nation will allow that ideology to elect a controlling regime. They will use that power to do what Islam has always called for, the forced conversion of infidels to Islam. You seem to be reasoning that a democratic process can not lead to a coercive state. Are you assuming that Muslims would not willfully give up their rights? Then your assumption is based on a disregard of what Muslims are. They are, by definition, submitters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The actual issue in Europe is that they combine immigration with a values-system that plays to the Muslims' contempt of western values, a welfare system which allows the unproductive Muslims to idle and encourages the worst in any country to move there in hopes of a free meal ticket for life.

Bingo was indeed his name. The perfect receptor for the perfect stimulant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are using the present tense here. Is that a typo?

You can't talk about track records (or any other account of history) in the past tense. It would be silly, if the record of someone's activities was gone, you wouldn't have a subject for the conversation, the information has to exist to talk about it. So no, it is the one sentence in the whole thread that could not, under any circumstances, be a typo.

But, if you're suggesting that Christianity has changed, you'll have to hook me up with the new rules. The hotels I stayed in still have that old book, the one that talks about ten magical commandments, and suggests stoning people who break them.

But, if there's a new Bible, and it says the separation of Church and State is a great idea, please send me a copy. I'm all in.

So if an atheist goes out and kills a Christian because he has delusions that Christians are somehow a threat to him, that makes atheism "exactly the same" as Islam and Christianity?

That's a weak analogy. (I suggest looking it up, it is one variant of a faulty attempt at being logical)

Atheism is not a philosophy. It is not a religion. It contains no ideas. An atheist simply does not believe in God. That's all. You're saying that's comparable to a religion, and similar conclusion can be drawn from the two. It is illogical, you might as well be saying that 2+2=5.

Why are so many people on this forum doing this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every major religion is made up of a diverse group. In Christianity, there are hundreds of different branches disagreeing on silly things. In Islam, there are Shi'ites, Sunnis, and other groups. On one end of each, there will always be the fanatics (Taliban, KKK, bin Laden, Ann Coulter, etc.), as well as people who are non-practicing and only follow the religion in name. It is silly to identify one billion people, a sixth of Earth's, as each person not respecting individual rights.

In atheism, even though they believe in no God, also has a group of fanatics who wish to forcefully remove all religion. Same goes with almost every large group of people. This is why there are supremacists in every race and ethnic backround.

Immigration is best settled on the merits of each individual, not the group they belong to.

Fanaticism is the main threat, not each group as a whole.

Agrippa - an increase in any religious group to a majority can lead to a controlling regieme. If, for some odd reason, Muslims become the majority in the United States. They will not agree on everything. If, for some even greater odd reason, Muslim fanatics take over and try to convert everyone. In such an event, the rest of the country will fight back, just as if any other fanatic group took control.

Thankfully, we live in a diverse country, and the chances of any one group taking control like that is slim.

The only time in United States history when one group so thoruoghly dominated was by the patriots following the Revolution, and this came about through the acception of the new government by those who were for independence and by some who were neutral and against, and large, voluntary migrations by those who were loyal to Britain.

Edited by Peripeteia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are important differences between Christianity and Islam on a basic and one a "practical" level. The second testament is a lot more pacifistic than the koran, since Islam was spread by war by the Muhammad himself.

Sure you'll find some pretty brutal and violent parts in the first testament, but Jesus did "overwrite" quite a lot of it with stuff like “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” In the Islam on the other hand war against Unbelievers is very prominent, because it was what Muhammad did for most of his life.

Now that didn't stop Christians in the middle-ages to do the most terrible things and go to war in the name of god.

So the more important difference is the "practical" level:

A foremost chritian society managed to come with the concepts of secularism, democracy and individual freedom itself during a long a bloody battle with itself. That is the biggest difference between Islam and Christianity. Christians "learned" to live with those concepts of the modern society over the last 2 centuries or so; they adapted. Today the overwhelming majority of christians in the west do not fight secularism and democracy and advocate a state of god and those who actually do that, do it mostly peacefully (I can't remember a christian motivated act of terrorism).

Islam on the other did not undergo such a fundamental reform like Christianity has with guys like Luther. Islam did not develop a secular society, the concept was imported from the west and therefore mainstream Islam (which is conservative Islam) does perceive democracy as a foreign unislamic concept.

Even the most modern islamic country turkey, still struggles to unite Islam and Democracy even after ~80 years after Kemal introduced western reforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...