Well, I take “logically will happen” to mean “necessarily will be true depending upon premise X.” Multicultralism and tolerance as a virtue is the problem, not Muslims per se. That there is any increase in Muslims somewhere only means there are more Muslims and a higher probability of finding someone who supports sharia law, in the same way having more Christians somewhere only increases the probability that you’ll find someone who thinks homosexuals are evil
Well, I take “logically will happen” to mean "necessarily will be true depending upon premise X
That’s not what I meant by the term. “Logic” includes inductive reasoning – that is, the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observations. It is logical, then, for me to derive a reliable generalization of what Muslim actions might be in the future by observing what they’ve done in the past.
Multicultralism and tolerance as a virtue is the problem, not Muslims per se
We agree about the first part, but not about the second: individual Muslims may not be a problem, but their belief system is, as it is emphatically opposed to a number of freedoms that we maintain. For example, the separation of church and state; religious freedom (conversion from Islam is punishable by death); women’s rights.
That there is any increase in Muslims somewhere only means there are more Muslims and a higher probability of finding someone who supports sharia law, in the same way having more Christians somewhere only increases the probability that you’ll find someone who thinks homosexuals are evil
First, it is indeed a problem when a majority of the citizens of a European city decide that sharia law trumps the civil law. You do realize, don’t you, that that is happening in Muslim enclaves in some European cities where Muslims are now the majority?
Secondly, you are ignorant of the Christian view of homosexuality. It is regarded as a disorder. The person who suffers from the disorder is not evil, but homosexual acts are considered sinful. I speak here of the Catholic and Orthodox view, which make up the vast majority of Christians. There might be some nutcase Protestant wierdos who think homosexuals are evil, but it is not a common or orthodox view. I might add, by the way, that homosexuality is punishable by death in Islam.
1 Like
The solution seems obvious - protecting individuals within muslim communities that deviate from the norm. And apostates. And protect the rights of the children to freedom of religion\lack of, and their freedom from censure of books. Don’t give muslims as a group special rights, and the problem will be gone within a generation.
European cities with large numbers of Muslims have had sharia law become the de facto law.
Which cities?
Which cities?
Well London to begin with, but the list continues, Bruxelles, Barcelona, Malm’o -Rosegard.
Avila is exaggerating a bit but not lying, shari’a has become the de facto, not de lex, code of conduct in many of those cities neighborhoods. In some cases unless you’re a tourtist or rich (the famous multiculi elite) you have no option but to live in those areas where women must be covered not to be considered prostitutes, and homosexuality and alcohol should only exists behind the closed doors of hypocrisy (urban muslims love getting drunk as much as any other urban Northern European folk).
Well I have the dubious honor of having finally read the almost 1600 page directory of Breivik’s thoughts which he calls his manifesto. Having read brilliant Ted Kaczinski’s manifesto and concise Mein Kampf, I have only three theories.
Brevik is mentally deficient or medically normal but dumb. Probably not likely given his recent “accomplishments”.
Breivik actually believes in his cause which renders everything complex or abstract unnecessary in his world and his words.
This whole thing was planned, maybe to make everyone who utters the words “Cultural Marxism” a red flag.
Cap Swine, Europe is being demographically changed, there are no two ways about it. It may or may not be a good thing, that is another question, but Europe’s demographics are changing specifically towards a preferred group of immigrants who profess a very inclusive philosophy, one that directs metaphysics, ethics, politics and even aesthetics (they are iconoclasts and love geometrical art / mosaics).
Maybe it’s not a politically preferred group, maybe Muslims are the bulk of the Third World in Eurasiafrica.
Latin Americans might be to the United States and Canada what Afro Asians are to Europe and Australia, but Catholicism is a far cry from Islam.
It’s true what Ayn Rand said that everyone needs a philosophy and that it’s only a matter of choosing one or obtaining one by default. Europe doesn’t have a philosophy other than pluralism which clearly states that they adhere to more that one philosophy at the same time. In that way I can see how 2000 years ago I might have despised Polytheists.
There is one valid point in Breivik’s manifesto and video. Why are utterly Nationalist, anti immigration, states such as Taiwan, S Korea and Japan not vilified by western media and culture. Why is it generally tolerated that Taiwanese and even less Japanese don’t accept foreign immigration but we make a big scandal if a European politician even implies going back to those policies…
And furthermore, why aren’t Taiwanese and South Koreans sinking in poverty and sadism if that is what Nationalism inexorably brings about?
Why are utterly Nationalist, anti immigration, states such as Taiwan, S Korea and Japan not vilified by western media and culture. Why is it generally tolerated that Taiwanese and even less Japanese don’t accept foreign immigration but we make a big scandal if a European politician even implies going back to those policies
Because they aren’t white and they aren’t historically a part of Western Civilization. Western Civilization is the real target of multiculturalists. In this country, European discoverers are routinely demonized, and the virtues of this country are ignored while its sins – slavery, Indian suprression – are trumpeted.
Europe doesn’t believe in anything anymore, and so is particularly vulnerable to mass immigration of people whose philosophy is inherently foreign to it.
Breivik was initially described as a “Christian fundamentalist”, but there’s no evidence of that – he did not belong to any church. Rather he saw Christianity as a potentially unifying force.
Far as I know, the Muslim neighborhoods are perfectly voluntary. The Muslims are simply cruel to those who might mock their social norms, but they don’t have the authority to say “You must leave.”. Again, that’s as far as I know. As long as it is voluntary, I do not care.
Also, the Muslim/Sharia “laws” people keep yapping about are cased in Private Arbitration court. All parties involved must consent to such private arbitration. Again, nothing involuntary or coercive here.
Also, the Muslim/Sharia “laws” people keep yapping about are cased in Private Arbitration court. All parties involved must consent to such private arbitration. Again, nothing involuntary or coercive here.
In such a community I would expect to find that people with little social power (women, mainly) are coerced into consenting to such arbitration. I’ve got no evidence, just the understanding that familial pressure backed up with a backhand is sufficient to make many people ignore more powerful laws that would otherwise protect them.