Islam in Europe...The Islamification of European Nations

Says the guy who "invented" the clever "rep link" in his signature (that was actually funny, I stole it).

Rep penis envy!

 

but when you pull the old "nobody takes you seriously, kid" routine, you have the authority to speak for others?

what is this, an 8th Grade class favorites contest?

who the hell cares how many posts or rep someone has?

I speak for most people based on the responses I read in these way too common thread titles, posted predictably by the same poster(s) over and over...

Izak's threads (in here) are the butt of jokes, and you as his cheerleader come to his defense every time now. not to mention- the rep points he receives DON'T come from D&D, I would wager.

the very last thing I am concerned about is freaking "rep points", but for the record- you and zak are the last two posters to give me feedback for Rockets related posts.

 

You are the basso/bigtexxx/trader_jorge/ATW of the left. Please stop stooping to their level, you're making the rest of us liberals look bad.

 

That's different, because it's me saying it .

Nope. You don't speak for most people.

 

are we seriously discussing merit based on rep?

What has this forum come to. Even most sensible people can acknowledge the weight that should be put into that. DD was the highest repped poster in this forum if you include his rep that was taken away, and yet he is one of the only contributing members ever banned.

 

DD probably repped himself a lot and gave out tons of rep to receive some back.

Anyway, let's get back to this crappy thread. We wouldn't want to derail such stupidity.

 

me personally- i am a secularist, and i think the world will eventually be governed by secular governments in the future. more importantly though, i am a strong advocate for democracy and equal rights. it must be recognized though that most of the world is still very religious, and you cannot easily separate culture from religion. lets say you are an atheist born in america with christian parents, you probably still have a christian world view similar to your parents. the two are very hard to separate, and are deeply embedded within an individual.

what i have noticed is that secularists as of late, (especially in europe) have disguised intolerance under the guise of secular principles. what is even more disappointing is noticing how those secularists who preach liberal ideas, have become just as intolerant as those religious conservatives who they most adamantly oppose. there has to be an understanding and respect of peoples culture, and it is apart of the human identity. the world is not as advanced as people would like to think, and the transition to secularism should not be aggressively pursued but recognized and accepted by those societies willing to make the change. eventually they will make the change, but it will take a long time.

in regards to sharia law in europe, the distinction must be made that what england allows islamic courts to dictate is civil law, not criminal law. similar to amish communities in america. these are freedoms that show the tolerance of a society,and even though i am opposed to religious law i recognize the importance for tolerance and representation. in france we see legislation banning religious face wear(burquas) in public settings. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/11/burqa-policies-europe_n_847575.html#s263174&title=France_ this legislation was supported by the french people and won a popular vote fair and square. the problem in this case is not democracy, but of obvious intolerance towards minorities. just because everyone says its ok, doesn't make it right. none the less, democracy was exercised and the people came to a vote.

 

What you do not mention in your above analysis is that the backlash against religious fervor does not come out of nowhere, but is actually a reaction to the experiences people have made regarding two main influences:

1) Immigration of very intolerant religious fanatics into previously extremely liberal and tolerant societies (e.g., Netherlands),

2) The world becoming a global village through new information technology.

ad 1):

If you look at a society like the Netherlands (or Germany or Scandinavian countries), they have been very liberal in terms of personal freedoms, at the latest since the 70s. This includes the freedom to practice your religion pretty much as you wish, equal rights for women, a liberal attitude towards gays, a liberal attitude towards drugs and did also include a general mindset of being polite and open-minded towards immigrants (of course with the exception of some idiotic xenophobes, who however were and still are a tiny majority - don't be fooled by Islamist ideologues who want to spread their message of intolerance and label everyone who opposes that as a xenophobe and/or racist).

Now insert some ultra-conservative, uneducated people who represent an ideology that does NOT believe in equal rights for women, gays, who think that people who do not share their ideology are infidels who are worth less and who see a liberal attitude regarding alcohol and drugs as a proof of weakness and moral depravity of Western societies, while however certainly being all too happy to receive high amounts of welfare benefits from the societies they so despise. I have experienced people like that first-hand - they basically spit in the face of the people who subsidize them, and treat them with contempt. I am not making this up. Obviously this does not mean all people who follow a certain religion, but still a significant enough percentage of them to leave a bad impression and to be viewed as a threat to the freedoms Western societies have fought long and hard for.

Obviously this will lead to a backlash. Not all of that backlash is justified - certainly not if it manifests itself as a general xenophobia or racism. However, if a society is totally weak towards intolerant people aggressively pushing their anti-freedom agenda, then this will lead to de facto restrictions of freedom. You cannot be tolerant towards intolerance forever.

This has nothing to do with not respecting "cultural values" - if you come to Holland, Germany or France, you better respect women. You do not refuse to talk to women. You do not treat women like whores just because they do not cover their face. You do not spread hatred against gays. To refuse to accept such behavior as "cultural values" is not intolerance. It is a society defending its core values against the attempt by followers of a certain ideology to push medieval values on everyone else.

ad 2):

The internet facilitates an exchange of ideas. Just look at this BBS - people from all over the world are arguing with each other, coming from very different backgrounds, and with rather different value systems. Obviously, this is a great thing. But it also means that value systems which were previously "protected" by national borders clash directly. Just imagine - in some countries in the Western world, certain drugs are not only legalized, but "hard" drugs (or their substitutes) are even distributed by the state, because one has realized that as a society, one is (arguably) better off that way as one avoids crimes related to obtaining drugs or funds for drugs and all the criminal activity around that. In contrast to that, even possession of such drugs would be sanctioned with the death penalty in certain countries in which Islam is state religion. You could think of many examples like homosexuality or rights of women where the value systems are almost the opposite of each other. Western civilizations have needed centuries to get to nearly equal rights for gays (also against strong opposition by e.g. the Catholic church). Are you going to tell homosexuals "oh you need to respect immigrants' cultural values, you intolerant person" if a homosexual opposes a Muslim who thinks of him as an animal, a sinner who deserves the death penalty?

You cannot just go and say "it's ok if it is "just" civil law". Basically, what you are saying (and what is partly practice in the UK and other countries) is that in civil law, one can agree to have certain relationships covered by contractual rules which are equivalent to civil law rules as you would have them in Muslim societies, including arbitration (where the arbiter could be freely chosen, e.g. an Imam) instead of civil law courts. However, although this is "only" civil law, this can lead to oppression being perpetuated. I don't think I need to explain this to you in detail. You can read, e.g. http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.de/ and similar sites to inform yourself about this.

You are wrong about this. This is not about "intolerance towards minorities". It is about preventing oppression against one gender being transported from people's country of origin (where women have not nearly the same rights as in Western societies) into Western societies. It's not about intolerance, but about preventing an erosion of women's rights. But this is a whole separate discussion which has also been covered in this forum already.

 

lets take muslims for an example even though muslims are not the only religious minorities in western europe which these social policies could potentially threaten) in western european states like england, france, germany, netherlands etc. muslims are a minority that make up less than ten percent of the population in each of those countries.

pretty much what you are saying is that- the reason european citizens have supported the implementation of social policies that reaffirm secular ideals at the cost of freedom of expression, is in direct response to their negative experiences with a religiously conservative minority who are pushing their cultural/religious agenda on their host state.

i dont buy this argument. first i find it hard to believe that a minority within a minority has made that big of a fuss in europe to really threaten the everyday lives of europeans. their are bigots, intolerant conservatives and extremists within any ethnicity or religion, its not just muslims. europe itself has experienced a very dark history of colonialism and racial intolerance, and it is hard for me to believe that hatred has fully dissipated within europe. it seems you are making generalizations of muslims in europe and are painting them to be mostly conservative. in short, yes i think that these laws are mostly inspired by racism and islamophobic propaganda. especially in times of economic downturns people seem to always like the scape goat of immigrants.you see this anywhere you go, even in islamic countries like iran their is strong anti-immigrant sentiment that make it hard for them to live comfortably.

you go on to talk about muslim women who can be judged in civil courts, and may be prone to unfair treatment by their male muslim counterparts. IMO this is a matter within the religious community and should be left alone, if that is ones culture so let it be. with family matters i have no objection to religious communities governing their own affairs that is their business that is JMO. ALTHOUGH there are boundaries that can be crossed- such as physical abuse etc., and these are the kinds of cases that should be handled in criminal courts. getting back to women though -lets be real though, women in the west are still not equal to men in terms of education, financial security, and even in religious establishments. for example, how many catholic women priests do you see? yet you do not see christian europeans really flaming this topic.during the ottoman empire, their was religious tolerance given to those who were monotheists with a jizya tax that was actually often less than the tax levied upon muslim citizens. the ottomans had a similar arrangement in the court system that allowed minority christian and jewish communities to govern their own civil disputes. the point being that if muslims allowed this kind of religious freedom hundreds of years ago, why shouldnt we allow it now?

this leads into an interesting point that you touch upon, which is the dilemma between distinct philosophical values that come into contact with each other when different cultures meet in a given country. their is a definite chance that one may influence and contradict the others value sytem, and here lies the core of the issue:how much leniency should be given to one, at the expense of possibly compromising ones way of life. i will leave this open ended, and let a society be the determiner of that. hopefully people make the right choice.

i think that people should recognize why many middle easterner's/muslims advocate more for a state that is influenced by religion, and why europeans/christians support secularism. the answer is simple: the middle east in its prime saw success through islamic states, and no seperation of church and state. islam was a positive experience for the middle east. whereas you have the exact opposite in europe- the church ruled and restricted intellectual and scientific innovation in much of europe before the reformation. the west in essence saw its rise through secularism, and in general had a bad experience with the church.

 

Have you even been to Europe at all? You might want to do some research on the suburbs in some French cities. And if the office of a satirical magazine gets firebombed because of a cartoon (to just name one example), you bet that that is a threat to a freedom in everyday life that Europeans cherish.

I would reckon that e.g. the immigrants to Germany are clearly more "conservative" (not to say backwards) than, e.g., the average Muslim in Istanbul.

I think that is an ignorant, uninformed and prejudiced statement to make.

There will always be ignorant people who think like that, but this is different - this is not a general attitude towards immigrants. People are perceptive and intelligent enough to understand that not every immigrant is acting the same. Some are more appreciative and willing to assimilate than others.

"Even"?

Wait wait wait...so you are saying discrimination is okay and justified by "cultural differences" as long as it doesn't cross the line to criminal actions?

Obviously, I think that is an outrageous point of view.

People criticize it (rightly so) - but let's be real - not very many people, let alone women, even want to be priests - people are becoming more agnostic all the time. And if you seriously want to equate not being able to becoming a priest to the kinds of discrimination and oppression women face in many Muslim countries and families, then, well, that's just silly.

Well, that is just clueless. If you think that we should have an equivalent kind of system to the dhimmi system in which "non-believers" have less rights and must pay a special tax, then we really don't need to continue the conversation.

I don't think you understand what "religious freedom" means. Non-Muslims were second class citizens under this system - people would cry bloody murder if Western civilizations were going to treat Muslims like non-Muslims were treated back then in the dhimmi system.

I don't know about the above. A stronger argument would be to say that the misery of the Middle East is to a large extent caused by it being stuck in a political and social control system that does not allow reform and that was really designed for the year 900 more than for the year 2012.

 

busy cleaning i will respond tomorrow, how much time do you spend on this fourm!??

 

A lot, to be honest, I usually have like 50 tabs open and recently several screens. Sadly, I am a multitasker and kind of addicted to this BBS .

 

Quick, someone meme ATW's computer with 50 islam tabs open ManBearPig style! :grin: