And why did you have to live in a compound? I say that if you (a westerner) move to an Islamic country, you assimilate just the same. You moved there. There didn't move to you.
I was only 8 so I had no say where I lived at the time. From what it sounds like you are saying though is that Westerners living in Islamic countries should assimilate. I would take it then that you think Westerners in places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait should then abide by Sharia law.
For both sets of immigrants, I'd say assimilation is very hard. You have a lot of things to learn, the natives obviously don't like you, and you don't know how long you'll be staying.
This is an absurd counter argument that relies on one assuming the two systems of law or government are equally accomodating of civil rights, tolerance, and justice.
Who said anything about civil rights, tolerance, and justice? We're talking about assimilating and the whether it is right for one country to protect its culture as MB as argued. If you are going to talke about civil liberties and tolerance don't you think banning a single religious group from building symbols of their religion is rather intolerant and a violation of their civil liberties?
Your argument was that assimilation would require a westerner to submit to Sharia law. I countered that such a stance was non-sensical since it requires one to consider all forms of government or law equally acceptable and/or binding. No doubt, the argument you intend to make is that it would be unfair to demand muslims integrate and not westerners in the vice versa situation. To which I would reply it is not unfair, because the systems take wholly different paths regarding fundamental human rights, particularly inasmuch as Sharia law is derived from a religion. Your argument fails because you are concluding that both systems are equally "righteous" simply due to their existence or use. Intolerant? Yes. Violation? That's a bit trickier, but it is, at a minimum, hypocritical, as I stated earlier.
You are making a pure value judgment based on culture. A Muslim could just as easily counter that Western culture is immoral and degrades human dignity. This is the why assimilation is a loaded issue because there is a clash of values yet to assimilate you are required to accept the majority cultures values. Fair enough if you think it is hypocritical as that is what I am getting at. Your counter though essentially furthers the hypocrisy by stating well our culture is better since our values are better. It seems to me that a Muslim that followed Sharia would say their culture and values are better.
One system intends for a consistent and just set of rights for all people. The other does not. I don't see what's to argue here. Secular liberal government is far superior to pseudo-theocratic patriarchal nonsense derived from one group's particular flavor of sky-god. No. It would only be hypocritical if upon assimilation, the values expected of them conflicted with their right to peaceful worship and existance. Banning honor killings has nothing to do with bigotry against a certain set of values, it's a proclamation of values, period. I have always been supportive of the philosophical argument that morals are "relative", but that does not preclude me from saying that one is undeniably more just, fair, and respectful to all humans than another.
This argument would work better if it wasn't for the fact that there was a negative correlation between the size of the immigrant population (and presumably Muslim population) in a canton and the percentage of voters in favor of the ban. It seems that it was actually the Swiss citizens who had fewer Muslim neighbors who were more likely to be against the ban. That sounds like ignorance-based intolerance to me. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/foreigners-in-switzerland.html
Not to derail the thread but I would point out that the stereotype of Islam being patriarchal and having a 'sky-god' is inaccurate or at least not what the religion teaches but what men through the centuries have (successfully?) created. Men and women are equal according to Islam's Quran. The Islam that you or most Americans are aware of through the media is stuff that has been corrupted and interpreted by men in societies with a patriarchal tradition in order to enforce their own agendas and power i.e. inheritance of property for women, dress code, apostasy, honor killings, etc.
No bias here. IIRC, Sharia law explicitly holds non-Muslims to a different (less stringent) standard. If so, submitting to Sharia may not require a lot of assimilation.
North America and the USA are not the same thing. The native language of the USA is the one used to write the Constitution. The native culture is the culture of its authors.
Wrong. I'm sure next you'll come with the fallacious fantasy that all of the founders were also devout religious men. If you don't agree with the founder just pretend that they agreed with you, right? There have always been large pockets of this country where people didn't speak English, irrespective of your personal hallucinations and delusions. Around 1900, there were nearly as many non-English speakers as English speakers in the country. There is a specific reason that a "national language" wasn't enumerated in the Constitution. I'm sure it really pisses you off, but you are simply not correct.
Then they should expect to have issues if they go to someone else's back yard and expect the people that live there to change. Maybe the religion should look at that, and adapt..... They are free to ban church towers too if they like, I would have the same reaction, it is THEIR country. Fine, then at least the Muslims immigrants know to stay out of Switzerland, and both sides can be happy. DD
The Continental Congress rejected having an official language as "undemocratic and a threat to individual liberty". What makes the US great is that it's up for grabs by any ethnicity/culture/race/anybody as long as the ideals are held up. Our country is very dynamic and evolving.
Oh what an excellent rejoinder... Paint bias towards government that protects individual liberties, religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and equality among race, creed, sex as a bad thing. If that's bias, I'm the most biased person possible... Yeah, just a tax for being a non-believer who wants to live "safely" and I would be worth "half" a muslim. Sorry, that's not assimilation - that's tyranny. Let me know when any muslim immigrant experiences the same in Europe. But that's really ancillary and moot, given the more important points above.
Absolutely. It is in English. But the country isn't, deal with it. Many of the British Parliamentary rules are written in and require speaking in Norman French. Nobody mistakes the Norman French language of Parliament for the language of England.
The native language of the USA - constructed the by the language of the Constitution - is English. Period.
