NationStates Jolt Archive

Unless Muslim immigrants try to enforce [their morality] through the political system. People, especially in the Netherlands, are afraid that Muslims could vote away things like gay rights and women's right to leave home and such.Yes, and deportation of political opponents seems to be the favorite way of opposing them. I'm glad we don't have that shit in the US here yet, else you'd have about 150,000,000 US refugees who were expelled for being Democrats (or Republicans).
I fail to grasp this kind of thinking which says it is OK for fundamentalists to impose their backwardness on us just because they are Muslim.

Aren't you one of those who screams loudest against the Christian versions of them?

No I couldn't. If there was such an attack, forced deportation of Muslims would be a good idea, both for security and to protect them from angry vigilantes.[Deporting Muslims] would be the end of liberalization in Europe. You know, freedom. Then we're back in Prewar Germany. So maybe my fears aren't terribly unjustified and unlikely after all.
Imposing Sharia would be the end of liberalism in Europe. But you think that's OK.

If I understand you, and I'm not sure I do, I agree that deporting Muslims from Europe would be the end of freedom. Personally, I don;t want anyone's fundamentalist religion imposed on my country (US) or on Europe or Asia or Africe. I think fundamental religion is the next great enemy of freedom that we will have to fight.

Wow, a whole thread constructed on a strawman.

I fail to grasp this kind of thinking which says it is OK for fundamentalists to impose their backwardness on us just because they are Muslim.

How is it, exactly, that you went from me supporting the right of people to move across borders (i.e, immigrate), to me saying it's "OK for fundamentalists to impose" anything on us?

You think they're the same thing, don't you?

Aren't you one of those who screams loudest against the Christian versions of them?

Well, it just so happens that Christian versions of "impositions" over the state are the only kinds I've ever encountered. I don't "scream" loudest, no. But I do support secularism and separation of Church and State.

Imposing Sharia would be the end of liberalism in Europe. But you think that's OK.

More of this strawman. I've never said "gosh, I'd be completely OK with Sharia Law! I think Sharia is swell!"

People, especially in the Netherlands, are afraid that Muslims could vote away things like gay rights and women's right to leave home and such.No we're not. I'm not, nor is anyone I know as far as I'm informed.
Besides, it's in the constitution, so they'd need 2/3rd majority before they could even think of changing it. And that's even ignoring that most of them wouldn't want to.

Their not imposing their shit if they're legally and democratically voting it into law, that probably will not happen but according to the idealogie of western liberalism, people are allowed to have any religion, and support any political party they want to, bit of a catch-22 really. :/

You could make the argument that they're trying to violate the rights of others, therefore violating J.S. Mill's "Right to swing fist ends at other mans nose" rule, but Couldn't you, under W. Liberalism, democratically vote that out of power?

I guess it comes down to this: Can you tolerate the intolerant?

Well, I think this highlights the failings of a democracy, in that so much power is given to a raw majority so that they can take away the rights of the minority. If it were otherwise, and there was not the possibility of tyranny by majority, then immigration could take place without endangering the rights of others. As it is, however, it does indeed endanger the minority.

I think this may just highlight Ardee's stereotyping of Muslims and xenophobia more than anything.

Ya’ll already outlaw Nazism. Just do the same to any Sharia party that pops up and I’m sure it will vanish just the same.

I think this may just highlight Ardee's stereotyping of Muslims and xenophobia more than anything.

I think you may be correct.

I quite like the "Leitkultur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leitkultur)" (*gasp* an evil-sounding German word!) idea. The original, Bassam Tibi (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,440340,00.html), idea, not the stuff people made up afterwards.

Seems to be pretty common sense, a compromise, so to speak. Perhaps not ideal as far as my idealism is concerned, but probably the best "real-world" practical solution.

Fact of the matter is that extreme Muslims are no more likely to be content with being religious by themselves than extreme Christians - in contemporary Europe at least all the evidence points to those Muslims being less tolerant than those Christians.

So considering that they effectively reject a liberal society, I'd argue the same as I would with any other anti-liberal group: Either go somewhere else and live with other people like you, or accept that liberalism and certain rights are the foundation of this society, and you will simply have to deal with it.

I think this may just highlight Ardee's stereotyping of Muslims and xenophobia more than anything.
Sorry I made myself look completely anti-Muslim in my OP. I'm not, and I don't want to deport the Muslims of Europe - at least not those who don't want to impose Sharia on everyone.

I'm just refuting the implication that I'm some lowlife fascist for wanting to deport theocratic immigrants. Moving to a country to build a good life for yourself is immigration, and I support that. Moving to a country to impose your ideology on the natives is imperialism.

I'm just refuting the implication that I'm some lowlife fascist for wanting to deport theocratic immigrants. Moving to a country to build a good life for yourself is immigration, and I support that. Moving to a country to impose your ideology on the natives is imperialism.

It's not a real concern, though. Not only are Muslims a minority, but, more importantly, theocratic radicals wanting to impose their views on the rest of us are a tiny minority within that minority... and they haven't even got a political party to represent them.

Especially here in France, where any party which is based on religion automatically dooms itself to failure. There are no "Christian Democrats" or any other religious party among the major parties; we have a couple of hardline Christian ones among the minor parties, but they never get many votes.

Sorry I made myself look completely anti-Muslim in my OP. I'm not, and I don't want to deport the Muslims of Europe - at least not those who don't want to impose Sharia on everyone.

I'm just refuting the implication that I'm some lowlife fascist for wanting to deport theocratic immigrants. Moving to a country to build a good life for yourself is immigration, and I support that. Moving to a country to impose your ideology on the natives is imperialism.

I don't believe you are completely anti-Muslim, I just think you are more frightened of them and their beliefs than you need be.

Arridia made that point pretty well.

But another thing: should we (US, I don't know where you hail from) begin exiling our radical theocratic Christians? It seems like exiling and deporting people for their religious and political beliefs is largely similar to the legislation you fear muslims will pass.

Wow, a whole thread constructed on a strawman.



How is it, exactly, that you went from me supporting the right of people to move across borders (i.e, immigrate), to me saying it's "OK for fundamentalists to impose" anything on us?

You think they're the same thing, don't you?



Well, it just so happens that Christian versions of "impositions" over the state are the only kinds I've ever encountered. I don't "scream" loudest, no. But I do support secularism and separation of Church and State.



More of this strawman. I've never said "gosh, I'd be completely OK with Sharia Law! I think Sharia is swell!"

One should not answer a strawman with a strawman. There is no right to immigrate.

There is no right to immigrate.
But there is a right to free movement (unless it's private land, I suppose, but the beauty is that government's claim to any given piece of land is purely based on amoral "I've got more guns than you!", so rights don't enter into it).

I don't believe you are completely anti-Muslim, I just think you are more frightened of them and their beliefs than you need be.
I'm not. It's a hypothetical future situation I'm talking about.

But another thing: should we (US, I don't know where you hail from) begin exiling our radical theocratic Christians? It seems like exiling and deporting people for their religious and political beliefs is largely similar to the legislation you fear muslims will pass.
It's not the same. Theocratic immigrants would be biting the hand that feeds. By imposing their ideology on us they would be rebuking our good grace to let them into the country. I don't see why imperialists deserve to stay.

The native Christians are a more difficult case. They should probably be suppressed in some way.


It's not a real concern, though. Not only are Muslims a minority, but, more importantly, theocratic radicals wanting to impose their views on the rest of us are a tiny minority within that minority... and they haven't even got a political party to represent them.
I agree, this is the current reality. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation.