NationStates Jolt Archive

I've heard a lot of people saying that Muslims who are coming to live in Europe are going to try to take over and make the EU into some sort of Caliphate. I think this is bullshit. Can you show any (rational) reason as to why we should be afraid of them?

Yes Muslims may have some impact on politics in Europe, but is this a bad thing? Muslims are likely to politically aid those of us who would like to see the practice of abortion ended in Europe, and I think they would also be more inclined to oppose wars against Muslim countries.

Well it is to the Christian EU media we have at the moment

Well there are some muslim terrorists, so the more simple minded among us think that means all muslims are terrorists. And nobody wants terrorists immigrating to their countries, now do they?

Of course it's irrational. But that's never stopped anyone.

The Muslims are coming! (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,456751,00.html)

Well, a bunch of Christians are (were?) trying to move to South Carolina and secede and make it a theocratic state.

http://christianexodus.org/

i think its bullshit.

daily mail writers trying to find reasons to justify their xenophobia and sell papers is all.

I've heard a lot of people saying that Muslims who are coming to live in Europe are going to try to take over and make the EU into some sort of Caliphate. I think this is bullshit. Can you show any (rational) reason as to why we should be afraid of them?

Yes Muslims may have some impact on politics in Europe, but is this a bad thing? Muslims are likely to politically aid those of us who would like to see the practice of abortion ended in Europe, and I think they would also be more inclined to oppose wars against Muslim countries.There are only a few radical muslims in europe. the rest is rather friendly, kind of like the old traditional middle eastern hospitality.

Can you show any (rational) reason as to why we should be afraid of them?

Yes Muslims may have some impact on politics in Europe, but is this a bad thing? Muslims are likely to politically aid those of us who would like to see the practice of abortion ended in Europe........

I don't know about afraid, but that's a reason right there.

I've heard a lot of people saying that Muslims who are coming to live in Europe are going to try to take over and make the EU into some sort of Caliphate. I think this is bullshit. Can you show any (rational) reason as to why we should be afraid of them?

Yes Muslims may have some impact on politics in Europe, but is this a bad thing? Muslims are likely to politically aid those of us who would like to see the practice of abortion ended in Europe, and I think they would also be more inclined to oppose wars against Muslim countries.

"rational reason".....culture...unless an immigrant is willing to assimilate into the native culture they shouldn't be allowed in....every national culture is unique and should be protected........

"rational reason".....culture...unless an immigrant is willing to assimilate into the native culture they shouldn't be allowed in....every national culture is unique and should be protected........

Why?

Well, a bunch of Christians are (were?) trying to move to South Carolina and secede and make it a theocratic state.

http://christianexodus.org/Wow.
Well, since it's called Exodus, let them go. Maybe to the shores of the Sea of Serenity?

"rational reason".....culture...unless an immigrant is willing to assimilate into the native culture they shouldn't be allowed in....every national culture is unique and should be protected........

Ah, yes. People like you would beat my grandmother for speaking her own language. I mean she wasn't "assimilated" enough, you see. People like you make "looking different" or "talking funny" a crime, since those are of course hallmarks of a *gasp* different culture.

Why?

Because a state needs it's citizens to have a common cultural background.

Look at Africa, it was divided by colonial interests rather than cultural differences. Throughout the de-colonisation period a LOT of fighting broke out.

"rational reason".....culture...unless an immigrant is willing to assimilate into the native culture they shouldn't be allowed in....every national culture is unique and should be protected........

just like british culture hasn't changed since the norman invasion, since immigration of indian citizens of the empire in the early part of the 20th century (note that the national favourite dish of the uk is..... chicken tikka massala), since the rise of the USA as a world cultural exporter.... no, national culture is sacred and can never change... :rolleyes:

don't give me that traditionalist nonsense.

You’ know I was thinking you had made a fairly intelligent thread until I read this:

Muslims are likely to politically aid those of us who would like to see the practice of abortion ended in Europe.

why would Muslims do that, do you think they are some kind of hyper religious race and that telling women what to do with there own bodies would come naturally to them?

do you not think that changing laws is exactly what Xenophobes are frightened of?

why why why did you feel the need to drag this into the OP at all?

Edit: as you can see I’ve been holding my tongue from a pro-lifer for months now (her bullshit advice that I caught her shoving at two girls was “if you get an abortion you could not have kids” somehow ignoring actually having a baby)

Muslims are likely to politically aid those of us who would like to see the practice of abortion ended in Europe........
I don't know about afraid, but that's a reason right there.

Well for a start the EU doesnt have a general law on abortion and even if they did Muslims would still be in the minority even if Turkey joined the EU. Even if it got to the legislation stage the UK would veto it.

I've heard a lot of people saying that Muslims who are coming to live in Europe are going to try to take over and make the EU into some sort of Caliphate. I think this is bullshit. Can you show any (rational) reason as to why we should be afraid of them?

Yes Muslims may have some impact on politics in Europe, but is this a bad thing? Muslims are likely to politically aid those of us who would like to see the practice of abortion ended in Europe, and I think they would also be more inclined to oppose wars against Muslim countries.

So what you are really saying is that their religous beliefs serve your own agenda, and so they must be alright.

Well, a bunch of Christians are (were?) trying to move to South Carolina and secede and make it a theocratic state.

http://christianexodus.org/
Sorry this thread is about Europe.

There are only a few radical muslims in europe. the rest is rather friendly, kind of like the old traditional middle eastern hospitality.
I look forward to life with my Muslim brethren.

"rational reason".....culture...unless an immigrant is willing to assimilate into the native culture they shouldn't be allowed in....every national culture is unique and should be protected........
I agree, immigrants should assimilate to the degree that is necessary, such as learning the language of the country, but they should be also permitted to retain most of their customs, that doesn't harm anyone.

I don't know about afraid, but that's a reason right there.
There are too many people who are pro-choice in Europe. Thankfully this abomination of human rights has not yet come to Ireland but it infects most of Europe.

Because a state needs it's citizens to have a common cultural background.

Look at Africa, it was divided by colonial interests rather than cultural differences. Throughout the de-colonisation period a LOT of fighting broke out.

there hasn't been fighting in europe in the last 2000 years? i think we've only really had a lasting peace in this continent since then end of ww2 and the formation of the EU, and even then that's only true if you count western europe anyway.

seperating peoples by tribe, culture or religion leads almost indefinately to conflict.... multiculuralism and tolerance is the only way to go :)

Well for a start the EU doesnt have a general law on abortion and even if they did Muslims would still be in the minority even if Turkey joined the EU. Even if it got to the legislation stage the UK would veto it.


It's a matter of weltanschaung though isn't it? I'm not arguing that culture has to be static or needs preserving, but I think it's fair to have some sort of veto over the ideology of prospective immigrants. New != better, or even good.

I mean, I wouldn't let Nazis or people who wanted to re-criminalize homosexuality in either; even if the were numerically so small they could never really influence national policy.

There are too many people who are pro-choice in Europe. Thankfully this abomination of human rights has not yet come to Ireland but it infects most of Europe.

as opposed to the human right abomination of forcing women to do what you want with there bodies, oddly enough the troll RealAmerica posted that idea and yes it is the mark of tyranny (one of the smartest things I’ve seen here dare I say)

And if you want to debate abortion/be bitter go make a new thread

You’ know I was thinking you had made a fairly intelligent thread until I read this:

why would Muslims do that, do you think they are some kind of hyper religious race and that telling women what to do with there own bodies would come naturally to them?
Not all Muslims obviously, but to my knowledge a high proportion of them are opposed to abortion. I for one would welcome these views in Europe.

I'm also not interested in "telling women what to do with there own bodies". I am interested in protecting the rights of the unborn.

Well for a start the EU doesnt have a general law on abortion and even if they did Muslims would still be in the minority even if Turkey joined the EU. Even if it got to the legislation stage the UK would veto it.
Who knows, we could see attempts to get abortion protected as an involable civil right in EU law. The UK would not veto that, unless its populace became significantly more Christian or Muslim.

So what you are really saying is that their religous beliefs serve your own agenda, and so they must be alright.
That's just one of a number of good reasons. Another one is that xenophobia is bullshit.

And if you want to debate abortion/be bitter go make a new thread

abortion does have little to do with the (supposed) issue of muslim immigration into the EU. at least, that's what i think

i fail to see how the two are truly linked...

I agree, immigrants should assimilate to the degree that is necessary, such as learning the language of the country, but they should be also permitted to retain most of their customs, that doesn't harm anyone.

I have no problems keeping their customs as long as they don't try to displace the local customs......if Muslims grew to such a strength in a country that they could influence voting you could have a serious problem protecting Irish culture, ....what would happen if they could decree that all women must wear a head covering, or that swim wear was inappropriate on the beach? drinking beer was immoral? Irish music blasphemous? couldn't happen? it could and has many times in history....

Not all Muslims obviously, but to my knowledge a high proportion of them are opposed to abortion. I for one would welcome these views in Europe.

Too bad Muslims will be culturally assimilated then in fact many of the people I’ve met from nations that ban abortion don’t support it at all let alone the fact that your using a damn big brush here

In fact is the major reason your supporting this to push your own political agenda?

I'm also not interested in "telling women what to do with there own bodies". I am interested in protecting the rights of the unborn.

Then invent some kind of weird incubator system unless I’m allowed to forcefully extract nutrients from a woman’s uterus no sack of meat that may one day live can do so

Who knows, we could see attempts to get abortion protected as an involable civil right in EU law. The UK would not veto that, unless its populace became significantly more Christian or Muslim.

No the U.K would since it cuts to far into national sovereignty

there hasn't been fighting in europe in the last 2000 years? i think we've only really had a lasting peace in this continent since then end of ww2 and the formation of the EU, and even then that's only true if you count western europe anyway.

seperating peoples by tribe, culture or religion leads almost indefinately to conflict.... multiculuralism and tolerance is the only way to go :)

It depends on the readiness to accept multiculturalism and tolerance by a society. The image of muslims in Europe is not the image of say Indians or Cubans, it comes with a lot of cultural baggage and xenophobia. For some reason, Europe believes that the average muslim will put his religion before the well being of a secular government. Wether this is true or not, i believe xenophobia will make it so anyway.

as opposed to the human right abomination of forcing women to do what you want with there bodies,
Unfortunately for you, the right to an abortion is not recognised as a human right. The right to life (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm) is, however.

abortion does have little to do with the (supposed) issue of muslim immigration into the EU. at least, that's what i think

You see, I'm saying that the more Muslims immigrate to Europe, the more pro-life people there will be. I want that to happen.

Thankfully this abomination of human rights has not yet come to Ireland but it infects most of Europe.

The fuck....?


I have watched here on General in all your various incarnations as you slowly but surely have descended into a religious (and I loathe to use it) zealot.

Harsh, maybe - but don't judge others for their choices because it doesn't agree with you. Isn't there something in the book somewhere about that?Judge not, lest ye be judged?

Unfortunately for you, the right to an abortion is not recognised as a human right. The right to life (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm) is, however.

nothing to do with abortion I have the right to medical treatment in the UK especially if its to get rid of a tumour

You see, I'm saying that the more Muslims immigrate to Europe, the more pro-life people there will be. I want that to happen.

that very idea put you just as bad as the Xenophobes only you see Muslims as your little political army in fact you do know that vast amounts of immigrants come from eastern Europe which is Pro-rights and thus do you think they shouldn’t be allowed because they don’t fit your objectives?

edit: never thought I'd put eastern Europe as pro-rights :D

I have watched here on General in all your various incarnations as you slowly but surely have descended into a religious (and I loathe to use it) zealot.
I am not a religious zealot. Being pro-life doesn't make me one.

Harsh, maybe - but don't judge others for their choices because it doesn't agree with you. Isn't there something in the book somewhere about that?Judge not, lest ye be judged?
I never once mentioned that my religion motivates my opinion on this topic. I see it as a human rights issue and as a member of Amnesty I care a lot about such things.

Abortion is murder, in my opinion, and thus shouldn't be allowed in a civilised society. Banning murder, slavery and other human rights violations isn't "being judgemental", it's the right thing to do.

that very idea put you just as bad as the Xenophobes only you see Muslims as your little political army in fact you do know that vast amounts of immigrants come from eastern Europe which is Pro-rights and thus do you think they shouldn’t be allowed because they don’t fit your objectives?
Right. I favour Muslim immigration, thus I resemble a xenophobe. :rolleyes:

I didn't say that I only agreed with allowing in people who support my political views. Eastern Europeans have the right to live here, as their countries are mostly EU members too.

I put as much faith in the earabia conspiracy theory as I do in the theory that JFK was assassinated by parasitic microbes controlling Lee Harvey Oswald's mind in order to raise the levels of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere.

I am not a religious zealot. Being pro-life doesn't make me one.
No, I'm saying your use of certain words makes you sound verrry close to a lot of Christian zealots.

Referring to abortion as an "abomination of human rights" for example. Now that well may be your opinion on the matter, but it sounds quite close to fire and brimstone.


I never once mentioned that my religion motivates my opinion on this topic. I see it as a human rights issue and as a member of Amnesty I care a lot about such things.
Yet it always comes down to religion with this topic. Defining it as 'murder' or 'human rights' defines the unborn as human or having rights at all. Then that leads to religious beliefs.

Always, always does.

Abortion is murder, in my opinion, and thus shouldn't be allowed in a civilised society. Banning murder, slavery and other human rights violations isn't "being judgemental", it's the right thing to do.

Abortion = murder if you consider it alive. A lot don't.

No, I'm saying your use of certain words makes you sound verrry close to a lot of Christian zealots.

Referring to abortion as an "abomination of human rights" for example. Now that well may be your opinion on the matter, but it sounds quite close to fire and brimstone.

What a strong case you have there. :rolleyes:

Yet it always comes down to religion with this topic. Defining it as 'murder' or 'human rights' defines the unborn as human or having rights at all. Then that leads to religious beliefs.

Always, always does.
No, it is actually possible to debate this without religion. I'll show you.

Abortion = murder if you consider it alive. A lot don't.
A foetus in the womb may not be technically alive, but it will be. Aborting it will end its chance at having a life. The result is the exact same as killing it as soon as it's born. It makes no sense that the first is legal in almost every EU country, yet the second would get the perpetrator locked up for decades.

What a strong case you have there. :rolleyes:
Not my fault that's the way you come across....


No, it is actually possible to debate this without religion. I'll show you.


A foetus in the womb may not be technically alive, but it will be. Aborting it will end its chance at having a life. The result is the exact same as killing it as soon as it's born. It makes no sense that the first is legal in almost every EU country, yet the second would get the perpetrator locked up for decades.

Condoms prevent that too. You against them too?

nothing to do with abortion I have the right to medical treatment in the UK especially if its to get rid of a tumour. . .

I have to wonder how depraved we have become, as a species, to regard a new life, with the potential of curing AIDs, becoming a great leader, or even being the guy down the block that you'd give your life for, as a parasite.

The problem will not be excaberated now, but in twenty years it will be excaberated since the only people having kids at a level to replace their population are the Muslim immigrants. The remainder of Europe's birth rates are atrocious by comparison, and the changes will not be seen until twenty, thirty years down the road. (and I know this is about Europe, but poor Japan actually has a negative birth rate... oh where will I get my anime in 20 years? :)

Condoms prevent that too. You against them too?
Abortion removes a life that will certainly exist. That is the same as murder. Condoms merely remove the potential of life existing.

Abortion removes a life that will certainly exist.

What about miscarriage?

And what does the probability of life matter, anyway? I could see a quantitative difference based on probability ("it takes millions of sperm to equal the moral value of a fetus") but not a qualitative one.

Abortion removes a life that will certainly exist. That is the same as murder. Condoms merely remove the potential of life existing.

Aborting it will end its chance at having a life.

Am I wrong in taking this at the most base level: It is the prevention, or the prevention for the potential even, of life that you have the most problem with?

On a moral scale, is there any difference between preventing something from having a chance to live before it can survive on it's own (a la a foetus), and preventing it from forming in the first place (by use of a condom)?

You are against abortion but are not against condoms?

For me they are one and the same:

The both prevent life. They are equatable. End of discussion.

The whole idea of "potential for life" being a morally relevant trait seems nonsense to me anyway.

We have no obligation to create life. We only have an obligation to protect it (in some forms, at least) once it is created.

The whole idea of "potential for life" being a morally relevant trait seems nonsense to me anyway.

We have no obligation to create life. We only have an obligation to protect it (in some forms, at least) once it is created.

That's exactly my point.

Then we get back to 'when is it created'? And at that stage - I'm out.

If it was a choice between communism and islam, I'd bring back the Soviet Union.

I've heard a lot of people saying that Muslims who are coming to live in Europe are going to try to take over and make the EU into some sort of Caliphate. I think this is bullshit. Can you show any (rational) reason as to why we should be afraid of them?

Yes Muslims may have some impact on politics in Europe, but is this a bad thing? Muslims are likely to politically aid those of us who would like to see the practice of abortion ended in Europe, and I think they would also be more inclined to oppose wars against Muslim countries.

Of Muslim influence upon Europe is malign. Bereft of statistics, I admit a degree of ambiguity exists, however I should imagine that Islamic immgration is an economic burden upon their host nations, and thus, given the cultural dislocation and concern they inevitabaly induce, what does Islamic immgration bring to Europe?

In any case, would you not consider it a sad reflection upon the cause of pacifistic, anachronistic elements of society that you require large immigrant populations to lend your cause credibility? One might infer, through the suggestion that pro-life requires Islamic support to wield any power, that it is at odds with the democratic majority of the pertinent states, and thus, surely Islamic immgration artificaially alters democracy against those with a genuine right to citizenship.

Can you show any (rational) reason as to why we should be afraid of them?

French violence hits fresh peak (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4413250.stm) (BBC)

French police face Muslim 'intifada' (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20061011-115458-7275r.htm) (Washington Times)

Muslims are waging civil war against us, claims police union (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wmuslims05.xml) (Telegraph)

10 Officers Shot as Riots Worsen in French Cities (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/international/europe/07france.html?ex=1289019600&en=e7e867f571abceac&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) (New York Times)

And many more.

seperating peoples by tribe, culture or religion leads almost indefinately to conflict.... multiculuralism and tolerance is the only way to go

Uhh, you can ask that people assimilate without resorting to "separating peoples by tribe, culture, or religion."

And similarly, people can assimilate while still practicing their own customs in their own home.

None of this stuff is inconsistent with a simple nationalist policy of maintaining some cultural integrity.

And I'll point out with ironic glee that Muslim societies tend to be overwhelmingly not "multiculturalist" or "tolerant."

So what you are really saying is that their religous beliefs serve your own agenda, and so they must be alright.

Welcome to the politics of immigration. :lol: It's the same way in America.

It's all the language of self-serving bureaucrats, even the disingenuous paeans to multiculturalism. And, of course, fat, complacent western children who've never had a bad run-in with an immigrant gang.

I'm for muslim immigration to Europe. I don't care which religion people belong to that come here. I know a lot of muslims and I'm thankful for that because I like knowing people from different cultures. People should judge everyone individually and not as a group.

French violence hits fresh peak (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4413250.stm) (BBC)

French police face Muslim 'intifada' (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20061011-115458-7275r.htm) (Washington Times)

Muslims are waging civil war against us, claims police union (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wmuslims05.xml) (Telegraph)

10 Officers Shot as Riots Worsen in French Cities (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/international/europe/07france.html?ex=1289019600&en=e7e867f571abceac&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) (New York Times)

If you put a lot of people in ghettos were unemployment rates are high and were the conditions are piss poor you can count on some riots. It doesn't surprise me a bit that these riots occured.

Nobody "put" them there. They went there themselves.

And I don't buy that it's because their conditions; they live in France, which has some of the most liberal welfare laws in the world. And there are other poor people in France who aren't rioting. These people just happen to be overwhelmingly North African Muslims.

And hey! Did you forget the riots in Denmark? Obviously these people are rioting for reasons independent of French labor policies.

They'd do a lot better if they stayed in their respective nations and rioted against their own governments. Maybe then they'd force some necessary changes on them and they wouldn't be so desperate to get the hell out of their in the ifrst place.

I'm for muslim immigration to Europe. I don't care which religion people belong to that come here. I know a lot of muslims and I'm thankful for that because I like knowing people from different cultures. People should judge everyone individually and not as a group.

Why? Because they add another turd to the multicultural cesspool that is England?

I'm just glad the US is blessed by a border with Mexico.

I'm just glad the US is blessed by a border with Mexico.

And cursed by a border with Canada ;)

And I don't buy that it's because their conditions; they live in France, which has some of the most liberal welfare laws in the world. And there are other poor people in France who aren't rioting. These people just happen to be overwhelmingly North African Muslims.

What does their origin or faith have to do with the fact they were demonstrating against police heavyhandedness and later social inequality and poverty? Nothing, that's what.

They identified themselves as French first and foremost. It was foreign commentators that went "Oh look. Muslims". Remember when the French journalists were kidnapped in Iraq for the reason of the headscarf ban, they told us.

There were marches in the streets from French Muslims of all origins chanting: "We are French, then Muslim".


They'd do a lot better if they stayed in their respective nations and rioted against their own governments. Maybe then they'd force some necessary changes on them and they wouldn't be so desperate to get the hell out of their in the ifrst place.

Welcome to Europe. Open borders. Tends to bring problems along with a helluva lot of benefits.

What does their origin or faith have to do with the fact they were demonstrating against police heavyhandedness and later social inequality and poverty? Nothing, that's what.

They identified themselves as French first and foremost. It was foreign commentators that went "Oh look. Muslims". Remember when the French journalists were kidnapped in Iraq for the reason of the headscarf ban, they told us.

There were marches in the streets from French Muslims of all origins chanting: "We are French, then Muslim".



Welcome to Europe. Open borders. Tends to bring problems along with a helluva lot of benefits.

These are benefits in the sense of welfare payments?

These are benefits in the sense of welfare payments?
Well, my doctor(s) are quite beneficial at times.

Well, my doctor(s) are quite beneficial at times.

Provided they have an adequate grasp of English, I would concur. However, if you are an immigrant, you have my contempt.

These are benefits in the sense of welfare payments?

Benefits of having open borders across dozens of countries that used to be at each others throats.

Yes, I know there are problems, but given the choice between modern Europe with open borders (with its problems) and older Europe wary, distrustful and aggressive towards each other (with those problems), I know which one I'd pick in a heart beat.

Assimilation should extend to two things:

1.) the immigrant need to be able to speak the language of the country they're emigrating to. This is needed due to situations with emergencies, conversing with authorities, it is much more convenient for the natives of the country, etc.

2.) The immigrants must abandon any of they're customs that violate the law. Why? Because the law should not be violated, enough said.

Other than that, who cares.

Benefits of having open borders across dozens of countries that used to be at each others throats.

Yes, I know there are problems, but given the choice between modern Europe with open borders (with its problems) and older Europe wary, distrustful and aggressive towards each other (with those problems), I know which one I'd pick in a heart beat.

So do I, although I fear we may be in different camps.

Assimilation should extend to two things:

1.) the immigrant need to be able to speak the language of the country they're emigrating to. This is needed due to situations with emergencies, conversing with authorities, it is much more convenient for the natives of the country, etc.


Exactly. And it doesn't exactly hurt the fabric of the society to learn a bit of the other languages too. I've no problem with learning French or a bit of Polish, Cantonese, maybe Russian.... it's called education and expanding the mind. Anyone who's against that is just afraid of learning something new.


2.) The immigrants must abandon any of they're customs that violate the law. Why? Because the law should not be violated, enough said.

Other than that, who cares.

Exactly.

Provided they have an adequate grasp of English, I would concur.
Luckily all the doctors I have had and met who came from abroad have had a genuinely good grasp of English. Along with pretty much every migrant I have ever had to deal with.

However, if you are an immigrant, you have my contempt.
Any reason for this?

So do I, although I fear we may be in different camps.

Oh well.


Well you're English anyway. You've never liked the French or Germans. :p

The past history of Europe has so many wars based on religion, which includes the recent wars in Yugoslavia, where a major difference between serbs and croats is that the former is orthodox and latter catholic.

Some of these divisions from religion and culture are just below the surface today, as seen with a recent TV spoof in Belgium, between the French and German speaking areas (roughly Catholic and non-Catholic). Islam still has the idea that religion comes above nations. Many immigrants stress how they are French, British, or Europeans above being Muslims, but the fear remains that the clash of West and East, Islam and Christianity, that Osama Bin Ladden calls for, will happen.

1.) the immigrant need to be able to speak the language of the country they're emigrating to. This is needed due to situations with emergencies, conversing with authorities, it is much more convenient for the natives of the country, etc.
Agreed 100%.

2.) The immigrants must abandon any of they're customs that violate the law. Why? Because the law should not be violated, enough said.
Sure, although laws should not irrationally target specific customs for the hell of it, of course.

Europe has already solved one problem that other countries on other continents will need to solve, that of one common currency. Next Europe will need to solve that language problem developing or choosing one common language. That will solve many of the problems (but not all) of the problems that immigrants have after their arrival in a new country. Just one generation learns the new common language and retains the old and the struggle transition is greatly eased.

Did i forget to mention: The earth is one country and mankind it's citzens.

Luckily all the doctors I have had and met who came from abroad have had a genuinely good grasp of English. Along with pretty much every migrant I have ever had to deal with.


Any reason for this?

They deserve nothing more, for having been a drain upon the English state for decades, and contributing only to cultural and social devolution.

Europe has already solved one problem that other countries on other continents will need to solve, that of one common currency.
I'm all for a common currency, but not until there is substantial EU reform, making it accountable to the people who live in it, and it's powers more clearly codified.

Next Europe will need to solve that language problem developing or choosing one common language. That will solve many of the problems (but not all) of the problems that immigrants have after their arrival in a new country. Just one generation learns the new common language and retains the old and the struggle transition is greatly eased.
We do have a common language: English. Universally accepted.:p

Oh well.


Well you're English anyway. You've never liked the French or Germans. :p

All I will say is that they started it. They invaded Poland.

and contributing only to cultural and social devolution.

Lets take away all foreign influence from England shall we?

Gunpowder: Can't have that evil Chinese "dragon powder" on sacred anglo-soil can we?

Paper: more evil influence from the orient, it must be destroyed

the Internet: that damn yankee cesspool of idiocy

modern medicine: we must purge the anglo fatherland of the evil muslim and greek influence.

your house: 90 degree angles! Parallel lines! all evil contraptions of the muslims and the indians, it has to go.

The printing press: damn germans trying to seduce our women with their mass produced literature.

electricity: Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, all damn foreigners.

Go back to your mud hut and eat some straw, at least you'll be purely English.

Go back to your mud hut and eat some straw, at least you'll be purely English.

*African tribes arrive to dismantle muds huts*

"Ours! Motherfucker."

They deserve nothing more, for having been a drain upon the English state for decades, and contributing only to cultural and social devolution.
Well, like I said, all but three of the doctors (and I've had quite a few...) I've had have been migrants, either from the Caribbean or the Indian subcontinent. Hardly a drain, I'd say. Just as there bums from afar who come here to bum around, there's plenty of British bums too. By the same logic, do you hold all Brits in contempt too? Plenty of people come to this country, and have been for donkey's years (there was a large Chinese/Japanese population in London by the turn of the century, for example) and do a good damn job. Mostly ones that we, the born British population, simply don't want to to.

I won't comment too much on 'cultural and social devolution' because it is purely a matter of opinion and personal preference.

And there is no English state, but that's being pedantic.

All I will say is that they started it. They invaded Poland.
Fawlty Towers. Genius comedy.

I'm all for a common currency, but not until there is substantial EU reform, making it accountable to the people who live in it, and it's powers more clearly codified.


We do have a common language: English. Universally accepted.:p

You aren't French by any chance are you?????;)

You aren't French by any chance are you?????;)
British.

Lets take away all foreign influence from England shall we?

Gunpowder: Can't have that evil Chinese "dragon powder" on sacred anglo-soil can we?

Paper: more evil influence from the orient, it must be destroyed

the Internet: that damn yankee cesspool of idiocy

modern medicine: we must purge the anglo fatherland of the evil muslim and greek influence.

your house: 90 degree angles! Parallel lines! all evil contraptions of the muslims and the indians, it has to go.

The printing press: damn germans trying to seduce our women with their mass produced literature.

electricity: Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, all damn foreigners.

Go back to your mud hut and eat some straw, at least you'll be purely English.

However, I'm sure the introduction of Gunpowder into Europe was not followed by thousands of the Chinese lower classes......

Foreign influence is, naturally, both benefical and malign, however, technical inventions and progressions have never precipitated immigration from those who invented them. A tad fascetious I suggest.

I've heard a lot of people saying that Muslims who are coming to live in Europe are going to try to take over and make the EU into some sort of Caliphate. I think this is bullshit. Can you show any (rational) reason as to why we should be afraid of them?

Yes Muslims may have some impact on politics in Europe, but is this a bad thing? Muslims are likely to politically aid those of us who would like to see the practice of abortion ended in Europe, and I think they would also be more inclined to oppose wars against Muslim countries.

It would seem to me that the ones leaving the middle east for europe are the ones trying to escape the religious extremism so prevalent in the middle east.

Well, like I said, all but three of the doctors (and I've had quite a few...) I've had have been migrants, either from the Caribbean or the Indian subcontinent. Hardly a drain, I'd say. Just as there bums from afar who come here to bum around, there's plenty of British bums too. By the same logic, do you hold all Brits in contempt too? Plenty of people come to this country, and have been for donkey's years (there was a large Chinese/Japanese population in London by the turn of the century, for example) and do a good damn job. Mostly ones that we, the born British population, simply don't want to to.

I won't comment too much on 'cultural and social devolution' because it is purely a matter of opinion and personal preference.

And there is no English state, but that's being pedantic.

No. Indian ethnic immigrants are economically beneficial, however, no other ethnic group to have immigrated in the twentieth century are. If we simply made British unemployed work, mass immigration would be precluded.

No. Indian ethnic immigrants are economically beneficial, however, no other ethnic group to have immigrated in the twentieth century are. If we simply made British unemployed work, mass immigration would be precluded.

Ahem. The Irish emigres may have something to say about that.

Ahem. The Irish emigres may have something to say about that.

Indeed, we built most of England, I think we've earned a mention.

No. Indian ethnic immigrants are economically beneficial, however, no other ethnic group to have immigrated in the twentieth century are.
Indian subcontinent generally means (and I also meant) Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma/Myanmar.

So, why can't non-Indian migrants be economically beneficial, then?
If we simply made British unemployed work, mass immigration would be precluded.
Not quite as simple as that. What if there is a shortage of say, physics teachers, caused by a lack of Physics university graduates? You can't magic professionals into existence, unfortunately.

Ahem. The Irish emigres may have something to say about that.
As would my great-grandparents...

Indian subcontinent generally means (and I also meant) Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma/Myanmar.

So, why can't non-Indian migrants be economically beneficial, then?

Not quite as simple as that. What if there is a shortage of say, physics teachers, caused by a lack of Physics university graduates? You can't magic professionals into existence, unfortunately.

There is, however, a difference between selective immigration where the state seeks immigrants, and mass immigration.

There is, however, a difference between selective immigration where the state seeks immigrants, and mass immigration.
And I would agree that we currently lean too much towards the latter and not the former.

British.

Yes, I somehow guessed that my friend. You blokes do speak a rather funny style of American, don't cha know, for sure.

And I would agree that we currently lean too much towards the latter and not the former.

eh?

eh?
I.e. towards mass and not selective, although a balance is what's needed.

Ahem. The Irish emigres may have something to say about that.

Your comment points out a fact that is often forgotten in discussions like this: which is that we have all come from somewhere else. The Irish came to what we call Ireland from somewhere else. The Brits came to England from somewhere else. The East-Indians came from somewhere else. I could go on and on, but I won't. So where is that somewhere else? Oh, ya that would be Mother Africa wouldn't it. Scenes proves what Baha'ullah says: The earth is but one country and mankind it's citizens.

Yes, I somehow guessed that my friend. You blokes do speak a rather funny style of American, don't cha know, for sure.
Oh, right. My sarcasm detector is switched off after a week with nearly no sleep. (Yes Grandma, you do need to bleed that bloody gurgling radiator...:mad:. ) If I start babbling nonsense, that's why.

No. Indian ethnic immigrants are economically beneficial, however, no other ethnic group to have immigrated in the twentieth century are. If we simply made British unemployed work, mass immigration would be precluded.

Lets ignore right now the fact that the British imperial policies from the past centuries both caused the current emigration from India and in their time resulted in the deathes of millions of Indians. :rolleyes:

Lets ignore right now the fact that the British imperial policies from the past centuries both caused the current emigration from India and in their time resulted in the deathes of millions of Indians. :rolleyes:
I'd disagree, but nevertheless ex-colonial and commonwealth links mean that if someone from India would want to move, they'd probably choose Britian over, say, France.

I'd disagree, but nevertheless ex-colonial and commonwealth links mean that if someone from India would want to move, they'd probably choose Britian over, say, France.

The current Indian education system was created by British Imperium. Most of Indians best and brightest throughout both colonial and commonwealth history were expected to render their services in Britain first. I think that there is quite a link between the two.

Oh, right. My sarcasm detector is switched off after a week with nearly no sleep. (Yes Grandma, you do need to bleed that bloody gurgling radiator...:mad:. ) If I start babbling nonsense, that's why.

That's funny. I am not sure what it means; but it is funny. I hope you get some sleep soon.

I also believe that non Muslims should have the right to live in Islamic countries. Muslims can be the most hospitable people but their governments and their rules of law are weird, even for Muslims. For example, even though you live for many years in Saudi Arabia, you're not considered a citizen nor are you allowed to go for citizenship (they even do this with other fellow Muslims). You're considered a second class. African and Asian Muslims in the Gulf who lived there almost all their lives and even their children (born in the Gulf) are considered second citizens and can be deported anytime. At least the West is good at when it comes to immigration (little bit shaky after the 9/11 attacks but understandable). When communities come together, they come to understand their differences and bridge a bond.

Provided they have an adequate grasp of English, I would concur. However, if you are an immigrant, you have my contempt.

Even to the second generation who think of themselves as Brits ?


Lets ignore right now the fact that the British imperial policies from the past centuries both caused the current emigration from India and in their time resulted in the deathes of millions of Indians

I'd disagree..

Why? It could be argued that by ruining the local economies by protectionist policies, the working class had to look for opportunities elsewhere. The Patel emigration is a classic case. And by replacing local education with English, all the doctors and engineers trained in English had to work somewhere...and India did not have much opportunities for everyone so where else they would go but Britain? Before the current wave of software immigrants, it was the doctors who emigrated to UK and later to the US.

ok, let's not even go to what Trotskylvania's point. What about the fact that British imperialistic policies of development saw mass migration of Indian laborers to British colonies in the Caribbean, East Africa, South Africa, Fiji etc...to the point that they are now very sizeable minorities there.

It amuses me when Brits (I am talking about the few who do) bitch about immigration, when it was them who went to all these places uninvited and set off these events in motion.

Am I wrong in taking this at the most base level: It is the prevention, or the prevention for the potential even, of life that you have the most problem with?

On a moral scale, is there any difference between preventing something from having a chance to live before it can survive on it's own (a la a foetus), and preventing it from forming in the first place (by use of a condom)?

You are against abortion but are not against condoms?

I'm undecided about the matter of contraception, but I see a big difference between using it and aborting after conception.

I have a problem with the prevention of life, not the prevention of the potential for it. I agree with Soheran that there is no obligation to create life; only an obligation to protect life.

Sex without a condom doesn't mean that you'll get a child. Conception means you will get a child, because it is beginning to develop into a human.

What about miscarriage?
That's an exception. If the life will not exist, why abort it?

And what does the probability of life matter, anyway?
It matters, for pragmatic purposes.

French violence hits fresh peak (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4413250.stm) (BBC)

French police face Muslim 'intifada' (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20061011-115458-7275r.htm) (Washington Times)

Muslims are waging civil war against us, claims police union (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wmuslims05.xml) (Telegraph)
Being in a newspaper doesn't make it true (well yes, riots happen, but the idea that they're religiously motivated is a silly assertion). There are a few Islamists among these communities, but most of the immigrants are not.

And I don't buy that it's because their conditions; they live in France, which has some of the most liberal welfare laws in the world.
What do you mean by that??

I'm undecided about the matter of contraception, but I see a big difference between using it and aborting after conception.

Well if you are undecided, may I suggest you think deep and hard about it. Because on a base level they both do the same thing: Prevent life from occuring - as is (and has been) the position of the Church/Papacy, including the position of a figure you much admire, John Paul II.


Sex without a condom doesn't mean that you'll get a child. Conception means you will get a child, because it is beginning to develop into a human.



And we get to the crux of the issue (as I assumed we would): When does life begin? At conception? At birth? Or when, if taken from the womb, the child could support itself and thereby continue to live (the argument being that until that happens it is little more than a parasite as it fits the definition of a parasitic organism).

And it is at this point I stop - because this is a point where there can be no reconciliation.

Why? It could be argued that by ruining the local economies by protectionist policies, the working class had to look for opportunities elsewhere. The Patel emigration is a classic case. And by replacing local education with English, all the doctors and engineers trained in English had to work somewhere...and India did not have much opportunities for everyone so where else they would go but Britain? Before the current wave of software immigrants, it was the doctors who emigrated to UK and later to the US.
Yes, and that's what I meant by Commonwealth and linguistical links. The Empire was dead and buried many, many years ago. Most Britons alive today aren't responsible for it, and most people in now free Empire states weren't under it either. It may have created migration links between Britain and other countries, but isn't responsible for it today.

ok, let's not even go to what Trotskylvania's point. What about the fact that British imperialistic policies of development saw mass migration of Indian laborers to British colonies in the Caribbean, East Africa, South Africa, Fiji etc...to the point that they are now very sizeable minorities there.
Again, that was years ago, and not, I think, relevant to immigration today. If anything, it proves the point I made earlier that immigration is nothing new.

It amuses me when Brits (I am talking about the few who do) bitch about immigration, when it was them who went to all these places uninvited and set off these events in motion.
Pretty much all Brits are descended from immigrants anyway, if not from more recently then definitely from Anglo-Saxons. I've got Irish and Ashkenazi (?sp) Jewish ancestry, for example.

EDIT: I didn't come across as bitching about immigration, did I?

The current Indian education system was created by British Imperium. Most of Indians best and brightest throughout both colonial and commonwealth history were expected to render their services in Britain first. I think that there is quite a link between the two.
I don't think we ever expected Indians to come over to the UK, although there's no doubt some did for the reasons you described. Do you have a link to that?

All I will say is that they started it. They invaded Poland.

No, they invaded Germany. Ya heard me.

The Empire was dead and buried many, many years ago. ...

Again, that was years ago,

Ok, before I say anything else, I wanna say this. There is some serious difference in the time perspective between western nations in general and ancient countries like China, India etc.

When you say "that was years ago, we moved on, we suggest you do so too", I can see why you are saying it...I mean I would understand your point of view (and I do understand now), but I won't accept it.

Time simply operates in a different scale for us. It is just like yesterday when Brits colonised us...when compared to the few millenia recorded history which is drummed into my mind.



EDIT: I didn't come across as bitching about immigration, did I?


Of course not. I was referring to blessed :rolleyes: Chris.

People will always find someone to blaim their problems on instead of dealing with them. If it's not the jews, the mexicans or gays it's the muslims. In the future it could aswell be the christians who will be profiled as the bad guys. Actually, I won't care. People are stupid in general, they're refusing to learn from history and intolerance will go on and on and on. It's the intolerant people who are creating the problems.

I have a problem with the prevention of life, not the prevention of the potential for it.

The problem is that there is no difference at all between the "prevention of life" and the "prevention of the potential for it."

How do you prevent life? Merely by preventing the potential for it.

Ok, before I say anything else, I wanna say this. There is some serious difference in the time perspective between western nations in general and ancient countries like China, India etc.

When you say "that was years ago, we moved on, we suggest you do so too", I can see why you are saying it...I mean I would understand your point of view (and I do understand now), but I won't accept it.

Time simply operates in a different scale for us. It is just like yesterday when Brits colonised us...when compared to the few millenia recorded history which is drummed into my mind.
Yeah, I can now understand your point of view too. I suppose it is much easier for us to say "this generation isn't responsible, let's move on" when we aren't actually living with the consequences of imperialism. Especially when the colonial age was relatively more recent in other countries.

I won't say that the Empire was always a bad thing, we left behind a few democracies and pockets of wealth. It's just a shame we had to fuck it up as often as possible and leave ex-colonial states to pick up the pieces, as well and commit what seems like cultural genocide.

Of course not. I was referring to blessed :rolleyes: Chris.
Phew, my paranoia circuits were kicking in.

The problem is that there is no difference at all between the "prevention of life" and the "prevention of the potential for it."

Potential =/= certainty.

And we get to the crux of the issue (as I assumed we would): When does life begin? At conception? At birth? Or when, if taken from the womb, the child could support itself and thereby continue to live (the argument being that until that happens it is little more than a parasite as it fits the definition of a parasitic organism).
That is not the crux of the issue. I'm not even claiming that a foetus is a life in the same way as a born child. I'm not claiming that life begins at conception.

What I'm saying is that the result of aborting a foetus and killing a child directly after birth is the same result. It makes no sense that one is legal and the latter is criminal.

I find the cold-hearted description of unborn children as "tumours" and "parasites" to be rather disingenuous and uncompassionate.

They should work on selected imigrants. Only people that can give something back to the country should be allowed in.

For example, in Australia its easier to be welcomed if you already have a wife. Why? Because the majority of imigrants are single white man, which means there is a shortage of women. So, women are encouraged to go to Australia.

In the US, only people who can offer something are welcomed, unless they are ilegal. In Europe, it should be the same.

Unless in Europe they need badly new people to breed. Because it looks like europeans both dislike sex and children. Otherwise they wouldnt be needing imigrants to boost population growth.

Unless in Europe they need badly new people to breed. Because it looks like europeans both dislike sex and children. Otherwise they wouldnt be needing imigrants to boost population growth.
I'm sick of this. Europe (let's say the EU) has a population of 496 million people spread over an area one-sixth the size of North America (population: 514 million). Australia has only 20 million people spread over an area almost twice the size of the EU.

Who can reasonably say there are not enough people in Europe?

Then shut your borders.

Why do you need imigrants? To clean your bathroons, to take lower jobs that europeans dont want to do?

I mean, France already has a lot of unemployed people. Its economy is not doing that well. And still they are willing to take millions of imigrants for nothing?

Sounds dumb to me. And still, its beter to shelter someone from a eastern europe contry instead of an african muslim, because at least the culture and religion is more similar.

Potential =/= certainty.


You're dancing on the head of a pin.

That is not the crux of the issue. I'm not even claiming that a foetus is a life in the same way as a born child. I'm not claiming that life begins at conception.
You contradict yourself here above, with below:


What I'm saying is that the result of aborting a foetus and killing a child directly after birth is the same result. It makes no sense that one is legal and the latter is criminal.

If the foetus is not a life in the same way as a born child (as you yourself admit), how is aborting something that does not fit the same definitions of a born child (and therefore 'alive'), the same as killing something that is alive? One isn't alive like the other, but killing it is the same as something that is..... :confused: I think you need to clarify what is what in your own mind.

I find the cold-hearted description of unborn children as "tumours" and "parasites" to be rather disingenuous and uncompassionate.
So? Life isn't rosy. Life sometimes is cold. It actually fits the definition of a parasite until it reaches the stage of development where, if removed from the womb, it could survive of its own accord.

It would seem to me that the ones leaving the middle east for europe are the ones trying to escape the religious extremism so prevalent in the middle east.
I think more of them are escaping the poverty so prevalent in the middle east. I don't want religious extremists.

I also believe that non Muslims should have the right to live in Islamic countries.
Mostly, they do.

If the foetus is not a life in the same way as a born child (as you yourself admit), how is aborting something that does not fit the same definitions of a born child (and therefore 'alive'), the same as killing something that is alive? One isn't alive like the other, but killing it is the same as something that is..... :confused: I think you need to clarify what is what in your own mind.
Because the result is the same. Do you know what 'result' means?

Either way, there will be one less person living a life. In America, after 1973, about a quarter of each generation has been wiped out before they even got a chance.

So? Life isn't rosy. Life sometimes is cold.
That's no excuse to make it colder.

Because the result is the same. Do you know what 'result' means?

Therefore, you are against condoms because the result is the same as abortion. No life. Call one 'murder', the other 'prevention'. The result is : No life.


Either way, there will be one less person living a life. In America, after 1973, about a quarter of each generation has been wiped out before they even got a chance.

Feh.

Matter of opinion. One could say exactly the same thing about the use of contraceptives - "wiped out before they even got a chance"

And note my emphasis: before they even got a chance... the potential was wiped out.

That's no excuse to make it colder.

I help my fellow man as much as I can, within my means. Play the guilt trip on someone else, someone who shares the belief that a foetus is a person - the same as you or I.

Good grief. Only NS General could turn immigration into an abortion debate.

Either way, there will be one less person living a life. In America, after 1973, about a quarter of each generation has been wiped out before they even got a chance.

Bear in mind that two in every three conceptions end in a miscarriage naturally. In other words, if your figures are correct, deliberate terminations still only account for one eleventh of all aborted pregnancies. Doesn't seem nearly so significant now does it?

The concern comes when they consider all man made law to be inherrently evil and demand Islam as an alternative, which was what many of the protesters regarding the cartoon controvosy were saying.