Do Muslims want to Assimilate?

[LuisDantas]

Ah, I think I see where you're coming from, LD.

I call it "living a pipe dream."

Call it whatever you like. It is only fair.

I have some names of my own for things such as nationalism and praise of religious totalitarism, after all.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes. And inherently harmful, unlike religious differences.

Do you mean nationalism is necessarily harmful, whilst religion isn't?
*ponders*

How so?

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you mean nationalism is necessarily harmful, whilst religion isn't?
*ponders*

How so?

Oh, I do indeed mean that.

Nationalism is fiction with no other purpose but to create a sense of union, usually at the expense of fraternity towards other people.

Religion may suffer from the same defect, but it is at least capable of refusing to.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Oh, I do indeed mean that.

Nationalism is fiction with no other purpose but to create a sense of union, usually at the expense of fraternity towards other people.

Religion may suffer from the same defect, but it is at least capable of refusing to.

Do you think it's possible for nationalism to not cross the border into jingoism? Do you think it's possible to be a uniting force for good on occasion?
Sorry on all the questions, just interested. I know your opinion in general terms, trying to work out how universal it is, etc. Perhaps it's a separate thread or PM convo?

 

[Agondonter]

Call it whatever you like. It is only fair.

I have some names of my own for things such as nationalism and praise of religious totalitarism, after all.

Sure, and in principle I agree with you. But not all cultures are created equal. Superior cultures have the right -- indeed, the obligation -- to protect themselves from the influx and domination of inferior ones.

What you're advocating requires cooperation from both sides, but we're not seeing that. What we're seeing is an inferior culture demanding dominance over its hosts.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure, and in principle I agree with you. But not all cultures are created equal. Superior cultures have the right -- indeed, the obligation -- to protect themselves from the influx and domination of inferior ones.

If they are superior cultures in any meaningful sense, they should be capable of showing their merits to "foreigners" and look forward to having them tell their tale back at their native lands.

That, not closing borders or using firepower, will protect them.

What you're advocating requires cooperation from both sides, but we're not seeing that. What we're seeing is an inferior culture demanding dominance over its hosts.

Convincing others to have a measure of steem and respect for one's culture is paramount and has no substitute, if a culture is to survive.

That said, a static culture might as well die anyway.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you think it's possible for nationalism to not cross the border into jingoism?

No, I don't. Nor do I see a point in even making the attempt.

Do you think it's possible to be a uniting force for good on occasion?

Perhaps if the Zombie Apocalypse turns out to be a thing. Not sure even then.

Sorry on all the questions, just interested. I know your opinion in general terms, trying to work out how universal it is, etc. Perhaps it's a separate thread or PM convo?

Perhaps.

 

[icehorse]

If they are superior cultures in any meaningful sense, they should be capable of showing their merits to "foreigners" and look forward to having them tell their tale back at their native lands.

That, not closing borders or using firepower, will protect them.

Convincing others to have a measure of steem and respect for one's culture is paramount and has no substitute, if a culture is to survive.

That said, a static culture might as well die anyway.

I think less successful cultures demonstrate their lack of success through immigration trends - no?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

It is entirely unreasonable IMO to expect people to simply want to renounce their heritages as a matter of course simply because they are surrounded by people who do not share of it.

If that heritage includes the belief in executing blasphemers and apostates, then it isn't unreasonable.

Frankly, I don't think you really understand the situation. A quick check shows that Brazil has 0.02% Muslims, compared with 2.3% in Britain. In other words, I am 100 times more likely to encounter a Muslim than you are. By my calculation, based on the surveys and census returns, there are half a million people in Britain who want sharia enforced. Britain has suffered Muslim terrorist attacks and several are thwarted every year. I cannot find one case of a Muslim terrorist attack in Brazil.

When you come as close to being blown up as I once did or when a Brazilian is murdered for "insulting Islam", then you will be (just possibly) entitled to tell Europeans what to think.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think less successful cultures demonstrate their lack of success through immigration trends - no?

Quite frankly, I don't think the answer matters anymore. We can't afford to care whether certain cultures are more or less succesful than others.

 

[LuisDantas]

If that heritage includes the belief in executing blasphemers and apostates, then it isn't unreasonable.

Well, that is exactly why exchange of cultural references is such a priority for Muslims over most anyone else.

Frankly, I don't think you really understand the situation.

I agree. What would the odds be?

A quick check shows that Brazil has 0.02% Muslims, compared with 2.3% in Britain. In other words, I am 100 times more likely to encounter a Muslim than you are. By my calculation, based on the surveys and census returns, there are half a million people in Britain who want sharia enforced. Britain has suffered Muslim terrorist attacks and several are thwarted every year. I cannot find one case of a Muslim terrorist attack in Brazil.

It is indeed a very different situation, including when it comes to the general social, economical and political structure (or lack of same) of Brazil.

When you come as close to being blown up as I once did or when a Brazilian is murdered for "insulting Islam", then you will be (just possibly) entitled to tell Europeans what to think.

Like I would wait...

 

[icehorse]

Quite frankly, I don't think the answer matters anymore. We can't afford to care whether certain cultures are more or less succesful than others.

I would hope you'd know by now that I don't think in terms of cultures. I think in terms of human rights and values, and I'm happy to constrain myself to working from only those perspectives. Notice that means I have no interest in defending nation states.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would hope you'd know by now that I don't think in terms of cultures. I think in terms of human rights and values, and I'm happy to constrain myself to working from only those perspectives. Notice that means I have no interest in defending nation states.

Yes, I noticed that. But there is no real alternative to dealing with cultural differences. We must be ambassadors to each other and learn to let go of those boundaries as peacefully as we can.

 

[Agondonter]

If they are superior cultures in any meaningful sense, they should be capable of showing their merits to "foreigners" and look forward to having them tell their tale back at their native lands.

That, not closing borders or using firepower, will protect them.


Convincing others to have a measure of steem and respect for one's culture is paramount and has no substitute, if a culture is to survive.

That said, a static culture might as well die anyway.

You are right about the static culture, which is why I laugh at liberals and securalists who point to parts of Europe some kind of utopia. On the other hand, your ignorance and naivete are as dangerous as Neville Chamberlain's.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, I noticed that. But there is no real alternative to dealing with cultural differences. We must be ambassadors to each other and learn to let go of those boundaries as peacefully as we can.

But if we view our differences (cultural and otherwise), through the lens of values and human rights we can more accurately determine which cultural differences enrich, and which degrade.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

You bring up valid points regarding generalisation of immigrants and muslims, yet you display the exact same behaviour towards Hindus.



Ah but two can play this game you see: honour killings, FGM, homophobia, subjugation of women, arranged (and sometimes incestuous) marriage with the expectation of children, intolerance of criticism, interolerence of progress.
It is very easy for one to make blanket generalisations about a large group of people, foolish, but certainly easy.
Oh and for the record, the whole "return to British values" thing is usually nothing more than Tory/UKIP rhetoric in order to appease the older and/or Christian demographic of the electorate. For women, non-whites, LGBTs, progressive thinkers and non-religious folk, life in Britain now is a lot better than in the 1950's that so many people seem to fantasise about.



The same media that is diabolically trying to demonize Islam? In all seriousness, I'll google it and read it sometime soon.



To be fair most of your points are just your own opinion mixed in with a bunch of wild generalizations.
As you are late to this thread I will restate my position on this issue: in a nutshell I am in favour of integration, not assimilation.

I didn't display the "exact same behaviour" because I did not make any generalisations about Hindus. I stated that a number of HIndus want the caste system in the UK and that David Cameron, our PM has signed a document allowing for such measures. That is fact. Maybe do your research some time. I'm sure there are many HIndus that don't want that but if you read my whole comment, you will understand the context of what I said.

Now, you're second paragraph is just plain stupid. Sorry, I don't pull punches. It is completely off the track of what I actually posted. I said traditional British values (and i named them) are enshrined in Islam. That's the truth, especially with regards to family and charity. Now, I said the problems in modern Britain are problems "we all face", so I was noexcusing myself and I am, yet again, not making generalisations. A simple look over the stats in teh UK will show you single mothers are on the rise (fathers leaving), a lack of charity is witnessed every day by the growing number of homeless and so on. BUt again, it's a problem for us all to face.

I won't even humour you with the ridiculous claims you make.

And finally, with regards to the MI5 report, it was not made by the media. It was made by...you know, the MI5, hence why I called it the MI5 report. Maybe you have a problem with English comprehension.

 

[LuisDantas]

But if we view our differences (cultural and otherwise), through the lens of values and human rights we can more accurately determine which cultural differences enrich, and which degrade.

We can indeed. But for good or worse, not too many people are in actual doubt on the matter. We need actual interaction and acknowledgement. Concrete reasons for not being too quick to dismiss other people and their views.

 

[icehorse]

We can indeed. But for good or worse, not too many people are in actual doubt on the matter. We need actual interaction and acknowledgement. Concrete reasons for not being too quick to dismiss other people and their views.

This leads to an interesting question (I'm not the first to ask): Why - when it comes to questions of morals and ethics - do we pretend there is no such thing as expertise, and that all views should be treated equally?

Do you really think we should treat the Taliban as equally expert to the Dalai Lama when it comes to moral questions?

 

[LuisDantas]

This leads to an interesting question (I'm not the first to ask): Why - when it comes to questions of morals and ethics - do we pretend there is no such thing as expertise, and that all views should be treated equally?

We don't always, but I see what you mean.

Most situations just don't offer the support necessary to make such claims palatable even - and perhaps particularly - if they happen to be clearly true.

That is yet another reason why having the opportunity to be face-tp-face with those we judge is so necessary.

Do you really think we should treat the Taliban as equally expert to the Dalai Lama when it comes to moral questions?

Of course not. We must however keep sight of the fact that they may feel as certain as anyone else, and be realistic about their likely behavior when ignored, pressed or threatened.

 

[icehorse]

Luis said:

We can indeed. But for good or worse, not too many people are in actual doubt on the matter. We need actual interaction and acknowledgement. Concrete reasons for not being too quick to dismiss other people and their views.

I think in these discussions we need to be aware of the key issues and be precise when discussing them. So I take your last sentence from above and respond: We ARE NOT discussing dismissing people, we ARE talking about criticizing views, not dismissing them.

That is yet another reason why having the opportunity to be face-tp-face with those we judge is so necessary.

Again, language. "those we judge" is spin. How about "those whose ideas we criticize"

Of course not. We must however keep sight of the fact that they may feel as certain as anyone else, and be realistic about their likely behavior when ignored, pressed or threatened.

I envision a system in which all immigrants must pass an exam focused on science, critical thinking, and comparative religions. I'd also like to add those topics to high school graduation exams. Education and shining sunlight into dark corners!

The reason I bring this up is because my guess is that many religious folks would howl if such a practice became law. And how amazing is it that their historical howling is so effective that they're really having measurable, negative impact on the quality of our education systems?