Europe's multiculturalist (authoritarians?), trying to make mass immigration mandatory?

[icehorse]

Calm down.

I just can't believe that you are going back 4 centuries.

Hmmm.. you think enlightenment values are out of date?

 

[Altfish]

Hmmm.. you think enlightenment values are out of date?

No, taken as read, like slavery is bad is taken as read.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It happens fairly frequently in Europe, that seems like a good "canary in the coalmine" for the rest of us.

Where? By whom? How many?

Again, I'm not saying the west doesn't have problems. I agree that we already have theocrats and homophobes and misogynists.

Why make those problems worse? Do you think we have some moral obligation to accept immigrants?

Will it make it worse though? Or is it being blown out of proportion, as it has often been over and over in the past?
Does exposing people to secular values make any difference, as I tried to point out before?


I think we do have a moral obligation to accept immigrants. They're people. I wouldn't exist if Canada had not allowed my ancestors to immigrate here. All of my ancestors would have been murdered in Russia.

 

[exchemist]

As I'm sure you understand, there are probably a small numbers of activists, but if the activists make any head way, then there will be a HUGE number of supporters.

That is a claim seemingly unsupported by evidence. You continue to portray Sharia law as something that affects society at large, when it is for most muslims a set of religious rules, similar to those the Jews and many Christians also have. Many muslims, no doubt, "support" Sharia law for themselves in their religious observance. That does not mean there would be a wide level of support for supplanting the secular law of the land, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

 

[icehorse]

I think we do have a moral obligation to accept immigrants. They're people. I wouldn't exist if Canada had not allowed my ancestors to immigrate here. All of my ancestors would have been murdered in Russia.

That sounds more like a refugee situation?

That is a claim seemingly unsupported by evidence. You continue to portray Sharia law as something that affects society at large, when it is for most muslims a set of religious rules, similar to those the Jews and many Christians also have. Many muslims, no doubt, "support" Sharia law for themselves in their religious observance. That does not mean there would be a wide level of support for supplanting the secular law of the land, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

There are mosques in the west that force women to sit in the rear, behind the men. Why would we want to bring in more people who think this is a good way to live?

As for support, I'm describing a well known phenomenon: non-activists who come out of the woodwork to support extremism. Look at those 70 Maga types as an example.

 

[icehorse]

No, taken as read, like slavery is bad is taken as read.

So are ANY of the enlightenment values out of date? You seem to think so based on your rather snarky post #219.

 

[exchemist]

There are mosques in the west that force women to sit in the rear, behind the men. Why would we want to bring in more people who think this is a good way to live?

As for support, I'm describing a well known phenomenon: non-activists who come out of the woodwork to support extremism. Look at those 70 Maga types as an example.

Thanks for the, er, rather garbled response.

- Where people sit in a mosque has nothing to do with replacing secular law, obviously, or with anything else for that matter. (By the way, men and women are also separated in Orthodox synagogues, I understand).

- You seem to have invented this "well-known phenomenon" and not to have any evidence it would be applicable to any attempt (there have been none, to my knowledge, in any western country) to replace secular law with Sharia law.

 

[icehorse]

Thanks for the, er, rather garbled response.

Thanks for sticking to discussing ideas, ffs.

- Where people sit in a mosque has nothing to do with replacing secular law, obviously, or with anything else for that matter. (By the way, men and women are also separated in Orthodox synagogues, I understand).

It has to do with misogyny, which is baked into the fundamentals of Islam. And I've already agreed that the west is far from perfect. So let's say for the sake of discussion that this misogynistic "separate the women" idea is also practiced in other religions. Why would you want to encourage such misogynistic crap?

- You seem to have invented this "well-known phenomenon" and not to have any evidence it would be applicable to any attempt (there have been none, to my knowledge, in any western country) to replace secular law with Sharia law.

It's happening in the UK, and I'm sure your search engine works as well as mine. In other words "to my knowledge" holds no water.

 

[exchemist]

Thanks for sticking to discussing ideas, ffs.



It has to do with misogyny, which is baked into the fundamentals of Islam. And I've already agreed that the west is far from perfect. So let's say for the sake of discussion that this misogynistic "separate the women" idea is also practiced in other religions. Why would you want to encourage such misogynistic crap?



It's happening in the UK, and I'm sure your search engine works as well as mine. In other words "to my knowledge" holds no water.

You are the one making the claim so it is for you to support it with evidence. Please supply it, from a reputable source, i.e. not from some swivel-eyed islamophobe disinformation outlet.)

When I do a search on sharia law in the UK, what I get is this, from a decade ago: Sharia has not been adopted into UK law and a few older articles about sharia law being used informally within certain muslim communities for settling disputes.

 

[Altfish]

So are ANY of the enlightenment values out of date? You seem to think so based on your rather snarky post #219.

When did I say that?

 

[icehorse]

Please supply it, from a reputable source, i.e. not from some swivel-eyed islamophobe disinformation outlet.)

And this is why I've reduced supplying citations. Apologists on RF tend to lean towards this sort of identity politics world view. In other words the strong inference here is that criticism of Islam comes only from "swivel-eyed islamophobee disinformation outlets", ha!

So why would I bother to tack down sources for you? You've already demonstrated that you will not separate the message from the messenger.

 

[icehorse]

When did I say that?

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood your post #219 - can you explain what you meant? Because it sure seemed like you were slamming enlightenment values because they are 4 centuries old...

 

[exchemist]

And this is why I've reduced supplying citations. Apologists on RF tend to lean towards this sort of identity politics world view. In other words the strong inference here is that criticism of Islam comes only from "swivel-eyed islamophobee disinformation outlets", ha!

This is just evasion on your part. If such a thing were truly occurring in the UK, it would be a shocking development and obviously highly newsworthy. You would be able to find recognised sources e.g. national or regional newspapers or TV channels, carrying the story.

So come on, produce evidence of your claim that sharia law is replacing secular law in the UK, or we can all dismiss it as a fantasy of your fevered imagination.

 

[Altfish]

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood your post #219 - can you explain what you meant? Because it sure seemed like you were slamming enlightenment values because they are 4 centuries old...

Reread it, I compared it with abolition of slavery. ie, not up for discussion these days, just taken as normal that it is accepted.

 

[icehorse]

Reread it, I compared it with abolition of slavery. ie, not up for discussion these days, just taken as normal that it is accepted.

Earlier, you said:

I just can't believe that you are going back 4 centuries.

But okay, am I correct in understanding that you think enlightenment values are still worth defending? If not, which ones do you think no longer apply?

 

[icehorse]

This is just evasion on your part. If such a thing were truly occurring in the UK, it would be a shocking development and obviously highly newsworthy. You would be able to find recognised sources e.g. national or regional newspapers or TV channels, carrying the story.

So come on, produce evidence of your claim that sharia law is replacing secular law in the UK, or we can all dismiss it as a fantasy of your fevered imagination.

Nah, it's laziness on you part. You act as though if you don't know a thing you can demand citations. This constant bleating for citations is a tool for obfuscation.

So moving on, are you okay with forcing women to sit in the back of the meeting, behind the men? Do you think that just because it already happens to some degree it's okay to allow more of it?

 

[exchemist]

Nah, it's laziness on you part. You act as though if you don't know a thing you can demand citations. This constant bleating for citations is a tool for obfuscation.

So moving on, are you okay with forcing women to sit in the back of the meeting, behind the men? Do you think that just because it already happens to some degree it's okay to allow more of it?

Ballocks to that! We don't move on until you support your claim about sharia law replacing UK secular law. You can't just throw around accusations like that about my country without support and expect me to "move on" as if you had said nothing. Where do you get this stuff from? Have you made it up? Or have you read it somewhere? If so, where?

 

[Augustus]

And no, I'm not going to get you up to speed on enlightenment values. FWIW, when I engage in debates of RF I frequently do a little homework when a poster introduces an idea I'm not up to speed on. That feels like debating in good faith. Asking me to explain the enlightenment to you feels like a bad faith request, I'm not going to respond to that.

The Enlightenment values that led to the Reign of Terror, Marxism, scientific racialism, Social Darwinism and Eugenics?

Or the ones more aligned with Secular Humanism?

Which are the Real Enlightenment Values™ given reason and progress were basically the core enlightenment values and these are neither intrinsically liberal or illiberal?

 

[icehorse]

The Enlightenment values that led to the Reign of Terror, Marxism, scientific racialism, Social Darwinism and Eugenics?

This seems obscure. Do you think that when people generally talk about the enlightenment, they're thinking about whatever you're talking about here?

 

[icehorse]

Ballocks to that! We don't move on until you support your claim about sharia law replacing UK secular law. You can't just throw around accusations like that about my country without support and expect me to "move on" as if you had said nothing. Where do you get this stuff from? Have you made it up? Or have you read it somewhere? If so, where?

When I searched on "informal sharia in europe" I got quite a few hits, wanna see what you get?

Now, on the off chance that you can multi-task, can you answer my question about making misogyny worse?