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

[Augustus]

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

Maybe they should then. It is the reality whether it seems obscure or not.

The impact of the Enlightenment in Europe was all of these things, and core values are shaped in our cultural heritage.

So your point seems to be “What we learned in the Enlightenment assuming we ignore all the bad stuff we also ‘learned’ and its legacy”

 

[icehorse]

Maybe they should then. It is the reality whether it seems obscure or not.

The impact of the Enlightenment in Europe was all of these things, and core values are shaped in our cultural heritage.

So your point seems to be “What we learned in the Enlightenment assuming we ignore all the bad stuff we also ‘learned’ and its legacy”

So "enlighten me" a bit, what were the bad things?

 

[Augustus]

So "enlighten me" a bit, what were the bad things?

Well the Reign of Terror, Marxism, scientific racialism, Social Darwinism and Eugenics weren't great. The idea that society can be 'morally advanced' through the use of violence wasn't ideal.

But in terms of the modern world, generally a sense of self-satisfaction and condescension towards other cultures, these sense that 'to not be like us' is to be backwards and ignorant, and the more educated one becomes, the more 'like us' they will naturally become. As with any universalist ideology, it lacks self-awareness of its own cultural contingencies.

A desire to lecture others on their inferior morals, while ignoring large parts of our history that may lead others to view things differently.

The excessive application of "rationality" to all aspects of life including business, politics and the economy, where these often produce significant negative effects. What is effective and efficient in short term self-interest is often not great for society as a whole.

An hubristic faith in human reason to control and manage the complexities of our world, and the belief that the negative aspects of human nature are 'errors' that can be fixed.

etc. etc.

 

[icehorse]

Well the Reign of Terror, Marxism, scientific racialism, Social Darwinism and Eugenics weren't great. The idea that society can be 'morally advanced' through the use of violence wasn't ideal.

This seems like the "well a hammer can be used to build torture racks" kind of argument?

Here's the summary of the enlightenment that came up for me:

The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on the value of human happiness, the pursuit of knowledge obtained by means of reason and the evidence of the senses, and ideals such as natural law, liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.

It sounds like you're kind of warping the basic ideas? No doubt bad actors can take most anything and twist it out shape.

So for example, you rail against economics. Well I'd agree that we've let capitalism get out of control, but that doesn't mean capitalism is bad, it just means you have to monitor it.

Zooming out, it seems like you're knocking the enlightenment because it gave us powerful tools? You think ignorance is better?

 

[Augustus]

This seems like the "well a hammer can be used to build torture racks" kind of argument?

This seems like a "but Jesus' message was all about love so how can Christianity make people do bad things" type argument.

Why would you assume value neutral ideas of progress and rationality should only drive positive behaviour?

It sounds like you're kind of warping the basic ideas? No doubt bad actors can take most anything and twist it out shape.

It sounds like you haven't done your homework and are relying on the self-congratulatory narrative favoured by Humanists who like to cherry pick the actual history

There were liberal and illiberal streams in the Enlightenment (and some of the bad things mentioned featured in both)

The idea that these were "bad actors" corrupting something pure is just like the no true Scotsman argument put forward by religious folk trying to deny their belief system could ever be problematic despite the obvious evidence to the contrary.

Zooming out, it seems like you're knocking the enlightenment because it gave us powerful tools? You think ignorance is better?

That's some spectacularly fallacious reasoning you have there

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm going from memory here, I wasn't able to track down my book on US immigration policies, but I think the broad strokes that follow are correct enough for our purposes:

Back 100 years ago the US needed to gain strong backs to do manual labor, and immigration was focused to serve that purpose.

But in recent decades, the main purpose of immigration in the US has been to gain mostly "white collar" talent. (I'm making a distinction here between official immigrants and temporary itinerant farm workers.)

A key point here is - once again - IMMIGRATION IS NOT A RIGHT ! The host country is well within its rights to accept or deny applicants as it sees fit. There are a number of criteria that the US immigration department uses to qualify (or not) applicants. Things like criminal records, lack of skills, or being a member of a totalitarian organization are used to disqualify candidates.

The point is that the US wants immigrants who will benefit the country. Why would we want to allow immigrants who want to undermine secularism?

Of course I understand that citizens can legally change their mind. You can decide to join the communist party if you want to. But that's a different topic than immigration.

I feel like you aren't addressing the points being raised.
The point was about assimilation and now you are talking about skill set.

Also, for an individual to undermine secularism in a western democracy, that person would have to become a politician and get elected with enough votes so that that person actually reaches a position of power high enough to be able to pass laws that undermine secularism. That person would also have to reach a 2/3's majority (in belgium at least) to be able to change the constitution also or those laws will be illegal. That, or convince people who already are in power to go down that road.

And since you are talking about the US............................... When it comes to the US then the threat of undermining secularism does not come from muslim immigrants. Instead, not only would it come from american christians, it actually ALREADY comes from american christians. Secularism IS under threat there as we speak, due to fundie christian americans who are ALREADY in power.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To reiterate, a simple definition of an Islamist is someone who wants Sharia. Roughly 30% to 40% of Muslims worldwide are Islamists. And Muslims living in Europe roughly hold true to this 30-40% statistic.

So how about a little nuance and good faith here? You really think we can't distinguish between the Taliban and Islamists, ffs?

And how many wester secular democracies in the west are actually under threat of having the constitution changed to allow of sharia to be implemented?

My guess is zero, but you are free to post evidence of the contrary.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Let's put "huge" in perspective here. For shariah law to become actual law of the land, constitutions would have to be changed first. See, politicians can't just vote any law they want. Other branches of government need to ratify those laws first. Laws can't break the constitution. And to change the constitution (in Belgium, but I assume it won't be much different elsewhere), you require a 2/3 majority.

So how "huge" is this "huge" number of supporters, really?

I say that the chances of this happening are below zero. I invite you to demonstrate otherwise.

That is indeed a problem. But why does it matter in this thread?

Because your entire case seems to be based on the idea of "secularism being under threat".
But it is far from being under threat by muslim theocrats. In the few secular democracies where secularism is actually under the threat, the threat doesn't come from immigrant (or native) muslims. They aren't even on the radar. But native christians are. And in some counries, like the US, they are already positioned in seats of power with backing that is in fact close enough to actually pose a threat to secularism.

So if protecting secularism is in fact what you care about, then it's native christians majorities you should be worrying about, not muslim minorities that can barely even get a single candidate elected for anything.

This seems like a "since it's not currently perfect, let's make it worse" sort of argument? Can you clarify why you think your question matters?

Because what you are doing sounds like worrying for the safety of people by pointing at folks holding a fly swatter, while ignoring the ones who have their finger on the button to make nukes explode.

Again: if secularism being under siege is what you worry about, then you should be targetting native christians instead.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are mosques in the west that force women to sit in the rear, behind the men.

There is also segreggation in synagogues. And I wouldn't be surprised there also is in some flavours of christian churches as well as other religious houses of worship.
So what? Nobody is forced to go there. And those who want to be there, likely have no problems following what they feel are the rules of their religions.
If they do have problems with it, likely they won't be attending in the first place.

Why would we want to bring in more people who think this is a good way to live?

What's it to you where these people want to sit in their houses of worship?
Why is this a problem?

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.

I can only ask again: in which western democracy country is secularism actually under threat of being displaced and turned into an islamic theocracy?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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 think it is misogynistic. Has it occured to you that the women themselves don't want to sit with the men?
Also, how is it misogenystic? How is it not misandry for example?

So anyhow... are you of the opinion that there should be laws that make it illegal to have seggregation of sexes in free-to-attend gatherings such as religious events?

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.

I have seen no evidence that the UK constitution is under thread of being changed to accomodate for shariah law to displace constitutional secularism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

How about, because that would allow you to demonstrate it is not just coming from "swivel-eyed islamophobee disinformation outlets", but is instead actually happening in the real world?

You've already demonstrated that you will not separate the message from the messenger.

Evidence would seperate it.

 

[Altfish]

Earlier, you said:



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?

Of course they are worth defending as is the abolishment of slavery.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So moving on, are you okay with forcing women to sit in the back of the meeting, behind the men?

"forcing" is dishonest language in this context.
There is no "forcing" if the women themselves want to sit there and / or consider it normal in their religion that they sit there.

By using the word "forcing" it sounds like you try to paint a picture where women want to sit among the mean and are then "forced" (with some threat) to sit in the back instead.

Also, why aren't you complaining about synagogues? They do the same thing. And I'm sure you can find other religions also where such is common practice in their houses of worship. But you seem to only consider it a problem when muslims are doing it. And you seem to be alone also... I don't think I've ever heared that female muslims complaining about that is actually a thing in the community. If they are fine with it, why can't you?

Do you think that just because it already happens to some degree it's okay to allow more of it?

"allow"?

They are there by their free choice.

 

[exchemist]

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?

I'm sure you do. Post the link that best supports your claim regarding sharia law replacing the law of the state in the UK and I shall read it with interest.

I repeat: it is your claim, so it is for you to support it with evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

You said exactly what I was going to say, but better!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And this is why I've reduced supplying citations. Apologists on RF tend to lean towards this sort of identity politics world view.

There we have it, ladies and gentlemen. Providing facts in support of your claims is "identity politics".

I mean, doesn't that just say it all?

 

[icehorse]

This seems like a "but Jesus' message was all about love so how can Christianity make people do bad things" type argument.

Why would you assume value neutral ideas of progress and rationality should only drive positive behaviour?



It sounds like you haven't done your homework and are relying on the self-congratulatory narrative favoured by Humanists who like to cherry pick the actual history

There were liberal and illiberal streams in the Enlightenment (and some of the bad things mentioned featured in both)

The idea that these were "bad actors" corrupting something pure is just like the no true Scotsman argument put forward by religious folk trying to deny their belief system could ever be problematic despite the obvious evidence to the contrary.



That's some spectacularly fallacious reasoning you have there

Ok, can you rephrase the original point you're tying to make?

 

[icehorse]

I feel like you aren't addressing the points being raised.

I'm not trying to shift the goalposts, what point(s) haven't I addressed?

The point was about assimilation and now you are talking about skill set.

There are several points being discussed in parallel.

Also, for an individual to undermine secularism in a western democracy, that person would have to become a politician and get elected with enough votes so that that person actually reaches a position of power high enough to be able to pass laws that undermine secularism. That person would also have to reach a 2/3's majority (in belgium at least) to be able to change the constitution also or those laws will be illegal. That, or convince people who already are in power to go down that road.

I'm talking about groups, not individuals.

And since you are talking about the US............................... When it comes to the US then the threat of undermining secularism does not come from muslim immigrants. Instead, not only would it come from american christians, it actually ALREADY comes from american christians. Secularism IS under threat there as we speak, due to fundie christian americans who are ALREADY in power.

Haha, it's like you won't take yes for an answer YES! There are Christian fundamentalists who are trying to undermine secularism! YES! I Agree!

How is that relevant to this thread?

 

[icehorse]

And how many wester secular democracies in the west are actually under threat of having the constitution changed to allow of sharia to be implemented?

My guess is zero, but you are free to post evidence of the contrary.

You're making this a very binary problem, when in fact it's incremental. I don't want even little bits of Sharia in the west. Not in informal family courts, nowhere. And this is what's happening, little bits of informal Sharia creeping in. When this happens it's almost always to the detriment of women.

Are you a misogynist? I'm sure you're not, so why are you defending Sharia?

 

[icehorse]

There is also segreggation in synagogues. And I wouldn't be surprised there also is in some flavours of christian churches as well as other religious houses of worship.
So what? Nobody is forced to go there. And those who want to be there, likely have no problems following what they feel are the rules of their religions.
If they do have problems with it, likely they won't be attending in the first place.

Again, why are you willing to allow an existing problem to get worse? To what end?

As for being forced, I'm sure you know that in Islam any form of apostasy is often a crime, sometimes a capital crime. I'm sure there are Muslim women living in the west who are coerced with threats of violence to attend gatherings at mosques. And sure, that might be true in other faiths as well. But why are you so willing to buy more trouble?