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

[icehorse]

Then you should acknowledge it wasn't an actual citation, since you didn't actually cite any source at all.

I literally did just that in post 267. So either you didn't read that post or you're saying that I made it up. Neither is a good look.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I've read literally thousands of books, hundreds of them non-fiction.

So have I.

I've already said that I have not yet unearthed my book on immigration. So apparently in your world, every claim any poster makes must be immediately citation-able? That really curtails a lot of discussion wouldn't you say?

When a poster specifically says they've cited something, but they actually haven't, I'll point it out. Like I'm doing now.

"It's from a book I read once" isn't a citation. Sorry.

 

[icehorse]

So have I.

When a poster specifically says they've cited something, but they actually haven't, I'll point it out. Like I'm doing now.

"It's from a book I read once" isn't a citation. Sorry.

What part of post 267 are you unclear on?

==

Moving forward, did you look at the link I provided in post 299?

To give a hypothetical example, if an Imam from a Muslim majority country wants to immigrate, he could be denied immigration because as an Imam, he has denied religious freedom to others. I'm sure you'd agree that Imams in Muslim majority countries would virtually never accept apostasy from another Muslim, correct?

Also, you said:

Take your condescension and accusations somewhere else.

This question of citations is a tricky one. It's taken me years to grow less and less tolerant of such demands. For one thing, they are frequently CONDESCENDING, as you projected on to me. They are again, an argument from self knowledge.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What part of post 267 are you unclear on?

==

Moving forward, did you look at the link I provided in post 299?

To give a hypothetical example, if an Imam from a Muslim majority country wants to immigrate, he could be denied immigration because as an Imam, he has denied religious freedom to others. I'm sure you'd agree that Imams in Muslim majority countries would virtually never accept apostasy from another Muslim, correct?

Also, you said:



This question of citations is a tricky one. It's taken me years to grow less and less tolerant of such demands. For one thing, they are frequently CONDESCENDING, as you projected on to me. They are again, an argument from self knowledge.

K. Bye!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm talking about groups, not individuals.

Off course I was talking about the individual who is the leader. Obviously nobody can do this alone. Kind of the point also.
But the point applies to groups just as well.. They still need votes. They still need majorities. They can't do this without majority backing among the populace.

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?

Just saying. If threats to secularism is what you worry about, then Islam is the wrong target. No islamic group, immigrant or otherwise, is a threat to secularism in western democracies (you are free to show otherwise). It is however under severe threat in certain countries, but from christian groups instead.

Clearly you are bothered by having to live in the proximity of people that have other cultural customs.
I'm not. At least, not as long as they don't bother me with their lifestyle.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not true. As a secular humanist, I support freedom of religion.

Except you want to restrict immigration on a religious basis. So no, you don't support freedom of religion.

Islamists are highly political, and their politics include denying religious freedom to others. Don't fall into the trap of believing that Islam is a benign religion, it is also an intolerant political ideology.

The point is that you claim to believe in freedom of religion while explicitly advocating for restrictions on people based on religion. That is a denial of religious freedom.

Ergo, you should - by your own claims - not be allowed to immigrate.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're debating style is quite asymetrical. Tell me what question you want me to answer. As you can see in this thread, I'm juggling quite a few members of the woke mob simultaneously, if I miss a question it's not intentional.

Do you propose we ban immigration for all individuals who hold positions we do not, collectively, all agree with?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I've read literally thousands of books, hundreds of them non-fiction. I've already said that I have not yet unearthed my book on immigration. So apparently in your world, every claim any poster makes must be immediately citation-able? That really curtails a lot of discussion wouldn't you say?

You literally claimed you made a citation when you didn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

There aren't any 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.

In a free society, you don't get to tell people how they should treat eachother and settle differences or whatever, as long as those ways don't break the law and neither parties are forced into it. If you can't work it out amongst yourselves, you can go to court.
Nobody however can be forced to abide to such social enforcement.

Sure, a few idiots or terrorist cells have tried "taking over neighbourhoods" by enforcing theocratic rule, but never did it last long, if they even took off, and such attemps are far between.

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

I don't think I once defended sharia.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I used "religious freedom deniers" from my list. And came up with this link:

9 FAM 302.7 (U) INELIGIBILITY BASED ON HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS - INA 212(A)(2)(G), INA 212(A)(3)(E), INA 212(A)(3)(G), AND PP 8697

Notice how these guidelines are a bit more specific than just "religious freedom deniers", to the extent that the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims would still qualify.

It's not "religious freedom deniers", it's
“particularly severe violations of religious freedom”
for people
"while serving as a foreign government official".

9 FAM 302.7 (U) INELIGIBILITY BASED ON HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS - INA 212(A)(2)(G), INA 212(A)(3)(E), INA 212(A)(3)(G), AND PP 8697

Did you even read this link before posting it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Why is it a problem that people agree to a seggregated service?

As for being forced, I'm sure you know that in Islam any form of apostasy is often a crime, sometimes a capital crime.

In a strictly islamic ruled country, yes quite likely.
We're not in such a country.

Western secular democracy probably have the highest rate of apostates of islam. How many do you know off that were subsequently killed for that apostacy?
But we aren't talking about apostacy either.

I'm sure there are Muslim women living in the west who are coerced with threats of violence to attend gatherings at mosques.

Yeah, unfortunately quite a few men feel the need to force their woman to do things she doesn't want to.

And sure, that might be true in other faiths as well. But why are you so willing to buy more trouble?

Your generalization is noted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know that many countries in Europe operate with coalition governments, correct?

Yes. So?

In a similar current thread we're discussing how Wilders' party in the Netherlands is gaining a lot of power with no where near a 2/3 majority. So again, these things are not binary, they are incremental.

Vlaams Belang, Wilders' mirror party in belgium, has been getting numbers higher then the PVV of Wilders' for years.
No party wants to work with them.

It is a likely outcome for PVV as well.
You see, radicalism is a problematic ideology in democratic politics. You basically need a majority by yourself, because those who aren't with you are most likely against you. The cost is greater then the benefit of being in a coalition with them.

So I don't see how I should feel threatened of having to live in an islamic theocracy. It's just not going to happen.

As a side note, I looked up "misnadry" and learned something. It wasn't at all painful to do an internet search
Ah, so maybe you've fallen under the woke spell that segregation is a good thing? wow!

I think it's funny that you accuse me of approaching things in a to "binary" way, and then say something like that.
As if you have to be completely against segregation in any and all contexts, or you have to be "woke" and think it's "good".
What a false dichotomy.

I don't care any particular way. I don't see the point of sitting apart for a religious service. I don't even see the point of a religious service.
Other people do see a point and want to attend the service and sit apart while doing so. So what?
They are free to go sit there and attend the service. As long as nobody forces them to attend, what's the problem?

Earlier I provided a search phrase.

Didn't see that. But giving search phrases is a bad idea.
First, because it's asking others to do your homework, expecting them to go search for the evidence for your claims...
Second, standard online searches are heavily tailored to user profiles and internet history. So people will be getting other results then the ones you get.

It seems easier to simply meet your burden of proof and provide the specific examples you expect others to look for.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In Islam, women are 2nd class citizens.

That's your perspective.
My family at my father's side is muslim.
Their women are treated like queens and princesses.

They have no where near the "free choice" women in the west enjoy.

Those in my family do. You are talking about a minority among a minority and pretending they are representative of the entire group.

You think they wear burlap sacks in 100 degree weather by choice?

You'ld be surprised.
Off course there are those that are forced. In any religion you'ld find such things
But the number is far less then you likely imagine it to be.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not true. As a secular humanist, I support freedom of religion. Islamists are highly political, and their politics include denying religious freedom to others. Don't fall into the trap of believing that Islam is a benign religion, it is also an intolerant political ideology.

So kinda like Christianity then?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're debating style is quite asymetrical. Tell me what question you want me to answer. As you can see in this thread, I'm juggling quite a few members of the woke mob simultaneously, if I miss a question it's not intentional.

Please stop with the stupid "woke" strawman already.


There's nothing "woke" about respecting constitutional rights like freedom of speech, freedom of / from religion, etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Each one of the entries on the list is easily verifiable. You appear to be locked in to "argument from self knowing", and it's not my job to educate you.

It's your job to provide evidence for your claims.

 

[icehorse]

Just saying. If threats to secularism is what you worry about, then Islam is the wrong target. No islamic group, immigrant or otherwise, is a threat to secularism in western democracies (you are free to show otherwise). It is however under severe threat in certain countries, but from christian groups instead.

Clearly you are bothered by having to live in the proximity of people that have other cultural customs.
I'm not. At least, not as long as they don't bother me with their lifestyle.

It sounds like you're being binary, but perhaps not? What we're seeing is a slow, relentless chipping away of western values.

PLEASE refrain from putting words in my mouth! The devil is in the details here. Yes, I AM worried when those other cultural customs involve misogyny or even the minor undoing of secularism. Most cultural differences are fantastic, IMO.

As an aside, these days the woke want us to walk on eggshells when it comes to other cultures because OH NO!! cultural appropriation, ffs.

 

[icehorse]

Except you want to restrict immigration on a religious basis. So no, you don't support freedom of religion.

That's a strawman. Please reread post #303. We can rephrase long standing immigration policies to be:

We do not tolerate the intolerant. If you have a history of intolerance towards other religions, we can deny you entry.

 

[icehorse]

Why is it a problem that people agree to a seggregated service?

We know the chances of coercion are quite high, so "agree" is a shaky concept in this context.

I don't care any particular way. I don't see the point of sitting apart for a religious service. I don't even see the point of a religious service.
Other people do see a point and want to attend the service and sit apart while doing so. So what?
They are free to go sit there and attend the service. As long as nobody forces them to attend, what's the problem?

I think that you are - unwittingly - being quite misogynistic here. Throughout the world, the LEAST SAFE countries for women to live in, are almost always Muslim majority countries.

So to expect Islamists to abandon their lifelong misogyny upon entering a western country seems unlikely.

Didn't see that. But giving search phrases is a bad idea.
First, because it's asking others to do your homework, expecting them to go search for the evidence for your claims...
Second, standard online searches are heavily tailored to user profiles and internet history. So people will be getting other results then the ones you get.

It seems easier to simply meet your burden of proof and provide the specific examples you expect others to look for.

Yeah, this whole citation thing is tricky - I'm thinking about starting a separate thread to discuss demands for citations. I know I seldom request citations. If I don't know something, and I'm interested in debating the topic, I go and do some homework.

So kinda like Christianity then?

Sure. But why is that relevant?

Please stop with the stupid "woke" strawman already.


There's nothing "woke" about respecting constitutional rights like freedom of speech, freedom of / from religion, etc.

One idea deeply embedded in woke-ism is the oppressed vs. oppressor worldview. This dangerous simplified view of the world shows up in all sorts of indirect ways. For example I think it explains a lot of the otherwise inexplicable recent support for Hamas.

In this case, my opponents in this thread are arguing that Islam is nothing to worry about. Posters have more or less given Islamists a pass on worldwide misogyny and the importing of pro-theocracy ideas. Why is that? I think it's partly because posters view Muslim immigrants as "oppressed", sigh.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's a strawman.

No, it isn't. You're arguing in favour of restrictions on immigration based on people's religion.

Please reread post #303. We can rephrase long standing immigration policies to be:

By "rephrase" you mean "completely misrepresent".

We do not tolerate the intolerant. If you have a history of intolerance towards other religions, we can deny you entry.

Again, no. That's not what it says. It says that if you are a "FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL" who has played a role in enacting or enforcing "PARTICULARLY SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" they can deny you entry (emphasis mine):

9 FAM 302.7-3(A) (U) Grounds

(CT:VISA-1355; 09-01-2021)

(U) INA 212(a)(2)(G) requires the refusal of a visa and the denial of entry to any applicant who, while serving as a foreign government official (FGO) was responsible for, or directly carried out, at any time, severe violations of religious freedom.

9 FAM 302.7-3(B) (U) Application

9 FAM 302.7-3(B)(1) (U) Particularly Severe Violations of Religious Freedom Defined

(CT:VISA-1; 11-18-2015)

(U) 22 U.S.C. 6402(11) defines “particularly severe violations of religious freedom” as: systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom, including violations such as:

(1) (U) Torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;

(2) (U) Prolonged detention without charges;

(3) (U) Causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction or clandestine detention of those persons; or

(4) (U) Other flagrant denial of the right of life, liberty, or the security of persons.

9 FAM 302.7 (U) INELIGIBILITY BASED ON HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS - INA 212(A)(2)(G), INA 212(A)(3)(E), INA 212(A)(3)(G), AND PP 8697

It DOES NOT say that they can deny you entry purely because you belong to a religion that expresses negative views of other religions, otherwise most religious groups would not be allowed in.