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

[ImmortalFlame]

In this case, my opponents in this thread are arguing that Islam is nothing to worry about.

Strawman. Nobody here has argued that Islam (or any religion, for that matter) is benign, or that negative attitudes contained therein do not pose significant ideological problems in many cases.

The argument being made is that these issues do not justify YOUR POSITION that it is therefore justifiable TO DENY PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO IMMIGRATE BASED PURELY ON BELONGING TO THAT RELIGIOUS GROUP.

This is the argument being made.

Posters have more or less given Islamists a pass on worldwide misogyny and the importing of pro-theocracy ideas.

Also a strawman. We reject misogyny and theocracy. We just also reject YOUR position, which explicitly contradicts the fundamental principles of equality, religious freedom and immigration rights.

 

[icehorse]

Strawman. Nobody here has argued that Islam (or any religion, for that matter) is benign, or that negative attitudes contained therein do not pose significant ideological problems in many cases.

Yes they have, or words to the same effect.

The argument being made is that these issues do not justify YOUR POSITION that it is therefore justifiable TO DENY PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO IMMIGRATE BASED PURELY ON BELONGING TO THAT RELIGIOUS GROUP.

Islamists are a subset of Muslims.

Also a strawman. We reject misogyny and theocracy. We just also reject YOUR position, which explicitly contradicts the fundamental principles of equality, religious freedom and immigration rights.

I've been discussing Islamists, a subset of Muslims. Islamists are intolerant of other religions and long standing immigration policies - as I've shown - allow immigration officials to deny entry to people who are intolerant of other religions. I'll say this again:

ISLAMISTS ARE INTOLERANT OF OTHER RELIGIONS.

 

[icehorse]

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.

That's not what I said. Here is an excerpt from the immigration rules:

9 FAM 302.7-3(B)(2) (U) Violations of Religious Freedom Defined

(CT:VISA-578; 04-25-2018)

(U) Violations of the internationally recognized right to freedom of religion and religious beliefs and practice, as described in 22 U.S.C. 6402(13) include the following violations such as:

(1) (U) Arbitrary prohibitions on, restrictions of, or punishment for:

(a) (U) Assembling for peaceful religious activities such as worship, preaching, and prayer, including arbitrary registration requirements;

(b) (U) Speaking freely about one's religious beliefs;

(c) (U) Changing one's religious beliefs and affiliation;

(d) (U) Not professing a particular religion, or any religion;

(e) (U) Possession and distribution of religious literature, including Bibles; or

(f) (U) Raising one's children in the religious teachings and practices of one's choice; or

(2) (U) Any of the following acts if committed on account of an individual's conscience, non-theistic views, or religious belief or practice:

(a) (U) Detention;

(b) (U) Interrogation;

(c) (U) Imposition of an onerous financial penalty;

(d) (U) Forced labor;

(e) (U) Forced mass resettlement;

(f) (U) Imprisonment;

(g) (U) Forced religious conversion;

(h) (U) Forcibly compelling non-believers or non-theists to recant their beliefs or to convert;

(i) (U) Beating;

(j) (U) Torture;

(k) (U) Mutilation;

(l) (U) Rape;

(m) (U) Enslavement; and

(n) (U) Murder and execution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes they have, or words to the same effect.

Then please provide clear examples.

Islamists are a subset of Muslims.

Which isn't addressing what I wrote.

I've been discussing Islamists, a subset of Muslims. Islamists are intolerant of other religions and long standing immigration policies - as I've shown - allow immigration officials to deny entry to people who are intolerant of other religions.

No, they don't. I've explained this three times now. You are misunderstanding immigration law.

I'll say this again:

ISLAMISTS ARE INTOLERANT OF OTHER RELIGIONS.

So, to be clear, do you or do you not believe in restricting the rights of people to immigrate based purely on their religion? Yes or no?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's not what I said.

Yes, it is:

"If you have a history of intolerance towards other religions, we can deny you entry."
Post 318.

Here is an excerpt from the immigration rules:

9 FAM 302.7-3(B)(2) (U) Violations of Religious Freedom Defined

(CT:VISA-578; 04-25-2018)

(U) Violations of the internationally recognized right to freedom of religion and religious beliefs and practice, as described in 22 U.S.C. 6402(13) include the following violations such as:

(1) (U) Arbitrary prohibitions on, restrictions of, or punishment for:

(a) (U) Assembling for peaceful religious activities such as worship, preaching, and prayer, including arbitrary registration requirements;

(b) (U) Speaking freely about one's religious beliefs;

(c) (U) Changing one's religious beliefs and affiliation;

(d) (U) Not professing a particular religion, or any religion;

(e) (U) Possession and distribution of religious literature, including Bibles; or

(f) (U) Raising one's children in the religious teachings and practices of one's choice; or

(2) (U) Any of the following acts if committed on account of an individual's conscience, non-theistic views, or religious belief or practice:

(a) (U) Detention;

(b) (U) Interrogation;

(c) (U) Imposition of an onerous financial penalty;

(d) (U) Forced labor;

(e) (U) Forced mass resettlement;

(f) (U) Imprisonment;

(g) (U) Forced religious conversion;

(h) (U) Forcibly compelling non-believers or non-theists to recant their beliefs or to convert;

(i) (U) Beating;

(j) (U) Torture;

(k) (U) Mutilation;

(l) (U) Rape;

(m) (U) Enslavement; and

(n) (U) Murder and execution.

Can't help but notice you deliberately edited out all of the parts that explicitly contradict your claims about immigration laws. Y'know, the part where it says these restrictions are explicitly only applied to people responsible for "SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS" whilst "SERVING AS A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL".

Nowhere in the guidelines does it state, or indicate, that you can legally deny a person entry just because they happen to have intolerant beliefs about other religions, or because they belong to a religious group that espouses intolerant views of other religions.

Read your own link. You don't seem to even know what it says.

 

[icehorse]

Then please provide clear examples.


Which isn't addressing what I wrote.


No, they don't. I've explained this three times now. You are misunderstanding immigration law.


So, to be clear, do you or do you not believe in restricting the rights of people to immigrate based purely on their religion? Yes or no?

Some Muslims might have engaged in active intolerance towards people of other religions. Those Muslims should be denied immigration.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It sounds like you're being binary, but perhaps not?

I don't actually know what you mean by that.

What we're seeing is a slow, relentless chipping away of western values.

I'm not seeing this at all.
But perhaps we disagree on what the values are.

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.

I don't care about "woke" stuff.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Some Muslims might have engaged in active intolerance towards people of other religions. Those Muslims should be denied immigration.

What counts as "active intolerance towards people of other religions"? Be specific.

 

[icehorse]

What counts as "active intolerance towards people of other religions"? Be specific.

First off, given how many of your weak strawman arguments I've had to screw around with, you're hardly in a position to be so demanding and cock sure of yourself.

But off the top of my head:

- supporting the dislocation of non-Muslims (e.g. Coptics, Jews, Yazidis...)
- threatening others concerning apostasy
- preaching hatred of non-Muslims

 

[icehorse]

I'm not seeing this at all.
But perhaps we disagree on what the values are.

First off, I understand that people in other religions are already trying to undermine secularism. That said, every mosque in the West is a source of misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic, theocratic activism. Why would we want to import more of that? Islam claims to be a religion, but the reality is that it's also a highly political movement that happens to have a religious facet.

I don't care about "woke" stuff.

Perhaps not consciously. But it seems to me that you're giving Muslims a pass, why is that? Remember, being a Muslim is not a race or ethnicity, it's adhering to a set of ideas. Any Muslim can choose on any day do abandon the ideas of Islam.

So why do you give this horrible set of ideas a pass?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First off, given how many of your weak strawman arguments I've had to screw around with, you're hardly in a position to be so demanding and cock sure of yourself.

Given how you have never once provided a single fact to support your arguments...

No end to that sentence. Just thought I'd mention it.

But off the top of my head:

- supporting the dislocation of non-Muslims (e.g. Coptics, Jews, Yazidis...)
- threatening others concerning apostasy
- preaching hatred of non-Muslims

So, to be clear, you support the right of Muslims who do not engage in any (or, all?) of these things to immigrate, and would support legislation to ensure that anybody of any religion who engages in (all?) the above in any form would be prevented for immigrating?

 

[icehorse]

So, to be clear, you support the right of Muslims who do not engage in any (or, all?) of these things to immigrate, and would support legislation to ensure that anybody of any religion who engages in (all?) the above in any form would be prevented for immigrating?

It's my understanding that that's how current immigration policies are written. I suspect that immigration officials often look the other way, but I do not think they should. And yes, EVERY applicant who is in violation of these policies should be denied entry.

(And yes, I understand that many US citizens break these policies, I just don't see why that means we should make the problem worse.)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's my understanding that that's how current immigration policies are written.

Then you're wrong. The guidelines you provided very specifically only apply to foreign government officials who have participated in very explicit violations of freedom of religion, not just general people who may have "preached" or "threatened" or "supported" anti religious freedom positions.

I suspect that immigration officials often look the other way, but I do not think they should. And yes, EVERY applicant who is in violation of these policies should be denied entry.

Right. So why are you explicitly focused on Muslims, and why have you specifically singled out Muslims as a group for denial of immigration, and why would you support a blanket ban on Muslim immigration?

 

[icehorse]

Then you're wrong. The guidelines you provided very specifically only apply to foreign government officials who have participated in very explicit violations of freedom of religion, not just general people who may have "preached" or "threatened" or "supported" anti religious freedom positions.

We appear to be using different sets of guidelines?

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

Right. So why are you explicitly focused on Muslims, and why have you specifically singled out Muslims as a group for denial of immigration, and why would you support a blanket ban on Muslim immigration?

That's not quite accurate. As I just said, ANYONE with a history of religious freedom violations ought to be barred.

But as far as Muslims go, they are statistically much more likely to advocate for theocracy or to have committed religious freedom violations.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We appear to be using different sets of guidelines?

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

I've gone over that link four times already. Read your own link. It very explicitly says those guidelines only apply to FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

That's not quite accurate. As I just said, ANYONE with a history of religious freedom violations ought to be barred.

What does that even mean? Does it count as "a history of religious freedom violations" to simply hold a belief that other religions shouldn't be practised, or do you mean - as the guidelines above say - that it is only when you are a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL who was involved in carrying out SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?

But as far as Muslims go, they are statistically much more likely to advocate for theocracy or to have committed religious freedom violations.

Based on what? Right now, the most powerful force in the West that supports theocracy and laws that violate religious freedom are Christians. So we should ban them from immigrating too, yes?

 

[Tamino]

But as far as Muslims go, they are statistically much more likely to advocate for theocracy or to have committed religious freedom violations.

If we start condemning people based on statistical likelihood, we'd have to ban men from handling weapons, as they are far, far more likely to commit violent crime than women.

Remember when, in 2015, Germany opened its borders to Syrian war refugees and about a million people came in? I was in those camps, teaching German and handing out food. I met a school teacher who mourned the books she had to leave behind (in 80 days around the world was a favorite), a young father who wanted nothing for himself: just a chance for his daughter to go to school and live in peace. I met a professor who taught me the proper words for subject, verb and object in Arabic, a teenager who hated that the sun had burned her face when they crossed the Mediterranean, a gay journalist who was trying to care for his traumatized brother and tentatively checking if it REALLY is ok to come out of the closet in Germany. I met a toddler who came running into the shelter, crying in a panic: "yaty al harb, yaty al harb!" - " the war has come!" when some firecrackers went off outside.

Sure, there's radical islamists who are a threat to freedom and democracy. But I value compassion over fear. I value the human being more than their passport or affiliation. I don't want all those good people to suffer, just because a few radicals might slip in (and let's not even get into how a lot of European radical islamist are home-grown nowadays)

 

[icehorse]

If we start condemning people based on statistical likelihood, we'd have to ban men from handling weapons, as they are far, far more likely to commit violent crime than women.

Remember when, in 2015, Germany opened its borders to Syrian war refugees and about a million people came in? I was in those camps, teaching German and handing out food. I met a school teacher who mourned the books she had to leave behind (in 80 days around the world was a favorite), a young father who wanted nothing for himself: just a chance for his daughter to go to school and live in peace. I met a professor who taught me the proper words for subject, verb and object in Arabic, a teenager who hated that the sun had burned her face when they crossed the Mediterranean, a gay journalist who was trying to care for his traumatized brother and tentatively checking if it REALLY is ok to come out of the closet in Germany. I met a toddler who came running into the shelter, crying in a panic: "yaty al harb, yaty al harb!" - " the war has come!" when some firecrackers went off outside.

Sure, there's radical islamists who are a threat to freedom and democracy. But I value compassion over fear. I value the human being more than their passport or affiliation. I don't want all those good people to suffer, just because a few radicals might slip in (and let's not even get into how a lot of European radical islamist are home-grown nowadays)

I appreciate where you're coming from, I do.

That said, Islam IS misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic, theocratic, authoritarian, and not peaceful.

So those good people you mention are saddled with a bad belief system. They are welcome to come, but they should check Islam at the door.

 

[Tamino]

I appreciate where you're coming from, I do.

That said, Islam IS misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic, theocratic, authoritarian, and not peaceful.

So those good people you mention are saddled with a bad belief system. They are welcome to come, but they should check Islam at the door.

I have an acquaintance, she's a Muslima, a university graduate and a female imam. She is a member of a reformist Muslim association that continues the Mu'atazilite tradition and explicitly welcomes feminism, democracy and diversity. We're members of the same political party and I have absolutely no concern about accepting her and her movement as part of my country.
There are also a couple of Muslim congregations that are rather more conservative in their worldview. I don't like them. But they confirm that they support democracy and German law and have not been caught in any criminal or extremist activity. As such, they are fully within their right to practice their religion. Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution, the Grundgesetz, and I support that constitution.

Conclusion: I would welcome any person that is also in support of our constitution, independent of their religion or ethnicity.
Nobody needs to check their religion at the door to keep my culture "pure". We tried that cultural purity thing 90 years ago and it proved to be a horrible idea.

 

[icehorse]

I have an acquaintance, she's a Muslima, a university graduate and a female imam. She is a member of a reformist Muslim association that continues the Mu'atazilite tradition and explicitly welcomes feminism, democracy and diversity. We're members of the same political party and I have absolutely no concern about accepting her and her movement as part of my country.
There are also a couple of Muslim congregations that are rather more conservative in their worldview. I don't like them. But they confirm that they support democracy and German law and have not been caught in any criminal or extremist activity. As such, they are fully within their right to practice their religion. Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution, the Grundgesetz, and I support that constitution.

Conclusion: I would welcome any person that is also in support of our constitution, independent of their religion or ethnicity.
Nobody needs to check their religion at the door to keep my culture "pure". We tried that cultural purity thing 90 years ago and it proved to be a horrible idea.

No doubt most Muslims are tolerant and peace loving. But they provide cover for a very violent and intolerant ideology - Islam.

I think the true nature of Islam is that it's a totalitarian, political ideology that happens to have a religious facet, and it uses that religious facet to give cover to it's other problematic aspects.

BTW, I'm aware that some Muslims are brave enough to try to reform Islam, and they have my total support!!

 

[Tamino]

No doubt most Muslims are tolerant and peace loving. But they provide cover for a very violent and intolerant ideology - Islam.

I think the true nature of Islam is that it's a totalitarian, political ideology

I don't think that any religion or ideology has a "true nature" - they all have as many natures as they have followers and they change all the time.

But even if you are correct about the "true nature" of Islam: I still don't think that the possibility of unwittingly "providing cover" for criminals justifies stripping an entire group of people off their human rights as refugees.

I fully agree with you that some interpretations of islam are horrible, totalitarian and discriminatory. However, I think there are much better ways of fighting them rather than closing our borders. It's already shameful to the highest degree that the European Union knowingly allows innocents to to drown in the mediterranean sea or pushing them back at borders under inhumane conditions.
Hate and walls will just pour oil on the fires of the extremists. What we really need to do, imho, is to support those reformers and peaceful groups to offer an alternative interpretation of muslim values.