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

[Left Coast]

I was just outside, it's quite stormy out there.

Yes, I understand that ideas about Sharia vary. But they are all fundamentally theocratic and anti-secular.

That isn't true though. There are explicitly secular and liberal Muslims in the world.

Is this how you feel about Jewish halakha and Catholic canon law? Why does only Islamic sharia draw your criticism?

So again - with jazz hands - if immigrants are asked to abandon Sharia and they are otherwise qualified, then no problem. But you're acting as if countries haven't had strict immigration standards for decades.

Lol it seems as though you're the one unaware that we have long had strict immigration standards, and still do. And we've never required Muslims, or any other religious group with its own religious laws, to disavow those laws to live in the West. Your Trumpian immigration policy ideas are illiberal and based in ignorance.

 

[icehorse]

Nobody but you has mentioned “secular muslims”, so this seems to be a distraction to be ignored.

Anyone can decide that they don't like their country's political system. Someone born in the US could decide to become a Marxist. But OTOH, an avowed Marxist would not be allowed to immigrate if the immigration department is following the law. So far so good?

So, say more about your Bradford bus driver. What does he believe? Would he favor Sharia, or would he defend the UK's current laws?

You remind me of those English anti-Catholics of the last century that imagined Catholics were all secret agents of the Pope, trying to undermine British sovereignty.

I've never said "all", can we try to allow some nuance into the conversation? Of course not "all". But many. And why should we allow an avowed Islamist to immigrate?

 

[Debater Slayer]

That isn't true though. There are explicitly secular and liberal Muslims in the world.

I have known many secular Muslims, myself, and my country isn't even exactly liberal overall. One of them—who is pro-LGBT, feminist, and accepting of people of other religions—specifically wants to emigrate to escape from extreme conservatism and other issues facing people like her (e.g., frequent sexism and religious intolerance).

She's also a hijabi by choice, so I guess I should tell her that she's "not really a Muslim" and that she should be banned from Europe.

 

[exchemist]

Anyone can decide that they don't like their country's political system. Someone born in the US could decide to become a Marxist. But OTOH, an avowed Marxist would not be allowed to immigrate if the immigration department is following the law. So far so good?

So, say more about your Bradford bus driver. What does he believe? Would he favor Sharia, or would he defend the UK's current laws?



I've never said "all", can we try to allow some nuance into the conversation? Of course not "all". But many. And why should we allow an avowed Islamist to immigrate?

Nuance is exactly what I am arguing for. It seems to be you that is assuming no muslim can accept the law of the land. It would be helpful if you could confirm that is not what you are implying.

 

[Left Coast]

I've never said "all", can we try to allow some nuance into the conversation?

*spits out coffee*

LOL YES, we can! But it would require you to abandon silly hardline ideas like forcing all Muslims who immigrate to the West to "disavow Sharia."

So by all means, please, be nuanced. I can't wait to see it!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ONLY for the sake of discussion, let's say that the "fundy christians" in Poland hold values every bit as bad as Islamists.

Are you proposing making it worse by allowing more people with bad values to immigrate?

Just pointing out the hypocracy, because the very people that spew such islamophobia are the same people who are against abortion, are homophobic etc while waving bibles.

 

[Revoltingest]

LOL YES, we can! But it would require you to abandon silly hardline ideas like forcing all Muslims who immigrate to the West to "disavow Sharia."

As citizens, they'd have the right to change
their minds anyway. So disavowing Sharia
would be utterly unenforceable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As citizens, they'd have the right to change
their minds anyway. So disavowing Sharia
would be utterly unenforceable.

Exactly.

Case in point, the vast majority, as good as all of them in fact, of the "foreign terrorist fighters" that went from Belgium to Syria and who committed the attrocities in Paris and Brussels were in fact people that were born and raised right here in Belgium. Several in fact didn't even have arab backgrounds and were native Belgian converts.

 

[icehorse]

There are explicitly secular and liberal Muslims in the world.

I'm aware of the Muslim Reform Movement and a few celebrity individuals. And they talk about needing to reform Islam.

Any Muslim who is explicitly talking about reform is brave and - fwiw - has my support.

Is this how you feel about Jewish halakha and Catholic canon law? Why does only Islamic sharia draw your criticism?

I'm anti-theocracy in general

Lol it seems as though you're the one unaware that we have long had strict immigration standards, and still do. And we've never required Muslims, or any other religious group with its own religious laws, to disavow those laws to live in the West. Your Trumpian immigration policy ideas are illiberal and based in ignorance.

The reality is that for reasons of being PC (I guess), we tend to see Islam thru rose colored glasses. But strictly speaking, we do not allow totalitarians to immigrate and Islam is totalitarian.

How long since you've read our immigration laws? It's been a few years for me, but I have read the relevant parts.

So please, can we disagree without you resorting to personal insults?

 

[icehorse]

As citizens, they'd have the right to change
their minds anyway. So disavowing Sharia
would be utterly unenforceable.

I'm not 100% sure that that's true. I think that in many ways the bar for immigrants is always higher than for people born here.

 

[exchemist]

I'm aware of the Muslim Reform Movement and a few celebrity individuals. And they talk about needing to reform Islam.

Any Muslim who is explicitly talking about reform is brave and - fwiw - has my support.


I'm anti-theocracy in general



The reality is that for reasons of being PC (I guess), we tend to see Islam thru rose colored glasses. But strictly speaking, we do not allow totalitarians to immigrate and Islam is totalitarian.

How long since you've read our immigration laws? It's been a few years for me, but I have read the relevant parts.

So please, can we disagree without you resorting to personal insults?

It is the rise of political islam, largely a very recent (late c.20th phenomenon) that has led people like you to have such a misinformed view about the religion. It's not a question of "reform" so much as reverting to traditional practice. It's just balderdash to say baldly that "islam is totalitarian". It obviously isn't, or the countries that are by tradition mainly muslim would all be totalitarian theocracies, which plainly they are not.

What was that you said about nuance? I'm still waiting for you to confirm you do not think it impossible for a muslim to accept the law of the land (my post 64 refers). Are you going to do that? I notice you disappeared as soon as I asked you.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not 100% sure that that's true.

Consider the alternative, ie, that government
may legally regulate what an immigrant may
believe about religion after becoming a citizen.
You'd need a SCOTUS comprising 100% Trump
appointees to get that authoritarian view declared
cromulent.

 

[Left Coast]

I'm aware of the Muslim Reform Movement and a few celebrity individuals. And they talk about needing to reform Islam.

Any Muslim who is explicitly talking about reform is brave and - fwiw - has my support.

Yet you want to ban them from immigration to the West, because they won't disown part of their religion, even if it's compatible with secular law.

I'm anti-theocracy in general

Yet I can't remember the last thread you made critical of some other religion's laws. Nor have I heard you call for prohibitions on Jewish or Catholic immigration.

The reality is that for reasons of being PC (I guess), we tend to see Islam thru rose colored glasses. But strictly speaking, we do not allow totalitarians to immigrate and Islam is totalitarian.

The reality, as I see it, is that this has nothing to do with being "PC" and everything to do with you making absurd generalizations about Muslims. Certain versions of Islam are totalitarian. Certain versions of many religions are. So what?

How long since you've read our immigration laws? It's been a few years for me, but I have read the relevant parts.

I'm less familiar with Poland's than with America's. But I'm betting that's true for us both.

So please, can we disagree without you resorting to personal insults?

I didn't insult you. Your views are wildly extreme and rooted in ignorance of the diversity of views in Islam. And reminiscent of Trump. Trump wouldn't consider that an insult at all, he'd take it as a compliment!

 

[icehorse]

It is the rise of political islam, largely a very recent (late c.20th phenomenon) that has led people like you to have such a misinformed view about the religion. It's not a question of "reform" so much as reverting to traditional practice. It's just balderdash to say baldly that "islam is totalitarian". It obviously isn't, or the countries that are by tradition mainly muslim would all be totalitarian theocracies, which plainly they are not.

What was that you said about nuance? I'm still waiting for you to confirm you do not think it impossible for a muslim to accept the law of the land (my post 64 refers). Are you going to do that? I notice you disappeared as soon as I asked you.

As is common when criticizing woke ideas, I get a lot of responses to field. I can assure you I was not dodging anything, it was just an oversight. I do think it's telling however how frequently the woke reduce themselves to personal attacks. It's not a good look.

As to your 20th century comment, what? Can you explain how Islamists conquered Northern Africa and much of Europe. Islam has been political from the start.

As for "traditional practice", when were these golden years I'm inferring you're talking about?

Agreed, not ALL Muslim majority countries are theocracies, but many are.

==

Ok, to get back to your earlier question: Of course it's possible for any individual Muslim to accept the law of the land. But the point is that non-Muslims are - by definition - put into a dilemma when confronted with such a Muslim. Because such a Muslim IS being disingenuous in a very consequential way. They're either abandoning fundamentals of their faith, or they're lying. Which should an outsider believe?

 

[exchemist]

As is common when criticizing woke ideas, I get a lot of responses to field. I can assure you I was not dodging anything, it was just an oversight. I do think it's telling however how frequently the woke reduce themselves to personal attacks. It's not a good look.

As to your 20th century comment, what? Can you explain how Islamists conquered Northern Africa and much of Europe. Islam has been political from the start.

As for "traditional practice", when were these golden years I'm inferring you're talking about?

Agreed, not ALL Muslim majority countries are theocracies, but many are.

==

Ok, to get back to your earlier question: Of course it's possible for any individual Muslim to accept the law of the land. But the point is that non-Muslims are - by definition - put into a dilemma when confronted with such a Muslim. Because such a Muslim IS being disingenuous in a very consequential way. They're either abandoning fundamentals of their faith, or they're lying. Which should an outsider believe?

Which ones are theocracies? I can think of one.

 

[icehorse]

Consider the alternative, ie, that government
may legally regulate what an immigrant may
believe about religion after becoming a citizen.
You'd need a SCOTUS comprising 100% Trump
appointees to get that authoritarian view declared
cromulent.

So what are valid grounds to have immigrants deported?

 

[Revoltingest]

So what are valid grounds to have immigrants deported?

Illegal acts.

 

[icehorse]

Yet you want to ban them from immigration to the West, because they won't disown part of their religion, even if it's compatible with secular law.

Sharia is - by definition - completely incompatible with secularism.

Yet I can't remember the last thread you made critical of some other religion's laws. Nor have I heard you call for prohibitions on Jewish or Catholic immigration.

I would be critical of any immigrant who wants to bring any form of theocracy.

The reality, as I see it, is that this has nothing to do with being "PC" and everything to do with you making absurd generalizations about Muslims. Certain versions of Islam are totalitarian.

As far as I know almost all major sects in Islam are totalitarian. Perhaps Baha'i are not?

I didn't insult you. Your views are wildly extreme and rooted in ignorance of the diversity of views in Islam.

Some parts of Islam are diverse, but the fundamentals are not. And that's what I'm talking about. Have you read the Quran? Are you saying that you can be a Muslim and say explicitly that the Quran is in error?

And reminiscent of Trump. Trump wouldn't consider that an insult at all, he'd take it as a compliment!

Ah, good old identity politics, way to throw try to throw a spanner into thoughtful disagreements. You ought to see if you can go an entire thread disagreeing with someone without using some cheap fallacy argument.

 

[icehorse]

Illegal acts.

such as plotting to undermine the constitution?

 

[icehorse]

Which ones are theocracies? I can think of one.

There are some nuances here.

These I think are pretty "pure": Iran, SA, Vatican, Israel, Afghanistan, NK, China.

Some I think are theocratic in practice, such as Pakistan.