Is anti-theocracy considered a "far right" position, e.g. the Netherlands

[icehorse]

Actually, most people immigrate due to economic causes. Not because of values.

Agreed, but they tend to bring their values with them. Even if all we were discussing was economics, why would a prosperous country want to allow people to bring their failed economic ideas with them?

 

[icehorse]

Theocracy is a right stance I think.

The nature of that theocracy determines whether it is far right or not.

And even the non religious can be considered far right if they reject a theocracy based off a racist and cultural agenda rather than on the merits of the theocracy itself.

Agreed, so it seems odd that being anti-theocracy would be viewed ALSO as a right wing stance?

 

[Koldo]

Agreed, but they tend to bring their values with them. Even if all we were discussing was economics, why would a prosperous country want to allow people to bring their failed economic ideas with them?

Erm... How do you figure their economic ideas are failed?

 

[sun rise]

I don't think any Christian theocracies even exist in the 21st Century?

The Vatican is one because it's a state. Other countries have Christianity as the official religion.

 

[icehorse]

Alright. Give us a step by step process on how they might effectively do that. Do you also call on moderate Christians to combat the fundamentalism and extremism within their faith?

First off, stop being a victim. Victim hood seems to be a popular lifestyle these days, but it's a bad worldview.
Second, ask why they wanted to immigrate in the first place, be honest about why where they're leaving isn't working for them.

And finally, I think what Patton said makes a lot of sense: "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."

Once they've decided to make a change, they'll come up with amazing strategies.

 

[icehorse]

Erm... How do you figure their economic ideas are failed?

Okay now I'm confused, didn't you just say immigrants are usually motivated by economics? So of course they tend to be leaving places whose economic approaches are failing them, correct?

 

[Father Heathen]

First off, stop being a victim. Victim hood seems to be a popular lifestyle these days, but it's a bad worldview.

Whaaa... lol, now how am I "being a victim"? Of what?

Second, ask why they wanted to immigrate in the first place, be honest about why where they're leaving isn't working for them.

If it were because of Sharia, why would they bring it with them?

And finally, I think what Patton said makes a lot of sense: "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."

So in other words you have no idea how they might plausibly achieve what you would expect them to.

Once they've decided to make a change, they'll come up with amazing strategies.

Any examples of amazing strategies that own your community has come up with, however you might define your equivilant?

 

[sun rise]

Even if all we were discussing was economics, why would a prosperous country want to allow people to bring their failed economic ideas with them?

Prosperous for whom? From the point-of-view of the Nordic countries, the US has failed economic ideas about health care and social welfare. That the rich are super-rich is no true measure of prosperity.

 

[icehorse]

Whaaa... lol, now how am I "being a victim"? Of what?

Don't be tedious, of course I was talking about Islamic immigrants, not you, doh!

If it were because of Sharia, why would they bring it with them?

Good question. Ego? bias? We see people follow failed strategies all the time.

Any examples of amazing strategies that own your community has come up with, however you might define your equivilant?

More tedium, ffs. The Muslim Reform Movement seems like a fine example.

 

[icehorse]

Prosperous for whom? From the point-of-view of the Nordic countries, the US has failed economic ideas about health care and social welfare. That the rich are super-rich is no true measure of prosperity.

Also tedious. Are you really unaware of the various metrics of economic success used to compare countries?

An obvious one is average life expectancy, which varies greatly from country to country. Another is women's safety.

 

[Koldo]

Okay now I'm confused, didn't you just say immigrants are usually motivated by economics? So of course they tend to be leaving places whose economic approaches are failing them, correct?

Yes. Are you under the impression that the economic values of those immigrants are the driving force behind the economical failure in their countries of origin? Why?

 

[Estro Felino]

The Vatican is one because it's a state. Other countries have Christianity as the official religion.

It's not a country, though.

 

[icehorse]

Yes. Are you under the impression that the economic values of those immigrants are the driving force behind the economical failure in their countries of origin? Why?

I think many of them bring what they know, what they grew up with. I would suspect that it would be rare for an individual immigrant to say:

- I want to bring Sharia
- I want to abandon my old country's values, the ones that drive economies.

It's possible, but I'd say unusual.

 

[Koldo]

I think many of them bring what they know, what they grew up with. I would suspect that it would be rare for an individual immigrant to say:

- I want to bring Sharia

Do you mean the opposite?

- I want to abandon my old country's values, the ones that drive economies.

It's possible, but I'd say unusual.

Let's pick an actual example: What's the difference between the economic values of an immigrant coming from Mexico and an USA citizen, for example?

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes. Are you under the impression that the economic values of those immigrants are the driving force behind the economical failure in their countries of origin? Why?

I don't think so.
Look at the UAE. At Qatar. They are incredibly rich, there.

I think many of them bring what they know, what they grew up with. I would suspect that it would be rare for an individual immigrant to say:

- I want to bring Sharia
- I want to abandon my old country's values, the ones that drive economies.

It's possible, but I'd say unusual.

Fundamentalism is bad in every religion.
Fundamentalists are obsessed with numbers.
This constant obsession with becoming the first religion in the world.
So their whole existence revolves around making babies, future followers of the religion, and proselytizing.

Progress, scientific discoveries, economic success I guess come second.

 

[flowerpower]

If people weren't constantly attempting to contest other peoples' rights and freedoms, it would go away. Can't fault anyone for defending themselves from bigotry fueled tyranny.

That's a fair enough comment.

Although I definitely can and would fault someone for defending themself obnoxiously from imaginary bigotry fueled tyranny; especially if that straw man exercise involves drawing battle lines, causing conflict and problems where there were no need for it to begin with.

One of the most liberal parts of the city I'm in (and arguably the most petulant left-wing parts of the country I live in literally has bloodthirsty "anti-Nazi" posters plastered on a lot of the buildings that have been there for years that I don't expect to come down anytime soon. Nazis haven't really ever been a problem in my city and I don't expect them to ever really exist around here, but that doesn't stop these people from angrily fighting windmills.

The local council actually spent taxpayer money on cute little sincere "Racism Not Welcome Here" street signs like speed limits when overt racism is a pretty rare occurrence where we live.

My city is also the heart of my country's gay community for what that's worth and they are rainbows painted over everything pretty much everywhere you go. The only people who seem to oppose their community are the fundamentalist church people who seem like literal shadow-dwelling gargoyles at this point but that doesn't stop these minority group members from thinking, feeling and behaving like they're under some kind of constant threat (they aren't).

When people point to problems where there aren't any and indulge or adopt a disposition that is fight/flight ready when it isn't necessary or appropriate, it can be extremely harmful to society - and that's exactly what the core of identity politics is at this moment in time.

I don't think it was always this way in the west but it sure is now.

If these marginalized groups really want to start a fight along the lines of defending themselves against "bigotry fueled tyranny" (which isn't happening in western countries), maybe they should defend themselves against things like Islamic theocracies like the ones in Iran, Afghanistan or extremely socially conservative fascist states like Russia.

That brings us full circle to the OP and being anti-theocracy in the Netherlands - maybe a good place to start for those SJWs is by preventing people who are hostile to their ways of life from exerting authority and control over nations that are not only tolerant and accepting of their way of life but also actively celebrate them.

The Vatican is one because it's a state. Other countries have Christianity as the official religion.

Well, yeah but... y'know.

The Vatican is a technicality really.

The Christianity as an official religion countries aren't really theocracies either. At least not in practice.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Agreed, but they tend to bring their values with them. Even if all we were discussing was economics, why would a prosperous country want to allow people to bring their failed economic ideas with them?

Do you think states should determine who should be allowed to immigrate to them based on their "economic ideas"? What is the logic behind the idea that people who immigrate for economic reasons would want to continue living under the economic conditions that they just left?

Values aren't indelibly stamped on people from birth. They change in accordance to material conditions. This is why, on average, Muslims in western nations tend to be more liberal, while Muslims in the middle-east - where their religious ideas represent the current hegemonic power - tend to me far more conservative. This isn't difficult to understand. It's easy to imagine an American who has spent all their life in America being a preservationist, but an American who has moved abroad behind substantially more in favour of immigrant rights.

If you create the material incentives for people to adopt certain ideas, they tend to be more likely to adopt them. The worst thing you can do is be essentialist, assuming that a person with X background must necessarily hold X values. This is just ethno-nationalism, and if you're not a fan of failed political and economic ideologies, you should know already how that doesn't tend to work out.

 

[icehorse]

Do you think states should determine who should be allowed to immigrate to them based on their "economic ideas"? What is the logic behind the idea that people who immigrate for economic reasons would want to continue living under the economic conditions that they just left?

Values aren't indelibly stamped on people from birth. They change in accordance to material conditions. This is why, on average, Muslims in western nations tend to be more liberal, while Muslims in the middle-east - where their religious ideas represent the current hegemonic power - tend to me far more conservative. This isn't difficult to understand. It's easy to imagine an American who has spent all their life in America being a preservationist, but an American who has moved abroad behind substantially more in favour of immigrant rights.

If you create the material incentives for people to adopt certain ideas, they tend to be more likely to adopt them. The worst thing you can do is be essentialist, assuming that a person with X background must necessarily hold X values. This is just ethno-nationalism, and if you're not a fan of failed political and economic ideologies, you should know already how that doesn't tend to work out.

Theocracy and bad economics tend to go hand in hand these days - unless your country happens to be blessed with lots and lots of oil.

 

[Koldo]

Theocracy and bad economics tend to go hand in hand these days - unless your country happens to be blessed with lots and lots of oil.

But what are those bad economical values? What economic values do you consider to be enshrined only by bad economies that are generally held by, or supported by, the majority of ordinary citizens in those countries?

 

[icehorse]

But what are those bad economical values? What economic values do you consider to be enshrined only by bad economies that are generally held by, or supported by, the majority of ordinary citizens in those countries?

you're making a couple of assumptions there that i'm not claiming.

but let me ask you, why is it that muslim majority countries tend to be poor unless they have oil? I think culture and economics are a part of a system.