Can secular governments stop the spread of radical Islam?

Discussion in 'General Global Topics' started by Casper, Jan 26, 2011.

  1. Casper
    Offline

    Casper Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    81
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +5
    Fear of Islam in the West is strengthening the role of Islamophobic and nationalist parties in government. These parties are intent on erecting barriers to hold back Muslim communities in Europe, resulting in greater ethnic tension, division, and even hostility. Governments should more closely monitor developments related to religion, and get involved to the extent that they are permitted by law.

    Yevgeny Shestakov’s and the Valdai International Discussion Club have interviewed Vitaly Naumkin :)clap2:), President, Russian Center of Strategic Studies; Director, Center for Arab Studies, Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences; Editor-in-Chief of Vostok-ORIENS; Professor and Chair, Faculty of World Politics, Moscow State University

    The most widespread approach is multiculturalism, which is particularly pronounced in Britain and the Netherlands. In a multicultural society, Muslims are free to preserve their identity, language and religion, and to pass on their religious heritage to their children. In other words, Muslim communities can keep their own cultural identity in a society that they share with many other cultures.

    However, even this mild approach has not been entirely successful. The terrorist attacks in Britain were carried out by immigrants from Pakistan who had lived in Britain for a long time, received education there, and seemed to have integrated into British society.

    The assimilationist, French approach holds that immigrants should quickly adopt the dominant French culture, the culture of the majority, and become deeply integrated in it while still preserving their identity. There have been problems with this approach, too. The recent events in France, the unrest caused by young immigrants living in Paris suburbs and other French regions, shows that they have not integrated into French society, and that many are not satisfied with the assimilationist approach. But I won’t go into detail about this now.

    Then there is the rather utopian, ‘guest worker’ approach, which is seen in Germany. Migrant workers are expected to come, do their jobs and leave. But they have stayed, and Chancellor Angela Merkel recently spoke openly about the problems with this approach. Immigrants in Germany are predominately Turks, who appear to be deeply integrated in German society, though there have been problems.

    One of the problems became apparent during the transition from the second to the third generation of immigrants. The second generation, the children of Turkish immigrants, has adopted German culture and become part of German society. Yet data shows that these people often have problems finding spouses in Germany, so second-generation Turkish men often marry girls from central Turkey and bring them to Germany. Their wives don’t know their adopted country, and so their children, third-generation Turkish immigrants, still need to be integrated into German society.
    People belonging to the majority culture are increasingly wary of Muslim immigrants, who naturally want to exercise their legal right to uphold their religious and ethnic identity. And there are other problems caused by, for example, freedom of the press as understood in Europe. I have in mind the controversy over the cartoon of Muhammad initially run in a Danish paper. There’s also the ban on wearing the niqab (veil covering all but the eyes) in France and Belgium. There have even been attempts by the authorities in some countries to prohibit girls and women from wearing the hijab (head scarf) in public institutions and schools.

    There is no uniformity even in Europe itself. That which is accepted in Britain is rejected in France. For example, Switzerland’s decision to outlaw the construction of new mosques, the result of a nationwide referendum, has been denounced by the commission in the Council of Europe that deals with such matters. But the plan is still in place.

    This fear of Islam has helped to bring Islamophobic and nationalist parties into power, and they are trying to put up barriers to hold back Muslim communities in Europe. This is sowing greater ethnic tension, division, and even hostility between cultures.

    Full version of this interview was published on valdaiclub.com
     
  2. José
    Online

    José Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,243
    Thanks Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Ratings:
    +360
    A much better question would be:

    "Can Radical Islam stop the spread of secularism?"

    The guys are so desperate to stop the growing encroachment of secular values on their societies they even feel the need to knock down american skyscrappers every now and then.
     
  3. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    Not with political oppression, police state tactics, or occupying foreign armies.

    To defeat a philosophy, one needs a superior philosophy.

    And the WEST doesn't have one, folks.

    I've got mine , get yours! isn't exactly a philosophy that's going to win the hearts and minds of the HAVE-NOT CLASSES, now, is it?
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2011
  4. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,281
    Thanks Received:
    3,999
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,907
    Maybe the question is SHOULD secular governments try to stop the spread of radical Islam, at least in Islamic countries. The current setup in places such as Egypt is a secular goverment, with a populace that at least partially supports a more religous government. Even in lebanon you have a strong force in Hezbollah and its supporters that see Iran as a model state.

    In most cases support of radical islam by the masses in these countries, as well as in the west carries no consequence. You can provide money, people, materials to terrorist organizations without any worry of retaliation from the targets the people you support select. They hide behind thier secular goverment, which says all the right things, and does nothing to stop thier own people from providing aid and comfort to groups that attack Europe, Israel, and the US.

    To me, maybe the best thing in the long run would be for a place like egypt to fall under radical islamic control. At that point we would be able to hold the country accountable for its actions, its people would lose thier secular goverment shield. I know this would probably lead to a war and bloodshed, but what is the real difference, between a major war and the current slow bleed conflict we have now?

    I see an added benefit to these countries falling under radical sway. At that point they would have to try something, thier ground support would demand it, and some of them would actually beleive they could win. At that point a massive conventional warfare bitch slap would maybe wake up those people who supported terrorists when they placed themselves in no risk. Now that thier actions result in actions against them and thier country as a whole, maybe thier support for the radicals would not be so strong.
     
  5. José
    Online

    José Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,243
    Thanks Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Ratings:
    +360
    Because everybody knows that a political philosophy that values the freedom of its citizens to choose their religion or lack thereof is inherently inferior to those that "make the choice" for them. :cuckoo: :cuckoo:
     
  6. José
    Online

    José Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,243
    Thanks Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Ratings:
    +360
    This US vs. THEM mentality is part of the problem not of the solution. It calously disregard the hundreds of millions of citizens of arab and asian countries who do not wish to live under any theocratic dictatorship as "insignificant", as being just a minority whose rights could be ignored to better advance the geopolitical goals of the West.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. José
    Online

    José Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,243
    Thanks Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Ratings:
    +360
    When you decide to come back to Earth, marty, you'll find out that in the long run, radical islam will be nothing but an insignificant footnote in History.
     
  8. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,281
    Thanks Received:
    3,999
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,907
    My point is about countries where there is a sizable movement for an theocratic state, not where a theocratic state is imposed upon people who do not want it.
     
  9. Longtail
    Offline

    Longtail Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well, I wish you were right but I doubt it.
     
  10. Mr.Nick
    Offline

    Mr.Nick VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    Messages:
    9,604
    Thanks Received:
    682
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +682
    Yes, progressives are just too goddamn pussy shit to do it.

    Progressive governments are too busy pandering to special interest groups (Islam and radical Islam is one of them) in order to stay in power.

    Progressives could care less about terrorist attacks. They subscribe to the notion that 100 terrorists go free than 1 innocent man be executed.
     

Share This Page