Multiculturing Interculters Cross Cultures

[jillian]

Saw that, Grump. Thanks. Answered you there, too.

Spot y'all later!

 

[Foxfyre]

Quite a bit of generalisation there Doug. THere are plenty of 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims in Britain that hardly follow the religion at all. People seem to think you get a million Muslims in Britain they're all OBL's. They're not. They just want to be left alone to live their life. Are there radicals? Sure, there is the National Front in Britain, too. Does that mean every white Britain is a racist and belongs to the organisation? Hell no.


Jillian...PMs aren't working. Pmed you on the AM....:O)

You're missing the point Doug was making, however, and that I was attempting to make earlier. Peace loving Muslims live all over the world. Two Muslim families are my neighbors and they are terrific. They are hard working, law abiding people and enjoyable to have around. I don't know when or where they worship Allah, if they do so actively at all. So far as I know there is no Mosque in Albuquerque. In most European nations too, most Muslims live peacefully and in harmony with their neighbors.

But what happens when Muslims become a majority, especially a large majority in any country? Now the Ayatollahs and other Muslim clerics use the advantage to push Sharia law, and they will persuade or force or intimidate the Muslim population to accept that as the law of the land. Any Muslim who refuses Sharia law or speaks against Mohammed or the law of Allah is an automatic target. Muslims will be elected to government and, once a majority, is achieved, they will have free rein to fashion it as they wish. All this may not happen overnight--most likely it will happen cleverly and incrementally--but historically there is ample evidence that it will happen and the non-Muslim people will be helpless to stop it.

Muslims perse'are not bad or evil people, but the religious among them are required to obey Allah and that requires subjugation of certain human rights and certain requirements of obedience.

I think no formerly non-Muslim country can acquire a strong Muslim majority without losing its basic character and culture. And I think it is quite naive to not accept that reality.

 

[Doug]

One of the advantages (and there are several) of spending a couple of decades as a Marxist, is that you get a pretty good grounding in dialectical thinking, which does not come naturally, especially not to Americans (given our particular history).

So, let me agree with FoxFyre: what we are asserting is NOT that all, or a majority, or even a large minority, of Muslims are fire-breathing jihadis, keen to cut infidel throats.

On the other hand, the Muslim population in Europe -- and certainly in Britain, where I am more familiar with it -- does not consist of a few hundred would-be throat-cutters, hiding amidst two million liberal-minded tolerant secularists.

The situation is more complex than that, is to be apprehended in terms of potentials as much in terms of static current realities, situated in a broader context (in this case, of Western cultural cringe and self-hatred).

I am not at my home computer now (and am in fact in a city which has almost achieved a Muslim majority) so I do not have the relevant data to hand. I shall supply it in a couple of days: what is important is -- actual percentages of Muslims who are not nice tolerant liberal secularists; the direction of motion of changes in their attitudes; British responses to this reality, etc.

The reality is not pleasant.

 

[Shogun]

And what does that have to do with the thesis of multiculturalism as a positive or negative force? Would you think it a healthy thing or a bad thing for a majority of Catholics to move into your state or country and mandate that the Roman Catholic catechisms be incorporated into the law of the land and all be required to obey them? (I am unaware of any Catholic majorities who are doing that of course, but at least some deference to Sharia law does seem to happen in all predominantly Islamic countries.)

There is much that is beneficial when a people share common positive values and can agree on what kind of society they want and work together to accomplish it. It is rarely beneficial, however, when one segment of the people forces the others to accept their own different value system and thus change everything.

Well, i guess we COULD ask the natives of pre-catholocism latin America what THEY thought of being conquered and forced to observe the holy trinity... but good luck finding one. I find it hilarious that you people will cry about muslim culture invading your little bubble while totally ignoring how christianity has spread from the fall of rome until Global explorers. Yes, cry me a river because Mohamed, instead of David, is rising in popularity. boohoo. Again, how many Colonial Americans will it take to help you understand that culture is NEVER static unless it acts both xenophobic and reclusive? Shall I post a pic of our founding fathers and ask why we no longer wear wigs and pantaloons?

An army of catholics is already here and, guess what.... as long as they are not out forming their own inquisition I don't give a rats ass who they take marching orders from. As long as we maintain the first amendment then it's no skin off my feet WHO the catholics pray to. Good grief, Mohammed is just a name. Name your kid Jesus or Micheal of Gabriel and get on with your life. Hell, you MIGHT even come to appriciate the spice of life.

 

[Shogun]

One of the advantages (and there are several) of spending a couple of decades as a Marxist, is that you get a pretty good grounding in dialectical thinking, which does not come naturally, especially not to Americans (given our particular history).

So, let me agree with FoxFyre: what we are asserting is NOT that all, or a majority, or even a large minority, of Muslims are fire-breathing jihadis, keen to cut infidel throats.

On the other hand, the Muslim population in Europe -- and certainly in Britain, where I am more familiar with it -- does not consist of a few hundred would-be throat-cutters, hiding amidst two million liberal-minded tolerant secularists.

The situation is more complex than that, is to be apprehended in terms of potentials as much in terms of static current realities, situated in a broader context (in this case, of Western cultural cringe and self-hatred).

I am not at my home computer now (and am in fact in a city which has almost achieved a Muslim majority) so I do not have the relevant data to hand. I shall supply it in a couple of days: what is important is -- actual percentages of Muslims who are not nice tolerant liberal secularists; the direction of motion of changes in their attitudes; British responses to this reality, etc.

The reality is not pleasant.

ridiculous.


How many liberals do you think are at all willing to suspend applicable laws in order to facilitate muslims over christians? How many LIBERALS do you see trying to rationalize a muslim father in a western nation who killed his daughter because of her attire? NONE? praytell, if you can show me ANY liberals who argued that muslims should be allowed to follow their religious law ABOVE the constitutional laws of the nation please do so. Otherwise, your silly post confuses willing religious and cultural tolorance for a double standard. I assure you that anything that applies to the Eric Rudolphs will also apply to killer Mohammeds... Not that you can sift through comments made after Van Gogh's death, or ANYTHING similar, and find representative liberals defending his MURDER. But, again, I'll toss down this gauntlet and DARE you to prove me wrong.

Indeed, if you want to see callous justification at its worst try bringing up Rachel Corrie to a circle of conservatives.

 

[midcan5]

Doug, Foxfyre, William

I think you guys forget you live in history, the same arguments could be made against Christianity during it ascendancy. Consider that we have numerous Christian sects in this country and they all get along. But key here is separation of church and state which conservatives detest as they want to control an individual's life. In Doug's post one could substitute Christianity, as it too has many illiberal ideas. The future of Muslim influence will depend on how much they move into the modern age politically, if they remain conservative and by that I mean sticking closely to dogma, they will never become a liberal democratic society. Our own society fights against the same conservative forces that push back against progress. If I were asked what would move Muslims into a more tolerant political state it has to be an improvement in education and economics. That requires much but bombing them ain't helping anyone.

 

[Doug]

Let me see if I understand Shogun et al's argument:

We say: If Muslims become a majority in Europe, or even a large minority, there may be very bad implications for liberal democracy. Indeed, even where they are only a small minority (say, in the UK, where they are about 3% at the moment), there are already bad implications for liberal democracy.

And the liberal response is: our ancestors did very bad things to the native population of Latin America.

So, is the liberal argument: "Yes, bad times are indeed coming for white folks, and they deserve it, because of what the Spaniards did to the kind and peaceful Aztecs?"

If so, then the miseries metted out on Muslims by the Crusaders could be justified by the previous violent history of Islam in earlier centuries towards non-Islamic peoples.

In fact, given the savage nature of human beings, who are simply intelligent hairless chimpanzees, every one of us no doubt has innumerable ancestors who were guilty of every crime against humanity we could imagine, and some we could not.

The argument makes no sense at all.

But if we understand that liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide, then we will understand why it is usually futile to try to talk someone who is determined to kill themselves out of it. If only the liberals would offer their own soft white throats to the jihadis, and leave the non-suicidal part of the population to prepare our defense.

Footnote: I am being telegraphic here in my use of the word "liberals" -- I know that West-hating self-loathing Lefties are by no means the whole of the liberal movement. So, to the sensible liberals reading this, if the insane idea that 'we deserve it' is not your kind of liberalism, I apologize, and look forward to seeing some liberal contributions on the side of sanity.

 

[Shogun]

No, my post says that you are ignorant to try and insist that liberals are willing to allow a double standard application when you have a sum total of ZERO examples of a single liberal argueing in FAVOR of sharia law usurping national law. Would you like me to quote myself?

My comment to Foxfyre lampoons her opinion that current muslim cultural influence in Euro is unique in it's threat to influence and CHANGE standing culture of the host countries. The christians did it to latin America and rome just like the muslims are doing it in euro. When you have a single example of a liberal DEFENDING the murder of van gogh or a westernized muslim daughter then holla back. Lame assed strawmen really are not impressive.

Give me a single example of LIBERALS putting sharia law, which is what you are hinting at, above national law like I asked in the last post instead of hiding.

The one smart thing you admitted is that Culture is not static. A muslim influence won't kill western democracy as long as the tenants of western democracy are upheld. WHITE PEOPLE do not have a monopoly on the United States or Europe. The system will work just as well in an England full of Westernized Mohammeds just as it does for a nation of Latin JESUSs. It's unfortunate that you equate western political policy with skin color.

 

[Doug]

No, I did not say liberals support the introduction of repressive Sharia law.

I say liberals are indifferent to the growth of an immigrant population which itself, as a collective entity, is far from unanimously opposed to that law.

This is why it is perfectly justified for anyone with a brain, who supports the rule of secular law and liberal democracy, to be worried about the growth of the Muslim population in Europe.

If the overwhelming majority of Muslims were vehement supporters of secular democracy, there would be no problem. But that isn't true.

Furthermore, liberals -- or rather, the West-hating Politically Correct Thoughtpolicemen among them, who are numerous -- work in tandem with Islamists, by supporting Thoughtcrime prosecutions against people who raise doubts about the reality of multi-culturalism. More importantly, the liberal intelligentsia who run our educational and political systems are committed to multi-culturalism, which means the praise of every culture except the indigenous one. We can see their counterparts in this very thread. Thus Islamism is filling a vacuum in a society whose spokesmen have lost confidence in it.

Liberals -- or a significant number of them -- are ashamed of the West and do not want to defend it. Perhaps they see its future defeat at the hands of Islamists as justified punishment for its past crimes. (And those crimes are very real, as are the crimes of every tribe and nation that could oppress other tribes and nations.)

Sometimes apologists for Islamism pretend that only a tiny, insignificant minority of Muslims are Islamists, or sympathetic to Islamism. But this is false. Anti-democratic, anti-Western Muslims are a significant minority of the Muslim population. And static percentages are just the starting point of wisdom: a strong, determined minority with a clear vision, amidst a divided and confused and indifferent majority, may well find that it can wield power far out of proportion to its numbers.

Already, Islamists have effectively forbidden public satire aimed at their religion in Britain. Playwrites know that they risk death if they disobey this unofficial, but deadly real, dictat.

A few months ago, DeadCanDance and I had an exchange of views on this issue, in which we looked at various polls taken of Muslim opinion around the world. Dead's original comment was here, and my reply was here. (The discussion continued for a bit after these posts.)

For those who don't want to read past debates, here is a short quiz:

When four born-in-Britain Muslims blew themselves, and dozens of other people, to pieces on the London subway two and a half years ago, what percentage of the Muslim population in Britain thought that the murderers were martyrs?

What percentage thought that their cause was just?

What percentage of Muslims in Britain think of themselves as Muslims first, and British second?

What percentage would like to see Sharia law introduced into parts of Britain?

Answers to all the above questions can be found in links in the posts referenced above. In a day or two I will supply the figures for those too ... busy ... to check the links for themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, i guess we COULD ask the natives of pre-catholocism latin America what THEY thought of being conquered and forced to observe the holy trinity... but good luck finding one. I find it hilarious that you people will cry about muslim culture invading your little bubble while totally ignoring how christianity has spread from the fall of rome until Global explorers. Yes, cry me a river because Mohamed, instead of David, is rising in popularity. boohoo. Again, how many Colonial Americans will it take to help you understand that culture is NEVER static unless it acts both xenophobic and reclusive? Shall I post a pic of our founding fathers and ask why we no longer wear wigs and pantaloons?

An army of catholics is already here and, guess what.... as long as they are not out forming their own inquisition I don't give a rats ass who they take marching orders from. As long as we maintain the first amendment then it's no skin off my feet WHO the catholics pray to. Good grief, Mohammed is just a name. Name your kid Jesus or Micheal of Gabriel and get on with your life. Hell, you MIGHT even come to appriciate the spice of life.

Okay, let's back all the red herrings, ad hominem inferences, and irrelevant stuff out of your post and deal with the pertinent point related to the thread and responsive to my post which you quoted. . . .hmmmm, there doesn't seem to be anything left.

You conveniently overlooked both Doug and my points that we have no problem whatsoever with Muslims and that would include what they name their children. The point made that you failed to address, however, is not that some people are different from us. The point is, that some people would force us to be like them should they obtain the power to do so.

If you think giving up some or all of your constitutional freedoms and living under Sharia law would help you appreciate the spice of life, well by all means go for it. There are a lot of predominantly Islamic countries out there that should meet your needs quite handily. I rather like our culture and the freedoms we have under our constitution however, as I think the Brits rather like their culture and the freedoms they enjoy. I personally think it would be unfortunate should either of us lose that.

 

[Dr Grump]

You're missing the point Doug was making, however, and that I was attempting to make earlier. Peace loving Muslims live all over the world. Two Muslim families are my neighbors and they are terrific. They are hard working, law abiding people and enjoyable to have around. I don't know when or where they worship Allah, if they do so actively at all. So far as I know there is no Mosque in Albuquerque. In most European nations too, most Muslims live peacefully and in harmony with their neighbors.

But what happens when Muslims become a majority, especially a large majority in any country? Now the Ayatollahs and other Muslim clerics use the advantage to push Sharia law, and they will persuade or force or intimidate the Muslim population to accept that as the law of the land. Any Muslim who refuses Sharia law or speaks against Mohammed or the law of Allah is an automatic target. Muslims will be elected to government and, once a majority, is achieved, they will have free rein to fashion it as they wish. All this may not happen overnight--most likely it will happen cleverly and incrementally--but historically there is ample evidence that it will happen and the non-Muslim people will be helpless to stop it.

Muslims perse'are not bad or evil people, but the religious among them are required to obey Allah and that requires subjugation of certain human rights and certain requirements of obedience.

I think no formerly non-Muslim country can acquire a strong Muslim majority without losing its basic character and culture. And I think it is quite naive to not accept that reality.

It has yet to happen though, in any country in Europe. And it may never. I don't by into it. A lot of UK Muslims are becoming Eurpeanised. One of the biggest problems in Muslim countries is ignorance due to the leaders of those countries not allowing for proper education. This does not happen in the UK or France or Holland where Muslims are educated. Ditto the US with your Nation of Islam. Sure, there are haters,but they are usually on the periphery. I find Muslim radicals just as much a pain in the arse as the Fred Phelps of this world.

Getting back to Mohammed being the most popular name in Britain, you never answered my "so?" post to your post.

To me this is a typical tactic of alarmists who try and make out things are worse than they really are. You do know that Mohammed is a very popular first born name for Muslims, right? So it is no surprise it is the most popular name. No doubt you are trying to equate the fact that more Muslims must have been born in Britain than non-Muslim due to Mohammed being so popular. There is no equivalent to Mohammed in the non-Muslim world. There could be 10,000 non-Muslim males born in Britain and 1000 Muslim males born in the same period and Mohammed would still be the most popular name out of the 11,000 born simply because over half the Muslim boys would be called Mohammed. I doubt over half the non-Muslim kids would be called Jack or David or Sam or Steve. We have a much more diverse number of names. Muslims don't.

 

[Dr Grump]

One of the advantages (and there are several) of spending a couple of decades as a Marxist, is that you get a pretty good grounding in dialectical thinking, which does not come naturally, especially not to Americans (given our particular history).

So, let me agree with FoxFyre: what we are asserting is NOT that all, or a majority, or even a large minority, of Muslims are fire-breathing jihadis, keen to cut infidel throats.

On the other hand, the Muslim population in Europe -- and certainly in Britain, where I am more familiar with it -- does not consist of a few hundred would-be throat-cutters, hiding amidst two million liberal-minded tolerant secularists.

The situation is more complex than that, is to be apprehended in terms of potentials as much in terms of static current realities, situated in a broader context (in this case, of Western cultural cringe and self-hatred).

I am not at my home computer now (and am in fact in a city which has almost achieved a Muslim majority) so I do not have the relevant data to hand. I shall supply it in a couple of days: what is important is -- actual percentages of Muslims who are not nice tolerant liberal secularists; the direction of motion of changes in their attitudes; British responses to this reality, etc.

The reality is not pleasant.

What city are you in?

 

[Shogun]

No, I did not say liberals support the introduction of repressive Sharia law.

I say liberals are indifferent to the growth of an immigrant population which itself, as a collective entity, is far from unanimously opposed to that law.

This is why it is perfectly justified for anyone with a brain, who supports the rule of secular law and liberal democracy, to be worried about the growth of the Muslim population in Europe.

If the overwhelming majority of Muslims were vehement supporters of secular democracy, there would be no problem. But that isn't true.

Furthermore, liberals -- or rather, the West-hating Politically Correct Thoughtpolicemen among them, who are numerous -- work in tandem with Islamists, by supporting Thoughtcrime prosecutions against people who raise doubts about the reality of multi-culturalism. More importantly, the liberal intelligentsia who run our educational and political systems are committed to multi-culturalism, which means the praise of every culture except the indigenous one. We can see their counterparts in this very thread. Thus Islamism is filling a vacuum in a society whose spokesmen have lost confidence in it.

Liberals -- or a significant number of them -- are ashamed of the West and do not want to defend it. Perhaps they see its future defeat at the hands of Islamists as justified punishment for its past crimes. (And those crimes are very real, as are the crimes of every tribe and nation that could oppress other tribes and nations.)

Sometimes apologists for Islamism pretend that only a tiny, insignificant minority of Muslims are Islamists, or sympathetic to Islamism. But this is false. Anti-democratic, anti-Western Muslims are a significant minority of the Muslim population. And static percentages are just the starting point of wisdom: a strong, determined minority with a clear vision, amidst a divided and confused and indifferent majority, may well find that it can wield power far out of proportion to its numbers.

Already, Islamists have effectively forbidden public satire aimed at their religion in Britain. Playwrites know that they risk death if they disobey this unofficial, but deadly real, dictat.

A few months ago, DeadCanDance and I had an exchange of views on this issue, in which we looked at various polls taken of Muslim opinion around the world. Dead's original comment was here, and my reply was here. (The discussion continued for a bit after these posts.)

For those who don't want to read past debates, here is a short quiz:

When four born-in-Britain Muslims blew themselves, and dozens of other people, to pieces on the London subway two and a half years ago, what percentage of the Muslim population in Britain thought that the murderers were martyrs?

What percentage thought that their cause was just?

What percentage of Muslims in Britain think of themselves as Muslims first, and British second?

What percentage would like to see Sharia law introduced into parts of Britain?

Answers to all the above questions can be found in links in the posts referenced above. In a day or two I will supply the figures for those too ... busy ... to check the links for themselves.

So the fear is, as Muslims grow in numbers and influence in Britain, so also will these backward Islamic values grow. Already, writers in Britain are afraid to satirize Islam, for fear of both murderous Muslim retaliation against them, and the actions of the Politically-Correct Thought Police here. (And this, despite Britain having a rich tradition of anti-religious satire -- remember the brilliant Life of Brian. A similar film making fun of Mohammed is now utterly inconceivable.)

Liberals, who have been at the forefront of defending individual freedoms, certainly more so than conservatives, should, by logic, be the first to be concerned about this. After all, Islamists share a number of socially-conservative positions with Christian fundamentalists. Both might be happy with a strict censorship that prevented satirization of religion.

But to believe that would be to ignore another component of liberalism: its deeply-rooted anti-Western assumptions, which see the West, and its capitalist system, as the source of the world's evils.



Your words, buddy. Hey, why don't you show me a single example of LIBERAL INDIFFERENCE to the death of theo van gogh? Or, shall we dance around the vocab some more? You seem to think that liberals, because they are tolerant of muslim culture and are not scared to friggin death of muslim influence on the common culture AND can understand the historic pattern of a non-static culture, are INDIFFERENT to criminal behaviour, as defined by constitutional standards, when muslims are the offenders. That's utter crap. If you equate Western democracy with white people then, again, thats your problem Democracy neither requires a white euro majority nor traditional euro customs to still be a western democracy. In other words, THE SAME DEMOCRACY THT WORKED IN AMERICA IN 1790 STILL WORKS IN 2007 EVEN THOUGH THE CULTURE IS PROFOUNDLY DIFFERENT.

But, I'll ask one more time. Give me ONE example of a single liberal that was "indifferent" or "callous" or just didn't give a rats ass about theo Van Gogh or dead muslim daughters. Liberals are willing to hold muslims up to the same LEGAL standard as they do christians at the first sign of infraction. I don't recall a single liberal suggesting that muslim killers are not still killers. If we don't share our open vitriolic hatred of muslims like our conservative comrades, well, thats because WE are the tolerant side of the political spectrum. You can prove to me otherwise by showing me your evidence regarding the supposed apathy of liberals to muslims who commit CRIMES (beyond *gasp* influencing the culture in which they live.. the AUDACITY!)


If the overwhelming majority of Muslims were vehement supporters of secular democracy, there would be no problem. But that isn't true.

Show me your source. I've got 20 cents that says you don't have one that suggests any such thing outside of silly conservative rhetoric.


Furthermore, liberals -- or rather, the West-hating Politically Correct Thoughtpolicemen among them, who are numerous -- work in tandem with Islamists, by supporting Thoughtcrime prosecutions against people who raise doubts about the reality of multi-culturalism. More importantly, the liberal intelligentsia who run our educational and political systems are committed to multi-culturalism, which means the praise of every culture except the indigenous one. We can see their counterparts in this very thread. Thus Islamism is filling a vacuum in a society whose spokesmen have lost confidence in it.


What silly bullshit. I take it you are not a fan of giving the british isles BACK to the pagans but do lecture us on respecting indigenous peoples. Dare I make this punchline richer and ask you how you feel about palestinians? THOUGHT crime? Hey, no one is throwing you in jail for saying stupid shit. IF we in America can stomach fred phelps then you, sir, only convey stupidity when making such a claim. Multi-culturalism IS a good thing. Considering the hisotry of your nation it doesn't shock me to see that you can't figure that out.



Already, Islamists have effectively forbidden public satire aimed at their religion in Britain. Playwrites know that they risk death if they disobey this unofficial, but deadly real, dictat.

So, it's against the law to insult mohammed in England? No? Last I recall Salmon Rushdie is still alive. If all you need to hear is your version of ****** jokes then just say so and we can make fun of Allah, mohammed and any other piece of dogma silliness. I get the impression, though, that you are trying to do exactly what the believers of nordicism tried to do with intellectualizing racism.

Show me where a murdering muslim falls short of the application of english law. Otherwise, don't blame liberals if your entire nation are a bunch of pussies who are not willing to stand up for their national rights. Liberals don't suggest that muslim intimidation is a national right... But, if you have evidence otherwise... why don't you shock me and post it instead of acting like some low-jaw wannabe professor?

When four born-in-Britain Muslims blew themselves, and dozens of other people, to pieces on the London subway two and a half years ago, what percentage of the Muslim population in Britain thought that the murderers were martyrs?
What percentage thought that their cause was just?
What percentage of Muslims in Britain think of themselves as Muslims first, and British second?
What percentage would like to see Sharia law introduced into parts of Britain?
Answers to all the above questions can be found in links in the posts referenced above. In a day or two I will supply the figures for those too ... busy ... to check the links for themselves.

WOW. You mean a minority group who feels alienated by a majoirty who rebukes their participation in society FEELS estranged from a common identity?!? Holy SHIT! And here I was thinking that our black were on a decade long menstration cycle during the 60s! It's ALMOST as if we can come to understand how ANY immigrant population of significant number would bond with their own common identity when being told that they are not wanted in the host country. Holy SHIT, man! You might have just stumbled upon a major epiphany! After all, violent black panther party member in the united states would answer TOTALLY DIFFERENT in 1962 as muslims in Euro do in 2008! for REAL!


Like I said, show me your evidence of liberal apathy towards CRIMINAL behaviour. Be specific instead of lathering on the bullshit less than intellegent non sequiters. Show me a single liberal who shrugged their shoulders at the death of theo van gogh. At the death of muslim daughters killed my muslim parents. I DARE you.


Just because the left isn't willing to start throwing hanging ropes over tree branches like your side doesn't mean that they are in any way willing to let muslims skirt the law to facilitate criminal activity. Anything else in your goofy rant is racist paranoia. Even if, in 150 years, muslims ARE the majority in Euro the same system of WESTERN DEMOCRACY will still work for them just as it works for you. Talking shit on liberals won't change that.

 

[Shogun]

Okay, let's back all the red herrings, ad hominem inferences, and irrelevant stuff out of your post and deal with the pertinent point related to the thread and responsive to my post which you quoted. . . .hmmmm, there doesn't seem to be anything left.

You conveniently overlooked both Doug and my points that we have no problem whatsoever with Muslims and that would include what they name their children. The point made that you failed to address, however, is not that some people are different from us. The point is, that some people would force us to be like them should they obtain the power to do so.

If you think giving up some or all of your constitutional freedoms and living under Sharia law would help you appreciate the spice of life, well by all means go for it. There are a lot of predominantly Islamic countries out there that should meet your needs quite handily. I rather like our culture and the freedoms we have under our constitution however, as I think the Brits rather like their culture and the freedoms they enjoy. I personally think it would be unfortunate should either of us lose that.

Who the hell is making you name anything Mohammed? THAT is the ONLY example you both used to suggest a cultural invasion. WHO IS FORCING YOU TO BE LIKE A FUCKING MUSLIM? Again, be specific. What, si someone going to MAKE you wear a burkah? no. Are liberals going to MAKE doug grow a fucking beard? no. This is why I point out that democracy is not dependant upon ANY culture as long as constitional rights are defended. Do you think that AMericas first amendment WOULDNT apply if muslims had a majority? Good grief. By all means, SCHOOL this liberal on what, exactly, makes your life so fucking shitty now that muslims do the same thing germans and irish and italians did to the US 100 years ago.


If you think giving up some or all of your constitutional freedoms and living under Sharia law would help you appreciate the spice of life, well by all means go for it.

WHO is the fuck suggested that a single constitutional liberty be muted for the sake of sharia law? Did I say that? Can you QUOTE me suggesting as much? no? Damn, it must suck to wave such a brittle sword around like ti's gong to hurt someone. did America suffer because GERMAN cities where GERMAN was spoke popped up for the sake of first generation GERMAN-americans? no? Why don't you collect your thoughts and come back when you've got a real dilemma on your hands?

 

[Shogun]

It has yet to happen though, in any country in Europe. And it may never. I don't by into it. A lot of UK Muslims are becoming Eurpeanised. One of the biggest problems in Muslim countries is ignorance due to the leaders of those countries not allowing for proper education. This does not happen in the UK or France or Holland where Muslims are educated. Ditto the US with your Nation of Islam. Sure, there are haters,but they are usually on the periphery. I find Muslim radicals just as much a pain in the arse as the Fred Phelps of this world.

Getting back to Mohammed being the most popular name in Britain, you never answered my "so?" post to your post.

To me this is a typical tactic of alarmists who try and make out things are worse than they really are. You do know that Mohammed is a very popular first born name for Muslims, right? So it is no surprise it is the most popular name. No doubt you are trying to equate the fact that more Muslims must have been born in Britain than non-Muslim due to Mohammed being so popular. There is no equivalent to Mohammed in the non-Muslim world. There could be 10,000 non-Muslim males born in Britain and 1000 Muslim males born in the same period and Mohammed would still be the most popular name out of the 11,000 born simply because over half the Muslim boys would be called Mohammed. I doubt over half the non-Muslim kids would be called Jack or David or Sam or Steve. We have a much more diverse number of names. Muslims don't.

No shit.. It's like finding EVIL in a nation full of KIM's or JOSE's. It's beyond stupid.

Im willing to bet that neither can give an example of liberal apathy toward muslim crime, as suggested by doug, or a single liberal claiming that it's a GOOD IDEA to suspend constituional rights for the sake of muslims, as suggested by Fox. I garenfuckngtee the challenge to post evidence of either in ignored.

 

[midcan5]

And the liberal response is: our ancestors did very bad things to the native population of Latin America.

So, is the liberal argument: "Yes, bad times are indeed coming for white folks, and they deserve it, because of what the Spaniards did to the kind and peaceful Aztecs?"

To use your words, your argument makes no sense at all. It is a caricature dreamed up by various conservative groups in the past 40 years or so, obviously powerful for you but useless as a tool of understanding. No one, as Shogun has said over and over again claims what you say liberals espouse. In truth none of what you say or repeat is true of liberal thought. For instance, I never see you mention a liberal thinker, all your ideas come from propaganda you have drunk too deeply. You guys won for a while but Bush and the so called Reagan revolution have caused our nation to deteriorate, time for change as this latest election is showing clearly.

As far as what a Muslim nation will become, it will become something other than what your empty speculation says, when people grow and mature they do not bring fanaticism into politics, you should know that, as that is a key ingredient of American conservatism. One you deny but is there none the less, your own ideology has proven just as dangerous as the assumptions you make about others.

 

[Foxfyre]

It has yet to happen though, in any country in Europe. And it may never. I don't by into it. A lot of UK Muslims are becoming Eurpeanised. One of the biggest problems in Muslim countries is ignorance due to the leaders of those countries not allowing for proper education. This does not happen in the UK or France or Holland where Muslims are educated. Ditto the US with your Nation of Islam. Sure, there are haters,but they are usually on the periphery. I find Muslim radicals just as much a pain in the arse as the Fred Phelps of this world.

Getting back to Mohammed being the most popular name in Britain, you never answered my "so?" post to your post.

To me this is a typical tactic of alarmists who try and make out things are worse than they really are. You do know that Mohammed is a very popular first born name for Muslims, right? So it is no surprise it is the most popular name. No doubt you are trying to equate the fact that more Muslims must have been born in Britain than non-Muslim due to Mohammed being so popular. There is no equivalent to Mohammed in the non-Muslim world. There could be 10,000 non-Muslim males born in Britain and 1000 Muslim males born in the same period and Mohammed would still be the most popular name out of the 11,000 born simply because over half the Muslim boys would be called Mohammed. I doubt over half the non-Muslim kids would be called Jack or David or Sam or Steve. We have a much more diverse number of names. Muslims don't.

Of course Muslim people in the UK become Europeanized just as Muslim people in the United States become Americanized. But they are not governmed by Islamic law either, and as Europeans or Americans, they are free to be whomever they want to be.

Having a discussion about changing cultures is not alarmism. To ignore or deny the fact that a new substantial majority of a different culture will significantly bring about changes in the existing culture, however, is both naive and tunnel visioned, often the name of political correctness. Historically, that has particularly happened everywhere that Muslims have become a new majority in any area or where Muslims have been able to take control of a government.

Perhaps you are right that it will never happen in the UK and perhaps you are right that Muslims are more limited in popular names which accounts for the disproportionate number of boys named Mohammed there. But the fact remains that the demographics are changing or the name Mohammed would not be steadily moving up on the popularity scale.

So the question remains: how much can this trend continue before Great Britain or the UK becomes a predominantly Muslim nation? And if this should happen, would the unique British culture be diminished or changed to something very different from what it is now? (Historically, that has happened every time an area has become dominated by Islam.)

And if that happened, would that be a good thing or bad thing?

 

[José]

Doug

I changed a few words (in red) and got quite similar results:

After all, Islamists share a number of socially-conservative positions with conservatives. Both might be happy with a strict censorship that prevented satirization of religion.

So muslim fundamentalists and conservatives have in common a number of deeply-rooted anti-Western assumptions, which see the West, and its secular society, as the source of the world's evils.

 

[José]

Liberalism sees the West, and its capitalist system, as the source of the world's evils.

Conservatism sees the West, and its secular society, as the source of the world's evils.

As we can see, grotesque generalisations apply equally to both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[Dr Grump]

Of course Muslim people in the UK become Europeanized just as Muslim people in the United States become Americanized. But they are not governmed by Islamic law either, and as Europeans or Americans, they are free to be whomever they want to be.

Having a discussion about changing cultures is not alarmism. To ignore or deny the fact that a new substantial majority of a different culture will significantly bring about changes in the existing culture, however, is both naive and tunnel visioned, often the name of political correctness. Historically, that has particularly happened everywhere that Muslims have become a new majority in any area or where Muslims have been able to take control of a government.

Perhaps you are right that it will never happen in the UK and perhaps you are right that Muslims are more limited in popular names which accounts for the disproportionate number of boys named Mohammed there. But the fact remains that the demographics are changing or the name Mohammed would not be steadily moving up on the popularity scale.

So the question remains: how much can this trend continue before Great Britain or the UK becomes a predominantly Muslim nation? And if this should happen, would the unique British culture be diminished or changed to something very different from what it is now? (Historically, that has happened every time an area has become dominated by Islam.)

And if that happened, would that be a good thing or bad thing?

Your second paragraph is why I asked the question previously, how many govts have Muslims taken over recently? And where in recent history have Muslims gone from being a minorty to a majority.

Of course different cultures will have an affect, but not much of an affect. Muslims have been in Britain for over 40 years now and they have hardly had any political effect at all. I mean they have MPs and are represented on councils, and they are a majority in some municipalities but they are not having a profound adverse affect as far as I know.