Saw that, Grump. Thanks. Answered you there, too.
Spot y'all later!
Spot y'all later!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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?