Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-09-16 13:44:22

There is no doubt Multiculturalism has brought many benefists to many countries but it has also been bringing many problems.

In America many people from the Hispanic culture haven't adopted the English language or American culture and there is a problem with immigrant gangs from Latin America, and nobody needs to be reminded of the radical Muslim terrorists that trained and worked in the USA only to carry out 911. In the year 2005 there were 96,000 Muslim immigrants who became US citizens, the most in two decades. Some people say between the Mexican invasion and the islamic invasion we are stuffing this country with people who have no feeling for it, or who are intrinsically hostile to it, and are sealing our own death.

In Europe there is a problem with Eastern European gangs ( Russian gangs, Romania and such )and Muslim radicals. Western women don't dress in burqas, so they are seen as by some Muslim nuts as 'whores' asking for it, some are attacked and raped. European women are apparently seen as part of the ongoing plunder by Muslims as they invade Europe for Allah.

Take this website
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/
xenophobic or truthful ?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-18 09:21:09

96,000 is merely a drop in our bucket of 300 million, it take a disproportionate amount of our resources to watch this tiny minority however, it is fortunate that we live so far away from the centers of Islamic populations and that most of our immigrnats are Christian Hispanics. Maybe they speak Spanish and not so much English, but at least most are not fanatics that blow themselves up. Unlike many Conservatives, I think the US has mostly benefitted from the explosion of immigration, we reached our 300 million number because of it, and because of our large number of people we have become a superpower. If we stopped accepting immigrants after 1776, we'd be a much smaller country. Then there is China with its buirgoning population of 1.2 billion people. China is growing fast, it is improving the income of its many people and as their standard of living increases, China becomes more powerful with more income at its disposal, and in the hands of an undemocratic unelected government. China will be building up its military with much more sophisticated weapons all paid for by increasingly influential Chinese taxpayers, and that military will increasingly challenge ours as it increases in power. China is playing catchup with us, as it approaches us, its growth rate will slow down as it has to innovate more and copy what we already have less. I think China is well on its way to becoming a superpower later on in the 21st century. The question remains of whether the US will remain a power to be reckoned with in the 21st century. Alot of first world industrial powers have small populations, the people living in these countries tend to prefer this as they don't like to compete for jobs with newly arrived immigrants willing to work for less. The people in advanced countries also don't like to have many children as they have to pay for their college education. China has a teaming population of citizens whose standards of living it can raise, the US on the other hand can bring in immigrants and improve their atandard of living so we can compete in the long run with nations like China. The risk of course is if we bring in too many people from the third world, they'll vote socialist and the socialists will enact policies that inhibit economic growth just like they have in the countries the immigrants came from. Also its important that the tide of immigration isn't so great that they overwhelm the native born Americans. And its also important that the majority of immigrants don't come from a single country such as Mexico for instance. One concern is that Mexicans might all immigrate to the Southwest, and try to annex that territory to Mexico by force of their numbers, just as American settlers did in the other direction with Texas. The majority of immigrants should mostly be from neighboring countries that might have long term designs on our territory. No Seudatenland Mexicans, no restive minorities who congregate on one place and demand independence from the US, That must not happen! That is why the concept of the melting pot is important. We need a large population of Americans, not various nationalities that want to break apart this country.

Cobra Commander · 2006-09-18 11:11:34

A multicultural nation is an impossibility, what we have is a multicultural state. A single government does not make a nation, cultural bonds do.

Consequently multiculturalism is at its core doomed. Immigration isn't the problem, racial composition isn't the problem. Lack of assimilation is the problem. We've become so fixated on "diversity" that we are undermining the cultural cohesion that made our nation a place capable of taking in people from all corners of the world in the first place. If we get to the point where we have no common culture and common language, it's over.

So yes, multiculturalism has failed. It could do nothing but fail. However that isn't to say we need to close the borders and start deporting anyone with brown skin or something other than English as a first language. We can take in everyone as long as they want to be Americans, not something else living in America.

Otherwise they're not immigrants, they're foreign colonists.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-18 12:57:00

On the otherhand, if we didn't want multiculturalism, we could have stayed in our thirteen colonies. we've decided to become a continental power instead and Manifest Destiny is in part absorbing other cultures. I have nothing against our country getting bigger, and I realize that part of the price of that is absorbing other cultures and thereby changing our own. I don't want to absorb violent and destructive cultures however, or cultures that reject democracy, fortunately the cultures that border our own aren't so incompatible with democracy and we can absorb them a little at a time without them making their problems too much of our own, but everything must be taken in moderation of course. We're not the British culture we started out being.

C M Edwards · 2006-09-18 15:45:24

If our best hope for long term survival of the human species is expansion into the solar system, that sounds like a good argument for bringing manifest destiny back in vogue. Maintaining the "illusion" of multiculturalism makes it easier to decide who to invite along.

Gennaro · 2006-09-19 11:50:30

On the otherhand, if we didn't want multiculturalism, we could have stayed in our thirteen colonies.

The expansion of the US into the west was fuelled by immigration almost exclusively from Europe. When the immigration patterns looked like changing in the early 20th century, a quota system was established where further immigration was based on the percentage of the US population of a certain national origin. This system remained intact until 1965 when borders were opened for people from all across the globe. The policy change was effected by a very small select of interrelated pressure groups who had actually lobbied for it ever since the quota system was established. No one asked the general US population if they favoured such a change.

The founding fathers imagined a United States dominated by European derived citizens. They would not have accepted the current multicultural discourse. In other words, a strategy of expanding from the original 13 states has nothing to do with multiculturalism. Read your own history.

we've decided to become a continental power instead and Manifest Destiny is in part absorbing other cultures. I have nothing against our country getting bigger, and I realize that part of the price of that is absorbing other cultures and thereby changing our own. I don't want to absorb violent and destructive cultures however, or cultures that reject democracy, fortunately the cultures that border our own aren't so incompatible with democracy and we can absorb them a little at a time without them making their problems too much of our own, but everything must be taken in moderation of course. We're not the British culture we started out being.

Ever thought about that the cultures about to be absorbed perhaps might not agree to being absorbed? Your notion of expanding US territory at this point in time is no different from Hitler's ideas about enlarging Germany at the expense of Russia.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-19 14:59:42

What about all the Mexicans living in Northern Mexico when we made it part of our Southwest, didn't we absorb those cultures? I think we did since many of our cities their have retained their spanish names, we didn't anglicise them.

Rejecting the absorption of other cultures sort of limits the extent to which we can expand. The Roman Empire didn't consider that, they gladly grabbed as much as they could.

Ever thought about that the cultures about to be absorbed perhaps might not agree to being absorbed? Your notion of expanding US territory at this point in time is no different from Hitler's ideas about enlarging Germany at the expense of Russia.

You see the Mexicans coming here and leaving their home country, what does that say? And its not just a small number of them, they are coming in by the millions. It appears the Mexican economy just isn't working for them. If Mexico was a part of the United States, those Mexican workers could go where ever the jobs were and would not have to worry about crossing borders. Since they cross the borders so freely one would imagine that they would be happy if that border did not exist and they weren't harrassed by INS agents as they migrate in search of work, but annexing Mexico works both ways, if they can come here, we can go there, and as long as we accept the burden of all these poor people, we might as well partake of Mexicos oil fields and natural resources as well, doesn't that seem fair to you? If Mexicans valued their own country they wouldn't leave it so readily and they wouldn't want open borders with us. So the choice is fairly clear, if you want open borders, then we have one country instead of two. What's wrong with that trade off?

John Creighton · 2006-09-22 02:18:15

What about all the Mexicans living in Northern Mexico when we made it part of our Southwest, didn't we absorb those cultures? I think we did since many of our cities their have retained their spanish names, we didn't anglicise them.
Rejecting the absorption of other cultures sort of limits the extent to which we can expand. The Roman Empire didn't consider that, they gladly grabbed as much as they could.
Ever thought about that the cultures about to be absorbed perhaps might not agree to being absorbed? Your notion of expanding US territory at this point in time is no different from Hitler's ideas about enlarging Germany at the expense of Russia.
You see the Mexicans coming here and leaving their home country, what does that say? And its not just a small number of them, they are coming in by the millions. It appears the Mexican economy just isn't working for them. If Mexico was a part of the United States, those Mexican workers could go where ever the jobs were and would not have to worry about crossing borders. Since they cross the borders so freely one would imagine that they would be happy if that border did not exist and they weren't harrassed by INS agents as they migrate in search of work, but annexing Mexico works both ways, if they can come here, we can go there, and as long as we accept the burden of all these poor people, we might as well partake of Mexicos oil fields and natural resources as well, doesn't that seem fair to you? If Mexicans valued their own country they wouldn't leave it so readily and they wouldn't want open borders with us. So the choice is fairly clear, if you want open borders, then we have one country instead of two. What's wrong with that trade off?

A lot don’t speak the language and they’ll work for almost nothing. Makes it harder for unskilled people in the southern US to make a decent living.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-22 07:58:10

You see Mr Creighton, I like to give people choices rather than just say no to them. If they really want to come here and compete with American Citizens for jobs, then there is a price to be paid for that, the Mexicans become US citizens and the Mexican States get added to our union and then they can compete with us freely for our work and we in return get the added territory of Mexico, of course in the bargain the problems of 90 million Mexicans become our problems as well. The politics of this country would shift to the left somewhat because of the 90 million new citizens, but we would have then just expanded our borders. I'd consider that a fair exchange. We pay a price in having to compete with all those low skilled workers and the Mexicans pay the price in giving up their national independence in exchange for becoming US citizens, it is their choice to make if we make the offer. This is not an invasion mind you, I just don't happen to think that we should give our jobs away for free, this is the price I'm willing to pay for the expansion of my country. In principle it is no different from the US buying Alaska from Russia. The addition of Mexico would make the US more compeditive with China as they have a vast pool of low skilled workers to draw on. The addition of Mexico would mean more things would be made in the USA instead of imported from places like China.

Other advanced industrialized countries like to stay small, they don't like the competition with new citizens and they follow the short term interests of avoidi9ng foreign competition, and these countries stay small, while the third world countries develop and become the world's next set of superpowers overshadowing the advanced industrialized countries that stay small. The United States has something to offer, I think we can afford to expand, bring the new citizens standard of living up to our own and then expand some more, this isn't imperialism, and I think it may be a good policy to compete with China and India.

Many conservatives warn us about Imperial overstretch, but the United States has't expanded its borders since the admission of Hawaii and Alaska into the Union. The last big piece of territory we got was from Russia when we bnought Alaska from the Czar, the US has stayed the about same size for about 100 years more or less. We've had a long pause. There are alot of developing countries out there. We could make an offer like I just outlined to many of them, the most valuable for us however would be either Mexico or Cuba. I know ole Castro isn't going to live forever, sooner or later the communist government is going to be overthrown and when that happens the Cuban people are going to need alot of help. Cuba was once a US territory aqcuired during the Spanish-American war. We could simply offer statehood to Cuba once more like we did before when they chose to be an independent nation. If they say no, then its their choice, we've made the offer, and as a post communist nation, Cuba may face the danger of falling back into dictatorship as Russia has done. Many Cubans come anyway, if they can get across the Florida Straight and reach US soil, they can stay, they are not even illegals. Once Cuba is no longer communist, many Cubans will still want to come to the US for economic reasons, but any more that come will be considered illegal aliens and be deportable unless they come through the proper channels with a visa, but we can make it alot easier for them by offering statehood to Cuba and then the US can come to them instead of the other way around. Canada could do the same by the way, it could offer to make the Mexican states into Canadian Provinces, and then Canada would have a warm place to go to without leaving the country, I think by this process though, Canada would become an extension of Mexico rather than the other way around, the next Canadian prime minister would likely be a Mexican. The United States with 300 million people is more capable of absorbing Mexico than Canada is.

I don't know if the US would ever make this offer, but there is something called "Manifest Destiny" and we did serve ourselves a large helping of Northern Mexico previously and California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona are not doing too badly.

dicktice · 2006-09-23 13:45:49

Mexicanada, or Canamexico? Canmex? Naw, if it don't sound right, it'll never fly.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-23 14:48:30

How about North American? Australia takes the name of the continent it occupies, the same would apply to any country that takes the whole of North America. it is just an offer by the way, not an invasion. I otherwise feel we should enforce our border with Mexico. I see no reason to give illegal Aliens the benefit of citizenship and many liberals and business republicans seem to want. I would accept all the Mexicans as a whole country, but not any who managed to sneak across the border. If they really like the idea of open borders, then they should apply as a country to join the United States of America, those are my conditions, and I think they are quite fair. If Mexicans have any pride in their country, they wouldn't come over to our country by the millions and steal our jobs. if they really want to come and go as they please, then they should join our country, other wise the borders whould be strictly enforced.

noosfractal · 2006-09-23 15:11:47

You could call it the North American Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-23 19:44:48

You don't get it do you. When you expand the Republic to include other cultures, those other cultures also change the country doing the expansion. We'd go from 300 million to 400 million, one in every four people would be a Mexican if this happened! Our politics would also shift to the left. More Democrats would probably be elected, although the ones that advocate things like same-sex marriage would probably be shunned by Mexico's social conservative culture. What Mexicans are most concerned about is improving their economic situation and their politics reflects that, they want greater government spending and higher taxes on the rich to finance it. If they became part of the USA, they'd then have more rich to tax and the government would have more money to spend on them. You make it sound as if the Mexicans would all be slaving away in the salt mines or something like that.

Expanding the Republic is not the same thing as building an Empire. We already have an informal "Co-Prosperity sphere" as you term it, we also have mexicans freely coming and going and the INS asleep at the switch. If thats the way things are going to be, how much the better would it be if Mexicans also had the rights of US citizens, then their would be no more of this Day Laborer thing for them, they'd get regular jobs and their employers would have to meet regular employment standards in hiring them. The corruption that goes on in the Mexican states would lessen as the FBI would be on top of them, and those same states would also get plenty of help from the Federal government, and in exchange for shoveling all that money the Mexican's way we'd get a larger country. I think that's not a bad deal, do you?

Oh yes there's that flag thing. Well as I said before, it is their choice, all we can do is make them an offer, it is up to them to accept or refuse. The way some Latin American countries are mismanaged some might take us up on this offer, possibly the Cubans after Communism falls. I'm sure we could draw alot of lessons from the absorption of East Germany, and not make the same mistakes the Germans did. I think the South Koreans missed an opportunity to absorb North Korea and they're coming to regret it. There will be a moment of opportunity when Cuban Communism falls, we either seize it or we let it pass through our fingers. Like all post Communist Countries, Cuba will need alot of help, we can offer it to them, if it turns out that we are helping ourselves.

I get tired of us offering assistance with no strings attached. we liberated half of Europe and we only got reviled for it. Next time when we send our soldiers out, it should be to benefit ourselves, next time we spend money on other people, we should get something in exchange, no more freebes. I think we should finish the job in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and then we should shake the dirt from our feet and lend no more aid to the rest of the World. No more defending Europe, or stabilizing the Middle East or promoting democracy there. If we are attacked, we should retaliate, but no more efforts to rebuild the countries we defeated afterwards, that way we don't make needless targets of our soldiers. Let the Europeans learn to defend themselves, but give no victory parades to our enemies. We'll rub out Al Qaeda and tell the rest of the world where to go afterwards.

John Creighton · 2006-09-23 20:04:01

although the ones that advocate things like same-sex marriage would probably be shunned by Mexico's social conservative culture.

That is the funny thing about the immigration debate. The people who support it the most probably have their political weight get the most diluted by immigrants. Although it is the democrats that are the biggest advocate of the US immigration policies the Republicans got a far greater percentage of the Latino vote.

Commodore · 2006-09-23 20:34:05

I don't think we can just bomb and go home. We can see the problem with that in Lebanon, twice now the Isrealis have devistated the country and gone home, only for a non-conventional enemy to return stronger than ever. Granted part of the problem there is the root of the problem lies in Damacus and Tehran, out of Isreals reach. But the fact remains that if you don't deal with the cultural issues at the heart of the conflict, the conflict will resume at a later date. In WW2, both the Germans and the Japanese lost the will to build an enmpire based on their own racial sepremacy by having mass destruction on their nations and learning they were indeed not any better. Likewise, extremist Islam will only be defeated when they learn that by spreading the faith by the sword, they invite the same horror on their heads. You simply can't have multiculturalism enless all the cultures embrace it. Something we have been able to do thus far.

The issue is not the need to expand the power of any one nation, but to improve the local goverments. The US didn't have to conquer and hold territory in Europe to spread democracy, it required the Europe to be ruled by people who want the same things: peace, freedom, and prosparity for their own people first, and then those in other nations. Democracys the world over all work toward these things. The trouble is when those goals are abandoned, and you get goverments who just pander to the manipulated whims of the people, and you start down the road of socialism and communism, or the other way, when goverments take the role of babysitter, and you get theocracy.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-23 20:44:39

although the ones that advocate things like same-sex marriage would probably be shunned by Mexico's social conservative culture.
That is the funny thing about the immigration debate. The people who support it the most probably have their political weight get the most diluted by immigrants. Although it is the democrats that are the biggest advocate of the US immigration policies the Republicans got a far greater percentage of the Latino vote.

I think the same-sex issue comes from people who've been contemplating their naval for too long, they ran out of real problems to solve so they are looking for new ones. Mexican immigrants bring their own problems with them, and same-sex marriage is low on their priority list. They don't live in ivory towers, a civilization is either expanding or contracting. We've previously expanded in territory but right now were expanding mainly in population, much of this is due to immigration. As the immigrants come to this country, it becomes more crowded. Now assuming millions of Mexicans want to come to America, there are only 90 million of them, why not just accept the whole country at once and take the land too rather than just emptying out Mexico due to their bad economic policies?

John Creighton · 2006-09-23 21:29:54

although the ones that advocate things like same-sex marriage would probably be shunned by Mexico's social conservative culture.
That is the funny thing about the immigration debate. The people who support it the most probably have their political weight get the most diluted by immigrants. Although it is the democrats that are the biggest advocate of the US immigration policies the Republicans got a far greater percentage of the Latino vote.
I think the same-sex issue comes from people who've been contemplating their naval for too long, they ran out of real problems to solve so they are looking for new ones. Mexican immigrants bring their own problems with them, and same-sex marriage is low on their priority list. They don't live in ivory towers, a civilization is either expanding or contracting. We've previously expanded in territory but right now were expanding mainly in population, much of this is due to immigration. As the immigrants come to this country, it becomes more crowded. Now assuming millions of Mexicans want to come to America, there are only 90 million of them, why not just accept the whole country at once and take the land too rather than just emptying out Mexico due to their bad economic policies?

To some people personal liberty, freedom and tolerance is the most important issue. The Bush administration continues to erode rights and freedom. Fist it is the invasion of privacy by such things as the patriot act. Now it is the eroding of the Geneva Convention. Will he take away the woman right to choose? Gay marriage I think is a casualty but I too but I am not sure of the status. It is not really about weather or not Gay marriage personally effects us it is about the state attempting to control our lives. Each step we give up is a step away from freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
The version inscribed at the New England Holocaust Memorial in Boston, Massachusetts reads:

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

"Yellow Triangle" by folk singer Christy Moore.

When they came for the Jews and the blacks, I turned away
When they came for the writers and the thinkers and the radicals and the protestors, I turned away
When they came for the gays, and the minorities, and the utopians, and the dancers, I turned away
And when they came for me, I turned around and around, and there was nobody left...

"Re-gaining Unconsciousness" by punk band NOFX also appears to have been influenced by the poem;

First they put away the dealers,
keep our kids safe and off the street.
Then they put away the prostitutes,
keep married men cloistered at home.
Then they shooed away the bums,
then they beat and bashed the queers,
turned away asylum-seekers,
fed us suspicions and fears.
We didn't raise our voice,
we didn't make a fuss.
It's funny there was no one left to notice
when they came for us.

As has "Madame Guillotine" by the Legendary Pink Dots:

First they rounded up the reds
But I'm not red so...
Then they rounded up the blacks
But I'm not black so...
Then they rounded up the gypsies
And the junkies and the donkeys.
Now I'm scared to whistle 'swanee'
'Cause they'll ask me for my spit...

noosfractal · 2006-09-23 23:40:14

You don't get it do you.

Actually, I strongly support the current formation of international trade blocks since it will lead inevitably to world government.

Expanding the Republic is not the same thing as building an Empire.

Yeah. Yeah it is.

We already have an informal "Co-Prosperity sphere" as you term it ... in exchange for shoveling all that money the Mexican's way we'd get a larger country. I think that's not a bad deal, do you?

Seriously considered, I think annexing Mexico would be a disaster. I think you vastly underestimate the investment that would be required to bring Mexico's infrastructure and general education level up to US nominal. It would create an underclass that guaranteed limitless sorrow for generations to come. Besides, the whole idea of physical annexation is obsolete. As you have pointed out, economic annexation is progressing apace and Mexico's leadership is filled with a US educated (and thus memetically annexed) elite. The situation is massively profitable for the US. Only a swing to the far left (would require a near-miraculous evaporation of corruption) or Bushical style bungling (only God knows what he'll do next) can derail the current win/win.

I get tired of us offering assistance with no strings attached.

Puh-lease. Check out the "assistance" packages that the US puts together. I don't think you'll be disappointed. Only in the current Iraq fiasco is there no way for the US to benefit.

we liberated half of Europe and we only got reviled for it.

The US' late entry into WW2 and the peace and reconstruction deals negotiated from the resulting position of strength (all other parties were exhausted) established the basis for the US' current hegemony. There is no greater possible pay off.

I think we should finish the job in ... Iran

I wish that didn't have to happen - there is a high probability of it triggering WW3 - but I don't see any way out. The best that can happen is that China supports Iran triggering a new cold war.

John Creighton · 2006-09-23 23:59:27

I think we should finish the job in ... Iran
I wish that didn't have to happen - there is a high probability of it triggering WW3 - but I don't see any way out. The best that can happen is that China supports Iran triggering a new cold war.

I don’t think a cold war works against Iran. You know the sting song, “I hope the Russians love their children to”
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/sting/russians.html
The Russians didn’t send their children off to be suicide bombers. The Russians leadership did not base there actions on religious beliefs about end of time prophecies. I am concerned about escalation as a result of any military action against Iran. I don’t for see China siding with the Iranians. I am worried about Turkey and Pakistan. I think the French would stay natural.

If this is true, it's only a matter of time now before we reap what we have sown in terms of what we have let the Iranians have.
They have the toys - they will "play" with them.
Unlike the "Sting" song "Russians" where he says,
"I hope the Russians love their children to"
We must remember that unlike the Russians during the cold war - Muslims happily send their sons off to be sucicide bombers. Unlike the Russians, Muslims worship and idolise death.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006714.php

noosfractal · 2006-09-24 00:27:11

I don’t think a cold war works against Iran.

No, not Iran - China. In exchange for Iran's oil, China would effective declare Iran under its protection. The US may not opt for hot war with China because of the danger of escalation to nuclear, and because of the tremendous stresses they can place on China just with trade sanctions.

Muslims worship and idolise death.

Stop. Stop. The term "Muslim" covers 1.5 billion people. It is outright bigoted to make statements like the above. There are scary Muslims. There are scary Christians. There are scary atheists. I don't get how easy it is for intelligent people to swallow statements like that. I guess we have to start at the beginning: there are good Muslims, and there are bad Muslims. (Next week we'll explore colors of the spectrum beyond black and white - eventually we'll come to see Muslims as *gasp* human beings).

John Creighton · 2006-09-24 00:33:37

I don’t think a cold war works against Iran.
Muslims worship and idolise death.
Stop. Stop. The term "Muslim" covers 1.5 billion people. It is outright bigoted to make statements like the above. There are scary Muslims. There are scary Christians. There are scary atheists. I don't get how easy it is for intelligent people to swallow statements like that. I guess we have to start at the beginning: there are good Muslims, and there are bad Muslims. (Next week we'll explore colors of the spectrum beyond black and white - eventually we'll come to see Muslims as *gasp* human beings).

Well, they weren’t my words. But yeah, the author should have been more precise for sure.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-24 09:41:26

Recent events, the violence following the Pope's statements by Muslims have made it hard to see Muslims that way. That statement, "Muslims worship and idolise death," sound like a statement Bin Lauden once said, "Christians love life and we love death," is how I think it went. If Muslims don't want to be thought of as crazy violent people, they should stop acting crazy and violent, it is not because of their brown skin that they have the reputation they have in our eyes. Everyday is something, usually a suicide bomb going off and killing a dozen people, sometimes its something special like an unflattering cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed and the voilent street reaction it triggers. I think Christians in general can take criticism alot better than Muslims can. After all atheist leftwing types attack Christianity all the time, yet that usually results in no riots or violence, those same people who criticise Christians usually tread very softly when talking about Muslims, now I wonder why? Could it have something to do with a Muslim reputation for violence? Why does Salman Rushdie live in fear? Is it just a figment of his prejudiced imagination? "I mean just because we see it in the news all the time doesn't mean their is any reality to it! I mean come on!"

maxie · 2006-09-24 14:16:33

Multiculturalism failing ? Well, of course.

Just one example: Women in Norway, Sweden and Australia were gang-raped by muslim groups. Most of the muslims insisted they were doing nothing wrong, that women were asking for it ... because of their clothes and so on ...

Some quick-found links:
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/08/ra … islam.html
http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=16667&sec=33&con=14

noosfractal · 2006-09-24 17:09:20

Why does Salman Rushdie live in fear? Is it just a figment of his prejudiced imagination? "I mean just because we see it in the news all the time doesn't mean their is any reality to it! I mean come on!"

I'm not saying that there aren't Muslim subcultures that need radical reformation - I hate Wahhabism as much as the next guy - I'm saying step up the maturity a notch from "us vs." an indiscriminate "them." At least delineate between hostiles, neutrals and friendlies. The subculture you save from war may be your own, etc.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-24 23:09:57

Its hard to tell between the different Muslim Subcultures, they all look alike. From the point of view of the non-muslim, you just have to be wary everytime you see some obvious muslim, as Wahhabists rarely announce themselves before they attack. I have no terrorist detector, and if ever I find myself on a Muslim street, I'm going to have to be extra wary, and if that hurts any moderate muslim's feelings, then that's just too bad. My survival always comes first over nondescrimination. The basic problem is that I can't discriminate in any useful way, they way I want to discriminate is to discriminate all the terrorists out of the crowd. I'd like to have rules such that all terrorists must ride in seperate buses from the rest of us so that they only blow themselves up when they go on a Jihad, but they don't cooperate. The disturbing thing is why so many Muslims find a religious sect that encourages evil, murder, and indescriminate killing of innocent people to be so attractive? I'm sure if some radical Christian Fundamentalist were to hang around outside a church on Sunday and say to the passers by coming out of it, "Hey you, how'd you like to go kill somebody? I belong to a church that actually encourages people to go murder their neighbor, isn't that great? No longer would you have to obey the Ten Commandments and worry about sin or you place in heaven. Why my religion just about guarantees you a spot in heaven and you get to kill as many people as you like, and you get to wipe your butt with the ten commandments, especially the one that says, 'thou shalt not kill.' So what do you say? Do you want to attend service with me at the Church of the Holy Killers just across the street. No longer would you have to worry about evil because in my church all bad is good! Because we're radical Christians, radical man!" and he looks cross-eyed and tilts his head sideways.
Now some recent convert to Christianity stops and says, "Hey this Catholic Church is really boring, no inquisitions, no forced confessions, no witch hunts that I read in the history books. Yeah, I think I'll give this evil Christianity a try, yeah that's the ticket!" :twisted:

I really can't picture the above scenario really happening in any Christian community I know of. If a branch of Christianity openly encourages evil and murder, they typical reaction is recoil and horro, not attraction and "lets join up!"

There is something about mid-east culture that makes this brand of murderous Islam to be attractive to many people. I don't know what it is that make people want to go bonkers and want to commit great acts of evil and have a whole class of clergy giving them pats on the back for doing so rather than moral guidance, but there it is.

The Pope did not discriminate by the way, he just assumed that the Muslim community would handle criticism in a mature fashion and they didn't. You see their is also another kind of discrimination. A newspaper that criticises Christianity and Judaism, but is afraid to do so against Islam for fear of riots is actually discriminating against Islam, because in so doing it is assuming that the muslims will act like a bunch of violent thugs. Now if the Pope or a Newspaper were to assume that Muslims will act like violent thugs, and Christians and Jews not, isn't that generalizing the characteristics and behavior patterns of the typical Muslim?

If Muslim terrorists do bad things, and I'm afraid of mentioning those bad things for fear of offending the Muslim community, what does that really mean? That either I can live near Muslims or have free speech but not both? So long as there is an atmosphere of intimidation around Muslim communities, then people will not want to live near them. "Let someone else live near them, not me however. I expect other people not to be afraid of Muslims, and not to discriminate against them no matter how many violent things happen, but as for myself, I think I'll stay nice and cozy away from the Muslims, just in case they get mad at Western civilization or the Pope, or some newspaper that publishes cartoons, that way that person they drag out of his home and stone to death, shoot, orburn at the stake won't be me, that I'll say that poor victim had it coming for belonging to the wrong religion and that the Muslims were exercising their rightful wrath at that outrageous and insulting statement made by the Pope"
I tend to use sarcasm alot or reducio ad absurdium in my arguments. People expect alot from Christians, they are supposed to bear the weight of the world, suffer the slings and arrows, and walk right into danger, and yet be open minded and fair toward everyone completely heedless of the danger to themselves for fear of discriminating against somebody. Yet when Muslims get offended at something, Christians are supposed to understand their wrath and why they lash out at whole categories of people. You know alot of the churchs in Gaza that were burned after the Pope's statement were not even Catholic.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-09-16 13:44:22

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#2 2006-09-18 09:21:09

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#3 2006-09-18 11:11:34

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#4 2006-09-18 12:57:00

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#5 2006-09-18 15:45:24

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#6 2006-09-19 11:50:30

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#7 2006-09-19 14:59:42

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#8 2006-09-22 02:18:15

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#9 2006-09-22 07:58:10

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#10 2006-09-23 13:45:49

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#11 2006-09-23 14:48:30

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#12 2006-09-23 15:11:47

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#13 2006-09-23 19:44:48

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#14 2006-09-23 20:04:01

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#15 2006-09-23 20:34:05

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#16 2006-09-23 20:44:39

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#17 2006-09-23 21:29:54

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#18 2006-09-23 23:40:14

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#19 2006-09-23 23:59:27

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#20 2006-09-24 00:27:11

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#21 2006-09-24 00:33:37

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#22 2006-09-24 09:41:26

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#23 2006-09-24 14:16:33

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#24 2006-09-24 17:09:20

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

#25 2006-09-24 23:09:57

Re: Has Multiculturalism Failed ?

Board footer