Multiculturing Interculters Cross Cultures

[Foxfyre]

I read last week that in Great Britain, Mohammed is the most popular name for male newborns. How long do you think that can be sustained before the British culture becomes something very different from what it was?

 

[midcan5]

So, are you seriously saying that the average european is isolated and xenophobic or something?

No, I'm saying why is this a bad thing? and you can drive to Canada or Mexico anytime you like, and Europe can be reasonable as well.

The problem with this crap is that it doesn't help the problem...it makes it worse.

Huh! Why?

I want a society in which people are interactive with each other and sympathetic toward each other. Yep, I'm a liberal softie masquerading as a racist. It's because from what I see, human empathy extends only so far. It extends to family, and to race. It does not extend beyond that. A humane world is one in which racial and ethnic groups exist peacefully in their own territories.

So the fact that today all ethnic groups and races live in this country together in peace is an accident? We are still a melting pot and if we turn away from that ideal we become a third world country where racial ethnic religious differences divide us to no good.

I read last week that in Great Britain, Mohammed is the most popular name for male newborns. How long do you think that can be sustained before the British culture becomes something very different from what it was?

Not quite #1 yet but who is to say this is a bad thing.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece

 

[Foxfyre]

On the issue of Muhammed or Mohammed as popular boy's name in UK:

Not quite #1 yet but who is to say this is a bad thing.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece

It isn't a bad thing if the UK wants to become another Islamic nation. But can you name a single predominantly Islamic nation anywhere in the world in which religious and human rights are afforded the people as they are in the UK? The UK currently enjoys commendable human rights and religious freedom. Do you not see a risk that you could lose that if your country becomes predominantly Islamic? You would not see that as a bad thing?

(Please do not interpret this as a slam against Muslims as many Muslim people live outside predominantly Islamic countries specifically to have the freedoms and opportunities enjoyed by most countries in Europe or North America. The fact is, however, that no country with a predominantly Islamic population has been able to fully overcome the demands of Sharia law.)

 

[midcan5]

Allow me to play devil's advocate and ask what Muslim nation attacked a sovereign nation that was not a threat to its own sovereignty? Any nation ruled by dictators or fools can find a reason to attack another nation religion doesn't matter.

And Indonesia answers your other question.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html

 

[Doug]

Jews and Muslims are both minority cultures in Europe, Jews a shrinking one and Muslims a rapidly growing one.

Let's play Wisemen and Fools.

How many here believe that, as a result of this European government initiative, Jews and Muslims will like and understand each other more?

How many believe that Muslims will understand and appreciate European (Christian) culture more?

How many believe that this is just a custard-head feel-good initiative whose real purpose is to distribute the money extracted by taxes from Europeans to various minority-group organizations which claim to be the spokesmen for their particular minority.

Finally, referring to a previous question: how many here think it might be a very good thing for Mohammed to become the most common male name in Britain?

 

[Shogun]

Since all three dogmas spring from the same origin I'd guess that greater conflict with muslims is the product of a quickness to give jews a double standard. Hell, we don't mind when a hebrew practice like circumcision becomes standard practice but cry when an arab NAME becomes prevelant? sheesh.


culture is not static. How many American colonialists would it take to convince you of this?

 

[midcan5]

Let's play Wisemen and Fools.

How many here believe that...

This wiseman thinks it has lot more promise than shock and awe.

 

[Foxfyre]

Allow me to play devil's advocate and ask what Muslim nation attacked a sovereign nation that was not a threat to its own sovereignty? Any nation ruled by dictators or fools can find a reason to attack another nation religion doesn't matter.

And Indonesia answers your other question.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html

Islam has a long and extensive history of invading other countries and making them into Islamic strongholds. Most recently Turkey invaded Iraq to take care of problems with Kurdish rebels/terrorists there. Iraq attacked and invaded Kuwait which triggered the Gulf War action. That action also prevented Saddam from invading Saudi Arabia which he almost certainly intended to do. Does anybody anywhere honestly believe ANY of Israel's Islamic neighbors would not have invaded and conquered Israel by now if they had been able to do so? Anybody who keeps up with the news at all can't miss the Islamic oppression against other Muslims in several African nations and other places. All those African nations with changing names and shifting borders haven't come about through peaceful means.

As for religious freedom in Indonesia, this is ordered by their constitution, but having non-Islamic friends in Indonesia, and from reading around the fringes, that is not entirely the case and conditions for non-Muslims are deteriorating: http://zfikri.wordpress.com/2007/08/04/indonesia-religious-discrimination-intolerance/

In Turkey, religious freedom is afforded non-Islamic citizens provided they do not advertise or solicit for new members in any way and maintain a low profile. In at least some areas, non-Islamic places of worship can't even put a sign on their place of worship to identify it.

And as for other human rights in Indonesia:

The Government's human rights record remained poor, and it continued to commit serious abuses.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27771.htm

 

[Shogun]

pot and kettle.

Let's not ignore why catholocism is popular in latin america. It's not because of door to door work.

 

[Foxfyre]

pot and kettle.

Let's not ignore why catholocism is popular in latin america. It's not because of door to door work.

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.

 

[Dr Grump]

I read last week that in Great Britain, Mohammed is the most popular name for male newborns. How long do you think that can be sustained before the British culture becomes something very different from what it was?

And?

 

[Dr Grump]

Islam has a long and extensive history of invading other countries and making them into Islamic strongholds. Most recently Turkey invaded Iraq to take care of problems with Kurdish rebels/terrorists there. Iraq attacked and invaded Kuwait which triggered the Gulf War action. That action also prevented Saddam from invading Saudi Arabia which he almost certainly intended to do. Does anybody anywhere honestly believe ANY of Israel's Islamic neighbors would not have invaded and conquered Israel by now if they had been able to do so? Anybody who keeps up with the news at all can't miss the Islamic oppression against other Muslims in several African nations and other places. All those African nations with changing names and shifting borders haven't come about through peaceful means.

As for religious freedom in Indonesia, this is ordered by their constitution, but having non-Islamic friends in Indonesia, and from reading around the fringes, that is not entirely the case and conditions for non-Muslims are deteriorating: http://zfikri.wordpress.com/2007/08/04/indonesia-religious-discrimination-intolerance/

In Turkey, religious freedom is afforded non-Islamic citizens provided they do not advertise or solicit for new members in any way and maintain a low profile. In at least some areas, non-Islamic places of worship can't even put a sign on their place of worship to identify it.

And as for other human rights in Indonesia:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27771.htm

When was the last time a Muslim country invaded a non-Muslim country?

 

[Annie]

When was the last time a Muslim country invaded a non-Muslim country?

This means what? I'm referring to relevance.

 

[Dr Grump]

This means what? I'm referring to relevance.

How much of a danger are Muslim countries to non-Muslim countries? See Fox's first sentence in the post I was replying to...

 

[William Joyce]

Jews and Muslims are both minority cultures in Europe, Jews a shrinking one and Muslims a rapidly growing one.

Let's play Wisemen and Fools.

How many here believe that, as a result of this European government initiative, Jews and Muslims will like and understand each other more?

How many believe that Muslims will understand and appreciate European (Christian) culture more?

How many believe that this is just a custard-head feel-good initiative whose real purpose is to distribute the money extracted by taxes from Europeans to various minority-group organizations which claim to be the spokesmen for their particular minority.

Finally, referring to a previous question: how many here think it might be a very good thing for Mohammed to become the most common male name in Britain?

The thoughtful Doug returns.

Of course, only a fool would believe such things... or as Thomas Sowell said, it would take a very highly educated expert to buy that crap.

midcan thinks it better than shock and awe, but misses the point: Steve Sailer has coined a nice phrase to sum up the Bush/neocon doctine:

"Invade the World, Invite the World".

You see it at work in a Britain in which Tony Blair sends the Desert Rats to Iraq to rape and maim, while at home, Muslims are coddled to the nth degree, and a bobby arrests a white Briton for the crime of 'racist revving of the engine.' Just Google it.

And in an America which provides free education to illegal aliens and protests that "we can't deport them all" but does think it can turn Iraq into a democracy.

I submit all this is wrong-headed. Leave other cultures alone. Defend yours. This does not rule out violence and wars, but the ones embarked upon will be a hell of a lot easier to understand.

 

[Foxfyre]

This means what? I'm referring to relevance.

Beats me. He is the one who brought up invasion in the first place which really is a major red herring within the subject of multi-culturalism. Sorry I bought into it, but it was such an easy target.

 

[Foxfyre]

How much of a danger are Muslim countries to non-Muslim countries? See Fox's first sentence in the post I was replying to...

Well I think I fairly competently answered your first question along these lines, and it appears no matter what I answer, you will keep asking question after question which, if I continue to respond, will have the net effect of derailing the substance of the thread. So why don't we discuss the pros and cons of shifting cultures within nations dealing with multiculturalism? It is actually a much more interesting topic.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well I think I fairly competently answered your first question along these lines, and it appears no matter what I answer, you will keep asking question after question which, if I continue to respond, will have the net effect of derailing the substance of the thread. So why don't we discuss the pros and cons of shifting cultures within nations dealing with multiculturalism? It is actually a much more interesting topic.

Be my guest....

 

[Doug]

Cultures are not static things. Britain in, say, 1950 had a different culture than it had in 1850, and a very different culture than it had in 1650.

For one thing, the reality of the rule of law had grown enormously. The concept was very definitely present in 1650, but it was weak. Those who are interested in this are urged to read Thomas Babbington Macaulay's History of England, which is actually a history of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. (I know this sounds mind-numbingly dull, but please take my word for it -- it isn't. The book is as gripping as any Tom Clancey novel, and you will get some idea of where our -- American -- deep concepts of liberty come from. You will see, laid out by a skilfull writer, the actual process of struggle among competing groups which led to certain fundamental values becoming deeply established in our Anglo-Saxon culture. And these values are now accepted, in reality in the rest of Europe and perhaps less in reality but on paper, elsewhere.)

So, what is the problem that can arise if Britain becomes a nation of Mohammeds?

One problem is this: Muslim culture seems resistant to the idea of the rule of law. And the rule of law, more so than democracy, is a quintessential ingredient for a civilized society based upon democratic freedoms. I say "resistant" and not "totally hostile to", because the rule of law is such an attractive idea for all except the strongest (who find themselves restrained by it), that it has begun to permeate non-European cultures too. At first, only lip service is paid to it. But this is a first step.

However, Islam itself is not a religion which is very congenial to the idea of secular law being the supreme decider in most political matters. The concept of the rule of (secular) law runs against the grain of Islam as it is actually practiced. (I should stress "as it is actually practiced" -- I don't assume that because the Koran has various blood-curdling passages in it, that this defines the actual essence of Islam. Jews and Christians learned long ago to simply ignore the similar horrible passages in the Bible which conflict with their modern desires, and with Enlightenment values. Few Christians, for example, give a fig for the Biblical injunction against divorce.)

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.

Thus liberals try to ignore the growth of Islamic power in Europe, despite its deeply illiberal character, as we have seen in this thread.

Truly, as James Burnham noted half a century ago, liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.

 

[Dr Grump]

Cultures are not static things. Britain in, say, 1950 had a different culture than it had in 1850, and a very different culture than it had in 1650.

For one thing, the reality of the rule of law had grown enormously. The concept was very definitely present in 1650, but it was weak. Those who are interested in this are urged to read Thomas Babbington Macaulay's History of England, which is actually a history of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. (I know this sounds mind-numbingly dull, but please take my word for it -- it isn't. The book is as gripping as any Tom Clancey novel, and you will get some idea of where our -- American -- deep concepts of liberty come from. You will see, laid out by a skilfull writer, the actual process of struggle among competing groups which led to certain fundamental values becoming deeply established in our Anglo-Saxon culture. And these values are now accepted, in reality in the rest of Europe and perhaps less in reality but on paper, elsewhere.)

So, what is the problem that can arise if Britain becomes a nation of Mohammeds?

One problem is this: Muslim culture seems resistant to the idea of the rule of law. And the rule of law, more so than democracy, is a quintessential ingredient for a civilized society based upon democratic freedoms. I say "resistant" and not "totally hostile to", because the rule of law is such an attractive idea for all except the strongest (who find themselves restrained by it), that it has begun to permeate non-European cultures too. At first, only lip service is paid to it. But this is a first step.

However, Islam itself is not a religion which is very congenial to the idea of secular law being the supreme decider in most political matters. The concept of the rule of (secular) law runs against the grain of Islam as it is actually practiced. (I should stress "as it is actually practiced" -- I don't assume that because the Koran has various blood-curdling passages in it, that this defines the actual essence of Islam. Jews and Christians learned long ago to simply ignore the similar horrible passages in the Bible which conflict with their modern desires, and with Enlightenment values. Few Christians, for example, give a fig for the Biblical injunction against divorce.)

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.

Thus liberals try to ignore the growth of Islamic power in Europe, despite its deeply illiberal character, as we have seen in this thread.

Truly, as James Burnham noted half a century ago, liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.

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)