Why Islam is a problem for the integration of immigrants

[warpus]

Obviously the problem isn't Islam, the problem is extreme religious conservatism.

Progressive Muslims integrate just fine.

 

[Agent327]

Reminds me of the integration problems of Christians in modern society. Seems to have worked out fairly well, even though the largest Christian churches are still essentially conservative. Of course, fringe movements always remain.

 

[warpus]

Look at the Amish, they don't integrate. They practice a form of Christianity, it is a big part of their culture and identity. They are in a way another example of extreme religious conservatism.

 

[Farm Boy]

Man do they make some excellent jams and preserves. Other stuff too, I'm sure - that's just what I've been exposed to. Wonderful horse husbandry, if you're into that sort of scene. You'd be missing some of the tension though if you don't think there is a subset of mainstream Americans that don't think they should be allowed control over the education of, particularly, their girls. Same tension again, different place, different names, different rationalizations.

 

[KmDubya]

Look at the Amish, they don't integrate. They practice a form of Christianity, it is a big part of their culture and identity. They are in a way another example of extreme religious conservatism.

But the Amish do not have stated goals to convert everyone on Earth until there is only Allah. When the Amish do their thing they are a modern curiosity but are not a threat to anything or anyone. Islam can't make the same claim.

Europe has a bigger issue that they've never really been formed by immigration while the US is. People in the US all had their families come from somewhere else and chose to become American, like some big mongrel dog, while Europe is like some pure bred poodle. Look at France and their Algerian African muslim problems. They've been in France for multiple generations but are no more French than when the first got there. A separate underclass will eventually lead to big problems as seen all the time there.

 

[warpus]

Man do they make some excellent jams and preserves. Other stuff too, I'm sure - that's just what I've been exposed to. Wonderful horse husbandry, if you're into that sort of scene. You'd be missing some of the tension though if you don't think there is a subset of mainstream Americans that don't think they should be allowed control over the education of, particularly, their girls. Same tension again, different place, different names, different rationalizations.

With the Amish it is not really a huge issue at all, since their numbers are so small and they mostly keep out of everyone's way. My boss' family is actually Mennonite (or Amish? It's one of the two) and he sort of rebelled as a young adult and left the church and embraced technology and so on. But his family did not disown him, it's just that they stick to their oldschool traditions and my boss has fully integrated into Canadian society. They still meet and hang out and so on. The Amish (again, mennonites?) seem like a rather chill bunch overall. Having said that, I understand that some people do want them to integrate a bit closer to mainstream society like you say.

The difference with Islam of course is that there's what, a billion Muslims on the planet? It's not just a tiny community that keeps to itself. If there were a billion Amish people on the planet and they weren't so relaxed about their convictions, I'm sure a lot of people would be wanting to limit their immigration and increase their integration too.

 

[Farm Boy]

You're still missing some of the tension. Most Amish stay with their communities. Smaller percentages leave now than in the 1950s. The culture gap is vast. Smaller with Mennonites, they trend less insular. Girls stay more often than boys, last I checked. And there are certainly more than a few people who think that they should not be allowed to "hamstring" and "keep dumb" their girls, likening it to abuse. Once that A word comes out you need to start paying attention. That person is starting to build the argument that the children should be seized by the state. It's almost always the girls. Again... why.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But the Amish do not have stated goals to convert everyone on Earth until there is only Allah. When the Amish do their thing they are a modern curiosity but are not a threat to anything or anyone. Islam can't make the same claim.

Europe has a bigger issue that they've never really been formed by immigration while the US is. People in the US all had their families come from somewhere else and chose to become American, like some big mongrel dog, while Europe is like some pure bred poodle. Look at France and their Algerian African muslim problems. They've been in France for multiple generations but are no more French than when the first got there. A separate underclass will eventually lead to big problems as seen all the time there.

The Amish follow the bible, so yes, they do have that exact same "stated goal."

Europe's "bigger issue" is that they were "formed by immigration" back in a time where "immigration" meant 'our hoard is coming, you need to either pack up your hoard and move or just die.' That history is still ingrained so the descendants of the last arriving hoards tend to view immigrants as representing the same sort of threat that their ancestors were.

 

[Lexicus]

When the Amish do their thing they are a modern curiosity but are not a threat to anything or anyone. Islam can't make the same claim.

If that's really what you think, I consider you a lot more dangerous to society than the average Muslim.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If that's really what you think, I consider you a lot more dangerous to society than the average Muslim.

Most rabid followers of the non-god are more dangerous to society than the average Muslim in my opinion as well, but I don't think Warpus is really that rabid.

 

[Lexicus]

I was responding to KMDubya though.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I was responding to KMDubya though.

My bad. Apologies to you and Warpus.

 

[KmDubya]

If that's really what you think, I consider you a lot more dangerous to society than the average Muslim.

If you are incapable of even acknowledging the fact that Islam promotes violence and terrorism in a measurable portion of their followers, which leads to pretty much every major terrorist attack in the West, then having a conversation with you on this subject is pointless.

But nice segue into personal insults, you must make your former indoctrinators/professors proud. If you were a follower of Islam you could follow up with the standard "Say something bad about the 'Religion of Peace' again and we'll kill you"

The Amish follow the bible, so yes, they do have that exact same "stated goal."

Europe's "bigger issue" is that they were "formed by immigration" back in a time where "immigration" meant 'our hoard is coming, you need to either pack up your hoard and move or just die.' That history is still ingrained so the descendants of the last arriving hoards tend to view immigrants as representing the same sort of threat that their ancestors were.

Tim if you consider the Amish to be comparable to Islam with regards to subjugating the world under Allah, then I'm stumped as to how to have a discussion with you on the subject at hand. I do agree with your statement on Europe and immigration, it's what I was trying to convey.

 

[Lexicus]

If you are incapable of even acknowledging the fact that Islam promotes violence and terrorism in a measurable portion of their followers, which leads to pretty much every major terrorist attack in the West, then having a conversation with you on this subject is pointless.

Yeah, I am pretty incapable of acknowledging this pernicious right-wing lie as truth.

 

[Ryika]

According to a pew research poll cited by wikipedia, when polled "on whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified"...

• (55 vs 45) 45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
• (39 vs 61) 61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
• (57 vs 43) 43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 24% sometimes, and 5% thought it could be justified often.
• (72 vs 28) 28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 38% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
• (31 vs 69) 69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% sometimes, and 7% thought it could be justified often.
• (29 vs 71) 71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 8% sometimes, and 2% thought it could be justified often.

• (36 vs 64) 64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
• (30 vs 70) 70% of Muslims in Britain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 12% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
• (17 vs 83) 83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 6% sometimes, and 1% thought it could be justified often.
• (31 vs 69) 69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.

Is that not a sizable portion, do you think they're lying to you, or do you just disagree with how he phrased it?

 

[PhroX]

I have to admit, when I see polls like that, I wonder what the response would be if you, say, asked Americans if "violence against civilian targets to defend America could be justified". I'd be pretty surprised if there wasn't a significant proportion of respondents would think it is acceptable. And if indeed that was the case, would that result in you viewing "America" in the same way you seem to view Islam?

Because it strikes me that considering the use of violence, even against civilian targets, in defense of a community/country/ideology etc. acceptable isn't really something that derives from said community/country/ideology etc but is instead pretty common across the board.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes and no. When an American Christian says "violence against an abortion clinic could be justified", they're not saying it against a backdrop of there having been literally thousands of such events in western civilization. So, the framing will be different. But if you said "civilian casualties are sometimes justified when defending the West", you'll see people parse it between "unavoidable and thus acceptable" and "technically unacceptable but unavoidable" when they click 'okay'. They'll notice the word 'target'.

Islam is in the unfortunate position of being conflated with the Middle East. So "violence is justified against civilians" is going to be set against the backdrop of thousands of bombings of deliberately civilian targets. Now, we just assume that the muslim cannot unsee that. I'd honestly be surprised if they already were able to make that implicit association in the question, even.

Now, Islam is in the unfortunate position of Europeans drawing arbitrary lines through their territories a century ago and then fighting a cold war through them two generations ago, so I certainly have a LOT of sympathy for bitterness. But that question and its framing is very, very scary. I have a great deal of sympathy for someone abused as a child, but when they express a lack of morality as an adult, I'll still be scared.

To off-set the Amish comparison, it's unfair to conflate too heavily, because we have history to go on. There are some issues from a liberal perspective, absolutely. But I will be stunned if we see a 1/20 acceptance of suicide bombing civilians. Sometimes scale matters.

 

[Ryika]

I have to admit, when I see polls like that, I wonder what the response would be if you, say, asked Americans if "violence against civilian targets to defend America could be justified". I'd be pretty surprised if there wasn't a significant proportion of respondents would think it is acceptable. And if indeed that was the case, would that result in you viewing "America" in the same way you seem to view Islam?

That's not the question that was asked though, the question was about "suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets". Attacks of a specific type (suicide bombings) that have been used specifically against civilian targets for the effect that targeting civilians has.

This question didn't give them some vague framework as you're painting it, the question asked them directly if suicide attacks against civilians are okay, after there have been tons of terror attacks by people who claim to have done it to defend Islam.

Because it strikes me that considering the use of violence, even against civilian targets, in defense of a community/country/ideology etc. acceptable isn't really something that derives from said community/country/ideology etc but is instead pretty common across the board.

This is probably true, but it does not change the fact that in this case Islamic texts are the tool that is being used here.

 

[El_Machinae]

Keep in mind, the Abrahamic faiths specifically create precedent for "murdering civilians is okay if a prophet tells you to".

 

[Lexicus]

When an American Christian says "violence against an abortion clinic could be justified", they're not saying it against a backdrop of there having been literally thousands of such events in western civilization.

Yes they are? It's against a background of, like, hundreds of millions of individual acts of violence designed to control women's sexuality and behavior?