 |
| |
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Dal, Just because both Christianity and Islam has an aggressive warlike phase, they have both largely been peaceful in the last couple hundred years. What is your explanation for this?
|
well , it was mostly due to the fact that the Ottoman Empire that conquered the arab world, and continued the spread of islam , for example in the balkans , was dying a slow death. Already in the mid 19th century, a pact was forged between european powers and the turks to shelter them from the Russians , that would have certainly overrun them in a decade or so, maybe even controlling areas south to Istanbul . The Crimean war was the realisation of that protection. The European powers were already capitalistic , and mostly democratic, secular , and developed, while the arabs were religious and yes, primitive, in their thinking.
quote:
On Hitler, if you read Mein Kampf, you distinctly get the impression that Hitler didn't like the Jews because they were "different." He cited numerous examples. It was not just race. Hitler was after "cultural" purity as well.
|
he wasn't after cultural purity he was after "racial" one. especially considering the fact that jews in Germany weren't like the old antisemite stereotype at all.
quote:
Religion r of course a piece of BS. Those who follow them blindly become intolerent for sure.
|
I am glad you agree.
quote:
But intolerence against intolerence didn't work of course.
|
I guess that stance of french people is why Le Pen got into the 2nd round , with a 1/5 of the population supporting him.  (/cheap shot below waist)
on a serious note, intolerance against intolerance is EXACTLY the way to go. with all due respect to pluralism , pluralism is only a means to an end, which is a more humane society, not the goal of human society . Or do you think it's ok to be a nazi?
quote:
While against hatred, discrimination and intolerance, I simply cannot share the relativist view that Western and Islamic values are equivalent. IMO there's a strong case for refusing immigrants who do not share our basic values regarding democracy and secularism, freedom, equality of men and women, and equality of people regardless of their sexual preferences. Why should we go on importing backwardness and bigotry when there are so many potential immigrants from the Third World who would be proud to become members of a free Western society?
|
Last edited by Az on 15-05-2002 at 22:31
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
First of all, if Fortuyn et al. really cared about Western freedoms, they would do everything they could to give women, gays, bis, religious and political dissidents, etc. from fundie Moslem states Western legal protections by taking down immigration barriers. What a service to liberty these people are doing by forcing them to stay in a totalitarian society!  
Secondly, political values of a culture generally diffuse by the second generation. Frankly, I've never met a second generation immigrant who shares anything close to an Islamic fundie viewpoint, with regards to our laws.
Furthermore, religious values are hardly uniform between Islamic countries. Bangladesh (which has had women PM's, whilst there has never been a woman President in the US), for instance, isn't comparable to Saudi Arabia. Saying that Moslems everywhere are reactionary is ignorant bullshit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
 |
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
First of all, if Fortuyn et al. really cared about Western freedoms, they would do everything they could to give women, gays, bis, religious and political dissidents, etc. from fundie Moslem states Western legal protections by taking down immigration barriers. What a service to liberty these people are doing by forcing them to stay in a totalitarian society! |
I think this is a good point, but I have two questions:
1) Does anyone know if Fortyun opposed immigration through political asylum?
2) How would you identify "non-fundie" Muslims and separate them from their persecutors?
quote:
Secondly, political values of a culture generally diffuse by the second generation. Frankly, I've never met a second generation immigrant who shares anything close to an Islamic fundie viewpoint, with regards to our laws. |
Muslims who come to America are a self-selecting group, and one which likely contains very few people interested in Islam as a political ideology. But more importantly, I think immigration in Europe has different patterns than in the United States. Whether because of their larger numbers, greater discrimination, or different countries of origin, Muslim immigrants in Europe don't do as well (economically, socially, or politically) as their American counterparts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
markusf
|
|
When they want to immigrate to a country, make them sign a piece of paper that says they won't do this this and this.. If anyone in the family gets in trouble with the law, before they have citizenship (assuming you have to wait 5 years before applying), deport them back where they came from.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oldenbarnevelt
|
 |
in the Dutch swamps
Sep 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Natan
1) Does anyone know if Fortyun opposed immigration through political asylum? |
Before answering your question, here's some background information. The Netherlands has the highest population density of all European countries. One would expect that such a crowded country would be expected to admit fewer asylum seekers (per capita) than countries with more room to spare. However, only two years ago, Holland had the highest per-capita number of asylum seekers in Europe (after having been second for many years, behind Germany). (It figures that the per-1,000-sq. miles number was even more dramatic than the per-100,000-inhabitants number. And the difference with other countries was not marginal, but lay in the order of twice, 3 times, 6 times as much.) A large majority of these asylum seekers didn't in any way qualify as political refugees; in fact, many came our way for economic reasons, or they were criminals or people working for dictatorial regimes.
Now, were those who didn't meet the law's requirements sent back? No. Some of the political parties that were beaten so gloriously today created an atmosphere in which anyone who dared broach the subject was associated with racist or fascist ideologies, and the stubborn ones were told that they were latter-day Hitlers and Himmlers. In this atmosphere of moral pressure, asylum seekers kept coming in droves, because they knew beforehand that there was only a slim chance of having to leave, irrespective of the strength of their case. This is why so many came to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and so few to the Kingdoms of Norway and Denmark.
In the last two years, the moral arbiters of the Left started losing their grip, and legal measures have been taken to change this hopeless situation. The Netherlands is now 8th on the list of European countries.
Now, Fortuyn. Not too long ago, he changed his opinion that no asylum seekers should be admitted. He said he would try to introduce a maximum of 10,000 persons a year (we received five or six times as many for many years). However, his favourite solution has always been to take care of the refugees in their own part of the world. This way much more can be done with the same amount of money, the disruption that we have experienced in our country would end, and large numbers of disingenuous asylum seekers would be discouraged.
Of course it is the EU's responsibility to coordinate national policies and see to it that every member state gets their fair share of the burden. Every attempt to bring this situation about has been successfully sabotaged by shirker states. If every civilized state in the world adopted as many asylum seekers as we have done for years, I think the problem would have been solved by now. Fortuyn's ideas were not worse than those of many "socialists", "social democrats", "liberals" etc. in other countries (let alone conservatives and other rightists). I didn't vote for the deceased or one of his candidates, though.
-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:19
|
|
quote:
Furthermore, religious values are hardly uniform between Islamic countries. Bangladesh (which has had women PM's, whilst there has never been a woman President in the US), for instance, isn't comparable to Saudi Arabia. Saying that Moslems everywhere are reactionary is ignorant bullshit.
|
Pakistan also had a female prime minister,IIRC, but that doesn't mean that people there don't it's ok to... FE, to kill a woman because she had ex-marital sex. Also Bangladesh is one of a relatively small number of countries that are muslim and relatively democratic.
quote:
First of all, if Fortuyn et al. really cared about Western freedoms, they would do everything they could to give women, gays, bis, religious and political dissidents, etc. from fundie Moslem states Western legal protections by taking down immigration barriers. What a service to liberty these people are doing by forcing them to stay in a totalitarian society |
yes, and of course, all of the people that are currently in holland and throughout europe, that are muslims , are political and religious dissidents, small groups of freedom-loving idividuals in their countries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
First of all, if Fortuyn et al. really cared about Western freedoms, they would do everything they could to give women, gays, bis, religious and political dissidents, etc. from fundie Moslem states Western legal protections by taking down immigration barriers. What a service to liberty these people are doing by forcing them to stay in a totalitarian society!
|
You are the David Floyd of immigration debates. Allowing states to dump their people on other states stabilizes the bad states and destabilizes the good ones. Don't let people move away from their culture to flee oppression, give them the weapons they need to free themselves. One of those weapons is a dissident community, which won't do Saudi Arabian people etc. any good washing dishes and smoking hash in the NL.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
I've been thinking about Pim Fortuyn's position on immigration a little more. If I understand the posts here correctly, the essence of his position was that the Moslem immigrants, a religious people, were against homosexuals and homosexual rights. When they began voting in Dutch elections, they would elect representatives who would then vote to increase discrimination against homosexuals. Since he was a homosexual, he was against further immigration of Moslems as a matter of protecting his own civil liberties.
I'm not sure that there is any vice in this position. What do others think about this? Could a Republican, for example, "legitimately" be against Mexican immigration because Mexican immigrants tend to vote Democratic? Similarly, could Democrats "legitimately" be against Cuban immigration because Cuban immigrants tend to vote Republican? No one United States openly talks this way. But even so, I think their actions are consistent with the above political considerations.
For example, Fidel Castro's daughter explained Clinton's actions in the Elian Gonzalez case as an attempt to prevent Fidel from allowing a second mass of emigration of Cubans to the United States -- a second Mariel incident. Could Clinton have been influenced by the fact that Cuban refugees tend to vote Republican?
Ned
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Ramo, Interesting quote from Tamerlane's grandson. Seems rather civilized in contrast to his grandfather. Ned |
Depends on what you mean by civilization. Is murdering hundreds of thousands of people (the sack of Delhi alone had a death toll of around 10^5 people) any less of a mark of civilization than computing the sine table?
He was definitely a good astronomer and mathematician. In fact, those words were written upon an oberservatory he built in Samarkland. But, like with just about any ruler, I wouldn't call his rather short reign good for his people.
quote:
2) How would you identify "non-fundie" Muslims and separate them from their persecutors? |
I wouldn't.
My point was that I don't think any woman enjoys being killed because her rape shamed her family's honor, regardless of her political preferences. I don't think a gay person would enjoy being killed for acting on his/her sexual preferences, regardless of his/her political preferences. I don't think anyone would enjoy being tossed in prison for expressing non-orthodox politics or religion, regardless of his/her political preferences.
The idea is not only to give people who already oppose the governments in which they live a way out, but to allow as many people as possible to have the freedoms we enjoy. That's what someone who gives a **** about liberty would advocate.
quote:
Muslims who come to America are a self-selecting group, and one which likely contains very few people interested in Islam as a political ideology. |
Self-selecting? Are Moslems who come to Europe not self-selecting?
quote:
But more importantly, I think immigration in Europe has different patterns than in the United States. Whether because of their larger numbers, greater discrimination, or different countries of origin, Muslim immigrants in Europe don't do as well (economically, socially, or politically) as their American counterparts. |
Certainly, but why should their socio-economic status in Europe necessarily have any bearing on the religious ideology which they subscribe to? Does a Moslem who fares more poorly in society become more extremist in terms of religious ideology?
quote:
Pakistan also had a female prime minister,IIRC, but that doesn't mean that people there don't it's ok to... FE, to kill a woman because she had ex-marital sex. |
But it shows that a good portion of the population recognize the need to stop the "honor killings." In Pakistan, honor killings are mostly limited to certain conservative areas.
My point is that religious values aren't uniform among Islamic countries. Honor killings, for instance, are pre-Islamic customs (Mohammed, in fact, condemned them, IIRC).
quote:
Also Bangladesh is one of a relatively small number of countries that are muslim and relatively democratic. |
I wouldn't call it particularly democratic. It's closer to "democracy" that exists in, for instance, Latin American states.
quote:
yes, and of course, all of the people that are currently in holland and throughout europe, that are muslims , are political and religious dissidents, small groups of freedom-loving idividuals in their countries. |
That's not what I'm saying. Read above.
quote:
You are the David Floyd of immigration debates. |
If you mean that I'm an extremist, absolutely. I'm an extremist with respect to everything else, why should immigration be any different? 
I just have the silly idea that it's supremely immoral to say that a person shouldn't be able to gain a better life and more freedom for him and his family.
Ignore my ideas about immigration if you want, but don't expect me to stop advocating them.
quote:
Allowing states to dump their people on other states stabilizes the bad states and destabilizes the good ones. |
Nice to know that you place the interest of the people over the benefit/detriment of their states.
quote:
Don't let people move away from their culture to flee oppression, give them the weapons they need to free themselves. One of those weapons is a dissident community, which won't do Saudi Arabian people etc. any good washing dishes and smoking hash in the NL. |
Who the hell are you to tell a person how to live his or her life?! What gives you the godamned moral authority to condemn one to a life of oppression?
Besides, I don't know what good preventing people from entering the West does to a dissident community when so few people are willing to take the risks needed to oppose the state, in the first place.
Nor do I see how the dissident community is helped if a woman stays in her country and is killed because her "acts" (like getting raped) shame her family's honor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
I could go on, but one sees the drift. Eventually the world will generally have to deal with the problem state. Taking in refugees only prolongs the inevitable.
On the whole, Sikander is right. |
Freedom of movement and military interventions aren't mutually exlusive.
BTW, I don't know if Sikander advocates military interventions all around the world, but I doubt he does.
quote:
We recently had a situation in Haiti where we intervened to restore order rather than see a tide of refugees come to the U.S. Clinton's intervention worked. Sikander 1, Ramo 0. |
Actually, our Haitian immigration policy is quite "amusing." Out of the thousands of political dissidents leaving Haiti for the US in the 80's, something on the order of 30 were accepted. It was quite interesting how the Haitian boat people fleeing for the lives were sent back by our government to Duvalier. Then Duvalier, our loyal puppet, was overthrown in favor of democracy. Atrocities were greatly reduced, etc., etc. People were entering Haiti, rather than leaving it. So our leadership started allowing many, many more people in.  But then Astrides was overthrown by the military coup, and conditions returned back to "normal" (i.e. Baby Doc-era conditions) where people in danger of being tortured were sent back. See, the US considered them "economic" refugees, rather than "political" refugees such as Cubans. So they end up found hacked to pieces. Apparantly by poverty. I don't know how that policy could posibly be thought of as "working," but there ya have it.
I don't see why the US intervention could've happened without the dissidents being slaughtered bit.
But it would've been better if Wilson didn't intervene in the first place and ravage the country for so long, setting it back decades. And if we didn't give support all of those murderours dictators, particularly Duvalier.
quote:
Castro continues his oppression. |
Fairly comparably to most other Latin American states. Compared to the US' current posterstate Colombia, it's a paradise.
And then there's all that economic warfare we've been waging against Cuba after the Bay of Pigs. I guess you could consider that "intervention."
quote:
The Mexican government has been a disaster. The result is a large Mexican population in the U.S. who, again, are largely doing well. Seems to me we should have done something about Mexico long ago. Sikander is right again. Sikander 3, Ramo 1 |
We did intervene. The most recent important interventions were during their last Mexican Civil War. The initial interventions in the war was to help the central gov't and stop the damn dirty Zapatistas and other revolutionaries, who had the gall to end Mexico's semi-feudal system. Then the gov't was acting up, so we helped Pancho Villa. But we realized that he wasn't particularly loyal, so we dropped him. And he attacked the US in reprisals, so we attacked back, switching back to the gov't's side (who then dropped us again).
Yep, we sure did a good job there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
I've been thinking about Pim Fortuyn's position on immigration a little more. If I understand the posts here correctly, the essence of his position was that the Moslem immigrants, a religious people, were against homosexuals and homosexual rights. When they began voting in Dutch elections, they would elect representatives who would then vote to increase discrimination against homosexuals. Since he was a homosexual, he was against further immigration of Moslems as a matter of protecting his own civil liberties. |
That's a little bit too easy. The situation is more complex than that.
The essence of his position is that Holland has problems (health care, education, security, etc), and that the more people we get the bigger those problems will be. It's bad for Holland as a whole to take in more immigrants. Holland is full. That is his main point for being against immigration.
A second note is that Fortuyn, in his personal views (not political views), is against muslim immigrants specifically, for the reason you described. They are too conservative, don't addept, and are against "modernity" (gay rights, women rights, etc). This is a secondary point though.
Back to your comment: very good argument indeed. But the situation is slightly different from what you percieve it as. This issue of immigrants voting anti-gay parties is pretty much a non-issue since most immigrants aren't allowed to vote, and since the only anti-gay parties are Christian parties (not muslim, not secularist). (muslim) immigrants aren't likely to vote on Christian parties. Fortuyn was more concerned with anti-gay violence, which is mostly carried out by muslim youth in Holland.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-05-2002 20:59
|
|