Via DJ Nozem I was directed to a very interesting and very important article on Eurozine about European secularism and its role in shaping European identities. The text contains many useful insights and provides a wealth of discussion material. I’ll give one quote for our readers to consider and debate, emphasis mine, but please do and go read everything.
Internal differences notwithstanding, western European societies are deeply secular societies, shaped by the hegemonic knowledge regime of secularism. As liberal democratic societies they tolerate and respect individual religious freedom. But due to the pressure towards the privatization of religion, which among European societies has become a taken-for-granted characteristic of the self-definition of a modern secular society, those societies have a much greater difficulty in recognizing some legitimate role for religion in public life and in the organization and mobilization of collective group identities. Muslim organized collective identities and their public representations become a source of anxiety not only because of their religious otherness as a non-Christian and non-European religion, but more importantly because of their religiousness itself as the other of European secularity. In this context, the temptation to identify Islam and fundamentalism becomes the more pronounced. Islam, by definition, becomes the other of Western secular modernity. Therefore, the problems posed by the incorporation of Muslim immigrants become consciously or unconsciously associated with seemingly related and vexatious issues concerning the role of religion in the public sphere, which European societies assumed they had already solved according to the liberal secular norm of privatization of religion.
The sentence in bold goes to the heart of what I personally feel to be one of the main issues we are dealing with. Sure, Muslim fundamentalists who are ready to throw bombs and cause physical damage are a real threat and get plenty of media attention, deservedly or not. However, I believe the issues are much larger and much more complex. Terrorists, for better or for worse, are still a minority within a minority. There are bigger forces and trends at play here, as Eurozine points out:
The final and more responsible option would be to face the difficult and polemical task of defining through open and public debate the political identity of the new European Union: Who are we? Where do we come from? What constitutes our spiritual and moral heritage and the boundaries of our collective identities? How flexible internally and how open externally should those boundaries be? This would be under any circumstance an enormously complex task that would entail addressing and coming to terms with the many problematic and contradictory aspects of the European heritage in its intra-national, inter-European, and global-colonial dimensions. But such a complex task is made the more difficult by secularist prejudices that preclude not only a critical yet honest and reflexive assessment of the Judeo-Christian heritage, but even any public official reference to such a heritage, on the grounds that any reference to religion could be divisive and counterproductive, or simply violates secular postulates.
October 25th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Christ on a stick but this is silly. How many EU states still have established churches? Germany, Britain, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark for sure and off the top of my head. Spain and Portugal? Italy? France? Sure, some have a laicist state, but look at the huge influence of the Catholic hierarchies in how those countries are actually run.
“much greater difficulty in recognizing some legitimate role for religion in public life and in the organization and mobilization of collective group identities”
This will come as quite a surprise to the council of Jews in Germany. And to the newly established council of Moslems as well. And to the members of the CDU/CSU political parties, one of whose members is, I don’t know, Chancellor or some such.
As for privatization of religion, the German state is still very much in business of collecting taxes solely for the support of Christian churches. This tax, oddly enough, is called the “church tax.” It’s deducted automatically from each paycheck unless you go to the trouble of opting out.
Good grief.
October 25th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
*smile* I agree, Doug. That is one reason why I put the quote that interested me most in bold. I do believe that our more or less secular societies are under attack from religion in general. That is, religious “politics”.
The article is in essence a criticism on secularism, but there are other interesting bits that can be gleened from it, albeit indirectly. Like this one:
“The fact that Catholic Poland is “re-joining Europe” at a time when western Europe is forsaking its Christian civilizational identity has produced a perplexing situation for Catholic Poles and secular Europeans alike. (…) Anticipating the threat of secularization, the integralist sectors of Polish Catholicism have adopted a negative attitude towards European integration. Exhorted by the Polish Pope, the leadership of the Polish church, by contrast, has embraced European integration as a great apostolic assignment. (…) The Polish Episcopate, nevertheless, has accepted enthusiastically the papal apostolic assignment and has repeatedly stressed that one of its goals once Poland rejoins Europe is “to restore Europe for Christianity”. While it may sound preposterous to western European ears, such a message has found resonance in the tradition of Polish messianism. Barring a radical change in the European secular zeitgeist, however, such an evangelistic effort has little chance of success. Given the loss of demand for religion in western Europe, the supply of surplus Polish pastoral resources for a Europe-wide evangelizing effort is unlikely to prove effective. The at best lukewarm, if not outright hostile European response to John Paul II’s renewed calls for a European Christian revival points to the difficulty of the assignment.”
Consider also the recent ’scandal’ about the Pope quoting an ancient guy who said that Islam was inherently violent. That quote was not innocent.It is, I believe, the beginning of an attack on secularity by, among others, the Vatican powerhouse, a new game of power and influence that will appeal to many because of, among so many other things, the terrorist threat coming from Muslim fundies.
The role of the Catholic church in particular in politics is something that needs to be followed closely. All the focus on Muslims nowadays, whatever its merits, obscures the other forces that are operating behind the scenes to (re)gain influence.
Not to mention non-Muslim radicals and potential terrorists like the recent fascist gang in Belgium that were arrested for plotting a coup d’etat. And here in France I am starting to pick up rumours of radical anarchists and lefties hijacking riots and demonstrations to create chaos and disorder. There are a lot of weird concoctions bubbling in the European underbelly, and it is not just Muslim terrorists. Some of these groups are tiny and rather insignificant, but they could cause serious trouble.
Anyway, it is not like the world is about to end. But it is good to sometimes shift our focus a little bit to different things.
October 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
And to the members of the CDU/CSU political parties, one of whose members is, I don’t know, Chancellor or some such.
Before WW1 all French parties included “socialist” in their name, except for the socialists. So much for the CDU. There are Christians in the CDU and even more in the CSU, but even there, they are a minority.
How many EU states still have established churches?
Precisely. They are so powerless that we can afford to keep a few bishops as pets. And we can spend public money on the cathedrals that the tourists like. France and Italy are secular. This is not an accident.
This will come as quite a surprise to the council of Jews in Germany.
They are considered an ethnic minority in public oppinion. You will get a lot of lip service about Germans of Jewish Religion, but that’s a political truth.
October 25th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
The author doesn’t consider why Western Europe has become secular. He treats it as an aberration - one that one day might relapse.
In my experience, the Christian answers to the questions a person or society faces today are frequently the wrong ones. Take for instance the hot-button issue of the “sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and a woman”. The religious answer is in direct conflict with the desire to provide freedom and quality of life to everyone.
Is it any wonder we get suspicious of people who claim that their religious beliefs guide them?
October 25th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Well, there are two options for Europe: either embrace absolute values built on Christianity or continue with relative secular slide towards
biological extinction and domination by Islam.
The problem is that the so called “secular values” channel human beings towards sterile pleasures of life, consumption and living today without thinking about future, which more or less doesn’t exist for them because “God doesn’t exist”. Europe is slowly being dominated by people who believe that future exists, and for that reason they procreate children. The outcome is inevitable: any religion is biologically more viable than secularism.
October 25th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Numerous European nations had demographic panics in the 1920s and especially the 1930s. Look what it produced: Europe in the 1940s, which the continent has spent more than half a century recovering from. I thought it was self-evident that Europe does not need to go down that road again, but some things, some obvious things, still apparently need repeating.
France and Italy are secular republics because of hard-won victories against, among other things, the arrogation of temporal power by the Catholic Church hierarchy. These are victories worth preserving.
Look down the long swathe of European history from, say, the Latin sack of Constantinople (Christian brotherhood!) through the Thirty Years’ War (though the Germans complain about it the most, it was even worse in the Czech lands and significant parts of Poland) down through Moscow’s ideology of the Third Rome. Christian love was very often administered with the sword (admittedly, ustashe and chetniks preferred the machete, while their 1990s heirs went in for AK-47s) and the other cheek was less often turned than the other fist. Is this what people really want?
And who writes stuff like the original column, anyway? Are these people nuts?
October 25th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
“The problem is that the so called “secular values” channel human beings towards sterile pleasures of life, consumption and living today without thinking about future, which more or less doesn’t exist for them because “God doesn’t exist”.”
This is a variant on that popular slur, ‘all unbelievers are amoral’. I could get into a whole discussion on this, but there’s little point because it’s an argument that’s already been thrashed out plenty of times on the internet, and will quickly lead off-topic. Look up ‘Buddhism’ or ‘humanism’ on Google and you’ll soon find good arguments to the contrary.
As for how this relates to demographics, the reasons for Europe’s low fertility are many and often poorly understood, as I’m sure other commenters can explain better than I can. However, I find it ridiculous to propose that people’s principal motivation for procreation is to continue their God’s work, whether or not they believe in one.
October 25th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Europeans don’t have fewer children because they are secular and don’t believe in a future. It is a side-effect of modern life. It is because the women now have jobs, know about contraction, expect to see all their children survive, save up for retirement etc. Ironically, some of the countries that have the lowest reproduction rates are the ones that haven’t reacted to this new situation and make it difficult for families with *two* working parents to juggle children and careers.
The essence of seculars is NOT that they don’t believe in anything, but that they believe (strongly) that they can find the truth by reasoning. They don’t need a 2000 or 1400 year old book.
October 25th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Numerous European nations had demographic panics in the 1920s and especially the 1930s. Look what it produced: Europe in the 1940s,
If you die from side effects of medical treatment, the original diagnosis may still be valid. You can’t make that conclusion.
The religious answer is in direct conflict with the desire to provide freedom and quality of life to everyone.
Thereby making exactly their point. Secular values are primate. Whether we like this or not is beside the point. The development is over a century old and unlikely to reverse.
But what are the consequences?
October 25th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
>Posted by Soren
>Europeans don’t have fewer children because they are secular and don’t believe in a future. It is a side-effect of modern life. It is because the women now have jobs, know about contraction, expect to see all their children survive, save up for retirement etc.
Tell that to the Americans. 300 million and climbing, with a per capita income higher than all the European countries you are discussing.
October 26th, 2006 at 2:18 am
[E]ither embrace absolute values built on Christianity or continue with relative secular slide towards biological extinction and domination by Islam.
1. Your assumption that absolute values are necessary is provocatively interesting.
2. Your assumption that absolute values must be of religious origin, likewise.
3. Your assumption of inevitable “biological extinction and domination by Islam” is risible.
October 26th, 2006 at 7:09 am
“3. Your assumption of inevitable “biological extinction and domination by Islam” is risible.”
This is not an assumption but projection. I live in London where there were no mosques before the WWII. There are over 50 mosques now. There are also numerous converts to islam, particularly women. These women want to have children more than any full-time job outside home.
It is true that job interferes with child-bearing. There is a positive feedback here: less children translates over time to lower supply of skilled labor and higher pressure on women not to take any time off for children. This is a vicious circle.
Promotion of “secular values” based on “reason” goes directly against long-term biological survival. “Progress” is supposed to be linked to abortion, contraception, divorce and homosexual unions. There is no room for stable biological families with children.
I don’t want to mention excesses of “reason” in French Revolution, Soviet Union, Cambodia… At the same time one should not forget that modern science developed in Christian Europe and nowhere else, and that faith and reason could and should go together (e.g. Thomas Aquinas). Otherwise we have either secular fanaticism or religious fanaticism.
October 26th, 2006 at 7:29 am
>Posted by Scott:
>Tell that to the Americans. 300 million and climbing…
If you look at America in detail, you’ll see that population growth is slow in the rich (and religous) white segment. America grows due to immigration and because recent immigrants still behave as if they were still in their (poor) home country.
October 26th, 2006 at 11:37 am
This is not an assumption but projection. I live in London where there were no mosques before the WWII. There are over 50 mosques now.
All things equal you can project a rise of the islamic segment of the population. Within the timeframe you can make reasonable predictions they won’t come close to a majority. Neither can you predict future devotion to the orthodox interpretation.
If you want to look on the darker side, Europe has experience fighting a religion as such, which is unthinkable in the USA.
Promotion of “secular values” based on “reason” goes directly against long-term biological survival. “Progress” is supposed to be linked to abortion, contraception, divorce and homosexual unions. There is no room for stable biological families with children.
Reason does no such thing. Reason is a tool. It tells you how to achieve a goal, but not which goal to achieve.
You can say that science tells you that the Darwinian purpose of man is reproduction and act accordingly. It is true that Europe (and other wealthy regions & subpopulations) have a problem with reproduction. That doesn’t mean that the nuclear family and a return to it are the only or best means of fixing that.
In fact, if you want reproduction you should allow homosexual unions. If the trait has a genetic basis, you’ll eliminate it this way.
October 26th, 2006 at 11:48 am
It is on average easier for lesbian couples to get kids than it is for strait couples so i don’t see how you eliminate it this way.
About Europe being muslim. When will the US be Spanish speaking?
October 26th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
At the risk of making a few heads explode, how about this controversial quote (from: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18424690.800)
“IF homosexuality is an inherited trait, why do genes for it survive? Because these genes may make women more likely to reproduce.”
Chew on that
October 26th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Doug,
I wouldn’t say the author is ‘mad’. He’s just more interested in the dialectic of his argument than in the current or historical realities. This is such a common trait in PoMo acedemia that I hardly recognise it anymore.
One more differentiation that would have to be made in a nuanced account is that the role of religion in the muslim public sphere is also deeply influenced by traditional tribal norms. The burqa, IIRC, is not mentioned in the Koran, nor was it all that common until recently. Among the muslim immigrants, it is not just about having a public sphere imbibed with their religion, but also about maintaining tribal customs and power relations.
Lumping everything together under the concept of Islam, the ‘other’ or the eternal Muslim will be rather dangerous for those who want to promote secularism. Rather, the differences have to be explored & then exploited.
On another note, we do need a positive account of secularism. Salman Rushdie gave a good opening shot just after 9-11.The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than buildings. Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women’s rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex. These are tyrants, not Muslims. United Nations Secretary- General Kofi Annan has said that we should now define ourselves not only by what we are for, but by what we are against. I would reverse that proposition, because in the present instance what we are against is a no-brainer. Suicidist assassins ram wide- bodied aircraft into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon and kill thousands of people: um, I’m against that. But what are we for? What will we risk our lives to defend? Can we unanimously concur that all the items in the above list - yes, even the short skirts and dancing - are worth dying for?Women biking on short skirts through Amsterdam in the summer. Now there is something to defend!
October 26th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Now explain to me exactly how Iran (1.8 children born/woman) or Algeria (1.89) is more secular than USA (2.09, every Nordic country (1.66-1.92) way more religious than Poland (1.25), or Iceland (1.92) less secular than Ireland and so on? Are Japanese (1.4) particullary invidualistic?
The reality is that birth rates are down all over the world, with few exceptions, mainly some Arab nations like Saudi-Arabia (4.0) or Oman (5.77!). Yet Kuwait (2.91) for example is much closer tow world average 2.59. For correlation in general, female literacy is pretty good.
Source CIA World Factbook - TFA https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2127.html
October 26th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
I live in London where there were no mosques before the WWII. There are over 50 mosques now.
Wrong! Don’t you read HG Wells? Admittedly the mosque in Woking is in the suburbs, but it’s either ignorant or dishonest to pretend that Muslims didn’t exist in Britain before the second world war.
Further, even if your figures bear any relation to reality, that suggests that we are gaining mosques at a rate of rather less than one a year - or to put it another way, by 2067 there will be rather fewer mosques than churches in London, if current trends continue. (Wheep! Wheep! Linear extrapolation alarm!)
That’s if the latest wave of immigrants, mostly Catholics, don’t start chucking churches up all over the place. More seriously, I am sure you know that this is all essentially because of the arrival of subcontinental immigrants in the 1950s. Considering that the flow reduced dramatically after the 1971 Immigration Act, the fact-driven conclusion is that the natural increase in the Muslim population is not very much, or else there is a significant apostasy rate.
As far as seating capacity in places of worship goes, I wouldn’t be surprised if evangelical/congregational Protestant churches have beaten that in London over the last 10 years.
October 26th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
I say seating capacity, btw, because these denominations seem to have a preference for oligopoly in church-building - not many, but big. British Muslims seem to build many small places of worship. This may reflect different optimal combinations of capital and labour.
October 26th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
“All things equal you can project a rise of the islamic segment of the population. Within the timeframe you can make reasonable predictions they won’t come close to a majority. Neither can you predict future devotion to the orthodox interpretation.”
Again I can project based on the fact that Islam is designed to undermine and dominate the majority.
Recent Examples:
“Secular Turkey”: In 1950 50% of Istanbul was Christian. Now 0.5%
Lebanon: In 1960 70% of the population was Christian. Now, less than 30% and falling.
Iraq prior to Saddam rule had 30% Christians. Now, less than 5%.
I can go on: Nigeria, Indonesia, Kashmir…
Europe is particularly vulnerable due to its traditions of “Jacobin tolerance” directed almost exclusively against Christianity. Elimination of Christianity leaves a void. This is why many secular westerners look for an organizing force in life which cannot be provided by moral relativism (based on reaspn) as opposed to absolute moral values based on religion. Jobs are often unfulfilling, churches are under pressure to embrace “progressive agendas” such as abortion, eutanasia or ordaining homosexuals.
At the same time, every Christmas I can hear protests against Christmas trees, carrols etc. This is what is called “talibanization” of the secular progressives.
October 26th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
The number of Mosques in London increased from 2 to over 400 in the last 25 years. This information is 8 years old. London now has 600+ mosques.
October 26th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
“This is a variant on that popular slur, ’all unbelievers are amoral’. ”
No, no! This is a direct quote from Dostoyevsky: “If God doesn’t exist, everything is permitted”.
It is hard to argue that in the absence of absolute values, relative values take over. It is hard to argue that if we reject God, we reject tommorow and rely on today. This is based on reason not on humanist pages on buddhism.
October 26th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
“France and Italy are secular republics because of hard-won victories against, among other things, the arrogation of temporal power by the Catholic Church hierarchy. These are victories worth preserving.”
A bitter irony is that it was only a mere confusion of Caesar and God which are clearly separated in Catholic doctrine. In Islam, political power and religion are intrinsically linked together since Mohamed. Secularists try to fool themselves trying to portray Islam as a religion. Muslims themselves claim it is “a way of life”. It is religious, political and judicial power in the hands of mullahs.
October 26th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
“IF homosexuality is an inherited trait, why do genes for it survive? Because these genes may make women more likely to reproduce.”
There is another interpretation: in the tribal societies starvation was frequent. Some men would gather and ride other tribes for food helping their own tribes to survive. Bisexual and gay men were more likely to organize the army than heterosexuals. Chew on that! Watch the movie on Alexander the Great!
October 26th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
“Watch the movie on Alexander the Great!”
Which one?
“Bisexual and gay men were more likely to organize the army than heterosexuals.”
Yeah, so they were more likely to die too… How is that going to make their genes survive? Or is it to be assumed that they structurally raped females of rival tribes?
*thinking*
Oh wait, I see a solution. Gays “organized” the army and, being the sneaky leaders they were they stepped back and let all the heterosexuals do the fighting. When all hets were dead, the gays returned home to have sex with the starving females and thus insured their own survival. Of course, they would have produced a considerable number of heterosexual offspring for their next war… or…
*head exploding*
October 26th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
“A bitter irony is that it was only a mere confusion of Caesar and God which are clearly separated in Catholic doctrine.”
135 years ago the Catholic church fought a war against Italy so i wouldn’t call this ancient doctrine. Nor would i say that they aren’t trying to influence Polish, Spanish and Irish politics.
October 26th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
“Yeah, so they were more likely to die too… How is that going to make their genes survive?”
This is not my hypothesis but lets try. There are two ways of dying: (1) from starvation; (2) from fighting/killing. Those who were successfull in organizing an army/gang and the subsequent killing/robbing were more likely to survive and even bring some food to their tribe. Therefore, the tribe which produced more men leaning towards each other could be more successful.
October 26th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
@Sabine, mmkay. Good point in this rather surreal and totally faith-based/nonsense debate. I could take it further and fantasize about how tribes were succesful in producing gay fighters (cross fertilizing?) but I am still scraping parts of my exploded head from nearby walls and shall refrain from steering the thread even further off-topic than it already is.
October 26th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
“Nor would i say that they aren’t trying to influence Polish, Spanish and Irish politics.”
So what is wrong that the Church states what is its position on moral issues such as abortion, eutanasia or gay marriages? As long as they don’t plant bombs to force the point, they absolutely have the right and responsibility to do it. Isn’t this what democracy is about?
October 26th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
True, but the churches are not only involved because of moral issues.
October 26th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Something on Buddhism and moral relativism from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Buddhist monk, wrote:
“By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view, threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.”[3]
October 26th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
“True, but the churches are not only involved because of moral issues.”
Show examples.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Sabine, here is a nice article:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n5_v53/ai_13255815
For what it is worth, I do believe that politics in religious institutions, as in any other organization, is inescapable and even necessary.
October 27th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
The number of Mosques in London increased from 2 to over 400 in the last 25 years. This information is 8 years old. London now has 600+ mosques.
Posted by Alice at October 26, 2006 6:29 PM
Links and cites, please. I very much doubt your facts. If there were only 2 mosques in London in 1981, that would have been fewer than Bradford. And what are you doing quoting supposed information that you yourself admit is eight years out of date?
“Secular Turkey”: In 1950 50% of Istanbul was Christian. Now 0.5%
Bullshit. Who would this 50 per cent have been? The Greeks were kicked out in the 1920s after they unwisely tried to colonise Turkey.
Lebanon: In 1960 70% of the population was Christian. Now, less than 30% and falling.
Errr, that is definitely wrong. It’s unlikely Lebanon has ever had a 70% Christian majority. For political reasons the fiction of Christian primacy is maintained, and nobody has counted since independence for fear of the consequences. Assuming you didn’t just pull the number out of your arse, it’s probably Lebanese Forces/Phalangist propaganda.
Iraq prior to Saddam rule had 30% Christians. Now, less than 5%.
So Iraq wasn’t an Islamic country before 1968? Are you insane?
October 27th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Christians in Istanbul - source:
http://www.indonesia.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61179&sid=8aaa6253c77fe37e053efa0b88e0ac8a
October 27th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Unfortunately the links are too long. You can google for yourself.
Forum Kebebasan Berpendapat Lintas Agama :: View topic - Exodus …
The collapse of Christians in Turkey occurred earlier than in some … Christians made up almost 50% of Istanbul’s population in 1900; today exactly 1%. …
http://www.indonesia.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61179&sid=8aaa6253c77fe37e053efa0b88e0ac8a - 55k -
October 27th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
That link is broken, and anyway seems to go to a php bulletin board at a site I’m not allowed to read at work….*activates superior technology that will bury your crude censorship*…
“Faith Freedom International is a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims. Its goal it to unmask Islam and show that it is an imperialistic ideology akin to Nazism disguised as religion and to help Muslims leave it, end this culture of hate caused by their “us” vs. “them” ethos and embrace the human race in amity. We strive for the unity of Mankind through the elimination of the most insidious doctrine of hate. ”
Ah. Any chance of a credible source?
October 27th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Also, something tells me this organisation is lying in its whois record, where it claims to be located in Qom, Iran.
Further, the nearest I can find to your claim is an unsourced remark on some mad-right hatesite that applies to 1914, not 1950. So which is it: 1900, 1914 or 1950? It can’t be all three. As I am sure you are aware, the Greek government immediately after 1918 tried to stake out a big chunk of Anatolia as a colony, got into a war with Kemal Ataturk’s secular nationalists, and got their people kicked out (they were evacuated from Smyrna by the British navy - Hemingway wrote a cracking short story about it). Under a League of Nations agreement, Greece swapped its Turkish minority for Turkey’s Greeks. As some 1.5 million people left in this process, your claim is in the field of “simply cannot be right”.
October 27th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I agree there are problems with internet sources. Therefore, let’s turn to common knowledge:
1. Lebanon had Christian majority in 1960
2. Secular Turks were less than kind to Armenian Christians
If you don’t want to go that far back,
look at Sudan and Nigeria. Or read some news about “disaffected youths” from Paris. You may continue to explain it away, but you must admit some problems.
October 27th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
1. This isn’t “common knowledge”. That Lebanon is a Christian country is a notion invented by the French colonial government and kept alive for political reasons (chief among which is the avoidance of another civil war). By 1960 it was already a dubious proposition.
2. No they weren’t. Secular Germans were pretty rough on Jews. Christian Americans weren’t exactly delightful towards the Sioux. Everyone has a skeleton in their cupboard. Some more than others, admittedly. The point is not to put any more skeletons in there.
3. The problem is not with “internet sources”, it’s with people who insist on repeating utter rubbish.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
“Christian Americans weren’t exactly delightful towards the Sioux.”
Are you talking about secular soldiers and frontier bandits or nuns?
Indeed the problem is with people repeating rubbish.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
No, I’m sorry, I think one of us just failed the Turing test.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Yeah, I also thought that I was talking to a machine:).
October 27th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
The essence of seculars is NOT that they don’t believe in anything, but that they believe (strongly) that they can find the truth by reasoning. They don’t need a 2000 or 1400 year old book.
Truth? Reason can show you consistency. Eg. If you believe that all men are born equal, it’s unreasonable to have inherited slavery of one race only.
But the basic premise cannot be arrived at by pure reason. You need to start with something, like human nature, or religion.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:32 am
“Now explain to me exactly how Iran (1.8 children born/woman) or Algeria (1.89) is more secular than USA (2.09, every Nordic country (1.66-1.92) way more religious than Poland (1.25)”
Poland is a special case. In 1980s around one million young people left that country. They had ~3 million children but these are not Polish children anymore. And again those who were born in Poland in 1980s are massively emigrating to Western Europe (some say more than 1 million have already left). Polish families of childbearing age still average well over 2 kids but there are less and less young families in Poland.
October 28th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
This doesn’t explain why the TFR on Poland is so much below 2. Emigration has only a smallish effect.
October 28th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
These numbers are misleadingly labeled “per woman”. If in 1980 1 million of young people left Poland, then 3 million young people were born outside Poland are missing from the population. Additional 500,000 young ladies left since 2004. If we take ALL newborn children and divide by ALL women left then the number will be smaller. Why not divide by the number of women in childbearing age?.
Last year Poland had 384,150 newborn babies.
Half of those born in Polish families outside Poland are young ladies (~1.5 million plus 0.5 million of those who left). 2 million women would in the worst case scenario give birth to to 2*1.25=2.5 million children during 5-7 years. This would at least double the birthrate.
October 29th, 2006 at 12:42 am
First of all, the reason European countries have allowed large numbers of muslim immigrants is because they are secular and, somewhere, subconsciously, expect the muslim immigrants to be secular.
Second, if European countries were to acknowledge a role for religion in their societies, they would naturally come to have a negative view of muslim immigrants and the expression of muslim political consciousness which follows.
So, either you have a secular Europe which also demands that its muslim immigrants have a secular view of the role of religion in society, or, you have a Europe where religion plays a role in society and politics and which does not accept muslim immigration or immigrants (with its natural consequences regarding Turkish membership in the EU).
October 29th, 2006 at 7:13 am
“So, either you have a secular Europe which also demands that its muslim immigrants have a secular view of the role of religion in society, or, you have a Europe where religion plays a role in society and politics and which does not accept muslim immigration or immigrants (with its natural consequences regarding Turkish membership in the EU).”
I see something different. Secular France started building mosques. Its secular rules begin cracking vis-a-vis islamic pressures. The pressures will grow with the size of Muslim population generating ever greater numbers of “disaffected youth.” The traditional hostility of the secular French Republic against Christianity stands. If the trend continues, and I don’t see why not, we are not talking about religious Europe in general, because Christianity always had limited political ambitions in comparison to Islam. We are talking about the third category: islamic Europe, wide open for Turks and North Africans. Secularism is so much centered on fight against Christianity that once Christianity is destroyed in Europe, secularism will have no reason to exist.
Read all the secularist comments above. All are strongly anti-Christian, specifically anti-Catholic. All are violently directed against roots of European culture. Islamic problem is downplayed to the fullest. Thus I must conclude that secularism in Europe plays a very destructive role at this point of its history. President of Iran sees it very clearly when he states “Europe is not going to be a problem.” When Mohamed was asked which metropolis falls first: Constantinople or Rome he predicted that Rome will be second. Ottomans dreamed about entering to St. Peter’s Basilica on horses. I am afraid it will be more pedestrian.
October 29th, 2006 at 7:51 am
“First of all, the reason European countries have allowed large numbers of muslim immigrants is because they are secular and, somewhere, subconsciously, expect the muslim immigrants to be secular.”
There is a more profound reason. Some time in the sixties when secular Europe got hold of a pill, it began “sexual revolution”. Sex without children was a great revolution which continues. No children? Why would you need marriage, family. Perhaps for tax breaks and insurance against ravages of sexual revolution such as AIDS. For the first time in history, people with venerial disease took to the streets to demand equal rights. Marriage for gays? Why? Because nothing can damage heterosexual marriage anymore.
Two generations later childless but secular and progressive Europe needs immigrants to support overblown retirement system and run basic maintenance of the system. Once it became clear that North Africans don’t integrate at all, secular Western Europe began “expansion”. More or less sucking human potential from Eastern Europe. But the population of Europe continues to collpse. Perhaps Turks would help? Perhaps. But there is a price tag attached: Turks are only nominally secular and quickly turn fundamentalist once they reach Europe…
October 29th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
The first EU expansion was in 1973. The prospect of “returning to Europe” was commonplace in the discourse of the revolutions, back as far as Solidarity. Facts, facts, facts. They may hurt at first but you’ll get used to them.
October 29th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
True. The original expansion was driven by the need to counterbalance the United States. 2004 expansion was a hunt for fresh human potential.
So is the 2007 expansion (Romania, Bulgaria).
Taking Turkey instead of Ukraine is a madness.
October 29th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Islamists are quite aware of the demographics and already proudly relying on the muslims to take over Europe for islam, especially once Turkey gets in the EU.
See here for example:
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1121
October 29th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
“If in 1980 1 million of young people left Poland, then 3 million young people were born outside Poland are missing from the population.”
That would mean that women get on average 6 kids. I somehow doubt that. It could also be that a high percentage got kids with a non Polish partner but in that case you can’t use the 3 million figure. There is another problem with that number and that is that emigrants, like most Polish emigrants, are underclass and get more kids on average (raising kids is for the underclass less costly in opportunity costs). If those Poles would have stayed in Poland they wouldn’t have been underclass and as such would have fewer kids.
ps. This doesn’t even include the effect that emigrants stay locked into the custom of their country when they left. I don’t know enough about Poland to say that this would have any effect on TFR
Japan doesn’t have the pill and it has a lower TFR than Europe. I don’t think that the pill explains the low birthrate but that it is due to modern society with its high cost to raise a child succesfully. Nor do i think that one can call European families childless. What is true is that European families have on average few kids but it wouldn’t surprise me if motherhood has infact become more common.
It is also not true that North Africans don’t integrate. In fact they clearly integrate better than Turks and much better than Chinese. What is true is that they create more havoc but that is something else than integrating.
October 29th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Since when is Gaddafi an islamist or been right on anything? He certainly can’t count. Number of muslims in Europe is way to high and number of Turks is way to low. Nor can i see how Muslims, who are less than a quarter of EU + Turkey, can take of power.
October 30th, 2006 at 6:08 am
Europe, destroyed by secular relative values appears to be completely helpless against this process. Perhaps it is time to abandon secularism as incompatible with biological survival. I am not writing it lightly, because secularism brought some positive things but two world wars initiated by secular regimes, plus Soviet system, Cambodia and finally the most sacred secular values: abortion, contraception, divorce, eutanasia, homosexual marriages and multiculturalism (based on moral relativism), tell me that something went terribly wrong!
October 30th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
“Perhaps it is time to abandon secularism as incompatible with biological survival.”
Crusades, anyone?
This thread is getting more awful by the minute and I am loathe to add much to it, but it seems clear to me that some of the opponents of secularism here are either blindly reactionary, scared or driven by prejudice. I cannot explain it otherwise, since very few arguments go beyond knee-jerk emotionality and pet pieves.
“abortion, contraception, divorce, eutanasia, homosexual marriages and multiculturalism” are all things that can be discussed without simply calling them “terribly wrong”. If you put the blame on secularism, please construct a decent theory based on historical insight instead of totally dismissing the concept of cause & effect.
Secularism may very well have evolved into an ideology, for better or for worse, but I doubt very much that it was secular ideology that caused WWI & WWII & Cambodia, etc. It is much more bloody likely it was simply good old human nature. As always. Wars and atrocities were committed long before the word secularism was even coined. Jeebus! Try harder, people. This could potentially be a really interesting and deep discussion.
Sorry, I really do not mean to be pedantic, but I was looking forward to reading some new insights. There are a few, but not too many. A bit disappointing.
October 30th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Since when is Gaddaffi an islamist? Besides he has never been right about anything and can’t count as Turkey has a lot more people than 50 million and Europe has a lot less (atleast if you don’t count parts of the USSR)
I also don’t see how 100 million, which is less than a quarter of the EU’s population, can control the Eu within a few decades.
ps. I made some comments sunday and they seem to be deleted.
October 30th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Not only the Crusades.
The way Christianity is spread is by war. First they send out some missionaries. Who behave very badly (distruction of property etc.) and are complete failures. They behave so badly that they get in trouble with the local rulers. After which the christian nations send out an army who pillages, rapes and massacred after which the local people are asked the question if they are christians with a gun pointed to their head. “Strangly” they often say yes.
October 30th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Yikes, what a weird thread. Where do all these crackpots come from? I means, what do they get out of reading fistful?
October 30th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
“all things that can be discussed without simply calling them “terribly wrong””
If you are so “pedantic” please distinguish “something went terribly wrong” from “something is wrong.” Using marxist-leninist jargon such as “reactionary” doesn’t make you more credible either.
The other one: Telling that “Christianity spread by war” doesn’t meet the lough test, especially in the context of Islam discussed here.
Tird point: “how can 25% control the rest?”. Easily. There were only a few thousand young man who conquered Egypt. Not many more of those who conquered Spain in 3 years. It took 800 years of crusades to take it back. Why so long? Because whole villages were wiped out, and women transported to harems in the Middle East. Reconquista had to start with repopulation.
In many countries Muslim minority simply uses terror to “submit” the majority.
October 30th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
“Secularism may very well have evolved into an ideology, for better or for worse”
Secularism didn’t “evolve” as an ideology, it has started as an ideology. Let me remaind you the ministry responsible for atheisation of France, during French Revolution. When atheisatiom didn’t work, Robespierre tried to introduce a “religion of s supreme being”. Soviets didn’t have to invent atheisation. They invoked great ideals of French Revolution (so did Maoists or Polpot). Eventually, the political role of religion was taken over by ideology. And secularism in its proclaimed neutral form doesn’t exist. It is very much linked to leftist ideology,
October 30th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Hi Charly, sorry if any comments have gotten deleted. We’re having a bit more comment spam than usual (technical issues with a Movable Type update and preparation for AFOE 3.0), and in the manual process of cleaning them out, we may have inadvertantly caught a few real comments with the broom. Feel free to re-post.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:16 am
“Secularism didn’t “evolve” as an ideology, it has started as an ideology. (…) It is very much linked to leftist ideology,”
Mmkay, in a rather narrow sense you are right. But our heritage is a tad broader than that:
http://www.edwardjayne.com/secular/preface.html
“Of utmost importance was the initial breakthrough of secular inquiry at the end of the sixth century, B.C., when Thales and his many successors proposed theories of materialism without providing any role to the Homeric gods. Next came skepticism (described as Sophism) promoted by Protagoras, Socrates, and others to challenge the validity of all received truths based on traditional authority. Plato thereupon reinvented Socrates in order to devise a metaphysics that could justify religion on a more sophisticated basis, and Aristotle initiated scientific inquiry that substituted empirical categories for Plato’s theory of ideal forms. Aristotle’s approach also reduced anthropomorphic deity to the abstract status of an “unmoved mover” and raised the possibility of an infinite universe both in space and time.”
“If you are so “pedantic” please distinguish “something went terribly wrong” from “something is wrong.” Using marxist-leninist jargon such as “reactionary” doesn’t make you more credible either.”
Please, explain to me the difference between something went terribly wrong, your own words, and something “is” wrong.
Besides, on reactionism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionism ):
“The term reaction appeared in Europe during the French Revolution, when conservative, and especially Catholic, forces organized to oppose the changes brought by the revolution and to fight to preserve the authority of the Church and Crown.”
It is true that Marx & Co appropriated the term, but “reactionary” traditionally refers to people trying to reverse change. For your information, I am not a Marxist/Leninist/Pol Pot smoker or whatever and I am not into rhetorics as a means to convince people. Hell, I do not even want to convince people, I want to learn. So, please, do tell me. What “is” wrong?
October 31st, 2006 at 1:00 am
“The other one: Telling that “Christianity spread by war” doesn’t meet the lough test, especially in the context of Islam discussed here.”
are you sure about that? You really want to claim that for instance Holland, Northern Germany, Lithuania, the complete continents of Australia and America, Sub Sahara Africa, China, Japan and Korea were not baptisted by force (the latter three were somewhat succesfull in stopping it)
ps. I’m not good enough in the history of Europe to name every instance where the local population was forcefully baptisted. Historical records of that era are also somewhat limited
October 31st, 2006 at 3:21 am
How can a minority control a majority? Easy — with terror. Especially if the majority is risk averse and non-fanatic. Just see here, last week:
http://www.typoskript.net/
Closed because of death threats. Better be careful what you say here, too. Internalizing censorship is the way to go in Europe.
October 31st, 2006 at 7:07 am
Yeah, ancient Greeks told many tought many things which doesn’t make them true.
“It is true that Marx & Co appropriated the term, but “reactionary” traditionally refers to people trying to reverse change.”
This is the crux of the problem. If the change is destructive, we need “reactionaries” to reverse the biological decline of Europe and its submission to a fanaticism it has never experienced. Evolutionary forces never change genes or design which are critical for survival. Somehow, humans do not have this wisdom and even worse: they deny that the change they are after is destructive.
“Please, explain to me the difference between something went terribly wrong, your own words, and something “is” wrong.”
The first statement is about causes. The second is a judgement on effects. I want to remove the underlying causes. In my opinion it is moral relativism that is spinning Europe into biological extinction. And moral relativism has its roots in narrow-minded materialistic approach to life driven by secularism.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Why should I take anyone seriously who, in the space of two paragraphs, says that the idea that Christianity has been proselytised by force “doesn’t meet the lough test” and then refers to the Reconquista?
Minimal standards of consistency, please. Not to mention spelling. But then, what does one expect from an invasion of apparent Catholic clerical-authoritarian nationalists? Muerta la inteligencia was your slogan, not ourse.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Evolutionary forces never change genes or design which are critical for survival.
I’m sorry, that isn’t even wrong. If evolution didn’t change things that were critical for survival, it wouldn’t have happened. Survival of the fittest, right? If survival characteristics don’t change, neither does fitness to survive, and hence natural selection would not be adaptive.
October 31st, 2006 at 4:08 pm
“Muerta la inteligencia was your slogan”
For those who are wondering what this is about, google “Muera la inteligencia” or, alternatively, consult wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mill%C3%A1n_Astray
Sin embargo, es cierto que aqui, en esta discusion, la inteligencia ha muerta ya.
(My apologies to Spanish readers for not being able to add the accents.)
October 31st, 2006 at 4:10 pm
“Why should I take anyone seriously who, in the space of two paragraphs, says that the idea that Christianity has been proselytised by force “doesn’t meet the lough test” and then refers to the Reconquista?”
You don’t have to. Christianity had to invent an equivalent of jihad to survive in Spain. Read a bit about constant raids against pilgrims to Santiago de Compostella. At some point the pilgrims decided to arm themselves and respond to agression. It worked! This was the first crusade. Nevertheless it is true that crusade born as a response to jihad, is an idea foreign to Christianity. Remember however that these were the times when they had no choice.
“Muerta la inteligencia was your slogan, not ourse.”
Check your spelling:). English is not my native tongue. I started learning it ~30 when preparing my Ph.D. Thesis in physics. Indeed, I make mistakes when I type fast, but in my publications I use spell checker. Btw. I am a protestant.
October 31st, 2006 at 4:23 pm
“Evolutionary forces never change genes or design which are critical for survival.”
I meant housekeeping genes, regulatory regions and after all REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEMS which are under assault in the name of “freedom”
October 31st, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Right, so Christianity frequently has been spread by war. I’d go so far as to suggest it usually has been. It’s not as if there wasn’t plenty of fighting in the Book…mostly in the bits that predate Islam the longest.
@Martha: Are you sure they’re not trying to curdle our precious bodily fluids, Captain Mandrake?
October 31st, 2006 at 6:23 pm
“I meant housekeeping genes, regulatory regions and after all REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEMS which are under assault in the name of “freedom”"
I would like a link to that, seriously. Are you talking about lowered fertility because of polution, for example? Or is there more going on that I am not aware of? This is a serious question.
October 31st, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Well you probably never heard about abortion on demand, massive contraception and promotion of homosexual unions. It really helps biological survival:). “Reason” tells you that you can postpone having children until you cannot have them anymore as fertility declines with age. And the number of birth defects also increases with women’s age. Contraception, I am told brought “freedom” to women. The price is the apparent demographic collapse which cannot be compensated by non-assimilating immigrants. America is in better shape, since it has Latino immigrants who assimilate much better than North Africans or Turks. Perhaps because Latinos are raised on Christianity (which according to some sick secularists here is a religion of jihad or whatever Charly calls it). Nobody even bothers to check spelling in Charly’s writing since he is properly antichristian. Don’t you see this anti-christian aggresion? Secularism as everybody can see, is an ideology, sick ideology, designed to put relative values in the place of moral standards, or man in the place of God. It took all basic principles from Christianity and perverted them as “humanism.” My relatives spent enough time in Gulag to I know how secularist principles work in places where they become dominant. French Revolution was only are sneak preview.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:41 pm
I think there is a profound flaw in your thinking. Nobody has ever been forced to use contraception, marry a homosexual, or have an abortion. People may choose to. That is a matter for them. Where is this “assault” of which you speak? What is the alternative? State coercion?
I would query whether Latino immigrants in the US are necessarily “better integrated” than Turks in Germany. I would refer you to the existence of transnational criminal gangs like the Mara Salvatrucha 13, as well as the anti-immigrant hysteria among a sizeable sector of US society that is also the most militantly Christian. I would also query in what way Turks in Germany are “non-assimilating”. To the best of my knowledge, they just go to work like everyone else.
If you, Brussels Journal, Pope Benedict and Pat Robertson are meant to be Christianity, then yes, I have all the anti-Christian aggression you need.
Leave aside the question of whether, given our environmental and resource issues, population growth is actually desirable…
November 1st, 2006 at 1:20 pm
“Well you probably never heard about abortion on demand, massive contraception and promotion of homosexual unions.”
Sure, but they are not “genetical”. You yourself mentioned household “genes”. Besides, abortion is a personal choice. There is no democratic Western government I know of that forces women to have an abortion and nobody is forbidden from opposing abortion either. And rightly so. The same goes for contraception.
Then the issue of “promoting homosexual unions”. Facilitating the union of homosexuals, and providing them with a legal framework of rights and responsibilities, has very little to do with “promotion”, even when I understand why it is interpreted that way. I suppose you probably wish that homosexuals did not exist, but they do exist and always have existed (notorious historical attempts to deny them their existence, notwithstanding: http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/n-s/pink.html ). By legalising homosexual unions their existence, and both rights and responsibilities, are being acknowledged.
November 1st, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Last sentence should be:
By legalising homosexual unions their existence and both their rights and responsibilities are being acknowledged.
If you deny them rights and responsibilities you deny them their right to exist. It is as simple as that, unless of course you consider homosexuality to be a disease or mortal sin that has no right to exist and needs to be eradicated…
November 1st, 2006 at 4:05 pm
“I would also query in what way Turks in Germany are “non-assimilating”. To the best of my knowledge, they just go to work like everyone else.”
Yes they work like anyone else, but they don’t let their women marry “infidels” and they marry infidel women at will because islam is inheried from father to children. And they have quite a few children. This is how over time entire populations are converted to islam. Remember that conversion from islam is a capital offense.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:36 pm
“If you deny them rights and responsibilities you deny them their right to exist.”
I respect every human being, but based on elementary biology I deny equivalence of their relationships to marriage. Marriage was designed for millenia for procreation and raising children. Children thrive when raised by mother and father and this is one example where biology advises us against experimenting. One critical responsibility would be to avoid conduct which leads to such a huge prevalence of AIDS among homosexuals. In the early era of AIDS epidemics in San Francisco, local health official closed city baths where homosexual orgies took place. Unfortunately, local judge overruled the order “in the name of freedom”. You can see enough horror like this. Homosexuals continue to be the group where AIDS incidence is highest in the Western World (together with intravenous drug users).
Homosexual unions were originally invented to provide health insurance for homosexuals since AIDS is such a devastatingly expensive disease. The costs are paid by the society.
November 1st, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Meanwhile, Michael Ledeen tells everyone that having as many kids as possible is fascism, but only if you’re Iranian.
Whoops, our spam filter is now stripping links from everything except the spam.
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2006/11/tax-breaks-for-dependentsfascism.html
November 1st, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Right, so having released your answer from the clutches of our Cthulhu-like spam-chomping monster squid, I gather that A) The scary brown people are taking our women! B) Gays shouldn’t have kids (hmmm, I thought biology had sorted that one) and C) Repent!
This just seems to me to be an exercise in using Panic of the Day (Muslims Edition) to promote your own hard-right political preferences.
Homosexual unions were originally invented to provide health insurance for homosexuals since AIDS is such a devastatingly expensive disease. The costs are paid by the society.
I’m sorry, I’ve read this sentence three times and it still doesn’t make sense. The first civil unions were in the US, where you pay for your own health insurance. The only way they “provide health insurance” is if one partner can inherit the other’s accrued benefits. (I rule out a scenario where only the married can use the health service. Much as it would appear to be Martha’s ideal society, I am not aware of such existing anywhere.) Society didn’t create those benefits, somebody paying the premiums did. Why should they be barred from disposing of their property as they see fit?
Further, can you provide a single authenticated case of anyone in Germany being even threatened with the death penalty for apostasy? What authority would judge such a sentence, still less carry it out? Please note that Dave “Mad” McMad’s self-declared shariah court of west Hertfordshire or whatever is not a credible entity.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:31 pm
“I think there is a profound flaw in your thinking. Nobody has ever been forced to use contraception, marry a homosexual, or have an abortion.”
According to the second law of thermodynamics, chaos does not need to be encouraged it is created spontaneously. Somebody mentioned something about inherent flaws in the human beings (sound like a doctrine of the original sin:). Contraception combined with relative values began a slippery slope to sexual revolution, AIDS epidemics, laxed approach to sex ending with abortion and depopulation. It inevitably leads to extinction of European population and its secularism. Homosexual “marriages” are designed to undermine the definition of marriage. Some schools in America prohibit celebration of father’s day and mother’s day because this may be offensive to some children. If I were to define laws of physics based on exceptions, the whole structure of science would collapse. The same is happening when we start
introducing rules in our society twisted towards exceptions.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Latino’s are not Christians, they are Catholics. You could claim that that is the same but then you could also claim that Christianity and Islam are the same because they are both monotheistic.
Also the problems with Latino’s in America is exactly the same as we in Europe have with Magrebs.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:38 pm
“Meanwhile, Michael Ledeen tells everyone that having as many kids as possible is fascism, but only if you’re Iranian.”
With all due respect, you are writing a nonsense. My only concern is that Iranian kids will eventually try to impose their laws in Europe. Their president tells that openly. There is huge assymetry in the way Iranians treat their Christians, for example, and the way Iranians are treated in Europe. However, in your limited views you don’t want to hear about it.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:51 pm
“I’m sorry, I’ve read this sentence three times and it still doesn’t make sense. The first civil unions were in the US, where you pay for your own health insurance.”
Then you know nothing about America. In the eighties most companies provided insurance free of charge for “spouse” and children. The city of San Francisco imposed “domestic partnership” rule which defined spouse as pretty much anybody living with you in the same household. This is how they wanted to protect themselves from bancruptcy. Prior to that, the uninsured AIDS patiens ended up in city hospitals and their treatment was paid by the city.
Companies in less “progressive” states still cover families.
One result of this change is that companies pay only for an employee and you have a right to insure your spouse from your pocket. Needles to say that “spouse insurance” became very expensive which is most unfair for women delivering babies who pick up the tab.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:57 pm
I may add that in America private insurance for an unemployed or self-employed is either not avalable or is prohibitively expensive. “Civil unions” meant access of a high-risk group to either free or relatively cheap insurance (or insurance at all). The ideology of “gay marriage” came later and it continues to undermine the biological definition of marriage.
November 1st, 2006 at 7:50 pm
“Further, can you provide a single authenticated case of anyone in Germany being even threatened with the death penalty for apostasy?”
It is called “honor killing” and is legal in many Muslim countries. In Europe we need a majority to vote for it. Given the population trends, this only a question of time.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1972211,00.html
November 1st, 2006 at 10:37 pm
http://www.welt.de/data/2006/10/27/1089364.html
30% Turkish students in Germany support “honor killing”.
November 1st, 2006 at 11:57 pm
“It is called “honor killing” and is legal in many Muslim countries. In Europe we need a majority to vote for it. Given the population trends, this only a question of time.”
Okay, Martha, what do you propose? Kick all Muslims out of Europe and fight the inevitable backlash, reestablish the purity of race doctrines and a rekindle the lost theocracies? I am serious. By now you have identified ‘your’ fears, how do you, ideally, want to rest of us to deal with them?
BTW, honour killings and apostasy are not really related. But since facts do not matter in this debate, let’s forget them altogether and tell the rest of us what we have to do to make you feel comfortable.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing )
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:16 am
Apparently facts do not matter to you. This was killing for apostasy. I propose that before Europe takes over 70 million Turks it should find a way to assimilate those who are already here. It will be much harder and much slower than you think. If Europe cannot survive without immigrants, it should consider Ukrainians first and then work on undoing “sexual revolution”.
Besides I posted some responses this morning which never appeared on this forum. I hope this is not a censorship.
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Ah, the old “quote a foreign-language source - no-one will bother to read it” trick.
The very first paragraph: Bis zu 30 Prozent aller türkischen Studenten halten „Ehrenmord“ für eine legitime Reaktion auf eine Verletzung der Familienehre. Schockiert berichtet die türkische Tageszeitung „Hürriyet“, die seit über zwei Jahren eine sehr erfolgreiche Kampagne gegen häusliche Gewalt betreibt, über eine Umfrage des Meinungsforschungsinstituts Metropol. Danach sprechen sich insbesondere in den osttürkischen Universitäten viele Studenten für Ehrenmorde aus.
Up to 30 per cent of all Turkish students consider “honour killing” to be a legitimate reaction to a violation of family honour. The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet, which has been leading a very successful campaign against domestic violence for the last two years, was shocked to report this result of a survey by the pollster Metropol. According to the poll, especially large numbers of students in eastern Turkish universities spoke out in favour of honour killings.
Eastern Turkey is not, to the best of my knowledge, part of Germany, much that Wilhelm II would have liked it. The word “apostasy” is not used even once.
You are a liar.
The article is actually quite interesting and relevant, it just doesn’t say what you said it says. Among other things, it describes a German government minister being told by Turkish feminists that the problem has largely died out in Turkey, but survives among emigrants, and also that 55.3% of Turks reject sex before marriage. Or to put it another way, 44.7% of them don’t. I wonder what the figures for Texas are? It also mentions a further study that showed that the rate of domestic violence was no different between Turks and the rest of German society, although opinion was very different.
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:04 pm
“Apparently facts do not matter to you. This was killing for apostasy.”
The poor girl was killed for embracing Western lifestyles (i.e. she got pregnant) not for apostasy. To me, personally, the difference in this case does not matter. I abhor both honour killings (to protect the family HONOUR) and killings because of apostasy.
Definition of apostasy: Apostasy is a term generally employed to describe the formal renunciation of one’s religion, especially if the motive is deemed unworthy.
The Turkish girl from your article did not renounce her religion, even if she violated some religious laws. So, yes, facts do matter to me. An interpretation of a fact, turning an honour killing into apostasy, does not make a fact more factual.
“I propose that before Europe takes over 70 million Turks it should find a way to assimilate those who are already here. It will be much harder and much slower than you think. If Europe cannot survive without immigrants, it should consider Ukrainians first and then work on undoing “sexual revolution”.”
I am all for integration, but your proposed theory only works if, in this case, all 70 million Turks convert to Christianity. You have constantly been telling us that Muslims will outbreed us. Well, even assimilated Muslims will continue to have Muslim babies, so assimilation is not a solution to your problem now, is it?
Undoing the sexual revolution? Okay, to what point?
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Martha, we are fighting an onslaught of spam. Some comments accidentally end up in the junk file, even mine. This is not censorship. I have reinstated your comments.
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:16 pm
“There is huge assymetry in the way Iranians treat their Christians, for example, and the way Iranians are treated in Europe”
Supposing what you say here is true, does not that mean that even a semi-secular Europe is a better place than full-on religious Iran?
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:17 pm
“I am all for integration, but your proposed theory only works if, in this case, all 70 million Turks convert to Christianity. You have constantly been telling us that Muslims will outbreed us. Well, even assimilated Muslims will continue to have Muslim babies, so assimilation is not a solution to your problem now, is it?”
I don’t want tho convert them to anything. All I am trying to tell is that certain aspects of their religion are not compatible with assimilation. Some of my Muslim friends tell me in private that they disagree with killing for apostasy although in practice such killing is limited since very few dare to take the path. I believe there was one guy in Afghaninstan who was quickly sent to Italy to avoid a public-relations disaster for Karzai.
There is a bigger problem: Islam is NOT just a religion. It is a political, judicial and religious system in one. Muslims call it “the way of life”. As such, Islam considers itself as an alternative to the entire Western system of life. I am not sure how to separate the religious aspect from the political aspect of Islam. Until we know if it is possible at all, we should not take more immigrants who have no clue how to assimilate and we have no clue how to intgrate them.
As far as “outbreeding” goes (I don’t remember using this term), this is our problem. People should start understanding that there is no freedom without responsibility. In my view, by abandoning faith in God, afterlife etc., too many Europeans abandoned the idea of FUTURE and children are part of our future. This, in my humble view, is the major weakness of ideological secularism.
Clearly, religions are needed for biological survival, otherwise they wouldn’t be selected for in human societies. Therefore, to survive, Europe must chose between a religion or extinction. Between absolute values and the relative quicksand. There are two major options here: Christianity or Islam. Islam is not only a religion as I wrote above. It is an alternative to secularism and I see too few secular people ready to comprehend that.
Secularism should become what it claims to be: a political system neutral to all religions, not a quasi-religious ideology. Ongoing hostility against secularism and Christianity means working for very anti-secular system of Islam (not a religion - but the entire system). That is pretty much all I wanted to say as an intellectual who feels responsible for the ongoing demise of the West.
November 2nd, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Yes they work like anyone else, but they don’t let their women marry “infidels” and they marry infidel women at will because islam is inheried from father to children. And they have quite a few children.
The fertility rate among German Turks is 1.9, compared to 1.3 for ethnic Germans, compared to the 2.1 nmecessary for long-term population stability.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,414520,00.html
November 5th, 2006 at 5:43 am
These numbers do not change much. Many Turks marry Western women and their children are Muslim. Being from a mixed marriage doesn’t make them assimilated (see the shoebomber case).
November 6th, 2006 at 2:54 am
Richard Reid is a convert. Neither his mother or father were Muslim.
November 10th, 2006 at 4:04 am
These numbers do not change much.
1.9 children is not “quite a few children.”
Many Turks marry Western women and their children are Muslim.
From what little I know, Turks in Germanic Europe are considerably more endogamous than Maghrebins in Latin Europe. Cites, please?
Being from a mixed marriage doesn’t make them assimilated (see the shoebomber case).
That speaks about Reid. How typical is he?
November 10th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Quite typical, if the most recent terrorism case is anything to go by. Converts appear to be the most likely source of terrorist recruits, which renders profiling and such not just useless but actively harmful.
November 10th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Again the shoebomber has a non Muslim West Indian father. I really don’t see what this has to do with Muslim immigrants.
November 11th, 2006 at 3:36 am
“Quite typical, if the most recent terrorism case is anything to go by. Converts appear to be the most likely source of terrorist recruits, which renders profiling and such not just useless but actively harmful.”
Agreed that converts, because of the factor of choice, are more likely to be radical than people born into the faith. What proportion of converts? Back to the original commenter, what proportion of people of mixed background are going to be radicals? Do they have _any_ statistics?
February 12th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Адвокат оказывает юридические услуги, юридическая консультация, юридическая
помощь, юридическая консультация по вопросам таможенного оформления, экспорт,
импорт, таможенный адвокат, адвокат по контрабанде,
адвокат по таможенным вопросам, юридическая консультация,
таможенный адвокат, таможенная консультация, уголовный адвокат, адвокат по должностным преступлениям
March 25th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
?
, ALLSEXCONTACT.r