Immigration, Muslims, Freedom of Religion and Birthrates

[Stravinsk]

I was just watching an interview with Bernie Sanders on CNN and the issue of Islam and limiting immigration of Muslims into the USA came up (part of Trump's platform).

This brought to mind something I had thought about before - which is that it seems to me that any country/community which has as part of it's law "freedom of religion", or even "freedom from religion" cannot effectively keep the law relevant when any religious group, as part of their religion, seeks to overthrow that freedom in favor of their own religion forced on the people.

Birth rates in Western societies are falling. They are falling as a result of multiple factors, including abortions, open acceptance of homosexual/lesbian unions and in general the abandonment of the idea of traditional marriage and child raising to a certain extent.

In Islam, on the other hand, a Muslim can take up to 4 wives and Sharia Islam allows for the practice of polygamy.

Those two factors, if unchanged over a generation or two means that eventually Muslims in any country will have a majority simply by breeding.

Given this, and given that the religion itself, at it's core, is about how society should be ordered and ruled (thus exempting it from being merely a religion practiced freely while respecting others religious freedoms, or freedom from religion) - then...

- How is it NOT wise to keep them from immigrating into a country where religious freedom is cherished and enshrined in law? Because if they are allowed to - they will eventually have the numbers to do what they want, and religious freedom outside Islam could be a thing of the past.

 

[Rens]

It is wise to keep those out, but there are also a lot of refugees who really need help. A lot of those are becoming christian here. Some became atheist or they call themselves muslim and don't even know who Muhamed is. It depends. Here they have to take the rules of our society. If they adapt they're welcome. It is tricky though because along with them those radical nuts slipped in too. They didn't have a passport. There was nothing to check. We have a lot of muslims that don't cause any trouble at all. You don't kick all the whites out and keep them from coming because there are those that cause trouble, but suppose there were a huge number of neo nazi's in Germany, could we all send them back or not let them in? It's not moral when you see those refugees drowning with boats to say: out all of you!

 

[MoreCoffee]

What does a government do if some of its own citizens convert to Islam?

If fear of Muslims motivates laws to stop Muslims immigrating then how does one deal with fear of citizens who convert to Islam?

 

[Rens]

What does a government do if some of its own citizens convert to Islam?

If fear of Muslims motivates laws to stop Muslims immigrating then how does one deal with fear of citizens who convert to Islam?

To radical Islam, we have those nutcases, who went to fight there and now want to come back. I hope they don't let them in or better throw them in jail so they don't cause trouble elsewhere.

 

[Rens]

On a Dutch forum we had some christians who supported Geert Wilders, a clone from Trump and they had all this: muslims out talk and a christian girl who used to be a muslim said: We don't even know that that is in the Kuran. There are two groups.
The innocent ones who flee the radical Islam regimes should be welcome.

 

[Rens]

You always have that if you help people. After WWI in Holland they took care in holidays of those poor German kids who had nothing to eat. Corrie ten Boom did that. Then with WWII one had grown up and came back to terrorize them. He had become a nazi. Her dad was so sweet to everyone but after this guy beat up a man who worked for him he kicked him out.

 

[Rens]

The bad thing here is: they kick nice christians and nice muslims out and let radicals in. They get houses and money, don't have to learn the language while my ex's christian wife from Brazil may not live with her own husband and has to learn Dutch and some Dutch people don't get these houses and can live in poverty. People get mad and vote for Wilders who wants no more immigrants.

 

[Rens]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20115...o-encourage-them-to-reintegrate-into-society/

 

[Lamb]

The US isn't afraid of Muslims. The US doesn't want terrorists in our land.

Immigration laws aren't aimed at a religious group but instead wants to have a process that can keep our country safe from those who wish to harm us. Maybe this process will be strict but then again it is worth it.

 

[Stravinsk]

The US isn't afraid of Muslims. The US doesn't want terrorists in our land.

Immigration laws aren't aimed at a religious group but instead wants to have a process that can keep our country safe from those who wish to harm us. Maybe this process will be strict but then again it is worth it.

The point I'm trying to make (or one of them) - is that Islam, at it's core - is far from a religion of peace and tolerance of other religions. The whole idea of "freedom of religion" is anathema to it. Sure there are "moderate Muslims", but I'm willing to bet that these "moderates" are much more numerous in predominately non-muslim countries. Because they have to be, and not for any religious reasons.

The second point is that their religion lends itself to teachings that allow for a much higher population growth via polygamy. While Western birthrates decline, Islam birthrates skyrocket. How many "moderate Muslims" can there be expected to be when they have the numbers that dwarf all other religions in a land?

"Freedom of religion and religious practice" is not part of Islam. Quite the opposite. This isn't about people - but their religion - and I cannot see the sense in allowing a religion that goes against a core value of freedom in the west. Especially so when it can grow so quickly via sanctioned sexual practices like having multiple wives.

 

[psalms 91]

The point I'm trying to make (or one of them) - is that Islam, at it's core - is far from a religion of peace and tolerance of other religions. The whole idea of "freedom of religion" is anathema to it. Sure there are "moderate Muslims", but I'm willing to bet that these "moderates" are much more numerous in predominately non-muslim countries. Because they have to be, and not for any religious reasons.

The second point is that their religion lends itself to teachings that allow for a much higher population growth via polygamy. While Western birthrates decline, Islam birthrates skyrocket. How many "moderate Muslims" can there be expected to be when they have the numbers that dwarf all other religions in a land?

"Freedom of religion and religious practice" is not part of Islam. Quite the opposite. This isn't about people - but their religion - and I cannot see the sense in allowing a religion that goes against a core value of freedom in the west. Especially so when it can grow so quickly via sanctioned sexual practices like having multiple wives.

Bingo, you have hit the nail on the head

 

[Rens]

The point I'm trying to make (or one of them) - is that Islam, at it's core - is far from a religion of peace and tolerance of other religions. The whole idea of "freedom of religion" is anathema to it. Sure there are "moderate Muslims", but I'm willing to bet that these "moderates" are much more numerous in predominately non-muslim countries. Because they have to be, and not for any religious reasons.

The second point is that their religion lends itself to teachings that allow for a much higher population growth via polygamy. While Western birthrates decline, Islam birthrates skyrocket. How many "moderate Muslims" can there be expected to be when they have the numbers that dwarf all other religions in a land?

"Freedom of religion and religious practice" is not part of Islam. Quite the opposite. This isn't about people - but their religion - and I cannot see the sense in allowing a religion that goes against a core value of freedom in the west. Especially so when it can grow so quickly via sanctioned sexual practices like having multiple wives.

Yes Islam is dangerous, but just keeping them out of your own country is not gonna stop them. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former muslim, now atheist, says: Let us get into the business of converting.

https://youtu.be/Z3QaLugRjMg

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes Islam is dangerous, but just keeping them out of your own country is not gonna stop them. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former muslim, now atheist, says: Let us get into the business of converting.

https://youtu.be/Z3QaLugRjMg

Christianity is dangerous too. It is a danger to tyrants. It is a danger to the powerful and the wealthy. It is a danger to the faithless. And for many it is a danger to anybody who is not a Christian especially Muslims nowadays.

 

[Lamb]

The point I'm trying to make (or one of them) - is that Islam, at it's core - is far from a religion of peace and tolerance of other religions. The whole idea of "freedom of religion" is anathema to it. Sure there are "moderate Muslims", but I'm willing to bet that these "moderates" are much more numerous in predominately non-muslim countries. Because they have to be, and not for any religious reasons.

The second point is that their religion lends itself to teachings that allow for a much higher population growth via polygamy. While Western birthrates decline, Islam birthrates skyrocket. How many "moderate Muslims" can there be expected to be when they have the numbers that dwarf all other religions in a land?

"Freedom of religion and religious practice" is not part of Islam. Quite the opposite. This isn't about people - but their religion - and I cannot see the sense in allowing a religion that goes against a core value of freedom in the west. Especially so when it can grow so quickly via sanctioned sexual practices like having multiple wives.

You should read up on Luther's complaints about them! Not much has changed

 

[MoreCoffee]

You should read up on Luther's complaints about them! Not much has changed

Martin Luther wrote more harshly against the Jews. He was harsh against Catholics too. One ought not follow the bad example of Martin Luther's writings.

 

[Josiah]

Some thoughts....

1. I think ANY nation has the authority to control who may or may not become a citizen of that nation. I do not believe that every individual has a human right to be accepted as a citizen of any nation/country he/she so desires.

2. I think any nation might be wise to exclude applicants whose values clearly conflict with those of that nation and who appear to be a threat. This is already accepted when they have violent histories or with major crime histories - but this perhaps COULD include those with "agendas" that are clearly threatening. That's pretty subjective and I'd advice care but again, # 1 - nations have the authority to not accept all applicants for citizenship.

3. I think Trump is right to say we should be "vetting" applicants, and perhaps doing so better. Right now, anyone coming to the border who says "I claim asylum" must by law be allowed to immediately enter - and it can take YEARS before their claim and petition is ever heard - and typically is granted. Meanwhile..... I think it's nice to be nice, but I think many of these Obama Executive Orders (all to circumvent the Republican Congress) simply threaten our nation and her people. I'm sure many of these are good people, but if we don't vet them - how do we know?

4. Personally, I'm pretty pro-immigrant.... and I suspect I'd be more generous in this regard than Trump. But I do think our nation is STUPID to not be vetting (or when we do, in such a way as to be worthless). American has been blessed by GOOD people who came here to embrace the "American Dream," work hard, embrace our freedoms, and be able to provide for their families. This is how America developed.... it's how most of us got here..... it's been a huge blessing to our land. I affirm that. But we're STUPID to welcome every criminal, murderer, and militant determined to overthrow our government, economy and society. Trumps own opinions may go to far the other way, but maybe the new government can reach a balance.... and perhaps end Obama's Executive Orders that are so absurd and dangerous.



- Josiah

 

[Lamb]

Martin Luther wrote more harshly against the Jews. He was harsh against Catholics too. One ought not follow the bad example of Martin Luther's writings.

He pointed the masses back to Jesus as Savior. It's a wonderful idea to read Luther.

 

[psalms 91]

Some thoughts....

1. I think ANY nation has the authority to control who may or may not become a citizen of that nation. I do not believe that every individual has a human right to be accepted as a citizen of any nation/country he/she so desires.

2. I think any nation might be wise to exclude applicants whose values clearly conflict with those of that nation and who appear to be a threat. This is already accepted when they have violent histories or with major crime histories - but this perhaps COULD include those with "agendas" that are clearly threatening. That's pretty subjective and I'd advice care but again, # 1 - nations have the authority to not accept all applicants for citizenship.

3. I think Trump is right to say we should be "vetting" applicants, and perhaps doing so better. Right now, anyone coming to the border who says "I claim asylum" must by law be allowed to immediately enter - and it can take YEARS before their claim and petition is ever heard - and typically is granted. Meanwhile..... I think it's nice to be nice, but I think many of these Obama Executive Orders (all to circumvent the Republican Congress) simply threaten our nation and her people. I'm sure many of these are good people, but if we don't vet them - how do we know?

4. Personally, I'm pretty pro-immigrant.... and I suspect I'd be more generous in this regard than Trump. But I do think our nation is STUPID to not be vetting (or when we do, in such a way as to be worthless). American has been blessed by GOOD people who came here to embrace the "American Dream," work hard, embrace our freedoms, and be able to provide for their families. This is how America developed.... it's how most of us got here..... it's been a huge blessing to our land. I affirm that. But we're STUPID to welcome every criminal, murderer, and militant determined to overthrow our government, economy and society. Trumps own opinions may go to far the other way, but maybe the new government can reach a balance.... and perhaps end Obama's Executive Orders that are so absurd and dangerous.



- Josiah

Exactly

 

[tango]

The point I'm trying to make (or one of them) - is that Islam, at it's core - is far from a religion of peace and tolerance of other religions. The whole idea of "freedom of religion" is anathema to it. Sure there are "moderate Muslims", but I'm willing to bet that these "moderates" are much more numerous in predominately non-muslim countries. Because they have to be, and not for any religious reasons.

The second point is that their religion lends itself to teachings that allow for a much higher population growth via polygamy. While Western birthrates decline, Islam birthrates skyrocket. How many "moderate Muslims" can there be expected to be when they have the numbers that dwarf all other religions in a land?

"Freedom of religion and religious practice" is not part of Islam. Quite the opposite. This isn't about people - but their religion - and I cannot see the sense in allowing a religion that goes against a core value of freedom in the west. Especially so when it can grow so quickly via sanctioned sexual practices like having multiple wives.

This is another situation where we need to strike a sense of balance.

If we read the Qu'ran there are certainly sections that advocate war and violence. But we could say the same about the Bible - a cursory scan through Leviticus and Deuteronomy reveals all sorts of situations where the prescribed response is execution.

Where Muslims are concerned it's not as simple as saying a Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim. I forget which way around it was but Mohammed essentially had two writing styles, one related to his time at Medina and the other at Mecca, one preaching a message of peace and the other preaching a message of war. Some Muslims focus on the peace, some on the war.

Many Muslims in western cultures are about as far removed from the nutjobs we see in the news as it's possible to be. I've lived among, worked with and done business with many Muslims and don't recall a single one of them being anything other than a useful member of society. When I had Muslim neighbors they were the ones who invited me into their home to escape the cold when I locked myself out of my house. The local Muslim shopkeeper went above and beyond to help his customers and even if you met him around town when his store was closed he was a pleasant and friendly man. One of the Muslims I worked with professionally heard I liked a particular kind of tea and brought me some from his homeland after a visit, despite not knowing me well at that point. During the time I was working with him (sadly not long, as my contract was only for six months) we had a number of discussions while waiting for tea of coffee to brew.

Where immigration is concerned it makes sense to vet people before allowing them in. It makes sense to consider the question of whether the country particularly wants this particular individual, or whether the individual represents more of a liability than an benefit. I'm not sure that an exclusive focus on Islam is helpful, simply because if we're worried about a change in culture as a result of different birth rates we'd need to consider a lot more than whether or not a person follows a particular faith. What happens if some other group of people breeds more prolifically than the national average? Would we start to crack down on poor people for having larger families? What about people who vote a certain way? At some point we have to accept that culture evolves and it's probably better to put safeguards into a document like the Constitution to restrict the power of the government than to focus too much on whether one particular group might grow to gain more power than we're happy with.

 

[tango]

Some thoughts....

1. I think ANY nation has the authority to control who may or may not become a citizen of that nation. I do not believe that every individual has a human right to be accepted as a citizen of any nation/country he/she so desires.

Agreed

2. I think any nation might be wise to exclude applicants whose values clearly conflict with those of that nation and who appear to be a threat. This is already accepted when they have violent histories or with major crime histories - but this perhaps COULD include those with "agendas" that are clearly threatening. That's pretty subjective and I'd advice care but again, # 1 - nations have the authority to not accept all applicants for citizenship.

Agreed, but it's worth remembering that those who are already citizens (by birth or naturalisation) can always change their outlook in the future.

3. I think Trump is right to say we should be "vetting" applicants, and perhaps doing so better. Right now, anyone coming to the border who says "I claim asylum" must by law be allowed to immediately enter - and it can take YEARS before their claim and petition is ever heard - and typically is granted. Meanwhile..... I think it's nice to be nice, but I think many of these Obama Executive Orders (all to circumvent the Republican Congress) simply threaten our nation and her people. I'm sure many of these are good people, but if we don't vet them - how do we know?

It makes no sense at all to put a lawful immigrant through a process that can be very arduous only to then insist that anyone who utters the magic word "asylum" gets to bypass all of it for years. This leads to the question of how to strike a balance between providing refuge for those who have genuinely fled an abusive regime (and who may have no papers and no means of proving their identity), and catching those who merely want to game the system and deliberately destroy their papers in an attempt to bolster their claim of persecution.

4. Personally, I'm pretty pro-immigrant.... and I suspect I'd be more generous in this regard than Trump. But I do think our nation is STUPID to not be vetting (or when we do, in such a way as to be worthless). American has been blessed by GOOD people who came here to embrace the "American Dream," work hard, embrace our freedoms, and be able to provide for their families. This is how America developed.... it's how most of us got here..... it's been a huge blessing to our land. I affirm that. But we're STUPID to welcome every criminal, murderer, and militant determined to overthrow our government, economy and society. Trumps own opinions may go to far the other way, but maybe the new government can reach a balance.... and perhaps end Obama's Executive Orders that are so absurd and dangerous.

I'm not one to speak against immigrants in general, but it's nothing more than good sense to remove illegal immigrants and to vet would-be immigrants. Arguing that it's racist to remove illegal immigrants because they are largely if not overwhelmingly of a certain race makes no more sense than claiming racism when a criminal happens to be black.