Multiculturalism - a racism in disguise

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]


Has an enlightened nation ever slipped back to the kind of fundamentalism that existed before?

What first comes to mind, Godwin be damned, is Germany under Hitler. But I think you need to define "enlightened" and "fundamentalism" before any sort of definite answer can be given.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by VJ

Also, muslims have free speech. Natives do not have free speech because of the muslims living amongst them. Want an example? A muslim priest preaches publicly for his fellow believers how muslim men are not to blame if they raping christian women -- the women are to blame. Nothing happens: this is completely okay and multiculturalist establishment doesn't react in any way. People from all religions try to counter this by doing nothing else but marching a defined route naked. This is classified as "a racist offense". Politicians, I kid you not, tell that people who are marching naked just in order to show that nakedness is natural and should not justify rape against women are "insensitive white supremacists". Can you notice the obvious similarity between this ad hominem and the ad hominem our Apolytons own socialist "multiculturalists" Spiffor and Oncle Boris attacked the writer of the OP with -- without even reading the article before their knee-jerk responses?

From the links, I can't tell if the marchers cancelled the march on their own accord, or it was stopped by officialdom. Which was it?

[Impaler[WrG]]

If enlightenment values are so self-evidently correct, why would anyone not chose them?

Has an enlightened nation ever slipped back to the kind of fundamentalism that existed before? Their have been lots of problems, crimes and mistakes by those societies but never has the enlightenment given ground. The West is now so dominant that the only serious threats are its own internal mistakes, ideological schisms and internal loss of will power. Islam is merely the thing which would fill the void if the west implodes, it is not itself able to cause the downfall of the west.

Enlightenment can not be forced on a society, it must come from within. The west can do its best by setting a good example, like not being imperialist bastards. What the rest of the worlds spits in our face when we try to cram it down their through they would actively want if we just let them come to us on their own terms.

[Cort Haus]

VJ

Spiffor - what is the alternative to enforcement of basic principles of liberty, equality and fraternity? Are you saying that Islamists should be able to veto our universal values of equality, on our own territory, just because the law is characterised as 'the barrel of a gun'? Ultimately all law is enforced through the barrel of a gun.

As for Boris - I can no longer distinguish between those of his odious posts which are pure trolling, and those which are his own politics. They are indistinguishable to me, and symptomatic of the rapidly degenerating nature of what passes for 'debate' on this forum.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Heresson

1) most people don't want to "destroy islam"

If Islam could be destroyed without hurting Muslims, wouldn't it be a good thing?

NOTE: I count liberalisation or enlightenment of the faith as its destruction, because it's a very rigid structure, which, if contradicted in part, is destroyed in whole.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by VJ

Can you notice the obvious similarity between this ad hominem and the ad hominem our Apolytons own socialist "multiculturalists" Spiffor and Oncle Boris attacked the writer of the OP with -- without even reading the article before their knee-jerk responses?

In this respect, it is now quite clear that the leftists of all kinds are the objective associates of radical islamism; they fight together what they called "islamophoby" which defines any comment or criticism of anything with the slightiest islamic references or connections.

[RGBVideo]

Enlightenment policies don't work at the point of a gun.

Exactly! That's why people who do not want to live under "enlightment policies" or whatever term we'll use for European law enforcement and culture should not move in here. America is different, because all Americans are immigrants: German immigrants who feel threatened by Pakistani immigrants can always return to Germany. We Finns' don't have anywhere to go into if Islamists will overtake our country: we'll become slaves in our own country.

The US doesn't seem to have the same Muslim radicalism as Europe appears to be having, even though plenty of Muslims have settled in the States. Perhaps that can be a result of a more hands off spreading of enlightenment policies (a much more liberal free speech policy for one).

Different European nations have tried different strategies in "naturalising" these immigrants. Sweden, France, Belgium and UK have all tried approaches. Belgium has tried an approach identical to what you just described.

Also, muslims have free speech. Natives do not have free speech because of the muslims living amongst them. Want an example? A muslim priest preaches publicly for his fellow believers how muslim men are not to blame if they raping christian women -- the women are to blame. Nothing happens: this is completely okay and multiculturalist establishment doesn't react in any way. People from all religions try to counter this by doing nothing else but marching a defined route naked. This is classified as "a racist offense". Politicians, I kid you not, tell that people who are marching naked just in order to show that nakedness is natural and should not justify rape against women are "insensitive white supremacists". Can you notice the obvious similarity between this ad hominem and the ad hominem our Apolytons own socialist "multiculturalists" Spiffor and Oncle Boris attacked the writer of the OP with -- without even reading the article before their knee-jerk responses?

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Spiffor]The logical consequence of that, which is pretty obvious in the article, is that we need to enforce our enlightenment values on those who don't share them. At least on our territory (though Bruckner would love to see the west actively spreading them worldwide). For example, this is why Bruckner supports the headscarf ban, an example he brought up in this very article.

I disagree with that, because I think it will only alienate people against the values of enlightenment, and that they'll have an extreme reaction as soon as the enforcement dies down (see the reactionary victory in Iran 1979, see how the Islamists seem to easily win elections in secular Arabic dictatorships).[/q]

Indeed. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Enlightenment policies don't work at the point of a gun. Headscarf bans just get people pissed who you are trying to convert. Basically, the real change comes with the next generation. You let them grow up in a country that is free and most of them will accept their adopted society and enlightenment which is a part of that. Obviously some will not, but its an ongoing process.

The US doesn't seem to have the same Muslim radicalism as Europe appears to be having, even though plenty of Muslims have settled in the States. Perhaps that can be a result of a more hands off spreading of enlightenment policies (a much more liberal free speech policy for one).

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Iran under the Shah (like Saddam's Iraq) was becoming quite secular however, and with a more modern economy as well. The Shah, among other things, instituted women's suffrage, which was loathed by the clergy despite its meaninglessness.

If becoming secular was the criteria for a state that it had reached the enlightenment ideals, you certainly believe that the USSR was enlightened. You are badly wrong; the ideals are mainly based of freedom of individuals (equality, opinion, expression).
Secularity is only an easy solution to grant freedom of religion.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by GePap
If enlightenment values are so self-evidently correct, why would anyone not chose them?

Heroin is evidently dangerous, it does not prevent people to experience it. People are generally tempted by bad reasons, not by correctness.

[GePap]

If enlightenment values are so self-evidently correct, why would anyone not chose them?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Spiffor : Iran under the shah was a tyranny trying to impose technical progress without democracy; this does not reflect the ideals of enlightenment which you seem to ignore.

Iran under the Shah (like Saddam's Iraq) was becoming quite secular however, and with a more modern economy as well. The Shah, among other things, instituted women's suffrage, which was loathed by the clergy despite its meaninglessness.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
The fact that enlightenment progressed has nothing to do with the feelings it evokes.

What he names progression, means that so called enlightened ideas are not abused to justify totalitarian rule "for the good of the people".

The rest of what you said, is in my understanding a non-sequitor.

OK, that's where we differ. We don't interpret this article in the same vein.

For me, Bruckner wants western countries (and in particular France, his frame of reference) to re-affirm its enlightenment values, and not to let any room to various obscurantists (most prominently the Muslim ones). Because otherwise, people stuck in an obscurantist society within our western territory will never get out of it.

The logical consequence of that, which is pretty obvious in the article, is that we need to enforce our enlightenment values on those who don't share them. At least on our territory (though Bruckner would love to see the west actively spreading them worldwide). For example, this is why Bruckner supports the headscarf ban, an example he brought up in this very article.

I disagree with that, because I think it will only alienate people against the values of enlightenment, and that they'll have an extreme reaction as soon as the enforcement dies down (see the reactionary victory in Iran 1979, see how the Islamists seem to easily win elections in secular Arabic dictatorships).

In other words, I think his criticism of multiculturalism is grounded on a false premise: that we can achieve better results by enforcing the "right" values, 3rd Republic-style.

[DAVOUT]

Heresson, VJ
Spiffor : Iran under the shah was a tyranny trying to impose technical progress without democracy; this does not reflect the ideals of enlightenment which you seem to ignore.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by aneeshm
I've realised the best way of destroying Islam is to give it what it wants. Muslims want Sharia - give it to them in personal matters. That'll keep them happy and regressive. They want isolation? Give it to them. Cut off all relations except trade. Don't let Enlightenment ideas spread to Muslim lands, so that freedom will be crushed under theocracy. It's the ideal recipe - the Muslims are happy, and rest of the world is happy.

1) most people don't want to "destroy islam"
2) not people living in majorly muslim lands are muslims. Of course, You can let them into other societies. But that would mean, f.e. end of christianity in its holy lands.
3) not all muslims want shari'ah. I'd say in countries like Syria minority wants it. Of course, You can let such individuals into western societies, but, then, their grandchildren may reflect and say they want shari'ah after all... and it will undermine anti-shari'ah opposition anyway
4) perhaps we have a responsibility of people elsewhere in the world - not necessarily. We see how bringing freedom & happiness to the people of Iraq ended. But it doesn't feel right to let them opress each other, does it.