Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

[Wayne92587]

Would it child abuse if non-Muslim parents were to has their eight year old daughter circumcised.
Are you for Honor Killings.

Are the so called good Muslims going to be governed by the Rule of Law, or Islamic Law, Sharia.

In the Muslim World, if a young girl, if not properly covered and she is groped or even raped in public, the male is not punished; it is the girls fault and and she may suffer some form of Punishment herself, perhaps being stoned to death.

Are you People Crazy.

[Wayne92587]

Some years back a Saudi Princess was beheaded in the public square for being a party girl, to care free, while away at colleges in the Us.

An Honor Killing at the order of he Father.

[Dlaw]

No. Single parents children fair far worse. Maybe you're not considering that you're talking about breaking up families.

Oh, no, I know exactly how the system works.

I'm talking about single people. Family men are typically much less risky than single males already, so that's where I'm starting.

The ideal population to "import" is young, female, single, and university-bound or in trade school. That population gives you all the economic benefit of immigration (which is considerable) and a tiny fraction of the problems, Education visas are ideal because you leverage the supervision the educational institution provides.

I don't care where these women come from. With 9 billion people in the world, we could easily fill our quotas from every country.

And on a technical point, remember that immigration deals are bilateral agreements. You CANNOT, for example, have an agreement with India that would treat Muslims differently from Hindus. The Indian government is constitutionally forbidden from getting into such agreements, as are most other countries. So an anti-Muslim immigration policy is a non-starter.

[Dlaw]

Would it child abuse if non-Muslim parents were to has their eight year old daughter circumcised.
Are you for Honor Killings.

Not only is it child abuse, women from areas where genital mutilation is practiced can make asylum claims to come to the U.S. - ditto honor killings.

Taking women under threat from honor killing or genital mutilation is exactly the kind of policy the world needs.

I would go even further. I would suggest that any woman who lives in a society with legal oppression of females should be considered a refugee.

Let the jihadists put that in their pipes and smoke it. Their tune will soon change when the women start leaving in droves.

[Sy Borg]

I would go even further. I would suggest that any woman who lives in a society with legal oppression of females should be considered a refugee.

Let the jihadists put that in their pipes and smoke it. Their tune will soon change when the women start leaving in droves.

It would be very difficult for a group of women in a patriarchal society (often denied education or skills acquisition) to escape the country's borders to even apply to be a refugee.

[Dlaw]

I would go even further. I would suggest that any woman who lives in a society with legal oppression of females should be considered a refugee.

Let the jihadists put that in their pipes and smoke it. Their tune will soon change when the women start leaving in droves.

It would be very difficult for a group of women in a patriarchal society (often denied education or skills acquisition) to escape the country's borders to even apply to be a refugee.

It is difficult but it happens with surprising regularity and if it was a priority of international aid agencies it would happen even more.

My friend has gotten asylum for a bunch of African women whose daughters would have been subject to FGM.

[Wayne92587]

Female circumcision, alone, is reason enough to reject the Muslim World of Illusion.

What about the disregard of punishment of the Male Rapist because of the attire the Female Victim?

Rape and molestation is rapid in the Countries that have allowed Muslim Emigration.

[Littlemoon]

What I'm seeing here in Europe is a scandal to be quite honest. You see this movement of extremists from left and right saying no to immigration. Some governments shut down their frontiers (Hungary for example) to prevent people coming to Europe. And the arguments they use are absurd. They fundamentally accentuate xenophobia by instilling fear into the population. While some of the terrorists, undoubtedly, pick this moment to spread (it's impossible to keep track with the millions that came to europe) and disseminate in europe, we are speaking of a minority.
I'm appalled these governments can be so cruel by denying these people safe passage when everything was taken from them. Even children flee from the horror. How can you look into a child's eyes and deny him refugee? But of course of these "governments" it is far easier to dictate and instill xenophobia behind a thick curtain that sees no people but numbers.
It is shameful! No better word can describe this.

I believe you got it wrong.

I believe the resistance to taking in refugee is the fact that the majority of refugees are Muslims, i.e. Islam the ideology has an inherent potential to destroy existing society and their cultural, i.e. cultural genocides.

Note there are refugees everywhere, but wherever there are Muslim refugees the social problems and terrorists attacks [like in Europe] and the West increased significantly. Why?

Note my argument on why we need to deal with Islam and Muslims as a specific problem which should be different from problems of refugees in general.

We could argue that all religions except Buddhism are violent. Lets nor forget the inquisition times from Christianity.
We shouldn't make the exception the general rule. Sure some Muslims are violent and belong to terrorist groups yes, but to deny a child and the mother refugee asylum, to separate entire families based on the "potential" terrorism, that is simply inhumane.
So much talk of Europe about the human rights, 50 years in fact of talks and in their first exam they fail. I'm not alone when I say Europe, no, the politicians and governments of europe should be ashamed.

[Burning ghost]

Littlemoon -

Even Buddhists can be violent (and have been.) Religion is not about violence, but people are generally quite violent from time to time and religion is often a convenient social vehicle for getting the masses to move in union against X or Y.

[Wayne92587]

Violence alone is not the problem, it is the severity of the Violence, the depth of the desire to destroy the Freedom of the West, to supplement Islamic Law, Sharia, for the Rule of Law that is the problem.

[Spectrum]

Littlemoon -

Even Buddhists can be violent (and have been.) Religion is not about violence, but people are generally quite violent from time to time and religion is often a convenient social vehicle for getting the masses to move in union against X or Y.

Yes, Buddhists but not Buddhism and its doctrines. The Buddha never advocated violence either directly or indirectly. No Buddhists can claim to commit violence in the name of Buddhism or the Buddha with reference to any verses from the Buddhists sutras. [there are a few debatable verses but have never been used by anyone to justify violence on non-believers].

All humans has the potential and 20% has an active potential to commit evil.
All Buddhists are humans and thus 20% are likely to be evil prone. Regardless of whether they are Buddhists or not, these evil prones will commit evil acts of some sort, but they can never justify their evil acts from Buddhism per-se.

On the other hand, the ethos of Islam as supported by loads of verses in the Quran directly condoned evil acts and violence against non-believers. Christianity has it shares of negatives against non-believers and humanity, but not as serious as Islam.

[Spectrum]

I believe you got it wrong.

I believe the resistance to taking in refugee is the fact that the majority of refugees are Muslims, i.e. Islam the ideology has an inherent potential to destroy existing society and their cultural, i.e. cultural genocides.

Note there are refugees everywhere, but wherever there are Muslim refugees the social problems and terrorists attacks [like in Europe] and the West increased significantly. Why?

Note my argument on why we need to deal with Islam and Muslims as a specific problem which should be different from problems of refugees in general.

We could argue that all religions except Buddhism are violent. Lets nor forget the inquisition times from Christianity.
We shouldn't make the exception the general rule. Sure some Muslims are violent and belong to terrorist groups yes, but to deny a child and the mother refugee asylum, to separate entire families based on the "potential" terrorism, that is simply inhumane.
So much talk of Europe about the human rights, 50 years in fact of talks and in their first exam they fail. I'm not alone when I say Europe, no, the politicians and governments of europe should be ashamed.

Note my point to BG above.

Christianity has an overriding pacifist maxim of 'love your enemies' love your neighbors, give the other cheek. Any Christians who kill their enemies [without divine justifications] will surely face the wrath of God when the meet God.
Thus I do not believe the inquisition and all other terrible evil acts is directly due to Christianity. Rather is the the natural evilness of the believer being human that drove them to commit evil, just like SOME Buddhists who committed evil.

The danger with Muslims is this;

• 1. All humans has the potential to commit evil acts and 20% [conservatively] are evil prone.
  2. The Quran and Islam has tons of evil laden elements that compel evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils.

It is the inevitable existence of the above evil potentials that we need to give particular attention to Muslims.
The point is for any group of Muslims, there is an inevitable danger of evil from 20% within that group.
At present we do not know who are the 20% evil ones and it had happened and is known immigrant children has turned terrorists later.
Therefore the safest option for any country is to give particular attention to Muslims and prevent them from coming in to increase the risk.

The 80% of moderate believers [human beings] should not be victimized. The solution is to neutralize the religion and so that we are not dealing with Muslims per se but rather with human beings.

To resolve the current refugee problem, it should be addressed within the problematic Nation itself or around its border. These Muslims refugees should never be let in into Nations whose culture will not suit Islam at all.

The USA and other countries has accepted millions of refugees over history and has never encountered such a global threat as serious as a Muslims-invasion where their tentacles stretches globally.
E.g. if there are more Muslims in the USA or anywhere else, the drawing of cartoons of the prophet in Sydney could trigger riots and killings of non-Muslims in New York and all over the world where there are Muslims. It is not only drawing of cartoons but it affect all aspects of life where Islam are sensitive to and insist they must dominate everyone else.

Get the point?

[Burning ghost]

Spectrum -

Any doctrine can become radicalized and cause violence and death. For instance, how better to end all human suffering than by destroying the human race.

note: I am not denying the current situation with Islam and we both agree it needs to be reformed. When it comes to the general view of religion I am pulled in several different directions (not meaning any particular "faith.")

[Spectrum]

Spectrum -

Any doctrine can become radicalized and cause violence and death. For instance, how better to end all human suffering than by destroying the human race.

Not any, but many doctrines can become radicalized and cause violence and death. e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and other doctrines are heavily pacifist oriented.

note: I am not denying the current situation with Islam and we both agree it needs to be reformed.

Agree.

When it comes to the general view of religion I am pulled in several different directions (not meaning any particular "faith.")

Generally all religions which are organized and institutionalized has their various shares of evil acts in degrees because they are managed by human beings with different behavioral potentials.
Even Buddhism whose doctrines are pacifist cannot influence all its believers especially the evil prone ones to commit evil acts. Note Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand and elsewhere. But these evil acts by Buddhists has nothing to do with Buddhist doctrines rather it is due to inherent evil nature of the person.

What we need to focus our criticisms is on those religions that has inherent evil elements within their doctrines which will influence SOME of their believers who are evil prone to commit evil acts as a divine duty and justified by the religion itself.

[Burning ghost]

Spectrum -

Just to be sure I've driven home my point well enough for you to respect it ... Yes, the discussion is about Islam here, fair enough. I would still say any strong socially embedded ideology will form radical factions. Any "doctrine", "philosophy" or "belief system" will veer into dangerous territory. That is all I am saying. The plea to some state of "higher being" (regardless of its conceptual form) suffers greatness by offering up its opposite - that is more of a Taoist view.

So when I say ANY I mean ANY. The extent and span of each individual "group" depends on numerous factors. I would even class scientific method as being one of these "groups."

I do agree that pressuring religious doctrines that espouse "evil" is good. Some healthy reinterpretation would be better, and I genuinely believe many of the Biblical stories are meant as symbolic representations rather than as actual dramatic representations of how to live our lives - much like The Three Little Pigs is not really a story about three pigs, it has a whole underlying theme to it.

I am very curious if you could frame much of the Koran's passages in Buddhist terms (or simply in terms more readily accessible to our world today)? That may well be an interesting project! If it needs reforming how about showing us how. I think that would be a very interesting project AND one which I would be very much interested in helping you with if you were so inclined?