When looking at the title of this topic, I assume we all know what I am talking about: the attempt to let people from different cultures and religions live together in peace. It has been a “trend” in Europa for a while now, and it is time to make up a balance. I tell you that it is negative.

I can only speak for my own country, but I assume that the situation is the same or even worse in most other West-European countries (most notably France and the glorious nation of England). I also assume most other prosperous countries (eg USA) can relate to this situation, since every rich country is bound to attract immigrants. I’m sorry if I mention specific problems about my own country, but please try to reply to it in a more general manner.




Let’s start off with looking at crime, the cliche. In most of the big cities, Turks and Morrocans (mainly the youth) are out of control. They come from a country with an entirely different culture (social control, police that actually does something) to a “land of hope” where they are more or less free. I am not saying all of them do it, obviously a minority does it, but still : is it normal that we get all that vandalism? Is it normal that our prisons have 25% Belgians and 75% muslims, people from the East Bloc and all sorts of people? Is it normal that heavily armed gangsters and young people rule the streets? Is it normal that in some cities the police doesn’t want to go to certain parts anymore, in fear of being assaulted (most notably in big French cities)? Is it normal that Charleroi, a Belgian city, has an unemployment rate of 30-40% (some parts well over 50%) ? I say that this is not a normal, healthy situation, let alone an example of how integration should be.




Which brings me to the next problem : the clash of religions and cultures. Ever since it was invented, religions have caused the majority of wars. And now we brought them to our cities, to our lands. Stuff like this will happen in our countries when we are the minority. Is it normal that hundreds of thousands of muslims protest, cause riots when we ask them to integrate and, to an extent, give up their religion? Is it normal that , when asked to dress in a neutral manner, we get attacked? Is it normal that when a known anti-multicul politician (Geert Wilders) is blocked from the UK because imams threaten to stir up their people to riot? They are supposed to integrate. It is okay to practice your religion, it is okay to have places to pray. But it is not okay to build huge mosques, it is not okay to START LIVING TOGETHER, create mini versions of your own lands with your own rules. It is not good if instead of living in harmony, one culture wants to change the other. I have been in regions of Brussels (the glorious capital of Europe) where everything was in Arab. From street signs to markets. For Phoronida sake, there are SHARIA COURTS in the UK. The legal ones work surprisingly well, but there are reports of illegal and very, very radical sharia courts in the UK that support ideas such as : “A woman should listen to her man and be prepared for sex at all times”. They want to integrate, they want to live in and even profit of what is a better land in their eyes? Well then try and living by the LAW of it for a start, try to add to the welfare of the country. Try actually becoming a Briton,try living by the law of your current land. The last thing you should do is migrate to a country and then follow the laws of the country you left. If you like the culture, religion and laws of the motherland so much, go back to it. Face the reality of your new situation, INTEGRATE like you are supposed to.



Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t for example support the BNP or radical methods. I am willing to have patience. When a 20-30 year old black man flees from his shit country, I can understand that. I can understand that he needs to learn the language before he can find a job and truely integrate. Heck, due to aging, we NEED immigration. I am willing to wait a few years. If he finds a job then, adds to the country, he is of value. I cheer on success stories like that. But somebody who lives on welfare for 10 years, is reluctant to look for a job, has 10 children that all do nothing and basically is a parasite, has no point in being in the country that he is slowly devouring from the inside. Yes, I used the word parasite. I find no better word to decribe people living off of welfare for years, not paying taxes and sometimes not even learning the language.





And last but not least : if I’m going to bitch about the problems, I need to have some solutions. I propose following a less cowardly course..A few weeks ago, in Belgium, “sans-papiers” (people who are illegal, hence the name “without papers/documents”) who were at the end of their “application” to become a Belgian or have documents, NEEDED TO HAVE A HOME. I was…furious when I read that. Instead of treating everybody so friendly, send back the people who are at the end of the juridical line, like it’s supposed to! Instead of letting everything pass, arrest and send back recidivists. Stop giving in to threats! Instead of ignoring the tensions caused by problems like the Mohammed cartoons, governments should realise that they have gone too far. Mass integration will (and is) lead(ing) to segregation.




I realise I will probably be flamed by lefties, tree huggers and moralfags, but that doesn’t really bother me. You may now post.

I agree with you on just about all of this.

Leeches on society need to be dealt with. People shouldn't just leave their own crappy home and immigrate to another country in search of "a better life" and then do absolutely nothing. That pisses me off. It is different when someone has the motivation, the attitude to integrate into the society of the country and become a person with a use. Someone who actually contributes to society. People shouldn't bring little versions of their home because, after all, that's what they left isn't it? Why would someone leave something then basically live in a miniature version of their home that can be worse? Really, I have no idea. I don't mind immigration, it is good to a certain point. But once it starts getting out of control and things just turn into a downward spiral, then there needs to be something done. Cultural gangs cause violence, widespread drug use, etc. People just need to learn to integrate into the NEW society rather than try and stay with the old society WHICH THEY LEFT.

Whilst it is true that ethnic minorities do commit a disproportionate amount of crime in countries such as the UK and, in your case, Belgium, this is down to their wealth, not their actual ethnicity. The majority of immigrants to the UK earn far below the average British wage in their home countries and therefore, when they arrive, they do not have as much money as the established British people. This means that they are often forced to live in unfavourable circumstances, i.e in one of the many post war tower blocks in London, which does not exactly make for the perfect upbringing for children. Because many of these immigrant families live in poverty, then their children are more likely to get into crime, that is, burglaries and muggings, in order to subsidise their income, or in some places, (you mentioned Charleroi) the lack of, due to their unemployment.

That isn’t a failure of multiculturalism concept as a whole, rather a failure of the way it is applied in a specific country. If immigrants aren’t able to integrate well into society, then of course social and ethnic tensions will arise. The failure is down to the government, not the idea. If proper housing was provided for these people and their families and a system was employed where only hard working and decent people were allowed into the country, then the problems associated with multiculturalism would vanish almost overnight. So in a sense, I do agree with you in that how it is being handled now is a failure, but I believe the concept is still a good one.



Yes, religion is to blame for the majority of this world’s problems, but it isn’t down to one religion. You can’t pin the blame on Islam, look at Christianity and Judaism, they are very far from perfect. All religions are as bad as each other. We may have a problem with Islam in Europe, but you need to look at the bigger picture, blame Islam yes, but also blame religion as a whole.

Why isn’t it ok for Muslims to build Mosques in this country? As you said, they ‘should’ be allowed to practice their religion, but how can you say that yet deny them a place to worship in? There would be huge uproar in the West if Christians were unable to build a Church in say, Egypt and I’m sure you’d be one of the people criticising that, yet you try to deny Muslims a right to have a Mosque in the UK?

What do you honestly expect though? If you moved to, say China and there happened to be a small Belgian community in a certain area of the town, wouldn’t you gravitate toward it? These people group together only for familiarity. Put yourself in their shoes, you’re in a new country and don’t know anyone, of course you’re going to try and group together with your fellow countrymen, not only for peace of mind and familiarity, but also because it’s practical.

I do, however, agree with you on the language point. Signs should always be in a country’s native language, as all residents (that includes immigrants too) need and should speak the language and speak it well, not just know a few words. Likewise immigrants should always follow the laws of the country they have emigrated to. But you’re only looking at it from one side. There are plenty of examples of where westerners have gone to foreign countries and broken the law by engaging in activites that would be legal here, but not in the country they are living/visiting. It really does work both ways, it is only that the media reports one side much more than the other and for obvious reasons.

You think Islam is bad? You should see some of the stuff in the Bible. It’s just disturbing how so many people can follow a book that is so obviously flawed and has such a great number of logical fallacies, but hey, that’s life, people aren’t that smart. You get screwed up rules in most religions.



Agreed.

It is true that immigrants usually arrive with nothing. But they left their country, often paid alot getting to their new country. They should realise they will not have much. Also, there are alot of poor American families for example, and although the social situation in most of those families isn’t good, it doesn’t lead to crime on the scale it does in certain..”brown” sections of big cities. There is a distinct difference in the way poverty is dealt with.

Also, the system you suggested is exactly what I want. I did NOT say immigration was bad, but immigration the way it is being handled now is.



I did not say they could not have a place to worship in. Little mosques and practicing your religion at home and even praying in public should be allowed, but I don’t see why we should build megalomane temples for other religions, in the middle of big cities. I am not denying their right to practice their religion. I am however strongly against one religion taking over the landscape and other religions trying to “take over” or influence the culture and even laws of a land. Seriously, at some point in London there will be a bearded guy shouting on top of a mosque and you’ll see a whole street falling down on their knees to pray.



If I would be in a new country, I would love to meet some Dutch-speaking people, and I would indeed rather live in that part of the town. However, I would also try atleast to learn Chinese if I would have to stay there for ten years. I would certainly NOT try to still follow Belgian rules in China or stay in my micro-Belgium. I would adapt and over-time become a Chinese.



ERROR : CANNOT DEBATE IF OPPONENT HAS EQUAL VIEWPOINT



Breaking the law is not the same as trying to impose your law in a different country. Also, there are far less Christian fundamentalists or even praktiserende Christians than there are muslims.



On a general note, I think the problem is that we are talking about different things Max. I am talking about the reality of the situation, while you counter with arguments of immigration in an utopia. I approve of all the changes you want to make, but the reality is : you are not the UK’s PM (I know you want to be though ). You cannot change the crappy situation, and no minister will do it because lack of balls.

I hate foreigners. Unless they're kind.

Well, fundamentally I agree with you, who wouldn't, but you really have to question here how this would be policed. When the first guy gets sent home for 'not adding to the community in any way' that would open the floodgates, using your example, would a mother living at home with ten children be sent home?

And then there are multiple definitions of 'useful to the community', that same mother could be an event organizer for her entire area, which wouldn't be strictly 'beneficial to the entire community' but would be to her small area.
Little definitions like this would make the system impossible to police.

If most of her children are..annoying vandalists; then I will send them back.

What if two of them break a small bench once, are they vandalists?

I really hope that I used the word "recidivists" somewhere in my original post? If not, this is what I meant : if they are vandalists or deal drugs or beat kids up or a combination of aforementioned, and recidivists, then yes, I will send them back.

My main gripe about multiculturalism is when people from very ethnic countries come to the U.S., and call us ignorant and self-centered when we don't know everything about their culture.

Multiculturalism's worked pretty well where I come from. And where I went to uni. And where I ike to go.

Even Enoch Powell retracted his 'Rivers of Blood' speech before his death due to having actually seen the effects of multiculturalism in the UK.

And I do believe you're confusing multiculturalism with pluralism. They are of course two entirely different things.

And that's not why Gert Wilders was blocked from the country. We do have the incitement of racial hatred bill whixh was actually created to prosecute the radical Islamic cleric Abu Hamza. It's just an unfortunate side effect that such bills affect everyone who'd stir up religious tensions. Obviously it should only affect non-Church of England-ers.

Another incorrect statement is that about Sharia Courts. In a speech delivered last year the Archbishop of Canterbury - Dr. Rowan Williams - argued that certain aspects of Sharia law should be adopted to willing parties due to it not conflicting with British Law. His argument was that we already have special legal status for Jews who voluntarily operate under Jewish law in civil proceedings. He was ridiculed, derided and almost forced to resign. Of course, actually this makes some form of sense and as such the same legal exemptions given to Jews in civil proceedings are also given to Muslims who wish to operate under them (Marriage, financial disputes etc.) but as with Jewish law, only where it does not conflict with UK law.

Really I'm too tired to go into a proper post, but I'll throw this out there. Currently, Britain is the country in Europe best equipped for caring for the elderly by 2050. This is because most other countries in Europe have a rapidly aging population and a small birth rate while we're being bolstered by a strong immigration culture. Now, this may sound like it'll be a good thing in 100 years when everywhere else in Europe has a population at low levels but you also have to think that bigger population means more workers and more workers means a far stronger position in the world economy (a la USA previously or India and China now, even if the Chinese economy's a massive pyramid scheme not that I'm getting sidetracked) so the actual combined earnings of the EU won't be half so impressive as it has been for the past few years. Not to mention there'll not be enough workers to fill the primary industry jobs (Since of course everyone's also going to university these days). Really within 50 years immigration will be keeping this country afloat and I've never yet had a problem with the whole integration thing.

Well not necessarily, remember that the countries that these immigrants originate from often have poor standards in education and thus when the immigrants think of coming to Britain, they think of things such as the Houses of Parliament and associate such things with a shining beacon of democracy, freedom of speech and all the advantages living in a developed nation . They are hit hard when they realise that this is not the case and in actual fact, they have to live in one of these tower blocks in conditions more akin to a prison than a home. This is what breeds the problems.

Also, in this country, it is the white youth who are the cause of much of the trouble, in addition to second generation immigrants in inner city deprived areas, not the newly arrived immigrants. Most of the immigrants in this country are determined to work and get a better life for themselves and their families and I hugely respect them for that, it is in stark contrast to the ‘welfare society’ that exists in many white dominated areas in the country.




What does it really matter if a Mosque has 1,000 cubic feet of space or 2,000 feet? At the end of the day, if a Mosque is large, it is because the area has a high enough Muslim population for there to be a large Mosque, in which case if you do not allow for the construction of such a place, you’ll only end up with numerous smaller Mosques across a larger area? If it does get to that stage, then what is so wrong with that? As long as they work hard and abide by our laws, which the vast majority do, what can you complain about? Ok, they’re religious, which is a disappointment, but mankind will still look to silly stories for the next few hundred years until we finally grow up.

What you’re using here are very extreme examples. The amount of Muslims in the UK who want to change the UK into an Islamist state is negligible, it’s only that the media blows it out of proportion. Sensationalism at it’s very best.



Once again, using extreme examples. The majority of immigrants are law abiding citizens who do want to integrate and do learn the language. At times, it is the British who do not want integration. Take the example of Sikhs on their way back from a temple on the M4 motorway when their bus caught fire. Whilst waiting for assistance on the motorway, they were subject to numerous racist attacks by drivers. Why would you stop and hurl racist abuse at people doing nothing wrong? What kind of idiot what do that? The hostilities lie not only with the immigrants, but with the inhabitants of the country. It is hard to integrate when the natives are hurling spears at you.



Hurr.



Once again, it is the minority who are trying to do that, you can’t apply it to the whole issue and assert it as a major shortcoming.



Whilst you do raise interesting points about issues with immigration, you must understand that the issues are, to a large extent, not widespread, only confined to small areas/populations. Immigration can and does work in reality, the UK is a prime example of this. On the whole, the UK is a lot better off now (at least in economic terms, even if it doesn’t look like it right now) than had it just closed its borders.

One day, one day.

If China and Mexico were switched, only in position, everything would be different. And not just because China and Mexico have switched places.

Rob,


I am not sure of it and I could be wrong, but this is how I recall it (in chronological order) : Wilders want to come, controversy but UK lets him, imams start rallying their people to protest, Wilders is blocked from the UK at the border..?






That is the theory and it all sounds beatiful, but it it doesn't work as well in reality. By giving in to that you almost motivate them to go one step further. De facto, there exist alot of small and very radical sharia courts that go against the English law.




Yet again; I am in favour of immigration and I understand that it will be crucial when the EU hits the, eh, post-post industrial phase, but I think it is not being properly handled right now.

Max,



I find it hard to believe that a person can be so naive, even when coming from a country with a significantly lower standard of living.



You can just say "the north of the UK". And one of my main points was the situation in the big cities, a problem that you mention yourself.



How can you even say that? I find all religious places horrible, let alone disgustingly huge mosques financed by rich Arabs. They change our landscape and culture. There are now people in Antwerp who wake up, throw their windows open and look at a huge foreign temple.



You accuse me of using extreme examples, whilst you do the same. THe people yelling at those Sikhs are extreme examples too.



How many times do I have to repeat this? I am not a racialist and I am not in favour of closing any borders as I understand and comprehend why we need immigration.

Is it really so hard to believe? Think about it, when you came to London, you were only taken around the nice parts, so to speak. You didn’t go to the inner city areas, so you have no experience/knowledge of what life is like there. Now, if you, a citizen of a developed country don’t know what life is like in London for some, how do you honestly expect someone from, say, Nigeria who isn’t educated to anywhere near the standard you are to know what life is like? They wouldn't have a clue.



Ha. Yes, but this problem is not down to the newly arrived immigrants.



As do I, but the truth is, you can’t allow for the construction of large churches and not for the construction of large Mosques, that’s discrimination. You can either put limits of sizes for all religions, or have no limit at all. You can’t pick and choose.



Now you see my point, right? Subtlety,



Then why do you deem multiculturalism as a failure? In the large majority of cases it isn’t, so why are you trying to smear the undesirable label across the entire concept?

Illegal immigrants to Russia

Nothing wrong is with multiculturalism, it's lack of education and rampant case of xenophobia.

So eh, a brief summary : people who don't know anything of the country they are going to "invest" everything they have in travelling to the other end of the world. That is retarded.



Ah yes, but I ask thee : is it not?



First off I don't pick and choose, I would stop building big religious buildings in general. Also, I don't see why I wouldn't have the right to pick and choose - Christianity has always been around in most Western societies and I don't see why we should aid foreign religions in taking over our culture.



Owh you sneaky bastard.



I think most of the cases fail. You keep mentioning the UK as a good example, but in spite of all immigrants, you went into recession as one of the first a good year ago and you'll be one of the last to crawl back out of it.



I'm not a redneck. I am an educated European who is questioning the multiculturalism project - so I get clichés like this thrown at me.

It wasn't specifically pointed at anyone.


Oh, and isn't it cliché how you assume all rednecks are xenophobic and uneducated?

That has almost nothing to do with immigration.



I agree, but that isn’t going to happen, bar an event whereby the entire world realises what idiots they have been in accepting the viral infection that is religion into their lives. Religion has too much power and it shouldn’t be a part of our culture that we want to preserve, so I support anything that will dismantle its grip on our culture and society.



No.



It may be retarded, but it’s mainly down to the respective country’s education system. The standards are abysmally low and teaching is not something to boast about. Remember that these people come from a completely different society, one with different values and traditions. Education isn’t their top priority.

Why would we want to take over your culture? If tourists come to England and see a mosque, they wont say, "Wow, are we in the Middle East?"

If there are mosques and other religious buildings in the United Kingdom, it shows that the UK supports religious harmony.



"I find all religious places horrible, let alone disgustingly huge mosques financed by rich Arabs."

Why use Mosques as an example? I know you guys hate us, but do you have to blame every single thing on us?

Exactly this.

Saying religion has caused more wars is true in some sense but it is dishonest in a sense.

People can point at the crusades and say "They did it in the name of Christianity they were compelled by God." This is entirely untrue. They used religion as an excuse. If religion wasn't there they would use another excuse. They whole purpose of the Crusades were to get land.

Hitler used religion as an excuse, but he was obviously deluded and religion wasn't the direct cause of World War II.

Of course, there are plenty of wars that religion was the direct cause of. Plenty. However, if you look at many of the major wars of our time and especially modern times, none of them include religion.

So please, please stop pointing at wars and say that religion is the cause. However, I sadly admit that religion is a large cause of a lot of modern day cultural tension. I blame this on fundamentalist Christians and radical Muslims. It's just a fact. Fundamentalist Christians parade around trying to push their beliefs on people, and the war with Iraq did not help the image of the Muslim people, however many of their traditions are odd to the western world.

A lot of this can be solved by shutting the Phoronida up about religion in casual conversation. I hear a lot of people talk shit about "Now I AS A CHRISTIAN LOOK AT ME believe that IN THE NAME OF JESUS that..." etc.
It seems that a lot of small things like that can cause tension if when not meant harmfully.

I can't really talk full on about what you guys are saying, because I don't know enough about the culturul tension (and apparently especially Islam? wut?) in the UK. Also I still don't know why the UK hates America and why Japan loves us. That's off topic but for the life of me I don't know why.

Fix'd.

The UK doesn't hate America. The UK doesn't really have any problems with the integration of muslims (I got a free meal at Ramadan at uni last year from the Pak-soc, cause those guys are ballin'. They tried to get me to go go-karting and become the only white guy in the Pak-soc but I'm a poor token).

The trouble is that on an individual level there are those who're easily swayed by what they read in tabloid newspapers which tell them to hate this that and the other. And it's that minority who're the ones you see most often either in the public eye or being reported on. It's no more fair to say the BNP or the English Defence League are representative of all of Britain than it is to say that the KKK are representative of the USA.

I don't think anyone can claim that religion was the cause of World War two. Quite obviously, the cause of World War two was World War One. And that also wasn't caused by religion. There are many wars fought over religion and many fought over other causes. Religion is no more complicit than lust for power, greed or revenge for causing war, be it on an individual or international scale. The difference is that you expect it from tyrants and bigots. You would expect greed to support enslaving individuals, taking them from their homeland and working them to death elsewhere. You would expect an Emperor to wish to expand the borders of their empire. You would expect a nation to react to the assassination of a member of it's monarchy. All the major religions however, hold themselves up as bastions of hope and peace; a blueprint of how to live and act that you may bask in the glory of God - they don't get the luxury of mistakes like slavery, the missions or terrorism. If religions offer the chance of following an infallible God, by nature of logic they must themselves be infallible. You cannot follow to the letter the word of an infallible being and make mistakes. If you make mistakes, either you don't follow the being or the being is not infallible.

Just a point. Christians are not infallible because God is infallible.

I agreed with everything, Rob; except for the last sentence.

Blah. I stand by it Rowan. You can't have a book you describe as the word of God and say "Well it's only an interpretation, since we can't write what God actually means" every time it mucks up. In the event of the book of revelations coming to pass, I will so totally be sitting at the side going "Oh come on all of you, we can't be sure this is revelations. After all, the book's not infallible only God. It's probably just some rowdy Australians." in a horribly sarcastic voice until I get speared by the beast and cooked in some lake of boiling blood.

Things like religion have to be totally trustworthy. If you're wrong, admit it, but you can't pick and choose which parts of your religious book are deemed more important because they're the bits that are still believed. The Torah still reads "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" in exodus, regardless of how that's nor taken with a less than literal interpretation with the advent of Criminal Justice systems. Jews have just adapted the meaning so that it still stands as a concept without just saying "Well, we probably didn't understand what God meant when he said that 5000 years later there'd be a proliferation of human rights, disallowing a lot of punishments being taken against criminals." Because it's really quite impossible to say that say £300 could be worth several months of imprisonment. £300 would be worth...£300.

I know what you mean and I do agree that at times these sort of situations you describe - where 'the book' says this and yet the believers do otherwise - do seem to be very hypocritical. It's simply that Christians believe that they are 'fallen' which means that they are able to be as wicked as they want - much unlike (or similar to, depending on who you ask) their God.

I am for immigration but I think it has to be closely monitored, and immigration procedures need to be rigorous. You can't just accept anyone and everyone into a country; there has to be tough procedures. In the Netherlands they now have a video in which all new Muslim immigrants are required to watch - the video includes two men kissing and a woman on the beach in a bikini, and the video implied that this is what you have to expect in the Netherlands. I support this sort of thing, if an immigrant moves to another country then it is their responsibility to integrate into the country.

One thing that ticks me off is when people seek refuge in a Western country and then blame the country, say that the country is bad, that the country should adopt Sharia Law and all of that. If you want a nation with Islam as the state-imposed religion then go to Iran and let us know if you're enjoying it. If not, be grateful that you live in a democratic country that even allows you to voice your distaste with the things you don't agree with, but trying to sculpt the countries customs according to your own individual customs is ridiculous.

I remember reading somewhere that approximately 1 in 4 Muslims in the UK supported the imposing of Sharia Law within the country. The thing is, if these people want to look at the success of Sharia Law and what the law can offer in full effect then why don't these people look at the countries that practice them: The countries that these people fled from, or their parents fled from in the first place? There's something ironic about using the freedom that a Western country gives you, only to try to impose your beliefs on everyone else.

This isn't just Islam though, I'm strongly against any sort of religion having any sort of power on any government or on any group of people. In an ideal world, religion wouldn't exist and we wouldn't have some fairy-tale that preaches "love" and causes division and hate at the same time.

The fact is, if you immigrate to another country then you accept the differences that this country has, and you integrate into that society. It doesn't mean you have to abandon your own beliefs, just accept the society you live in. I support the idea of banning the hijab at schools, just like I'd support the idea of banning daily prayers in schools in the US. Religion has no place in schools.

And just F.Y.I., I'm a Lefty when it comes to social issues. But there needs to be order and sense in immigration, it can't just be something in which you're so "open-minded and politically correct" that you're willing to allow everyone in without even looking at the source of this problem: The failing of immigration integration.

This is what I was going to say Rob, and I agree with your first post responding to me. Well done (I guess?). I honestly rarely agree with you so I don't know what to say.


Read what I Phoronidaing posted. You didn't even make an argument, just edited a quote and posted "Fix'd". HAY GUYS LOOK I CAN QUOTE AND THEN POST A ONE WORD SENTENCE IT'S JUST LIKE GREEN TEXT ON 4CHAN LOOK AT ME GUYS HEY GUYS E-THUG GRRRRRRR

Just post a sentence and I will be happy.

I disagree with some people about the Muslim situation in Europe. It is *demonstrably* not so that wealth is the problem when integrating into society for Muslims in Europe. I am perfectly fine with moderate Muslims, and even know of a couple. However, most people don't seem to realize that a surprising amount of Muslims in Europe are extremists or sentimental to extremist positions.

It is distinctly Muslims of this stripe that can be singled out for causing strife, irrationality, and overall fear and supression, not just the unwealthy. Some people on this topic have said "I hate immigrants who come here and do nothing."; but the reality is, that it would actually be better if the Muslim immigrants just came and "did nothing". Like the topic starter pointed out, extremist Sharia courts are often set up and enforced on various Islamic citizens by coercion.

In a broader historical analysis, I would say that Christianity has caused more problems than Islam or Judaism combined, but within the last 60 or so years Islam by far takes the cake. Besides, extreme Christianity has been confined to the United States and is only seen in the form of stupid creationists trying to inject ideas into school boards. The danger of modern extreme Islam was shown in full when the entire Islamic world underwent very large, very lengthy, and rather violent riots when Danish newspapers published two cartoons of Muhammed depicting the prophet disrespectfully. I was very upset when the media sympathized with the rioters saying things like "Oh, Muslims are very sensitive about Muhammed, I feel bad for them!" Those Muslims deserved no pity or support of any kind.

Don't get me wrong, its not just Muslim extremists I hate. I equally hate Christian and Jewish extremists who promote violence (KKK, some militant Jews, etc; and yes, "hate" is a strong, but correct, term to use. Oh, and also secular extremists or violent extremists of any ideology). However, criticism of Islam is more taboo than criticism of the other two Abrahamic religions, because Islam is more often associated (and erroneously so) with *ethnicity*. In other words, an attack on Islam is perceived as an attack on Arabs. This viewpoint is WRONG.

Islam is a set of ideas which can be examined and falsified. People forget that the Middle-Eastern Arab is not the only Muslim and that not all Arabs are Muslim (in fact, a large amount are Christians). A 7'8" 22 year old Black male living in Eritrea and a 4'10" 92 year old woman living in Reno, Nevada are BOTH capable of adhering to extremist Islam.

If my post violated the rules about "Debating explicitly religious topics" (a rule, by the way, which I greatly protest. I think the discourse here is capable of remaining civil and does NOT lead to mere flame wars when on the topic of religion) I apologize, but this one seemed to have a great relevance to the topic at hand.