President Trump

Because this is an ideology that has existed in humanity for thousands of years and it's slowly going away as we go progress. 39% will eventually become 35% to 30% to 20% to 5% to nobody.

But then again if you marry a guy who things you should obey him, and refuse to divorce him, you kind of have to lay in the bed you've made.

 

Do you think you can clarify this? I can't seem to quite wrap my head around this paragraph--sorry. However, it's important to note that Americans haven't really let in that many immigrants yet. If you were an average European, living in the center of a crowded city, and frequently went out to bars/nightclubs/soccer games/concerts, would you have a single legitimate fear about being involved in a terrorist attack?

--- Double Post Merged, May 23, 2017, Original Post Date: May 23, 2017 ---

I mean, if you're a Muslim girl, you're likely brought up with the idea that you have to be subservient to your husband--it's a dangerous idea, and it's not necessarily your fault that your husband is like that.

I agree with you that the idea won't go away instantly, but that doesn't change the fact that:

1) it's a dangerous idea and
2) counter to current mainstream values of Western culture.

--- Double Post Merged, May 23, 2017 ---

Okay, but do you honestly expect people whose kids died in terrorist attacks to sit back and allow them to do that? It works both ways.

 

"In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations."
UK: What British Muslims Really Think
IDK how I can show you in the text where it is. Try Command F?

It absolutely does. At the rate these people reproduce, and the rate there pouring into many european countries, there a legitimate political force. I don't want there to be any group that isn't relegated to the fringe that thinks women should be subservient to there men.

"Of the British Muslims surveyed, 35% believe Jewish people have too much power in the UK, compared to 8% of non-Muslims." ? Its right in the article ?

Your right. I was generalizing. I don't believe every muslim hates our values, but I believe that opening up a veritable flood gate into our country is a bad idea, because there is an undeniably large portion of muslims who do.

I'm sympathetic with the reasons it might be happening, but it doesn't change that it is happening, and the left has no good solution for it.

I don't think a travel ban is the best course of action, but its 100% better than none.

Again, what do you think the solution is then? Because you admit lots of these people are our enemies, so welcoming thousands of them into our communities isn't a good idea right?

 

1. Islam is a religion of violence just as much as Christianity is. The only difference is the time period - Christians got over their zealot murder spree awhile ago because of the rise of secularism. Islam will too.

2. There may be merit in the argument of the travel ban - But what prompts me to take that argument or merit seriously when it's framed in sweeping generalizations that aren't correct because they are not directed or precise enough. Additionally framing this as solely a religious issue, when clearly it's not, also drives me away from the position of "We should restrict travel from a location because muslims hate us and want to kill us cause it's islam"

---

I would likely feel the same way living in an urban area of Europe, compared to an urban area of America - Simply because I have to prioritize all the things in life I'm fearful of and when looking at things that are more, or less, likely to happen - Islam terrorism is still fairly low on this list.

 

Exactly, Islam is in a dangerous faze, and maybe its just my nationalism showing but I would much rather they go through there murdery faze far away from my family.

 

Okay, so it took Christians 800 years after the Crusades to mostly get over that kind of mindset, and as I mentioned above, it's still going on to some extent. I have no doubt that Islam will also "get over their zealot murder spree" eventually, but how does that help people, right here, right now? How would Muslim civilians living in 1200s Palestine whose sons got killed by Crusaders feel if you told them that Christianity would be a mostly peaceful religion 800 years later?

 

Look through the study I linked, that your source is claiming, and find the question. I tried find - It didn't work.

I could make an argument Mexicans reproduce much more and let's be frank have you seen a Mexican woman? They run that house, lol.

But in all seriousness, even if they had that much political will and clout here - We live in a secular nation with the rule of law and there is no way we'd go for this as a people. Look at the hard time the GOP is having passing laws in the name of religion or freedom of it - Even when they control the majority of government.

You're article is meaningless because I am looking at the study they are quoting. I provided the link to you as well earlier.

https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Mulims-full-suite-data-plus-topline.pdf

Gyazo - 0ff7607bec52de4bd5e3fdcad5b718f0.png - Is the exact question you're quoting here, in the exact study your article is sourcing:

Says 3% strongly agree / 5% tend to agree

I think this is a reasonable starting point. Probably a low % of Muslims, but when you have over 1 billion people, even 1% is a massive amount.

This is a reasonable starting ideology to actually tackle that question.

--- Double Post Merged, May 23, 2017, Original Post Date: May 23, 2017 ---

Well what factors led to our secularization and how can we promote those around the world? (Not like promote by invasion)

 

I'm not Deinen, but I think that we could (and perhaps should, I don't know) accept refugees. But if we're going to do it, we need to make sure that they're integrating into American culture, and that they're not ostracized and rebuffed from society. When people are rejected, they tend to look for acceptance from places they can find it--radical terrorist groups provide acceptance.

I don't know how exactly you could ensure that they'd integrate into American society, but the onus is on us as American citizens to accept refugees/immigrants/whatever you want to call them into our communities. We can facilitate that by community meetings, social programs (both government-funded and charity) to help immigrants get on their feet, programs for people to learn English and get help with schoolwork, and job-seeking agencies.

You can't simply accept refugees into your country, dump them all into one sh*tty section of town, do nothing for them to learn the local language or get a job, and expect them to assimilate. It won't happen.

 

We should absolutely accept refugees - And we should absolutely vet them (Which we already do, to an insane amount.)

I mean, to be fair, that's kinda how all our people's assimilated into America, through poverty. Look @ New York.

 

As I mentioned above, the immigrants are not the big problem. The children of the immigrants, the ones who are born and raised in Western countries while constantly being rejected and ostracized by everyone else in the Western societies, are the problem.

Sure, vetting is necessary to prevent foreign terrorists from entering the country. But ISIS relies heavily on radicalizing people already in the West, for various reasons. So once refugees are in the West, we need to prevent them from being radicalized.

 

I'm not disputing that. I'm just arguing against the generalization because while it may not seem like much to generalize - It affects the reasoning and legitimacy of the entire argument.

We can't solve an issue until we realistically look at it and this unreasonable fear to a threat which is statistically very very unlikely to happen should not drive us into a self-consuming and destructive fear.

That's actually their main objective - To force us to live in a society like theirs, but not religious. How much more terrorism until we have soldiers walking around our streets and policing who we hang out with, what we say, or believe? That is the threat to me, not the actual terrorism.

 

Yeah, and uh, look at the organized crime that also happened in New York in those days. You had a bunch of mob bosses running the predominantly Irish immigrant neighborhoods who would provide social services in exchange for money. If you don't do what they say, you die.

 

Yeah....

But we got epic movies now cause of it, amirite?

 

Is it though? Sure, I'll concede that terrorist attacks are unlikely to happen in the USA. But they're definitely increasing in size and frequency in Europe. Sure, if you're an average European citizen, the odds that YOU get killed by a terrorist attack is probably very low. But the odds that SOMEONE gets killed is pretty high. And the odds that someone you know gets killed/injured by one is also obviously higher than the odds of YOU getting injured.

The odds that you get into a severe car accident (like, one that kills you) is pretty low, even over the course of a lifetime. Why do we have seat belts, airbags, and all that jazz? The odds that a giant piece of wood falls on your head when you're working on a construction site is pretty low. Why do we have hard hats? The odds that you actually get polio are pretty low. Why get vaccines?

The same thing applies here: what's wrong with taking precautions?

But the time to do something about is now, not when it becomes statistically likely that an average European person walking down the street gets injured by a terrorist. If Europe ever gets to that point, it's way too late to actually combat the threat. You can see the trend--that terrorist activity has increased over the last several years. And that's a problem that we need to fix.

 

There is nothing wrong with taking precautions, as long as they are rooted in actual common sense and the cost of freedom doesn't supercede the gain in security. In this particular case, Trump's travel ban wasn't rooted in actual common sense and it cost more freedom than problem fixed.

 

Sure. Just to clarify, I'm not trying to defend the travel ban itself; instead, I'm arguing that after we accept refugees, we need them to integrate better into American society to prevent them from radicalizing. Giving refugees a green card and a one-way ticket to the city of their choice is not the end-all-be-all fix-it solution to the refugee crisis.

 

Oh, definitely. My last comments on this topic were more joking than serious.

We should also absolutely expect them to speak our language and observe our culture and customs and educate themselves in our system - unless it's a private school. Should they do that, we should absolutely accept in refugees.

 

The travel ban, IMO, is targeting the wrong people. There have been very few terror attacks where people flew airplanes in, got off the plane, and actually conducted terror attacks. The real precautions need to be

1) vetting people who are entering as refugees; this addresses the issue of foreign, already-radicalized terrorists entering the USA and conducting attacks on US soil; however this is the minority of terrorist attacks recently
2) eliminating the root causes of radicalization inside the US: this addresses the issue of Western-raised people feeling rejected by society and getting a message of hope and acceptance from radical Islamist groups, and joining them.

Look at it this way: if you transfer to a new school, and the entire school excludes you, calls you nasty things, doesn't become friends with you, and constantly just spreads terrible rumors about you, are you going to be kind to the people? The odds are one day, you'll snap and become ridiculously angry, even maybe start a fight or two. And if a gang comes to you and says something like: "Hey, you're a good guy, and you look like you're feeling down. You want to join our gang? We're made of people like you who don't fit in here, and we can do stuff together," you're probably likely to join the gang. And when they start asking you to commit crimes, you justify it with "Well, they see me for who I am and accept me, and they're all I have."

However, if you transfer to a new school and you're welcomed, you have no reason to start a fight or join a gang.

--- Double Post Merged, May 23, 2017, Original Post Date: May 23, 2017 ---

So they should be banned from enrolling in private schools?

 

Think you misread that. I said nothing about prohibition of private schools.

 

And remember, they need a reason to speak the language and observe our culture/customs. If working hard in school, speaking English, and generally observing American customs is met with nothing but a brick wall of resistance, and "You're not American, you're ...!" why should/would they continue observing American customs? I linked this article earlier, if you haven't read it already, give it a read.

Being Asian myself, I get questions like "Where are you from" a lot. I usually reply with "Oregon," where I live, or "Texas," where I'm born, because really, that's the honest answer. And people always seem surprised when they ask me what I identify as (why do strangers come up to me and ask me what culture I identify with?) and reply with American. One time I even got "You're Asian, you aren't and will never be American." I'm not really bothered by it, because let's be real--they're just strangers after all, and aren't denying me employment prospects and whatever else, and they're free to express their opinions. Plus, I have a ton of great friends, and generally healthy social relationships.

But if all you're met with from people outside your ethnicity (for the purposes of this debate, non-Muslims, or in my case, non-Asians) is the sentiment: "You're never going to be American, no matter what you change), there's really no point in trying to be American anymore. If you observe American culture and customs, you won't be seen as Muslim anymore by your friends and family, and you won't be seen as American because of your skin color (at least, in this hypothetical). So you'd want to retain your Muslim values and culture, which is what we see happening in Europe.