‹ First  < 2 3 4
 
   
 

The case for a Muslim immigration ban

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7907
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
07 February 2020 07:32
 
Skipshot - 06 February 2020 09:51 PM
icehorse - 06 February 2020 06:41 PM

TAP - you make some interesting points, and to some degree they hold water.

But I still think you’re not acknowledging the totalitarian nature of Islam and you’ve side stepped the question about laws forbidding totalitarians in the first place.

It is not Anal’s responsibility to address the nature of totalitarianism since he is not making a case against it.  Trump has successfully convinced the Supreme Court to allow him to ban immigration from specific totalitarian countries, perhaps you can present Trump’s case to convince the doubters.

wait, what?

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1088
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
07 February 2020 08:45
 
icehorse - 06 February 2020 06:41 PM

TAP - you make some interesting points, and to some degree they hold water.

But I still think you’re not acknowledging the totalitarian nature of Islam and you’ve side stepped the question about laws forbidding totalitarians in the first place.

I didn’t acknowledge the “totalitarian nature of Islam” because 1) totalitarianism is not entailed in being Muslim and 2) if it were, anti-totalitarianism is entailed in being American, so in so far as Muslims would have to assimilate in order to survive here—my point in this thread—this so-called “totalitarian nature of Islam” would be assimilated out of them, as it were.  As such, I don’t see how you can both agree that my points “hold water” and maintain your concerns about totalitarian Islam absent some new argument why this tendency in Islam will persist here despite the pressures to assimilate it out.
 
And in any case, there is no “totalitarian nature of Islam” to assimilate out.

(If you are going to persist in this idea that there is, you first have to explain the difference between Saudi Arabia—a Muslim totalitarian society—and Indonesia—a far, far larger Muslim society with a secular, constitutional republic and religious freedom.  In other words, both societies are Muslim, one is “totalitarian,” the other is not; therefore you can’t appeal to “the totalitarian nature of Islam” as a cause of the difference, or for that matter assert a “totalitarian nature of Islam” as such, for if Islam as such were totalitarian, both Muslim countries would be totalitarian, yet clearly they are not.  I’ve used this elementary scientific reasoning before to dislodge you from more or less the same error, to no effect it seems, and I’m not inclined to go into it again…).

I don’t know what you mean by referring to “laws forbidding totalitarians in the first place.”  I write under potential correction here, but as far as I know in the US I am free to start a Nazi or Communist Party (two political ideologies that have invariably been totalitarian), up to and including running for office on those platforms.  As I see it, the all-but-insurmountable legal, social, political and moral norms already in place insure I will go nowhere, making it entirely unnecessary to pass laws prohibiting totalitarian political parties because they sound bad, thus starting down that dangerous slope to the very totalitarian governance one is trying to prevent (laws against political parties are among the first laws totalitarian regimes pass, and once you forbid one, you set a valid precedent for forbidding any other one). 

Again, as I see it, if you are going to argue we should have laws “forbidding totalitarians in the first place,” you have a rather steep hill to climb, meaning you are going to have to come up with some kind of objective test that only prohibits the “bad” political ideologies but permits the “good” ones.  And to be honest about it, again, this is not the kind of discussion I am willing to engage in, the silliness of the arguments being (to me, at least) so obvious at the outset… 

 

[ Edited: 07 February 2020 08:53 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18127
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
07 February 2020 09:07
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 07 February 2020 08:45 AM

(If you are going to persist in this idea that there is, you first have to explain the difference between Saudi Arabia—a Muslim totalitarian society—and Indonesia—a far, far larger Muslim society with a secular, constitutional republic and religious freedom.

I don’t think Indonesia is the secular paradise you imply.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7907
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
07 February 2020 12:55
 

TAP:

I didn’t acknowledge the “totalitarian nature of Islam” because 1) totalitarianism is not entailed in being Muslim and 2) if it were, anti-totalitarianism is entailed in being American, so in so far as Muslims would have to assimilate in order to survive here—my point in this thread—this so-called “totalitarian nature of Islam” would be assimilated out of them, as it were.  As such, I don’t see how you can both agree that my points “hold water” and maintain your concerns about totalitarian Islam absent some new argument why this tendency in Islam will persist here despite the pressures to assimilate it out.

And in any case, there is no “totalitarian nature of Islam” to assimilate out.

Islam is a set of ideas, and two of it’s axiomatic ideas are that:

1 - the quran is the perfect, timeless word of god
2 - muhammad’s life is the perfect role model of how a muslim should live.

Are you claiming that Muslim immigrants somehow don’t take those two ideas seriously?

 

 
 
‹ First  < 2 3 4