‹ First  < 2 3 4
 
   
 

The case for a Muslim immigration ban

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8057
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:  1262
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:  8057
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?

 

 
 
Flanker27S
 
Avatar
 
 
Flanker27S
Total Posts:  9
Joined  13-04-2020
 
 
 
15 April 2020 11:54
 

Well, the ones who don’t take these ideas seriously are welcome! That’s rather common, from my experience, with people from countries with a more liberal interpretation of Islam, such as Bosnia or the Tatarstan republic in Russia (although the situation with the latter is changing, courtesy of the Saudi-funded imams preaching an increasingly conservative version of the religion; not that long ago, Tatar women rarely wore hijabs or any other sort of Muslim headscarf, but it’s increasingly common now).
Many people from these regions usually just don’t eat pork, but women will go without headscarves, and people will drink alcohol, only visit the mosques for weddings… But this behavior is unfortunately becoming rarer and rarer due to the growing frequence of radical/conservative/Wahhabi doctrine in Muslim communities worldwide.

 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  526
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
23 April 2020 12:35
 

I suppose according to Catholic doctrine, the Pope is infallible.  Certainly, that’s as much a totalitarian idea as the Muslim ones you claim Muslims take seriously.  Applying the same rules against people taking totalitarian ideas seriously, Catholics should be banned from immigration.

Back when the Pope still proclaimed birth control was against doctrine (I don’t know what he says now), of my Catholic friends and acquaintances, all of them practiced it.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8057
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
30 June 2020 17:28
 
lynmc - 23 April 2020 12:35 PM

I suppose according to Catholic doctrine, the Pope is infallible.  Certainly, that’s as much a totalitarian idea as the Muslim ones you claim Muslims take seriously.  Applying the same rules against people taking totalitarian ideas seriously, Catholics should be banned from immigration.

Back when the Pope still proclaimed birth control was against doctrine (I don’t know what he says now), of my Catholic friends and acquaintances, all of them practiced it.

I guess your point is that Catholicism is less totalitarian than Islam?

A simple distinction here is the degree to which an ideology teaches that the law of the land should be administered by religion. You know, the old “separation of church and state” idea? Muhammad took a totalitarian stance and so does the Quran. Christianity on the other hand has the whole “render unto Caeser” idea.

Make no mistake, I’m no fan of Christianity, far from it, but it IS a far less totalitarian set of ideas.

 
 
‹ First  < 2 3 4