Mass killing in Orlando gay nightclub

[garbon]

3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.

Generally our Muslims are fine but bear in mind that most of ours tend to be middle class educated types here for the jobs our moronic natives cannot do. They do not tend to be boat people types.

But I could be wrong about that.

Seems the problem is not the older Muslims immigrants living here, but the second generation. IOW you don't see a 50 year old muslim  blowing and shooting shit up. Recent incidents in Boston, San Bernardino, Oralando, Paris, Hebdo, London, etc. are the younger generation. Their version of millennials.

Let's be careful here - we don't see a problem in the second generation either. We have such a tiny sample size that it is basically impossible to draw any kind of generalizations about them in particular. Reality is that there are literally millions of first and "n" generation Muslims living in the USA who have integrated just fine and are no threat to anyone.

There is no "Muslim problem" in the USA. There is a radicalized crazies problem, and the couple instances we have seen in the last few years have happened to be first generation. It would not be reasonable to presume that their status as that generation has any real bearing on the actual issue.

Yes, I suppose the starting point is what causing some Muslims to radicalize and what can we reasonably do to prevent/mitigate that, while not comprising our values...overly much (if at all)?

[Martinus]

You mention Hispanic immigrants to the US, and compare them with Muslim immigrants to the UK. Isn't the better comparison with Muslim immigrants to the US?

Actual polls concerning Muslims in America:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/

The poll numbers are telling. Muslims "score" almost exactly the same as Protestants generally on the question "homosexuality should be accepted by society": 45% of Muslims agree in 2014 (up from 38% in 2007 - so much for "unchanging Muslim attitudes"). Compare with Protestants generally: 48% in 2014, up from 38% in 2007. They do better than several other categories (Jehovah's Witnesses in 2014: 16%; Mormon: 36%  Evangelical Christian: 36%).

Similar results from the question about same-sex marriage, though in that  case Muslims do better: 42% of Muslims favour it, as opposed to 39% of Protestants generally.

I'm afraid your position is not fact based.

That's interesting. I wasn't aware of this. Maybe US Muslims actually are different - and hence comes the vast gulf in attitudes between US and Europe.

I have seen some people saying that, generally, US Muslims come in only two kinds - either pretty much middle class Westernised type or crazy extremist types. Europe is different as we have a huge group of uneducated working class Muslims who are quite backward without necessarily being violently radical.

The reason for this is simple - the US is on a continent which has no Muslim country from which poor uneducated Muslims can come on foot or by boat - and buying a plane ticket to the US is beyond the means of all but the most succesful (and, by extension, educated and Westernised).

So a decision to bring in Syrian refugees may actually be more devastating in terms of effects in the US and Canada than it is in Europe - because in Europe we have already learned how to police such people (even though the effects are rather meagre).

[CountDeMoney]

Thing is, we don't keep them in ghettos or bar them from gainful employment.  But that's just a variation on a theme when it comes to Europeans and ethnic minorities.

[Martinus]

That something is Islamism, or the desire to impose any version of Islam over any society. Jihadism is the attempt to do so by force. This ideology of Islamism has been rising almost unchecked among Muslims for decades. It is a theocratic ideology, and theocracy should no longer have any place in the world today.

given that this has been part of islam since mohammed did his thing she's basically proposing to take the islam out of islam. Good idea but higly unlikely to happen.

the Islamist ideology must be intellectually terminated. To do so requires first acknowledging it exists, isolating it from Muslims

to get rid of islamism is to get rid of islam. for by her definition islamism is what her prophet did.

No, you need to read what he is saying.

Islam is a religion.

Islamism is a political ideology that is founded on the idea that political power, organization, etc., etc. ought to come from Islam. IE, that the ideal society is a theocratic one (Iran, basically, or some version thereof).

Jihadism is the idea that one should move toward Islamism through force, rather than (or in addition to) a political process.

It is ridiculous to claim you can't have Islam without Islamism. We have that in many places today already, indeed, the vast majority of Muslims live in secular countries.

Yup. I think the point he is making is a very useful and valid distinction, imho.

You have three "levels": Islam, Islamism and Jihadism.

The sin of the left is that it just wants to oppose Jihadism but fails to oppose Islamism. The sin of the right is that it fails to make a distinction between Islam and Islamism. Now, out of those two, I think what the right is doing is less lethal and dangerous, at least for people like me. But I am willing to nuance that position if the left concedes theirs as well.

[Martinus]

Thing is, we don't keep them in ghettos or bar them from gainful employment.  But that's just a variation on a theme when it comes to Europeans and ethnic minorities.

[Martinus]

3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.

Generally our Muslims are fine but bear in mind that most of ours tend to be middle class educated types here for the jobs our moronic natives cannot do. They do not tend to be boat people types.

But I could be wrong about that.

[Martinus]

3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.

Generally our Muslims are fine but bear in mind that most of ours tend to be middle class educated types here for the jobs our moronic natives cannot do. They do not tend to be boat people types.

But I could be wrong about that.

No, you are right. Muslims in the US tend, on average, to be well-educated (and reasonably well off), better than the local norm. Demographics here:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/#religion-and-immigration

Part of my point being: questions such as homophobia and other backwards social attitudes are tied as much to such matters as class (and to a degree, country of origin) as to religion: it makes as much sense, or more, to say 'no immigration of poor and uneducated people' as it does to say 'no immigration of Muslims', if what you want is to prevent immigrants from worsening the body politic in terms of social attitudes. If you were gay and worried about your neighbors having homophobic attitudes, better to have a reasonably well off, well educated and Muslim Iranian, than a poorly educated, poor Jamaican Protestant - on average.

Yeah but then how do you explain rich Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia that punish homosexuality with death and relatively average or poor Latino countries like Uruguay which have gay marriage?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Islam is a religion.

Islamism is a political ideology that is founded on the idea that political power, organization, etc., etc. ought to come from Islam.

in that case there's no difference between the two as Islam has that same property.
But then Islam is not purely a religion, but also an ideology.

[Razgovory]

Yeah but then how do you explain rich Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia that punish homosexuality with death and relatively average or poor Latino countries like Uruguay which have gay marriage?

One is an authoritarian monarchy and the other is a republic.

[Valmy]

it makes as much sense, or more, to say 'no immigration of poor and uneducated people' as it does to say 'no immigration of Muslims'

Well to be fair that is kind of what our immigration laws attempt to achieve. Or at least limit.

[The Minsky Moment]

What is commonly identified as "Islamism" is a modern phenomenon, predominantly late 20 century and later in fact.  Highly literalist and decontextualized readings of the Quran and Hadith emerge with Wahhab and take root in late 18th century Arabia and get intellectual footholds in the 19th and 20th centuries in India, the ME and parts of Africa..   But it isn't until the huge waves of Saudi petrodollars sweep through the Sunni world beginning in the 1970s that this tendency really spreads more widely.  There are a few historical precursors like iby Taymiyya - but that's an exception that proves the rule - ibn Taymiyya spent most his life in prison for doctrinal deviancy and being a general pain in everyone's ass.  By way of comparison, there is only one documented case of stoning in the entire history of the Ottoman Empire. 

This explains why you see many Muslims resisting references to AQ and IS types as "Islamic terrorists."  Because they see it as a key concession of principle to allow what they see as a deviant heresy to claim the mantle of Islam.  You don't have to agree with that view to understand it.

[Valmy]

Which is actually a view that should be very encouraged. And actually that kind of explains why second generation westernized kids are more prone to be seduced by it.

Heretical terrorism we could brand it 

[Malthus]

it makes as much sense, or more, to say 'no immigration of poor and uneducated people' as it does to say 'no immigration of Muslims'

Well to be fair that is kind of what our immigration laws attempt to achieve. Or at least limit.

Certainly - but it is a far different thing than Trump's proposed blanket ban on Muslims entering the US. My point is that the first makes a certain amount of sense, while the last doesn't.

[Malthus]

3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.

Generally our Muslims are fine but bear in mind that most of ours tend to be middle class educated types here for the jobs our moronic natives cannot do. They do not tend to be boat people types.

But I could be wrong about that.

No, you are right. Muslims in the US tend, on average, to be well-educated (and reasonably well off), better than the local norm. Demographics here:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/#religion-and-immigration

Part of my point being: questions such as homophobia and other backwards social attitudes are tied as much to such matters as class (and to a degree, country of origin) as to religion: it makes as much sense, or more, to say 'no immigration of poor and uneducated people' as it does to say 'no immigration of Muslims', if what you want is to prevent immigrants from worsening the body politic in terms of social attitudes. If you were gay and worried about your neighbors having homophobic attitudes, better to have a reasonably well off, well educated and Muslim Iranian, than a poorly educated, poor Jamaican Protestant - on average.

Yeah but then how do you explain rich Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia that punish homosexuality with death and relatively average or poor Latino countries like Uruguay which have gay marriage?

The discussion is about individuals and not countries. Country of origin is another variable.

So, to use the example I've been using, Jamaica as a country of origin adds a degree of risk (of homophobia for individuals coming from it) greater than (say) Sweden, even though both are majority Protestant countries.

Another risk, particularly acute in the case of third world countries, is lack of education and poverty (often, but not always, they go hand-in-hand). Of the two, lack of education appears to be the most accurate predictor of virulent homophobia.

A traditional religious upbringing adds yet another level.

So take someone who immigrated from Saudi Arabia: he (assume its a man) has a strike against him, because of his country of origin: the country is notoriously homophobic. But then, you look at more factors. Is he highly educated? Is he from a "traditional" or religious background?  If the answer is "he's very highly educated, and not from a particularly traditional religious background", you may get someone like a senior partner at my firm for whom I've done quite a bit of work: he's a Saudi Muslim, not in the least homophobic, and the first to declare that the Wahabbi Saudi religious authorities are a bunch of backwards, evil nutters. In short, he's fully "assimilated" to North American values on the specific matter of gay rights (and on many others), though unsurprisingly he also thinks Trump is a dangerous blowhard. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

The right to bear arms isn't a civil rights issue. We need to accept that there is nothing immoral or even wrong about not wanting guns in America. Guns aren't something innate, it's a lifestyle choice. The United States should be able to decide who gets them and who doesn't. Anything that gets in the way of that--including the Constitution, must be pushed out of the way.

Alternate version.

I'm fine with that as long as police/ex police and military/ex-military can own private firearms. I have no affinity for mass firearm ownership.