The Culture Clash and a defense of Neoconservatism

[tyrannosaurus vex]

After a long discussion with a coworker, I'm wondering about the "Big Picture" of globalization and what some people refer to as the Clash of Civilizations between the "liberal" culture of the West, particularly Western Europe, and the growing and increasingly restive Islamic community, both inside and outside of Europe. There is a growing consensus among so-called Conservatives (read: Neoconservatives) that these two societies are fundamentally incompatible -- that Western ideals are so absolutely foreign to Islamic societies that there is a question as to whether or not these two civilizations can peacefully co-exist.

To be sure, many Western ideals are alien to Islamic culture. Self-government, individual sovereignty, gender equality, sexual and religious freedom, freedom of speech, human dignity, and civil liberties are at the very root of what defines many Western societies. In the USA, and probably other places, these ideals are so ingrained that people tend to assume they are universally heralded priorities for any modern human society to exist at all. The concept of a society that doesn't recognize these important rights and privileges is so alien to many Westerners that we will naturally assume any such society to be historically backward. Likewise, these things are so intolerable for traditional Islamic cultures that many Muslims bear a deep mistrust and even outright aggression toward the West -- even when they live here.

Still, the pace of globalization is picking up speed. People all over the world are transcending traditional geographic barriers now like never before. In many places, particularly Europe, there is simply no escaping the fact that there are other cultures in the world, and that sometimes these cultures are simply incompatible with yours.

Now, take a moment to assimilate the implications here. It sounds extreme to say that Western Culture is flat-out incompatible with Middle-Eastern culture. It sounds terrible, even racist. But think about what is going on, and what the arguments are. If you say "Islamic Culture," you sound like an extremist. But how compatible, for example, is the US Constitution with Sharia Law? And it is that Sharia Law that defines millions of the people in question. It is not an incompatibility because they are inherently inferior or because they are different, but because they subscribe to a mass ideology which is itself constructed of assumptions and beliefs which directly counter the assumptions and beliefs that comprise the overall ideology of Western civilization.

Some sources claim that by 2050, France will be a predominantly Muslim country, and other EU nations are on the same track. And there is, as I understand it, already a history of struggle between Muslim immigrants and their adoptive countries that seems to foreshadow a situation that when that political tipping point is reached in France, France will not only be a Muslim nation but a fairly traditional Muslim country, possibly complete with Sharia Law. I know that's a "worst-case scenario," but the possibility exists -- and even calling it a worst-case is to my mind an implicit acknowledgment that France and other nations need to do something to stop it from happening.

My own conjecture on the topic tells me that this line of thinking, that the West and its ideologies face a cultural impasse with the Middle East and its ideologies, should bring to our attention a few prospects.

First, the prospect of Total Cultural War. As unappetizing as this is, it's fair at this point to say that a cultural impasse, if it really exists, could lead to such a war. As high as our opinions of ourselves may be, there is a very real possibility that the rosy future painted by well-meaning Science Fiction is simply untenable and unrealistic. Human history has shown more times than anyone can count that when two peoples who cannot stand one another are forced to share resources or space, there is a war. And if it comes to that with the current situation, it will be a very big war.

We are not talking about an aggressive military power with specific military aims. We are not even talking about a conscious movement of people with intentional collective goals. We are talking about a cultural border that is growing and becoming more complex -- but hardly ever blurring -- at an exponential rate. If you accept that Western society is inherently and fundamentally incompatible with Islamic society, and you add to that the fact that because of natural resources and technology and international politics these people are destined to be face-to-face with each other on a regular basis, then you could come to the conclusion that something here is not going to end well.

This brings us to the next prospect we should consider -- the complete erasure of the Enlightenment. In the West, societies are defined and governed (by varying degrees) by the rule of law and liberal democracy. These are ideas for which many thousands of Westerners have fought and died for -- even if that is an overused cliche', it is still in many respects true.

The political ramifications of the Enlightenment are felt throughout the West. But the great strides we have taken to open our societies to self-government, to welcoming immigrants, a decent respect for other people on their own merits regardless of whether or not they agree with us on everything; these are at the heart of who and what the West believes itself to be. But these are also the very things that have opened the West to the prospect of being consumed by an incompatible culture.

If we believe in these ideals, then we must fight to protect them. We must fight for the individual dignity and rights of every single person. We must fight to preserve our open societies and mutual respect, to prolong the rule of law, and to maintain oversight of our governments by the People. But when presented with a cultural "enemy" (note - I only use that term to define the situation, not to define Muslims in general) that can and will use the prized open self-government systems of the West to undermine the West as a whole, how does the West fight back?

How can the West stop its own political infrastructure from allowing what it was designed in the first place to allow? How can we fight to protect our values and our way of life, without declaring them superior to something in order to exclude what some call a poisonous influence? How can we keep from devouring and discarding the rights of all people in pursuit of an enemy that uses those rights against the society that enforces them?

Finally, the prospect of Westernizing the Islamic World. This is, I think, the one glimmer of hope in this whole situation. And it is here where I can actually see the value in (some of the) policies and actions taken by the Bush White House. If we live in a world where a clash of civilizations threatens the very definition of the West, and we want to maintain that definition at all, then there is only one choice: Westernizing the Islamic world.

To do that, you have to keep the political game in stalemate while cultural forces work to undermine and transform a culture of deep repression into one that is at the very least respectful of different points of view. The line parroted by many "Liberals" is that "American Values aren't for everyone." That is true, but neither are Islamic values. And while Islamic nations are not officially pursuing a policy of exporting and enforcing those values around the world, their influence is spreading on auto-pilot. And this influence threatens the stability of the West.

The civilized response to every confrontation is diplomacy and compromise. Between two nations, this can happen at a governmental and political level. But between two cultures, governments are essentially powerless. The diplomacy and compromise here must take place on a purely cultural level.

I strongly disagree with the military actions taken by the President, but I can see the value in what he says the West is facing, even if he chooses to use drastically oversimplified terms and bad analogies, and follow through on what he says with badly-planned operations that result in the loss of life on a nearly astronomical scale. The mistake of the Bush White House, in my opinion, has not been its overall view of global events but a lack of depth in its understanding of those events and the conditions that motivate those events that has lead to terrible foreign and military policy.

I identify myself most often as a "liberal," one who sees and appreciates the value of Enlightenment ideals taken to logical and reasonable conclusions. But I am also convinced that the West faces a serious test of its ability to stand by those ideals in the coming decades.

[Cain]

Mark Steyn's figures are fundamentally false and taken from parts of the Islamic world with the highest birthrates and lowest levels of emigration (Yemen and Gaza City/West Bank).  Studies have repeatedly shown that Islamic families are, on average, no larger or smaller than any other family within that country for their given eco-social status.

Furthermore, Huntingdon's Clash of the Civilization thesis is also laughably lacking.  50 years ago it was the Spanairds and Latin American countries who were incapable of democracy.  30 years ago, it was eastern Europe, Russia and the so-called Oriental Despotism theory of how Western and eastern cultures were totally incompatible.

Finally, sharia law is not the be all and end all of Islamic culture, and liberalism is not the only interpretation of Western culture that is historically rooted and valued within this region of the world.  300 years ago, it was Divine Rule of Monarchs that was the system of choice.  At the turn of the century, liberalism and monarchism were being wiped away by socialism and fascism - both of which have roots in Western culture.  Oh, and theocracy too was a model that was quite highly valued back in the day, and one that is making headway again in your very own country (not to mention a starting movement in mine).  Equally, strict Salafist interpretation of sharia law is not the only valid interpretation of politics in Muslim society.  In fact, philosophically speaking, both the West and Islam share a common bedrock of philosophical knowledge - that of the Greco-Roman civilization.  Al-Ghazali, the great Islamic scholar, was influenced by Empiricus Sextus, and went on to influence Aquinas and Descartes.  The idea that Islamic society and thought is so laughably backward as to not appreciate such thinking which has led to skeptical scientific investigation, a bedrock of universal claims as to the rights of individuals and groups or led to the formation of a representative society is to my mind at best historically naive and at worst willful racism.

That historical forces have subverted such themes within Islamic society is of course undoubtable.  But how less incompatible with western liberalism is fascism, or Christian theocracy, than Islamic extremism?  Why do we focus on this one, supposedly monolithic threat that emanates at a cultural level when in fact the main concern is sub-state actors of varying stripes who have made a degree of alliances among themselves to destroy western liberalism?

Incidentally, appealing to Neoconservativism to save western society is the political equivalent of destroying the village in order to save it.  A core component of neoconservative thought is executive exceptionalism - that the executive has the right to act however they wish during exceptional circumstances.  Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt have placed this legal maxim at the heart of what they call the system of empire and the concept of unending war - where difference and exception are equated and where war is treated as an aberation in the system, every disturbance of the peace becomes exceptional, and does little more than create a modern day monarchy.  So much for saving liberalism then, by installing a new King.

[LMNO]

At the moment, I have nothing of value to contribute to this thread, but I wanted to say that I am very, very interested in this discussion, and will be keeping my eye on it.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

My defense of Neoconservatism is limited to its beleif that the best way forward is in Westernizing the Middle East. I do not like Executive Exceptionalism, because it undermines the foundation of Liberal democracy to begin with, and it's my position that we ought to be enacting policies that protect that system at any cost. I also don't like concepts of unending war or continuous self-propagandizing. So my defense of Neoconservatism is not an all-or-nothing package, but I don't think we ought to write off every idea we hear just because it is proposed by an asshole. We'd do ourselves a disservice at this point not to consider every course of action.

Western societies were based on theocracy in the past, but they aren't anymore, even if there are some people who wish they were. Socialism and Fascism did grow out of the Enlightenment just like Liberalism has, but I think those two extremes have proven themselves to be ultimately useless. The fact remains, however, that Western society is, as it stands now, basically at odds with the existing power structures and social norms of the Middle East -- as it has been with other systems in the past.

In fact, the subjects you bring up about the supposed "incompatibility" of Oriental Despotism, Stalinism, and other systems to liberal Western democracy are key ingredients in my own contention that Westernizing a dangerous system is a (fairly) effective means of diffusing a culture war before it begins by creating cultural bridges between two systems without completely destroying either one.

The last half century has seen the spread of Liberalism effectively end the Cold War without a third World War; it has seen stubborn regimes throughout the world be practically cut off from the rest of the world without as widespread military engagement as might have otherwise been necessary.

There is, of course, always a give and take to these things. Russia is sliding back toward Stalinism; America is losing its advantage over other nations in education and human dignity. But overall, I think the strategy of Westernization is vastly more successful and unquestionably more humane than allowing conditions to fester to such an extent that outright war is the only way to resolve the situation.

Now, the statistics having to do with Islamic culture overtaking Europe are -- as I said -- a worst-case scenario. But that only applies to the amount of time it will take. If nothing whatsoever is done to address these growing instabilities in the West, it will happen, eventually. In my opinion we are better off opening the discussion and facing these uncomfortable conditions within the global community before everyone has already mounted their armies and launched their missiles.

[The Littlest Ubermensch]

To be sure, many Western ideals are alien to Islamic culture. Self-government, individual sovereignty, gender equality, sexual and religious freedom, freedom of speech, human dignity, and civil liberties are at the very root of what the majority of the public has been deluded into believing actually defines many Western societies.

Fixed.
We really aren't that different from the Islamic world. There are obvious cultural differences, and theirs is notably  less warmed up to enlightenment ideas, but those ideas are nowhere near important enough to define our culture. We hold the mythology and slogans of freedom and independence very dearly, but as I think most of us could point out, not very many people really take those ideas to heart.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

To be sure, many Western ideals are alien to Islamic culture. Self-government, individual sovereignty, gender equality, sexual and religious freedom, freedom of speech, human dignity, and civil liberties are at the very root of what the majority of the public has been deluded into believing actually defines many Western societies.

Fixed.
We really aren't that different from the Islamic world. There are obvious cultural differences, and theirs is notably  less warmed up to enlightenment ideas, but those ideas are nowhere near important enough to define our culture. We hold the mythology and slogans of freedom and independence very dearly, but as I think most of us could point out, not very many people really take those ideas to heart.

What you say is right to some extent, but if you are seriously suggesting that the West is anywhere near as repressed (or oppressed) as the average Tuesday afternoon in Iran, you are pretty wrong. But the difference I'm talking about isn't so much the net effect of society on the individual -- every human society tends to be homogenized to some degree -- but that in the West we are open to the idea of freedom, even if we don't find ourselves practicing it very often. That is simply not the case in Islamic cultures. There is no question of Freedom -- such things are perverse and immoral to those cultures. There is no debate about Women's Rights or Gay Rights -- just mentioning might be enough to get you hanged.

Don't get me wrong -- I am not saying there is no hope. But you're deluding yourself if you think there is no deep divide between our cultures.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think, before I would support Westernizing their nations, I would make a few other changes:

1. Do not provide "Shiria Law" as a venue for Muslims living in the West. Citizens and legal aliens should be subject to the law of the land, not their own law.
2. Any non-citizen residents that are involved in hate speech are deported.
3. Remove all US military outposts in Muslim nations, relocate those resources to secular nations in the region or Israel.

Integrating immigrants into Western culture should be a dominant part of any attempt to forestall a Culture War (1 and 2). Removing any perceived threat should be a close second.

Finally, alternative fuels. Once the money dries up, I would guess that the Islamic world will be focused on new priorities, rather than invading the West's culture.   

To be sure, many Western ideals are alien to Islamic culture. Self-government, individual sovereignty, gender equality, sexual and religious freedom, freedom of speech, human dignity, and civil liberties are at the very root of what the majority of the public has been deluded into believing actually defines many Western societies.

Fixed.
We really aren't that different from the Islamic world. There are obvious cultural differences, and theirs is notably  less warmed up to enlightenment ideas, but those ideas are nowhere near important enough to define our culture. We hold the mythology and slogans of freedom and independence very dearly, but as I think most of us could point out, not very many people really take those ideas to heart.

What you say is right to some extent, but if you are seriously suggesting that the West is anywhere near as repressed (or oppressed) as the average Tuesday afternoon in Iran, you are pretty wrong. But the difference I'm talking about isn't so much the net effect of society on the individual -- every human society tends to be homogenized to some degree -- but that in the West we are open to the idea of freedom, even if we don't find ourselves practicing it very often. That is simply not the case in Islamic cultures. There is no question of Freedom -- such things are perverse and immoral to those cultures. There is no debate about Women's Rights or Gay Rights -- just mentioning might be enough to get you hanged.

Don't get me wrong -- I am not saying there is no hope. But you're deluding yourself if you think there is no deep divide between our cultures.

TITCM

AKA, The West's BiP tendencies and the Islamic BiP tendencies seem quite different.

[Cain]

My defense of Neoconservatism is limited to its beleif that the best way forward is in Westernizing the Middle East. I do not like Executive Exceptionalism, because it undermines the foundation of Liberal democracy to begin with, and it's my position that we ought to be enacting policies that protect that system at any cost. I also don't like concepts of unending war or continuous self-propagandizing. So my defense of Neoconservatism is not an all-or-nothing package, but I don't think we ought to write off every idea we hear just because it is proposed by an asshole. We'd do ourselves a disservice at this point not to consider every course of action.

How?  By drawing a dividing line between those who support the USA and its enemies?  Westernizing the Middle East has been THE battle cry for the international Islamist Jihad.  Trying to shove something down peoples throats is one sure fire way to get them to reject your proposals.  And guess what?  War abroad always leads to executive power grabs and problems with democracy and civil liberties at home.  Without exception, and especially in the case of terrorism.

Of course, this is all assuming democratizing the Middle East isnt wingnut code for "breaking open previously unreachable markets using military force, selling off foreign owned assets at cut-rate prices, THEN letting the locals take over once we've established the current economic order to our favour."  Which it is.  And we call that "colonialism".  Historically speaking, colonialism has led to a backlash based on ethnic and nationalist grounds.  Which does nothing for democracy but a hell of a lot for the arms industry and wartards everywhere.

Western societies were based on theocracy in the past, but they aren't anymore, even if there are some people who wish they were. Socialism and Fascism did grow out of the Enlightenment just like Liberalism has, but I think those two extremes have proven themselves to be ultimately useless. The fact remains, however, that Western society is, as it stands now, basically at odds with the existing power structures and social norms of the Middle East -- as it has been with other systems in the past.

The existing power structure of the Middle East is the Peace of Westphalia, a system that grew out of...The Thirty Years War.  Almost all local systems of government are military dictatorships, many in close alliance with the USA.  Four nations in the Middle East stake their claim to rulership based on Islamic law, and two of those aren't even worth mentioning because their influence, or lack thereof, makes them impotent little rump states who are about as threatening as Belgium, and with considerably less soft power.

And Socialism, Fascism and Communism aren't as dead as you think.  The far-right has surged in Europe and America, and a new anarchist/marxist movement is emerging from the anti-globalization movement.  Just because so far the west hasn't regressed to one or another of these doesn't mean they wont.

In fact, the subjects you bring up about the supposed "incompatibility" of Oriental Despotism, Stalinism, and other systems to liberal Western democracy are key ingredients in my own contention that Westernizing a dangerous system is a (fairly) effective means of diffusing a culture war before it begins by creating cultural bridges between two systems without completely destroying either one.

What culture war?  The one going on in your head, and between small groups of relatively isolated extremists?  Guess what, if more than 0.01% of Muslims wanted the West in flames, they could do it - right now.  It doesn't take a genius to strap on a bomb.  Hey, would you look at that, the deaths in the UK from Islamic extremists are below that of the IRA.  Are we in a culture war with the Irish catholics then?  And my point was the borders of a supposed culture war have been drawn back and back and back and back and back and every single time the thesis for the Clash of the Civilizations has failed to be substansiated.  Al-Qaeda had their shot from 2001-3 to cause what Bush referred to as "Arab street" to rise up against the West.  They failed.  Opinions of Western concepts such as democracy, freedom of speech and haebus corpus are still outstandingly popular in the Middle East, which is rather amazing given how the events of 2003 played out.

The last half century has seen the spread of Liberalism effectively end the Cold War without a third World War; it has seen stubborn regimes throughout the world be practically cut off from the rest of the world without as widespread military engagement as might have otherwise been necessary.

Nukes and a shitty economy effectively ended the Cold War.  Imperial overstrech kills everyone, even Communists.

There is, of course, always a give and take to these things. Russia is sliding back toward Stalinism; America is losing its advantage over other nations in education and human dignity. But overall, I think the strategy of Westernization is vastly more successful and unquestionably more humane than allowing conditions to fester to such an extent that outright war is the only way to resolve the situation.

Russia never evolved from a form of crony capitalism, the only difference is the current cronies don't like American companies as much.

And how kind of you to decide what is best for everyone else.  I'm sure 60,000 Iraqis are now praising your magnaminity in deciding they should be liberated from their lives for the sake of colonial adventures their countrymen.

Yes, war is an excellent way to get people to accept your point of view.  I've found killing people really helps with my philosophical arguments as well.  My friend Dave was a Commie until I killed his family, now he sees free markets and votes are the way to go.

Now, the statistics having to do with Islamic culture overtaking Europe are -- as I said -- a worst-case scenario. But that only applies to the amount of time it will take. If nothing whatsoever is done to address these growing instabilities in the West, it will happen, eventually. In my opinion we are better off opening the discussion and facing these uncomfortable conditions within the global community before everyone has already mounted their armies and launched their missiles.

Uh, no, they're bullshit.  Full stop.  You can't say "well eventually teh Mooslims will overtake Europe" and then have no evidence to back up your claim.  Either you have it, or you don't.  And if you don't, and I have evidence which shows the good white folk of Europe are outbreeding Muslims (besides, does this data take into account Muslims from areas other than the Middle East?  Secular Muslims?  Liberal Muslims?  Muslim feminists?  People who abandon their faith?  Not any evidence that I've seen) then you're doing nothing more than playing the same game played by the eugenecists and their ilk a hundred years ago.  It was bullshit then and bullshit now.

And what instabilities?  Last time I checked, the only "instabilities" we had which the rest of the world did not would be the fact that our societies are much more open than most other peoples.  If you're going to claim we should give up civil liberties to somehow save liberalism, then I'm going to put that in my sig and laugh at your every post from now on, because you drunk the Kool-Aid hard.  Oh, I hear Wannsee has a nice conference hall, if you want to hold a discussion for that meeting.

[Cain]

AKA, The West's BiP tendencies and the Islamic BiP tendencies seem quite different.

There is no "West" except as a geographical location and there is no "Islam" except on certain census forms.

What there is social liberalism, neoliberalism, conservativism, Sufism, neoconservativism, fascism, secular Shiites, communism, monarchism, Catholic theocracy, National Socialism, Arabic Pan-Nationalism, National Bolshevism, Falangism, environmentalism, Salafism, Libertarianism, Islamic feminism and a whole host of other ideas which only have tenuous relationships with each other.

Islam, as a monolithic block is as believable as France and the USA being mistaken for the same country.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

AKA, The West's BiP tendencies and the Islamic BiP tendencies seem quite different.

There is no "West" except as a geographical location and there is no "Islam" except on certain census forms.

What there is social liberalism, neoliberalism, conservativism, Sufism, neoconservativism, fascism, secular Shiites, communism, monarchism, Catholic theocracy, National Socialism, Arabic Pan-Nationalism, National Bolshevism, Falangism, environmentalism, Salafism, Libertarianism, Islamic feminism and a whole host of other ideas which only have tenuous relationships with each other.

Islam, as a monolithic block is as believable as France and the USA being mistaken for the same country.

Welll, yes, I was being rather general... but I'll clarify:


Dear Goddess, I was trying to briefly state a point, not discuss the details of the individual BiP of every state involved.

But fine, lets say it this way:

It appears to me that there may exist sombunal systems of government and philosophies which seem to share elements across their individual BiP. Many of these tend to claim progeny or consider themselves to be based on ideas from the Enlightenment and mosbunal of these tend to get lumped into a generic label called "The West". The philosophies and political ideologies that most prominently appear to make up these BiP's seem to me to have little in common with mosbunal aspects of mosbunal of the BiP's of other groups not based on the Enlightenment, including, but not limited to, Islamic nations.

How's that? 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Cain, I applaud your legendary temper, but if you'd actually read the OP here you'd see that my concern is how to go about addressing a potential clash of civilizations without sacrificing the Liberalism that has come to define the West over the course of the past 200 years.

Now, whether Muslims will outnumber Western Europeans in Europe sometime in the next century or so may or may not be up to some debate. I haven't actually seen the numbers for either side of the argument, hence I said "according to some sources," and not "oh god lock your doors and windows." And as for your attempt to pidgeonhole me as a spontaneous Racist and Eugenecist, I can only wonder whether your motivation in this discussion is to cover factual ground or to get into a fight. But, to humor you, I will offer a couple of small points.

1. I am not proposing a regime of strict cultural or ethnic cleansing. Obviously, if my aim is to protect the ideals of the Enlightenment and of open societies, then such a thing would be counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating.

2. I am not saying that ALL MUSLIMS ARE BAD. Jesus Christ. Look, sometimes there are uncomfortable realities with which we must contend. The fact that there is a growing unease between the West and the Middle East is one of those realities. That it happens to exist along ethnic and religious lines is unfortunate, mainly because there are people on both sides who are completely unable to see the point I am trying to make, which is that we have two very large, powerful, cultures that do not see eye to eye coming up at the same place at the same time, and if we don't at least acknowledge that there is a potential for cultural strife here, we are going to get broadsided by it.

I cannot simply ignore the fact that political and cultural tensions are growing, just because somebody might misunderstand you and get offended because they think I'm talking about race or religion. That is not my point, and it is not the point of this discussion. Some things are difficult to separate from the issue at hand, and those are two of those things.

That's why the West is in such trouble now -- because there are so many topics we won't talk about, because they are too "sensitive." Issues like warhawks on both sides of the issue trying to provoke attack by the other side. Issues like the belief that Liberal, Western Democracy is -- God forbid you say it -- superior to the backward, repressive, oppressive, theocratic despotism of the Middle East, at least where it concerns Westerners. I know I don't want an Imam signing permission slips for me any more than your average Saudi wants a strip club across the street from his house.

I think, before I would support Westernizing their nations, I would make a few other changes:

1. Do not provide "Shiria Law" as a venue for Muslims living in the West. Citizens and legal aliens should be subject to the law of the land, not their own law.
2. Any non-citizen residents that are involved in hate speech are deported.
3. Remove all US military outposts in Muslim nations, relocate those resources to secular nations in the region or Israel.

1. Unless the "immigrants" (who are actually naturalized citizens at some point) gain enough political power under the "law of the land" to do away with the "law of the land" and institute Sharia. Hence the danger -- a net loss of Enlightenment Liberalism, made possible by... Enlightenment Liberalism.
2. Dangerous territory. Give the government that kind of power, they'll assume they have the power to include anyone in their own fatwahs. Same result - death to Liberalism in the name of defending Liberalism.
3. Actually I like that idea.

Integrating immigrants into Western culture should be a dominant part of any attempt to forestall a Culture War (1 and 2). Removing any perceived threat should be a close second.

Finally, alternative fuels. Once the money dries up, I would guess that the Islamic world will be focused on new priorities, rather than invading the West's culture.   :rolleyes:

Everyone assumes I am trying to say the "Dirty Muslims are coming after us." That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying a situation is developing where people, through not intention of their own, are finding themselves increasingly at odds with their neighbors over a large range of things. This condition might get better, although the failure of existing Islamic populations in Europe to integrate indicates that the condition will actually get worse.

[Daruko]

Wow, great thread.   I wish to endorse this discussion as well.  I even enjoyed Cain's input up until...

If you're going to claim we should give up civil liberties to somehow save liberalism, then I'm going to put that in my sig and laugh at your every post from now on

You are such a fucking spag.  Just STFU.

I'm with Old Ben Franklin on liberties myself, but I don't need to make infantile threats just because I feel someone may have stepped on that ideal. 

[Cain]

Wow, great thread.   I wish to endorse this discussion as well.  I even enjoyed Cain's input up until...

If you're going to claim we should give up civil liberties to somehow save liberalism, then I'm going to put that in my sig and laugh at your every post from now on

You are such a fucking spag.  Just STFU.

I'm with Old Ben Franklin on liberties myself, but I don't need to make infantile threats just because I feel someone may have stepped on that ideal. 

Hey, Daruko, remember something about jokes you said earlier?  Shame you can't recognize them when others do them.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

1. Unless the "immigrants" (who are actually naturalized citizens at some point) gain enough political power under the "law of the land" to do away with the "law of the land" and institute Sharia. Hence the danger -- a net loss of Enlightenment Liberalism, made possible by... Enlightenment Liberalism.

Even if the majority were to try to implement something like Sharia (at least in the US) it would likely be struck down as unconstitutional. The point of the Constitution was to protect us from such an incident.

2. Dangerous territory. Give the government that kind of power, they'll assume they have the power to include anyone in their own fatwahs. Same result - death to Liberalism in the name of defending Liberalism.

I disagree. IF a person is a legal alien over here on a visa or green card, I see no reason that they should be afforded the right to incite hatred against the country hosting their ass... no matter what kinda hate they're trying to foment. A citizen, gets the right to criticize from home, an immigrant that is not a naturalized citizen can STFU, or become a citizen... or move back to where he came from and engage in free speech there. I see nothing in the Constitution that supports the idea of allowing non-citizens to foment hatred from inside the country. Citizens or Naturalized citizens, sure. Random guy that just got off the boat and walked into a church/mosque/University to tell everyone to kill the Jews/Gays/Atheists/White People/Christians/Whatever... they can fuck right off.

3. Actually I like that idea.

Integrating immigrants into Western culture should be a dominant part of any attempt to forestall a Culture War (1 and 2). Removing any perceived threat should be a close second.

Finally, alternative fuels. Once the money dries up, I would guess that the Islamic world will be focused on new priorities, rather than invading the West's culture.   :rolleyes:

Everyone assumes I am trying to say the "Dirty Muslims are coming after us." That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying a situation is developing where people, through not intention of their own, are finding themselves increasingly at odds with their neighbors over a large range of things. This condition might get better, although the failure of existing Islamic populations in Europe to integrate indicates that the condition will actually get worse.

[/quote]

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Wow, great thread.   I wish to endorse this discussion as well.  I even enjoyed Cain's input up until...

If you're going to claim we should give up civil liberties to somehow save liberalism, then I'm going to put that in my sig and laugh at your every post from now on

You are such a fucking spag.  Just STFU.

I'm with Old Ben Franklin on liberties myself, but I don't need to make infantile threats just because I feel someone may have stepped on that ideal. 

Hey, Daruko, remember something about jokes you said earlier?  Shame you can't recognize them when others do them.

OH SNAP!

Ya know... maybe it would be a good idea if we all stopped assuming that the other poster is an intentional asshole... or if they are that they mean it to be funnay... or barring that they're just acting on programming like a good robot which can also be funnay.

*Ratatosk makes a note to start applying this in his own reading of PD*