Log in

View Full Version : Demography Explains 90% of Everything


KevinTheOmnivore
Feb 16th, 2006, 03:45 PM
From The Australian (http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2B3427AC)


Mark Steyn: Salute Danna Vale

The backbencher raises legitimate questions about demographic changes

February 16, 2006

MY interest in demography dates back to September 11, 2001, when a demographic group I hadn't hitherto given much thought managed to get my attention. I don't mean the, ah, unfortunate business with the planes and buildings and so forth, but the open cheering of the attacks by their co-religionists in Montreal, Yorkshire, Copenhagen and elsewhere. How many people knew there were fast-growing and culturally confident Muslim populations in Scandinavia?

Demography doesn't explain everything but it accounts for a good 90 per cent. The "who" is the best indicator of the what-where-when-and-why. Go on, pick a subject. Will Japan's economy return to the heady days of the 1980s when US businesses cowered in terror? Answer: No. Japan is exactly the same as it was in its heyday except for one fact: it stopped breeding and its population aged. Will China be the hyperpower of the 21st century? Answer: No. Its population will get old before it gets rich.

Check back with me in a century and we'll see who's right on that one. But here's one we know the answer to: Why is this newspaper published in the language of a tiny island on the other side of the earth? Why does Australia have an English Queen, English common law, English institutions? Because England was the first nation to conquer infant mortality.

By 1820 medical progress had so transformed British life that half the population was under the age of 15. Britain had the manpower to take, hold, settle and administer huge chunks of real estate around the planet. Had, say, China or Russia been first to overcome childhood mortality, the modern world would be very different.

What country today has half of its population under the age of 15? Italy has 14 per cent, the UK 18 per cent, Australia 20 per cent - and Saudi Arabia has 39 per cent, Pakistan 40 per cent and Yemen 47 per cent. Little Yemen, like little Britain 200 years ago, will send its surplus youth around the world - one way or another.

So, whether or not her remarks were "outrageous" (the Democrats' Lyn Allison), "insensitive" (the Greens' Rachel Siewert), "offensively discriminatory" (Sydney's Daily Telegraph) and "bigoted" (this newspaper), I salute Danna Vale. You don't have to agree with her argument that Australia's aborting itself out of recognition and that therefore Islam will inherit by default to think it's worth asking a couple of questions:

* Is abortion in society's interest?

* Can a society become more Muslim in its demographic character without also becoming more Muslim in its political and civil character?

The first one's easy: One can understand that 17-year-old Glenys working the late shift at Burger King and knocked up by some bloke who scrammed 10 minutes after conception may believe it's in her interest to exercise "a woman's right to choose", but the state has absolutely no interest in encouraging women in general to exercise that choice.

Quite the opposite: given that today's wee bairns are tomorrow's funders of otherwise unsustainable social programs, all responsible governments should be seriously natalist. The reason Europe, Russia and Japan are doomed boils down to a big lack of babies. Abortion isn't solely responsible for that but it's certainly part of the problem.

In attempting to refute Vale's argument, this newspaper praised the nation's maidenhood for lying back and thinking of Australia and getting the national fertility rate up from 1.73 births per woman in 2001 to 1.77, "well above rates in developed nations such as Italy, Spain, Japan, Germany and South Korea".

Well, pop the champagne corks! That's like saying Mark Latham's political prospects are better than Harold Holt's. The countries cited are going out of business. Seventeen European nations are now at what demographers call "lowest-low" fertility - 1.3 births per woman, the point at which you're so far down the death spiral you can't pull out.

In theory, those countries will find their population halving every 40 years or so. In practice, it will be quicker than that, as the savvier youngsters figure there's no point sticking around a country that's turned into one big undertaker's waiting room: not every pimply burger flipper is going to want to work himself into the ground to pay for new shuffleboard courts at the old folks' home.

In 2005, some 137 million babies were born around the globe. That 137 million is the maximum number of 20-year-olds who'll be around in 2025. There are no more, no other sources; that's it, barring the introduction of mass accelerated cloning (which is by no means an impossibility). Who that 137 million are will determine the character of our world.

The shape's already becoming clear. Take those Danish cartoons. Every internet blogger wants to take a stand on principle alongside plucky little Denmark. But there's only five million of them. Whereas there are 20 million Muslims in Europe - officially. That's the equivalent of the Danes plus the Irish plus the Belgians plus the Estonians.

You do the mathematics. If you want the reality of Europe in a nutshell, walk into a supermarket belonging to the French chain Carrefour. You'll be greeted by a notice in Arabic: "Dear Clients, We express solidarity with the Islamic and Egyptian community. Carrefour doesn't carry Danish products." It's strictly business: they have three Danish customers and a gazillion Muslim ones. Retail sales-wise, they know which way their bread's buttered and it isn't with Lurpak.

That's Vale's second point. If a society chooses to outsource its breeding, who your suppliers are is not unimportant. "I've heard those very silly remarks made about immigrants to this country since I was a child," says Allison.

"If it wasn't the Greeks, it was the Italians or it was the Vietnamese."

Those are races or nationalities. But Islam is a religion, and an explicitly political one - unlike the birthplace of your grandfather it's not something you leave behind in the old country. Indeed, for its adherents in the West, it becomes their principal expression - a Pan-Islamic identity that transcends borders.

Instead of a melting pot, there's conversion: A Scot can marry a Greek or a Botswanan, but when a Scot marries a Yemeni it's because the former has become a Muslim. In defiance of normal immigration patterns, the host country winds up assimilating with Islam: French municipal swimming baths introduce non-mixed bathing sessions; a Canadian Government report recommends the legalisation of polygamy; Seville removes King Ferdinand III as patron of the annual fiesta because he played too, um, prominent a role in taking back Spain from the Moors.

When the fastest-breeding demographic group on the planet is also the one most resistant to the pieties of the social-democratic state that's a profound challenge. Yes, yes, I know Islam is very varied, and Riyadh has a vibrant gay scene, and the Khartoum Feminist Publishing Collective now has so many members they've rented lavish new offices above the clitorectomy clinic. I don't claim to have all the answers, except when I'm being interviewed live on TV. But that's better than claiming, as most of Vale's disparagers do, that there aren't even any questions.

Where she goes wrong is in consigning the Lucky Country to the same trash can of history as Old Europe. For Australia, this is not hail and farewell - or, as the Romans put it, ave atque (Danna) vale. Japan is unicultural: a native population ageing and dying. Europe is bicultural: a fading elderly population yielding to a young surging Islam.

But Australia, like the US, is genuinely multicultural, at least in the sense that its immigration is not from a single overwhelming source. The remorseless transformation of Eutopia into Eurabia is already prompting the Dutch to abandon their country in record numbers, for Canada and New Zealand.

In the years ahead, North America and Australia will have the pick of European talent and a chance to learn the lessons of its self-extinction, as they apply to abortion and much else.

In the '70s and '80, Muslims had children - those self-detonating Islamists in London and Gaza and Bali are a literal baby boom - while westerners took all those silly books about overpopulation seriously. A people that won't multiply can't go forth or go anywhere. Those who do will shape the world we live in.

Mark Steyn, a columnist with the Telegraph Group, is a regular contributor to The Australian's Opinion page.

Pharaoh
Feb 16th, 2006, 06:01 PM
That's interesting stuff, and it should worry European liberals, because Islam is very conservative. Even moderate Muslims are conservative by European standards. Gays will be the first to suffer when the Muslim population gets large enough, and then women. Gays and Muslims are already clashing here and it's going to be fun to watch how liberals here handle the problem of which minority to support. Hopefully they'll destroy each other.

KevinTheOmnivore
Feb 16th, 2006, 06:14 PM
I'm glad to see your shitty priorities are intact. :blah

Pharaoh
Feb 16th, 2006, 06:44 PM
Well, I may be against gay couples adopting children, but other than that I don't care what gays do. Muslims however would send gay rights back 100 years if they got the chance and gays will be lucky to not get stoned to death. That's the future for Europe if things continue as they are, and one day liberals are going to have to admit that Islam is the biggest threat to liberal values here, not moderate conservatives like me.

KevinTheOmnivore
Feb 16th, 2006, 06:58 PM
That wasn't what I was referring to.

I was referring to the fact that this is pretty serious stuff, and that we're talking about a potential shift in the very appearance of the world one day. Culture war, religious war, and all of that jazz.

But to you the most important part is how bad it makes the liberals look. Hoping that it puts liberals in this precarious position, forcing them to choose between muslims and homosexuals (which I truly doubt it ultimately will). You feign concern over the issue, but somehow I doubt you really are concerned. You would think now might be your chance to find common ground with your ideological opponents.

Nope. You're more concerned with liberals looking bad, which you undoubtedly hope will result in party gains. Those are your priorities.

Pharaoh
Feb 16th, 2006, 07:19 PM
I don't support any political party at the moment but the only solution I can see is to stop Muslim immigration into Europe and encourage non-Muslims to have more children by supporting families. Liberals are the main obstacle to that solution and until they realize that there's going to be a big problem with a large Muslim population I don't think much will change to stop it happening.

sspadowsky
Feb 16th, 2006, 08:09 PM
I'll bet you have a lot of bumper stickers on your car, don't you? You strike me as the type who thinks a serious philosophy can be summed up with a bumper sticker slogan.

DamnthatDavid
Feb 16th, 2006, 09:44 PM
It was a good read. Yet, hoping that all the gays and Muslim extremist would wipe themselves out and leave us unscratched isn't a stratergy I would bank on.

Geggy
Feb 16th, 2006, 10:40 PM
gays muslims liberals gays muslims liberals gays muslims liberals gays muslims liberals gays muslims liberals gays muslims liberals gays muslims liberals gays muslims liberals gays muslims liberals gays muslims liberals gays muslims liberals

Miss Modular
Feb 17th, 2006, 12:12 AM
But to you the most important part is how bad it makes the liberals look. Hoping that it puts liberals in this precarious position, forcing them to choose between muslims and homosexuals (which I truly doubt it ultimately will). You feign concern over the issue, but somehow I doubt you really are concerned. You would think now might be your chance to find common ground with your ideological opponents.

Nope. You're more concerned with liberals looking bad, which you undoubtedly hope will result in party gains. Those are your priorities.


Isn't this the summation of every thread Ronnie Raygun has ever initiated?

Chojin
Feb 17th, 2006, 03:17 AM
http://www.tropicalfruitshop.com/images/tangerine-lg.gif

Abcdxxxx
Feb 17th, 2006, 05:05 AM
Fruits! I can't wait for the fruits.

The radical left has tied themselves to some strange bedfellows for a long time now. Wether it's championing Mao, or embracing controversial dictators like Castro, there is something peculiar when the guys who take action for causes they believe in, are supporting people who shouldreally be the antithesis of everything they stand for. As in, fascism, and totalitarian rule, or catering to sensitivity, rather then sticking to their own humanitarian ideals.

One thing this artical misses, which I think is a bigger problem, is the questionable methods used to obtain these demographics. Even here in the US, ethnic groups compete over birthrate percentages, and accuse the other of inflating their numbers, because they're often used as a political argument for entitlement. Death tolls are tossed around like it's a popularity contest, without relating them to how they effect these populations per capita. Talking about population warfare just isn't politically correct, eithe, mentioning assimilation is considered offensive. I believe there are huge groups of people who want to change the way the Western World lives, and it's a serious cultural threat.... but what's more of a threat is our inability to stop it, or protect our own cultures. ... because we're doing ourselves in just fine even without the looming threat of some big bad population warfare boogey man.

executioneer
Feb 17th, 2006, 05:11 AM
Little Yemen, like little Britain 200 years ago, will send its surplus youth around the world - one way or another.


KUPLAH :eek :eek :eek

KevinTheOmnivore
Feb 17th, 2006, 09:08 AM
The radical left has tied themselves to some strange bedfellows for a long time now. Wether it's championing Mao, or embracing controversial dictators like Castro, there is something peculiar when the guys who take action for causes they believe in, are supporting people who shouldreally be the antithesis of everything they stand for. As in, fascism, and totalitarian rule, or catering to sensitivity, rather then sticking to their own humanitarian ideals.

I think however there are ideological ties to folks like Mao and Castro (that being the Left's lingering ties to Communism). Understanding the ties to some questionable Islamic groups is a little bit harder for me to understand. I suppose you could connect it to the misguided Palestinian movement on college campuses (ahem). Or, frankly, you could simply associate it with President Bush. If 9/11 had happened under Al Gore's watch, we still probably would've invaded Afghanistan. We would still probably be killing muslims. Would the Left care as much?

Abcdxxxx
Feb 17th, 2006, 10:51 AM
Yeah... thee grande ol' left took to the Palestinian cause as early as 1984'ish or so, sometime after Beirut, and taking out Iraq's nuclear reaktor.

There was a documentary titled "Beirut: The Last home movie" made in 1987, that I believe was nominated for an Academy Award. That film really changed things. Then you had the SF Mime Troupe winning awards for their show on the Palestinian cause. Even earlier then that, it's possible to trace interest in the movement to the 70's when Godard tried to make a film, he'd later abandon, about Fatah party. He took the rushes around to American Universities trying to drum up some business, but it never took off. Point being, it was in vogue with the hardcore radicals long before 9/11, but yea you're right, things changed once Noam Chomsky got on the best sellers list, and the counterculture movement gained an entirely new audience. Meanwhile, we know the Israel-Palestine conflict still gets a disproportionate amount of attention, compared to other world events with massive death tolls, simply because it fits an agenda or two.

The original Popular Liberation Front, and their splinter groups were actually working some psuedo Marxist angle when they started. Arafat used to spit chewing tobacco, and walk around doing his best Castro impression, and they downplayed the whole religious angle, even accept for when Jeruslame came up. They even hired the IRA to train their army.


Anyway - this essay might be of interest:
http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/Chesler.html

Pharaoh
Feb 17th, 2006, 03:49 PM
I'll bet you have a lot of bumper stickers on your car, don't you? You strike me as the type who thinks a serious philosophy can be summed up with a bumper sticker slogan.

Hey, spazowsky, thanks, you've inspired me to get a bumper sticker for my signature. How do you like it? I think it sums up my philosophy quite well. :lol

Sethomas
Feb 17th, 2006, 03:53 PM
If that's the case, you must have serious flatulance and live in solitude.

Preechr
Feb 17th, 2006, 04:46 PM
That's interesting stuff, and it should worry European liberals, because Islam is very conservative. Even moderate Muslims are conservative by European standards. Gays will be the first to suffer when the Muslim population gets large enough, and then women. Gays and Muslims are already clashing here and it's going to be fun to watch how liberals here handle the problem of which minority to support. Hopefully they'll destroy each other.

I think Pharoah is on to something, even if he doesn't know it... blinded as he is by party tags.

The main weapon radical Islam has against the West is our own misguided habit of avoiding any offense by embracing everything offensive. This is me talking, so I'm not talking about gay people when I say that... that's his personal albatross, for whatever gay reason... but though the message may be flawed to the point of seeming incoherent, maybe infantile, the underlying logic is rich creamery butter.

Pharaoh
Feb 17th, 2006, 04:56 PM
If that's the case, you must have serious flatulance and live in solitude.
Hmmm, that would imply that I do want to hear from an asshole. Which implies that you think this forum is full of assholes. You know, I think you could be onto something there. :lol

ScruU2wice
Feb 17th, 2006, 10:11 PM
I don't support any political party at the moment but the only solution I can see is to stop Muslim immigration into Europe and encourage non-Muslims to have more children by supporting families.

LOL

Don't you think that it would just be easier to kill muslim babies?

Pharaoh
Feb 18th, 2006, 05:55 AM
I don't support any political party at the moment but the only solution I can see is to stop Muslim immigration into Europe and encourage non-Muslims to have more children by supporting families.

LOL

Don't you think that it would just be easier to kill muslim babies?

What, you mean like the way pro-abortion liberals encourage the killing of non-Muslim babies? Well, no, I don't think that would work with Muslims. You see, unlike us infidels they're trying to increase their population not reduce it.

Although, having said that, I'm shocked, and pleased actually, to read in the article below, that Danna Vale, the politician who started this debate off in Australia, is a liberal. Maybe liberals are realizing the danger after all. Or maybe the Australian Liberal party is not really liberal. I don't know much about their politics but I think that could be it.




SYDNEY, February 13, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An Australian Liberal MP has warned that the introduction of the abortion drug RU-486 could lead Australia to becoming a predominantly Muslim country.

Danna Vale Liberal MP for Hughes in Sydney, said, “When you actually look at the birth rates and when you look at the fact that we are aborting ourselves almost out of existence by 100,000 abortions every year and that's only a guesstimate.”

Vale said she was referring to a comment made by an Australian Imam who claimed that Australia would be a Muslim country in 50 years. “You multiply that by 50 years, that's five million potential Australians we won't have here,” Vale said.
*
Health Minister Tony Abbot is fighting to keep control of the deadly abortion drug in the hands of Parliament while the Therapeutic Goods Administration is lobbying along with the Australian medical establishment for its general distribution. Democrats have pushed an amendment to the Therapeutic Goods Act that would remove the restrictions on the drug and MP’s are preparing for a conscience vote this week.*

While Vale is being criticized for her comments, the numbers bear out her suggestion. The Australian Bureau of Statistics says that the general Australian population is aging and birth rates remain low.

Worldwide, statistics are showing that people with strong traditional religious beliefs, whether Muslim or Christian, tend to have more children. In a time when Christians have followed the general secularizing trend, birth rates in traditionally Christian societies such as Australia have dropped precipitously.

While 1996 statistics show that although just over 70% of Australians listed themselves as Christian, only 6.6% of Catholics and 4.7% of Anglicans aged 15-19 attend church services weekly. Other surveys have shown that only a tiny fraction of Australia’s Christians hold traditional Christian beliefs about life and family, and abortion rates are as high among Christians as among the general population.

The Australian Muslim population, while relatively small, has been increasing steadily with immigration. More significantly, birth rates among Muslims, while starting to show a slight decline worldwide, are still significantly higher than non-Muslims. Although Muslims make up only 1.12% of the Australian population, the demographic shift is tilting sharply away from Australia remaining even a nominally Christian country.

High rates of birth among Muslims also mean that while the general population of Australia is aging, Muslims are starting to make up significantly higher proportions of youth. The 1996 census showed of Muslims in New South Wales, 52.5% were under 25 years of age. In the general population of New South Wales, only 35.6% were under 25.

Link here (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06021303.html)

glowbelly
Feb 18th, 2006, 10:27 AM
HEY LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING:

there is no such thing as pro-abortion, no matter what side of the fence you fall on.

liberals don't walk around thinking "I THINK IT'S A GOOD DAY FOR AN ABORTION! ISN'T ABORTION A WONDERFUL THING?! I'M PRO-ABORTION!!"

you wank.

Abcdxxxx
Feb 18th, 2006, 12:02 PM
The whole 'abortion is stopping us from competing in the world market of babymaking' argument is a pretty poor one. You'd have to assume that people are still using the rhythm method, or condoms were a rarity. The baby booms we experienced during the period abortion was illegal don't even compare. We like our quality of life too much to pop out 12 kids. Just over populating isn't the key to world dominance, anyway. You've got to send them overseas so they get their proper educations too. You've got to abuse their systems, and bleed them dry, while appealing for your right to do it because you're a disadvantaged minority.

Anyway, if you're going to try and guess the outcome of political issues based on population statistics, you'd have to take a real us vs. them stance, or look at this all like it was a back alley brawl. We know from history that majority does not always win.

Chojin
Feb 18th, 2006, 07:02 PM
I'm pro-abortion for red states.

Pharaoh
Feb 19th, 2006, 11:01 AM
HEY LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING:

there is no such thing as pro-abortion, no matter what side of the fence you fall on.

liberals don't walk around thinking "I THINK IT'S A GOOD DAY FOR AN ABORTION! ISN'T ABORTION A WONDERFUL THING?! I'M PRO-ABORTION!!"

you wank.

WELL LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING:

I never said liberals walk around thinking "I THINK IT'S A GOOD DAY FOR AN ABORTION! ISN'T ABORTION A WONDERFUL THING?! I'M PRO-ABORTION!!"
But they do promote and encourage abortion.
For instance, LOOK HERE, DICKHEAD (http://www.houstonwomensclinic.com/abortions/proabortion.htm)

See, I'm only using the same term that abortion clinics use, and if you don't like it you should complain to them.

Immortal Goat
Feb 19th, 2006, 11:50 AM
Of COURSE the abortion clinics are pro-abortion. They don't deal with the CHOICE of the matter, they just provide one of the OPTIOINS. They are FOR THEIR OPTION. However, LIBERALS are pro-CHOICE. I AM CAPITALIZING SO MAYBE THAT PUNY SINGLE-CELLED ORGANISM YOU CALL A BRAIN CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING!

You fucking twat, you just don't understand anything, do you? You just sit in your tower, bult with the ignorant bigotry you have fooled yourself into thinking are "morals". It's people like you that cause the world's problems. You think you are so high and mighty, when in actuality you are just as bad as the Muslim extremists you hate so much. Fuck you, you ignorant cunt. Go start another Crusade why don't you?

ScruU2wice
Feb 19th, 2006, 12:25 PM
What, you mean like the way pro-abortion liberals encourage the killing of non-Muslim babies? Well, no, I don't think that would work with Muslims. You see, unlike us infidels they're trying to increase their population not reduce it.


What the hell are you talking about? I'm hoping that your view of life isn't soo skewed to think that liberals want to abort babies because just because they want to be baby killers. I'm hoping that you realize that the situation is. I don't support abortion, but even I know that it's a little more complicates than "dude lets stick a coat hanger in a prego's vagina."

but the best part of that is that you don't deny that deny my ridiculously sarcastic comment is a valid option, just that it won't work with muslims..

Pharaoh
Feb 19th, 2006, 12:27 PM
Stop whining, you stinking hippie assholes.

Immortal Goat
Feb 19th, 2006, 07:01 PM
Stop breathing, you dripping nazi cunt.

Pharaoh
Feb 19th, 2006, 07:41 PM
Have you idiots got anything to say about the actual topic? Have you even read it? I'm very flattered that you want to talk about me but I'm interested to see your views about it.

ScruU2wice
Feb 19th, 2006, 07:47 PM
Have you idiots got anything to say about the actual topic? Have you even read it? I'm very flattered that you want to talk about me but I'm interested to see your views about it.

you mean like

Stop whining, you stinking hippie assholes.

Abcdxxxx
Feb 19th, 2006, 09:33 PM
two words.

bird flu.

Pharaoh
Feb 20th, 2006, 12:41 PM
Bird flu?

I don't get that, Abcdxxxx.

Immortal Goat
Feb 20th, 2006, 03:06 PM
I think he's talking about how the bird flu was supposed to wipe out a lot of the population.

Oh, and yes, Phaoroh, I did read the article. And it seemed to me that the problem isn't so much that Muslims are invading your country. It is that your country has it's head too far up it's ass to embrace multiculturalism. And since you are so against other cultures, it also has occured to me that my comment about people like you being the cause of the world's problems is all the more valid because of it.

Abcdxxxx
Feb 20th, 2006, 08:46 PM
Isn't bird flu supposed to run rampant through China and Mid-East?

They say they found some of it in Egypt yesterday. As a side note, Syria is having an HIV crisis already, and they're trying to get some flu vaccine from the UN because they don't have relations with the main supplier.

I don't know if this disease stuff originates from some devious test tube, or what, but in the case of the Mid-East, they have defianetly resisted prevention methods, or addressing the problems.

Pharaoh
Feb 21st, 2006, 09:42 AM
I think he's talking about how the bird flu was supposed to wipe out a lot of the population.

Oh, and yes, Phaoroh, I did read the article. And it seemed to me that the problem isn't so much that Muslims are invading your country. It is that your country has it's head too far up it's ass to embrace multiculturalism. And since you are so against other cultures, it also has occured to me that my comment about people like you being the cause of the world's problems is all the more valid because of it.

The article isn't about my country, it's about Australia. You see you're still only commenting on what I've written, you're not writing what you think of the article at all. And you know nothing about England anyway. England has embraced multiculturalism, if you ever visit London you'll see what I mean. Muslims, however, don't embrace multiculturalism, they want everybody to submit to Islam, and that's the problem.

KevinTheOmnivore
Feb 21st, 2006, 09:56 AM
And it seemed to me that the problem isn't so much that Muslims are invading your country. It is that your country has it's head too far up it's ass to embrace multiculturalism.

I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense. To say that England is somehow lacking in "multiculturalism" as compared to other nations seems sort of silly to me.

Tolerance and submission are two different things. We should tolerate muslim culture in the West. We should tolerate their habits, their diet, and their customs. That's fine and good. But why does ANYBODY have to worry about getting hurt or even killed if they take jabs at Islam? This seems very cut and dry, yet somehow our multiculturally programed brains are complicating the matter.

Muslims should protest peacefully, they should boycott Danish products, they should publicly mock the Danes, and they should write angry letters. That's all great. But there is absolutely NO excuse (nope, not poverty, not boredom, not youthful indiscretion, none of it) for mobs to burn embassy buildings and to kill people. No dice.

And you can say that this is a tiny minority, and that the West is exploiting the matter. Okay, that's fair. The media smells blood.

70,000 people protested just six days ago in Peshawar, Pakistan. 70,000 people, one day, in one place. An 8-year-old boy was killed. This is not simply some easily dismissed minority, this is an endemic problem.

Immortal Goat
Feb 21st, 2006, 04:27 PM
I'm not saying they aren't embracing multiculturalism. I am saying that it seems like that is what the article is saying. Since that is what Pharaoh asked about the article, that is what I commented on.

And isn't it the same with Christianity, too? They want everyone to follow the same rules, too. That's just how the major religions work.

Abcdxxxx
Feb 21st, 2006, 08:37 PM
If that doesn't smack of multiculturalism, then I don't know what does. It's the "Eveyone Poops" approach to political discourse. Sorry they forgot to include the extra couple pages that say "but not everyone does it in their living room".

Kevin's right. A minority out of of 2 billion Muslims is probably still larger then then the total number of Jews, Sihks, Shintos, Neo-Pagans, Scientologist, and Buddhists combined.

There was also a time when liberal-humanist-multiculturalist whatever you want to call them would argue that the Palestinian desire for extremism could only be attributed to a minority few, but with Hamas elected, we now know for certain, that isn't true.

Kulturkampf
Feb 21st, 2006, 10:15 PM
I don't support any political party at the moment but the only solution I can see is to stop Muslim immigration into Europe and encourage non-Muslims to have more children by supporting families.

LOL

Don't you think that it would just be easier to kill muslim babies?

Great tactic:

"Since I disagree with his views, I make no effort to find out what they are but rather I am just going to accuse him of wanting to murder kids."

Go and keep making terrible allusions because that is your MODUS OPERANDI of IGNORANCE.

ScruU2wice
Feb 21st, 2006, 10:50 PM
Pharaoh has demonstrated enough that he's not a fan of abortion enough to make it funny to me.

I think it was the "population control jokes" file cabinet I pulled that out from.