So you acknowledge that a significant and growing percentage of muslims are not integrated into European societies, are bankrupting the host countries, are filling its prisons and your solution is to open the floodgates? That does not seem to be in intelligent. It would seem more logical to CLOSE permanently the floodgates and then take steps to integrate and westernize the Muslims that are already there. Think about it for a second. Your country is FAILING miserably in integrating a large and growing segment of the population. That segment is responsible for the most of the crime in your country and is a breeder for terrorism. Why would you divert more of your increasingly limited resources to growing this disaffected group instead of attempting to Westernize and integrate the existing population?
Sam Harris is right but he is losing the argument, even though all the evidence and data proves him correct. If you are a true rational empiricist, you would recognize the cogency of his arguments.
I guess you don't think the US should let in any more black folk period?
We shouldn't let people here who can't or won't speak English, won't embrace American cultural traditions and values, don't respect our laws, and require welfare programs to survive. These people are nothing but a burden on society at best, and dangerous elements worst.
If you CAN and WILL speak English, embrace the idealized American traditions and values, and can earn your own living without taxpayer handouts, and will abide by our laws, you should have the opportunity to apply for residency or citizenship. If it's citizenship you want, you'd better be willing to formally pledge allegiance to this country, too. Becoming a resident or citizen here is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.
In case you failed to notice, skin color has nothing to do with the above.
That sounds ok.
I'm sure all refugees/Muslims would be cool with it too
It looks like you don't follow/believe in some of those American traditions and values though
That sounds ok.
I'm sure refugees/Muslims would be cool with it too
Based on what? You are assuming facts not in evidence. You are assuming facts that are in fact contradicted by the objective evidence. Have you been paying attention to the news at all?
Can you show me your evidence
Prove to me that the vast majority do not fit
The ones who are muslim in name only (secular, non-practicing), perhaps.
The ones invoking taqiyya, not so much.
The good news is that most people who aren't native to a western country would be filtered out by the above criteria anyway.
The bad news is that our immigration policy is a joke, and in effect nothing like the above because we have politicians who refuse to control our borders and actually WANT to shovel in people by the barge load from middle eastern and Latin American countries who don't meet that criteria.
Do you want to me to post data from PEW regarding Muslim views on Sharia in western countries? I can go there too.
Jesus dude, I've seen that poll a thousand times in the last decade
I too, would vote in a poll to allow Muslims to follow religious law and I'm not Muslim
- Messages sent just before Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel unleashed his deadly attack on the south of France tourist spot
- Text was sent at 10.27pm to one of the men now in custody
- Mobile phone was found in the cab of his bullet riddled truck which wreaked havoc along the Nice Riviera
- Investigators have seen CCTV showing Bouhlel driving up and down the Promenade des Anglais in Nice for two days before the slaughter
Jesus dude, I've seen that poll a thousand times in the last decade
I too, would vote in a poll to allow Muslims to follow religious law and I'm not Muslim
Facts are racist though. Everyone knows that islam is a religion of peace. Obviously those violent muslim criminals in French prisons aren't TRUE muslims.
Right, Earl?
Ever the dhimmi.
Bush starting the whole religion of peace was stupid
I'd bet people finding religion in prison is huge
Ever the dhimmi. Voting to keep himself a second-class citizen.
So to be clear, you are down with the stonings, the female genital mutilation, the death for apostasy, woman having 1/2 the say of men in court, etc.... All the barbaric things encompassed by following sharia law. And you are willing to accept this in Western countries?
I too, would vote in a poll to allow Muslims to follow religious law and I'm not Muslim
Of course not
Sharia law can be practiced just fine with none of those
Do you realize you have been putting up with barbaric religious practices in the US your entire life?
I am very anti-Christian. You know better than that.
Now, as an objective empiricist, you realize that assertions made in the absence of evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You assert that Sharia law can be practiced without actually following the Koran's definition of Sharia law and not conflicting with Western secularism. Can you provide evidence to back that assertion?
Therefore you support:
honour-killing
child brides
chopping off hands/feet for minor theft
sex slaves
beheading
stoning
death for leaving islam (or refusing to join it)
etc.
Might want to look up everything sharia law contains before you throw your support towards it.
And no, you CAN'T have sharia "practised fine" without key elements of sharia law. Jeez, what disconnect!
The BBC investigative series Panorama and the Daily Mail newspaper are among those who have shown that women do receive less favourable treatment under this form of dispute resolution.[2] Under sharia, women are not treated equally to men in terms of marriage separation rights.[8]
The MAT operates under Section 1 of the Arbitration Act which states that: “the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest”.[5] As such it operates within the framework of English law and does not constitute a separate Islamic legal system. Under the Act they are deemed to be "arbitration tribunals".[4]
The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has no powers to grant a divorce which is valid in English and Welsh law.[5][6] A talaq can be granted to recognise divorce.[5][6] A sharia marriage has no bearing on personal status under UK law.[7] The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has no jurisdiction on criminal matters but can attempt reconciliation between spouses.
Muzammil Siddiqi, chairman of both the Fiqh Council of North America, which dispenses Islamic rulings, and the North American Islamic Trust, which owns most of the mosques in the U.S.: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”