Europe submits voluntarily

[whichphilosophy]

There have been more Jewish attacks than Muslim attacks on US soil since 1980

http://concisepolitics.com/2015/11/...ext-came-communists-and-jews-combined-for-12/

This is quoting the Princetown University figures though the article seems to veer off into conspiracy theories.

So 6% of attacks were by muslims, versus 7% by Jews. But demographically, there are about twice as many Jews as there are muslims so per capita that means muslims are way overrepresented. Also I bet the figures are even more lopsided if you started in 2000 rather than 1980.

I wouldn't dispute this. The only point I made is where we have heard 'Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.'

When travelling in Europe on business I carry a 'selfdefence' umbrella. It weights about 2.5 kilos and is made from steel. As you know it is against the law for a person to perceive having to defend themselves, but this umbrella with a steel tip gets through any security even at the airport.

They are over represented in crimes. Given that we are taking everyone who is driven in (but European policy) it is inevitable that there will be crimes. We have imported whole gangs from Morroco, and considering Mogadishu is a dog eat dog city, violence is an everyday norm for some people. Not all are violent but a sizeable minority are.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There have been more Jewish attacks than Muslim attacks on US soil since 1980

http://concisepolitics.com/2015/11/...ext-came-communists-and-jews-combined-for-12/

This is quoting the Princetown University figures though the article seems to veer off into conspiracy theories.

I wouldn't trust that article as far as I could throw it.

Note they start out saying:

JEWS DID TWICE AS MANY TERROR ATTACKS COMPARED TO MUSLIMS

But then their actual data shows:

NEXT CAME COMMUNISTS AND JEWS COMBINED FOR 12%

And an examination of the actual data shows Jews at 7% and Communists at 5%.

Furthermore, the only way you get such parity is by ignoring the severity. In that time how many died from Islamist attacks vs Jewish attacks??

Note, also, that the "source" for this data is globalresearch.ca--a conspiracy site.

In other words, they are taking crackpot data and greatly exaggerating it to support Muslims and denigrate Jews.

As far as I'm concerned a far better metric is how many died from terrorism from the various sides.

- - - Updated - - -

What one must ask him/herself is this. : Since say, 9/11. How many muslim terrorist attacks have there been as compared to any and all xtian attacks?

It's an unfair comparison. "Christian" countries are predominantly peaceful. While countries with conflict today are mostly Muslim. If you remember the Yugoslavian conflict the bad guys were Serbian. That was genocide and terrorism on a scale we hadn't seen since WW2. A Christian nation. Religion might be used as an excuse. But religion is never the reason for a terrorist attack. That's looking at it all backwards. Take a look at the history of Europe and America. If you think it's Christianity that has made us peaceful you need a history lesson.

9/11 is a good example. Usama Bin Laden gave a list of reasons for the attack. None had anything to do with religion.

Oh, come on now! Rwanda was far worse than Serbia. Sudan is far worse. Congo is far worse.

This article didn't originate in that particular publication. It came originally from Princetown University some years ago.

Sources tend to be quotes from other sources. The particular source I mentioned followed with some asinine opinions

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396400/are-all-terrorists-muslims-ian-tuttle
This quotes from the DAILY BEAST
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

 

[whichphilosophy]

Australian news crew is attacked in Sweden:

The film crew was there with Lars Sjunesson and Avpixlat. Famous racists. And off camera. No shit people got annoyed. I wouldn't be surprised if the cops saw what they were up to and wanted no part of it. These guys are total cunts. Lars Sjunesson is a raving lunatic.

It's interesting that the film crew went looking for the most racist Swedes they could find and asked them to show them around. My money is that the film crew got exactly the footage they had been promised.

This is pure media manipulation

I know that some media reports can be stunts. For instance a famous BBC trick will be to knock on a door demanding to speak to someone when in fact that particular entrance is closed anyway.I did notice some locals were also trying to stop this. However there is a small proportion of those who are violent and come from violent regions. The problem is the volume of people coming in, thus raising the percentages.

 

[bilby]

The difference being islam is an ideology, and it's political. Xtianity is mostly religious in nature!

Says the man who lives in a country where 70+% of the population support marriage equality, but it can't get passed in parliament because of the political clout of the Australian Christian Lobby.

 

[angelo]

The difference being islam is an ideology, and it's political. Xtianity is mostly religious in nature!

Isn't "religion" a subclass of "ideology"? (picked mostly because it's customary).
How do you make a distinction here?

Anyway, abortion is nearly always banned across nearly all of Latin America. Catholicism (and now Evangelicals too) has a lot to do with it.
Divorce was banned for a very long time, and so on.

More generally, political involvement by the Catholic Church (in different countries) is well over 1000 years old. The present-day CC is not the same as, say, the 10th century CC - which was far more powerful with respect to local governments -, but still, the CC and other Christian churches have political influence in many cases.

The main differences (in this context) seem to be that:
1. Christianity is much less politically influential overall in predominantly Christian countries than Islam is in predominantly Muslim countries. That is to a considerable extent because a much greater percentage of Christians than Muslims seem to have a low interest in religion. But that's just overall; there are places in which Christian influence appears to be huge.

2. Leaving aside the similarly evil sets of afterlife beliefs, the present-day predominant versions of Christianity are considerably less evil than the present-day predominant versions of Islam.

Islam conquers by the sword. You either convert to islam, or become a slave to islam in islamic majority countries. There's no such conditions in predominantly xtian nations.

 

[angelo]

The difference being islam is an ideology, and it's political. Xtianity is mostly religious in nature!

Says the man who lives in a country where 70+% of the population support marriage equality, but it can't get passed in parliament because of the political clout of the Australian Christian Lobby.

That's a serious setback like beheading a Kafir?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wouldn't trust that article as far as I could throw it.

Note they start out saying:

JEWS DID TWICE AS MANY TERROR ATTACKS COMPARED TO MUSLIMS

But then their actual data shows:

NEXT CAME COMMUNISTS AND JEWS COMBINED FOR 12%

And an examination of the actual data shows Jews at 7% and Communists at 5%.

Furthermore, the only way you get such parity is by ignoring the severity. In that time how many died from Islamist attacks vs Jewish attacks??

Note, also, that the "source" for this data is globalresearch.ca--a conspiracy site.

In other words, they are taking crackpot data and greatly exaggerating it to support Muslims and denigrate Jews.

As far as I'm concerned a far better metric is how many died from terrorism from the various sides.

- - - Updated - - -

What one must ask him/herself is this. : Since say, 9/11. How many muslim terrorist attacks have there been as compared to any and all xtian attacks?

It's an unfair comparison. "Christian" countries are predominantly peaceful. While countries with conflict today are mostly Muslim. If you remember the Yugoslavian conflict the bad guys were Serbian. That was genocide and terrorism on a scale we hadn't seen since WW2. A Christian nation. Religion might be used as an excuse. But religion is never the reason for a terrorist attack. That's looking at it all backwards. Take a look at the history of Europe and America. If you think it's Christianity that has made us peaceful you need a history lesson.

9/11 is a good example. Usama Bin Laden gave a list of reasons for the attack. None had anything to do with religion.

Oh, come on now! Rwanda was far worse than Serbia. Sudan is far worse. Congo is far worse.

This article didn't originate in that particular publication. It came originally from Princetown University some years ago.

Sources tend to be quotes from other sources. The particular source I mentioned followed with some asinine opinions

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396400/are-all-terrorists-muslims-ian-tuttle
This quotes from the DAILY BEAST
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

I didn't say anything about the source you used, I only addressed the facts in it and the source they cited for those facts.

 

[bilby]

Isn't "religion" a subclass of "ideology"? (picked mostly because it's customary).
How do you make a distinction here?

Anyway, abortion is nearly always banned across nearly all of Latin America. Catholicism (and now Evangelicals too) has a lot to do with it.
Divorce was banned for a very long time, and so on.

More generally, political involvement by the Catholic Church (in different countries) is well over 1000 years old. The present-day CC is not the same as, say, the 10th century CC - which was far more powerful with respect to local governments -, but still, the CC and other Christian churches have political influence in many cases.

The main differences (in this context) seem to be that:
1. Christianity is much less politically influential overall in predominantly Christian countries than Islam is in predominantly Muslim countries. That is to a considerable extent because a much greater percentage of Christians than Muslims seem to have a low interest in religion. But that's just overall; there are places in which Christian influence appears to be huge.

2. Leaving aside the similarly evil sets of afterlife beliefs, the present-day predominant versions of Christianity are considerably less evil than the present-day predominant versions of Islam.

Islam conquers by the sword. You either convert to islam, or become a slave to islam in islamic majority countries. There's no such conditions in predominantly xtian nations.

...outside sub-Saharan Africa, which you conveniently ignore because it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[bilby]

Says the man who lives in a country where 70+% of the population support marriage equality, but it can't get passed in parliament because of the political clout of the Australian Christian Lobby.

That's a serious setback like beheading a Kafir?

It's a complete and succinct refutation of your claim that political involvement is a point of difference between Islam and Christianity.

When your claim is refuted, the polite thing to do is apologize for your error, and the smart thing to do is not to repeat it. The dumb thing to do is to invoke a completely new argument, and declare the refutation void because it fails to address your new argument. That makes you look dishonest, and is an example of 'moving the goalposts'.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Isn't "religion" a subclass of "ideology"? (picked mostly because it's customary).
How do you make a distinction here?

Anyway, abortion is nearly always banned across nearly all of Latin America. Catholicism (and now Evangelicals too) has a lot to do with it.
Divorce was banned for a very long time, and so on.

More generally, political involvement by the Catholic Church (in different countries) is well over 1000 years old. The present-day CC is not the same as, say, the 10th century CC - which was far more powerful with respect to local governments -, but still, the CC and other Christian churches have political influence in many cases.

The main differences (in this context) seem to be that:
1. Christianity is much less politically influential overall in predominantly Christian countries than Islam is in predominantly Muslim countries. That is to a considerable extent because a much greater percentage of Christians than Muslims seem to have a low interest in religion. But that's just overall; there are places in which Christian influence appears to be huge.

2. Leaving aside the similarly evil sets of afterlife beliefs, the present-day predominant versions of Christianity are considerably less evil than the present-day predominant versions of Islam.

Islam conquers by the sword. You either convert to islam, or become a slave to islam in islamic majority countries. There's no such conditions in predominantly xtian nations.

Even if that's true, that's not what you said before, and not what I was replying to.

By the way, what do you mean "a slave to Islam"?
Also, how do, say, Christians (and all other non-Muslims) become slaves to Islam in Albania, Lebanon, Iraq under Saddam, Syria before the war, Jordan, Burkina Faso, Chad, and Guinea-Bissau?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Isn't "religion" a subclass of "ideology"? (picked mostly because it's customary).
How do you make a distinction here?

Anyway, abortion is nearly always banned across nearly all of Latin America. Catholicism (and now Evangelicals too) has a lot to do with it.
Divorce was banned for a very long time, and so on.

More generally, political involvement by the Catholic Church (in different countries) is well over 1000 years old. The present-day CC is not the same as, say, the 10th century CC - which was far more powerful with respect to local governments -, but still, the CC and other Christian churches have political influence in many cases.

The main differences (in this context) seem to be that:
1. Christianity is much less politically influential overall in predominantly Christian countries than Islam is in predominantly Muslim countries. That is to a considerable extent because a much greater percentage of Christians than Muslims seem to have a low interest in religion. But that's just overall; there are places in which Christian influence appears to be huge.

2. Leaving aside the similarly evil sets of afterlife beliefs, the present-day predominant versions of Christianity are considerably less evil than the present-day predominant versions of Islam.

Islam conquers by the sword. You either convert to islam, or become a slave to islam in islamic majority countries. There's no such conditions in predominantly xtian nations.

Historically incorrect. When Islam spread in the 6'th century they forbade Jews and Christians to convert to Islam. The whole point of it was to avoid forced conversions. Christianity on the other hand spread via forced conversions en masse. Pre-Christian Scandinavia had a tradition of electing kings. When Christianity showed up the pope gave Christian kings a free pass to harass and plunder non-Christian kings. Unless the attacked king converted. If that king chose to convert other Christian kings would help him secure a dynastic line. If a king converted all his subjects automatically converted. Christian kings chose the faith of his subjects. This was brutally enforced. All old temples and pagan property were seized by the kings.

The take away is that the content of their holy books hasn't really had any impact on how they have behaved. What matter is socioeconomic factors. Realpolitik. The number one factor is geography. Mideival Europe's geography made it hard for an emperor to dominate. Too much deep woods and too many mountains.This influenced hos Christianity spread. It needed way more brutal methods. In the Middle-East you just need to control a couple of rivers and for north Africa you just need to control the water supply. They could afford to be liberal and not force their religion on to people as much.

Up until the 18'th century all religion was political. What you believed was other people's business. The concept of a personal faith is a very recent one.

 

[TSwizzle]

This was inevitable;

At least 30 people are feared dead and many wounded after a suspected suicide bombing and explosions at Brussels Airport and a Metro station in the Belgian capital. Authorities have not released a statement confirming final casualty figures but Maggie de Block, the health minister, said 11 people were killed and 81 injured in twin explosions at the airport. Brussels' STIB transport authority said that at least 15 people were killed and 55 wounded at Maalbeek station but added that the toll was "provisional".

Independent

The future of Europe looks bleak indeed.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Islam conquers by the sword. You either convert to islam, or become a slave to islam in islamic majority countries. There's no such conditions in predominantly xtian nations.

Historically incorrect. When Islam spread in the 6'th century they forbade Jews and Christians to convert to Islam. The whole point of it was to avoid forced conversions. Christianity on the other hand spread via forced conversions en masse. Pre-Christian Scandinavia had a tradition of electing kings. When Christianity showed up the pope gave Christian kings a free pass to harass and plunder non-Christian kings. Unless the attacked king converted. If that king chose to convert other Christian kings would help him secure a dynastic line. If a king converted all his subjects automatically converted. Christian kings chose the faith of his subjects. This was brutally enforced. All old temples and pagan property were seized by the kings.

The take away is that the content of their holy books hasn't really had any impact on how they have behaved. What matter is socioeconomic factors. Realpolitik. The number one factor is geography. Mideival Europe's geography made it hard for an emperor to dominate. Too much deep woods and too many mountains.This influenced hos Christianity spread. It needed way more brutal methods. In the Middle-East you just need to control a couple of rivers and for north Africa you just need to control the water supply. They could afford to be liberal and not force their religion on to people as much.

Up until the 18'th century all religion was political. What you believed was other people's business. The concept of a personal faith is a very recent one.

If we're going to assess the potential consequences (or rather, compare them in case of spread of Christianity vs. Islam), we should consider present-day Islam vs. present-day Christianity.
angelo's assessment was inaccurate, but still, overall, as I mentioned, predominant versions of Islam (in the present) are considerably more evil than predominant versions of present-day Christianity (leaving aside similarly evil afterlife beliefs, since afterlife rules are obviously never enforced).
That said, in the case of much of Europe, Christianity is particularly weaker than in other places with Christian majorities, making the change from the present-day situation to one with much greater Islamic influence even worse than it would be in other places (though it would be pretty bad over here as well, despite the badness caused by Christianity).

 

[DrZoidberg]

Historically incorrect. When Islam spread in the 6'th century they forbade Jews and Christians to convert to Islam. The whole point of it was to avoid forced conversions. Christianity on the other hand spread via forced conversions en masse. Pre-Christian Scandinavia had a tradition of electing kings. When Christianity showed up the pope gave Christian kings a free pass to harass and plunder non-Christian kings. Unless the attacked king converted. If that king chose to convert other Christian kings would help him secure a dynastic line. If a king converted all his subjects automatically converted. Christian kings chose the faith of his subjects. This was brutally enforced. All old temples and pagan property were seized by the kings.

The take away is that the content of their holy books hasn't really had any impact on how they have behaved. What matter is socioeconomic factors. Realpolitik. The number one factor is geography. Mideival Europe's geography made it hard for an emperor to dominate. Too much deep woods and too many mountains.This influenced hos Christianity spread. It needed way more brutal methods. In the Middle-East you just need to control a couple of rivers and for north Africa you just need to control the water supply. They could afford to be liberal and not force their religion on to people as much.

Up until the 18'th century all religion was political. What you believed was other people's business. The concept of a personal faith is a very recent one.

If we're going to assess the potential consequences (or rather, compare them in case of spread of Christianity vs. Islam), we should consider present-day Islam vs. present-day Christianity.
angelo's assessment was inaccurate, but still, overall, as I mentioned, predominant versions of Islam (in the present) are considerably more evil than predominant versions of present-day Christianity (leaving aside similarly evil afterlife beliefs, since afterlife rules are obviously never enforced).
That said, in the case of much of Europe, Christianity is particularly weaker than in other places with Christian majorities, making the change from the present-day situation to one with much greater Islamic influence even worse than it would be in other places (though it would be pretty bad over here as well, despite the badness caused by Christianity).

Which can be explained by a weakening of Christianity in the west. It's not that Christian teachings are more friendly that Muslim one's. It's that in the west science won. And this is what it looks like. And science winning in the west first can be explained by industrialisation starting here. We've just had more time to enjoy the fruits of science.

If we have religious freedom (a very new thing in the west) then religion has to liberalise to stay relevant. Being a Muslim in an Arab country means something completely different than being a western convert to Islam. Here's it's like "oh, so you're dong that now". In an Arab country it's like you're rejecting your identity and shitting upon all your ancestors. It's just an older way of viewing religious faith. Of course the Islamic world will undergo the same transformation the west has. Or I mean, they're doing it now. It's pretty obvious really.

 

[TSwizzle]

Being a Muslim in an Arab country means something completely different than being a western convert to Islam.

And yet there are plenty instances where the similarities are strong. ISIS ranks are filled with holy warriors that are converts.

 

[untermensche]

This was inevitable;

When the US undertook an unprovoked invasion of Iraq many things occurred, like the emergence of ISIS.

But they are random contingencies, not inevitabilities.

 

[KeepTalking]

This was inevitable;

At least 30 people are feared dead and many wounded after a suspected suicide bombing and explosions at Brussels Airport and a Metro station in the Belgian capital. Authorities have not released a statement confirming final casualty figures but Maggie de Block, the health minister, said 11 people were killed and 81 injured in twin explosions at the airport. Brussels' STIB transport authority said that at least 15 people were killed and 55 wounded at Maalbeek station but added that the toll was "provisional".

Independent

The future of Europe looks bleak indeed.

This actually shows just how far the sensationalist title of this thread is from the truth. If Europe had indeed voluntarily submitted to Islam, then Islamic terrorists would have no reason to bomb Europe. The fact that there are still terrorists willing to bomb places in Europe for their cause indicates that they feel their cause has yet to be realized, and Europe has not, in fact, voluntarily submitted to them.

Can we close this thread now?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Which can be explained by a weakening of Christianity in the west. It's not that Christian teachings are more friendly that Muslim one's. It's that in the west science won. And this is what it looks like. And science winning in the west first can be explained by industrialisation starting here. We've just had more time to enjoy the fruits of science.

Two points:

1. Actually, present-day Christian teachings are in nearly all cases more friendly (or less unfriendly) than present-day Muslim teachings. Compare, for example, the Catholic Church teaching on apostates (from their religion, of course), blasphemers, men who have gay sex, people who engage in adultery, etc., and the teachings of mainstream Sunni or Shia schools, and you get a huge difference (even if Catholic teachings are also bad).
2. Science weakened Christianity in the West, but it's not the case that it won. In fact, plenty of scientists are Christians, and mainstream Christian philosophers defend the alleged compatibility of Christianity and science. But it's not due to science (at least, not in any clear way; you can make your case if you like) that the Catholic church doesn't support burning or stoning people for any of the behaviors I listed above (or any other).

 

[DrZoidberg]

Being a Muslim in an Arab country means something completely different than being a western convert to Islam.

And yet there are plenty instances where the similarities are strong. ISIS ranks are filled with holy warriors that are converts.

What does that prove or have anything to do with what I said?

In some pubs rooting for the wrong sports team can get you killed. In other pubs people are fine with you rooting for whatever team you like. It's all the same sports.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Which can be explained by a weakening of Christianity in the west. It's not that Christian teachings are more friendly that Muslim one's. It's that in the west science won. And this is what it looks like. And science winning in the west first can be explained by industrialisation starting here. We've just had more time to enjoy the fruits of science.

Two points:

1. Actually, present-day Christian teachings are in nearly all cases more friendly (or less unfriendly) than present-day Muslim teachings. Compare, for example, the Catholic Church teaching on apostates (from their religion, of course), blasphemers, men who have gay sex, people who engage in adultery, etc., and the teachings of mainstream Sunni or Shia schools, and you get a huge difference (even if Catholic teachings are also bad).
2. Science weakened Christianity in the West, but it's not the case that it won. In fact, plenty of scientists are Christians, and mainstream Christian philosophers defend the alleged compatibility of Christianity and science. But it's not due to science (at least, not in any clear way; you can make your case if you like) that the Catholic church doesn't support burning or stoning people for any of the behaviors I listed above (or any other).

1.
The Middle-East only started industrialising in the 70s. Please make a fair comparison.

2
I'd argue that modern Christianity is a completely different religion than Christianity just two hundred years ago. Apart from a couple of symbols there's nothing left.