International Riot in Sweden.

[Yehudim]

All things considered the French and ze Germans have much more in common with each other than European countries east of Austria. Not do with culturally Islamic countries which have irreconcilable differences with most of Europe. No wonder it can work.

Of course. At no point in history could you fast travel via airplane to completely foreign lands, so the only way to get a multicultural society is by having different ethnic groups who are geographically close to each other and therefore would have had some form of contact over hundreds or thousands of years.

Dropping a ton of Somalis into Sweden is a recent and unnatural phenomenon

 

[MMA Time Soldier]

That is how I feel, but I don’t know enough to about Swiss history to say that with confidence.

Essentially the more powerful States (France, Germany and Italy) wanted to have that buffer. So they would all establish favorable trade with Switzerland (the French with the French Swiss, the Germans with the German Swiss, the Italians with the Italian Swiss) and then Switzerland also had the deal with the Catholic Church (Swiss Guards, etc). So they benefited from all these political and business connections and carved out a niche in banking, clocks and chocolate. Even then Switzerland is mostly German (62% German, 22% French, 8% Italian, .5% Romansh).

But since Switzerland basically never really had a real army, they could have been taken over at any time but the powerful countries wanted to keep that buffer.

Look at North Korea, if China wasn't supporting them militarily and economically they would collapse or be taken over overnight. But China wants to keep that buffer there.

 

[Bald1]

Of course. At no point in history could you fast travel via airplane to completely foreign lands, so the only way to get a multicultural society is by having different ethnic groups who are geographically close to each other and therefore would have had some form of contact over hundreds or thousands of years.

Dropping a ton of Somalis into Sweden is a recent and unnatural phenomenon

I was born in a country with a history of clash of cultures. Between East and West, Christianity and Islam, and Euros and outsiders. Hungary has seen its share of multiculturalism over the centuries. Lol.

Buffer states have a better understanding of this issue than the ones insulated from it by said states. It's just not something that was in history books because the push for multiculturalism is a fairly new thing. Well, for a guy like me who's outside of academia at least.

 

[Yehudim]

Essentially the more powerful States (France, Germany and Italy) wanted to have that buffer. So they would all establish favorable trade with Switzerland (the French with the French Swiss, the Germans with the German Swiss, the Italians with the Italian Swiss) and then Switzerland also had the deal with the Catholic Church (Swiss Guards, etc). So they benefited from all these political and business connections and carved out a niche in banking, clocks and chocolate. Even then Switzerland is mostly German (62% German, 22% French, 8% Italian, .5% Romansh).

But since Switzerland basically never really had a real army, they could have been taken over at any time but the powerful countries wanted to keep that buffer.

Look at North Korea, if China wasn't supporting them militarily and economically they would collapse or be taken over overnight. But China wants to keep that buffer there.

They’re basically a well functioning Afghanistan.

An artificial buffer state that eventually became a real country.

 

[MMA Time Soldier]

Of course. At no point in history could you fast travel via airplane to completely foreign lands, so the only way to get a multicultural society is by having different ethnic groups who are geographically close to each other and therefore would have had some form of contact over hundreds or thousands of years.

Dropping a ton of Somalis into Sweden is a recent and unnatural phenomenon

I would say that's not exactly correct.

The Volga and Black Sea Germans were ethnic blond Germans who were deep in Russia in the 1700s. (Alot of those were pushed out during world war 2 by the Soviets which is why there is a sizeable German minority population in Kazakstan)

The Americana's were ex Confederates who founded the state of Americana in Brazil after the Civil War.

The White Russians who escaped and lived in China (after the Reds killed the Czar)

And then all the European people who were dropped all over the world, for example the British and Dutch minorities in South Africa.

So there are examples of disparately different people who had to coexist before airplanes.

 

[Yehudim]

I would say that's not exactly correct.

The Volga and Black Sea Germans were ethnic blond Germans who were deep in Russia in the 1700s. (Alot of those were pushed out during world war 2 by the Soviets which is why there is a sizeable German minority population in Kazakstan)

The Americana's were ex Confederates who founded the state of Americana in Brazil after the Civil War.

The White Russians who escaped and lived in China (after the Reds killed the Czar)

And then all the European people who were dropped all over the world, for example the British and Dutch minorities in South Africa.

So there are examples of disparately different people who had to coexist before airplanes.

Those are very recent examples in history made possible due to technology.

The Europeans didn’t colonize the world by walking everywhere or using a row-boat.

They did it thanks to the advent of new improvements to technology

 

[Fronk]

The riot in Malmö (or more specifically Rosengård) had very little to do with Islam, as in the religion of Islam in its practiced form. There were no Imans goading them on and no muslim organisations behind the riot. The whole Quran burning just provided an outlet, a reason, for the permanently socially and economically depressed inhabitants of that particular neighbourhood in the city to wreak havoc. Not based on them being pious muslims but on the cultural heritage tying them to the book and friday prayers.

With the swedish media basically salivating for weeks about a violent response to the upcoming actions of a drunkard dane, they couldn't really not riot. In fact I'd argue that the rioters, and Sweden in general, would probably be better off if they had a more god-fearing outlook on life. They need more Allah. That would be better than the nihilism, and ressentiment towards their host nation, that ferments in these areas.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Like. They are water carriers and always paint it all as a struggle and give justification for awful behavior

You guys are basically doing what you complain liberals do; tarring people through guilt via association. If moderate Muslims are carrying water for the extremists as you claim how is the liberal accusation that that's what you moderates and centrists do for the far right any different? How is it wrong? Its the same type of accusation but you guys are happy to use it against your perceived enemies despite your pearl clutching when its done to you. Heck The ScorpioN openly peddles racist talking points about IQ and yet he has the gall to accuse others of carrying water for extremists. So from my perspective it looks like you're carrying water for racists.

Multiple people practicing distinct cultures in one country with no attempt to blend I guess is a simple way.

In this thread we have you, some sort of South Asian Muslim mutt, Scorpion, a White-Russian, and me. We all have different backgrounds but we’re all Murikans and speak the same language, like the same shit, have the same basic core values

Then you have Canada, with the French people, who practice their own language and culture next to the English speaking Canadians. and look at how contentious language is over there.

It’s easier to point out multicultural societies like Canada, Switzerland, India, Nigeria, etc. than to make a textbook definition, because there will always be overlaps and grey areas, and I’m not an academic who is trying to spend 1000+ hours trying to define a word.

Why you gotta say it like that bro?

Anyway yeah I feel ya.

Those sects weren't what I would call exhibiting multi cultural behavior though.

You have to remember at the time the Americas had plenty of land and so the Puritans could go in and develop their own colony to have strict puritanical behavior and religion, the Quakers could establish a colony and do their own peace loving thing, the Mormons could practice their beliefs in polygamy and abstinence from alcohol/drugs/coffee in their own bubble. So that's a little different than the idea of multi multiculturalism where everyone is grouped together in close proximity.

The other thing is the colonies and states were their own bubble as well but that's gradually eroded over time due to federalism and a weakening of states rights.

Right, I'm not saying those communities were individually multicultural. Rather that America was, in some sense, multicultural due to having these variuous dissident Protestant sects that lived side by side. But to be fair that's generally not what is meant by the term today.

All words are hollow unless you buy into them. I've sat in church not buying whatever they were selling while those same words tied others together into a single entity.

Sure but my point is those things don't really constitute a cohesive culture in the way people generally use the term cultural

As for your last paragraph? If a freedom leads to others freedoms being eroded how do you deal with it? Islam has a long track record of imposing its will, on its membership as well as others, so what sorts of safeguards can be put in place when tolerance leads to the intolerant having their way?

You've tried this line of argumentation with me before and I'll reply much the same way. A freedom of religion clause is a misguided pie in the sky idea without an equally robust freedom from religion stipulation. The rioting in Sweden over the burning of books is a perfect illustration of this. If you're so married to your ideas that you can't tolerate other viewpoints you don't belong in a free society. Full stop.

Religion is an idea, after all, and there are all sorts of terrible ideas out there along with good ones. Texts be damned, implementation and behaviour of adherents are what matters.

And no, not all, not even most Muslims, but more willing and active than other religious folks.

I mean, I'm asking you to clarify what you mean here. I've asked you before but I don't think you've ever clarified. You've said Islam does not belong in tolerant and open society due to being too intolerant so in practice what does that mean for Muslims? Are they not allowed to practice their religion? Are they allowed but with special restrictions that don't apply to other religions? Are there neutral restrictions that just happen to affect Muslims more?

Of course. At no point in history could you fast travel via airplane to completely foreign lands, so the only way to get a multicultural society is by having different ethnic groups who are geographically close to each other and therefore would have had some form of contact over hundreds or thousands of years.

Dropping a ton of Somalis into Sweden is a recent and unnatural phenomenon

This is a good point. I think multiculturalism is fine if we're talking about historically multicultural areas that became so organically after centuries and millennia. In regards to the troubles experienced by Western and Northern Europe with their recent immigrants that's not the case. Hence the fact that I'm a lot more defensive of the Caucus Muslims than the recent Muslim immigrants since they are living in their homeland which was conquered by the Russians. Oh don't like the Caucus Muslims? Then let the secede. Can't really make the same argument in regards to Muslims in Sweden.

 

[Yehudim]

You guys are basically doing what you complain liberals do; tarring people through guilt via association. If moderate Muslims are carrying water for the extremists as you claim how is the liberal accusation that that's what you moderates and centrists do for the far right any different? How is it wrong? Its the same type of accusation but you guys are happy to use it against your perceived enemies despite your pearl clutching when its done to you. Heck The ScorpioN openly peddles racist talking points about IQ and yet he has the gall to accuse others of carrying water for extremists. So from my perspective it looks like you're carrying water for racists.


Why you gotta say it like that bro?

Anyway yeah I feel ya.

Right, I'm not saying those communities were individually multicultural. Rather that America was, in some sense, multicultural due to having these variuous dissident Protestant sects that lived side by side. But to be fair that's generally not what is meant by the term today.

Sure but my point is those things don't really constitute a cohesive culture in the way people generally use the term cultural
I mean, I'm asking you to clarify what you mean here. I've asked you before but I don't think you've ever clarified. You've said Islam does not belong in tolerant and open society due to being too intolerant so in practice what does that mean for Muslims? Are they not allowed to practice their religion? Are they allowed but with special restrictions that don't apply to other religions? Are there neutral restrictions that just happen to affect Muslims more?

This is a good point. I think multiculturalism is fine if we're talking about historically multicultural areas that became so organically after centuries and millennia. In regards to the troubles experienced by Western and Northern Europe with their recent immigrants that's not the case. Hence the fact that I'm a lot more defensive of the Caucus Muslims than the recent Muslim immigrants since they are living in their homeland which was conquered by the Russians. Oh don't like the Caucus Muslims? Then let the secede. Can't really make the same argument in regards to Muslims in Sweden.

That’s nothing I called the Scorpion dude, who I can’t tag, a White-Russian.

 

[Bald1]

Sure but my point is those things don't really constitute a cohesive culture in the way people generally use the term cultural
I mean, I'm asking you to clarify what you mean here. I've asked you before but I don't think you've ever clarified. You've said Islam does not belong in tolerant and open society due to being too intolerant so in practice what does that mean for Muslims? Are they not allowed to practice their religion? Are they allowed but with special restrictions that don't apply to other religions? Are there neutral restrictions that just happen to affect Muslims more?

They can constitute a cohesive culture as "culture" isn't exclusive to a place of birth. It can be adopted.

Practice whatever religion you'd like. Christianity, Islam, communism, whatever.

Once you attempt to force your standards on others via strongarm tactics there should be penalties. Goes for the militant atheists as well. First and foremost I'm anti-aurhoritarian and believe people should be able to find their way through life. Share and educate, but as soon as you penalize for not following a chosen path then you're colouring outside the lines.

 

[ElKarlo]

You guys are basically doing what you complain liberals do; tarring people through guilt via association. If moderate Muslims are carrying water for the extremists as you claim how is the liberal accusation that that's what you moderates and centrists do for the far right any different? How is it wrong? Its the same type of accusation but you guys are happy to use it against your perceived enemies despite your pearl clutching when its done to you. Heck The ScorpioN openly peddles racist talking points about IQ and yet he has the gall to accuse others of carrying water for extremists. So from my perspective it looks like you're carrying water for racists.


Why you gotta say it like that bro?

Anyway yeah I feel ya.

Right, I'm not saying those communities were individually multicultural. Rather that America was, in some sense, multicultural due to having these variuous dissident Protestant sects that lived side by side. But to be fair that's generally not what is meant by the term today.

Sure but my point is those things don't really constitute a cohesive culture in the way people generally use the term cultural
I mean, I'm asking you to clarify what you mean here. I've asked you before but I don't think you've ever clarified. You've said Islam does not belong in tolerant and open society due to being too intolerant so in practice what does that mean for Muslims? Are they not allowed to practice their religion? Are they allowed but with special restrictions that don't apply to other religions? Are there neutral restrictions that just happen to affect Muslims more?

This is a good point. I think multiculturalism is fine if we're talking about historically multicultural areas that became so organically after centuries and millennia. In regards to the troubles experienced by Western and Northern Europe with their recent immigrants that's not the case. Hence the fact that I'm a lot more defensive of the Caucus Muslims than the recent Muslim immigrants since they are living in their homeland which was conquered by the Russians. Oh don't like the Caucus Muslims? Then let the secede. Can't really make the same argument in regards to Muslims in Sweden.

It's not the same. As I don't carry water abd excuse what the extremist in my party do. I usually denounce and dislike what they do. That keeps them on the outside instead of on the inside dictating policy. I think denouncing an imam in Denmark who calls for death, is a reasonable expectation. I know most conservatives wouldn't tolerate that, and I think excusing things based on Muslims are oppressed has run out of gas and patience

 

[Islam Imamate]

The riot in Malmö (or more specifically Rosengård) had very little to do with Islam, as in the religion of Islam in its practiced form. There were no Imans goading them on and no muslim organisations behind the riot. The whole Quran burning just provided an outlet, a reason, for the permanently socially and economically depressed inhabitants of that particular neighbourhood in the city to wreak havoc. Not based on them being pious muslims but on the cultural heritage tying them to the book and friday prayers.

With the swedish media basically salivating for weeks about a violent response to the upcoming actions of a drunkard dane, they couldn't really not riot. In fact I'd argue that the rioters, and Sweden in general, would probably be better off if they had a more god-fearing outlook on life. They need more Allah. That would be better than the nihilism, and ressentiment towards their host nation, that ferments in these areas.

Yeah well said. Sure they do react and act on the basis of their Muslim identity but they're basically the Muslim equivalent of the dorks on this forum who love to post "Deus Vult! Take back Constantinople!" but haven't been in a church or picked up a Bible in years.

You can't say the same of the Muslims of the Caucuses, I think they're legit religious like few Muslims on earth are especially the Dagestanis who take it to a whole new level. But as I said before they're in their homeland, its a completely different scenario when compared to these Muslims. Plus they live under a far more brutal state that has historically fucked with them pretty bad.

It's not the same. As I don't carry water abd excuse what the extremist in my party do. I usually denounce and dislike what they do. That keeps them on the outside instead of on the inside dictating policy. I think denouncing an imam in Denmark who calls for death, is a reasonable expectation. I know most conservatives wouldn't tolerate that, and I think excusing things based on Muslims are oppressed has run out of gas and patience

Well neither do I and yet I get lumped in with the secret jihadists by people like you for some reason. Even if Muslims like me denounce the crazies we get accused of taqiyya, basically damned if you do and damned if you don't.

They can constitute a cohesive culture as "culture" isn't exclusive to a place of birth. It can be adopted.

Sure but mere abstract ideas aren't enough for a real culture in any sense of the word as its generally used. American culture is a mix of globalized pop culture which emerged in recent decades and which America disproportionately generates and its historic Anglo-Protestant culture.

Practice whatever religion you'd like. Christianity, Islam, communism, whatever.

Once you attempt to force your standards on others via strongarm tactics there should be penalties. Goes for the militant atheists as well. First and foremost I'm anti-aurhoritarian and believe people should be able to find their way through life. Share and educate, but as soon as you penalize for not following a chosen path then you're colouring outside the lines.

On the one hand you say Islam has no place in a tolerant, open society but then on the other you say its fine as long as they don't do X,Y,Z. So its still not really clear to me how you feel about the issue. If you're not certain that's fine too, sometimes we have conflicting ideas and haven't quite squared them yet.

 

[ElKarlo]

@Kafir-kun why is it that many religions become too soft in order to fit it? Christian churches are like that. Many won't even stick to their own principles. Which is why I went eastern orthodox as they don't have any Fs to give and it's about your own journey carrying your cross up the hill. Modern society be dam#ed. Too bad Islam doesn't have a moderate branch that doesn't care to secularism like say the Methodist Church has

 

[Bald1]

Yeah well said. Sure they do react and act on the basis of their Muslim identity but they're basically the Muslim equivalent of the dorks on this forum who love to post "Deus Vult! Take back Constantinople!" but haven't been in a church or picked up a Bible in years.

You can't say the same of the Muslims of the Caucuses, I think they're legit religious like few Muslims on earth are especially the Dagestanis who take it to a whole new level. But as I said before they're in their homeland, its a completely different scenario when compared to these Muslims. Plus they live under a far more brutal state that has historically fucked with them pretty bad.

Well neither do I and yet I get lumped in with the secret jihadists by people like you for some reason. Even if Muslims like me denounce the crazies we get accused of taqiyya, basically damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Sure but mere abstract ideas aren't enough for a real culture in any sense of the word as its generally used. American culture is a mix of globalized pop culture which emerged in recent decades and which America disproportionately generates and its historic Anglo-Protestant culture.

On the one hand you say Islam has no place in a tolerant, open society but then on the other you say its fine as long as they don't do X,Y,Z. So its still not really clear to me how you feel about the issue. If you're not certain that's fine too, sometimes we have conflicting ideas and haven't quite squared them yet.

I think abstract ideas can be the foundation of a culture. While culture can be as basic as a family unit or as abstract as "workplace culture", at the end of the day its just the environment that surrounds us and can be as simple an organizational concept. I rejected, outright, the culture from my place of birth because while it was steeped in history and had all the hallmarks of that word, I found it lacking in worthwhile implementation.

At the moment I equate Islam with an intolerant, expansionist idea. Why? Because it's overrepresented by its vocal intolerant, authoritarian, cavemen minority. Like BLM protesters, "mostly peaceful" just doesn't cut it.

Expansionist, intolerant ideas have no place in a free society. Whether those ideas are represented by white or black supremacists, militant atheists or cosplaying communists, the individuals trying to push their ideas n others can go take a long walk off a short pier.

Islam has nobody to blame but itself for the bad PR it's getting at this time.

 

[Islam Imamate]

@Kafir-kun why is it that many religions become too soft in order to fit it? Christian churches are like that. Many won't even stick to their own principles. Which is why I went eastern orthodox as they don't have any Fs to give and it's about your own journey carrying your cross up the hill. Modern society be dam#ed. Too bad Islam doesn't have a moderate branch that doesn't care to secularism like say the Methodist Church has

I hate to be that guy but well, I think its because of capitalism. Religions are generally a communal experience; we get together weekly and at different times throughout the year to worship and they tend to define our expectations of marriage and certainly the rituals around it. Its supposed to orient us towards the divine and the spiritual.

Meanwhile capitalism erodes the family and the communal bonds that help sustain religion and creates a culture that trends towards hyper-individualism and consumerism and materialism. And when I say materialism I don't mean mean that it makes us like stuff though it does that too. I mean that it trains us to only view the world in material terms which keeps the divine and the spiritual at bay.

Eastern Orthodox societies tend not to be as developed for as long as other Christian societies so the effects haven't had time to take root yet. But they very well might even as I hope they don't. Notice how in the developed West like in America to the extent Christianity remains its basically a hollow, self help religion or right wing identity politics. That's what happens to religion under hyper-individualism, consumerism, and materialism. Sorry but I don't want that to happen to Islam.

I think abstract ideas can be the foundation of a culture. While culture can be as basic as a family unit or as abstract as "workplace culture", at the end of the day its just the environment that surrounds us and can be as simple an organizational concept. I rejected, outright, the culture from my place of birth because while it was steeped in history and had all the hallmarks of that word, I found it lacking in worthwhile implementation.

I just don't see it man. American culture is so much more than merely what's in the Constitution and that comes from our Anglo-Protestant history and more recently our role as the global hegemonic power and the globalized pop culture we've largely created.

At the moment I equate Islam with an intolerant, expansionist idea. Why? Because it's overrepresented by its vocal intolerant, authoritarian, cavemen minority. Like BLM protesters, "mostly peaceful" just doesn't cut it.

Expansionist, intolerant ideas have no place in a free society. Whether those ideas are represented by white or black supremacists, militant atheists or cosplaying communists, the individuals trying to push their ideas n others can go take a long walk off a short pier.

Islam has nobody to blame but itself for the bad PR it's getting at this time.

So if Islam is an intolerant idea and intolerant ideas have no place in a free society I'm left wondering where does that leave Muslims in this "free society" of yours? Really when I read your argument here I'm left thinking that the obvious conclusion is not unlike Locke's conclusion about atheists; that an individual who is privately Muslim may not be a problem but allowing it on any appreciable scale in a public manner is anathema to the "free society" and therefore should not be tolerated. And I mean, you liked the earlier comment about how moderates like me carry water for the extremist minority so why should moderates like me be tolerated? Aren't we part of the problem here?

 

[Islam Imamate]

@ElKarlo

Here's a book on the topic that I've been meaning to pick up. The synopsis basically echoes some of my points though(or rather I echo his points but you get the idea)

Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics

AS THE YOUNGEST-EVER OP-ED COLUMNIST FOR The New York Times, Ross Douthat has emerged as one of the most provocative and influential voices of his generation. In Bad Religion he offers a masterful and forceful account of how American Christianity has lost its way—and why it threatens to take American society with it.

In a world populated by “pray and grow rich” gospels and Christian cults of self-esteem, Ross Douthat argues that America’s problem isn’t too much religion; nor is it intolerant secularism. Rather, it’s bad religion. Conservative and liberal, political and pop cultural, traditionally religious and fashionably “spiritual”—Christianity’s place in American life has increasingly been taken over, not by atheism, but by heresy: debased versions of Christian faith that stroke our egos, indulge our follies, and encourage our worst impulses.

In a brilliant and provocative story that moves from the 1950s to the age of Obama, Douthat explores how bad religion has crippled the country’s ability to confront our most pressing challenges and accelerated American decline.

 

[The Diplomat]

I hate to be that guy but well, I think its because of capitalism. Religions are generally a communal experience; we get together weekly and at different times throughout the year to worship and they tend to define our expectations of marriage and certainly the rituals around it. Its supposed to orient us towards the divine and the spiritual.

Meanwhile capitalism erodes the family and the communal bonds that help sustain religion and creates a culture that trends towards hyper-individualism and consumerism and materialism. And when I say materialism I don't mean mean that it makes us like stuff though it does that too. I mean that it trains us to only view the world in material terms which keeps the divine and the spiritual at bay.

Eastern Orthodox societies tend not to be as developed for as long as other Christian societies so the effects haven't had time to take root yet. But they very well might even as I hope they don't. Notice how in the developed West like in America to the extent Christianity remains its basically a hollow, self help religion or right wing identity politics. That's what happens to religion under hyper-individualism, consumerism, and materialism. Sorry but I don't want that to happen to Islam.

I just don't see it man. American culture is so much more than merely what's in the Constitution and that comes from our Anglo-Protestant history and more recently our role as the global hegemonic power and the globalized pop culture we've largely created.

So if Islam is an intolerant idea and intolerant ideas have no place in a free society I'm left wondering where does that leave Muslims in this "free society" of yours? Really when I read your argument here I'm left thinking that the obvious conclusion is not unlike Locke's conclusion about atheists; that an individual who is privately Muslim may not be a problem but allowing it on any appreciable scale in a public manner is anathema to the "free society" and therefore should not be tolerated. And I mean, you liked the earlier comment about how moderates like me carry water for the extremist minority so why should moderates like me be tolerated? Aren't we part of the problem here?

It should always be the "When in Rome..." philosophy IMO. There is always a place for different religions and beliefs, but the point shouldn't be to go into other countries and try to expect them to follow or adhere to one's own religious or cultural guidelines. However, *if* there is some underground scheme to out-breed and out-populate everyone, while I would feel that is nefarious, in the end it's a natural instinct - as we are animals after all. But the Chinese will definitely play chicken in that game.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It should always be the "When in Rome..." philosophy IMO. There is always a place for different religions and beliefs, but the point shouldn't be to go into other countries and try to expect them to follow or adhere to one's own religious or cultural guidelines. However, *if* there is some underground scheme to out-breed and out-populate everyone, while I would feel that is nefarious, in the end it's a natural instinct - as we are animals after all. But the Chinese will definitely play chicken in that game.

Sure but do liberals actually believe that? How often do we see liberals on this forum support the idea of installing secular dictators in Muslims countries so they can, in a top down fashion, impose secular liberalism on Muslim societies? How Muslims can't have democracy because they vote in Islamists and so on? Seems like "When in Rome" only applies to Rome but the land of the Saracens is to have its own Roman garrison imposing Roman culture.

 

[goldennirvana]

The left will be silent on this, and if they do say anything about it. it'll be purely to condemn the quran-burners, not the rioters. Now imagine if someone burned a bible and a load of white Christians started rioting over it. We all know the left's reaction to that. Why are they such hypocrites? Shame!

 

[The Diplomat]

Sure but do liberals actually believe that? How often do we see liberals on this forum support the idea of installing secular dictators in Muslims countries so they can, in a top down fashion, impose secular liberalism on Muslim societies? How Muslims can't have democracy because they vote in Islamists and so on? Seems like "When in Rome" only applies to Rome but the land of the Saracens is to have its own Roman garrison imposing Roman culture.

Depends on your definition of liberal, and how far off the spectrum we're going. I'm a secular guy and all for secularism, but also believe faith has its perks for certain people.