European refugee crisis thread

[madd0ct0r]

bollocks, sorry, that should have been addressed to cmdrjones.

[Elheru Aran]

Not sure it's been mentioned earlier or not, but as of today my state (Georgia) has decided to refuse entry to Syrian refugees, as have several other states in the US.

Have fun trying to explain to the Feds why you're not letting a Federally funded, privately run humanitarian program resettle people in dire need of a safe place to live... fucking assholes.

[wautd]

double

[wautd]

Not sure it's been mentioned earlier or not, but as of today my state (Georgia) has decided to refuse entry to Syrian refugees, as have several other states in the US.

Have fun trying to explain to the Feds why you're not letting a Federally funded, privately run humanitarian program resettle people in dire need of a safe place to live... fucking assholes.

As well as several other States in the mean time. Texas, Alabama,... you know... states known from their Christian values of compassion and whatnot

[Broomstick]

...and my state....

This is sickening. It's exactly what ISIS wanted to happen. Welcome to the 21st Century version of the "Voyage of the Damned".

[The Romulan Republic]

15 states now at minimum, as I reported in the Paris thread.

Never mind that even before this, US aid to refugees was pitifully small compared to what it could be.

On the other hand, I'm pleased to report that up here in Canada, Justin Trudeau is standing his ground on his 25,000 by the end of the year pledge, even though at least one provincial premier has asked him to delay it.

[ray245]

The sad part is the Paris incident had destroyed lots of confidence among many people that Muslim refugees from the Middle-East could be properly integrated into society.

Every case of 2nd generation migrants choosing to join IS will vastly lose confidence by a large segment of society that the descendants of refugees won't become something akin to a fifth column. In other words, nothing short of a complete rejection of their religious faith would be enough to be accepted into most "western" societies.

Basically, they will only be allowed in if they all become agnostic/atheist, or Christian. They don't believe that families of those refugees would teach their kids to utterly reject Salafism, or even speak English/French at home. And every additional terrorist attack will continue to reinforce such ideas.

The lack of strong success stories of Muslims in the western world in our media and pop culture meant that many people's only exposure to the Muslim population in Europe are a case of failure and alienation. Liberal Muslims are not very prominent in media today, and they often do not have the sufficient outrage compared to the very well funded Salafi movement.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, up here in Canada, our new PM made a former Afghan refugee a cabinet minister.

I don't think things are as one-sided and bleak as you claim. You seem to be writing off any effort to accept Muslim refugees as already a lost cause, which I don't think does any good- it simply cedes control of the issue to the radical Right wing elements.

[Edi]

The US has been coerced into a spineless, pants-wetting state of constant terror by all the doomsayers ever since 9/11, which is precisely what they want. Once you've chased off the capability for rational thought, it'll be easy to stampede people into doing all kinds of stupidity. Especially since in the US all you need to do is scare the ruling class and that segment of the population that runs the party primaries, which will determine election outcomes.

Good luck trying to get any reasonable response, especially with the conservatives being completely immune to facts and reality.

[The Romulan Republic]

So what do you suggest? Write off the US as irredeemably stupid and evil and stop trying to improve things so you can wallow in your cynicism and anti-American hostility? Yes, their are a lot of assholes with a lot of power, and a lot of ignorant people who go along with them, but honestly, what purpose does defeatism serve other than to let you pat yourself on the back for how smart you seem to think your cynicism makes you and how much better you are than those horrible Americans?

I'd rather act on the assumption that progress is possible than concede defeat to the radical Right or write off my entire country.

And if the situation was as hopeless as you think, Sanders wouldn't be capable of mounting a serious campaign. Their is a left wing opposition in America that is not particularly hawkish or anti-Muslim, and I would argue that it has been stronger of late, in some respects at least, than it has been for much of recent history. Because I sure as hell don't recall an openly socialist candidate who is a real primary contender before. Not that I'm suggesting that everything hinges on one man. Its just an example I find useful.

[Zaune]

So what do you suggest? Write off the US as irredeemably stupid and evil and stop trying to improve things so you can wallow in your cynicism and anti-American hostility...?

Are you sure you want to know the answer to that question?

And if you're pinning your hopes on a Sanders Administration, I'd like to point out that Obama talked a good game when he was running.

[ray245]

Well, up here in Canada, our new PM made a former Afghan refugee a cabinet minister.

I don't think things are as one-sided and bleak as you claim. You seem to be writing off any effort to accept Muslim refugees as already a lost cause, which I don't think does any good- it simply cedes control of the issue to the radical Right wing elements.

I am not saying it is a lost cause. I am saying it is harder to make anyone who is frightened to think overwise with the fear of another attack hanging over their shoulder. If your only narrative to these frightened people is to say all their fears have zero basis in reality, then you have no way to convince them you are right.

People hear more failure stories than success stories with regards to Muslim communities in many western countries. It's to ignore the fact that many Muslims in France are at a relatively socio-economic disadvantage and there is a considerable segment of them that finds fundamentalist interpretation of the Qur'an appealing. There are indeed a number of them that believes secular, liberal values to be utterly wrong and despicable even if they condone using acts of violence.

The past fourteen years had only seen an increase in the perception that Muslim communities in the west have failed to be part of an increasingly liberal society. The Arab Spring movement have only demonstrated the failure of the liberal, western value oriented group in the middle east, and reinforce the perception that there are very few liberal Muslims around.

In other words, you have already lost the battle if you try and frame the debate of refugee and immigration to cool-headed rational people. You have no means of communication to people who are deeply frightened of another terrorist attacks.

And if the situation was as hopeless as you think, Sanders wouldn't be capable of mounting a serious campaign. Their is a left wing opposition in America that is not particularly hawkish or anti-Muslim, and I would argue that it has been stronger of late, in some respects at least, than it has been for much of recent history. Because I sure as hell don't recall an openly socialist candidate who is a real primary contender before. Not that I'm suggesting that everything hinges on one man. Its just an example I find useful.

I think what we are seeing now is there are now even proponents of the left-wing movement that disagreed with the notion of being supporting multiculturalism as it exists today. Homophobia has been used as an argument against Muslim communities, which was not something that common 15 years ago. Having some churches that accept gay marriage only reinforce the perception by some that Christian communities in western countries are more tolerant than Muslim communities.

The simple right-left dichotomy does not work out that nicely when it comes down to how people viewed Muslim communities. Some UKIP supporters came from former labour supporting members who felt disenfranchised by the party leadership.

[AniThyng]

The sad part is the Paris incident had destroyed lots of confidence among many people that Muslim refugees from the Middle-East could be properly integrated into society.

Every case of 2nd generation migrants choosing to join IS will vastly lose confidence by a large segment of society that the descendants of refugees won't become something akin to a fifth column. In other words, nothing short of a complete rejection of their religious faith would be enough to be accepted into most "western" societies.

Basically, they will only be allowed in if they all become agnostic/atheist, or Christian. They don't believe that families of those refugees would teach their kids to utterly reject Salafism, or even speak English/French at home. And every additional terrorist attack will continue to reinforce such ideas.

The lack of strong success stories of Muslims in the western world in our media and pop culture meant that many people's only exposure to the Muslim population in Europe are a case of failure and alienation. Liberal Muslims are not very prominent in media today, and they often do not have the sufficient outrage compared to the very well funded Salafi movement.

When you consider there are non Muslim Malaysians who are distrustful of Islam it makes it even less surprising to me that certain westerners are against Islam. I hate to say this but even I would be distrustful of anything less than a very neutered Islam in context of treating other faiths and atheists, and I've spent a lifetime in a moderate Muslim nation and thus know Muslims are people too. but individuals and the whole are two different things - otherwise we could also respond to every anti Christian argument e here with " those aren't most Christians ". Well same for Muslims, sorry to say.

Tl;Dr it's not entirely true that mistrust of Islam is based purely on racism and a mountain of lies.

[The Romulan Republic]

So what do you suggest? Write off the US as irredeemably stupid and evil and stop trying to improve things so you can wallow in your cynicism and anti-American hostility...?

Are you sure you want to know the answer to that question?

Oh, I've got a pretty good idea of what his view on it is already. I just think its idiotic, offensive, and pointless.

I hate cynical defeatism. Its so bloody pointless and counterproductive.

I don't care how many criticisms of America you can throw out. I'm not going to just concede that the far Right owns the country in perpetuity.

And if you're pinning your hopes on a Sanders Administration, I'd like to point out that Obama talked a good game when he was running.

I'm not pinning everything on Sanders. He's merely one example. Like I said already.

Although I think Sanders is more left than Obama was as a candidate. I don't think he's completely consistent and I don't really trust him, but I very much doubt that he'd be openly running for President as a socialist if he was simply interested in power rather than principle.

I am not saying it is a lost cause. I am saying it is harder to make anyone who is frightened to think overwise with the fear of another attack hanging over their shoulder. If your only narrative to these frightened people is to say all their fears have zero basis in reality, then you have no way to convince them you are right.

People hear more failure stories than success stories with regards to Muslim communities in many western countries. It's to ignore the fact that many Muslims in France are at a relatively socio-economic disadvantage and there is a considerable segment of them that finds fundamentalist interpretation of the Qur'an appealing. There are indeed a number of them that believes secular, liberal values to be utterly wrong and despicable even if they condone using acts of violence.

The past fourteen years had only seen an increase in the perception that Muslim communities in the west have failed to be part of an increasingly liberal society. The Arab Spring movement have only demonstrated the failure of the liberal, western value oriented group in the middle east, and reinforce the perception that there are very few liberal Muslims around.

In other words, you have already lost the battle if you try and frame the debate of refugee and immigration to cool-headed rational people. You have no means of communication to people who are deeply frightened of another terrorist attacks.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say you're not calling it a lost cause, then tell me we've already lost.

I think what we are seeing now is there are now even proponents of the left-wing movement that disagreed with the notion of being supporting multiculturalism as it exists today. Homophobia has been used as an argument against Muslim communities, which was not something that common 15 years ago. Having some churches that accept gay marriage only reinforce the perception by some that Christian communities in western countries are more tolerant than Muslim communities.

The simple right-left dichotomy does not work out that nicely when it comes down to how people viewed Muslim communities. Some UKIP supporters came from former labour supporting members who felt disenfranchised by the party leadership.

Oh, I'm not saying the Left is pure as the driven snow on this issue. Anti-Muslim left wing atheists like Bill Maher come to mind. But I think I know which side most of the bigotry is coming from here.

Take this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/world/par ... -backlash/

(CNN)More than half the nation's governors -- 27 states -- say they oppose letting Syrian refugees into their states, although the final say on this contentious immigration issue will fall to the federal government.

States protesting the admission of refugees range from Alabama and Georgia, to Texas and Arizona, to Michigan and Illinois, to Maine and New Hampshire. Among these 27 states, all but one have Republican governors.

The announcements came after authorities revealed that at least one of the suspects believed to be involved in the Paris terrorist attacks entered Europe among the current wave of Syrian refugees. He had falsely identified himself as a Syrian named Ahmad al Muhammad and was allowed to enter Greece in early October.

Some leaders say they either oppose taking in any Syrian refugees being relocated as part of a national program or asked that they be particularly scrutinized as potential security threats.

Only 1,500 Syrian refugees have been accepted into the United States since 2011, but the Obama administration announced in September that 10,000 Syrians will be allowed entry next year.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said Monday, "Defeating ISIS involves projecting American ideals to the world. Governors who reject those fleeing war and persecution abandon our ideals and instead project our fears to the world."

Authority over admitting refugees to the country, though, rests with the federal government -- not with the states -- though individual states can make the acceptance process much more difficult, experts said.

American University law professor Stephen I. Vladeck put it this way: "Legally, states have no authority to do anything because the question of who should be allowed in this country is one that the Constitution commits to the federal government." But Vladeck noted that without the state's participation, the federal government would have a much more arduous task.

"So a state can't say it is legally objecting, but it can refuse to cooperate, which makes thing much more difficult."

Is shunning refugees the answer to terror?

Kevin Appleby, director of migration policy at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said one tactic states could use would be to cut their own funding in areas such as resettling refugees. The conference is the largest refugee resettlement organization in the country.

But "when push comes to shove, the federal government has both the plenary power and the power of the 1980 Refugee Act to place refugees anywhere in the country," Appleby said.

More than 250,000 people have died since the violence broke out in Syria in 2011, and at least 11 million people in the country of 22 million have fled their homes. Syrians are now the world's largest refugee population, according to the United Nations. Most are struggling to find safe haven in Europe.

In announcing that his state would not accept any Syrian refugees, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted Monday on his personal account, "I demand the U.S. act similarly," he said. "Security comes first."


In a letter to President Barack Obama, Abbott said "American humanitarian compassion could be exploited to expose Americans to similar deadly danger," referring to Friday's deadly attacks in Paris.

In a statement from Georgia's governor, Republican Nathan Deal, he said Georgia will not accept Syrian refugees "until the federal government and Congress conducts a thorough review of current screening procedures and background checks."


Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley also rejected the possibility of allowing Syrian refugees into his state and connected refugees with potential terror threats.

"After full consideration of this weekend's attacks of terror on innocent citizens in Paris, I will oppose any attempt to relocate Syrian refugees to Alabama through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program," Bentley said Sunday in a statement.

"As your governor, I will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm's way."


There is currently no credible threat against the state, the governor's office said, and no Syrian refugees have been relocated to Alabama so far.

As the list of states blocking refugees grows, at least one state, Delaware, announced that it plans to accept refugees.

"It is unfortunate that anyone would use the tragic events in Paris to send a message that we do not understand the plight of these refugees, ignoring the fact that the people we are talking about are fleeing the perpetrators of terror," Gov. Jack Markell said in a statement.

Read more: States cannot refuse refugees, but they can make it difficult


States whose governors oppose Syrian refugees coming in:

-- Alabama

-- Arizona

-- Arkansas

-- Florida

-- Georgia

-- Idaho

-- Illinois

-- Indiana

-- Iowa

-- Kansas

-- Louisiana

-- Maine

-- Massachusetts

-- Michigan

-- Mississippi

-- Nebraska

-- Nevada

-- New Hampshire

-- New Jersey

-- New Mexico

-- North Carolina

-- Ohio

-- Oklahoma

-- South Carolina

-- Tennessee

-- Texas

-- Wisconsin

States whose governors say they will accept refugees:

-- Colorado

-- Connecticut

-- Delaware

-- Hawaii

-- Pennsylvania

-- Vermont

-- Washington

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder said the state would "put on hold our efforts to accept new refugees."

Obama: Subjecting refugees to religious test 'shameful'

Obama: Subjecting refugees to religious test 'shameful' 05:13
"Michigan is a welcoming state and we are proud of our rich history of immigration. But our first priority is protecting the safety of our residents," he said in a statement.

Snyder demanded that the Department of Homeland Security review its security procedures for vetting refugees but avoided blanket suspicion of people from any region.

"It's also important to remember that these attacks are the efforts of extremists and do not reflect the peaceful ways of people of Middle Eastern descent here and around the world," Snyder said.

And Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson posted on his official Twitter account that he would "oppose Syrian refugees being relocated to Arkansas."

Mississippi, Ohio bristle at taking refugees
The governors of Ohio and Mississippi also announced their states would not allow Syrian refugees.

Jim Lynch, a spokesman for Ohio Gov. John Kasich, issued this statement:

"The governor doesn't believe the U.S. should accept additional Syrian refugees because security and safety issues cannot be adequately addressed. The governor is writing to the President to ask him to stop, and to ask him to stop resettling them in Ohio. We are also looking at what additional steps Ohio can take to stop resettlement of these refugees."

Kasich is a Republican presidential candidate.

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant wrote on Facebook that he was working with the state's homeland security department to "determine the current status of any Syrian refugees that may be brought to our state in the near future.

"I will do everything humanly possible to stop any plans from the Obama administration to put Syrian refugees in Mississippi. The policy of bringing these individuals into the country is not only misguided, it is extremely dangerous. I'll be notifying President Obama of my decision today to resist this potential action."

Louisiana: 'Kept in the dark'
Louisiana governor and GOP presidential candidate Bobby Jindal complained bitterly in an open letter to Obama that the federal government had not informed his government about refugees being relocated to his state last week.

Iraqi official: ISIS leader ordered attacks

Iraqi official: ISIS leader ordered attacks 02:35
"It is irresponsible and severely disconcerting to place individuals, who may have ties to ISIS, in a state without the state's knowledge or involvement," Jindal said in his letter Saturday.

He demanded to know more about the people being placed in Louisiana to avoid a repeat of the Paris attacks and wanted to know whether screening would be intensified for refugees holding Syrian passports.

And he suggested Obama hold off on taking in more refugees.

"It would be prudent to pause the process of refugees coming to the United States. Authorities need to investigate what happened in Europe before this problem comes to the United States," Jindal said.

Republican candidate Donald Trump called accepting Syrian refugees "insane."

"We all have heart and we all want people taken care of, but with the problems our country has, to take in 250,000 -- some of whom are going to have problems, big problems -- is just insane. We have to be insane. Terrible," Donald Trump said at a rally in Beaumont, Texas.

It's not clear why Trump used the 250,000 figure.

The Obama administration has previously announced plans to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees next year.

While addressing reporters on Monday, Obama called out Republican candidates who have objected to admitting refugees to the United States.

"When I hear a political leader suggesting that there should be a religious test for which a person who is fleeing from a war torn country is admitted... when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that is shameful," the President said. "We don't have religious tests to our compassion."

New York: 'Virtually no vetting'
A senior White House security official attempted to allay concerns about the vetting of Syrian refugees.

Refugees wait for a boat to a new life
5 photos: Refugees wait for a boat to a new life
On NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said, "We have very extensive screening procedures for all Syrian refugees who have come to the United States. There is a very careful vetting process that includes our intelligence community, our National Counter Terrorism Center, the Department of Homeland Security, so we can make sure that we are carefully screening anybody that comes to the United States."

New York Rep. Peter King, speaking on Fox News, cast doubt on Rhodes' comments.

"What he said about the vetting of the refugees is untrue. There is virtually no vetting cause there are no databases in Syria, there are no government records. We don't know who these people are."

On Sunday, investigators said that one of the Paris bombers carried Syrian identification papers -- possibly forged -- and the fear of Syrian refugees grew worse.

"It's not that we don't want to -- it's that we can't," Florida Sen. and Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio told ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "Because there's no way to background check someone that's coming from Syria."

Fleeing war, more Syrians are coming to the U.S. Meet one family

Subscribe: Get the most important news delivered to your inbox daily with our 5 Things newsletter.

CNN's Ariane de Vogue, Chandler Friedman, John Newsome, and Joe Sutton contributed to this report.

27 states. 26 with Republican governors. That speaks volumes.

[ray245]

When you consider there are non Muslim Malaysians who are distrustful of Islam it makes it even less surprising to me that certain westerners are against Islam. I hate to say this but even I would be distrustful of anything less than a very neutered Islam in context of treating other faiths and atheists, and I've spent a lifetime in a moderate Muslim nation and thus know Muslims are people too. but individuals and the whole are two different things - otherwise we could also respond to every anti Christian argument e here with " those aren't most Christians ". Well same for Muslims, sorry to say.

Tl;Dr it's not entirely true that mistrust of Islam is based purely on racism and a mountain of lies.

That's my entire point. There is way too many people on the left that seems to think that the mistrust of Islam is ONLY based on racism and prejudice alone. And that helps to drive the right-wing rhetoric because the left could not adequately address people's fear of Islam.

For example, the whole "Islam is a religion of peace" argument hasn't been working for many people because it does not deal with the fact that the early Muslim leadership did seek to build an empire via military means. For others, it's about trying to deal with the conundrum that being Muslim means idolising a historical figure that did argue for things that seem abhorrent to modern western values.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say you're not calling it a lost cause, then tell me we've already lost.

I'm saying the debate is lost because the left is framing the debate on a losing ground to begin with. It's not a lost cause if the left could actually make arguments on the understanding that they need to address their audience who are utterly terrified for their lives. The people who would willingly place their personal safety over liberty if needed, because that's what they care about the most. Talking about liberty and tolerance does not matter because their only concern is safety.

If this debate is about liberty and tolerance against safety, then the left have already lost the debate before it begun. Telling people to suck it up and accept terrorism as a fact of life is NOT going to resonate among those people.

Oh, I'm not saying the Left is pure as the driven snow on this issue. Anti-Muslim left wing atheists like Bill Maher come to mind. But I think I know which side most of the bigotry is coming from here.

But treating the anti-Muslim movement as being predominantly the domain of right-wing politics does not adequately deal with some of the arguments that the left identifies with. That will only further justify the position of right-wing politicians and their rhetoric.

Once again, it's ignoring the perception that Islam is a very conservative ideology with many aspect of it that is fundamentally at odds with a modern secular, and liberal state. It's by an far easier for people to accept the notion of a Jesus being tolerant of homosexuality as opposed to a Muhammad that does so.

[The Romulan Republic]

Islam is not a single ideology. It is many different branches. The only response I have to the perception that it is all one conservative block is to refute it, because I'm sure as hell not going to pander to it. That said, I will not excuse anyone, of any faith or other ideology, who tries to violate the rights of others.

And this shit is predominantly Right wing. Not exclusively, but predominantly.

Additionally, I am not arguing that we should choose liberty over safety, though I think it is terribly overly simplistic to say that safety is all anyone cares about. I believe that you cannot have liberty without safety, or safety without liberty. And their are people on the Left pointing out how attacking Muslims makes us less safe.

And while I think that realistically, terrorism is not going to disappear any time soon, but I am not saying we should "...suck it up and accept terrorism as a fact of life..."

Seriously, what could possibly have given you that impression? Because I am really fucking tired of people misrepresenting my positions.

And frankly, if you take "We shouldn't turn against refugees" as "We should accept terrorism", what does that say about your opinion of refugees?

[The Romulan Republic]

To elaborate, I think we have to a) get people to recognize that while Islamic terrorism is obviously a very serious threat that must be defeated, it is not the overwhelming existential threat it has been portrayed as by certain parties. That may be a losing battle right now, but I'm hoping that after a while, people will cool down a bit and be more receptive to that fact.

We also need to attack the false dichotomy of freedom vs. safety. It is, and always has been, a delusion. You have both or you have neither.

[AniThyng]

Yeah Ray, I rather agree with you. You've probably realized that there are Singaporeans that are concerned with the direction Malaysian Islam is going and and spillover effects on Singaporean Muslims too. It sucks but it's true - Islam, even moderate Islam, needs much more reformation and dilution to be anywhere near as liberal as moderate Christianity, to say nothing of atheism.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, let me reply with this:

First Islam covers a huge number of people with a wide range of values. Sure, the Koran says what it says, but how people interpret it varies greatly.

Secondly, Islam is never likely to become more liberal or moderate if Muslims are treated as the enemy. A siege mentality does not tend to lend itself to moderation or reason.

[Purple]

Well, let me reply with this:

First Islam covers a huge number of people with a wide range of values. Sure, the Koran says what it says, but how people interpret it varies greatly.

Well sure. But if the book says what it says than that's what the book says. How the people interpret it isn't a function of the book or religion but of those people. I can interpret your avatar to be a slice of pizza. That does not make it true nor does it make anyone else agree with me.

Secondly, Islam is never likely to become more liberal or moderate if Muslims are treated as the enemy. A siege mentality does not tend to lend itself to moderation or reason.

And yet the west can't accept it before it does. A catch 22 that.

[AniThyng]

Well, let me reply with this:

First Islam covers a huge number of people with a wide range of values. Sure, the Koran says what it says, but how people interpret it varies greatly.

Secondly, Islam is never likely to become more liberal or moderate if Muslims are treated as the enemy. A siege mentality does not tend to lend itself to moderation or reason.

Oh indeed, but platitudes about how true Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance can ring hollow, much like how trying to convince Muslims that the IDF is a responsible military or Israel is a legitimate state is a bit of an uphill struggle.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, let me reply with this:

First Islam covers a huge number of people with a wide range of values. Sure, the Koran says what it says, but how people interpret it varies greatly.

Well sure. But if the book says what it says than that's what the book says. How the people interpret it isn't a function of the book or religion but of those people. I can interpret your avatar to be a slice of pizza. That does not make it true nor does it make anyone else agree with me.

Secondly, Islam is never likely to become more liberal or moderate if Muslims are treated as the enemy. A siege mentality does not tend to lend itself to moderation or reason.

And yet the west can't accept it before it does. A catch 22 that.

Their are many in the West who are capable of accepting Muslims, just as their are many elements of the Muslim community (which is also a part of western society) who are more moderate/liberal. It is up to us to resist those elements of our society who are not.

Also, do you think their is no room for different interpretations of Islam to be potentially valid? I mean, I'm no Islamic scholar, but that seems somewhat dubious.

In any case, criticize Islam if you wish. I don't consider religious beliefs above criticism. As long as you keep in mind that Muslims are a diverse group of people who cannot be all placed in one category.

AniThyng, I pretty much agree with you, insofar as you are accurately describing some of the problems we have to deal with.

[ray245]

Well, let me reply with this:

First Islam covers a huge number of people with a wide range of values. Sure, the Koran says what it says, but how people interpret it varies greatly.

Secondly, Islam is never likely to become more liberal or moderate if Muslims are treated as the enemy. A siege mentality does not tend to lend itself to moderation or reason.

But those interpretation is ultimately bounded to what the text is saying. You still can't get away from the fact that there are horrible sayings in the Quran that does not agree with many modern day views. You could certainly ignore those sayings, but you can't exactly deny those sayings aren't there to begin with. Of course, this is not limited to Islam but to every religion today.

However, the most important thing to note is even within the large diversity of views you can have as a Muslim, the ones with the greatest amount of pull and influence happens to be conservative by western standards. Even some of the more liberal/moderate views of Islam is still considered to be very conservative by most western societies.

[The Romulan Republic]

As long as Muslims are treated as enemies in the West, it'll probably only get worse.

I'm talking about what we have to do in order to win the War on Terror, as well as our own internal political struggle against bigotry and despotism.

[Purple]

Their are many in the West who are capable of accepting Muslims, just as their are many elements of the Muslim community (which is also a part of western society) who are more moderate/liberal. It is up to us to resist those elements of our society who are not.

Yea, but those are the people we are talking about.

Also, do you think their is no room for different interpretations of Islam to be potentially valid? I mean, I'm no Islamic scholar, but that seems somewhat dubious.

This is tricky to explain, so bear with me. It's basically the concept of head cannon. Interpretations of a core material are valid for the people who hold them. But the more an interpretation diverges from the source material the harder it becomes to justify it as being derived from said source material. And the more likely it is that people will, when confronted with such an interpretation shake their head in disbelief rather than accepting it and converting to it. It's Han shot first taken up to 11.

Now the problem here is that the interpretation of Islam that fits with our western societies and values diverges quite a lot from the source material. Like really a lot. So much so that they have to abandon some of the fundamental tenants such as having a state run by Islamic law. (it is my understanding that bit is kind of important). So whilst it can happen and probably has happened quite a lot I find it unreasonable to assume that people, especially those from more radical environments are going to convert to it over night. Instead they are going to conclude, and not unreasonably so that the Muslims in the west have abandoned the spirit of their religion in favor of some watered down thing meant to appease the west. Which by the way is exactly what we demand from them.