Moif and Hugo raised an interesting question about the problems surrounding muslim immigration to the West. So as not to take that thread off track, I thought it best to start a new thread on that topic.

Moif wrote:




Moif in that same post, gives numerous examples of the culture clash between the European and Muslim lifestyle/world views.

Questions for Debate:

What benefits/problems do you foresee with muslim immigration to western countries?

Do you believe that muslims can successfully integrate into the culture of a western country? If not, why not?

Should western countries require muslim immigrants to integrate/assimilate into the culture?

How should the west respond to the increasing numbers of muslims seeking to immigrate?


** I am not sure if this topic should be in Domestic Policy. I chose principles and personal philosophy because it does not relate solely to U.S. domestic policy. Moderators-- please move it to wherever you think it is most appropriate.

More of the same. This problem isn't going to go away as a result of any current political policy and unless the influx of immigration, in particular of Muslims from the middle east, isn't brought under tight control then we are in serious danger or seeing more of this.


Yes I do, given time and economic possibilities.

The trouble in Europe stems directly from how many Muslims have been allowed to settle here over a very short period of time. What we have now is a European Muslim community that is said to equal that of Syria in population size.

Given enough time though, I do believe that those Muslims already here could gradually assimilate, but this is the sort of process that requires generations and in this modern world of affordable global transit, the luxury of time is denied us and our ethnic minorities are constantly under pressure from radical/extremist agenda's from their former homelands.


Of course.

Look at it this way. Israel is regarded as an uninvited intervention into the middle east by the Arabs in much a similar way that the Muslims of Europe are regarded as an uninvited intervention by the majority of Europeans.

Israel has a population of circa 6 million. Judge how Arab culture has reacted to the Jewish presence in their midst and then contrast this with the European attitiudes that have so far allowed 20 miilion Muslims into Europe. The differences speak volumes, and the similarities indicate just how bad the situation may become unless mature forethought and a stern resolve is not used to address this fast growing problem.


Deny them access. We don't need them and we are not obliged to accept them.

Its about time the Islamic world took responsibility for its soaring birth rates, poverty and the problems caused by its religious attitudes and Europe must look to protect its own people first and foremost.
Those who are already here (with permission) must of course be allowed to stay, but they must be made to understand that Europe is not here for their disposal and if they conceive our tolerance as a weakness that will continue to allow them to foster and nurture hatred and terrorism towards us then they must be made to understand the risk of backlash this carries. Europe has already seen numerous pogroms and holocausts and ethnic cleansing atrocities and whilst Europe may be a peacefull and lazy place now, it will not remain so if intolerably provoked.

These people are literally playing with fire. The rest (those who are here illegally) must be evicted.

1. By "western" I would presume that would insinuate countries with a predominantly contemporary Christian history, such as Europe, Canada, and the US.

I believe that many Muslims often have a hard time integrating to our moral values, societal norms, and values systems.

"What they share is a sense of exclusion," says NPR Senior European Correspondent Sylvia Poggioli. The children of those immigrants present a different challenge: many second- and third-generation Muslims born to secular European societies are re-examining both their identity as children of another land, and their religious beliefs. According to the United Nations, Europe's Muslim population has doubled in the last decade, and an estimated half a million new immigrants -- most of the from Muslim nations -- arrive every year. Some Muslims in Europe resist the call to assimilate into the culture of their new home. Many Muslims live in separate, parallel societies where poverty and rampant unemployment are further distancing Muslim youths from the mainstream life of their adopted homeland.


Now, my question would be for what reasons are these Muslims immigrating? For financial reasons? Where are they immigrating from? If we were talking about immigration to the US from Arabic nations, I would force them to become citizens, tax them heavily during the first 24 months from arrival, and use intense background checks and monitoring just as we would've treated people from Communist countries coming during the cold war.

2. I believe that integration into a society such as in the US, that they could successfully immigrate, but integration would take time. Consider the fact that Asians often times set up their own communities upon immigration, as do hispanics, etc. That being said, eventually, generations are speckled throughout the nation and in all walks of life.
Can this happen with devout Muslims? I think we'd have to refer back to the Koran as it is taught in Middle Eastern nations. I sincerely doubt it. We've all debated the bible and it's references to violence, but the sincere difference is that the Bible is never taught as a tool of intolerance and indifference, where as from my studies, it seems the Koran often is. Evangelism is a large part of Christian teaching, but nearly completely via understanding and non-violent conversion. The more I read in reference to the Koran, the more it seems that many muslims believe that their place in life is to rid the earth of non-muslims.... again, this is conjecture to a certain point.

This also doesn't address the strong Muslim sense of community, the extended family structure, and the strict moral binding nature of their religion. How could devout Muslim children fit in at an American school? Do you think they can listen to 50 Cent, play American football (or conversely be Cheerleaders), eat McDonald's and watch MTV?
From my experience in the Dallas-FT Worth area, there is very little integration. I used to reside literally on top of one of the Metroplex's largest Muslim communities, and found that there was little or no integration socially. In my church, in restaurants, at the gym, etc there are people of nearly every other walk of life... but I never saw the people that lived around the corner even in the same grocery stores.

3. Should we require assimilation? ? That's a tough question, considering the fact that Americans are often times socially-segregated in multiple ways (socio-economic status, geography, etc).

I don't know how we could force such integration. I think maybe we could send them to public schools, require community service, and assign case-workers during the process, but who would pay for that? How could we successfully monitor this?

You can't send them to churches, can't force them to play golf, and can't send them to happy hour w/ neighbors... so I don't know where our lives would cross paths.

The very nature of a devout Muslim's existence and their personal experience in the Middle East would cause division socially.

4. Being an American, I understand fully that we're here because of Immigration...whether generations removed or recently off the plane/boat. I believe that if you want to make a better life for your family, please come. However, I'd like to come to understand what is causing immigration to the west for Arabic Muslims.
If they're coming here for financial reasons, I'd ask the following questions;
1. How did they fund the trip to the US?
2. Do they plan on becoming naturalized?
3. Are they planning on moving back to the Middle East?
4. Will they be sending money overseas?/Can we monitor this?

If the immigrants don't plan on becoming citizens, plan on leaving eventually, and are going to send money abroad I would venture to not allow them to stay here. Frankly, the risk/reward calculation is very easy to make!!

If we could monitor banking transactions for the first couple of years, force them to become US citizens, etc it might be fine.
However, it seems that on a large scale that many of them are coming here to start small businesses, send large amounts of cash home, and move back once they've reached financial potential. (I might be wrong... this is pure conjecture)

What benefits/problems do you foresee with muslim immigration to western countries?

Do you believe that muslims can successfully integrate into the culture of a western country? If not, why not?

Should western countries require muslim immigrants to integrate/assimilate into the culture?

How should the west respond to the increasing numbers of muslims seeking to immigrate?

Most western countries have sizeable minorities of well integrated Muslim communities, that fully respect the law and local traditions, regarding their religion to be a private matter. They also have large groups of recent immigrants who find it harder to adjust.

I think it is important to distinguish between these groups. Britain has large numbers of muslim families that are third or fourth generation immigrants and are largely fully assimilated.

I think that in recent years, Europe in particular has seen an increase in immmigrants from Islamic countries who are finding it generally difficult to assimilate. I also think that there are immigrants from non-Islamic countries that are similarly finding it hard to assimilate, Britain also sees large numbers of immigrants from West and Central Africa, who are not muslim but also do not seem to be adopting Western norms as quickly as many would like them to.

1) - I see general beneifts in immigration, regardless of the country of origin. It brings new ideas and new cultures to the recipient country, along with more workers to an economy. The problems are of course that in the scale of migration occuring, immigrants tend to settle in very ghettoised areas and do not have to interact as much with the host country. The scale also means it is very easy for new immigrants to drop between the cracks and be beyond the help of law or social services.

2) Having known and grown up with fully westernised second generation Muslims (there are a lot of Palestinian, Iranian and Iraqi refugee that came to Scotland - and their children are very well assimilated), I can say that it seems to be possible. European countries often aim to be as secular as possible these days and for religion to be a private matter.

I think that it comes down to wealth, that immigrants who get jobs and fully integrate into the economy are able (certainly in relatively prosperous countries, where unemployment is low, such as the UK) to increase their living standards, which generally leads to greater exposure to Western culture and acceptance of Western values.

3) I think coercion is unnecessary. Muslims will integrate, IF there are enough jobs and opportunities in the new country to let them advance. The problems seen in France from Islamic radicalism arise far more from the huge levels of unemployment, leading to disenfranchisement, especially amongst immigrant communities who would probably find it harder to get work in the first place, especially in a 'protectionist' atmosphere.

4) I think that the level of immigration has to be controlled - so, a set number of immigrants allowed in each year. It should be left up to business to decide what skills are in demand, so systems by which immigrants find a job first before being granted a visa. However, countries have (IMO) a moral duty to allow asylum seekers in, so an exception could be made for them (although making a clear distinction between economic immigrants and asylum seekers may be difficult).

However, immigrants represent an enormous opportunity for a country willing to make the necessary reforms to their labour markets to allow immigrants to come in and work. And really, I think that is the main challenge that immigrants provide - it is how do we in Europe reform our economies so that they can treat immigrants as opportunies, rather than threats. The US is rather better at assimilating immigrants than Europe traditionally has been, so perhaps we could take some lessons from the US in terms of citizenship tests etc that might help.

What benefits/problems do you foresee with muslim immigration to western countries?

To echo Ptarmigan comments, I see problems today in France: ghettos are forming in the suburbs, and several generations of Northern Africans (up to 3 sometimes) live piled up in these slums. Every day, you hear of gang problems, attacks, rapes against the girls that live in these places, sky-rocketing unemployment issues... etc.

Many of these people are under 30, and they have no clear future because they lack diplomas and fundamental education to help them succeed in the French society. The younger generation has become a symbol of violence and laziness... They want everything they can have right now and they care not to work for it. Drug dealing pays better that being a welder.

Actually, I was shocked to read Moif last post on the other thread, because I was not aware that the problem was so present and overwhelming throughout Europe. I know that what I'm writing is not fair to these who try their hardest to succeed "honestly", but there are HUGE problems happening right now and they need to be addressed.

So these are the very problems we're dealing with today... not in the future! As far as the benefits, well, an increase of the population mechanically creates more workforce. Eventually, new workers will replace the ones leaving for retirement and help to maintain the payment of state pensions.

But what if these people are not qualified enough? What if they spend years being on the dole instead of working? Who's going to pay for that?

Do you believe that muslims can successfully integrate into the culture of a western country? If not, why not?

Actually, I know several people from Maghreb (Northern Africa) and Arabic countries. From what I know, they are really nice and open people. They are success stories of their own, even if little ones. So, from these examples, I can say that there can be a successful integration... at least to an extent.

Should western countries require muslim immigrants to integrate/assimilate into the culture?

Yes. There should be an enforced program/system to make sure that immigrants can:

1. understand, speak and write the language of their new country
2. understand the rules, the laws and customs (a 101 Civics crash course)
3. open bank accounts, rent appartments, look for a job
4. have a diploma that is interesting and valuable to their new country (except for asylees)
5. have a minimum amount of money (5,000 euros) to start with when they arrive

Unless considered asylees or immediate relatives, new immigrants could be on a probation period of six months before being granted the right of social welfare (unemployment, healthcare, etc.). At the end of that period, they need to show evidence of residence, employment, bank account, etc. If they don't have it, the state can help them fix the problem. If it can't be fixed, they should be deported promptly to make sure that they don't increase the numbers of illegal migrants.

How should the west respond to the increasing numbers of muslims seeking to immigrate?

The West needs to make sure that its laws and traditions will be respected and placed above the religious feelings of immigrants. This could be part of the probation system I was proposing... and it could be set so that people are checked after one year, then two and finally five years, to see how they are doing.

To speak specifically about France, I think that unemployment should be cut in half to what it is now, in duration and amount. That should be enough to deter some migrants and would force everyone to kick themselves in the butt and look for a job!

Wow! How long have you been in America? Sure didn't take you long to get sucked into the whole 'insane work ethic' thing - trust me - its hugely overrated. Indolence is far far better....

Seriously though - did you mean 'unemployment' or 'unemployment benefit' ?
Because slashing unemployment in half is the dream of every politician that ever kissed a baby...

However if you mean slashing benefits in half - then I think I am broadly in agreement, because it is the sort of reform that I think the French economy would need to stimulate more jobs - although it needs reforms to be carried out on the supply side too - less regulations so making it easier for companies to create jobs.

What benefits/problems do you foresee with muslim immigration to western countries?
Pretty much the same problems and benefits as any other kind of integration. I believe that the problems of Islamic fundamentalist extremism would be happening whatever the size of the Muslim population, immgrant or native. The largest international Muslim terrorist attacks - 9-11 - was targeted at a country with a relatively low Muslim population among Western countries.

Do you believe that muslims can successfully integrate into the culture of a western country? If not, why not?
Yes, I think they can. Most do. There is a thread of fundamentalists that refuse to do so, but I think that is typical of pretty much all religions to have a minority that do this (cf. Hasidic Jewry and some Christian sects, such as the Amish).

I also think it is completely typical for immigrant populations to start out isolated and inward looking, then become progressively more integrated through subsequent generations. Almost all immigrant Muslim communities in Western nations are still in their first and second generations. Were enthic Irish or Italians fully integrated into the USA after the same sort of time frame? I suspect not - it takes more like four of five generations to be just another local.

Should western countries require muslim immigrants to integrate/assimilate into the culture?
Well, I think that requirements to learn the host countries main languages, both spoken and written, and to attend the same schools as the locals, are both perfectly reasonable and help the process of intergation without forcing the pace.
I also think that the modern trend, in the UK at least, back towards faith schools and admissions criteria will be counter productive in this regard, as well as in wider educational standards.

How should the west respond to the increasing numbers of muslims seeking to immigrate?
I don't have a big problem with entrance criteria and quotas to select people, nor do I have a problem with robust repatriation policies for illegal immigration. I do have a problem with rejection of legitimate asylum seekers (I don't think anyone coming to Britain from Zimabawe should be sent back, unless they are members of the Zanu PF that are implicated in any acts that British law would consider criminal, for example.) And, I do think that we need to have immigration at some level.

If we ever came to the point of not allowing immigration, we should also ban emigration. Especially if it's for tax purposes. Or maybe we could adopt a "one in, one out" policy, only letting someone in when someone else leaves. For that matter, we sould only issue a licence to permit women to give birth when someone else dies.

NB In one of the above paragraphs, I am being entirely facetious. See if you can guess which.

What benefits/problems do you foresee with muslim immigration to western countries?

No benefits, many problems, as long as the Muslim religious leaders insist on poisoning their own people with wrong ideas.

Do you believe that muslims can successfully integrate into the culture of a western country? If not, why not?

Yes, they can, but first they must realize that we have freedom of religion and separation of church/state and that is not likely to change to suit them. They either accept that or stay home. My dentist is Iranian, but that is something that he keeps to himself. I have my own cultural identity that is not universally accepted, and I keep that to myself.

Should western countries require muslim immigrants to integrate/assimilate into the culture?

Certainly they can keep their culture, if only to themselves, but if doing so limits their opportunities here then they have to realize that it is their problem and not those of us who have alreadly managed to assimilate. We have several
"China Towns" in the USA, and they manage quite well keeping their own culture, if they choose to, and are not too hard on their children who choose to "over assimilate". Asians generally do well here, perhaps it is because they don't use religion to brainwash themselves?


How should the west respond to the increasing numbers of muslims seeking to immigrate

Tell them, no thanks, not til we solve the problems with the ones we have here.
That goes for all cultures, not just Muslims.
Perhaps they could stay home and solve their own problems as well?

Do you believe that muslims can successfully integrate into the culture of a western country? If not, why not?
Yesterday, 60 Minutes reran the story about Theo Van Gogh’s murder and the harassment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the formerly Muslim woman (and member of Dutch Parliament) who was involved in the making of the film “Submission”.

The problem in Holland points out the reluctance or refusal of Muslims to integrate into a western society. As long as these “immigrants” still live in their home countries in their hearts and minds, they will never be a true citizen of the host country. There may be some Muslims who are willing or even eager to live in a free western society, but there are also those hardliners who will always view the west as evil and decadent even as they enjoy the benefits of that society. One (of the many) disturbing aspects of the 60 Minutes story are the tales of men who spirit women who have “strayed from the faith” out of Holland to Morocco or Turkey where they murder the women in so-called “honor killings” and are never prosecuted. How can such people ever integrate into a society when they disagree with every principle that country holds dear?

Should western countries require muslim immigrants to integrate/assimilate into the culture?

America’s history has been to unquestionably accept all who wish to come here. But the key phrase to me is “yearning to breathe free”. If you aren’t willing to live in a “free” society, then perhaps you shouldn’t emigrate to America or any western country whose philosophies are similar.

I don’t know that I would say that Muslim immigrants need to assimilate, as that implies becoming similar to the others and relinquishing some of their ethnic or religious identity. But they certainly should integrate, the intent being to bring all people together while still retaining everyone's individual identities and beliefs. But, as the incidents in Holland demonstrate, there is an unwillingness on the part of some Muslim immigrants to integrate themselves into western society.

How should the west respond to the increasing numbers of muslims seeking to immigrate?
As the many incidents have proven, there is an element of the Muslim world that views everything in western society as evil to be destroyed. If a Muslim immigrant is not willing to recognize the superiority of the laws of the country they are attempting to emigrate to over their religious laws, then they should be refused entry. And that goes for any other religious fanatic, as far as I'm concerned. But how to sort that out? How can you ferret out those who will lie to gain entry for their own nefarious reasons? Hook every potential immigrant to a lie detector? It kind of defeats our idea of an open, free society.

Julian

I hope its okay with you but I'm going to respond to this post here because otherwise we are going to go off topic in the other thread:

There has been some of the same movement here, but it has yet to make any head way with the Muslim community. I don't know about Swindon but here in Århus practically all the Muslim women wear head scarves and a good proportion, wear full burhka's.


Perhaps not, but we don't really have many Muslims from that part of the world here.

What we have here is Muslims, killing their own daughters/sisters and then exaplaining that they were forced to do it in order to retain their 'family honour'. What ever the underlying reason for their actions, whether it is racial, religious, traditional or just personal, is beyond my interest. The fact is, no other ethnic group here, or any where else in Scandinavia to my knowledge carries out these types of killings.


My response is the same as in my last paragraph. Female circumcision was an unknown phenomenon in Scandinavia until the arrival of Muslim immigrants.

Frankly, I do not care why they feel the need to do this. The fact is, they do it and its illegal.


I don't know which part of the Islamic world. To the best of my knowledge though, it is usually to the poorer African nations like Somalia. All I really know is what is bandied about in the Danish political debates.


Tell that to Theo Van Gogh.


OKay, so the one theatre play was closed to Sikh's and not Muslims, my miastake... How about the attempted banning of alcohol and the destruction of advirtising banners? Were these also done by Sikh's?

And really, what difference does it make that they failed? Hell's teeth! I'm not even all that bothered that they tried to get rid of the advirtising bill boards at all except that their motives illustrate their unwillingness to integrate into the culture they themselve chose to move into!


Yes I assume this will happen and the reasons I assume this are the ghettos that have sprung up all across Europe, the fire brand mullah's (including the Mullah of København who cannot even speak Danish) and who call down terrorism and death upon the European people's (thats you and me) and not least, the steady flow of Islamic immigrants that continue to enter Europe and who's influence counters any positive advances in intergration.

As for the Hasidic Jews, I can assure that if their numbers swell to 20 million and they start blowing up our trains and buses then I will regard them as an equally dangerous threat to Europe.


All cultures have distinctions. So what? One could just as easily say the samething about all of Europe and it would mean nothing what so ever. The fact of the matter is, these people's are all bound together under their shared Muslim culture.

That they have internal differences, even to the point of racismbetween various nationalisites I am told, makes no difference to their perception of self as being a 'community' within the host European culture.

The truth is, they stand apart from us and from other immigrant communities such as the far eastern, non Islamic communities. Denmark has a large proportion of Chinese and Vietnamese immigrants. To the best of my knowledge, these people have never rioted, attacked our emergency services, killed family members for 'honour', gang raped our women, forced their female members to wear head scarf's to 'cover their shame' or carried out acts of terrorism with no warning and no apparent motive.


Then why don't we see Carribean terrorism or Chinese terrorism?


Amish? What problems have the Amish caused?


hmmmm.... methinks you are forgetting what happened in Germany when the cure was a final solution.

Don't think that mass murder couldn't possibly happen again. If there is one thing history teaches us, then it is the amazing capacity for European violence.


...er you just said that time would cure immigration problems. Are you trying to divorce religious fundamentalism from immigration?


In my opinion, religion has no place in the political realm at all.

The trouble is, as recent events here in Denmark have shown us, the Muslim community, which has a far louder voice than I do, disagree's entirely, and wishes to impliment laws that will make it illegal for me to voice my honest opinion with regards to their medieval religion.


Why? What's the worst thing I'm likely to do?

My bad, Ptarmigan... I was indeed referring to the unemployment benefits, not unemployment itself. My opinion has nothing to do with my current location though, for I've had it for several years now. Our system consolidates unemployment when it should seek its eradication. Argh! Go figure...

To go further into the debate, I like to know that the green card I hold is a privilege and not a right (as the department of Homeland Security put it). It put things in a different perspective for me and gives me the desire to make more efforts to integrate, to be "worth" the privilege that has been granted to me.

I'll put a new turn on this debate by saying the following.

Islam is a part of Europe (and the West as a whole) and has been for centuries. They are joined at the hip.

For one to take the step into the 21st century requires the other to take that step as well.

So far we have concentrated on the responsibilities of Muslims to be law-abiding. That is abundantly clear and a solution to the problem of those who are not is already in place.

Law-enforcement.

An honor killing is a murder. Life imprisonment is the answer.

What is less obvious (and more important) is the responsibility of Europe's non-Muslims majority to throw of its archaic attitudes.

To wit:

It seems to me that Europe is still in a hole that the US has been digging itself out of over the last few decades.

I think perhaps because our hole was deeper we realized our plight and sought to end it.

Europe's hole is a shallow one, but a shallow hole is still dangerous.

Europe still suffers from racial nationalism. That is to say Europe defines the France not only as a nation but as a people. Those who are not ethnic French are viewed as outsiders even if they were born and raised in France.

Due to this much if the West seeks "integration" which they interpret as "outsiders" giving up the ways of their old country and adopting there own.

The concept of total assimilation is an old and dangerous creed.

If Europe wants to live in peace with Islam it must stop fighting what does not threaten.

Multi-culturalism is the key.

If a child comes to school in a hijab, ethnic europeans need to learn not to care. Save the outrage for the outrageous.

When it is clear that ethnic europeans accept their Muslim brothers and sisters as equal heirs to their national identity then the crisis will pass.

Not a moment sooner.

All that sounds great and wise turnea, But I'm afraid its got very little to do with the reality of the situation.

First of all, lets look at what you've said about Islam. Islam, the religion is not the problem. The problem is the mass influx of Islamic immigrants and their hostility towards us.

I don't know how you've reached your understanding but you seem to be implying that European attitudes towards Muslims are some how, out of date in as much as you describe them as being not of the twenty first century... aside from the small detail that what happens now is the 21st century, not what you wish it to be, there is the small, unfortunate problem in your argument, where by it is the Muslims who are attacking us, blowing up our buses and subways, murdering our artists and politicians in the street and gang raping our young girls... so I am puzzled as to know how you expect those of us, who are not Islamic immigrants to step into the 21st century.

To date, Europe has accepted 20 million Muslim immigrants with the absolute minimum of friction on the part of the Europeans. What more do you want us to do? Sing and dance and throw flowers at them? No one here really wants them. They are tolerated because we have no other choice.

Is it now evil to not want to have anything to do with some one? Is it immoral to disaprove of a religion?

As I mentioned earlier, compared how we've treated them to how they've treated us, or the Israeli's and then talk to me about 'entering the 21st century'.


Racial nationalism? This is utter nonsense. Where as nationalism has and does exist in Europe, no one talks of nationality in the terms of race.

The Danes for example, are a people, yes and a nation, but no one describes us as a race. Not even our most hardcore nationalists.

And of course we are a people. We've been a people for over two thousand years. Do you expect us to cast aside our very identity, after we've held it against the Swedes and Germans, British and French for so many years just because a bunch of new comers don't like it!?

Think again!

If they really don't like our culture, if we're so bad, then why did they come here?

They came here because we let them, because we are willing to absorb outsiders and grant them the benefits of our culture our society and our laws. If these are not to their satisfaction then they can just go back to where ever they came from. No one is forcing them to stay.

Or in other words, they are allowed to be here as long as they respect the law.

And they are welcome to be here if the respect our culture.


Does not threaten?

This sub culture of Islamic immigrants that has grown in Europe in the last three decades or more does threaten us, and not only does it threaten us, but it also threatens you and not only does it threaten you, it is attacking you. The 11 Sept terrorists all came from the Islamic sub culture of Germany where they had been accepted as students. They were allowed to come here (to Europe), live with us, be like us and in return they murdered 3,000 innocent people and when the news of what they'd done was broadcast in Europe, did we see Muslims in tears? in shock? in remorse?

No.

We saw a few 'Islamic community leaders' expressing their regret whilst Muslims in cars drove about our city's cheering, burning flags and praising 'the Magnificent 19'.

Worst of all, since millions of these people have entered Europe with no prospect of work, we are paying for their upkeep. In return, they are supporting the terrorist elements hidden in their midst.
So in other words we are thus effectively sponsoring terrorism.

The man who murdered Van Gogh for example was on social benefits. The Dutch state paid for his education, they clothed and fed him and extended to him all the rights and priviliges of any other Dutch citizen and what did they get in return?
Holland is probably the most liberal and open society in the western world and it is now full of Muslims who support and approve of Mohammed Bouyeri's actions.

Britain is the same yet London is described as being the most active centre of Islamic fundamentalism outside of the middle east. How is this possible? London is a pure multi ethnic 'global city' where people from all over the world mingle in equality. I challenge you to find any where on the planet where more people of an ethnic diversity exist in harmony.


Multi-culturalism means nothing if all sides are not prepared to co-exist and blowing up buses, trains and buildings, murdering and raping, and following leaders who cannot even speak the language of the country they have settled in is a sure sign that one group of people at least has no intention what so ever of integrating.


The truth is, no one really does care.

The problem is not the child in the 'hijab', the problem is the blatent disregard for the indigenous culture the 'hijab' represents. There are many forms of traditional and religious garments, worn all across Europe. None of these have caused any friction.

Only the Muslims have tried to use their religion as a means to changing European society and laws. Every one else, integrates, adapts, compromises in a way that will allow them to function within the legal and cultural frame work of the state. There are also plenty of laws I find annoying and which go against my personal convictions but I accept the need to compromise and accept that I must conform to the majority for if I demand the majority conforms to me, then I am simply being unreasonable and selfish.

Even if I am totally opposed to some aspect of my culture, which I am because I do not like alcohol and alcohol is a way of life in Denmark, I do not kick up a fuss and demand other people stop drinking alcohol. Instead I politely refuse and accept that other people think differently about such things than I do.

I certainly don't kill people because they think badly of me for not joining in (practically a social sin in Denmark) as much as I might think it unfair.


The forum rules forbid me from expressing what I really think of this, so I shall contend myself with saying; simply: You are dead wrong.

Europe is home to some of the most welcoming and accomidating nations on the planet and the truth of the matter is, the more welcoming we have been, the more hostile the Muslim immigrant reaction has been. Those nations, like Holland, Sweden and Britain that have gone the furthest in pursuit of a multi-cultural society are those countries that now find themselves host to multiple large ghetto's of aggressive Islamic immigrants, hostile mullahs preaching death and terrorist cells carrying out murder against us.

This crisis will only pass when the Muslims, both here and in Israel, stop using murder as a political tool. Unless they do that, then the crisis will continue until it reaches the breaking point.

I see it as a huge problem for western societies because the principles of freedom and equality that define "western civilization" are at odds with much of what Islam current teaches.

I don't think that muslims can successfully integrate unless they reject the hard-line view of their religion. One can't integrate successfully if one believes that women are second class citizens who must be covered from head to toe, that death is the appropriate punishment for a woman guilty of sex outside of marriage, that terrorist acts are acceptable, and that one should bring "death to the infidel".

However, if they are coming to this country to escape such extremism, and if they value our freedom, democracy, and principles of equality and fairness, they should be welcomed.

How should the West respond? Well, I can't speak for Europe since they seem heck bent on self-destruction on multiple fronts, not just this one. With respect to the US, our constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Therefore, it would not be practical to "ban" Islam, even the more radical elements within it. But what we should do (if we haven't already) is infiltrate these churches with informant/agents in the very same way that our government has infiltrated the Christian Identity (behind groups like the Aryan Nations) movement and if (actually when) these churches are implicated in illegal activities, they should be prosecuted under the RICO criminal statutes just like any organized crime group would be.

At the same time, our crafty propagandists in Hollywood should take a time out from undermining what is known as Christianity in order to aim their media fangs at radical Islam. There is no reason why we shouldn't be undermining values that are hostile to our basic freedoms with every tool at our disposal.

As if non-muslims never commit terrorists acts or rapes or murders. Crime is going to emanate from any community particulary one that is poorer and feels it is under threat.

I will explain why I believe much of Europe's attitude is archaic below.


You think that is without friction? If "no one wants them there" and are forced to receive them, you think Muslims won't notice the tension. Do you think that individuals with less restraint than you have won't express this contempt more openly?

My goodness, if I were a Muslim who overheard that statement I'd say there was some serious friction.

This is part of that archaic attitude I was talking about. In a world were global travel is more accessible than ever before to complain about immigrants is such a wholesale manner is ridiculous.


If the former is because of the latter, absolutely.

I don't approve of certain religions either but that has never stopped me from forming friendships with followers of those religions.


"Us vs Them" is not archaic, moif?

The muslims who immigrate to Europe are not by and large the Muslims who murder Israelis. Those crimes cannot even be laid at the majority of Palestinians.

The anniversary of Srebrenica was this week and the comparison is hardly one-sided.

Why do you paint an entire religion with the crimes of a few?



I'm not accusing Europe of racism in the classic sense. Race is a term with more that one meaning. I meant race to mean a people but was at a loss at to how to make that an adjective.


It's not a matter of casting aside your identity as much as realizing that the cultural identity of the Danes is not synonymous with the political/national identity of Denmark.

There are Danes who are not ethnic Danish.



No friction here...


Does respect of a culture mean one must adhere to it?




Are you saying that by and large Europe's Muslims community welcomed the attacks. I would be willing to bet that some ethnic Germans were muttering the Americans got what they deserved too.

The question is how many.


Let's start breaking the numbers down. What proportion of these Muslim immigrants are unemployed long-term?


Once again with the broad brush. Some proof of this assertion?


It's good that this is not what most Muslims immigarnts do then....



Then why should the hijab be taken as a symbol of disregard? Why is it that this religious observance is different?


Not necessarily. If you believe the majority there is nothing wrong with saying so.


If you were suddenly to become an outspoken prohibitionist would that make you a bad Dane?

Were does freedom of thought figure in?


So now living in peace with Muslims encourages terrorism?

I stand by my diagnosis. Something is rotten in Europe's Muslims community. That is something even Muslims will recognize.

But something is rotten in Europe's other communities as well and that is going unnoticed it seems.

Yeah? Please explain to me why the availability of global travel renders the threat of civil war 'archaic'.

Serious friction is not when you don't like some one turnea, its when you start murdering people simply because you don't like them.


Me neither, but I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about extremely large groups of immigrants who band together and who do nothing to prevent terrorists from operating in their midst.


In my opinion this is as natural to being human as is breathing. If a person belongs to a group of people, then s/he will always form a mental difference between her/his perception of outsiders to that group.

To call this archaic is to ignore all human nature.

And you are no different. I have noted your responses and seen how you reply on issues that apply to African Americans. Like me and like all human beings you are not above identifying with your own 'group/s'.


As I said previously, I'm not speaking about an entire religion, I am speaking about an immigrant community that is uses its religion to identify itself and the reason why I speak of this community is because of the way it speaks and acts.

As I said previously, we see certain Muslims leaders make concilitory noises when ever a terrorist attack happens against westerners, but apart from these few reactions, which strike me more as exersizes in damage control that actual sentiments of grieif and empathy, we see this, this, this.* and this.


Exactly and by saying this you wipe away any distinction between those Danes whose families have lived and fought for their nation for centuries and the fast growing minority whose ethnic identity comes from elsewhere and who would just love to see (they openly advocate it) the introduction of sharia law into Denmark.

To date they have already tried to implement various changes to Danish law including to make it legal to sell meat that has been prepared in the Halal fashion, despite this contravening pre-existing laws designed for animal well being (and they succeeded in this), they have tried to make it illegal for any one to say anything 'disrespectfull' of Islam (in this they failed) and they have repeatedly called for Danish state sponsorship of Islam on the grounds that the Church of Denmark, despite dwindling congregations, receives state funding and their religion, having such a fast growing base, doesn't.

Do you know how small Denmark is? Its about the same size as Israel. With the current rate of immigration, coupled with the birth rate of the Danish Muslim community (a community which didn't exist at the end of the second world war) the ethnic Danes are set to become a minority in their own country by 2050 or sooner to a Muslim majority.

If that isn't a threat to our culture, then frankly I don't know what is. Perhaps you could tell me what you think is?

Not even nazi occupation threatened Denmark in this manner.


If you are living in some ones house, you obey their rules.

If I went to Saudi Arabia, then I would act as they do. The fact that I cannot bring myself to accept their culture means I will not go to Saudi Arabia! Its as simple as that.


By and large, it doesn't matter what the individual Muslims think and feel if they don't take responsibility for what is going on in their 'community'.

As groups they are allowing terrorists to operate and even funding them in pusruit of their extremist agenda.

To date, I have not seen a single demonstration by Muslims against Islamic terrorism but I have seen about ten or fifteen against israel ...and thats just here in Århus.


Because the hijab was being worn as an attempt to circumvent an existing French law.


If I were to become an outspoken prohibitionist I would not become a 'bad Dane'. If however I broke the law, then I would become a bad Dane.

The girls wearing the hijab to school in France, were breaking a law that predates any Muslim community in France.

Freedom of expression has nothing to do with violating pre-existing laws simply because you do not like them.


Nope. The truth is, we've not done anything to encourage the Muslims to attack us.

They are attacking us depsite the peace they live in.


And what is that something, other than this vague notion of being 'archaic'.

How can you call it 'rotten' when we've allowed 20 million Muslims into Europe and to date, we've not killed or hurt any one. All we've asked them to do is obey the law like every body else.

Now, you can call me a racist, or rotten, or archaic, or anything else you might consider me to be, but answer me this simple question:

How many Muslims have we murdered in Denmark?



* Care of this post by carlitoswhey.

editted to clarify a point

Been watching the almost heated argument going on here, and I want to add this.
Anyone who brings their ignorance, hatred, bigotry with them to a country that welcomes them deserve to feel "under threat", whatever their source of such ignorance, hatred, bigotry, etc.
Here in Arizona, one issue that keeps coming up is requiring immigrant children to be schooled in English only. Strangely enough, some of their parents agree, and some call it racist. Some politicians want to require teachers to be bi-lingual, cops have to learn a certain amount of Spanish, etc. At least all we have is a bit more crime from our Mexican "immigrants", and a large labor force that is willing to do work that Americans don't want to do.
If immigrants don't want to make an effort to fit in, then they deserve to feel "under threat". If they don't like their new country, fellow citizens (and the freedoms that they enjoy), then they should be given one way tickets back home.
Nearly all other immigrants manage to assimilate, it is almost always the Muslims who are causing the current problems. If backlash occurs, it will be their own fault for not doing their part to put the terrorists out of business.
It is literally a bunch of extremely ignorant people biting the hand that feeds them, and offers them freedoms and opportunities they could not get back home.
Such stupidity can only lead to major clashes, and somehow some will say that it isn't the Muslim's fault, that it is the fault of others for not "understanding" them.
I have no sympathy for the plight of the Muslim world as long as they cling to archaic and ignorant parts of their scriptures. I feel the same about Jews, Catholics and Protestants when they do similar things.

There is something thing I really don't get in your line of argument, moif...

You have been insistent on this thread that Muslim immigration into Europe places everyone at risk becasue of pernicious elements within Islam that encourage, or at best don't seem to actively discourage, hostility against the host country. Now, as far as I can tell, nobody, including me, has denied that these pernicious elements exist, or that they are a problem.

I HAVE noticed myself and turnea argue that many of the targets for your complaint are common to all types of immigrant, are not unique to Islam, or are just plain misattribution on your part (like accusing Muslims of doing something that was in fact done by Sikhs). And the general tenor of "my side" of the debate is that you're overegging things somewhat.

Yet - in another thread (this is just one example), you make the case that the pernicious elements within Islam in the middle East - that result in suicide bombings and general bloodshed and hostility - are perfectly understandable reactions to decades of UK/US/Israeli/Western oppression, be it directly or through the sponsorship and support of dictatorships.

Now, any objective observer would have to say that the chaos in the Middle East makes last Thursday in London, and 11 March 2004 in Madrid (but perhaps not 9-11), look like a playground dispute. The death toll in Iraq alone since last Thursday is already about double that from the London bombings. And it's been mostly ordinary Muslims being killed.

So one sort of terrorism is a dreadful stain on the world that means a whole community of 20 million should be treated with deep suspicion and mistrust. Yet another sort of terrorism (which in methodology and effect is almost identical - if Iraq had an underground railway system, would you be shocked if there had been a suicide bomb attack on it at some point since March 2003) is the perfectly understandable reaction of a people who have been mistreated and downtrodden for decades or even centuries. How come?

Are the Muslims in Bradford really all that different from the ones in Bagdhad?

I'm sorry, but your line of argument just makes me wonder what your motivations are. As you know, I've held your views in high esteem for some time now, even if we don't always agree. But your current anti-Muslim positon doesn't make much in the way of sense to me, and it smacks of NIMBY-ism (to be charitable).

Can you clarify the distinction you are making that allows you to understand and even empathise with a suicide bomber that kills Iraqis, Israelis or the Western foreigners in the Middle East, and at the same time to see a pernicious cancer in the whole European Muslim immigrant comunity when a similar type of person does a similar type of thing in London?

It was you who started a thread entitled something like "who cares about dead Muslim babies?", wasn't it? Doesn't it strike you as inconsistent to then take up the position you are arguing for here?

Is it your contention that Muslim fundamentalist violence is only a problem when it happens outside the Middle East?

Let us just assume, for the sake of debate, that all Muslim terrorist actions are the result of Western oppression. Let us assume, for the sake of debate, that their murderous acts are wholy justifiable. This certainly should spur Western nations to change their Middle East policies, but in the meantime should not immigration for a group containing individuals who want to destroy Western civilization be reduced or halted?

The primary duty of government is to protect the lives and liberties of the citizens of that government. Muslim immigrants represent a short and long-term threat to the citizens of the countries they immigrate to.

It is NOT Islam that is the problem.

It is a community of immigrants from the middle east that identifies itself by its religion and which, increasingly, uses its religion as a political tool and even as a justification for terrorism.


Honestly? Maybe I am, I don't feel like I am, but its possible.

Most of the time I regard Arab immigrants from the middle east as irritating because they are hostile. There are exceptions of course, but generally I have found Arabs to be angry, aloof and in some cases directly threatening. Usually, this doesn't apply to Turks in my experience, but then again, the Turks have been here longer than the others, so maybe they've had a bit of time to intergrate better? Somali's and Africans do not bother me at all and I've mostly found these to be like any one else.

Nearly all the major incidents of violence that have taken place in Denmark in recent years have involved Muslim immigrants. Recently for example, a doorman at a club shot one young man and wounded his brother. All involved were Muslim immigrants (normaly gun crime is extremely rare in Denmark). That this shooting took place at all was bad enough, but what makes this case stand out from any other gun crime is the aftermath. The 'Muslim community', under the leader of the Mullah of Copenhagen (he who cannot speak Danish) decided that the best way to resolve this matter was for the family of the shooter to pay blood money to the family of the deceased. This 'archaic' practice was seen as a good thing by all the Muslims interviewed by the Danish media, but if this was not bad enough, the Mullah of Copenhagen, to the utter astonishment of just about every Dane I saw or heard of, then demanded that the money be tax deductable!

In another incident, also in Copenhagen, an Italian student was shot in the back, fifteen minutes after having stepped off the train from Italy by two fifteen year old second generation Muslims.
Why? Because they'd mistaken him for an American tourist. At the inquest they both apologised for having shot 'the wrong person'. When they were convicted of murder, it was found that neither had Danish citizenship and were thus sentenced to be kicked out of Denmark once they'd served eight years in prison. Upon the verdict being read out, the Muslim 'community' exploded with anger and indignation at this 'unfair racist verdict'.

In another incident, in the immediete after math of the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the Danish media interviewed several prominent Muslims, at lest two of whom were ethnic Danes. Except for one of the ethnic Danes, all of those interviewed expressed satisfaction that Van Gogh had been murdered even though most had never heard of him before he was killed.
During the fall out of these interviews, other Muslims, in this case women, on national Danish television, called for the Somali-born Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be 'punished'.
When a Muslim Danish MP then tried to admonish these women, he was drowned out by his own constituents.

I could make quite a list of such incidents Julian but of course its all higly subjective and proves nothing to any one else. But this is my perception of this community. This is ALL I ever see of them. I don't see them rallying behind the victims of terrorism, I don't see them expressing regret or remorse or anything that even resembles any form of empathy. I see them angry at the west, at Israel, at the USA, at us, I see them happy when terrorists attack and kill us, I see them calling for changes in our country to make their religion easier at our expense. I see them in the media, every single day and never in a good light. Do you know what the Danish Muslim community's response has been to the London bombings?

Uniform silence.

I read anti war.com. and al jazeera daily, I call for freedom and peace in the middle east here and else where, I defend the innocent as best I can, but I will never defend people who attack me or my friends and allies. Not for anything and certainly not just because they happen to belong to a 'community'.

There is such a thing as collective responsibility. I am a firm believer in it. It is one of the foundations of democracy. For the Muslim community in Denmark, the UK and every where else in Europe, the time is ripe for a demonstration of that responsibility... for solidarity. This is not a demand. I would not stand up and say, you are either with us or against us as GW Bush did, but I do note who stands up and who does not.

These terrorists and mullahs exist amongst them. They know who these people are.

When I actually see the Muslim community standing up to prevent terrorist attacks then I'll stop regarding them as a threat. Until then...


In that thread I wrote that the violence was a direct consequence of the decades of oppression that has taken place with UK and US sanction in the middle east. That does not mean I think the violence was 'understandable'.

It isn't. Murder is without any merit or justification.


It is not perfectly understandable...

Also, I have not said the 20 million Muslims in Europe should be treated with deep suspicion. I don't belive they they should be treated any different from any one else.

I regard them with deep suspicion because, as a community, they are harbouring and funding terrorists.


Of course they are. No one is threatening the Muslims in Bradford. They live in an open, free and democratic society.


Yes. I am 'archaic'. I believe in freedom, liberty, human rights, democracy, equality and personal and collective responsibility.

And you are dead right. I do not want extremism in my back yard, nor any 'community' that tolerates and fosters it.


Seeking to understand the causes and motivations behind terrorism is not 'empathising' with it.


It was called 'Who cares about dead Arabs?'.


No.

Murder is murder, regardless of whether the murderer is a Muslim or a Dane or any one else.

I strongly disagree with the policies of the GW Bush government, that doesn't mean to say I empathise with terrorists, or find their position, understandable.

Please explain to me when you expect the next civil war in Denmark.

Remember what Julian said about overstating things?


That would be more than friction. I would call it open conflict.

Saying that "no on wants them here" is indeed serious friction and is part of the problem not part of the solution.


..and what can they do?

What gives you the idea immigrants are sheltering these people? Certainly such a thing would be against their self-interest. Do you believe that these "extremely large groups of immigrants" are without the least strain of moral fiber? That they seek your death?


I've always viewed "human nature" as an infinitely malleable thing... it has changed so much over the centuries. I will explain why you misunderstand what I was pointing out below.


There's the rub for identifying with a group is not the same thing as vilifying other groups.

Certainly it is fine to recognize thing is an "Us and Them" but I said
"Us vs. Them.

That is what your comments allude to and it is indeed archaic. Muslim immigrants are not out to get you.



Yet the articles you linked to point out that this is a tiny minority of Muslim immigrants. Actually not even that, the London bombers were British-Born and were not following their parent's traditional intepretation of Islam but a recent strain.

The problem is not so simple as immigration.



What use is this distinction? They are still Danes despite their aberrant viewpoint. I'm sure there are many ethnic Danes who hold views you dislike...

They do not reflect on the Danish community anymore than a few nuts reflect on the Muslim immigrant community.


Legally I presume. If this is so odious to most danes I'm sure there exist the political avenue to undo the change.

....and really so what? They want to have meat prepared in their own fashion, how horrid.


As a supporter of "separation of church and state" I'd say both are in the wrong. I wouldn't say those who want state-funding for the Church of Denmark are bad people however, just misguided.

So, some immigrants have differing political views than you do, let's see what next on the list.


Something that might actually destroy the culture, which is the property of the ethnic danes of Denmark and not necessarily its government.


Your concerns are really not that different from Israel now that you mention it. They too a struggling to maintain a Jewish state against other ethnic groups.

Like I said before, I consider this confluence of state and culture archaic in a world where immigration is easier than ever before.

Having ethnic Danes be a minority in Denmark will not mean the end of the culture though for a nation so linked to its ethnicity I can see how it might be disconcerting.

But that has nothing to do with Muslim integration perse, it's really not their concern nor should it be.


That seems to me a rather romantic notion of immigration. All I can say is I disagree on pricinple. If I wen to Saudi Arabia I would still be fine wandering in jeans and a T-shirt.

Let them do as they please and so shall I.



Evidence that this is widespread among the immigrant community?


I could say the same thing about the Guantanumo Bay versus agricultural tariffs killing thousands of Africans every year. Misplaced priorities are common even among Ethnic Europeans.

Every community seems to have its pet peeve.


Rather it was worn as a religious practice with inadvertently contradicted France's foolish law. As a a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights they should have know better than to pass that illegal writ before hand.



Even if the law itself was unjust?

Civil disobedience is unpatriotic?


I doubt that historically as the current French government was likely not in existence before Muslims arrived. Spain knows that very well...


If the law is unjust (as they believed) than it may well.



Except that little massacre in 1995...

There are other signs of rot than violence. Legal restriction of religious expression for instance or comments that they should all go home....


An excellent question, though not the operative one. I'll look into is, as well as the reverse of how many Danes Muslims have murdered.

I can't answer that because I don't know how many more terrorist actions are going to happen or when.

I didn't say a war was going to start, I said I was afraid of it. It has happened before, also in times when men talked of peace.


Then we are guilty no matter what we do.

No one invited 20 million Muslims into Europe. They came of their own free will and were not asked to come here. Once here, they have formed ghetto's and closed communities, built mosques and allowed fundamentalism to spread and grow in their midst. They speak their languages and have their own internal culture which is closed to the rest of us and we cannot simply keep a constant eye on what they are doing.

In order for security to exist amongst these people, they have to enforce it and they have failed to do so. I've listed several examples of what I am referring to and I can list many more. The common attitude of the Islamic community, here in Denmark, but I suspect all across Europe, is one of disdain towards Europeans. They won't allow their children to mix with ours, they are not allowed to eat the same foods, play with other children, wear the same clothes. Many even kill their own children if these take Danish lovers and instead of cutting out this tradition, the Islamic community tolerates it and prefers to use 'blood money' to settle disputes. They put their religion before our laws, as if a mere ideology is some how above law and call us racist if they don't get what they want.

Time and again, the Muslim community is held to a different standard than the rest of us because of the ever present fear that our 'racism' threatens the utopian multi cultural wet dream and even when prominent Muslims admit the imbalance and call upon their community to adapt to Danish culture and to accept they are no longer living int he middle east, these people are ignored, pulled down and in some cases, forced into hiding or simply murdered.


They have already tolerated and defended gang rape, murder and mass murder. Their continued denial of any responsibility for the problems we are facing can lead to a serious backlash, perhaps not in Denmark but certainly in other countries.

Worst of all, they can continue to flood into Denmark and gradually assimilate it into the Islamic world. Many of their 'leaders' have stated this and the introduction of Sharia law is something all Muslims should aim towards.


In most cases? no, not my death, but I believe they have no respect or affection for Denmark and the majority are more than willing to see it become a Muslim controlled nation.


Human nature has never changed in over a million years. We are essentially still the same apes we were when we first learned language. We are all motivated by self interest and are prepared to go to any lengths to protect our self interest.


Tell that to Theo Van Gogh.


I know that. No other group has caused the problems that Islamic immigrants have. The problem is caused by the continued use of a religion to prevent intergration with European culture.

There is a desire to turn Europe into another version of the USA and the idea of the multi culture is at the centre of this desire. The problem is, Europe is not like the USA and never will be. You cannot impose a multi culture upon pre existing cultures and expect their to be no friction, but by adding a second, equally ancient culture into the mix has only led to the obvious conclusion of the two colliding head long.

Neither side is willing to assimilate into the other, and the danger facing the European's is to become a multi ethnic culture full of Muslims whilst the Muslims retain the entire middle east to themselves.

The long term danger we face is to be assimilated into the middle east and I don't give a crap how politically uncorrect it is to say or think it, but I do not want to live in a Muslim society any more than I want to live in an American society.


It is for the cow hung by its back legs so its throat can be cut.


Yes, we could get rid of our royal family as well, but why should we just to satisfy you or any other outsiders?

The church of Denmark is the official church of Denmark, it has been so for a very long time and it is for the Danes to decide whether or not it should be funded.


The government reflects the majority.


The difference is, Denmark is over a thousand years old. Our claim to this land is older.


Yes, and I say that immigration can be used as a method of assimilation and invasion.

Apparently, the Koran advocates immigration for just that purpose.