Does Islam belong in Germany?

[Moss]

And that's what all the big bruhaha and thought crime investigation is about. They don't like it that I don't disagree with the accursed conservatoids, who have no right to have their hated beliefs be any part of the national identity, culture, or discourse.

I suppose your goalposts just had a severe case of whiplash. That also seems to come with a sidedish of "Your motivations actually are..." strawmen.

 

[Mycroft]

A nation's identity and culture is derived from the identity and culture of its citizens. It's not its own separate thing.

If Muslim citizens are a part of Germany, then their culture and identity are a part of Germany, making their culture and identity part of the overall German national culture and identity.

Yep.

 

[Toontown]

And if it's generally accepted, no amount of whining from reactionary idiots who think they get to decide what should or shouldn't be part of the national culture will change that.

Remind me again - what percentage of Germans hold a belief in Islam?

That would be the leading indicator as to whether Islam is a significant part of German identity and culture.

Would you like me to explain to you how scientific consensus and the cultural identity of a nation-state aren't, in any way, shape or form, the least bit similar to each other?

Is that all you've got? Rebuttal by denial of similarity of principle?

At any rate, science works, and countries do not assimilate minority belief systems either, which would have to rank high on the list of reasons why Western countries usually manage to avoid disintegrating into random chaos.

Like declaring that "Islam is not part of our tradition and identity in Germany and so does not belong in Germany", perhaps?

Perhaps. I wouldn't have put it that way. I would have said 'The Salafist attempt to gain political power through religious conversion is the antithesis of democratic principles we Germans have come to hold dear. Such tactics will be rejected by the German people.'

 

[A'isha]

That would be the leading indicator as to whether Islam is a significant part of German identity and culture.

Not so much, no. The proper indicator would be the number of Germans, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, who feel that Islam is a part of German identity and culture. Like Chaos and Moss do.

Nice job trying to move the goalposts with the "significant" modifier, though.

Is that all you've got? Rebuttal by denial of similarity of principle?

Okay. Then how about you point me to the peer-reviewed journal used for determining what is and isn't allowed to become part of the identity and culture of a nation.

At any rate, science works,

Yes it does.

and countries do not assimilate minority belief systems either,

Yes they do. Just ask American Catholics and Mormons.

which would have to rank high on the list of reasons why Western countries usually manage to avoid disintegrating into random chaos.

Yes, I'm sure the Germans can tell you all about how well their previous attempts to impose and maintain cultural and religious homogeneity in their country worked out for everyone involved.

Perhaps. I wouldn't have put it that way. I would have said 'The Salafist attempt to gain political power through religious conversion is the antithesis of democratic principles we Germans have come to hold dear. Such tactics will be rejected by the German people.'

Would you like me to educate you on how the thing the term "Salafism" refers to differs from the thing the term "Islam" refers to?

 

[Toontown]

Uhm, I kinda disagree here.

The "national culture and identity" of the US is one that embraces people of all religious preferences as well as people of no religious preference at all. It's even encoded in our constitution as well as our laws.

I kinda disagree back. Freedom of religion requires that no religion be endorsed by the government. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but also guarantees that no religion shall be imposed upon the nation. And society does not take on the identity of it's least parts.

Therefore, ideally at least, any religion which becomes a part of the national identity does so by sheer numbers alone.

Apparently the same situation exists in Germany, and the Salafists know it.

Christianity may be predominant, but other religions also make up part of the greater mosaic. The new-ager who thinks there is power in crystals, the Mormons, Hindus, Jews and even Muslims all have their place here and are all part of a greater whole.

And yet none of those fringe groups = USA. None of their particular belief systems can rightly be said to be representative of the USA.

A Nation must be greater than the sum of it's parts, or it won't be around long. Frankly, a lot of the parts are bozos.

Further, the predominance of any one part is going to change over time. Just like parts of our society look radically different today than from 50 years ago, it's also true that our society 50 years from now will look radically different from how it looks today. It's very likely that aspects that have a small influence today, such as Islam, will have a much larger influence in years to come. How much larger is anyone's guess.

Fortunately, I won't be around to see that dark day arrive. Not that I agree in the least. I'm quite sure religion is going to be ushered out the door. Unless civilization collapses and progress reverses, which is the godboys' only long-range hope.

And the Salafists know that too.

 

[Toontown]

Would you like me to educate you on how the thing the term "Salafism" refers to differs from the thing the term "Islam" refers to?

No, I don't need you to educate me on that. It seems excruciatingly obvious that I had reasons for saying I wouldn't have put it like that.

More and more, I am less and less interested in having you "educate" me on anything at all. It doesn't seem like education at all. It seems more like a kind of browbeating form of indoctrination. I find your education attempts more annoying than educational.

I think I'll have to remain in charge of my own education, inept as I may be at educating myself, and muddle through as best I can. Even if I fail to indoctrinate myself in the manner the crowd this thread has attracted deems ideologically pure and correct. I'll just have to live with their disapproval.

 

[Mycroft]

I kinda disagree back. Freedom of religion requires that no religion be endorsed by the government. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but also guarantees that no religion shall be imposed upon the nation. And society does not take on the identity of it's least parts.

I think you're moving the goalposts here a bit. We're not talking about what religion gets the endorsement of the government, we're talking about what religions are a part of the "national culture and identity". I believe that they all are, each to their own degree.

Therefore, ideally at least, any religion which becomes a part of the national identity does so by sheer numbers alone.

I think part of our disagreement here is what we consider to be a "national identity." For me, it's a very big thing. Big enough to encompass everyone who is a citizen of that nation.

And yet none of those fringe groups = USA. None of their particular belief systems can rightly be said to be representative of the USA.

Not by themselves, no, but as part of a greater whole, yes.

Fortunately, I won't be around to see that dark day arrive. Not that I agree in the least. I'm quite sure religion is going to be ushered out the door. Unless civilization collapses and progress reverses, which is the godboys' only long-range hope.

But how "dark" of a day would it be, really? Isn't the important thing that what is carried forward to future generations are values that embrace human rights and tolerance regardless of what religious dogma is subscribed too?

 

[Toontown]

That's not how national discourse works in Germany. For good reasons minorities have a say in politics and culture. You seem to disagree with that for some reason.

Yes, every little minority has it's little say. But how much weight does a minority carry in the national discourse? Does everybody cave in to the loudest minority over there? I doubt it. I think it works the same as it works here. The minority had better have a damn good argument. In the case of the Koran-distributors, I hardly think "It says so in the Koran" is much of an argument.

Your assertions are based on nothing but your sayso. You failed to demonstrate why your perspective is the correct one.

Well? How much weight does a minority carry in the national discourse, relative to, say, the majority?

And, increasingly pertinently, does the answer to the burning question even matter enough to justify all this endless browbeating, keeping me from my bicycle ride?

Well. Good luck in your latest tactic of asserting that that I haven't proved that majority opinions carry more weight in the national discourse than minority opinions. That's going to change a lot of minds. What a revelation.

 

[Toontown]

I think part of our disagreement here is what we consider to be a "national identity." For me, it's a very big thing. Big enough to encompass everyone who is a citizen of that nation.

Sorry, can't go along with that. It's impossible. Attempting to sum all the various beliefs to the satisfaction of all the various believers would simply create a state of confusion and paralysis. And that's not what happens in practice anyway. What happens is, the most widely accepted beliefs prevail.

 

[A'isha]

Is the "national discourse" the same thing as a "national culture and identity", Toontown?

Can a minority be a part (even if just a small part) of a nation's culture and identity, and have a voice (if a correspondingly and equally small one) in a nation's political discourse?

Or is it an all-or-nothing deal, such that if you aren't the dominant political and cultural influence in a nation, you aren't any part of the nation's culture and identity and discourse?

 

[Mycroft]

Sorry, can't go along with that. It's impossible. Attempting to sum all the various beliefs to the satisfaction of all the various believers would simply create a state of confusion and paralysis. And that's not what happens in practice anyway. What happens is, the most widely accepted beliefs prevail.

Prevail how?

Our national identity is big enough to encompass both Jimi Hendrix and Jerry Falwell. Both are cultural icons and very influential. People who follow them are neither confused nor paralyzed by the existence of the other. It's not necessary for the continuation of our culture for either to "prevail", and the term might be meaningless anyway.

In practice, within something as big as a culture, a society or a national identity there is always a plurality of opinion and viewpoints. Especially if one of the values of that society is to allow for individualism and freedom.

 

[Moss]

Yes, every little minority has it's little say. But how much weight does a minority carry in the national discourse? Does everybody cave in to the loudest minority over there? I doubt it. I think it works the same as it works here. The minority had better have a damn good argument. In the case of the Koran-distributors, I hardly think "It says so in the Koran" is much of an argument.

Except Kauder wasn't talking about those Salafists but Islam in general. Which happens to pertain to all German muslims. Who are 4+ million people. Not enough to matter?

Well? How much weight does a minority carry in the national discourse, relative to, say, the majority?

In Germany? Enough to be able to defend itself against attempts to exclude it via hasty generalizations based on their extremist fringe. As I said for good reasons. We learned that there lies a danger in exclusionary politics. And despite your railings against nazi politics you ironically seem to miss that rather important point. Nice going.

And, increasingly pertinently, does the answer to the burning question even matter enough to justify all this endless browbeating, keeping me from my bicycle ride?

You
The only person that keeps you here is yourself and that is nothing I or anyone else can and will do something about.

Well. Good luck in your latest tactic of asserting that that I haven't proved that majority opinions carry more weight in the national discourse than minority opinions. That's going to change a lot of minds. What a revelation.

You still seem convinced that Kauder is somehow representing a majority of people. Sorry, he isn't. He isn't even representing the bigger part of his party's voting block. Which currently mobilises approximately 33% of voters.
And let's get to national discourse here: For obvious reasons some minorities carry more weight in it than even the majority. For example our Jewish Germans. Minorities in general have a voice not based on pure numbers alone here. Because they are so few they enjoy some protection and a somewhat louder voice. Because that keeps the majority from disenfranchising them. You can go on baldly asserting that it isn't so, but that just shows you have no clue about our national discourse and why it works that way.

 

[Toontown]

Prevail how?

Prevail by being more numerous, or more successful.

Our national identity is big enough to encompass both Jimi Hendrix and Jerry Falwell. Both are cultural icons and very influential. People who follow them are neither confused nor paralyzed by the existence of the other. It's not necessary for the continuation of our culture for either to "prevail", and the term might be meaningless anyway.

I disagree completely with the entirety of your assertion.

A country or culture composed entirely of Hendrix and Falwell followers would be extremely confused, paralyzed, and stoned. It wouldn't know whether to wiipe it's watch or wind it's ass. Half of it would be pointing it's plastic finger at the other half, hoping soon their kind would drop and die. But the other half would just keep on waving their freak flags high. Until they did in fact OD and die. Leaving nothing left but the damn plastic-fingered Falwellers - a catastrophe of Orwellian proportions.

Fortunately, there exists a prevailing sane majority which provides some reason and stability, and prevents the insanity from prevailing. And this is the only part of a culture that is necessary for the continuation of the culture.

In practice, within something as big as a culture, a society or a national identity there is always a plurality of opinion and viewpoints. Especially if one of the values of that society is to allow for individualism and freedom.

I'm not talking about personalities and celebrities, I'm talking about beliefs. Some beliefs prevail and have a great effect on the culture. Others are flashes in the pan and have little or no effect.

And so castles made of sand melt into the sea, eventually. Whether or not the castle-builders are individualistic and free.

 

[Moss]

For some odd reason I feel reminded of how well monocultures work in forestry.

 

[Craig B]

The proportion of citizens who hold a belief is the leading indicator of the general acceptance or rejection of the belief. If a belief is generally rejected, it can play very little if any part in the national discourse, decision-making process, and culture.

Jews formed less than 1% of the population of Germany in 1933. However, it was not for that reason that Hitler removed them from the national discourse, decision making process, and culture. He did that because he was a racist who selected the Jews as a suitable scapegoat upon whom to heap the blame for the ills Germany was suffering on account of the economic crisis.

The actors change, the play goes on ... not so?

This time, at least we have reason to hope that it will not end in war and genocide.

 

[Toontown]

Except Kauder wasn't talking about those Salafists but Islam in general. Which happens to pertain to all German muslims. Who are 4+ million people. Not enough to matter?

And what brought up the subject of Islam in general?

And to whom was Kauder referring when he said Muslims who are German citizens do belong, and have their rights?

In Germany? Enough to be able to defend itself against attempts to exclude it via hasty generalizations based on their extremist fringe. As I said for good reasons. We learned that there lies a danger in exclusionary politics. And despite your railings against nazi politics you ironically seem to miss that rather important point. Nice going.

Rejecting obviously bogus, false belief systems is not exclusionary politics. It's just smart. Smart people do it all the time. Especially scientists.

Hint: You don't have to herd people into concentration camps in order to reject their false beliefs. You can simply reject the false beliefs and let it go at that.

You still seem convinced that Kauder is somehow representing a majority of people. Sorry, he isn't.

You still seem convinced that you can get away with strawing me up as being convinced of whatever you want me to be convinced of, so you can say I'm wrong about it. Sorry, you can't.

But eventually I'll leave, then you can straw up a load of crap. But then I might come back, and torch all your straw again.

...

Minorities in general have a voice not based on pure numbers alone here. Because they are so few they enjoy some protection and a somewhat louder voice. Because that keeps the majority from disenfranchising them. You can go on baldly asserting that it isn't so, but that just shows you have no clue about our national discourse and why it works that way.

What a crock. Tilt at windmills much?

What kind of disenfranchisement are you talking about? Take away their voting rights? That's the only enfranchisement they have to begin with, other than mandated protections under the law - which no minority can achieve on it's own, without the active involvement of the majority.

So...are you afraid that the majority, which grants the minority enfranchisement in the first place, might simply take it away if the minority doesn't have a loud enough voice?

German politics must be really wierd.

You know, the easy solution would be to issue bullhorns to all minority members (preferably unbeknownst to the disenfranchisement-prone majority). Then the minorities could be plenty loud.

But their false beliefs still wouldn't be part of the national identity. No amount of loud bullhorn-braying could accomplish that, but might make the majority want to disenfranchise them even more, and particularly relieve them of their bullhorns.

 

[Craig B]

What a crock. Tilt at windmills much?

This is an example of the gibberish I referred to earlier.

You know, the easy solution would be to issue bullhorns to all minority members (preferably unbeknownst to the disenfranchisement-prone majority). Then the minorities could be plenty loud.

But their false beliefs still wouldn't be part of the national identity. No amount of loud bullhorn-braying could accomplish that, but might make the majority want to disenfranchise them even more, and particularly relieve them of their bullhorns.

That utterance slightly diminishes the optimism expressed in the final sentence of my last post.

 

[Toontown]

delete

 

[Toontown]

This is an example of the gibberish I referred to earlier. That utterance slightly diminishes the optimism expressed in the final sentence of my last post.

Hmm. Doesn't take much to diminish your optimism. With more effort, I could reduce you to a catatonic state.

But I needn't bother. That sound of jackboots marching in your head will do the job eventually.

All because I won't say that Islam is or should be a part of German culture and identity.

Wierd.

No, not wierd. But kinky.

 

[Mycroft]

Prevail by being more numerous, or more successful.

By that definition I think the only ideas that need to prevail are respect for human rights, dignity, and tolerance for other people. As long as we embrace those ideas, it doesn't matter much if Mormonism gains ground over Baptists, or if Islam grows in comparison to Christianity.

I disagree completely with the entirety of your assertion.

A country or culture composed entirely of Hendrix and Falwell followers would be extremely confused, paralyzed, and stoned. It wouldn't know whether to wiipe it's watch or wind it's ass. Half of it would be pointing it's plastic finger at the other half, hoping soon their kind would drop and die. But the other half would just keep on waving their freak flags high. Until they did in fact OD and die. Leaving nothing left but the damn plastic-fingered Falwellers - a catastrophe of Orwellian proportions.

Who said entirely? Those are only examples of very different cultural influences. Nobody says anyone must choose between Hendrix or Falwell. That there are so many other choices is part of the point I was making.

I'm not talking about personalities and celebrities, I'm talking about beliefs. Some beliefs prevail and have a great effect on the culture. Others are flashes in the pan and have little or no effect.

And over time the beliefs embraced by the culture change and then change again.

And so castles made of sand melt into the sea, eventually. Whether or not the castle-builders are individualistic and free.

Give us an example of a castle not made of sand?