Wednesday, 23 March 2016

Neo-Neocon on Deporting Muslims

Comments from the blog of Neo-Neocon

You write:

THE solution is simplicity itself, expel every Muslim from Europe.

That however would require abandonment of its leftist panaceas; socialism, multiculturalism and voluntary male castration.

But it would also require abandonment of one of the pillars of Western policy for the last couple of hundred years—religious tolerance.

You may decide it’s worth it to try to expel all Muslims. That would mean, by the way, determining the religion of every person in Europe, including the native-born who converted to Islam, and expelling them—to where? For those who are foreign nationals, this would not be a problem, if indeed the countries would take them back and it could somehow be accomplished. For native-born Muslims, what do you do? What about those who dissemble and go underground, like the conversos in Spain after the expulsion of the Jews? I could go on and on and on with this, but you probably get the idea.



You know that religious tolerance is a long-held tenet of this country, and a more recent but nevertheless long-held tenet of Europe. Don’t pretend you don’t know that. I’m not making this up.

And don’t pretend you don’t know that I’ve been as tough on Islam and its fanatics as anyone. But it is also true that to many of its less-fanatic adherents, Islam is very much a religion and they want nothing to do with terrorism or terrorists. That is why this is such a big, big problem.

Simplifying the matter so that you believe that there is no such thing as the religion of Islam is incorrect. I refuse to do so to please the right as much as I refuse to cater to the left’s whitewashing of the very very real problems with a great deal of Islam and a great many Muslims.


Geoffrey Britain:

Islam may not have moderate branches, but there are moderate Muslims who are good citizens of this country and believe in its ideals.

Do you not know nominal Christians and nominal Jews who don’t follow all the precepts (or even most of the precepts) of their religions? Islam is no different. I know quite a few people born as Muslims who are not religious. Some are even atheists. I know these people quite well. They would be classified by Islam as Muslims, and they would be Muslims by birth, but they are very moderate and no threat at all. They constitute more than 10% but probably less than 50% of the Moslems in this country. Some of them, for example, are ex-pat Iranians who came (or their parents came) to this country after the 1979 revolution. They no more want that sort of life for themselves or for other people than you do, and they are against terrorism. Nor do they want other people to become Muslim.

On a post on Trump and the Muslim Problem:

Trump’s proposal is not only broad but vague. Would citizens be included in the ban, if they left the country? How would this be enforced? What about constitutional issues—although Trump himself seems to have no interest in those? Why “Muslim” and why not “from Arab or Muslim countries where the population and/or government support Islamic terrorism”? What about Muslim European citizens—and there are plenty of them? How does one determine who’s a Muslim and who isn’t, since it isn’t written on their passports?

It's refreshing to see somebody who is a little bit to the Right of me opposing daft Islamophobic ideas and taking the usual flak for it.

I am really glad a sensible conservative like Neo-Neocon rejects Trump's solution (as did Ted Cruz). I can't help thinking though, that by continually raising up fears about Islamic immigration, such conservatives only fuel the call for extremist solutions.

No comments:

Post a Comment