Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I'm not aware of any attacks in this country by people who have been through the same process as what Syrian refugees would go through.
Are you aware of how many will become "radicalized" after they get here? Assuming they haven't already before they get here? Considering what has happened with others, such as the Tsarnaev brothers and Malik Farook, who innocently came from other Muslim places and turned out so well, is it wise at this time to allow tens of thousands more to come and give it a try?
Pretty sure all the known Paris attackers were of EU citizenship, same goes for Brussles.
|
It is the "citizens," such as the Fort Hood killer and others like the Tsarnaevs and the Farooks, which are the most dangerous "radicals." It is the radicalization of citizens or "home grown" Muslims who pose the greatest threat. It is the inability of devout Muslims to be able to assimilate into Western culture which make them especially susceptible to the misnomer of "radicalization." Islam is by definition a radical departure from Western civilization. It is very difficult for an open, tolerant, society to suppress the desire of those in large, isolated, communities whose deepest sentiments run counter to that society. Islamic States are successful at suppressing non-Islamic sentiments because those countries are not open and tolerant.
If the argument is that we become just as intolerant as Islamic States if we do not "tolerate" entrenchment of fundamentalist Islamic ideology, that would be saying that we won't tolerate intolerance. Which, I assume, is the limit of toleration. Beyond that limit is suicidal toleration.
That is the peculiar problem with Islamic immigration compared to ethnic, or most other religious immigrants. Others can keep their different identities and embrace American social and political culture instead of having a fundamental antipathy toward it. In our tolerant way, we assume that Muslims who wish to live here have reformed their religion, or will. Reforming Islam to the point that it is compatible with Western values is fundamentally to destroy it, and that makes our assumption difficult. Not impossible. Certainly, it is possible to gut Islam of its very nature, keeping some of the "nice" tenets, and maintain the name. But that is a transition in its very early stages. And before such a reformation is complete, there will be a great deal of "radicaliztion." And a lot of terrorism.
Call us bigots if that makes you feel superior or righteous, but many of us would rather wait for the reformation to grow serious world wide roots before we invite millions of Muslims into our midst.