Pew Research: Sweden might be 30% Muslim by 2050

[seb_pard]

You guys really need to agree on a single argument. Right now some of you are saying "Don't be a conspiracy theorist, Sweden will never be run by sharia!", while others are saying "OK, so Sweden will be run by sharia, but you as a dhimmi can always just pay the jizya, so what's the problem, bigot?"

Or, here's a thought, it could be one complete argument: "This idea of Sweden becoming 30% Muslim is very unlikely and based on dodgy data, but even if it were true, this wouldn't actually be anywhere near as big a problem as you think it is."

I mean, by the time you get to the third generation, you're about as 'integrated' as any native person.

It's telling that even apologists for Muslim immigration use as a defense "don't worry, their children won't be THAT Muslim" implying that they realize Islam is a problem.

Anyway, with regards to your actual arguments about integration, as the other immigration apologists have pointed out, trends do not continue indefinitely.

You can not assume that millions of people living in self contained ghettos will assimilate to European culture at the same rate as people who came 30 years ago and were completely immersed in a 90% ethnic European population on arrival.

As I said, the best way to assimilate the Muslims is to eliminate the Muslim part of the demographic and bring them to Jesus Christ.

You do understand though that for a Muslim converting to Christianity is basically a death sentence ?

Imagine a Muslim girl playing with the thought of marrying a Christian ...

She would be slaughtered by her own family for treason.

That's why your idea is nuts.

And it's also a reason why the Muslim population will rise fast over the long turn, even without further immigration.

Because they breed faster and are much more radical than current Christians who have no concerns laying off their faith.

The Iranian-American woman who spoke at my church a few weeks ago who converted to Christianity, married a Christian and is by all accounts living a rather comfortable and open lifestyle is at high risk of being killed?

You, like parochial boy, are referring to the 1-5% of the more liberal Muslim women who have the guts to speak their own mind.

The other 95-99% are the oppressed and brainwashed majority who are living under the current threat of honour killings by their families, if they abandon Islam ...

A recent study (The Austrian Integration Barometer by the Austrian Integration Fund) here is backing up my claim, considering 99% of the Somali and 95% of the Afghan/Pakistani immigrants in Austria consider abandoning Islamic Faith a deadly sin.

Do you have the link of that study? I couldn't find it on google.

[Famous Mortimer]

More to the point, studies show that even 3rd generation immigrants are discriminated against in Europe. If we maybe stopped caring so much about identity and more about capability, there'd be more "Arab guys in suits", as you put it parochial.

You assume they don't become assimilated against because they are discriminated against.

It's probably the other way around.

[Zinneke]

More to the point, studies show that even 3rd generation immigrants are discriminated against in Europe. If we maybe stopped caring so much about identity and more about capability, there'd be more "Arab guys in suits", as you put it parochial.

You assume they don't become assimilated against because they are discriminated against.

It's probably the other way around.

Regardless of your flawed logic, my main point is that you should judge people individually rather than as a group. You discriminate based on their own personal characteristics and their previous actions. Anything identity-related should be merely an accessory. It might be interesting but it does not have to define you as a person.

I have absolutely no interest in playing speleology with identity based on your ancestors, your culture of "origin", the religion you think you know like the back of your hand, even your god damn genetics. For me its just accessory.

And if you follow the logic above, you will understand why enacting policies that akin to collective punishment is a no-no in the opinion of many people on the Left.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So what?

You guys really need to agree on a single argument. Right now some of you are saying "Don't be a conspiracy theorist, Sweden will never be run by sharia!", while others are saying "OK, so Sweden will be run by sharia, but you as a dhimmi can always just pay the jizya, so what's the problem, bigot?"

This post doesn't make any sense.

[Famous Mortimer]

More to the point, studies show that even 3rd generation immigrants are discriminated against in Europe. If we maybe stopped caring so much about identity and more about capability, there'd be more "Arab guys in suits", as you put it parochial.

You assume they don't become assimilated against because they are discriminated against.

It's probably the other way around.

Regardless of your flawed logic, my main point is that you should judge people individually rather than as a group. You discriminate based on their own personal characteristics and their previous actions. Anything identity-related should be merely an accessory. It might be interesting but it does not have to define you as a person.

I have absolutely no interest in playing speleology with identity based on your ancestors, your culture of "origin", the religion you think you know like the back of your hand, even your god damn genetics. For me its just accessory.

And if you follow the logic above, you will understand why enacting policies that akin to collective punishment is a no-no in the opinion of many people on the Left.

An accessory to what? You yourself call being a Muslim "identity related" so you acknowledge that it plays a role in their identity as people.

[Zinneke]

More to the point, studies show that even 3rd generation immigrants are discriminated against in Europe. If we maybe stopped caring so much about identity and more about capability, there'd be more "Arab guys in suits", as you put it parochial.

You assume they don't become assimilated against because they are discriminated against.

It's probably the other way around.

Regardless of your flawed logic, my main point is that you should judge people individually rather than as a group. You discriminate based on their own personal characteristics and their previous actions. Anything identity-related should be merely an accessory. It might be interesting but it does not have to define you as a person.

I have absolutely no interest in playing speleology with identity based on your ancestors, your culture of "origin", the religion you think you know like the back of your hand, even your god damn genetics. For me its just accessory.

And if you follow the logic above, you will understand why enacting policies that akin to collective punishment is a no-no in the opinion of many people on the Left.

An accessory to what? You yourself call being a Muslim "identity related" so you acknowledge that it plays a role in their identity as people.

An accessory to their overall status as a citizen living in our community, by which I mean their city, their country, and Europe, in that order. In that means they have to respect the laws of these communities. Nobody is giving these people positive discrimination in regards to crime, as paranoid people like Tender seem to make out.

Their Islamic identity has only defined them as a community if either they decide to, or if others decide for them. For an example of the latter, before 9/11, we had several "communities", including Albanians, Pakistanis, Morroccans, etc in Brussels. They were largely separated when referred to, or they were just referred to as immigrants by the far right. These days, because of how the "Clash of Civilizations" has seeped into our political culture since 9/11 and other Western-based terrorist attacks, they are separated as Muslim/non-Muslim.

I merely see these categorisations as accessories to their particular upbringings as individuals. Because there is no way, simply from a social scientific perspective, you can predict how an individual is integrated and is going to act simply based on religious affiliation. You can maybe start by what kind of religious event he or she attends, if at all. Or as Crabcake said, the level of education. But even that doesn't stop the odd successful guy from going to join IS.

And for an example of when they do decide to adopt an identity, look at the ISLAM party of Brussels, which I and so many other "leftists" (who aren't into all that antimp post-colonialist crap) condemn. Because that's their conscious decision to define themselves politically as Islamist. The difference is while the ISLAM party gets 2-4% city-wide, the "anti-islamic" nativist Right get 10-40% nationwide depending on the country. I know which one is a bigger threat to my civil liberties and fundamental rights for the time being…and I doubt a couple more brown faces on the street will stop that.