[hackuser]

> it's not as if every religion is equal. It'd be strange to say that, for instance, Jainism, has (or had) anywhere near the violence (even proportionally) that, say, Christianity or Judaism has (or had).

Lacking data, I'd guess that violence is proportional to power and not to the religious teachings. Janists don't control any large armies (yet). But if a Janist PM of India nuked Pakistan, would you be shocked?

> It feels somewhat dishonest to imply that no group has a larger problem. And I don't mean terrorism -- that's small enough in raw numbers to not matter -- I mean overall social views ...

It's impossible that every group has equal problems, of course, but many other factors may determine the social views, as an example: Is the group concentrated in a certain region? I'll bet Mormons have a stronger belief in democracy and civil rights than (pick some religion concentrated in a non-democratic country). Is the group disproportionately poor or rich? Old or young? Well or poorly educated? Does it have a political structure that lends itself to certain types of behavior (for example, I don't know about religions, but for nations democratic structures generally yield more peaceful behavior)? etc.

Think of it from a scientific basis: Can we control for other factors and isolate behavior down to religion? It seems almost impossible. And what is religion? Scripture? Teachings? The local clergy? Family? Personal beliefs - even those change. Within religions, there is enormous variety in observance and belief; very few if any blindly accept all their religion's teachings. It seems impossible to paint the individuals with a broad brush.

And regardless, I think it's unjust to judge any individual based on anything but their own actions. It's not right to guess what they might do and condemn them for it.

[MichaelGG]

>unjust to judge any individual based on anything but their own actions. It's not right to guess what they might do and condemn them for it.

I'm not suggesting condemning anyone. Just condemning their views and making it publicly unacceptable, and perhaps letting that provide some advice to immigration policy. Similar to how the Mormon church was let know in no uncertain terms that racial discrimination was not OK, despite their religion.[1]

A blanket ban (based on what, like you say, professed religion?) is extremely uncomfortable for exactly the reasons you lay out. But so is pretending there's nothing objectionable and that there's just a few people here and there that have "extreme" views.

My only point in this whole thread is that the reason a lot of people might be leaning right is that the left politicians I've seen don't seem to be willing to admit there might be belief issues. No need to condemn anyone, just condemn certain views. Note some ideas are not OK, and that the US or EU's values need to win out.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism

[hackuser]

> But so is pretending there's nothing objectionable and that there's just a few people here and there that have "extreme" views.

I'm not pretending; it's just a few. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm pretending - maybe you're wrong.

Can you point to one U.S. immigrant who has stoned another American for adultery (referring to your other post)? Do you have any data of such problems actually existing? It's obviously absurd to claim these things will happen.

I think you are wrong about "belief issues"; it's just an alarmist response to normal human behavior based on a very simplistic model. People in poor, undemocratic countries have less understanding of these things than people brought up in the West. But the U.S. has been integrating those people for hundreds of years - Europe wasn't always a bastion of liberty and democracy - and almost all Americans descend from immigrants from (then) non-democratic countries. I would guess.

Have some faith in the values of democracy, liberty, and tolerance: They do have very broad appeal and are adopted by nations world-wide, from Japan to Indonesia to India to Botswana to Brazil. You might recall many Mideast countries recently had revolts pushing for those things. Finally, most immigrants know the U.S. stands for freedom and choose it.

[MichaelGG]

FWIW I don't entirely disagree with your conclusion. But:

>it's just a few

Going off the percentage numbers from Pew and the demos from Wikipedia, I get these numbers for those in favour of death for apostasy: 50M in Egypt. 53M in Bangladesh. Around 110M in Pakistan. That's 200M people right there -- how can that be a "few" in any meaning of the word?

Egypt was one of those countries with revolutions, wasn't it? Jordan is rated the most free or democratic among Arab countries, yet over half the population is in favour of death for leaving a religion.

Unless these numbers are totally wrong (and I'd love to hear that), I'm not sure this is just alarmist. But at any right, it should explain why these right wing politicians are getting support. Someone looks at these surveys, sees these numbers. Then a leader gets on the TV says there's zero problem with Islam, that it's all peaceful people, and only a few extremists. So are the surveys/research simply and utterly wrong?

Maybe it does not matter, and people that migrate will drop those views, or the ones without those views are the only ones that want to come. But I think plenty of people view it dishonest to claim there's no issue with those beliefs in the first place.

Again, thank you for explaining. This thread has given me some points to consider even if I don't agree.

[kiba]

So what?

If they want to come to our countries, they have to respect our laws.

They want to stone people? Jail them.

Those nations aren't a threat to our civilization precisely because of how their society works. They distrust themselves far too much to wage a jihad against our civilization.