<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d20590773\x26blogName\x3dThe+News+from+Kisbacs\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://kisbacsnews.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://kisbacsnews.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d3988426151495323167', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Theodore Dalrymple: Muslim culture antithetical to Europe's

In previous posts (here, and here) I contended that Theodore Dalrymple, writing for Cato Unbound, thinks "Muslim culture" has no place in Europe.

My (decidedly opposing) stance has been that Muslim culture (to follow him in using this overly broad abstraction) has every right to exist anywhere Muslims are, Europe or elsewhere, and that there's no reason that it should pose a "threat" to Europe. I am, in a sense, arguing for multiculturalism.

Just to make clear that I wasn't misstating Dalrymple's views, I offer this from his latest post on Cato Unbound:

I cannot agree that multiculturalism, embraced in fact as well as spirit (or theory) is part of the solution to our problems posed by Moslem immigrants. This sees to me preposterous. The idea that the French riots took place because the inhabitants of the banlieues did not speak sufficient French is absurd: they all spoke French. And I fail to see how embracing multiculturalism will do anything to inhibit Muslim extremists. As one Italian put it, multiculturalism is not couscous: it is the stoning of adulterers—and, as we have recently discovered, far worse than that. The United States has an advantage because it has a compelling foundation myth, which Europe does not have, and this helps to integrate new arrivals.
I do not doubt Dalrymple's credentials as an economist or a historian. And were he right that "Muslim culture" necessarily implies "stoning adulterers," I'd say he's on to something.

But he's not right. Europeans aren't xenophobes when they deny Muslims' rights to beat their women. They're xenophobes if they deny Muslim girls' rights to wear a head scarf in a French school, or pray at Salat.

As to multiculturalism not stopping extremists, even if he were right on this point (a notion I'd debate - chances are that there would be less extremism in a Europe with greater religious tolerance), stopping extremism isn't exactly one of the stated goals of multiculturalism. Respecting another man's right to live life and serve God as his own conscience dictates, on the other hand, is.



Blogger Tanner said...

In a follow-up post to Dalrymple's, Charles Kuphcan properly asks, "If not Multiculturalism, What?"

What indeed. How any other way of looking at things fits into libertarian political thought, I cannot see.

5:48 PM  
Blogger Courtney said...

You are an ignorant ass. You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Did you know that Romania currently does not allow ANY legal adoptions because so many of them were actually people adopting children in order to sell them to pimps for sexual exploitation? Do you kno WHY?

It's because 99.9% of people who are "adopting" children on the black market are not doing so in order to raise them in a caring, loving home. They are doing so in order to sell them to perverted white men who want to defile a 6 year old. Romania is only one example of countries who could not control how many of their "adoptees" were being sold for sexual purposes. And those are LEGAL adoptions.

The child sex trade make 12 billion a year (UN, 2006) and affects close to a million children worldwide. A large percentage of those children are coming to the US to be exploited. So you think making that even easier for those bastards is a good idea? Maybe you should research crap like this before you are so willing to put a price on a human life and allow people and children to become a comdity that we trade for cash.

So...before you go and talk people into writing their congressmen to legalize the buying and selling of human beings, why don't you take a little time and figure out if YOU would like it if someone could buy your life.

7:28 PM  
Blogger Tanner said...

I actually did know the proffered reasons for Romania having stopped international adoptions. I'm fluent in Romanian and follow that country's news.

Are you arguing that their cessation of legal international adoption has stopped or slowed the rate of black-market adoptions as well?

As to your repeated admonitions, I admire your passion but would reply that I did research the matter and reached my conclusions based in large part upon what I have read - much of which is similar to what you describe in your comment. Though you obviously disagree with my stance, our differing opinions are probably not based upon disagreement as to facts.

12:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home