• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Islam incompatible with democracy?

Is Islam incompatible with religion?

  • No, there are other factors

    Votes: 16 44.4%
  • Yes, because there is no separation between church & state over there

    Votes: 6 16.7%
  • Yes, because the Koran is their only law, and it is against democracy

    Votes: 10 27.8%
  • Yes, because it's "foreign" to their culture, democracy is a Western concept

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • other

    Votes: 6 16.7%

  • Total voters
    36
lol their elected leaders must be vetted by the theocrats. None of their so called "reformers" will even so much as criticize the closed circle of power of the theocracy let alone call for its end. True Iranian reformers are banned from elections.

That does not change the fact that even that limited measure of democracy is a great deal more representative than what one finds in many Sunni states. So I don't think that one can accurately say that Shia Islam is incompatible with democracy.
 
Last edited:
Islam, as it is currently, is incompatible with democracy. Mainly because religion is the law in most of the Muslim countries.
Once they'd become secular, like turkey for example, they shouldn't have any problem with becoming a democracy.

Sharia is certainly incompatible with democracy. Islam and democracy are not incompatible per-say (see Indonesia, Yemen, Albania, Lebanon, Turkey, etc.).
 
Last edited:
That does not change the fact that even that limited measure of democracy is a great deal more representative than what one finds in many Sunni states. So I don't think that one can accurately say that Shia Islam is incompatible with democracy.


Sunni states; such as, Yemen and Turkey? Even Kuwait which is not even an electoral democracy is much freer than Iran. Lebanon would be an example of a Shia majority democracy, however, it is in fact the Shia within that country (see Hezbollah) which support the Islamist agenda, whereas, it is the Sunni and Christians who have insured the continuance of liberal democracy within Lebanon.
 
Last edited:
Sunni states; such as, Yemen and Turkey?

I'm sure you know the states to which I'm referring. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, the various gulf emirates, Central Asia, etc.

Agent Ferris said:
Even Kuwait which is not even an electoral democracy is much freer than Iran.

Kuwait might be FREER than Iran, but Iran is more DEMOCRATIC than Kuwait.

Agent Ferris said:
Lebanon would be an example of a Shia majority democracy, however, it is in fact the Shia within that country (see Hezbollah) which support the Islamist agenda, whereas, it is the Sunni and Christians who have insured the continuance of liberal democracy within Lebanon.

The poll doesn't say anything about liberal democracy. All democracy means is rule by the people. When you start attaching other meanings to it, like freedom or liberalism or separation of church and state, you are really asking if Islam is compatible with AMERICAN democracy. To that question, I would answer no...but then, neither is any other country besides the United States.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure you know the states to which I'm referring. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, the various gulf emirates, Central Asia, etc.

The largest Muslim democracy is Indonesia they are predominantly Sunni with only 100,000 Shia nationwide. In fact Shia was first started to initiate hereditary leadership as opposed to the Sunni who believed that Imans and what not don't have to be descended from Mohammed. Furthermore; Egypt is far more democratic than Iran.

Kuwait might be FREER than Iran, but Iran is more DEMOCRATIC than Kuwait.

Not really, Kuwait is a Parliamentary monarchy their parliamentary elections are far more free and fair than that of Irans.

The poll doesn't say anything about liberal democracy. All democracy means is rule by the people. When you start attaching other meanings to it, like freedom or liberalism or separation of church and state, you are really asking if Islam is compatible with AMERICAN democracy. To that question, I would answer no...but then, neither is any other country besides the United States.

Iran is not a democracy they are not ruled by the people they are ruled by the theocrats if they were ruled by the people then the national candidates would not be pre-screened by the Mullahs. They are a theocracy. And Islam is compatible with separation of church and state and liberalism (see Turkey, Lebanon, Indonesia, and Albania).
 
According to Samuel Huntington, Islam is incompatible with religion because
- there is no separation with church & state in these countries
- democracy is not present in their culture
- the Koran itself is contrary to democracy
...

Do you think he's right or wrong? Why?

Islam is religion, goverment, life standards together. It couldn't be separated.
 
Sharia is certainly incompatible with democracy. Islam and democracy are not incompatible per-say (see Indonesia, Yemen, Albania, Lebanon, Turkey, etc.).

Sharia is Islamic law.

If the majority of the population of a sovereign state wants Sharia law, is that not democracy?
 
This I disagree with. I'm both a Catholic and reformed Christian being an Perennialist Anglican but if anything I certainly lean towards the former approach. I don't think a lot of what went on at the reformation was a good thing nor was Catholicism and traditionalism before then becoming moribund.

One cannot, in my opinion, have a living meaningful religious community without enshrining the importance of religious tradition like those you mention of Islam's above.

My point was that a monopoly on religion strangles a civilization and thusly makes the religion itself unhealthy. When religions compete for souls, they tend to bring out the best in themselves. In the Western world, a Catholic church can share a street with a Protestant church. On the same street there may be a Synagogue or a Mosque. And the reason this is possible is because Christianity tore itself apart in the 16th century with the agenda to re-establish a faith in God rather than an institution.

In the Islamic world, there is no such thing as healthy religious competition. And when there is no competition, the tendancy to improve becomes unnecesary. This is true in every aspect of competition whether we speak of business, economy, militaries, ....and souls.

And because the Sunni Arab elders of Islam strangled the religion at the time the Ottoman Turks were looking to reform it, the Islamic religion and its civilization remains imprisoned to a monopoly of oppression and designed allegiance. And its this allegiance that makes democracy improbable in the desert.
 
What a load of bull****.

I said nothing about Christianity being any less violent in history than Islam. Nor did I state that Christians were peace loving individuals of purity. Therefore, your reply was worthless to what I stated. Are you not able to look at the Western civilization and compare that to the Middle Eastern civilization? You think the differences are an accident? How many Mosques share streets with Cathedrals or Synagogues in the Middle East? Can you state the same thing about the West?

Christianity forced itself to reform and to rebel against the established Christian world. Islam has yet to do this. To put it in simpler terms......

1) Christianity - Rome controls Christianity and the word of God is in Latin.

2) Islam - Mecca controls the Islamic world and the word of God is Arabic.

Which anchient prescription exists still today? And which civilization shares a world with religion and democracy while the other clings to a religious monopoly with democracy being all but absent?


Christianity only "accepted" a separation of church and state out of pure survival instinct. The masses over time got more and more educated and slowly realized the bs the Church has spoon fed them for generations. Plus the political link between Church and rulers across the world became less and less when the rulers realized that they needed to give more freedoms and democratic access to its subjects or they would loose power totally.

Um...isn't this exactly what I stated for which you declared "bull ****?" I clearly wrote about the mobile printing press which had everything to do with helping to influence and fuel the protestant movement against the church. You argue "education," which is what the mobile printing press offerred. Between extremists like Martin Luthor, Thomas, and Phillip II, Christianity tore itself apart and divided societies. This aggravation within the civilization provided the pressure needed for rulers to budge on the old prescription.

However, the Sunni Arabs insisted on prohibiting the mobile printing press in the Middle East. It insisted on the closure of the only observatory, which was located in Istanbul. And it they forced the Turkish Caliphate to recant on his wanted reforms, which involved civil rights and gender equality, slavery, and religious interpretation.

Before you immediately jump to declare everything I write as "bull ****," perhaps you should actually read them first. It would save you from having to make the same argument I already made.
 
Well all current democracies have muslim living with in them most of whom both worship Islam and partake in democracy.

Islamism isnt because it itself a different form of government.

Muslims that live in the West live under non-Islamic governments. They are individuals that live in a more reformed progressive world due to the reformations of religion in the 16th century. We have managed to humanize the religions through healthy competition.

Now.....where in the world does a single religion hold a monopoly? And what would the West look like if Catholicism still maintained complete power over Christianity as it did in the 15th century?

One religion moved on and one did not. Where Islam had a tougher road than Christianity did to travel out of the dark is in its roots.
 
Sharia is certainly incompatible with democracy. Islam and democracy are not incompatible per-say (see Indonesia, Yemen, Albania, Lebanon, Turkey, etc.).

None of which are Sunni "controlled." And notice the further away from the heartland of Islam the more progressive the societies tend to get? The heartland is Mecca isn't it?

Turkey established a seperation between church and state in the 1920s when they abolished the Caliphate and instituted democracy. And those other locales have something in common. They are all seen as outsiders or convertors by the Sunni establishment. The Shia are heretics. The Palestinians are the Jews of the Muslim world. Kurds aren't real Muslims. The Turks turned their backs on the Sunni prescription of the Caliphate. Most Indonesians are also converters.

The strangulation of the entire Middle Eastern civilization goes directly to a specific tribe throughout history and it is this tribe the claims Islam as theirs. After all, Muhammed was an Arab.

One could easily make the argument that this has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with the Sunni tribe. I offer that today's Muslim world has evolved into a civilization that unwittingly offers allegiance to a tribe rather than to God. It's the same as Christiains were doing until the Protestant emerged.
 
Last edited:
None of which are Sunni "controlled." And notice the further away from the heartland of Islam the more progressive the societies tend to get? The heartland is Mecca isn't it?

Turkey established a seperation between church and state in the 1920s when they abolished the Caliphate and instituted democracy. And those other locales have something in common. They are all seen as outsiders or convertors by the Sunni establishment. The Shia are heretics. The Palestinians are the Jews of the Muslim world. Kurds aren't real Muslims. The Turks turned their backs on the Sunni prescription of the Caliphate. Most Indonesians are also converters.

The strangulation of the entire Middle Eastern civilization goes directly to a specific tribe throughout history and it is this tribe the claims Islam as theirs. After all, Muhammed was an Arab.

One could easily make the argument that this has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with the Sunni tribe. I offer that today's Muslim world has evolved into a civilization that unwittingly offers allegiance to a tribe rather than to God. It's the same as Christiains were doing until the Protestant emerged.

The point being is that secularism and liberalism can exist within a Muslim majority country just as they can exist in a Christian majority country. Even Arab states are going in that direction as well albeit relatively more slowly (see Egypt Jordan). And Yemen is majority Sunni Arab as well and I would say they are pretty damn close to Mecca sir and I consider them to be a liberal democracy. Furthermore; Kuwait all though not a proper electoral democracy but a parliamentary monarchy is actually quite free even more so than some former eastern bloc countries and Russia itself.
 
Last edited:
How much democracy exists in Sudan?

Sudan is torn because of civil war. There has not been democracy since there since the 1989 coup. A military dictatorship institutionalizing Sharia law is not democracy. Even then, you have to consider the different autonomous regions of Sudan - the north and the south.

I don't see what point you're bringing up about Sudan since it is clear it is not a democracy. It would be like me asking you how much democracy exists in the PRC?
 
INTRODUCTION
Yemen is one of the oldest centers of civilization in the Middle East, with a history dating back nearly 3,000 years. From the 16th to the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire ruled many of Yemen's cities. A succession of Zaydi imams governed areas of northern Yemen until military officers launched a coup and established the Yemen Arab Republic (YAR) in 1962. South Yemen was under British control from 1839 until it gained its independence in 1967 and soon afterward became the Marxist-dominated People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (PDRY). After the two parts of Yemen were united on May 22, 1990, in the Republic of Yemen, the country underwent unprecedented political reforms and took steps toward a democratic system of government.

In Yemen's first direct presidential elections, in September 1999, Ali Abdallah Salih, the former leader of the YAR, was elected to a second five-year term as president of the Republic of Yemen. Constitutional amendments on February 20, 2001, created a bicameral legislature consisting of a 111-seat Majlis Al-Shura (Consultative Council), to be appointed by the president, and a 301-member House of Representatives to be elected by popular vote. In the most recent parliamentary elections, held in April 2003, 19 political parties participated, including the president's dominant General People's Congress (GPC). The GPC monopolizes Yemen's politics, holding 237 seats in the current parliament. Corruption is an endemic problem at all levels of Yemen's government and society.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The government should increase the minimum age of marriage to 18 years to help girls complete their high school education and protect them from early and forced marriages, and initiate campaigns to increase awareness of the harmful effects of early marriage.
2. The government should create adequate prison facilities for women and allow human rights organizations and individuals to monitor their conditions.
3. The government should introduce laws to criminalize domestic violence against women in Yemen and work with women's NGOs to establish shelters and counseling services for women victims of violence.

freedomhouse.org: Yemen
.............................................
 
I do neither support Islam nor the Western Democracy as such.

What to be proud of? That we bomb out countries that do not allow abortion? That we bomb out Slavic people that don't want to let their children be smacked for not being Albanian?

I consider the Western Democracy to be the deadly enemy of the values many people connect with Western Democracy.

However Islam I see as a similar problem as the Western Democracy.

Respect of each other is the key - too many "Western Democrats" (takes me a laughther) as well as too many Muslims cannot respect each other. I do neither appreciate one concept nor the other.

I do not understand Samuel Huntington. In "Who are we" e.g. he describes how Western Democracies loose their identity due to mass immigration - in the U.S. Latinos, in Europe Muslim immigrants -, so he is in fear that our perfect Western Democracy is at stake ...

Hallo? Mass immigration and the permanent propaganda that we are the evil White men who have to take care of them and support those people is everything Western Democracy stands for up to what I experienced. Western Democracy means labelling the White Man as the source of all evil in the world. What does he critizise? The failure of a concept which contains this failure?

I hope that there are concepts coming from our societies which can challenge the Western Democracies. There are strong Christian Movements in the U.S. or some Libertarian or National movements ins Europe which can challange our contemorary Western Democracies. Otherwise we will not be able to handle the threats like the radical Islam e.g.
 
I do neither support Islam nor the Western Democracy as such.

What to be proud of? That we bomb out countries that do not allow abortion? That we bomb out Slavic people that don't want to let their children be smacked for not being Albanian?

I consider the Western Democracy to be the deadly enemy of the values many people connect with Western Democracy.

However Islam I see as a similar problem as the Western Democracy.

Respect of each other is the key - too many "Western Democrats" (takes me a laughther) as well as too many Muslims cannot respect each other. I do neither appreciate one concept nor the other.

I do not understand Samuel Huntington. In "Who are we" e.g. he describes how Western Democracies loose their identity due to mass immigration - in the U.S. Latinos, in Europe Muslim immigrants -, so he is in fear that our perfect Western Democracy is at stake ...

Hallo? Mass immigration and the permanent propaganda that we are the evil White men who have to take care of them and support those people is everything Western Democracy stands for up to what I experienced. Western Democracy means labelling the White Man as the source of all evil in the world. What does he critizise? The failure of a concept which contains this failure?

I hope that there are concepts coming from our societies which can challenge the Western Democracies. There are strong Christian Movements in the U.S. or some Libertarian or National movements ins Europe which can challange our contemorary Western Democracies. Otherwise we will not be able to handle the threats like the radical Islam e.g.

Typical white nationalist rant against liberalism. Liberal democracy is the only civilized form of governance and that includes equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, creed, or gender.
 
Typical white nationalist rant against liberalism. Liberal democracy is the only civilized form of governance...

From its beginning

guillotine.jpg


until today

abughraib.jpg


liberal democracy did not miss one chance to demonstrate its degree of civilized behaviour. :D

... and that includes equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, creed, or gender.

Not true. Look e.g. at Spain, where men are punished harder explicitely by law with higher minimum or maximum sentences for domestic violence. Or at countless affirmative actions which explicitely prefer people by race or gender.
 
None of which are Sunni "controlled." And notice the further away from the heartland of Islam the more progressive the societies tend to get? The heartland is Mecca isn't it?
.

Your theory is interesting but in fact I think that you the real factor is not religion but economy.

Democracy needs bourgeois, entrepreneurs, industrial people who have interest to get rid of the ancien régime and whose interests (free trade, freedom of association, end of absolutism) can only be protected by a democratic regime.

And, in order to get that class of bourgeois, you need a slow and continuous economic growth, like in the UK in the past.

When the economic growth is too fast, like in Russia in 1900, the bourgeois are too weak, the aristocratic class is too dominant and it results in a popular revolution that leads to communism. The same has happened in China.

Or if the bourgeois are too weak, there can also be an "aristocratic revolution", where those 2 classes unite, and that leads to fascism, like in Germany or Japan.

Thus, the only way to Democracy is a slow economic growth that allows the creation of a pro-democratic class of industrials.


Sometimes, the bourgeois are not needed, but that is an exception. That is the case in India, where numerous people have been educated by the British Empire. This class of people has been able to keep India democratic, contrary to the French former colonies, that were ruled from France and who had no class of educated people when they got their independence.



As for Islam, it is not incompatible with democracy: half of the muslims who are not arabs live in a democracy!

And the Arabs states are not democratic, not because they're Sunni or Shia, but because of 3 factors
1) They are new and artificial states without homogeneity (= democracy is more difficult to get in heterogeneous countries. Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgium are the exceptions)
2) Dictatorships have long been supported by Western States, since they were good defenses against Communism and since we needed easy access to oil
3) Oil, because
- it allows the state not to ask its citizen to pay taxes; no taxes = population does not need to be represented
- it allows the state to corrupt people who are unhappy and would be revolutionaries if they were not paid
- it allows the state to buy a lot of tanks from France, Russia or the USA, so that revolutions are impossible
- it prevents a more equilibred economy to be created = there are no bourgeois, no middle class.
 
From its beginning

France wasn't the beginning of liberal democracy, in fact Robespierre was admired by the Marxists like Lenin and hated by the early U.S. republic and its leaders. We went to war actually under Adams.

guillotine.jpg


until today

abughraib.jpg


liberal democracy did not miss one chance to demonstrate its degree of civilized behaviour. :D

Yes it did, as those who perpetrated the abuses at Abu Ghraib were tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison instead of being applauded.


Not true. Look e.g. at Spain, where men are punished harder explicitely by law with higher minimum or maximum sentences for domestic violence.

Yes let's look at Spain:

Political Rights and Civil Liberties

Citizens of Spain can change their government democratically. The Congress of Deputies, the lower house of the National Assembly, has 350 members who are elected from closed party lists in individual constituencies. The Senate has 259 members, 208 of which are directly elected and 51 of which are appointed as regional representatives. Members of both the Senate and Congress serve four-year terms. Following legislative elections, the prime minister (also the president of the government) is selected as a candidate by the monarch and is usually the leader of the majority party or coalition. The candidate must also be elected by the National Assembly. The country is divided into 17 autonomous regions with varying degrees of power.

People generally have the right to organize in different political parties and other competitive groups of their choice. The main political parties are the PSOE, the PP, the left CiU, the ERC, the PNV, the IU, and the CC. However, the Basque-separatist Batasuna party remains permanently banned since 2003 for its alleged ties to the armed group ETA.

Spain ranked 23 out of 159 countries surveyed in Transparency International's 2005 Corruption Perceptions Index. According to a 2004 report by Transparency International, the country's anticorruption efforts have improved in recent years. Spain has a free and lively press with more than 100 newspapers that cover a wide range of perspectives and are active in investigating high-level corruption. Daily newspaper ownership, however, is concentrated within large media groups like Prisa and Zeta. Arnaldo Otegi, a spokesman for the banned Basque nationalist party Batasuna, was sentenced to a year in prison for slandering Juan Carlos, the king of Spain. Otegi, a convicted kidnapper who currently faces charges for defending terrorism, said that the king was "in charge of torturers." Journalists who oppose the political views of ETA are often targets of the Basque separatist group. Internet access is not restricted.

Freedom of religion is guaranteed in Spain through constitutional and legal protections. Roman Catholicism, however, is the dominant religion and enjoys privileges that other religions do not, such as financing through the tax system. Jews, Muslims, and Protestants have official status through bilateral agreements with the state, while other religions (for example, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons) have no special agreements with the state. The government does not restrict academic freedom. However, academics who oppose the political views of ETA are often targets of the Basque separatist group.

The constitution provides for freedom of assembly, and the government respects this right in practice. People are free to demonstrate and speak publicly. Domestic and international nongovernmental organizations operate freely without government restrictions. With the exception of members of the military, workers are free to organize and join unions of their choice. Workers also have the right to strike, although there are limitations imposed on foreigners. The Basic Act on Rights and Freedoms of Foreigners in Spain, which went into force in 2001, limits the rights of foreign workers to organize and strike. The law, which forces foreigners to "obtain authorization for their stay or residence in Spain" before they can organize, strike, or freely assemble, is intended to distinguish between "legal" and "irregular" foreigners. The issue is currently before the Constitutional Court. In 2005, the Comisiones Obreras, Spain's largest trade union confederation, called for labor rights for prostitutes. According to the confederation, of the approximately 300,000 to 400,000 prostitutes working in the county, about 90 percent are immigrants.

The constitution provides for an independent judiciary. However, there have been concerns about the functioning of the judicial system, including the impact of media pressure on sensitive issues like immigration and Basque terrorism. There have been reports of police abuse of prisoners, especially immigrants. Police can also hold suspects of certain terror-related crimes for up to five days with access only to a public lawyer. Prison conditions generally meet international standards.

In April, an Argentine ex-naval officer, Adolfo Scilingo, was convicted of crimes against humanity and given 640 years in prison by a Spanish court. The offenses were committed during Argentina's "dirty war" between 1976 and 1983, when the country was under military rule. Some of Scilingo's victims, including Spanish citizens, were drugged, stripped naked, and thrown out of planes. The trial was the first under new laws in Spain that allow local prosecution for crimes committed in another country. In October, Spain's highest court expanded its powers to include cases of genocide committed abroad, even if Spanish citizens are not involved.

In October, a Spanish national, Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed, was convicted of belonging to a terrorist organization, al-Qaeda. Abderrahman, who had been held in

U.S. military custody in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for two years, was turned over toSpanish authorities in February 2004.

Under the new PSOE government of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the country instituted a three-month amnesty for illegal immigrants, which came to a close in May. Immigrants who could show residency in Spain for at least six months, a work contract of at least six months, and a clean criminal record were given the right to live and work in Spain. Human Rights Watch called for an independent investigation into abuses committed against illegal immigrants trying to enter Spain from Morocco. After international criticism of its deportation policies, Spain halted a recently resurrected 1992 agreement with Morocco, which allowed Spain to return all illegal immigrants who enter Spanish territory from Morocco, regardless of their nationality. Many of the illegal immigrants enter Spain by way of the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla in Morocco. The country's Aliens Law also allows for the expulsion of legal immigrants if they are involved in activities that are considered threatening to the country's national security.

Women enjoy legal protections against rape, domestic abuse, and sexual harassment in the workplace. However, violence against women-particularly within the home-remains a serious problem in the country. The new prime minister has made the protection of women's rights and gender equality a centerpiece of his administration. A new law was introduced to parliament over the year that would force men to share household chores and the care of their children and elderly family members. If adopted, men will have to sign a marriage contract at the wedding that will oblige them to share domestic responsibilities or face penalties in the event of a divorce settlement. Trafficking in women for the purpose of sexual exploitation remains a problem. In February 2005, the government modified its Aliens Law to include a provision for providing assistance to trafficking victims, the U.S. State Department reports, including making it easier to obtain residency permits. There are no quotas for women in national elective office. However, 35 percent of the seats in parliament during the elections in March were won by women, a 7 percent increase from the previous elections in 2000.

freedomhouse.org: Map of Freedom in the World

Or at countless affirmative actions which explicitely prefer people by race or gender.

You mean help insure proportional representation in order to stifle segregation? Ya that's horrible. :roll:
 
Last edited:
I do neither support Islam nor the Western Democracy as such.

What to be proud of? That we bomb out countries that do not allow abortion? That we bomb out Slavic people that don't want to let their children be smacked for not being Albanian?

I consider the Western Democracy to be the deadly enemy of the values many people connect with Western Democracy.

However Islam I see as a similar problem as the Western Democracy.

Respect of each other is the key - too many "Western Democrats" (takes me a laughther) as well as too many Muslims cannot respect each other. I do neither appreciate one concept nor the other.

I do not understand Samuel Huntington. In "Who are we" e.g. he describes how Western Democracies loose their identity due to mass immigration - in the U.S. Latinos, in Europe Muslim immigrants -, so he is in fear that our perfect Western Democracy is at stake ...

Hallo? Mass immigration and the permanent propaganda that we are the evil White men who have to take care of them and support those people is everything Western Democracy stands for up to what I experienced. Western Democracy means labelling the White Man as the source of all evil in the world. What does he critizise? The failure of a concept which contains this failure?

I hope that there are concepts coming from our societies which can challenge the Western Democracies. There are strong Christian Movements in the U.S. or some Libertarian or National movements ins Europe which can challange our contemorary Western Democracies. Otherwise we will not be able to handle the threats like the radical Islam e.g.

I do not support Islam either, but this just seems like white supremacist crap to me. How is democracy labelling the white man as the source of all evil?
 
I do not support Islam either, but this just seems like white supremacist crap to me. How is democracy labelling the white man as the source of all evil?

I do not know if you understand German language.

article fpr men being guilty of clima change

Wihte men guilty of economic crisis

White men ruin the world

I could throw links at you until you die, but I do not think that a discussion makes sense, when it is simply not your impression.

For me it is a contradiction to support our current system, but blaming Islam for anything which develops in the wrong direction.

Or in the case of Huntington "Who are we" blaming Latinos.
 
I do not know if you understand German language.

article fpr men being guilty of clima change

Wihte men guilty of economic crisis

White men ruin the world

I could throw links at you until you die, but I do not think that a discussion makes sense, when it is simply not your impression.

For me it is a contradiction to support our current system, but blaming Islam for anything which develops in the wrong direction.

Or in the case of Huntington "Who are we" blaming Latinos.

Im not too sure what your stance is your post makes no sense. So your against western democracy, but what does this have to do with Islam? What makes you think i understand German anyway :shock:
 
Im not too sure what your stance is your post makes no sense. So your against western democracy, but what does this have to do with Islam? What makes you think i understand German anyway :shock:

1. Liberte, Egalite, Fraterlite were the ideals of the French revolution.

I think human beings can be different due to different backgrounds. WIth respect to that I would not support immigration unselectively, because it can lead to conflicts. That is a contradiction to the ideals of the Western democracy. How can you say that there can emerge problems with the Islam if human beings are equal?

For me it is an obvious contradiction. So if you are that conform to Western value why are you (as I read in another thread) against the Turkish people joining the EU and immigrate in e.g. UK? According to the Western value they are the same people like you! So why don't you like lets say 20 Million Turks living in the UK when there is no difference to UK people? According to Western values I would say you should welcome your brothers.

2. I am sorry, I simply do not like to tranlate all the text and these were some texts I remembered when you asked me - I can only tell you what I read from time to time in the newspaper, what I experience and what my impression is. And my daily life takes place in Germany. Nevertheless one of these texts is in English, maybe we can discuss that.

What do you think of what Lula said and how would the Western world react if he would't use the White man as a scapegoat, but Black people or Jews or whatever?
 
Back
Top Bottom