Immigration & Welfare

[r3volution 3.0]

Not really. The odds of someone like you winning in a GOP district might drop, but not those liberty guys who agree with the nativists that our RINO's have sold out to foreign interests. Just go to Breitbarf and see if Massie or Paul Ryan is more popular. Any issue a candidate can find overlap with the voters wishes is a winning issue in each district.

Why do you think Breitbart and their ilk went for Trump over Rand by a gigantic margin? Rand's not (publicly) for free immigration. Could it be that they care far more about immigration than liberty, and will vote for the most radically anti-immigrant voice, regardless of his radically anti-liberty positions on other issues?

 

[Krugminator2]

Dude- the hatred of the Irish was because they were:

CATHOLIC.

The same things were said about them as reasons to hate and ban them from coming.

No. Actually that isn't true. More importantly, it wasn't reality. There wasn't a problem of adulterers or people working on Sundays being put to death in Ireland. If you surveyed the Irish in 1880, they wouldn't believe in the primitive parts of Christianity.

There is a problem in 2017 with the views of Muslims. It isn't a small minority. And there is evidence that Muslims don't assimilate. The unemployment numbers and crime numbers in Europe show this. Theo Van Gogh getting assassinated wasn't an isolated incident. Neither was the terrorism plot against Pamela Geller in Texas. The South Park guys and Comedy Central were on lockdown for even putting a blurred out picture of Muhammad on TV. America needs to learn the lessons of Muslim immigration from the problems in Europe. I don't remember the stories of Irish Catholics attacking satirists like Muslims attacking Charlie Hebdo.

 

[Krugminator2]

How are trump supporters a good thing or even meaningfully different from democrats?

Oh because there is a huge difference. Neil Gorsuch wouldn't be on the Supreme Court right now with a Democrat. There is massive difference between Scalia, Thomas, and even Anthony Kennedy from Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. Bernie Sanders won 23 states. Trump is a semi-socialist but he isn't Elizabeth Warren or Sanders. Liberal judges do not believe in the original meaning of the Second Amendment. They don't believe in property rights. As much as I hate Breitbart, I don't see articles like this at Breitbart. http://www.salon.com/2014/02/02/why..._huge_misconceptions_about_it_and_capitalism/

So are non-Hispanics. Y'all keep ignoring this.

Nobody is ignoring it because it is factually untrue. 44% of Hispanics have a favorable view of socialism whereas 68% of whites have an unfavorable view of socialism

Um, so what? Voting for Republicans also interfere's with your way of life and is also an act of aggression. I can't find the pew poll referenced, but 95% of whites voted for Clump, so what difference does it make?

Republicans are not good but it is a matter of degree. My life won't change one way or another with almost any Republican unless I get a tax cut. My life could materially change for the worse in the short term and get much worse long term with a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren Presidency.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

[MENTION=59651]Krugminator2[/MENTION]

Unemployment among Muslim immigrants is a result of their religion?

Are you sure it isn't a result of welfare paying more than work?

 

[AuH20]

Why do you think Breitbart and their ilk went for Trump over Rand by a gigantic margin? Rand's not (publicly) for free immigration. Could it be that they care far more about immigration than liberty, and will vote for the most radically anti-immigrant voice, regardless of his radically anti-liberty positions on other issues?

Immigration is the number one issue far and away at the moment. Breeding dependent voters on taxpayer dollars closes any long shot window of initiating liberty based legislation in the future. Libertarians are 90% white for a reason and it has to do with a cultural anchor that makes the ideological transition easier.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Immigration is the number one issue far and away at the moment. Breeding dependent voters on taxpayer dollars closes any long shot window of initiating liberty based legislation in the future. Libertarians are 90% white for a reason and it has to do with a cultural anchor that makes the ideological transition easier.

I refer you to what I already posted in this thread.

I'll just add that the reasons you oppose immigration are not the reasons most anti-immigrant people do. They don't know or care about liberty at all, and libertarians do not benefit by encouraging them. You're like the liberal anti-communists in Germany who thought you could use and control the NAZI party; you can't. It's the other way around.

 

[AuH20]

I refer you to what I already posted in this thread.

I'll just add that the reasons you oppose immigration are not the reasons most anti-immigrant people do. They don't know or care about liberty at all, and libertarians do not benefit by encouraging them. You're like the liberal anti-communists in Germany who thought you could use and control the NAZI party; you can't. It's the other way around.

It's more about stopping the hemorrhaging to the state in any way possible. For every immigrant that comes in, the liberty lovers get progressively weaker. Think of the Trump movement as the the political equivalent of throwing chairs and pint glasses like the desperate patrons did in Manchester. Stop immigration so we can live to fight another day. That's priority #1, 2 and 3 as I see it.

As far as trying to control Nazis, it's a small minority segment in the movement that happens to be the shrillest. I have engaged in fierce arguments with white nationalists who foolishly believe that white based socialism is the answer to our woes.

 

[Krugminator2]

It's more about stopping the hemorrhaging to the state in any way possible. For every immigrant that comes in, the liberty lovers get progressively weaker. Think of the Trump movement as the the political equivalent of throwing chairs and pint glasses like the desperate patrons did in Manchester. Stop immigration so we can live to fight another day. That's priority #1, 2 and 3 as I see it.

As far as trying to control Nazis, it's a small minority segment in the movement that happens to be the shrillest. I have engaged in fierce arguments with white nationalists who foolishly believe that white based socialism is the answer to our woes.

http://www.hbletter.com/why-objecti...ing_wp_cron=1497156792.7196350097656250000000


I think a better solution is this. (I left out the first part about preemptively striking Iran, which I think is a terrible idea.) Societies like Japan that restrict immigration to a large degree tend to stagnate.

2. Make immigrants sign away their right–for their whole lives–to any government loot. That would end the worry about poorer immigrants coming to get welfare

.3. Make it impossible for immigrants to get the vote–for their whole lives. That would end the worry about immigrants from statist cultures voting in more statists.

4. Replace multicultural BS with the proud, morally confident assertion of America’s moral superiority over the statist and theocratic societies from which the immigrants are coming. We are right and they are wrong–politically, philosophically, and in other ways. Standing up for our values would end the worry about immigrants diluting (the fast-fading remnants of) American individualism.

 

[Ender]

No. Actually that isn't true. More importantly, it wasn't reality. There wasn't a problem of adulterers or people working on Sundays being put to death in Ireland. If you surveyed the Irish in 1880, they wouldn't believe in the primitive parts of Christianity.

There is a problem in 2017 with the views of Muslims. It isn't a small minority. And there is evidence that Muslims don't assimilate. The unemployment numbers and crime numbers in Europe show this. Theo Van Gogh getting assassinated wasn't an isolated incident. Neither was the terrorism plot against Pamela Geller in Texas. The South Park guys and Comedy Central were on lockdown for even putting a blurred out picture of Muhammad on TV. America needs to learn the lessons of Muslim immigration from the problems in Europe. I don't remember the stories of Irish Catholics attacking satirists like Muslims attacking Charlie Hebdo.

Really? You are using Geller as an example?

THIS is what was said of the Irish and done to them:

In the early 20th century, the backlash against Catholic and Jewish immigrants found its most powerful expression in the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization born in the 1860s in violent opposition to the emancipation of black slaves.

Unlike the original Klan, the new organization sought a national profile and identified several groups—not just African Americans—as alien threats to family and nation: Catholics, Jews, immigrants, “new women,” bootleggers, criminals and—of course—black Americans. In effect, the Klan became the sworn enemy of all persons who threatened, whether by heritage, race or behavior, the imagined ideals that had so recently held a nation of small, Protestant communities together. Above all, the Klan touted “one hundred percent Americanism” as an antidote to the social and cultural decay that seemed to be rotting away the core of American values.

Klan members often infused their reflexive anti-Catholicism with a voyeuristic interest in the Catholic Church’s rumored (and wholly fictitious) violations of sexual propriety. Klan literature chronicled the delight that nuns took in whipping young girls. It claimed that members of the Knights of Columbus vowed to “burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive [non-Catholic] heretics; rip open the stomachs and wombs of their women and crash their infants’ heads against the walls in order to annihilate their execrable race.”

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/when-america-hated-catholics-213177

When Pilgrims and Puritans settled in New England half a century later they brought fresh venom from Europe’s religious conflicts, including the idea that the Pope was the “anti-Christ” and the “whore of Babylon”.

At first banned from the colonies, “papists” were grudgingly allowed entry but with severe civic restrictions, including exclusion from political power. Jews and Quakers also suffered discrimination but were seen as a lesser threat.

The establishment of a secular republic which separated church and state did not end prejudice.

Lurid myths about Catholic sexual slavery and infanticide spread through pamphlets and books such as Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, an 1834 supposed memoir about a Canadian convent.

Demagogues in the nativist movement incited fury and fear about the huge numbers of impoverished German and Irish Catholic immigrants, many barely speaking English, who spilled off ships.

Newspapers and Protestant clergymen, including Lyman Beecher, co-founder of the American Temperance Society, swelled the outcry, warning the influx would take jobs, spread disease and crime and plot a coup to install the Pope in power.

In 1844 mobs burnt Catholic churches and hunted down victims, notably in Philadelphia where, coincidentally or not, Francis will wrap up his week-long visit.

Abuse from Protestant officers partly drove hundreds of Irish soldiers to defect from the US army to the Mexican side before and during the 1846-48 war with Mexico. The deserters obtained revenge, for a while, by forming the San Patricio battalion and targeting their former superiors in battle, only to wind up jailed, branded and hanged after Mexico surrendered.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/12/america-history-of-hating-catholics

American anti-Catholicism was rooted in both religious and political ideas. Many Protestants doubted that Catholics could be truly American, not only because they held allegiance to a “foreign despot”—i.e. the Pope—but because the inherently hierarchical nature of Catholicism seemed anti-republican. America was a bottom-up nation that believed in the power of the common man (provided he was white, straight, and male). Catholicism was a top-down religion that discouraged the common man from finding religious truth for himself.

Anti-Catholicism reached a fever pitch in the middle of the 19th century. The influx of Catholic immigrants, particularly from Ireland, set off a wave of anti-immigration and anti-Catholic political movements and protests. Perhaps none was more intense than the Philadelphia Bible Riots of 1844.

Pennsylvania created its first real public school system in 1834. Like most schools of the day, the Bible featured prominently in instruction. Yet, this raised the question: which Bible? Protestants and Catholics use different versions of the Bible. For Protestants, it was a religious act to read the Bible in public schools; for Catholics it was a form of Protestant sectarianism.

Some Catholics urged parents to remove their children from schools that read Protestant Bibles. Others petitioned the government to allow parents to decide whether or not their children would participate in Bible reading activities.

Even this moderate request for accommodation met with Protestant vitriol. According to the Presbyterian newspaper, allowing a Catholic exemption was merely a “determined attempt to exclude…all semblance of religious instruction.” Removing the Bible from the schools would convert them to “infidel” institutions. Another newspaper asked “Are we to yield our personal liberty, our inherited rights, our very Bibles, the special blessed gift of God to our country, to the will, the ignorance, or the wickedness of these hordes of foreigners, subjects of a foreign despot…?”

Tensions hit a breaking point in May, 1844. In the Philadelphia district of Kensington, Catholics began breaking up meetings of “nativists.” As the fighting mobs grew, shots were fired, killing an 18-year-old Protestant boy. Soon the homes of Irish Catholic were being raided, burned, and destroyed. Catholics fired upon nativists as they tried to set fire to a Catholic schoolhouse, killing two and wounding more.

Violence continued over the next few days. Nativist newspapers fanned the flames. The Native American newspaper wrote that “the bloody hand of the Pope has stretched itself forth to our destruction.” Handbills and fliers called for mass Nativist organization in Independence Square: “Let every American come prepared to defend himself.”

A crowd of six thousand showed up. Soon they were marching on Kensington, and, despite the presence of the militia, approximately 30 Catholic homes were burned. In addition, St. Augustine’s Church and St. Mary’s Church were battered, pilfered, and partially burned.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/fighting-papists-popery-when-america-was-anti-catholic

 

[Krugminator2]

Really? You are using Geller as an example?

THIS is what was said of the Irish and done to them:

Why wouldn't I use Geller as an example? She can say whatever she wants. You don't have the right to physically attack someone because they hold a draw Muhammad competition. Civilized people don't use violence to curb speech. And she wasn't asking for it anymore than a woman wearing a short skirt is asking to be raped.

Apparently the Ku Klux Klan attributed violence to Catholics. Not really what I had in mind. I doubt that was a major argument against Catholicism. It doesn't really matter. But okay. The second part of the statement that begins "more importantly" was kind of the important part. A large percentage of Catholics didn't ACTUALLY hold extremely primitive views. It isn't my opinion that a large percentage of Muslims hold primitive views. It is a fact. And l listed numerous examples of commonly held views which over 80% of Muslims believe in some countries.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

It's more about stopping the hemorrhaging to the state in any way possible. For every immigrant that comes in, the liberty lovers get progressively weaker.

No, for every immigrant that comes in, the GOP gets weaker (though that dynamic need not be permanent).

What's weakening liberty lovers is the nativists squeezing them out of the party and/or coopting them.

Think of the Trump movement as the the political equivalent of throwing chairs and pint glasses like the desperate patrons did in Manchester. Stop immigration so we can live to fight another day. That's priority #1, 2 and 3 as I see it.

If we don't control the GOP, there's no reason to care about its competitiveness against the Dems.

 

[Ender]

Why wouldn't I use Geller as an example? She can say whatever she wants. You don't have the right to physically attack someone because they hold a draw Muhammad competition. Civilized people don't use violence to curb speech. And she wasn't asking for it anymore than a woman wearing a short skirt is asking to be raped.

Apparently the Ku Klux Klan attributed violence to Catholics. Not really what I had in mind. I doubt that was a major argument against Catholicism. It doesn't really matter. But okay. The second part of the statement that begins "more importantly" was kind of the important part. A large percentage of Catholics didn't ACTUALLY hold extremely primitive views. It isn't my opinion that a large percentage of Muslims hold primitive views. It is a fact. And l listed numerous examples of commonly held views which over 80% of Muslims believe in some countries.

Not facts- there are as many sects of Muslims as there are Christians and most of them are peaceful. History repeats itself continually by hating certain religions/races and lying about them.

And Geller's a hater that is known for setting up stuff for her audience.

 

[Krugminator2]

Not facts- there are as many sects of Muslims as there are Christians and most of them are peaceful. History repeats itself continually by hating certain religions/races and lying about them.

And Geller's a hater that is known for setting up stuff for her audience.

Not lying about anything. No shortage of polls I could post (and have posted) that shows what their views are. Where are all the super civilized Muslims? They aren't in Africa. I wonder if Lara Logan has a high opinion of Egytian Muslims after they finger banged her? Here are the attitudes of Egyptian men, one of the more civilized countries in that region. http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2...of-women-among-large-majorities-of-muslim-men They aren't in the Middle East. I guess India and Indonesia.

So you think Geller paid two Muslim guys to shoot a police officer and then get killed themselves? Hmm..

 

[Swordsmyth]

My experience is also that we have a 1 party system- no big diff between Repubs and Dems.The answer in to end the FED, bring back free markets and end the welfare/warfare system, then - we will all be freer.

The PRCalifornia is a 1 party system, if we let in a flood of statist immigrants we will find ourselves even worse off in the whole country.

In the 19th century, immigrants were voting for Jefferson's laissez faire Democrats, natives for Hamilton/Lincoln's proto-progressive GOP.

[TABLE="class: wikitable"]
[TR]
[TH="colspan: 3"][/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Religion[/TH]
[TH] % Dem[/TH]
[TH] % Rep[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="colspan: 3"]Immigrants[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Irish Catholics
[/TD]
[TD]80[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]All Catholics[/TD]
[TD]70[/TD]
[TD]30[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Confessional German Lutherans[/TD]
[TD]65[/TD]
[TD]35[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]German Reformed[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]French Canadian Catholics
[/TD]
[TD]50[/TD]
[TD]50[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Less Confessional German Lutherans
[/TD]
[TD]45[/TD]
[TD]55[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]English Canadians[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]British Stock
[/TD]
[TD]35[/TD]
[TD]65[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]German Sectarians
[/TD]
[TD]30[/TD]
[TD]70[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Norwegian Lutherans[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]80[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Swedish Lutherans[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]85[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Haugean Norwegians[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]95[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="colspan: 3"]Natives[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3, align: center"]Northern Stock[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Quakers[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]95[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Free Will Baptists[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]80[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Congregational[/TD]
[TD]25[/TD]
[TD]75[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Methodists[/TD]
[TD]25[/TD]
[TD]75[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Regular Baptists[/TD]
[TD]35[/TD]
[TD]65[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Blacks[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Presbyterians[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Episcopalians[/TD]
[TD]45[/TD]
[TD]55[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3, align: center"]Southern Stock[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Disciples[/TD]
[TD]50[/TD]
[TD]50[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Presbyterians[/TD]
[TD]70[/TD]
[TD]30[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Baptists[/TD]
[TD]75[/TD]
[TD]25
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Methodists[/TD]
[TD]90[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Source: Paul Kleppner, The Third Electoral System 1853-1892 (1979) p. 182

It changed in the 20th century, of course, with the Jeffersonians being pushed out and the Dems adopting the progressivism of the GOP. From that time forward, they were quite similar, fighting over power rather than ideology. The 16th Amendment was proposed by a Republican President and passed by a Republican Senate and a Republican House. The Federal Reserve Act was passed with broad bipartisan support in the House and Senate (and was really just a rehashed version of GOP Senator Nelson Aldrich's plan from a few years earlier - what Republican opposition there was to the bill was based on wanting the bank to be less accountable to Congress). Both income tax and a central bank had been part of the GOP platform from the beginning of the party, in any event. Hoover was as bad as FDR (just not as good at winning elections), FDR's psychotic relative Teddy was as bad as Wilson. No one has anything to brag about in the 20th century.

The theory that the US was originally inhabited by liberty lovers, who were corrupted by immigrants simply doesn't correspond to reality. A better, short account of US history might go as follows: In the beginning, there were nutjobs in New England, and rational Whiggish people in the South. Then immigrants arrived and sided with the South. But by about 1900 the nutjobs outmaneuvered and converted the others, the original Southerners and the immigrants, and now everyone's a nutjob. Of course, behind the ideology of the nutjobs is a great deal of self-interest, from boodle-seekers, which would have ultimately expressed itself in a growing state regardless. So, in that sense, the nutjobs don't really matter, things would have played out about the same anyway, but if you want to blame anyone for corrupting the American liberal tradition, you should blame that faction of natives known as Yankees, not immigrants.

All the immigrants below French Canadian Catholics were voting R on that chart. And I Know Yankees were and are a large part of the problem, the south never should have joined the union, but it is easier to keep out new socialists than to throw out the old ones, hopefully CALExit will let us get rid of some of our own maniacs.

No, for every immigrant that comes in, the GOP gets weaker (though that dynamic need not be permanent).

What's weakening liberty lovers is the nativists squeezing them out of the party and/or coopting them.



If we don't control the GOP, there's no reason to care about its competitiveness against the Dems.

For every immigrant that comes in Socialism gets stronger, if it gets strong enough we will have no hope at all.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

All the immigrants below French Canadian Catholics were voting R on that chart.

Virtually all immigrants at the time were Italian/Irish Catholics or German Lutherans. The other categories aren't important.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Virtually all immigrants at the time were Italian/Irish Catholics or German Lutherans. The other categories aren't important.

The UNION YANKEE army was filled with Irish and German immigrants eager to serve the almighty state and subjugate the south.
Besides the immigrants we get NOW are more communist than the average American.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Not lying about anything. No shortage of polls I could post (and have posted) that shows what their views are. Where are all the super civilized Muslims? They aren't in Africa. I wonder if Lara Logan has a high opinion of Egytian Muslims after they finger banged her? Here are the attitudes of Egyptian men, one of the more civilized countries in that region. http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2...of-women-among-large-majorities-of-muslim-men They aren't in the Middle East. I guess India and Indonesia.

From the link:

The report, produced by International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES) found that "The majority of Egyptian men consider it their duty to protect the honour of women and girls in their family, and nearly three-fifths agree with honour killing in some circumstances. More than 90 per cent of men saw male honour as directly contingent on their female relatives' dress and behaviour".

Just 45% of Egyptian men believed there should be laws "criminalizing domestic violence, including marital rape." And only 70% of Egyptian women agreed with this statement.

43% of Egyptian Muslim men said they would approve of their son having multiple wives, though just 9.5% said they would approve of their daughter marrying a man who already had other wives.

Only 6.6% of unmarried men said they "have no problem with marrying someone of a different religion", and a tiny 2.3% of unmarried Egyptian women said the same.

Just 39% of Egyptian men approved of women serving as leaders of political parties, though 93% said they should be able to vote.

60% of Moroccan men said "if a woman is raped, she should marry her rapist."

62% of Moroccan men said "a woman should tolerate violence to keep the family together", and 38% agreed "there are times when a woman deserves to be beaten". Shockingly, 20% of Moroccan women agreed with this.

So, the average Muslim man in the third world is more or less Archie Bunker, or maybe Archie Bunker's father.

...rather meh IMO, compared to the apocalyptic visions we get from the anti-immigrant faction.

Here are some other polls, about American Muslims in particular.

Americans Muslims are remarkably similar to conservative American Christians.

Not libertarians, but not planning on massacring the infidels or stoning anyone either.

Tempest in a teacup this

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The UNION YANKEE army was filled with Irish and German immigrants eager to serve the almighty state and subjugate the south.

The poor always fight the wars.

 

[Krugminator2]

So, the average Muslim man in the third world is more or less Archie Bunker, or maybe Archie Bunker's father.

"Pew asked asked survey respondents "whether honor killings are ever justified as punishment for pre- or extra-marital sex." In the practice, a person is killed -- often by his or her own family -- for having sex out of wedlock. The victim is typically a woman.
Honor killings still happen, and the data reflect why: Majorities of Muslims surveyed rejected the practice in only 14 out of 23 countries. Support for honor killings appears to be highest in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-8-maps-and-4-charts/?utm_term=.c8bfa247551f

I don't know anything about Archie Bunker. I suspect there isn't an isn't an honor killing episode.

It is true, American Muslims are much less radicalized. I am aware. I don't think it is a useful reference. Muslims only make up 1% of the population and 75% of that 1% are not descended from the major problem areas. Only 26% of Muslims in the US are of Arab descent and a lot of those people are second and third generation Americans. The attitudes of new immigrants from the Middle East are much different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Demographics

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Dave Chappelle might call themselves Muslims. Black Muslims and Muslims from India are like Christians and Jews who just ignore the bad parts of their religion.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

"Pew asked asked survey respondents "whether honor killings are ever justified as punishment for pre- or extra-marital sex." In the practice, a person is killed -- often by his or her own family -- for having sex out of wedlock. The victim is typically a woman.
Honor killings still happen, and the data reflect why: Majorities of Muslims surveyed rejected the practice in only 14 out of 23 countries. Support for honor killings appears to be highest in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan.

I saw it, that's why I said "more or less," and included Archie Bunker Sr.

Hey, where did all these farmer's daughter/shotgun jokes come from, I wonder?

The cultural gap's just not as large as you're implying.

It is true, American Muslims are much less radicalized. I am aware. I don't think it is a useful reference. Muslims only make up 1% of the population and 75% of that 1% are not descended from the major problem areas. Only 26% of Muslims in the US are of Arab descent and a lot of those people are second and third generation Americans. The attitudes of new immigrants from the Middle East are much different.

So then the problem isn't the religion itself, but the environment where the people are living, right? And attitudes change when environment changes? And even third world Muslims abroad are mostly fine on the important issues (like, not exterminating non-Muslims, as in the hysterical vision of certain anti-immigrant groups).