Why do we (the west) have to bend over backwards to accomodate Muslims in our land, but not given reciprocity?

Question

Jeb...why don't you use a light saber for a rectal thermometer.

Regards,
crusada

This ain't "hate" Dr.Fraiser, this is realness. Watch the news. Watch the rocks, dear. Before you wake up in a state of shock.

Ljay...Relax pimpin'. I'm just making a point. Go grab a xanax and come back 30 minutes later and read this again. Thanks.

Answer 1

Short answer: Multiculturalism and anti-westernism.

Looooong answer:

Our society has long adopted a position that all cultures are of equal value with no strong demarcation between higher and lower cultures. This is a reversal of Nietzsche's system where there is a war of cultures, and the winner takes all. He had postulated that there is no real objective truth behind which culture wins. They all provide their lies, and the strongest one's myth prevails, and thus, the history of humanity hasn't been about truth and morals, but about values and culture.

Nietzsche was wanting to replace what he saw as the old and wearing Christian system with the one proposed. He was ahead of his time and right when he proclaimed "God is dead." Our culture did, indeed, "kill" him (this isn't a statement about atheism, but a rejection of the concept). He was hearkening back to the old pagan system where you showed your supremacy by overwhelming the other culture (for an extreme example of this, read how Pliny subverted the Temple in AD 70).

Christianity, though, had challenged and overcome this, but it retained the ability to respond to its enemies. It had a truth that it insisted on, and that gave it the ability to demarcate between truth and fiction, and it didn't need a "will to power" to do this. It also retained the power of Caesar in the state so that the peoples could defend themselves (thank goodness, or we'd all be backwards Islamic nations at this point). The ideal was that the first shall be last, and the last shall be first, but Christianity made a clear demarcation between Caesar and God (and they fought frequently). Christians violated our ideals on numerous occasions, and we also understood the nature of politics. The perfect utopia would never happen here.

With the rejection of Christianity, the culture embraced Nietzsche's ideals, but they hadn't rejected Christianity completely. They retained the dignity of all human beings and the ability of Christians' ethics that the strong should protect the weak, and that the weak are just as valuable, and often more valuable, than the strong. After all, it rarely, if ever, occurred in ancient literature that a backwoods peasant's sorrow was anything but a source of mockery; Christianity changed that (Can you picture a compassionate Odysseus or Achilles?). Nietzsche understood where it came from, and he rejected it. Our culture didn't.

When this was mixed with Marxism's doctrine of the oppressed always struggling against the oppressor (it also retaining a semblance of Christian ethics), we created something entirely new. It didn't have the old divisions between Caesar and God, and with it, the realistic view of Scripture. Instead, we sought to create utopia and identify oppressed classes everywhere. This is good, to a degree, but when combined with Nietzsche's view of culture, we had to start liberating all the oppressed cultures.

Now, what happens when you are the most powerful person on the block with this chimera you are your own worst enemy (and there is also the traditional western fascination with the noble savage, that is, that the more primitive backwards people are in some romantic sense more noble than our own). You must oppose yourself, and since the West has always been perfectionist, it comes to loathe itself.

Consequently, to liberate these poor oppressed peoples as we saw them, we make all sorts of concessions to them. Islam is, frankly, a crybaby. It always paints itself as the oppressed peoples. If they bomb a school bus in Israel or India, it's because those evil Israelis/Indians didn't give in to their demands. So, we see the poor and oppressed, and we give them more room. We believe very strongly that by eliminating the oppressions we can get everyone to get along together, and so, we pursue the dream. We give concession after concession. It doesn't matter that it isn't true. Reality rarely matters. Only our perception of reality matters. It is, however, a philosophical and epistemological nightmare.

This process will continue until one of two things happens. Either Europe and the West will give so much that there is no coming back, or there will be a violent backlash. I fear the latter will be the case, and with a Nietzschean system of ethics, it will be very brutal. Had this Islamic renaissance happened earlier, we would have put it down ruthlessly and with our normal acumen (to paraphrase another author), and had it happened any later, we would be overwhelmed.

This is something to fear. Nietzsche was one of the chief philosophers who enabled Hitler to come about. When the tables turn, and the West, when it wakes up, will be just as confident in itself and just as ruthless. The old restraints and morals on our culture are gone, and I have no idea what it will do (it's no coincidence that it's in our time that debate on eugenics is being seriously revived). Islam will not be able to defeat this reawakened West, and it will probably cease to exist. We will destroy it utterly.

To give an idea of what may happen, we may look back on the imperial period. Europe, in a short period of time (historically speaking) conquered much of the world. We had the option at the end of the nineteenth century to carve it all up, permanently, amongst ourselves. We chose not too. We deemed it overzealous even for our tastes. As bad as it was, we were restrained. The infamous poem "White Man's Burden" is both an embrace of imperialism and a call for restraint. Both existed simultaneously, and that is the only reason that we didn't conquer everyone. We still have the power, and it's even more overwhelming now. What happens when the restraints are removed?

I know that says more than just "This is why we give concessions," but in any answer to that question, if we are moral people, we must consider the repercussions of removing what causes us to hold back. I both am happy that Islam has arisen now, that our people might find their soul again, but I am also terrified of what that might mean in our current condition...

Answer 2

Because they don't want too and they don't have too. Same reason you better speak/read German when you go to Germany, or Mexico or just about any other country where English is not the first language. They don't make it easy for you, like we do here. I don't know why we bend over backwards like we do, maybe we are just a nice country.

Answer 3

So you will accept all others except Muslims? That is hypocracy at its highest. Why can't you show a good example by treating all people well instead of always being so selfish and saying only those who in their native lands treat westerners well will be treated well in the west.

Answer 4

Many Muslims were born here or risked their lives to come here. It's their land, too.

Are you suggesting that we should base the way we treat people by how people are treated in other countries? I'd rather set the standard than follow the lead of less moral, less tolerant nations.

Answer 5

a million. no person is speaking approximately destroying Iran and no needs to "injury Iran." 2. There are no "suggestions" concerning taking Iranian land. be at liberty to furnish credible supplies in case you prefer to contest this. 3. Your next fact is extremely deceptive. each and each conflict concerning Israel has been a conflict began by using Arabs. And while Israel wins, she supplies to commerce all land gained in exchange for peace. even with the undeniable fact that, each and each time, the Arab states refused to take action. finally, after numerous years, Egypt asked if the deal became into nevertheless on the table and Israel responded that it became into and traded Sinai for peace. at present Iran is already at conflict with and attacking Israel by using proxies. the only subject all of us is speaking approximately is bombing their nuclear weapons centers to end their nuclear weapons software. And basically approximately each and every Arab state helps attacking Iran's nuclear weapons software.

Answer 6

We believe in freedom of religion here.

If you want us to stoop down to their level, then what's the point? What are we fighting for? A label? A flag?

We have to stand for something- and that something is the rights of the individual to be whomever they are, and to believe whatever they want to believe.

It's too bad we have to spend so much time teaching people HERE what that means, much less people in other cultures.

Answer 7

This is a SECULAR country. All religions or non religions are allowed. Many middle eastern countries make no such claim. They are religious states.

And just who are you going to take the US back from? Those are treasonous statements!

Answer 8

I am not a Muslim, and don't even profess to know what their religion is all about. But what makes it "our" land, but for the accident of birth. Come off your high horse, except of course you are a Native American, and even then, your claim to a country is spurious at best.

Answer 9

I often have wondered how you and I would be treated in a Muslim country. Would they respect our religious beliefs and have no problem with blue jeans and rednecks?

Answer 10

Its that damn pesky Constitution of ours. Needs to be demolished, huh?



*sarcasm*