'Everyone will be Muslim because of our stupidity': Catholic leader says Europe will become an Islamic state because of the migrant crisis

[Vouthon]

Most likely because no one foresaw the Importation of millions of Muslims into Europe at the time, at least not the way it happened recently. Turkey has tried to join the EU from the start but is not allowed in, and you can’t tell me it’s not because of that same concern.

You are correct on that latter point, I am not a fibber (a trenchant Europhile yes but a fibber no ).

Turkey has always been at the bottom of the list of applicant countries because it is deemed to have a traditionally Islamic culture and to be more “Eastern” in mindset. Only a small portion of Turkey actually lies in continental Europe. The Ottoman Caliphate was the great “enemy” of Europeans for centuries up until its collapse in 1922. It represented the “other”, the border dividing Europe from the Middle East.

Russia is in a somewhat similar position, despite being Christian, so I would be hesitant to accuse the EU of any thinly disguised religious prejudice in this respect. It just isn’t quite viewed as having an entirely European cultural heritage and unlike Ukraine, which is the furthermost country wholly within continental Europe, Russia is another transcontinental nation with massive territory in Asia beyond the Ural mountains.

You could say its unfair but that’s the truth. They will always remain our closest neighbours and I sincerely hope that our relations with both of these vast countries improve, for the mutual benefit of all our peoples. But I think we have to respect that they are, perhaps, somewhat distinct civilizations and so do not really fall within the EU grouping.

Since the EU derives its geographical borders and transnational cultural identity from Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire and “Latin Christendom” of the Middle Ages - hence the symbolic importance of Charlemagne and Rome as you will see when the EU celebrates its 60th birthday in the Eternal City later this year - having a Member State within the Union that does not really share that heritage has never been palatable to most Member States or the EU itself, for reasons of identity among many others.

That’s why, especially now that Turkey is an authoritarian regime today, it is never going to happen.

European integration has borders and is a geographically limited “club”.

However, the same cannot be said for our Islamic minority populations. Europe has long had Muslim minorities throughout its history - from Spanish Moors (once Al-Andalus), Poland (the Tartars) and Sicily where you had a remarkably potent hybrid culture that had both Islamic and Christian elements under the Normans. Islamic thinkers, such as Avicenna, have also played an essential part in European intellectual history. There has, to an extent, always been a Muslim presence in Europe and I for one am appreciative of the positive elements that this presence has brought.

So, I would say that Europe is a multi-cultural and religiously inclusive “polity” - drawing diversity from all over the world, spanning different cultures, religions, ethnicities - but with a transnational, common cultural heritage in Latin Christendom - as well as the Renaissance, Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution - that gives us definite “borders”, a common history and a shared set of values.

When people are in desperate need of basic provisions and fleeing war, I don’t believe we should discriminate based upon ‘religion’ or any other artificial category. They are simply brothers and sisters in need, sharing our common humanity and their innate, inviolable human rights need to be respected, to the extent that this is possible, practicable and feasible. Questions of integration and assimilation are perfectly valid, and they will and should arise, but they do not override our humanitarian obligations IMHO.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You are correct on that latter point, I am not a fibber (a trenchant Europhile yes but a fibber no ).

Turkey has always been at the bottom of the list of applicant countries because it is deemed to have a traditionally Islamic culture and to be more “Eastern” in mindset. Only a small portion of Turkey actually lies in continental Europe. The Ottoman Caliphate was the great “enemy” of Europeans for centuries up until its collapse in 1922. It represented the “other”, the border dividing Europe from the Middle East.

Russia is in a somewhat similar position, despite being Christian, so I would be hesitant to accuse the EU of any thinly disguised religious prejudice in this respect. It just isn’t quite viewed as having an entirely European cultural heritage and unlike Ukraine, which is the furthermost country wholly within continental Europe, Russia is another transcontinental nation with massive territory in Asia beyond the Ural mountains.

You could say its unfair but that’s the truth. They will always remain our closest neighbours and I sincerely hope that our relations with both of these vast countries improve, for the mutual benefit of all our peoples. But I think we have to respect that they are, perhaps, somewhat distinct civilizations and so do not really fall within the EU grouping.

Since the EU derives its geographical borders and transnational cultural identity from Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire and “Latin Christendom” of the Middle Ages - hence the symbolic importance of Charlemagne and Rome as you will see when the EU celebrates its 60th birthday in the Eternal City later this year - having a Member State within the Union that does not really share that heritage has never been palatable to most Member States or the EU itself, for reasons of identity among many others.

That’s why, especially now that Turkey is an authoritarian regime today, it is never going to happen.

European integration has borders and is a geographically limited “club”.

However, the same cannot be said for our Islamic minority populations. Europe has long had Muslim minorities throughout its history - from Spanish Moors (once Al-Andalus), Poland (the Tartars) and Sicily where you had a remarkably potent hybrid culture that had both Islamic and Christian elements under the Normans. Islamic thinkers, such as Avicenna, have also played an essential part in European intellectual history. There has, to an extent, always been a Muslim presence in Europe and I for one am appreciative of the positive elements that this presence has brought.

So, I would say that Europe is a multi-cultural and religiously inclusive “polity” - drawing diversity from all over the world, spanning different cultures, religions, ethnicities - but with a transnational, common cultural heritage in Latin Christendom - as well as the Renaissance, Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution - that gives us definite “borders”, a common history and a shared set of values.

When people are in desperate need of basic provisions and fleeing war, I don’t believe we should discriminate based upon ‘religion’ or any other artificial category. They are simply brothers and sisters in need, sharing our common humanity and their innate, inviolable human rights need to be respected, to the extent that this is possible, practicable and feasible. Questions of integration and assimilation are perfectly valid, and they will and should arise, but they do not override our humanitarian obligations IMHO.

I agree with the first part of this. It’s interesting that the borders of Western Europe (and part of Eastern Europe) are almost all within the borders of the old Roman Empire. Even Germany was highly influenced by Rome, despite later problems, particularly in the Rhineland. More closely, if one looks at the Medieval border between Latin and Orthodox Christianity, one will find it almost the exact same today.

But it would be a mistake to assert that Islamic influx has historically been a happy experience for the West or even eastern Europe. The Poles have zero appreciation for the Tatar invasions (nor do Russians). Arab and Moorish rule in Spain were not happy. Islamic incursions into Italy were not welcome. Turkish conquest and rule over the Balkans were not appreciated by the natives.

I agree that knowledge gained through the Crusades and later flight of learned Byzantines from Constantinople (many with manuscripts) brought many Greek philosophical classics into the West. But both were the result of aggression by Islamic forces, not mutual appreciation or tolerance.

When it comes to welcoming others who have absolutely no appreciation or even tolerance of western culture, I think it’s a huge mistake. One remembers, for example, that many Gothic tribes entered the Roman Empire as “refugees” from the Huns, but later sacked Rome and brought its state to an end.

 

[Vouthon]

But it would be a mistake to assert that Islamic influx has historically been a happy experience for the West or even eastern Europe.

I wasn’t meaning to assert that “Islamic influx” - if by that one means Islam in the form of enemy territorial powers like the Arab Ummayad Dynasty, the Mongols or the Turkish Empire - has ever been good for Europe.

I did mean to indicate, nevertheless, that there have at times been perfectly peaceable - indeed patriotic - Muslim minorities in European countries at divers times who have made positive contributions to the common good and have posed no militaristic threat to the European order. I also wanted to highlight Islamic scholarship, which has engaged in fruitful exchange with the West in times past and also Sufism, the mystical tradition of the Islamic World, which has exerted a potent influence upon our own Spanish school of spirituality - from the time of Blessed Ramon Llull up to the Carmelites like St. John of the Cross:

"…Through the participation of one people with another there will be love and concord…

Let Christians who are well schooled and proficient in the Arabic language go to Tunis to demonstrate the truth of their faith and let Muslims who are well schooled come to the kingdom of Sicily to discuss their faith with Christian scholars. By acting in this way, maybe, there can be peace between Christians and Muslims, when in the whole world the situation will take effect that neither Christians want to destroy Muslims nor Muslims want to destroy Christians…"

***- Blessed Ramon Llull (1232 – ca. 1315), Catholic mystic, philosopher,
logician and Franciscan missionary ***

Consider also Pope St. Gregory VII’s letter to the Muslim ruler of Algeria:

“…He who enlightens all men coming into this world (John 1.9) has enlightened your mind for this purpose. Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves nothing in so much as that after loving Him one should love his fellow man, and that one should not do to others, what one does not want done to oneself. This affection we and you owe to each other in a more peculiar way than to people of other races because we worship and confess the same God though in diverse forms and daily praise and adore Him as the creator and ruler of this world. For, in the words of the Apostle, ‘He is our peace who hath made both one.’ This good action was inspired in your heart by God…This grace granted to you by God is admired and praised by many of the Roman nobility who have learned from us of your benevolence and high qualities . . .] For God knows that we love you purely for His honour and that we desire your salvation and glory, both in this life and in the life to come. And we pray in our hearts and with our lips that God may lead you to the abode of happiness, to the bosom of the holy patriarch Abraham, after long years of life here on earth…”

- Pope St. Gregory VII, Letter XXI to Al-Nasir the Muslim Ruler of Bijaya (Algeria), 1076

(Continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

Remember also the example of Saint Francis who, in 1219, began a year-long, unarmed walk right through a war zone from Italy to northern Africa, where he managed to meet the Sultan, Melek-el-Kamel.

Islam in a military form has never been anything but a terrible negative for Europe. But it would be remiss and revisionist to think that our relations have always, and everywhere, been along those lines.

Norman Sicily is an example of a period when this wasn’t the case:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman-Arab-Byzantine_culture

**The term Norman-Arab-Byzantine culture,[1] Norman-Sicilian culture[2] or, less inclusive, Norman-Arab culture,[3] (sometimes referred to as “Norman-Arab civilization”)[4][5][6][7] refers to the interaction of the Norman, Arab and Byzantine cultures following the Norman conquest of Sicily from 1061 to around 1250. This civilization resulted from numerous exchanges in the cultural and scientific fields, based on the tolerance showed by the Normans towards the Greek-speaking populations and the Muslim settlers.[8] As a result, Sicily under the Normans became a crossroad for the interaction between the Norman-Catholic, Byzantine-Orthodox and Arab-Islamic cultures.

An intense Norman-Arab-Byzantine culture developed, exemplified by rulers such as Roger II of Sicily, who had Islamic soldiers, poets and scientists at his court,[12] and had Byzantine Greeks, Christodoulos, the famous George of Antioch, and finally Philip of Mahdia, serve successively as his ammiratus ammiratorum (“emir of emirs”).[13] Roger II himself spoke Arabic perfectly and was fond of Arab culture.[14] He used Arab and Byzantine Greek troops and siege engines in his campaigns in southern Italy, and mobilized Arab and Byzantine architects to help his Normans build monuments in the Norman-Arab-Byzantine style. The various agricultural and industrial techniques which had been introduced by the Arabs in Sicily during the preceding two centuries were kept and further developed, allowing for the remarkable prosperity of the Island.[15] Numerous Classical Greek works, long lost to the Latin speaking West, were translated from Byzantine Greek manuscripts found in Sicily directly into Latin.[16] For the following two hundred years, Sicily under Norman rule became a model which was widely admired throughout Europe and Arabia.[17]
.**

And the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as well:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Poland

**A continuous presence of Islam in Poland began in the 14th century. From this time it was primarily associated with the Tatars, many of whom settled in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth while continuing their traditions and religious beliefs…

In the 14th century, the first Tatar tribes settled in the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Skilled warriors and great mercenaries, their settlement was promoted by the Grand Dukes of Lithuania, among them Gediminas, Algirdas and Kęstutis. The Tatars who settled in Lithuania, Ruthenia and modern-day eastern Poland were allowed to preserve their Sunni religion in exchange for military service. The initial settlements were mostly temporary and most of the Tatars returned to their native lands after their service expired. However, in the late 14th century Grand Duke Vytautas (named by the Tatars Wattad, that is defender of Muslims) and his brother King Władysław Jagiełło started to settle Tatars in the Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic borderlands. The Lipka Tatars, as they are known, migrated from the lands of the Golden Horde and in large part served in the Polish-Lithuanian military…

In the 16th and 17th centuries, additional Tatars found refuge in the lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, mostly of Nogay and Crimean origin. After then until the 1980s, the Muslim faith in Poland was associated primarily with the Tatars. It is estimated that in the 17th century there were approximately 15,000 Tatars in the Commonwealth[3] of a total population of 8 million. Numerous royal privileges, as well as internal autonomy granted by the monarchs of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, allowed the Tatars to preserve their religion, traditions and culture throughout the ages. The most notable military clans were granted with Coats of Arms and szlachta status, while many other families melted into the rural and burgher society. The first Tatar settlements were founded near the major towns of the Commonwealth in order to allow for fast mobilization of troops. Apart from religious freedom, the Tatars were allowed to marry Polish and Ruthenian women of Catholic or Orthodox faith, uncommon in Europe of that time. Finally, the May Constitution granted the Tatars with a representation in the Polish Sejm.**

So Islamic minorities have always been in Europe and have made contributions to our history.

That, however, is entirely distinct from admitting into the European fold a country that has a distinct Islamic, “Middle Eastern” cultural heritage. I am completely opposed to this.

 

[Vouthon]

When it comes to welcoming others who have absolutely no appreciation or even tolerance of western culture, I think it’s a huge mistake. One remembers, for example, that many Gothic tribes entered the Roman Empire as “refugees” from the Huns, but later sacked Rome and brought its state to an end.

This is true but I am not convinced that a majority or even plurality of Muslims trying to enter Europe feel that way or intend to pose such a threat to our way of life.

Most are simply beleaguered people fed up with economic misery and chaos back home.

That doesn’t mean that we have the space or capacity or resources to accommodate all of those who desire to come. We obviously don’t and that’s why, despite our humanitarian concern, negotiations are being made with Turkey to relocate many of them - while retaining the numbers that European countries can house, while also trying to end that ghastly civil war so that they have a country and a future to go back home to.

The problem, of course, is that Turkey is exploiting the situation to force Europe to enable it to have deeper access to the Single Market.

 

[Vouthon]

I agree with the first part of this. It’s interesting that the borders of Western Europe (and part of Eastern Europe) are almost all within the borders of the old Roman Empire. Even Germany was highly influenced by Rome, despite later problems, particularly in the Rhineland. More closely, if one looks at the Medieval border between Latin and Orthodox Christianity, one will find it almost the exact same today.

That’s very true.

“Europe” in its modern form was essentially a creation of the Roman Empire and the medieval Catholic Church.

Nothing originally bound the formerly distinct Franks, Scandanvians, Poles, Lithuanians, Spanish et al together before they all embraced Latin Christianity and revived Roman law, accepted the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and came under the one, universal Canon law. The EU is basically a secular, “liberal” (in the sense of liberal Western democracy), modern successor to the medieval rule of the Popes and Holy Roman Emperors.

During the “Crusades”, the Pope demonstrated that Europeans saw themselves - despite their diversity and sovereignties - as one large cultural entity on the world stage that could be mobilized by the central authority, the Papacy.

The European Union we know today would have been impossible to conceive without that heritage whereby the Catholic Church bound these disparate peoples together under one United “European” identity.

The founder of modern Catholic Social Teaching, the Jesuit priest Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio (1793–1862), whose social teachings directly influenced Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical, Rerum novarum, actually predicted that the European nations would revert back, eventually, to this model of governance in 1850 when he founded *Civiltà Cattolica *:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=IESe7m8Obe4C&pg=PA301&dq=nations+nature+universal+society+catholic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VLBCU_3SK-mM7QaM-YD4Cg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

**The Catholic Tradition of the Law of Nations

By John Eppstein

Taparelli D’Azeglio. ‘Essai Théorique de Droit Naturel,’ Book VI, Chap. V. Article 11. Form of International Societies: their end, their duties and their rights:**

Since the decline of the German Empire and of the quasi-theocratic power of the Popes, the international authority has, among European peoples, revealed itself in the agreements between the different sovereigns, expressed in treaties, alliances, congresses, confederations, etc. But as we have observed (in the origin of human society) the polyarchy of brothers, equal in rights, emancipated from the father’s control, giving to their common authority certain forms, in order that it may be more effective and more lasting, so we see modern nations, now that they are freed from the guardianship of the Holy Roman Empire and the protection of the Popes, feeling more and more in need of an international authority which is regular, perfectly determined in all its aspects, an authority which is strong, which is respected by all, and which can ensure the rights of the weak shall no longer be at the mercy of the strong.

Herein lies the interests of the majority. But when interest itself is at one one with the requirements of justice, it becomes all powerful and infallibly determines the forms which accord most harmoniously with the needs of human societies. And so, I believe, we shall gradually see arising a kind of universal federal tribunal which will replace alliances, congresses and treaties, just as these have temporarily replaced today the supreme authority of the Emperor and the patriarchical government of the Popes. I do not see how this stage can fail to come, though it be reached but slowly, for the life of nations can be reckoned in centuries as the life of men is counted in years

So Catholics expected it to happen. And it did, WWII and Nazism followed by the Cold War and Communism, being the catalysts.

(Continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

(Continued from previous post…)

Really, its a case of Europe returning to its old state of supranational unity, under a new - “secular” guise. That’s why Protestant (culturally, I mean) nations like Britain have always felt a bit “in the Union” but not really “of it”. Their ancestors broke of from a supranational, continental authority and that cultural ‘meme’ if you like has been passed down through the generations, that jealous love of national independence. Britain is secularized today but the confessional culture influencing politics lives on and its Anglican in England.

That’s why Nomura, the Japanese bank, described Brexit as the latter day successor to the English Reformation:

nomuraconnects.com/our-insight/geopolitical-uncertainty/its-not-the-first-brexit-just-ask-henry-viii/

**It’s not the first Brexit, just ask Henry VIII

One of the challenges of understanding the consequences of Brexit is the apparent lack of precedent for such an event. But this pre-supposes that only the recent past is relevant. If instead we use the full sweep of history, then we can find the obvious precedent of the English Reformation that started in 1534.

King Henry VIII passed the Acts of Supremacy making him “supreme head in earth of the Church of England” and repealing any “usage, custom, foreign laws, foreign authority”. The foreign authority, of course, was the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. At the time, church law was ultimately under the jurisdiction of Rome. Church taxes were also paid directly to Rome…

So the “Brexit” of 1534 was far from straightforward, and nor did it stop conflict within the country. As for the economic consequences, GDP per capita barely changed for one hundred years after before falling sharply during the Civil War.**

This was borne out by demographic fact in the actual Brexit vote, amazingly:

washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/12/protestants-dont-like-the-european-union-compared-to-catholics-this-is-why/?utm_term=.32bcd9b4f609

**Catholics like the European Union more than Protestants do. This is why.

In their new book, “Religion and the Struggle for European Union,”** the political scientists Brent Nelsen and James Guth explore an unlikely source of support for — and opposition to — the European Union: religion. Public opinion surveys from as far back as the 1970s show that Catholics tend to favor European integration; Protestants tend to resist it…

NL& SW-L: Most people, when they think about factors that influence support for the European Union, don’t think about religion. What prompted you to do so?

Brent Nelsen: You’re right that, most of the time, people are skeptical, especially in Europe, about whether or not religion really is an independent factor influencing support for the E.U. But in 2001, we started looking at Eurobarometer data, and it’s very clear that Catholics, controlling for all other factors, favor the E.U. more than do Protestants. These attitudes were forged in the Reformation, with the development of two different approaches to governance in Europe. Catholics see Europe as a single cultural whole that ought to be governed in some coordinated way. Protestants, on the other hand, have seen the nation state as a bulwark against Catholic hegemony, and they have been very reluctant to give it up, even as religion has become less important.

**NL& SW-L -Did religion play a part in the Brexit vote?

JG: Yes. If you look at the 2014 European Parliamentary Election Study, in the run-up to the Brexit vote, it’s clear that in the United Kingdom, Catholics were supportive of the E.U., as were minority religions — Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists — whereas Evangelical Protestants were the most critical of the E.U. And a lot of the surveys that were done just before and after the Brexit vote, even though they weren’t very good at identifying different religious groups, found pretty consistently that the more Protestant you were, the more critical you were of the E.U**. That may have made the difference: If those Protestants had voted the way the average citizen of the United Kingdom had, Brexit wouldn’t have passed.

**NL& SW-L: Was this religious split evident after World War II, when the idea of the E.U. was first being debated?

BN: The division has been clear from the beginning. Just look at the religious backgrounds of the E.U.’s founders. [Robert] Schuman, [Konrad] Adenauer, and [Alcide] de Gasperi were Catholic, and very devout Catholics at that. ([Jean] Monnet wasn’t so much — he only became a Catholic on his deathbed.) The Protestants, even early on, were very skeptical**. The British did not contribute to the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community. At first they were cut out, then they didn’t want to be part of it, and then they observed for a while. They even created their own European free trade area. The Nordics, for various reasons, didn’t like what was going on on the continent. In Germany and the Netherlands, which have mixed confessional cultures, it’s the Protestants that are, if not overtly resisting the process, certainly trying to shape it in a less federal direction…

**NL& SW-L: What is it about Catholicism that promotes support for the E.U., and what is it about Protestantism that promotes the opposite?

BN: Catholicism has always been a universal religion. It was the successor to the Roman Empire, and in Catholic theology and ideology, there’s always been an emphasis on the unity of Christendom. Even today, even though the pope doesn’t claim secular authority, there’s still supranational governance within the Roman Catholic Church. So Catholics have always been very comfortable, even if subconsciously, with the notion of supranational governance.**

 

[Neal76]

The majority certainly but as to proportion your guess is as good as mine. Like most countries in Europe the bulk of immigrants are actually from other parts of Europe - in Italy’s case Romanian and Albanian.Most of course are in the North as that is where the work is.

Hi liturgyluver;

I took the UN data from 2015 to 2050, subtracted out the stated immigration numbers plus 1 million from the top (a conservative estimate IMO). I entered the data into a spreadsheet and found that a polynomial regression gave a very close fit (R^2 = 0.9999). The formula I got out was y = -2296.6 x^2 + 9,140,521 x - 9,034,461,537, where y = population and x = year. Set y to 0 and x = sometime in 2151. Admittedly, all of this is very rough, but I think it’s applicable given all the unknowns. And, keep in mind this incorporates the UN’s own demographic optimism.

At 2100, the native Italian population will still be about 32 million, so about 55% of 2010. I’m not sure where the book’s numbers came from, but you are right that they are overly pessimistic.

Still, I’d recommend either learning Arabic or investing in bulldozers if you’re living in Italy.

 

[liturgyluver]

Hi liturgyluver;

I took the UN data from 2015 to 2050, subtracted out the stated immigration numbers plus 1 million from the top (a conservative estimate IMO). I entered the data into a spreadsheet and found that a polynomial regression gave a very close fit (R^2 = 0.9999). The formula I got out was y = -2296.6 x^2 + 9,140,521 x - 9,034,461,537, where y = population and x = year. Set y to 0 and x = sometime in 2151. Admittedly, all of this is very rough, but I think it’s applicable given all the unknowns. And, keep in mind this incorporates the UN’s own demographic optimism.

At 2100, the native Italian population will still be about 32 million, so about 55% of 2010. I’m not sure where the book’s numbers came from, but you are right that they are overly pessimistic.

Still, I’d recommend either learning Arabic or investing in bulldozers if you’re living in Italy.

Presumably you assumed that all immigration into Italy would be from “Arabs” when currently they represent less than 20% of the current immigrant pool and declining proportionally as each year passes. The biggest group are Romanian so perhaps there will be some more Orthodox churches too. After Brexit happens fewer Italians are likely to come to the UK and many may return especially as youth unemployment rates have begun to fall. And no I don’t live in Italy anymore but I visit every year, and many of my British friends have holiday homes in Tuscany. Italian is such a beautiful language and so easy to learn that all immigrants have no problem grasping it. Of course the Romanians have a head start since theirs is a Latin language also. So thanks for your recommendations but I’ll pass!

By the way have you done some similar modelling for Canada where I gather by 2031 over 50% will either be foreign born or have a foreign-born parent. Seems more dramatic than anything happening in Italy.

 

[St_Francis]

Don’t we value freedom? If Muslims have the power and influence to turn Europe into an Islamic state, should we not allow it if it’s done peacefully and they do not violate human rights?

We value freedom and so allow each to practice his faith. Islamists (not all Moslems) value freedom only for its form of Islam, and will jot allow freedom for other beliefs.

Try and build a church in Saudi Arabia…

 

[Ridgerunner]

(Continued from previous post…)

Really, its a case of Europe returning to its old state of supranational unity, under a new - “secular” guise. That’s why Protestant (culturally, I mean) nations like Britain have always felt a bit “in the Union” but not really “of it”. Their ancestors broke of from a supranational, continental authority and that cultural ‘meme’ if you like has been passed down through the generations, that jealous love of national independence. Britain is secularized today but the confessional culture influencing politics lives on and its Anglican in England.

That’s why Nomura, the Japanese bank, described Brexit as the latter day successor to the English Reformation:

nomuraconnects.com/our-insight/geopolitical-uncertainty/its-not-the-first-brexit-just-ask-henry-viii/

This was borne out by demographic fact in the actual Brexit vote, amazingly:

washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/12/protestants-dont-like-the-european-union-compared-to-catholics-this-is-why/?utm_term=.32bcd9b4f609

North Germany was Protestant before England was, of course.

 

[Vouthon]

North Germany was Protestant before England was, of course.

No analogies amount to an exact science but “confessional cultures”, even in secularised countries, do exert a profound influence on respective national cultures and approaches to governance.

Germany has always been a mixed confessional culture, with Catholics having an outsized role in West Germany after the War through the dominance of Christian Democracy as a unifying, post-Nazi ideological framework.

The German “social market economy” is based upon Catholic social principles.

 

[Robert_Sock]

We value freedom and so allow each to practice his faith. Islamists (not all Moslems) value freedom only for its form of Islam, and will jot allow freedom for other beliefs.

Try and build a church in Saudi Arabia…

The topic of this thread appears to be anti-Muslim hysteria! If we Catholics had the initiative and influence to peacefully transform the world to Catholicism, should we not do it? Of course, such thinking is absurd and so is the notion that Muslims can transform Europe into an Islamic state.

 

[Sarcelle]

The topic of this thread appears to be anti-Muslim hysteria! If we Catholics had the initiative and influence to peacefully transform the world to Catholicism, should we not do it? Of course, such thinking is absurd and so is the notion that Muslims can transform Europe into an Islamic state.

Actually it’s not absurd at all that Muslims can transform Europe into an Islamic state.

The formerly Christian lands of the Middle East have been converted by military force to Islam.

With Europe, Muslims may not need to take military action. They just have to simply outnumber the natives. They have a higher birth rate than the natives.

After they become the majority, they can start implementing Sharia law.

 

[ATraveller]

We value freedom and so allow each to practice his faith. Islamists (not all Moslems) value freedom only for its form of Islam, and will jot allow freedom for other beliefs.

Try and build a church in Saudi Arabia…

This is the big concern. Saudi Wahabbism is growing. There aren’t any good data around but it wouldn’t be surprising to see variants of this poisonous form of Islam outpacing other forms. The West’s ‘ally’, the Saudi regime, use their oil revenues to spread this around the world. A number of older Middle East Muslim journalists have observed how when they were in school women wearing head coverings in places like Egypt and Turkey was not common but fast forward 30 years, most wear them and burkas are becoming popular.

 

[Athanasiy]

I look at the example of the war in the East of Ukraine.
There are regions where the materialistic communism has left a spiritual rune and godlessness, and there are regions in Western Ukraine where a very serious attitude to the Christian traditions.
Greek Catholic region of Ukraine is very God-Fearing, comparably with the rest of Ukraine.
People showed heroic hospitality to refugees and to newcomers from the eastern regions,
but there are so many new-comers that after a certain time, they will change the mentality of the region, that is, I doubt that Galicia in the future will be the region where the Christian tradition will continue remain in high esteem.
From hand the new blood is always competition, and there are some fears of competitors, but on the other hand - after a certain time, these newcomers will teach you how to live.
Even now, from the gifted ones you can hear the voices saying something like - the locals are behind the 21 th century and it’s time to re-educate them.
What I want to say- the fear of aliens are sometimes quite understandable.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Actually it’s not absurd at all that Muslims can transform Europe into an Islamic state.

The formerly Christian lands of the Middle East have been converted by military force to Islam.

With Europe, Muslims may not need to take military action. They just have to simply outnumber the natives. They have a higher birth rate than the natives.

After they become the majority, they can start implementing Sharia law.

Are you suggesting that Europeans intervene by discriminating based on religion?

 

[Seamus_L]

In less than 5 years, 246 people have been killed and 866 have been injured in Islamic terror attacks in France. Eventually it’s going to reach a tipping point and people will decide such figures are unacceptable.

 

[Sarcelle]

Are you suggesting that Europeans intervene by discriminating based on religion?

Where have I said anything remotely like that?

You mentioned that Europe turning Islam is an impossibility. I said it was a possibility. That is all. I never mentioned any remediation actions.

Do not read words that are not there. Saves us a lot of potential misunderstandings.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Where have I said anything remotely like that?

You mentioned that Europe turning Islam is an impossibility. I said it was a possibility. That is all. I never mentioned any remediation actions.

Do not read words that are not there. Saves us a lot of potential misunderstandings.

Sorry. I should have asked if you would suggest it. I certainly would not.