The Islamisation of Europe?

Originally posted by stocken
Believe it or not, but there are people who actually identifies themselves through their culture and national belonging. Obviously, they don't want to lose their identity.

Touché. A palpable hit!

Originally posted by Halitose
Touché. A palpable hit!

Probably the crux of the matter, too. Previously privileged national identities being forced to adapt or dye...Wonder how the Swiss feel about all this.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I have no idea what you mean.

Those freedoms you mentioned--the ones you said you'd miss--these were present under the Shah?

Not all of them, no. But some certainly seem to have been present which were not present in other Arab countries.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not all of them, no. But some certainly seem to have been present which were not present in other Arab countries.

Would you include Franco's Spain under the aegis of "Western civilisation"?

Late edit--Iran has never been an Arab country.

Originally posted by stocken
I use the word indoctrination to describe a process where a persons sense of self is almost completely removed and (s)he's turned into a robot more or less, not truly thinking for him/herself and/or expressing his/her true feelings. That is not the way we're taught to live in most public shool systems of the west these days. We're taught to be critical and t ...[text shortened]... rous, the way I see it. Especially when it's allowed to take place from a young age.

A series of questions:

1. Does service in the army qualify as "indoctrination"? Why or why not?

2. What does "thinking for oneself" mean?

3. Why do you think an "indoctrinated" person may not be expressing his/her "true" feelings?

4. Talking of Western public school systems (a rather broad term), what is the impression of religion that children pick up? On a related note, to what extent are religious children allowed or encouraged to express their "true" feelings?

(Just so we're clear - the purpose of these questions is challenge your notion of "indoctrination". As I said before, I consider that term to be highly loaded and generally a term used in propaganda wars against people who hold certain views.)

5. Children are taught that X is right and Y is wrong from a very young age. Why do you not consider that indoctrination?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Would you include Franco's Spain under the aegis of "Western civilisation"?

Why wouldn't I?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why does it take the spectre of Muslim hordes to prompt this return?

I agree if Christians were to take life as something to be valued,
their vows something to be kept, they too would out grow any group
that killed off their young at such high numbers too. I don't see
that artical as anything other than a forcast of last man standing
will rule, which is pretty much a truth no one can deny.
Kelly

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why wouldn't I?

It was hardly a democratic country--although it did have a striking national identity. Freedom of expression was certainly not guaranteed.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It was hardly a democratic country--although it did have a striking national identity. Freedom of expression was certainly not guaranteed.

Are you saying it wasn't a part of "Western Civilisation" then?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Are you saying it wasn't a part of "Western Civilisation" then?

Of course it was. A country can be a dictatorship devoid of the freedoms associated with the West and still be a member of Western Civilisation. East Germany was also part of Western Civilisation. I can only conclude that Western Civilisation is a pretty meaningless term.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Of course it was. A country can be a dictatorship devoid of the freedoms associated with the West and still be a member of Western Civilisation. East Germany was also part of Western Civilisation. I can only conclude that Western Civilisation is a pretty meaningless term.

If a definition is quite broad does that make it meaningless? I'm sure there would be many sociologists who would disagree.

Originally posted by Halitose
If a definition is quite broad does that make it meaningless? I'm sure there would be many sociologists who would disagree.

Quite broad is an understatement. Take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Civilisation

(Google rules. This looks like it could be an interesting book:
"The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation" http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521547245 )

--By the way, Hal--are you part of Western Civilisation?

Not having read every single word of the thread thus far...

The fundamental difficulty with that article has been touched on to some extent. Even if you accept the notion that Europe is becoming Islamised, it presupposes that a 'takeover' is a bad thing.

Which in turn only works if you believe that European, Christian-based culture is somehow inherently better than Islamic culture.

I personally as a Christian believe that my religion is true and that other religions are false. But I have a hard time translating that into some kind of culture war based on race and inheritance.

For starters, it ignores the fact that Christianity itself is not native to Europe. It also ignores the fact that a great deal of the knowledge that kickstarted the Renaissance came from the Arabs.

Originally posted by orfeo
Not having read every single word of the thread thus far...

...you manage to come up with the most sensible post in it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
A series of questions...

LH: Does service in the army qualify as "indoctrination"? Why or why not?

Service in the army would most definitely qualify (in my view) as a form of indoctrination (call it national indoctrination, if you will). The whole purpose is to strip the poor sobs of any sense of self and then attempt to shape them in whatever image the military leaders see fit. Later to be thrown into senseless battles killing each other off without thinking about what they are in fact doing. Not unlike suicide bombers.

What I really dislike about the military and wars is that usually the soldiers are told that they need to attack this or that people because otherwise, they will attack us. Now, of course, the soldiers does what they're told for two reasons:

1) They've been indoctrinated to follow every command no matter how wrong it seems, and
2) for all they know, the "enemy" might very well attack.

The sad part is that the "enemy" will probably attack because of the leaders inability to solve conflicts peacefully or treat others justly. But will those leaders suffer in the war like the soldiers? Of course not. They won't even send their own sons or daughters to the frontline. It used to be that military leaders were actually there on the frontline facing the consequences of their disagreements with the enemies, but not anymore. In my opinion, it makes it all just a little too easy. Train a few million soldiers into mindless robots, send them off to die for you and then enjoy the benefits that the war will give you (if not the people you're supposedly protecting).

Baaah...

LH: What does "thinking for oneself" mean?

To think for yourself means that you can take whatever you've been taught, look at it from new angles and figure out why things are the way they are. You use your newfound insight to make up your own mind about what to do and not; to fight all the windmills of accepted illusions 'til you get some form of satisfactory answers. I never just accept what some authority tells me, and I wouldn't want anyone else to do that either. That's called thinking for yourself, is it not?

Sometimes I look like a bloody fool, but that's life.

LH: Why do you think an "indoctrinated" person may not be expressing his/her "true" feelings?

An indoctrinated person (the way I use the word - like it or not) can't possibly express his/her own feelings since (s)he has been completely shaped by those using him/her. Everything an indoctrinated person does is focused around what his/her leaders tell her is right and wrong and nothing comes truly from within. That's part of what I don't like about indoctrination as such. Brain-washing is a form of quick indoctrination, is it not?

LH: Talking of Western public school systems (a rather broad term), what is the impression of religion that children pick up? On a related note, to what extent are religious children allowed or encouraged to express their "true" feelings?

In the western public school system (I agree that was a poor choice of term)... In the school system that I grew up with we were given a broad view on religion. We weren't told that religion is necessarily a bad or good thing. More importantly, we were encouraged to make up our own minds about what we believe and if we wanted to pursue our beliefs in any of the multitude of religions we were introduced to.

On a related note, being religious does not in itself mean you've been indoctrinated and unable to express your true feelings. I never said anything like that, and I hope you're not thinking that I consider all religious people to be indoctrinated, mindless robots who can't get in touch with their true feelings. Because I don't.

LH: Children are taught that X is right and Y is wrong from a very young age. Why do you not consider that indoctrination?

I would consider it indoctrination if there were severe punishments associated with not accepting those "facts"; punishments made to deter the child from even thinking such thoughts, or questioning the "facts" given. If a child is allowed to question, disagree and over the years develop his/her own ideas about right and wrong, it's not indoctrination (the way I see it). As a parent you're supposed to set an example and help guide the child. You must be ready to answer any challenges to your point of view and be able to admit it if you can't. If the child is half as intelligent as yourself (s)he will no doubt come to reasonable conclusions on how to live in unison with all the other people around him/her so that noone needs to suffer more than anyone else. Some things are plain wrong, such as hurting others for no reason at all (I would not think that hurting another human to make a valid point is unnecessary, but it's a fine and dangerous line to walk). Most children can figure out why they aren't supposed to hurt others and so there's no questioning such basic facts. But if they were to ask why, you should have a good answer cause if there's one thing children are exceptionally good at, it is to see things from new perspectives and questioning what you've been accepting as truth for a long, long time. If you answer: "You just can't hurt others because it's wrong", and then expect the child to accept that, you will no doubt be dissapointed as the child may not yet have learned it the hard way. If you then punish the child into submission on the matter, I would most definitely call it a form indoctrination.

You are indoctrinated when you're being forced or led to stop thinking for yourself and simply accept what some authority tells you. Or so I believe.