I'm sorry, I thought you were smart enough to keep up with the conversation. I guess not. So here is a reference.
You posted "That is an appeal to popularity resting on a false premise. Immigration is not a religion “invading,” and Muslims are already local citizens across much of the world. “Every major country” does not oppose Muslims; far right movements within various countries do."
Though I will grant you that I did't spell it out for you, I made a dumb assumption you would be able to keep up and use a tad bit of common sense to fill in the blanks. You proved me wrong.
The list I provided Is a short list of countries muslims are invading and are not welcome.
Their call to prayer on loud speakers are not welcome.
Their praying in the streets is not welcome,
Their selling shit on the side of the street like a 3rd world is not welcome.
The incredible amount of fraud is not welcome. (yes I know all races do fraud so lets not go there, just another point)
ETC.
There is plenty of video evidence of this. People fed up with it. Wanting it out and gone.
Hell just the other day on video the Australian police ripped people off the street for trying to pray in the middle of the road.
You will reduce it to "the far right" but that isin't the case.
To the Michigan point, It circles back to what I posted above, I seen first hand muslims come into a neighbor hood, unwelcome, and take over. Out breed locals (3-1 is the average), eventually out vote locals and essentially take over small areas to start. Then larger and so on. IE: Hamtramck Michigan.
My neighborhood where I grew up in Michigan is a prime example. Normal everyday society. Then they came. Built a mosque right out side the neighborhood. Next thing we know theres a call to prayer 5 times a day on loud speaker 200 feet from my bed room window. Praying on sidewalks, in grocery store isles, parking lots.
So crazy to see a town so normal, all religions getting along just dandy. Then then come, and all that is down the drain.
I can tell you for certain its also a thing in the UK, from 2 co workers who "don't even bother to go home any more because its not home any more" (in reference to how much has changed for the worst since they were all let in, No go zones and such)
A native to the UK should not have to feel like his home isn't home anymore because a group of unwanted people decided to set up shop in their home town and take it over.
All the above circles back to my point from the other day, you don't understand islam, or at least you don't seem to. Maybe you do and your ignorant. But they are not here to assimilate, They are not here to blend in.
Their here to make islam the primary religion across the world. They do it quietly at first. Then once their numbers are bolstered they start ruling the vote and changing the government. again IE: Hamtramck Michigan.
Curious. Do you think islam is compatible with the west?
Now that you have filled in the blanks, your argument is actually worse.
You have not described an invasion. You have described immigrants moving into a city, building a lawful house of worship, having families, becoming citizens, voting, and winning elections. That is immigration and democracy. Apparently you consider people legitimate “locals” only while your preferred ethnic group remains politically dominant.
If a call to prayer violates a neutral noise ordinance, enforce the ordinance. I would say the same about church bells. If people obstruct a roadway, move them regardless of whether they are praying, protesting, or partying. If someone commits fraud, prosecute that individual. None of those things justifies assigning collective guilt to an entire religion.
Your Australian example actually disproves your argument. Police enforcing traffic laws against people blocking a road demonstrates that the government retains authority. It is the opposite of a religious takeover.
Hamtramck did not suddenly lose democracy when Muslim citizens won elections. Those officials took office through the same constitutional process as everyone before them. The call to prayer was approved by Hamtramck voters in 2004 by a vote of 55 to 45 percent. It is regulated alongside church bells. You may dislike the voters’ decision, but losing a democratic vote is not being invaded.
Your claim that Muslims “outbreed locals three to one” is also invented. European estimates placed Muslim fertility at roughly 2.6 children per woman compared with 1.6 among non Muslims, not three to one, and fertility among immigrant populations tends to move toward the national average across generations. More importantly, children born and raised in Michigan are not foreign invaders because you dislike their parents’ religion.
Two coworkers complaining about Britain is still two anecdotes. “No go zones and such” is not evidence. Neither are unspecified internet videos. You keep beginning with a sweeping conclusion and treating every annoyance, demographic change, and secondhand story as confirmation.
Is Islam compatible with the West? Some interpretations are and some are not, just as some forms of Christianity accept secular democracy while others seek religious control over everyone else. The standard is simple. Everyone may practice a religion, criticize a religion, or reject religion entirely, but everyone remains subject to the same secular laws.
What you call common sense is a conspiracy theory assembled from a loudspeaker, two coworkers, unspecified videos, and a fertility statistic you apparently invented. You are not demonstrating that Muslims refuse to assimilate. You are demonstrating that no amount of assimilation will satisfy you because what actually bothers you is their presence.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
