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
