Will Muslims take over the U.S. in 20 years? (Well, no.)

[TimCallahan]

Recently some friends of our (me and my wife) sent us a number of e-mails to the effect that the number of Muslims in the U.S. were expanding o the point that they would be able to elect one of their own president in 20 years; at which time they would impose Sharia law on the nation. that would be the end of the Constitution, Western Civilization, etc.

Since they didn't present me with any statistics to indicae present numbers of Muslims in the U.S., the birth rate among U.S. Muslims or rates of immigration into the U.S. from Muslim nations, I challenged their assertions. I also became impatient and, not waiting for their reply, I looked the information up myself. Here is what I found:

1) While it's difficult to get an exact number when it comes to religious preference, Muslims appear to make up 0.5% of the population; that's one in every 200 Americans.

2) According to the U.S. Census Bureau, immigration into the U.S. is led by a number of Asian countries, none of which are Muslim. These countries are, in order of number of immigrants per year: China, Philippines, Vietnam and India.

When I asked my friends how the numbers of Muslims were going to increase to the point of being able to elect the president in 20 years, they said it would be by their high birthrate. Let's do the math on this:

Assuming that each Muslim family has 10 or more kids and there is no erosion of members and maybe there's enough immigration to make up for those Muslims who don't crank out their own tribe, we get a tenfold increase in the Muslim population of people ready to vote in 20 years. In other words the Muslim population increase in terms of percentage of the U.S. population would be: 10 X 0.5 = 5%

Roughly half of the Muslims in the U.S. today are African Americans, and the spread of Islam in America is chiefly limited to African Americans, who make up about 11% of the total population. These people thus would not come from a culture practicing Sharia law and wouldn'tbe likely to follow it themselves.

When I ponted out to my friends that 5% of the popuation wouldn't be enough to elect a president, they said that many Muslims are demanding to only patronize banks that operate under Sharia banking practices, meaning they don't lend money at interest. I don't know how many banks operate this way, but it wuld seem that most could not.

I'm interested to hear other people's opinions on the great Islamic threat.

[realpaladin]

Erm... check my country, we have Geert Wilders, the guy that invented the 'Tsunami of Islam' idea...he is getting popular by misquoting statistics and using specifics to make remarks about general groups.

But think of it this way... would you mind if they did? If so, why? If not, why not?

Because playing with these numbers gets dangerously close to:

"Ah well, they are in a minority, what harm can they do?" followed by a "pogrom" of not so forgiving people.

History has lessons here...

[maddog]

Not likely within 20 years.

I think the 20-year future faces a much bigger threat from the current president than from changes in the Muslim percentage of the population over that time.

[linusrichard]

Assuming that each Muslim family has 10 or more kids and there is no erosion of members and maybe there's enough immigration to make up for those Muslims who don't crank out their own tribe, we get a tenfold increase in the Muslim population of people ready to vote in 20 years. In other words the Muslim population increase in terms of percentage of the U.S. population would be: 10 X 0.5 = 5%

The first problem with this is that, of the .5% of Americans who are Muslims, only about 50% (or about .25% of Americans) can bear children (actually, a lot less than that, but we'll stick with those numbers for back-of-the-envelope purposes). The second problem is that, even if this .25% all had 10 kids, they couldn't have any of them ready to vote in 20 years, beyond the first two. So, ignoring immigration and multiple births, and ignoring the change in population among non-Muslims, you'll only get up to 1%.

When I ponted out to my friends that 5% of the popuation wouldn't be enough to elect a president, they said that many Muslims are demanding to only patronize banks that operate under Sharia banking practices, meaning they don't lend money at interest.To which the appropriate response is, yeah, so what?
I don't know how many banks operate this way, but it wuld seem that most could not.
Most do not. But there are banks who do. I don't see the problem.

[realpaladin]

There is no great Islamic threat. The 'they will outbreed us' argument stems from, sorry to Godwin, the Nazi era.

But if it does happen, then it does happen and we will have an Islamic world. They are just as free as we are to pursue their happiness.

As long as they, in their pursuit, keep our values in tact as well, then that is how it will be.

[Safe-Keeper]

Safe-Keeper summons a RANDFAN:)!

...hmm. Usually works.

[Thunder]

The Muslims can't take over the USA until the Jew-rule has run its course. I think we have another good 36 years to our absolute control!!

Muhahahah!!

[HansMustermann]

Actually,

1. last I've heard, the fastest breeding minority in the USA were the Amish.

2. the historical pattern for any culture, nation or people has been along the following lines.

A. Life is hard, survival is a crapshot, child mortality is even higher. Lack of medicine, sanitation or even a guaranteed supply of food, can do that. So people breed to beat the odds. If one in 3 kids survive, they make 10 to be on the safe side.

B. Then they get sanitation, antibiotics, etc, but culture turns slower than an aircraft carrier. So for a generation there's actually a population boom. They make 10 kids, and actually 10 survive.

C. Then it kinda sinks in, and they stop after 1 kid, maybe 2 if they want to have a backup just in case. Population numbers actually start slowly declining.

All 3 happened for Western Europe and America too.

A lot of african islamic nations are at stage A, at most B. A lot of the immigrants find themselves flung from stage A to stage B, and, well, see what I wrote there. They still go and make 10 kids because that's the kind of culture they grew up with.

So cherry-picking these makes for great scare scenarios.

But give them a generation or two, or look at those who are second or third generation americans, and you'll find people who make 1-2 kids and that's it.

And if your friends want to stop the "threat" even earlier? Here's an idea: help those countries get to stage B or preferrably C already, so those immigrants are already there. Saves a generation or two of immigrants ***** like rabbits.

Now I realize that the above may sound racist, you know, stopping the other guys from breeding. But note that (i) I don't actually give a damn, I'm just playing by the constraints of the scare proposed, and (ii) I'm not proposing to forbid them from breeding, but merely to help or allow them to reach a standard of living where most of them will decide that on their own.

[TimCallahan]

My wife also pointed out to me that the Mormon birth rate is high, as is that of traditional Catholics. Yet neither group has managed, for all that, to take over Ameriaca.

[geni]

When I ponted out to my friends that 5% of the popuation wouldn't be enough to elect a president, they said that many Muslims are demanding to only patronize banks that operate under Sharia banking practices, meaning they don't lend money at interest. I don't know how many banks operate this way, but it wuld seem that most could not.

In practice most of them. There are a lot of ways to rule lawyer around the no interest issue.

[The Fool]

Dammit....do you mean that not all racist chain emails are correct????

[Ducky]

Not likely within 20 years.

I think the 20-year future faces a much bigger threat from the current president than from changes in the Muslim percentage of the population over that time.

The politics forum is the door behind you. Please take partisan hackery there.

[jmcvann]

Also, let's not forget that all of Congress would have sit back and say, OK, we're cool with that.

[Skeptic]

The problem with demographic projections is that they assume that the Muslims (or Blacks or Catholics or Asians or whomever) will have a CONSTANT fertility (or immigration) rate, and that they will remain CONSTANT in their negative attitudes toward the larger society (I assume this usually untrue claim for the sake of the argument).

This, of course, can happen, and sometimes does indeed happen. But often both (a) the fertility rate goes down, avoiding the "takeover", or (b) the second and third generation assimilate far better, making the "takeover", even if it technically DOES occur, a non-issue. Anybody in the USA today shocked at how the Irish and Italian numbers have grown so as to actually make WASPs a minority?

[Ysidro]

Recently some friends of our (me and my wife) sent us a number of e-mails to the effect that the number of Muslims in the U.S. were expanding o the point that they would be able to elect one of their own president in 20 years; at which time they would impose Sharia law on the nation. that would be the end of the Constitution, Western Civilization, etc.


I thought they already elected a Muslim president! :p

Sharia laws in 2012! :D

[ugot2bekidding]

But if it does happen, then it does happen and we will have an Islamic world. They are just as free as we are to pursue their happiness.



Did you forget a smiley face? Or, were you being serious?

[Oliver]

Erm... check my country, we have Geert Wilders, the guy that invented the 'Tsunami of Islam' idea...he is getting popular by misquoting statistics and using specifics to make remarks about general groups.

But think of it this way... would you mind if they did? If so, why? If not, why not?

Because playing with these numbers gets dangerously close to:

"Ah well, they are in a minority, what harm can they do?" followed by a "pogrom" of not so forgiving people.

History has lessons here...


Which is why I will sit at Israels border holding binoculars in 20 years watching when Arab's outnumber the Jewish population.

[Elizabeth I]

Which is why I will sit at Israels border holding binoculars in 20 years watching when Arab's outnumber the Jewish population.

And yet he wants to convince us he's not an antisemite... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=146040)

[MattusMaximus]

My wife also pointed out to me that the Mormon birth rate is high, as is that of traditional Catholics. Yet neither group has managed, for all that, to take over Ameriaca.

Yup. Hell, the Mormons are slowly but surely losing their grip on Utah, so what makes people think they're going to take over the entire U.S.?

As to the OP, we all know that Muslims will never control the U.S. - that's because the Jews are already pulling all the strings! :jaw-dropp

[MattusMaximus]

The problem with demographic projections is that they assume that the Muslims (or Blacks or Catholics or Asians or whomever) will have a CONSTANT fertility (or immigration) rate, and that they will remain CONSTANT in their negative attitudes toward the larger society (I assume this usually untrue claim for the sake of the argument).

This, of course, can happen, and sometimes does indeed happen. But often both (a) the fertility rate goes down, avoiding the "takeover", or (b) the second and third generation assimilate far better, making the "takeover", even if it technically DOES occur, a non-issue. Anybody in the USA today shocked at how the Irish and Italian numbers have grown so as to actually make WASPs a minority?

Good points. In addition, it also assumes that most, if not all, of the members of that particular (in this case, religious) minority will continue to adhere to that religion as they transition from children to adults. This is an unfounded assumption.

Then there is the question of inter-marriage between religious groups, which is becoming more and more common.

[TimCallahan]

Good points. In addition, it also assumes that most, if not all, of the members of that particular (in this case, religious) minority will continue to adhere to that religion as they transition from children to adults. This is an unfounded assumption.

Yes, that was obviously the unspoken assumption on the part of my friends. This is particularly odd, since one of the great concerns of evangelical Christians is losing their children to "the world." According to one program - I believe it was on James Dobson's Focus on the Family radio show, "Turning our Hearts Toward Home" - evangelicals and fundalmentalists lost 50% of the kids who went to college. Some cme back into the fold later, and the net loss was about one third. I suspect the same things are going to happen to Islamic youth in America.

[Thunder]

And yet he wants to convince us he's not an antisemite... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=146040)

I am sorry. How was Oliver's post in any way, "anti-Semitic"?

Many many right-wing Israeli Jews argue that the Arab-Israelis are a existential demographic threat, that will soon overwhelm the number of Israeli Jews.

Unfortunately, many right-wing Jews have horrible math skills. At their current population growth rate, Israeli-Arabs won't become the majority of Israel until at least 2109.

[Elizabeth I]

Which is why I will sit at Israels border holding binoculars in 20 years watching when Arab's outnumber the Jewish population.

And yet he wants to convince us he's not an antisemite... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=146040)

I am sorry. How was Oliver's post in any way, "anti-Semitic"?

Sounds to me like he's just waiting for the bloodshed to begin and wants a good seat to watch.

p.s. Oliver, you got your apostrophe exactly wrong - it should be Israel's border [possessive - the border belongs to Israel] and when Arabs outnumber [plural - more than one Arab].

[realpaladin]

Sounds to me like he's just waiting for the bloodshed to begin and wants a good seat to watch.

CNN should cater for that...

[Elizabeth I]

CNN should cater for that...

Oh, I think all the MSM outlets would be there, don't you? After all, would you want to be the only network that didn't cover the beginning of Armageddon? :rolleyes:

[Oliver]

Which is why I will sit at Israels border holding binoculars in 20 years watching when Arab's outnumber the Jewish population.
And yet he wants to convince us he's not an antisemite... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=146040)


Uh, yes - watching [Arab] Bulldozers destroying illegal settlements is anti-semitic. Oh, the irony. :rolleyes:

[Oliver]

Recently some friends of our (me and my wife) sent us a number of e-mails to the effect that the number of Muslims in the U.S. were expanding o the point that they would be able to elect one of their own president in 20 years; at which time they would impose Sharia law on the nation. that would be the end of the Constitution, Western Civilization, etc.

Since they didn't present me with any statistics to indicae present numbers of Muslims in the U.S., the birth rate among U.S. Muslims or rates of immigration into the U.S. from Muslim nations, I challenged their assertions. I also became impatient and, not waiting for their reply, I looked the information up myself. Here is what I found:

1) While it's difficult to get an exact number when it comes to religious preference, Muslims appear to make up 0.5% of the population; that's one in every 200 Americans.

2) According to the U.S. Census Bureau, immigration into the U.S. is led by a number of Asian countries, none of which are Muslim. These countries are, in order of number of immigrants per year: China, Philippines, Vietnam and India.

When I asked my friends how the numbers of Muslims were going to increase to the point of being able to elect the president in 20 years, they said it would be by their high birthrate. Let's do the math on this:

Assuming that each Muslim family has 10 or more kids and there is no erosion of members and maybe there's enough immigration to make up for those Muslims who don't crank out their own tribe, we get a tenfold increase in the Muslim population of people ready to vote in 20 years. In other words the Muslim population increase in terms of percentage of the U.S. population would be: 10 X 0.5 = 5%

Roughly half of the Muslims in the U.S. today are African Americans, and the spread of Islam in America is chiefly limited to African Americans, who make up about 11% of the total population. These people thus would not come from a culture practicing Sharia law and wouldn'tbe likely to follow it themselves.

When I ponted out to my friends that 5% of the popuation wouldn't be enough to elect a president, they said that many Muslims are demanding to only patronize banks that operate under Sharia banking practices, meaning they don't lend money at interest. I don't know how many banks operate this way, but it wuld seem that most could not.

I'm interested to hear other people's opinions on the great Islamic threat.


The whole Email you and your Wife recieved is BS. Maybe you'd like to reply with some facts about US-Demographics to counter the Islamophobia they were spreading around:

A report in August 2008[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#cite_note-35) from the U.S. Census Bureau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census_Bureau) projects that by 2042 non-Hispanic whites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American) will no longer make up the majority of the population. This is a revision of earlier projections that this would occur in 2050. Today, non-Hispanic whites make up about 66% of the population. This is expected to fall to 46% in 2050. The report foresees the Hispanic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans) population rising from 15% today to 30% by 2050. Today, African Americans make up 12% of the population, in 2050 they are projected to comprise 15%. Asian Americans make up 5% of the population and are expected to make up 9% in 2050. The U.S. has nearly 305 million people today, and is projected to reach 400 million by 2039 and 439 million in 2050.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#cite_note-36)[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#cite_note-37)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Projections

[TimCallahan]

The whole Email you and your Wife recieved is BS. Maybe you'd like to reply with some facts about US-Demographics to counter the Islamophobia they were spreading around:

Yes, if you read my original post on this thread, you will see that I already did point out to them that only about 0.5% of the U.S. population is Muslim and that immigration from Muslim countries is rather low.

[JWideman]

EVEN IF the country were to become predominantly Muslim in a single generation (which is mathematically impossible) or sometime in the distant future for that matter, and EVEN IF that future group of Muslim voters were more backwards than the ones living in the US now, they would not be able to impose Sharia. The Jews in charge wouldn't let it happen. :D
Seriously though, the Christians should worry more about the Atheist Revolution and the end of tax exempt status for all religions.

[Elizabeth I]

The whole Email you and your Wife recieved is BS. Maybe you'd like to reply with some facts about US-Demographics to counter the Islamophobia they were spreading around:

A little trouble with reading comprehension there, Oliver? That's what Tim's whole first post was about.

Confess, now...you and yrreg are the same person, aren't you?

[Elizabeth I]

Uh, yes - watching [Arab] Bulldozers destroying illegal settlements is anti-semitic. Oh, the irony. :rolleyes:

You're still saying you'll be there cheering the trouble on. You are not a very nice person, are you?

[Ladewig]

A little trouble with reading comprehension there, Oliver? That's what Tim's whole first post was about.

Indeed it was. What a bizarre post from Oliver. Even the thread's title says the claim is incorrect.

[headscratcher4]

We're going to be speaking spanish well before we're forced to read the Koran

[Elizabeth I]

We're going to be speaking spanish well before we're forced to read the Koran

Oh, good. I can already do that. With Arabic I'd have to start from scratch.

[TimCallahan]

As to speaking Spanish; I work as a substitute teacher and in after scool programs and day care in the Burbank and Pasadena unified school districts in Southern California. One oddity I've noticed there is the number of little Hispanic girls named Kimberley, which has to be about the most WASP name I can imagine. Another oddity is the number of little Hispanic boys named Ivan. Where the hell is that coming from?

[Elizabeth I]

As to speaking Spanish; I work as a substitute teacher and in after scool programs and day care in the Burbank and Pasadena unified school districts in Southern California. One oddity I've noticed there is the number of little Hispanic girls named Kimberley, which has to be about the most WASP name I can imagine. Another oddity is the number of little Hispanic boys named Ivan. Where the hell is that coming from?

In South Texas we have tons of Brandis, Ambers, Desirees, Brittanys, McKenzies (that's a girl's name), Travises, Austins, Treys, etc., all with Hispanic surnames. I just take it as a sign of acculturation.

[Fronzel]

There is no great Islamic threat. The 'they will outbreed us' argument stems from, sorry to Godwin, the Nazi era.

I'm not that old, but I have noticed most of the arguments are the same ones that were used about Communism in the 80's.

I'm also not sure why they don't mention the Buddhists.


Which is why I will sit at Israels border holding binoculars in 20 years watching when Arab's outnumber the Jewish population.

Why wait? Don't the Muslims already out number the Jews by a few hundred million?

[TimCallahan]

In South Texas we have tons of Brandis, Ambers, Desirees, Brittanys, McKenzies (that's a girl's name), Travises, Austins, Treys, etc., all with Hispanic surnames. I just take it as a sign of acculturation.

Yeah, I undersand WASP names as being part of acculturation. I, too, have found the names you mention, along with Kimberley. What I don't get are all the little Hispanic boys named Ivan.

[NobbyNobbs]

Recently some friends of our (me and my wife) sent us a number of e-mails to the effect that the number of Muslims in the U.S. were expanding o the point that they would be able to elect one of their own president in 20 years; at which time they would impose Sharia law on the nation. that would be the end of the Constitution, Western Civilization, etc.



Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is true. What do your friends propose be done about it? Any action I can think of that they are likely to take would itself be unconstitutional.

[ricbritain]

I work in an Islamic country and have exposure to the wonders of Islamic life and Islamic thought daily. I don't know anyone that has spent time in an Islamic country that does not have some concern at the spread of Islam in their home countries. My colleagues often talk of the imminence of the Islamification of the west in the next 20 years or so. I tend to think this is an over reaction, but each time I return to my home country I do see more and more Muslims and more and more halal outlets. This together with the assertion from my Muslim colleagues that in time the world will be Islamic make me at least slightly concerned. Although I don't have the statistics I think that most European countries have a higher percentage of Muslims.

[sophia8]

I tend to think this is an over reaction, but each time I return to my home country I do see more and more Muslims and more and more halal outlets. Depends where you go. City centres in Britain (I assume that's the country you're talking about) have lots of multicultural food outlets now. I'm old enough to remember when curry houses and Chinese restaurants were exotic rarities even in London - now you can find them in every small town. Halal shops are quite new, but (again) I can remember having to go to specialist Indian-run delicatessens to find curry ingredients; nowadays every Spar shop has a range of curry powders. I don't know why British supermarkets don't already stock halal food, since there's a market for it; no doubt they will in time.
And how do you recognise Muslims anyway? Do they all wear a crescent moon on their clothing?
This together with the assertion from my Muslim colleagues that in time the world will be Islamic Don't judge a religion (or a culture) by the people who shout the loudest - they are almost always the stupidest and least-informed. Also, have you never wondered if your colleagues may be winding you up just a little? Although I don't have the statistics I think that most European countries have a higher percentage of Muslims.
Higher than what?

[TimCallahan]

I went to www.islamicpopulation.com/Europe/europe_islam.html and found the following statistics:

Country Muslim percentage of population

France 10.0%
Netherlands 5.4
Germany 3.7
Belgium 3.6
Sweden 3.1
Denmark 3.02
United Kingdom 2.8

There are also countries / regions in the Balkans with majority or large minority Muslim populations. These are old populations from the period of the Ottoman Empire, as opposed to being recent immigrants:

Kosovo 90%
Albania 70
Bosnia 60
Macedonia 30
Bulgaria 11.87

Most other nations in Europe have minor Muslim populations - less than 3%. The overall Muslim population of Europe is 7%. While that's considerably larger than the U.S. percentage of 0.5%, most countries in Europe aren't in danger of being swamped by Muslims.

France would be most at risk of social disruption from their significant 10% Muslim population. However, I suspect the real problem there is poverty rather than culture. The impoverished Muslim populations are probably seen as a drain on the medical and social services of the host country. But that's what you get for importing cheap labor.

Te bast way, I suspect, to break any hold Islam would have on thee people, as well as to make them less restive, is to insure their upward mobility and to work dilligntly at assimilating teir children.

[ponderingturtle]

Actually,

1. last I've heard, the fastest breeding minority in the USA were the Amish.


Oh no, mandatory horse and buggies for everyone!

[HansMustermann]

France would be most at risk of social disruption from their significant 10% Muslim population. However, I suspect the real problem there is poverty rather than culture. The impoverished Muslim populations are probably seen as a drain on the medical and social services of the host country. But that's what you get for importing cheap labor.

Hmm, I've never heard of that being a major problem in France.

The GINI coefficient of France is comfortably better on the poor than that of, say, the USA. The figure for the USA was about 46 this whole decade, which is remarkably on the social inequity side for a country of the first world. The GINI index of the EU as a whole for 2005 is only 31, though that's mostly due to income differences between component states, and for France it's 28. (According to the CIA world factbook.) Pretty much the only ones that do much better in that aspect are the Scandinavian countries at about 25.

So basically don't worry, the poor in France are doing better than those in the USA. And the cheap imported labour is actually paid enough to have a relatively decent living.

Also, you have to understand that France is... harder to understand by us from other cultures. The main thrust of what passes for nationalism in France is, as far as I can tell, _language_ and _culture_ rather than nationality or race. Since most of their muslims (a lot of which are blacks too) come from ex-French-colonies and already speak French, they're actually not as marginalized and oppressed as you'd expect in many other countries.

On the whole, I think the French seem more concerned with the cultural takeover they're suffering at the hands of Hollywood than by the muslims there.

[ddt]

I went to www.islamicpopulation.com/Europe/europe_islam.html and found the following statistics:
[...]
There are also countries / regions in the Balkans with majority or large minority Muslim populations. These are old populations from the period of the Ottoman Empire, as opposed to being recent immigrants:

Kosovo 90%
Albania 70
Bosnia 60
Macedonia 30
Bulgaria 11.87
Interesting numbers. BTW, you forgot Montenegro at 18%.


Most other nations in Europe have minor Muslim populations - less than 3%. The overall Muslim population of Europe is 7%. While that's considerably larger than the U.S. percentage of 0.5%, most countries in Europe aren't in danger of being swamped by Muslims.
And for that grand total of 7%, look at the biggest contributor you've left out of this list: Russia with 19% muslim population, amounting, with 27 million of the 51 million in total for the whole of Europe, to more than half of Europe's muslims in this list. I surmise, though, that most of those Russian muslims don't actually live in Europe, but in the Asian parts of Europe - that are also traditionally muslim.


France would be most at risk of social disruption from their significant 10% Muslim population. However, I suspect the real problem there is poverty rather than culture. The impoverished Muslim populations are probably seen as a drain on the medical and social services of the host country. But that's what you get for importing cheap labor.


So basically don't worry, the poor in France are doing better than those in the USA. And the cheap imported labour is actually paid enough to have a relatively decent living.

Also, you have to understand that France is... harder to understand by us from other cultures. The main thrust of what passes for nationalism in France is, as far as I can tell, _language_ and _culture_ rather than nationality or race. Since most of their muslims (a lot of which are blacks too) come from ex-French-colonies and already speak French, they're actually not as marginalized and oppressed as you'd expect in many other countries.
I think you're painting a bit too rosy picture here. Despite smaller income differences, living conditions in the suburbs (banlieues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_situation_in_the_French_suburbs)) are not quite positive and there have been various riots in the last couple of years, due to, a.o., high unemployment rates. The racist Front National (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_National_(France)) still enjoyed 6% of the votes at the last election. Also the "normal" right-wing parties cater (a bit) to the atmosphere of islamophobia, see, e.g., Sarkozy's recent remarks on the wearing of burqas.

[HansMustermann]

I think you're painting a bit too rosy picture here. Despite smaller income differences, living conditions in the suburbs (banlieues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_situation_in_the_French_suburbs)) are not quite positive and there have been various riots in the last couple of years, due to, a.o., high unemployment rates. The racist Front National (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_National_(France)) still enjoyed 6% of the votes at the last election. Also the "normal" right-wing parties cater (a bit) to the atmosphere of islamophobia, see, e.g., Sarkozy's recent remarks on the wearing of burqas.

Well,

1. I'm not saying it's heaven on Earth, but let's just say that if I were poor, a black _and_ a muslim, I'd rather be in France than in Dixie. Which is really why France got so many of them in the first place, IMHO.

2. Well, that's just illustration of what I'm talking about. Some of what in France passes for right wing, is just the baseline in other places. (E.g., asking that immigrants learn the language is right wing in France, but is actually a normal requirement to get citizenship here in Germany.)

And I fancy I'm pretty all open mind and socialist and all myself, but don't get me started on the burqa. The most polite way I can say it is, basically, as Bill Maher put it, that if any country put half of its population in beekeeper suits, if, say, the USA decided to make blacks have to wear beekeeper suits, it would be an outrage. (And _I_ might add that in any country if you risked being killed or having acid thrown in your eyes if you dared not wear that assigned costume, now _that_ would cause a riot.) But if the arabs put half their population in those suits and just say "hey, it's our religion"... apparently we're supposed to go, "Oh, well, there you go. It's just religion. It's OK then."

So, yeah, that in France you get to be seen as right-wing lunatic fringe and islamophobe for being against the burqa is just illustration of the culture difference I'm talking about.

I don't think I'll ever really understand your culture. Sorry. I'm not saying there's something wrong with it, and I sure am not asking you to change it, or anything. I'd really like to understand it more, but I probably won't.

And I'm saying that, well, it requires a bit of extra reading to really understand the news :p

[Doc Daneeka]

Yeah, I undersand WASP names as being part of acculturation. I, too, have found the names you mention, along with Kimberley. What I don't get are all the little Hispanic boys named Ivan.

Iván is a perfectly normal Spanish name, actually. Perhaps it's just gained in popularity lately.

[ddt]

1. I'm not saying it's heaven on Earth, but let's just say that if I were poor, a black _and_ a muslim, I'd rather be in France than in Dixie. Which is really why France got so many of them in the first place, IMHO.
Point taken. But it depends on your point of view. From my POV, the banlieues look like hopeless places, born from outdated urban planning ideas.


2. Well, that's just illustration of what I'm talking about. Some of what in France passes for right wing, is just the baseline in other places. (E.g., asking that immigrants learn the language is right wing in France, but is actually a normal requirement to get citizenship here in Germany.)
I missed the part where French immigrants were not required to learn the language.


And I fancy I'm pretty all open mind and socialist and all myself, but don't get me started on the burqa. The most polite way I can say it is, basically, as Bill Maher put it, that if any country put half of its population in beekeeper suits, if, say, the USA decided to make blacks have to wear beekeeper suits, it would be an outrage. (And _I_ might add that in any country if you risked being killed or having acid thrown in your eyes if you dared not wear that assigned costume, now _that_ would cause a riot.) But if the arabs put half their population in those suits and just say "hey, it's our religion"... apparently we're supposed to go, "Oh, well, there you go. It's just religion. It's OK then."
There's another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=146230) on that in SI&CE.


So, yeah, that in France you get to be seen as right-wing lunatic fringe and islamophobe for being against the burqa is just illustration of the culture difference I'm talking about.
It's not per se a left/right issue, btw.


I don't think I'll ever really understand your culture. Sorry. I'm not saying there's something wrong with it, and I sure am not asking you to change it, or anything. I'd really like to understand it more, but I probably won't.
I'm confused. Who do you mean with "you"?

[HansMustermann]

Ah, sorry, thought you were French. My bad.

[TimCallahan]

Iván is a perfectly normal Spanish name, actually. Perhaps it's just gained in popularity lately.

Now that's really interesting. Is it a totally different name from the Russian "Ivan," the Slavic version of "John," or did it somehow get transferred from the Russians to the Spanish? Both of them were in California in the 1700s.

[Doc Daneeka]

Now that's really interesting. Is it a totally different name from the Russian "Ivan," the Slavic version of "John," or did it somehow get transferred from the Russians to the Spanish? Both of them were in California in the 1700s.

The only Iván I know is from the Dominican Republic, actually. But I know of a footballer from Chile with that name as well.

According to the Spanish version of Wikipedia (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iván) the name is a variant of Juán that became popular after the Russian revolution. Assuming that I am reading it correctly, that is. It would make sense, though. I've met more than a few people from Latin America bearing names like Vladimir.

[TimCallahan]

Yes, it would be avariation of Juan or John. It's interesting to note that it became popular after the Russian revolution.

[kurious_kathy]

Recently some friends of our (me and my wife) sent us a number of e-mails to the effect that the number of Muslims in the U.S. were expanding o the point that they would be able to elect one of their own president in 20 years; at which time they would impose Sharia law on the nation. that would be the end of the Constitution, Western Civilization, etc.

Since they didn't present me with any statistics to indicae present numbers of Muslims in the U.S., the birth rate among U.S. Muslims or rates of immigration into the U.S. from Muslim nations, I challenged their assertions. I also became impatient and, not waiting for their reply, I looked the information up myself. Here is what I found:

1) While it's difficult to get an exact number when it comes to religious preference, Muslims appear to make up 0.5% of the population; that's one in every 200 Americans.

2) According to the U.S. Census Bureau, immigration into the U.S. is led by a number of Asian countries, none of which are Muslim. These countries are, in order of number of immigrants per year: China, Philippines, Vietnam and India.

When I asked my friends how the numbers of Muslims were going to increase to the point of being able to elect the president in 20 years, they said it would be by their high birthrate. Let's do the math on this:

Assuming that each Muslim family has 10 or more kids and there is no erosion of members and maybe there's enough immigration to make up for those Muslims who don't crank out their own tribe, we get a tenfold increase in the Muslim population of people ready to vote in 20 years. In other words the Muslim population increase in terms of percentage of the U.S. population would be: 10 X 0.5 = 5%

Roughly half of the Muslims in the U.S. today are African Americans, and the spread of Islam in America is chiefly limited to African Americans, who make up about 11% of the total population. These people thus would not come from a culture practicing Sharia law and wouldn'tbe likely to follow it themselves.

When I ponted out to my friends that 5% of the popuation wouldn't be enough to elect a president, they said that many Muslims are demanding to only patronize banks that operate under Sharia banking practices, meaning they don't lend money at interest. I don't know how many banks operate this way, but it wuld seem that most could not.

I'm interested to hear other people's opinions on the great Islamic threat.

Well I am praying for more conversions to Christianity to avoid this happening like this ex-Muslim in the video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYgLFm0CQGQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25dZmSzE4tQ&feature=related

[UnrepentantSinner]

Another oddity is the number of little Hispanic boys named Ivan. Where the hell is that coming from?
What I don't get are all the little Hispanic boys named Ivan.
Iván is a perfectly normal Spanish name, actually. Perhaps it's just gained in popularity lately.

Baseball fans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iv%C3%A1n_Rodr%C3%ADguez). :)

[Ferguson]

And how do you recognise Muslims anyway? Do they all wear a crescent moon on their clothing?

Not to make a big deal of this one, since I have no problem with muslim immigration (though I might feel differently if they had a big enough majority to legislate sharia the way christians currently try to legislate the bible), but I've noticed many more muslims in my town as well, and no they don't all wear a crescent moon, but they do still stand out, men with beards and turbans, women in burkas. One might also notice more Orthodox Jews or Amish in their town, it is not hard to recognize a person's religion if they dress to fit it.

[Sideroxylon]

Well I am praying for more conversions to Christianity to avoid this happening like this ex-Muslim in the video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYgLFm0CQGQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25dZmSzE4tQ&feature=related

We on the other team are doing the same so I guess its game on, Kathy! I won't bother linking the Christian-Muslim revert videos as I am sure you can find them in abundance.

[HansMustermann]

And if she can't, well, just search for Cat Stevens, now better known as Yusuf Islam :p

[TimCallahan]

Kathy, while I don't want to censor you, I'd rather you didn't use this thread for purposes of proselytizing. This issue of the thread is this: Is there a danger that the U.S., or Europe for that matter, will be overwhelmed by Muslims - owing to increased birthrate and immigration - who will then impose Sharia law on the democratic nations of Europe and America. My position, as shown in my posts, is that this Muslim threat is greatly inflated.

If you have an opinion on the subject that runs counter to that, as in the case of my friends, who claimed Muslims would be able to elect a president in 20 years, I'd be interested in hearing it. Whether individual Muslims convert to Christians or Christians to Muslims is, however, irrelevant to the topic of this thread.