"Germany well on the way to becoming a Muslim state by 2050

[x42bn6]

The party that controls the state of Kelantan is a radical Islamic party (not extremist) that believes that Malaysia should be an Islamic state and be run by syariah law. That party was almost defeated in the general elections by the ruling coalition that took all the states but that one.

Generally, because PAS believes that Malaysia should be an Islamic country, it applies that idea to Kelantan. It has barred plenty of things - male-female fraternisation (during concerts, they have to stand apart), traditional activities (the wayang kulit described above), alcohol (as above), and a lot more. Kelantan's economy is almost stagnant because businesses must conform strictly to Islamic law, and because almost every form of entertainment is restricted.

In the capital and around the major cities, they have openly rejected the notion that the country should become fully Islamic - they are fine with the current system where Islam is the official religion, but the Constitution stays.

I think that if PAS manages to take control of the country (the Chinese would hate it because they love pork and wine... ), then yes, they will start building more mosques. Not sure what they will do about the churches, though - because they haven't dealt with other religions... At least I don't think so.

So yes, Malaysia does have problems but Kelantan is one of the methods at which the country is run.

In Kuala Lumpur, the system is much different. Sure, there are a lot of mosques but that is by virtue of there being a large Muslim population. There are plenty of churches and synagogues too. There are Taoist and Buddhist shrines and statues, and Hindu temples and shrines too. Quite a lot of the young population would rather declare themselves "Malaysian" rather than "Chinese", "Malay" or "Indian".

There are racial problems, however, related with it - but these are generally isolated.*

[B~E]

Still, it doesn't seem like diveristy contributed anything positive to Malaysia.

[Arxces]

On the contrary: it is diversity that allows Malaysia to thrive as it is. Only with a vibrant mix of cultures are we able to bring ourselves to face issues such as intercultural and interfaith issues. When there is a large majority and a relatively small minority, the minority ends up being oppressed (as in North America and Western Europe). In Malaysia this is different; there is a balance, and an open, but polite debate on interracial matters.

[B~E]

Only with a vibrant mix of cultures are we able to bring ourselves to face issues such as intercultural and interfaith issues

So... only with diversity can one cope with the challenge of... diversity? Sorry, I dont think I got what you mean.

How are minorities opressed in the West? Assuming that you're refering to the pre-60s periode of segregation, it isn't an increase in cultural diversity that allowed minorities to emancipate themselves, it is activisme on their part and the majority's willingness to accept a multicultural society and to build insitutions ensuring the equal and something preferencial treatement of the minorities. And the philosophical basis justifying this emancipation was tought up by.... the white majority. I my opinion, I dont think that diversity itself had anything to do with it.

Unless that you honestly believe that minorities are always at disadvantage in the presence of a majority.

[Arxces]

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

So... only with diversity can one cope with the challenge of... diversity? Sorry, I dont think I got what you mean.

How are minorities opressed in the West? Assuming that you're refering to the pre-60s periode of segregation, it isn't an increase in cultural diversity that allowed minorities to emancipate themselves, it is activisme on their part and the majority's willingness to accept a multicultural society and to build insitutions ensuring the equal and something preferencial treatement of the minorities. And the philosophical basis justifying this emancipation was tought up by.... the white majority. I my opinion, I dont think that diversity itself had anything to do with it.

Unless that you honestly believe that minorities are always at disadvantage in the presence of a majority.

YES! Only when there is diversity can one confront with it's challenge. A society that lacks diversity does not confront this issue, as it will likely be an insignificant issue.

With regards to how minorities are oppressed in the west, it is a matter of the minority lacking a voice. As you pointed out, the apartheid of the pre-60s was an example of how the majority oppressed the minority. This issue was solved by the willingness of the majority to break the status quo, and allow the minority equal representation.

However, when there is more diversity (such as in Malaysia), a situation is created by which the various factions can compete for representation on an equal platform. This is evident in Malaysian politics, where the ruling party is actually a conglomerate of parties of different races, all of whom have a proportionate voice. As such a system is created where the demands of each group are met. In Malaysia we have one state which is under the Islamic Sharia'h because the people there voted for it. We also have states and areas (such as the capital) which are essentially secular. Because of the demands of the non-Muslims, KL has a thriving night life of clubs, pubs and hangouts, a world away from the Islamic state of Kelantan.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

Tipsy:

- So there's an absurdly high demand by the aging population on the welfare system, and the government's solution is to bring in more taxe payers; foreigners en masse with their families. The longterm logical consequence of this is a lost of social identity, and all the social trauma caused by rapid demographic changes. A good case exemple would be Iliaran's Malaysia.

I'm not saying it is neccesarily a good idea, I was more trying to say that the absurdly high demand was because of the failure of the social program and that the only way to preserve a program that is overwhelming failing is to take an extreme course of action, this change in immigration policy.

Originally Posted by B~E

So what we have here is 1)a demographic collapse, 2) caused by a certain economical system, 3)which is promping socials changes in the forme of mass immigration, 4) in a multucultural, tolerant society no-less, 5) without even properly answering the original problem, 6)which is the conditions brought about by the economical system which are hostil to the traditional familly.

The question is, why would a nation put up with all the problems and uncertainties of diversity, and accept the lost of its identity, when the root problem still remain?

Selfishness and laziness. People supporting what makes their own immediate needs the sole basis on which they base what they support. As for 'a nation' putting up with it, to play with semantics to make my point, it is each person seeking their own wants in the manner I just describe that collectively make up a nation. Canada may lose it's identity and this multiculturalism may cause social unrest in the future, however it's easy for people to just ignore that and see it as a solution to give themselves social security, univesal healthcare, or whatever other social program they want to support at the moment.

Originally Posted by B~E

- You speak of the German nation as if it was a rational actor, somehow entitled to individual rights of self-determination. I happen to disagree. Nations aren't rational. They just follow the flow of history aimlessly, and this is even more true and obvious in a western society that has recently traded its common identity for unchecked individualism and where legitimacy is generated by economic considerations and technocrates, which are now superior to social considerations by a long shot. Nobody is going to make a choice to perpetuate german society, or to just give up on it, because nobody can legitimatly speak for everyone. How could you abide by a suicidal decision that nobody is entitled to make, where deat will be brought about by inertia?

I speak of Germany as a nation made up of rational actors that each should have the individual right to choose how to ruin their country. It's the same as with the Canada example in response to the last paragraph. Each person speaks for himself or herself in their voting decisions that makes the voice that speaks for the whole. There is no single rational voice because there are countless social, cultural, and economic factors that will effect the singular voice that comes from voting. It is through the democratic process that Germans are collectively making the 'suicidal decision'.

Originally Posted by B~E

To put the fear of economical sacrifices and hardships above the perennity of your nation isn't rational and justifiable, even if its a decision that is self-inflicted by the people. A social body should never be subordinated to economical conditions, it should be the other way around, especialy when the perpetuity of a nation is at stake. Historicaly speaking, the market was at the service of the social sphere, even at the height of the mercantilist system.

This is one reason, a minor one but one nonetheless, that I don't support most government programs that attempt to "help" the people of a nation.

Originally Posted by B~E

The artificial supremacy of the "free market" is a new phenomenon, dating from the 70s.

Are you saying that a free market isn't the best form of economy?

Originally Posted by B~E

My argument is that a nation, especialy a modern western one, isn't expected to make decisions concerning its perennity, because its not a rational entity, because your typical western nation is atomised and over-individualistic, and because it is artificially subordinated to economical interests. so your idea of just sitting back and accepting whatever happen "because this is what the people chosed" does not make sense to me.

What's the alternative? End democracy? Give the government more control over a person's life? In the end, Germany is a nation run by Germans and in the worse case scenario a single German. The point is that if the people of a nation decide to figuratively commit suicide there is nothing we can do except try to change their minds, and if that doesn't work then I think the only choice we have left is to just sit back and watch. The only alternative I can see is to force our will upon others, an option I will never support.

Originally Posted by B~E

- You can't tell if a social change is for the better or for worst? Dont you have any moral, historical and cultural landmarks to base your judgement on? I dont believe it. You're saying that a change might be for the best or for the worst. But considerig that this change isn't necessary and will cause serious and permanent consequences, perhapes there should be higher justifications for it than the well being of a market economy that was born yesterday.

I say for better or worse because it honestly doesn't matter to me what change it has on Germany, the only thing that matters to me is that it is the change the German people voted for.

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

Why, lets hear it from the Pope himself.

Marriage derived from the Bible? is that true? And the familly unit as the building block of society, how important and unique was that for Europe?

I've never been one to force my religious beliefs upon others even if I believe it is in their own interest.