East meets West and troubles ensue

There’s a lot of talk and controversy in the news about the migrant issue nowadays. Some are calling it Europe’s biggest political issue in decades, and they’re partly right. It’s certainly a big issue, but it’s not as big now as it may get in the coming years, if it’s not addressed correctly.

Here’s what I think: it’s not about race, it’s not about color, it’s not about war or the economy; it’s about religious fanaticism vs. tolerance. That’s the subject that should be discussed openly here, without mincing words.

I’m not going to name any particular religion. I don’t need to. The question to ask is: how tolerant are the religions practiced by these migrants? I ask this question seriously, given the problems we have encountered in Europe just in the last decade, in France, in the UK and in other European countries, all caused (directly or indirectly) by religious fanaticism.

Given the problems caused by intolerant religions in Europe, do we really want to introduce more of those same problems into the mix? If you look at photos of the migrants, or even better, go and inspect the situation for yourselves, you will see an overwhelming abundance of young males. Let’s do some simple math: add impressionable young males, plus religions which espouse intolerance, and what does that equal? It equals more of what you can see in the UK or in France, in certain well-known places where normal people don’t dare venture for fear of being attacked or killed, simply because they’re not of the same religion or have a different skin color.

In today’s civilized world, where science is widespread and superstition is all but absent, there are certain religions that still cling to medieval practices, and those religions have no place whatsoever where civilized society lives. Not unless you want serious problems.

The real litmus test is this: go ahead and wear a t-shirt with a controversial message in Eastern countries where an intolerant religion thrives and see what happens to you. Then, should you live to tell the tale, wear a similarly controversial t-shirt (or even more so) in Western countries and see what happens there.

I’m not of any religion, because I prefer to think for myself instead of regurgitating what religious books teach me. But I certainly appreciate tolerance among those who are religious, because it is a sign of higher thinking, of “using one’s noggin”, to put it into American vernacular. It’s a clear sign that a particular religion has managed to pull itself out of medieval practices of torture and killing and has come out into the light of the modern, enlightened world. Sadly, some religions are still stuck in the past, hundreds of years behind the times and show no sign of wanting to progress. Those religions and their believers have no place in the civilized world. 

That’s what we should be talking about, because if this situation is dealt with correctly now, we’ll avoid a whole slew of problems later on down the line, such as the de-stabilization of European society and the safety of its citizens, and the regression of our Western civilization down to the levels we can now see in Eastern countries, which is unthinkable.


11 thoughts on “East meets West and troubles ensue

  1. Pingback: Accountability for Syria | Raoul Pop

  2. Jha'saab says:

    None of the religions favour extremism or radical thoughts, rather they had an assimilative approach. Three religions were a progeny of a single tree, while Hinduism and Buddhism originated from another. Interpretational maladies have become the trouble and cause for intolerance.


    • “By your fruits shall ye be judged…” Which religion is responsible for countless deaths and hatred in current times? I keep hearing it’s peaceful and yet the acts of its believers speak the language of death, destruction and oppression.


    • Stuart M. says:

      Dear JHa’saab,

      I was wondering from your perspective whether you could enlighten me about the mindset of a Muslim refugee. Now, most Muslims (maybe like in Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.) probably are quite happy where they are and are not contemplating migrating to lands of the infidels. But many Muslims live in a religious hell-on-earth where they don’t know whether they or their loved ones will be alive tomorrow. Sunnis are murdering Shiites and vice-versa, but I am not just talking about the Mideast hot spots. Many Muslim countries are mired in a soul-crushing spiral of criminality, unemployment, food shortages, and corrupt political oligarchies. What do these unhappy Muslims think went wrong in these countries? Why do they think the lands of the infidels are such havens of relative safety and prosperity? Do they stop to consider it might be due to a different religion or even lack of religion in the infidel countries? Why do these unhappy Muslims think they are entitled to move to the infidel countries? They don’t speak the language, they usually have insufficient education and training to support themselves. Why do they feel the infidels should support them? Sorry for all the questions, but enquiring minds want to know.


      • Jha'saab says:

        Since I am neither a muslim, nor a refugee, I won’t be a true advocate of their mindset 🙂 But, since I belong to a democracy and country of Gandhi, which never called Dalai Lama, bangaldeshis or people of any country fled here for whatever reasons a ‘refugee’, would try to articulate the mindset. Well, people of lower socioeconomic strata, people who are unskilled or jobless did move to west since those rich states always had something for them in 60s-70s. Some countries like norway offered jobs for unskilled labourers from middle east probably due to their newfound grand oil resources and dwindling population. While UK and US had long bonding as well as interests in subcontinent due to oil resources again. Many of the skilled people still stayed behind in their country, but later globalisation and IT boom needed cheap resources from developing world back again. Now, coming to the religious intolerance, this was the result of search for identity beyond a ‘refugee’ status and persistent neglect or interference by west in middle east. Be it oil resources or military powers, west wished to control all of it. The only force which could string them together against west was incidentally ‘religion’ and some forged Ulemas, religious leaders and terrorist organisations began prodding jobless youth. Now, we face terror and blame the entire religion, while it would be us who need to assimilate them, incorporate them in humanity which is much bigger than religion.


        • Stuart M. says:

          Thank you for that thoughtful reply. I learned (once again) not to make assumptions about a person’s religion just based on their name, my apologies! I found it interesting that you feel both the West’s neglect and their meddling are partially to blame for the rise of religious extremism. It’s not that clear to me which middle-eastern Muslim countries were or are under the “control” of the West. I think if a country accepts foreign aid, buys weapons from or occasionally votes at the UN in agreement with the West, those actions are not necessarily evidence of “control” by the West. Well, I think we can agree that the religious extremists find it very useful to convince their flock that they have grievances against the infidel West. It’s a shame people are so ready to believe them. I’m just surprised that resentment doesn’t prevent them from “emigrating” to the West.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Jha'saab says:

            Till recently and still partially, US and allied forces had complete military control and a self-designated puppet govt in Iraq and Afghanistan after literally conquering and dethroning reigning taliban and Saddam ( defending the cause is separate issue). Apart from that US has economic control in form of all oil companies in UAE and Saudi since the discovery of oil in those states. Its not an outsourced work but literally controlled in all respects in a technically deprived country. Russia invaded Afghanistan earlier, a reason for Taliban formation. Pakistan survives completely on US aid ranging from military, nukes to ofcourse humanitarian. A country with no advanced science university would make its own nuclear missile is a joke. Its simply gifted to then by China or US or both. Syria had russian military control, although hidden. Quwait had US troops hanging there always. This hegemony is nowhere else, especially in economic deprived countries like Nepal, lanka, east africa, some parts of south america, serbs…they are not even touched since they dont have resources. But, I agree to you, this should not be reason for extremism, because west only made them prosperous too.


          • Stuart M. says:

            Thank you for your reply. The issue of whether the West “controls” anything in the Middle East doesn’t seem to be so clear from the examples you give. Simply having troops on the ground isn’t always an indicator of having control in a particular country. The USA and its Western allies did wage a war to unseat Saddam Hussein and I would concede that they exercised a great deal of control while they were there. The Taliban was already an extremist government in Afghanistan when the USA invaded. The reasons for that conflict were quite clear. The Taliban were providing refuge for an extremist who had attacked the USA. But the current governments in those countries have held several democratic elections and they have not always behaved in ways their Western “occupiers” have liked. At any rate, there are no US troops in Iraq and there will soon only be a very small contingent in Afghanistan (from a high of 130,000, there are only 13,000 NATO troops there now). The US troop contingent in Kuwait has only been there since Saddam Hussein was expelled from that country. Judging by the success of the Islamic State, it might be possible that US troops will return in large numbers to the region. Is that necessarily a bad thing, though? Yes, in the eyes of the Islamic extremists, it is. But why should it be in the eyes of moderate Muslims? Continuing, the Middle Eastern states all have national oil companies which own their oil fields. Western oil companies are only engaged for their expertise on an operational basis, but own no oil there. I think you would agree that the formation of OPEC with its higher oil prices at the time hardly could be characterized as Western control. Continuing, the Taliban was formed in Pakistan a long time after the Russians left Afghanistan, so again I don’t see how their formation could be a result of Muslim grievances. Pakistan is a big recipient of US aid and a purchaser of US weapons. Does that mean the USA controls them? Was the formation of the Taliban by Pakistani intelligence or the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan in the US interest? I don’t think so. At any rate, I think Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is an Indian grievance and the Islamic extremists should be singing praise to America if we had really “given” Pakistan a nuclear bomb. To sum up, I suppose it is always easier to search for others to blame for one’s own problems. In the case of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, maybe India is itself to blame because it built one first. Thank you again for your listing of Islamic grievances and I will return this comment section to its rightful owner Raoul Pop.


  3. Stuart M. says:

    I agree that this refugee problem will be a very significant destabilizing influence in the prosperous countries of Europe for a long time. It boggles my mind that those coming via the most dangerous ways, in overpacked boats and suffocating trucks, have paid enormous sums of money to smugglers. Up to 20,000 Euros per person they seem to be able to scrounge up from family and friends. Of course, once they’re in Germany, they have nothing left and the violins start playing a sad tune.

    However, I’m afraid that nothing can be done about it. The world population, and especially that of Africa, is continuing to grow by leaps and bounds. We will have another 2 billion people in the world by 2050 and another 3 billion after that until 2100. The dictatorships and oligarchs that dominate/terrorize in most of the fastest growing areas are not going to go quietly and they will be happy to facilitate the escape of the population “overflow” to other areas. Heck, they will probably jump into the people-smuggling business themselves if they haven’t already.

    Western Europe will be increasingly terrorized by religious extremists and criminal bands. There are already “no-go” areas in German cities where the police fear to enter. The problems in France and Sweden are well-known. Western European social welfare states will groan under old and new waves of poor refugees.

    Although I said nothing can be done, maybe it can be done better. If refugees are paying massive sums to smugglers, why not open a window at the German Embassy in the countries of origin and sell “refugee visas” and safe passage for these large sums of money? The money can be used to defray some of the costs of maintaining the refugees in Germany. For economic refugees from Albania, Montenegro, Kosovo, etc., why won’t the German government send them money to stay in those countries? It must be much cheaper to support them in Albania than in Munich. Yes, there will be lots of cheating, but the money can always be cut off. The problem of religious extremism and criminality will also get worse. The affected countries will just have to beef up their police and intelligence forces and start building prisons.

    I never was a fan of the former Chancellor of West Germany Willy Brandt, but he was dead right when he warned that if we didn’t do anything to solve the problems of the “Southern Hemisphere,” the Southern Hemisphere would soon come to the Northern Hemisphere. We are now reaping the harvest of our indifference to the problems of these areas.

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.