Erik de Castro Lopo has responded
to yesterday's
post about Fred Nile's recent conversion to racism.
Erik makes the pedantic claim that Islam is not a race. In this
era of the dog
whistle I thought this hardly bore arguing. By arguing against
the Islamic religion, Nile is talking in code to racist voters, while
keeping himself slightly distant from overt racism. If Nile were
really being honest and talking about the religions he really
despises, he'd argue against Catholicism. Like most fundies, I'm sure
he hates "Papists" more than even atheists! That would certainly tie
in with his argument for banning full-body religious dress, since this
is worn by both types of religious
extremist.
Then Erik goes on to defend immigration controls. He poses the
hypothetical "Zebuts" who aim to overthrow current governments and
replace them with a new system. If done non-violently and
democratically, I don't see a problem here. You can't argue against
the will of the people and claim to believe in democracy. Unless, of
course, you subscribe to the view of Kissinger-style democracy where
the people must keep voting until they get it "right", as currently
being imposed on Palestine.
Next he makes some claims about Islam to back up why Muslims should
be kept out. I'll change just a couple of words, and include some
references to back up my assertions.
The Dutch are traditionally liberal, yes. These days they're
increasingly racist. Hence the "Civic Integration Exam".
Finally, claiming that democracy is not about the majority imposing
its will on the minority is pretty laughable. It's precisely the
nature of democracy. What about the (large) Dutch minority
opposed to the "Civic Integration Exam", to use one example? What
about the will of people who, non-violently, smoke dope?
If you want anything other than the tyrany of the majority, you
need a benevolent dictatorship. Allow me to offer my services ;)