# Small European Families



## tvdxer

What accounts for the low fertility rate in Europe?  This has recently been in the news, discussions, etc. quite a bit.  Many are worried that the dearth of children will have a serious effect on the strong social welfare programs in most Euro countries, and others fear a demographic shift towards resident Muslim populations.

Total Fertility Rate (source)

*Replacement Rate - 2.1 children / woman*
U.S. - 2.09 
France - 1.84
U.K. - 1.66
Netherlands - 1.66
Canada - 1.61
*E.U.* *- 1.47*
Germany - 1.39
Italy - 1.28
Spain - 1.28
Russia - 1.28
Ukraine - 1.17

For those here in Spain, Italy, etc. with extremely low TFR's, do most couples you know choose not to have children or only have one?  What is the reasoning behind this?


----------



## cuchuflete

Fertility is not the only way to maintain or increase population.
Immigration is a robust supplement.


----------



## zebedee

tvdxer said:
			
		

> and others fear a demographic shift towards resident Muslim populations.



Erm...could you please elaborate on your thought process behind this strange statement, specially the word _fear_. I wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions about sweeping statements.


----------



## maxiogee

Lack of early death - such as these same European countries expeirenced in the early parts of the 20th century, might have a part to play.
It would be interesting to see the average life expectancy of a child born in each of the current European nations anc compare it to a child born in the same place 100 years ago.

Why should a modern population wish to replace it self? What would be wrong were they to decide to lower the birthrate?
Maybe there is a subconscious decision that the land cannot support what it has got at present, that resources are too scarce, or maybe there is a feeling that a child born today might face horrors which the parents are loath to put it through?


----------



## TrentinaNE

tvdxer said:
			
		

> For those here in Spain, Italy, etc. with extremely low TFR's, do most couples you know choose not to have children or only have one? What is the reasoning behind this?


I have 18 adult cousins in northern Italy who are in their 30s/40s and appear to have completed their families. Only two of them have more than two children. Half (10) have 2 children and 4 have 1 child. This distribution strikes me as very similar to what I see among American couples in the same age range.


----------



## diegodbs

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Fertility is not the only way to maintain or increase population.
> Immigration is a robust supplement.


 
I agree with Cuchuflete.

Total fertility rate in Madrid


----------



## GenJen54

I think before anyone surmises further, it might be important to look into statistics regarding marriage age.  

At least in the United States, the median age for persons entering into a *first marriage* (I only make the distinction because of the way it is listed on the Census report) continues to rise.  As of 2003, the median age for a man to marry was 27.1.  The median age for a woman is 25.3. 

I could only guess that if the same were true in Europe, that the birth rate is declining for a similar reason.  Couples who do not marry until later, do not have children until later and tend to have smaller families.

Of course, we need statistics to back this up.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

In Spain the problem is increased by the ridiculously high house prices. This makes difficult to live with the partner until both members of the couple are wealthy enough (currently it's normal to be over 30 and live in the parents' house...) and, obviously, this is not a help to have children.


----------



## ireney

High prices on everything, low wages, unemployment and wanting to give your kid all it deserves to have (which, of course, apart from love etc costs a lot).


----------



## cuchuflete

The link provided by Diego offers another interesting insight for those concerned about 'low' or falling birthrates.  An increasing number of births are by mothers outside of marriages.



> El estudio del Instituto de Estadística pone de manifiesto otro gran cambio registrado entre las mujeres que dan a luz en la región: cada vez son más las que llegan a la maternidad sin estar casadas. Los padres de uno de cada cuatro bebés nacidos en la región, un 26,4% del total, no están casados. Este porcentaje es más del doble del registrado en 1995, que fue del 12,4%. Además, destaca el estudio, está tendencia se mantiene firme y creció en un 1,2% en un solo año, entre 2003 y 2004.



The logical conclusion is that without these so-called illegitimate births, and their continued and steady growth as a portion of total births, there would be far fewer babies born.

In other words, one way to increase the birth rate is to dispense with marriage, but be ever more loving.


----------



## Edher

Hola a todos,

        I forgot in what magazine I read this but their study also attributed education of women as another factor to low fertility rates. Their reasoning is rather logical, since women have more and more opportunities in the work field than they did in the past decades, some postpone pregnancy in order to advance in their studies and in their jobs. Furthermore, some of these women get so caught up in their jobs that they decide not to have kids at all lest they could miss out on promotions or other opportunities to get ahead while their away for obvious necessities. Now I remember, I saw a documentary where this case is taken to the extreme. There's a place in Japan (since they are in similar conditions) where there was only ONE STUDENT IN THE FIFTH GRADE IN THE WHOLE SCHOOL due to very low fertility rates.

I think I also read that somewhere in Italy the government was willing to actually give money to couples in order for them to have children. I don't know how true that is. Maybe an Italian fellow could clarify this for me. 

Edher


----------



## Dr. Quizá

Well, I wouldn't say that (in Spain) women had a noticeably lower education level ten years ago (actually I believe they have had a slightly higher level than men for years) but it's true that they're are less prone to become housewives than then. Again, the hyper-high house pricing forces them to work since a only salary can't handle a mortgage in most cases.

AFAIK, in Japan there's still a big tradition of women leaving their jobs to become housewives, so that wouldn't be something comparable (there's something about getting "a nice husband" before the woman reaches 25).


Oh, and I don't think the decreasing ratio of married couples has to do with this since these statistics talk on children per woman, not per marriage. Furthermore, maybe avoiding marriage increases the ratio since there is not "wait until" factor.

Anyway, I think this is getting better in Spain. If I'm not wrong, a few years ago our ratio was the lowest in the world.


----------



## mansio

> others fear a demographic shift towards resident Muslim populations.


Once the Muslim population is integrated it birthrate drops to the level of the surrounding population. It is a further proof that birthrate is correlated with women working or studying and affluence.


----------



## tvdxer

zebedee said:
			
		

> Erm...could you please elaborate on your thought process behind this strange statement, specially the word _fear_. I wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions about sweeping statements.



Hmmmm....well let's see.  If natives are choosing to live a self-directed life and having no children, or maybe 1, sometimes but only sometimes 2, and Muslim immigrants are having 4 or 5 or 7, what do you think the demographic picture will be in 50 or even 30 years?  Nothing scares you about the idea of France having more people living in Muslim ghettoes and worshipping in mosques than in their traditional French fashion?  The lack of native children playing on the streets doesn't bother you at all?  We all know how well immigration has worked in many European countries anyway.


----------



## tvdxer

Here's a more specific question: Why does the United States manage to have a birthrate higher, and in most cases, well above any European country?

U.S. women probably have nearly the same average educational attainment as European women.

I seriously doubt more European women work than Americans; I tend towards thinking the opposite is true.

And, of course, we Americans work more hours...and our government is less generous with certain benefits, e.g. health care.  

So what makes the U.S. stand out among developing countries, the majority of which are in Europe, in this area?


----------



## GenJen54

> If natives are choosing to live a self-directed life



Self-directed?  As opposed to what?   Not everyone believes that having  4, 7, 10+ children is the best thing for the planet. 



> ...and having no children, or maybe 1, sometimes but only sometimes 2, and Muslim immigrants are having 4 or 5 or 7, what do you think the demographic picture will be in 50 or even 30 years?Nothing scares you about the idea of France having more people living in Muslim ghettoes and worshipping in mosques than in their traditional French fashion?



Do you have proof that Muslims living in Europe are having this many children?  Where are your facts to support this.  *You* seem to be the one with a problem with this, most likely because these people do not follow your same faith.


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Hmmmm....well let's see.  If natives are choosing to live a self-directed life and having no children, or maybe 1, sometimes but only sometimes 2, and Muslim immigrants are having 4 or 5 or 7, what do you think the demographic picture will be in 50 or even 30 years?


As religions tend to lose their power in the light of their exposure to scientific advance, wouldn't it be a welcome idea (from a Western, capitalist point of view) for European Muslims to be fruitful at as fast a rate as possible?




> Nothing scares you about the idea of France having more people living in Muslim ghettoes and worshipping in mosques than in their traditional French fashion?



It wasn't French Muslims who assisted the (non-Muslim) German Army to deport Jews by the thousand.



> The lack of native children playing on the streets doesn't bother you at all?


If the children have been born in France won't that make them "natives", or do you mean nice, cuddly, white children?



> We all know how well immigration has worked in many European countries anyway.


Yes we do. But you seem to be arguing otherwise - how contrary of you.


----------



## Outsider

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Here's a more specific question: Why does the United States manage to have a birthrate higher, and in most cases, well above any European country?


The American birth rate is *not* well above that of European countries. It is _barely_ above it. Look at the figures.

How do I explain the difference? The U.S. is more immigration-friendly than Europe. It has been so for many decades.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Nothing scares you about the idea of France having more people living in Muslim ghettoes and worshipping in mosques than in their traditional French fashion?  The lack of native children playing on the streets doesn't bother you at all?



What a very odd statement.

I take it that you, then, _are _scared?  Dare I ask of what?


----------



## maxiogee

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> I take it that you, then, _are _scared?  Dare I ask of what?



A great-grandchild called Fatima or Muhammad, I dare say.


----------



## cuchuflete

The xenophobia and presumptuousness of these words is quite astonishing.





			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> Hmmmm....well let's see. If natives are choosing to live a self-directed life and having no children, or maybe 1, sometimes but only sometimes 2, and Muslim (point of ignorance #1. This implies that no natives are Muslim.  That's as false as it is narrow-minded and foolish.) immigrants are having 4 or 5 or 7, what do you think the demographic picture will be in 50 or even 30 years? Nothing scares you about the idea of France having more people living in Muslim ghettoes (Point of ignorance #2. The statement assumes that Muslim immigrants and their offspring will live in ghettoes in 50 or even 30 years.) and worshipping in mosques than in their traditional French fashion? (Point of ignorance #3, with perhaps a bit of religious bigotry thrown in for good measure: Traditional French fashion includes more than one religion, and religious participation by all French citizens has declined substantially in recent years. Thus 'traditional' has been and continues to be a moving target. Of course some people may want to embalm France in a block of cultural and religious epoxy, deny evolution and freedom of choice as to whether any religion or which religion should be practiced.)  The lack of native (*Ignorance to an exponent!  *If we are discussing birth rates, and children born in France, they are natives!)  children playing on the streets doesn't bother you at all? We all know how well immigration has worked in many European countries anyway. (When immigration has worked well, it is ignored by bigots. When it doesn't work so well, the bigots blame the immigrants themselves. There may be more to it than that. A contributing factor is often the bigotry and ignorance of those who discrimminate against the immigrants, thus slowing or preventing assimilation to host country culture.)


Here's an interesting cultural parallel.

Once upon a time, a nation that was predominantly of one religion had large waves of immigrants arrive. They were treated as many immigrants are today--- called "dirty this" and "dirty that", and many of the natives gnashed their teeth and lamented the extremes danger presented by the newcomers, who, being of a certain religion, were known to have higher birth rates than the 'natives'.

Country:  USA
Natives: Protestants
Immigrants: Southern and Eastern European Catholics

Those European Catholics had lots of babies, became fully assimilated to US culture, and are the forebears of tens of millions of current citizens. The nation is much improved by their presence. Sadly, as happens with every group of people worldwide, just a few grew up to be narrow-minded bigots, but probably in no greater proportion than the previous "natives".


----------



## Pivra

For a country like Spain where most immigrants are Spanish speakers does this issue really matter? Or do Spaniards see them as Spaniards coming back from the Americas?


----------



## Brioche

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The xenophobia and presumptuousness of these words is quite astonishing.
> 
> The lack of native (*Ignorance to an exponent! *If we are discussing birth rates, and children born in France, they are natives!)


 
So if a child born in France is a native, does this mean that all children born in America are Native Americans or Native Canadians?

Perhaps the _Français de souche_ can start calling themselves _First Nations._


----------



## maxiogee

Brioche said:
			
		

> So if a child born in France is a native, does this mean that all children born in America are Native Americans or Native Canadians?
> 
> Perhaps the _Français de souche_ can start calling themselves _First Nations._



Sorry Brioche, but one cannot adopt an Uppercaseness ,  that is something which must be awarded by society. They will have to confine themselves to the lowercaseness with which Cuchu named the French children.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

Pivra said:
			
		

> For a country like Spain where most immigrants are Spanish speakers does this issue really matter? Or do Spaniards see them as Spaniards coming back from the Americas?



Actually the most immigrants in Spain are not Spanish speakers. This is the newest data I found:

- Morocco: 511.294
- Ecuador: 497.799
- Romania: 317.366
- Colombia: 271.239

Most people of Ecuador seem pretty "non European", while people like Argentinians and Chileans blend much more in Spain and most of them just look like Spaniards with funny accent after a while, but they are way less in number. Colombians are in a middle point, but as a community they seem to be closer and to have less tendency to blend with natives.

And the higher growths in 2004 were from these countries:

- Romania: 109.406
- Morocco: 90.738
- United Kingdom: 52.377
- Bolivia: 45.602
- China: 25.233
- Bulgaria: 23.183

Among them, only Bolivia is a Spanish speaker country (pretty weird not to see Ecuador there). Also there is a big amount of foreign seasonal workers who are hired in their homelands (most of them are women from Eastern Europe) but most of them don't become permanent residents, althogh in some rural towns in my province Polish women have radically changed their social structure.

Anyway, the point is that foreigners are seen as foreigners, even most Spanish American people; but not their offspring. I have myself three "half-foreign" nephews who everybody take as completely Spanish although their fathers are "completely foreign".


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Brioche said:
			
		

> So if a child born in France is a native, does this mean that all children born in America are Native Americans or Native Canadians?
> 
> Perhaps the _Français de souche_ can start calling themselves _First Nations._



Children born here, regardless of the origin of their parents, are indeed called natives of Canada or, occasionally, native Canadians.

Native Canadians, a.k.a. First Nations, are of aboriginal ancestry.


----------



## Pivra

Dr. Quizá said:
			
		

> And the higher growths in 2004 were from these countries:
> 
> - Romania: 109.406
> - Morocco: 90.738
> - United Kingdom: 52.377
> - Bolivia: 45.602
> - China: 25.233
> - Bulgaria: 23.183
> 
> quote]
> 
> So, do you guys feel that immigrants from countries like the UK and China have higher tendency of not blending into the Spanish society because Chinese people like to live in Chinatown and English people watch English channels (not the "Engish Channel" lol but like CNN BBC MTV) and it seems like everyone speaks English to some certain extent.
> 
> Do Spaniards prefer immigrants from like Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, and Puerto Rico more than let say Bolivia and Equador?


----------



## diegodbs

As far as I know there are no Chinatowns in Spain. The Chinese learn Spanish quickly.

There are more than 220,000 British citizens living in Spain but they, as a rule, tend to live surrounded by British citizens and they hardly learn Spanish. I know people who have been living here for more than 6 years and they can only say "por favor". Their favourite places are on the Mediterranean coast and they have their own clubs, bars, shops, etc. so they need no Spanish to survive. Not all of them do the same but I would say that perhaps 80% of them are like that.


----------



## Brioche

diegodbs said:
			
		

> As far as I know there are no Chinatowns in Spain. The Chinese learn Spanish quickly.
> 
> There are more than 220,000 British citizens living in Spain but they, as a rule, tend to live surrounded by British citizens and they hardly learn Spanish. I know people who have been living here for more than 6 years and they can only say "por favor". Their favourite places are on the Mediterranean coast and they have their own clubs, bars, shops, etc. so they need no Spanish to survive. Not all of them do the same but I would say that perhaps 80% of them are like that.


 
Have these British people come to Spain to retire? Do they work in the Spanish economy? Do they have any school-age children?


----------



## tvdxer

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The xenophobia and presumptuousness of these words is quite astonishing.
> Here's an interesting cultural parallel.
> 
> Once upon a time, a nation that was predominantly of one religion had large waves of immigrants arrive. They were treated as many immigrants are today--- called "dirty this" and "dirty that", and many of the natives gnashed their teeth and lamented the extremes danger presented by the newcomers, who, being of a certain religion, were known to have higher birth rates than the 'natives'.
> 
> Country:  USA
> Natives: Protestants
> Immigrants: Southern and Eastern European Catholics
> 
> Those European Catholics had lots of babies, became fully assimilated to US culture, and are the forebears of tens of millions of current citizens. The nation is much improved by their presence. Sadly, as happens with every group of people worldwide, just a few grew up to be narrow-minded bigots, but probably in no greater proportion than the previous "natives".


I am hardly a xenophobe.  Actually, I've always been very interested in other cultures.  I am not opposed to immigration either; but when immigration could radically reshape the demography and balance of a country, that is when I become concerned.

I am not so much opposed to Muslim immigration as I am to the self-weakening of a culture (there's a better word, but it's late an I can't think of it  ) and lack of religious practice that is becoming very common in Europe.  One thing liberal multiculturalists do not understand is the importance of preserving _heritage_.  Will France or Spain's heritage be preserved when 25% of their younger residents are Muslim?  Haven't you heard the term "Eurabia"?

In addition, your comparison of Muslim immigrants and southern European, Catholic immigrants is not a correct one.  Although they were Catholic, rather than Protestant, they were still Christian, and they still came from Europe into a country populated by Europeans from varying countries.  The culture from which most Muslims come, and that of most of Europe, is very different.  And plus, we all know how well Islamic immigration into Europe is working.  Terror cells, street riots, suburban ghettoes, etc.  Oh yeah.  I won't deny that early American immigrants had problems, but they were able to assimilate within a generation or two.  Will Muslims, people whose religion dictates every aspect of their life?


----------



## tvdxer

Brioche said:
			
		

> Have these British people come to Spain to retire? Do they work in the Spanish economy? Do they have any school-age children?



Diego obviously knows more about this than me, but I think I've heard and I'm pretty certain that they come as retirees.  The pay is lower in Spain anyway.


----------



## diegodbs

Yes, most of them are pensioners. And obviously with no children. That may explain why learning Spanish may be difficult for them. It's a bit more difficult than when you are 20.


----------



## cuchuflete

Not a xenophobe?  Read your own posts!  It's ok, you tell us for people to immigrate if they are essentially of the same sort as those in the new home country, but, if they are different, this is a problem, a source of deep concern for you.   Throw whatever tag you like on that, it's late, and I don't have one other than xenophobe.   Fear of the outsider, wrapped in nice words about concern for change, (brought about by the outsider!).


You have decided that weakinging of religious practice is a bad thing.  Hundreds of millions of Europeans have voted against you, with their feet!   You have the answer to 'fix' Europe, but the Europeans themselves are quite content to
ignore your answer, or to overcome it with their own reasoned choices.   

Will Spain's cultural heritage change?  Yes, just as it did during the seven hundred years--an enlightened time--when three major religions co-existed in al-andalus, and were replaced by a mono-theistic regime that expelled and killed those who didn't climb on board.  

If the analogy I offered wasn't a correct one, through your own mental filter, then take note that yours isn't the only 'correct' way of seeing the world.  Waves of Christian immigrants to the US suffered religious and ethnic bigotry. That it was imposed by other Christians isn't the point.  Bigots look for any point of difference to declare their superiority to the newcomer.  If religion isn't a handy excuse, they find another. 


> .....street riots, suburban ghettoes, etc.


 Street riots are often the result...as has been clearly seen in your own country...of mistreatment of minorities.  Immigrants in your own country often began living in ghettoes, and moved out as fast as they were able to, replaced by the next wave of immigrants.  If state intervention put those ghettoes in the suburbs, rather than in older urban locales, don't blame that on the religion or culture of the inhabitants, but on the government...formed of your beloved traditionalists.  



> And plus, we all know how well Islamic immigration into Europe is working.


  Do we all, now?   Has the huge Pakistani Muslim population in England caused the Queen to suffer dyspepsia?  Has it hastened the decline of the Church of England?  Do you blame it for the decline and fall of British Leyland?  

Another fact-free diatribe, oozing fear and loathing of anyone different, is precisely xenophobic and bigoted.  



> Will Muslims, people whose religion dictates every aspect of their life?


  Hah!  That's rich, coming from a source that would have us follow conservative religious principles, even to the extent of naming all our babies after saints!
When it's your own set of religious principles, you seem to have no problem whatsoever with having religion dictate every aspect of you life.  It's just someone else's religion that troubles you.







			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> I am hardly a xenophobe. Actually, I've always been very interested in other cultures. I am not opposed to immigration either; but when immigration could radically reshape the demography and balance of a country, that is when I become concerned.
> 
> I am not so much opposed to Muslim immigration as I am to the self-weakening of a culture (there's a better word, but it's late an I can't think of it  ) and lack of religious practice that is becoming very common in Europe. One thing liberal multiculturalists do not understand is the importance of preserving _heritage_. Will France or Spain's heritage be preserved when 25% of their younger residents are Muslim? Haven't you heard the term "Eurabia"?
> 
> In addition, your comparison of Muslim immigrants and southern European, Catholic immigrants is not a correct one. Although they were Catholic, rather than Protestant, they were still Christian, and they still came from Europe into a country populated by Europeans from varying countries. The culture from which most Muslims come, and that of most of Europe, is very different. And plus, we all know how well Islamic immigration into Europe is working. Terror cells, street riots, suburban ghettoes, etc. Oh yeah. I won't deny that early American immigrants had problems, but they were able to assimilate within a generation or two. Will Muslims, people whose religion dictates every aspect of their life?


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

tvdxer said:
			
		

> I won't deny that early American immigrants had problems, but they were able to assimilate within a generation or two.  Will Muslims, people whose religion dictates every aspect of their life?



There are so many weak points from that post that I hardly know where to begin .... so I'll just focus on this one.

People in the U.S. who did not assimilate and whose religion dictates every aspect of their life:

Amish
Mennonites
certain orthodox Jewish groups

Only partially assimilated (but strengthened by new converts): 
Mormons
Jehovah's Witnesses

Shame on them, especially the Amish, for refusing to assimilate.  It's just dreadful the way they undermine their country's cultural heritage instead of enriching it.


----------



## Outsider

tvdxer said:
			
		

> I am not so much opposed to Muslim immigration as I am to the self-weakening of a culture (there's a better word, but it's late an I can't think of it  ) and lack of religious practice that is becoming very common in Europe.  One thing liberal multiculturalists do not understand is the importance of preserving _heritage_.  Will France or Spain's heritage be preserved when 25% of their younger residents are Muslim?  Haven't you heard the term "Eurabia"?
> 
> In addition, your comparison of Muslim immigrants and southern European, Catholic immigrants is not a correct one.  Although they were Catholic, rather than Protestant, they were still Christian, and they still came from Europe into a country populated by Europeans from varying countries.  The culture from which most Muslims come, and that of most of Europe, is very different.  And plus, we all know how well Islamic immigration into Europe is working.  Terror cells, street riots, suburban ghettoes, etc.  Oh yeah.  I won't deny that early American immigrants had problems, but they were able to assimilate within a generation or two.  Will Muslims, people whose religion dictates every aspect of their life?


Tvdxer, here's a sobering quote for you:



> Think of the early 17th century planter who wrote to the trustees of his company and he said, "Please don't send us any more Irishmen. Send us some Africans, because the Africans are civilized and the Irish are not."
> 
> source


Moral of the story: no, people who are more similar to each other (either superficially, linguistically, or religiously) don't necessarily get along better than people who are less similar to each other.


----------



## Brioche

diegodbs said:
			
		

> Yes, most of them are pensioners. And obviously with no children. That may explain why learning Spanish may be difficult for them. It's a bit more difficult than when you are 20.


 
British retirees in Spain are a quite different category from younger, work-seeking immigrants. They are not really immigrants. They are effectively long-stay tourists, who have come for the sun and the fun. I wonder how many exercise their right to vote in local elections.

At 60+ they are unlikely to adopt the local language or many of the local customs. Also, it's well established that when people get very old, they often forget their second language, and return to their first.


----------



## Outsider

I don't think it should matter why someone emigrates to another country. Some do it because they're looking for a low-skilled job. Others go looking for a highly skilled job. Others want to retire to a nice place. All are immigrants.


----------



## whatonearth

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Here's a more specific question: Why does the United States manage to have a birthrate higher, and in most cases, well above any European country?
> 
> U.S. women probably have nearly the same average educational attainment as European women.
> 
> I seriously doubt more European women work than Americans; I tend towards thinking the opposite is true.
> 
> And, of course, we Americans work more hours...and our government is less generous with certain benefits, e.g. health care.
> 
> So what makes the U.S. stand out among developing countries, the majority of which are in Europe, in this area?


 
You worry me. Despite from your questionable views on immigration, I find your numerous US-is-best posts in this forum misguided and strangely devisive.


----------



## tvdxer

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Not a xenophobe?  Read your own posts!  It's ok, you tell us for people to immigrate if they are essentially of the same sort as those in the new home country, but, if they are different, this is a problem, a source of deep concern for you.   Throw whatever tag you like on that, it's late, and I don't have one other than xenophobe.   Fear of the outsider, wrapped in nice words about concern for change, (brought about by the outsider!).
> 
> 
> You have decided that weakinging of religious practice is a bad thing.  Hundreds of millions of Europeans have voted against you, with their feet!   You have the answer to 'fix' Europe, but the Europeans themselves are quite content to
> ignore your answer, or to overcome it with their own reasoned choices.



Yes, they have "voted" for secularism, materialism, shallowness, etc...the sole pursuit of the natural rather than the supernatural.



> Will Spain's cultural heritage change?  Yes, just as it did during the seven hundred years--an enlightened time--when three major religions co-existed in al-andalus, and were replaced by a mono-theistic regime that expelled and killed those who didn't climb on board.
> 
> If the analogy I offered wasn't a correct one, through your own mental filter, then take note that yours isn't the only 'correct' way of seeing the world.  Waves of Christian immigrants to the US suffered religious and ethnic bigotry. That it was imposed by other Christians isn't the point.  Bigots look for any point of difference to declare their superiority to the newcomer.  If religion isn't a handy excuse, they find another.
> Street riots are often the result...as has been clearly seen in your own country...of mistreatment of minorities.  Immigrants in your own country often began living in ghettoes, and moved out as fast as they were able to, replaced by the next wave of immigrants.  If state intervention put those ghettoes in the suburbs, rather than in older urban locales, don't blame that on the religion or culture of the inhabitants, but on the government...formed of your beloved traditionalists.



They certainly did.  But as far as I know, my ancestors didn't burn cars, or hold uncivilized demonstrations when an unfavorable cartoon was printed (not that I don't think the cartoon "artist" was wrong either).

And they didn't destroy the American tradition.  Most showed an interest in assimilating into our culture, and did so.  They didn't rebel in the way the Muslim immigrants and (probably) their children do in Europe



> Do we all, now?   Has the huge Pakistani Muslim population in England caused the Queen to suffer dyspepsia?  Has it hastened the decline of the Church of England?  Do you blame it for the decline and fall of British Leyland?
> 
> Another fact-free diatribe, oozing fear and loathing of anyone different, is precisely xenophobic and bigoted.



Many of the Pakistanis, etc. in England simply do not want to assimilate.

You see, my real problem isn't immigration...personally, I enjoy having an immigrant population here, since it brings more variety to life.  What is a problem is that European are choosing more and more often, perhaps in their increasingly secular mindset, to forego having children, and allow the demography of their nations to radically be altered, and not giving the next generation to their own.



> Hah!  That's rich, coming from a source that would have us follow conservative religious principles, even to the extent of naming all our babies after saints!
> When it's your own set of religious principles, you seem to have no problem whatsoever with having religion dictate every aspect of you life.  It's just someone else's religion that troubles you.



I never told you to name your children after saints.  And Islam extends beyond religion to what would otherwise be considered secular aspects of life as well.

I have no opposition to having Muslims in my country, but I would if our Americans chose not to reproduce to maintain their population through the coming generations, while Muslims radically grew.


----------



## maxiogee

I don't know your ancestry tvdxer, but if there is any European on the family tree it is almost certain that there is a lingering scent of religious intolerance and blind, unthinking obedience to the whim of self-appointed religious patriarchs (and it's always men), and possibly a pinch of witch-hunting also. Maybe you even had a Crusader who besieged Jerusalem, or another who massacred Hugenots, or tormented Jews in Europe.

And what of the secularism you seem to not like?
What is wrong with it?
Is it wrong to see religious faith in a God as unfounded, unproven and unreasonable?
Would you do anything in your life without questioning the science behind it…
Would you take a medicine which hasn't been proven by rigorous laboratory trials?
Would you get behind the wheel of a motorcar which I ran up in my backyard?
Would you trust your children's education to someone who knocked on your hall-door and asked to be allowed to teach them?
Would you walk out into the bush and eat the first insects you came across?

These are things we all require proofs about before we accept them. Why should our view of the life be any different? 
What is it about "faith" which allows you to suspend your powers of judgement?


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Yes, they have "voted" for secularism, materialism, shallowness, etc...the sole pursuit of the natural rather than the supernatural.



How very profound to accuse the millions who disagree with you of shallowness.  I disagree with you so I'm sure that you have classified me, along with most Europeans, of shallowness.  Thank you if you have done so.  I like that sort of guilt by association.  





> But as far as I know, my ancestors didn't burn cars, or hold uncivilized demonstrations when an unfavorable cartoon was printed (not that I don't think the cartoon "artist" was wrong either).


  I have no idea of the ancestry you refer to...I usually reserve the term "ancestor" for family members who lived before there were cars.  I am proud to have participated in demonstrations that
the Richard Nixons of this world called 'uncivilized'.  



> And they didn't destroy the American tradition. Most showed an interest in assimilating into our culture, and did so. They didn't rebel in the way the Muslim immigrants and (probably) their children do in Europe


  The American tradition includes a century of slavery, an even longer period of bigotry and intolerance towards newcomers.  It's clear that this part of the tradition lives on in some who think immigrants are just fine to do low wage jobs, so long as they
adopt most of the reigning culture, including its flaws.





> Many of the Pakistanis, etc. in England simply do not want to assimilate.


  The notable absence of fact to back up this assertion is noted.  If such people exist, are they representative of most "Pakistanis, etc. in England" or are they a small percentage of Pakistanis?  



> You see, my real problem isn't immigration...personally, I enjoy having an immigrant population here, since it brings more variety to life. What is a problem is that European are choosing more and more often, perhaps in their increasingly secular mindset, to forego having children, and allow the demography of their nations to radically be altered, and not giving the next generation to their own.


  MY own are human beings.  I don't limit my definition of my own to those who share my ancestry and religion.  You clearly do.  We will never agree on this point.





> I never told you to name your children after saints.


Sorry, it must be someone else with your member name who posted this recently: 





			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> Personally, as a Catholic, I think parents should stick to giving their children the name of saints or Biblical figures. That's not much of a demand, however, since there is quite a selection of both to choose from!
> http://forum.wordreference.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=873321


http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=873321&postcount=26



> And Islam extends beyond religion to what would otherwise be considered secular aspects of life as well.


 Just as you are doing...telling people what their family size should be, what religion the majority should practice, etc.  



> I have no opposition to having Muslims in my country,


 How very noble and kind.  Part of the American Tradition tells me that you have no right to oppose having people of any religion, or lack of religion, in your country.  Your opinion is your right, but by tradition and by law goes no farther than a personal predilection.



> but I would if our Americans chose not to reproduce to maintain their population through the coming generations, while Muslims radically grew.


 That's bigotry in action.
When the country was founded, the overwhelming religious majority did not include your sect.  Had the founders followed your narrow notion of what's 'right', your presence in the US would have been excluded.  How do you attempt to justify one set of rules and practices for yourself, and another set for other people?


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:
			
		

> What is a problem is that European are choosing more and more often, perhaps in their increasingly secular mindset, to forego having children,


Just to keep us on topic, can I clear up what you mean by "secular" here, please?
I take it that you mean "non-sacred" - what is sacred or non-sacred about having children?
(This question is in addition to the ones I asked in my last post.)


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

In any case, lots of Europeans are having children.  Many of them are also quite religious.

They just happen to be the wrong colour and to practice the wrong religion to qualify, in our friend's mind, as "real" Europeans.


----------



## parodi

Tvdxer, I can see that all the posts following your original have completely ignored your question, so let me take a stab at it:

You posed the very interesting question of what will happen to " the strong social welfare programs in most Euro countries" with an eroding base of supporters.

I realize that this is an economic question with many possible variables and outcomes. All social programs are funded by either taxes on the citizens or taxes on the corporations of a nation. As it concerns citizens, it is vital that either A) you have a lot of people paying into this system or B) you have many people producing at a higher labor value. Your question implies (rightly I believe) that any system which relies on a fresh crop of taxpayers to support the programs which support the older crop of people must have a steady supply of new payers into the system. Not only that but the PRODUCTIVITY of that country (high value labor) is essential in paying for hospital care, elder care, and other social programs. 

If --(a big if)-- the Muslim immigrants in Europe become educated (high value labor prospects) and can produce at a higher value of labor (engineers, doctors, chemists,professors, software wizards, alternate fuel vehicle designers, etc,etc,) and IF they accept and agree to the eurosystem of "I pay tax while I'm young so that I can collect the social program money when I'm old" then there is a chance that the social programs may not collapse. So the push right now in Europe, in my opinion, should be to get the recent immigrants educated and entering the higher employment levels. 

Unfortunately this does not appear to be happening in many European countries. The recent demonstrations about "first employment job security" in France indicate just the opposite. White, young, "family connected" French seem to have found an effective way, with the help of the government, of blocking employment of Muslim youth in the high value labor market. With unemployment in _les banlieues_ among young Muslims at 45%, I don't think an improvement will be happening soon. Maybe someone can cite more encouraging statistics from their own country.


----------



## parodi

Some think that many of Europe's problems could be ameliorated by the adoption of some new laws:

1. Homosexuals should be put to death.
2. Anyone who mocks religion or God should be put to death.
3. When wives do not do what their husbands want they should be beaten.  
4. Anyone who wants to convert from their religion should be put to death
5. Anyone who has sex outside of marriage should either be lashed 100 times or stoned depending on the leniency of the judge
6. Theft may result in the amputation of a hand or foot depending on the frequency of the crime.

Who are these people? They are Muslims and these very harsh punishments are prescribed by sharia or "muslim religious law." If you think the following link is not truthful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia  or you can better explain sharia please do so.

Then recently in the UK you have 40% of polled Muslims who want the institution of sharia there. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml 

What gives here? You don't fear an increase in the number of adherents to this religious doctrine in your own secular, liberal democracy? I'm fascinated. Please elaborate.


----------



## maxiogee

parodi said:
			
		

> Some think that many of Europe's problems could be ameliorated by the adoption of some new laws:
> 
> 1. Homosexuals should be put to death.
> 2. Anyone who mocks religion or God should be put to death.
> 3. When wives do not do what their husbands want they should be beaten.
> 4. Anyone who wants to convert from their religion should be put to death
> 5. Anyone who has sex outside of marriage should either be lashed 100 times or stoned depending on the leniency of the judge
> 6. Theft may result in the amputation of a hand or foot depending on the frequency of the crime.
> 
> Who are these people? They are Muslims and these very harsh punishments are prescribed by sharia or "muslim religious law." If you think the following link is not truthful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia  or you can better explain sharia please do so.
> 
> Then recently in the UK you have 40% of polled Muslims who want the institution of sharia there. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml
> 
> What gives here? You don't fear an increase in the number of adherents to this religious doctrine in your own secular, liberal democracy? I'm fascinated.
> 
> Please elaborate.


 *I note that you neglect to mention that 41% said they didn't want Sharia law!*

Before I elaborate, how about you do?
* Did those 40% say that they actually want those things introduced, or did they say that they wanted Sharia law introduced? What was the actual question to which they were responding?
*** sub point - I note that only 500 people were questioned. What percentage is that of the Muslim population. What is the margin of error on a sample size that small? Did the paper (a notorious rightwing rag facetiously referred to as *The Torygraph* in the UK) mention that?

* Did they want it introduced and applied to everyone, or only to Muslims, or were they not asked?
* You say… "Some think that many of Europe's problems could be ameliorated by the adoption of some new laws" … source please?
 (Wikipedia is compiled by anyone who cares to edit an article, and while I wouldn't say anything there was lies, I'd not use it - ever - as source material.)
* Do you think that Europeans are incapable of staving off an assault on their laws (were one to happen) by a special interest group? The Christian Churches have had approximately 1500 years to form European laws to their will and it hasn't happened as they would wish - do you think we're going to roll over and play dead for a different religion?
* In many parts of the world Muslims are more highly represented in the population, and yet those countries don't have Sharia law - can they not muster 40% of their people?
* Finally, and vitally - *Do you have any idea how difficult it is to have even one new law introduced against the will of the people over here?*


----------



## cuchuflete

OK, it's a good question.

I see it like this:

1. 40% of some sample, undefined, state that they want the institution of Sharia, to be applied to an unknown group of people, in the UK. The presumption from the cited article is that they want it applied only to themselves: "... the high level of support for applying sharia law in "predominantly Muslim" areas of Britain."

2. No estimate is offered as to the likelihood of these forty percent of an undefined sample getting what they want.

3. No mention is made that the same poll reported that 99% of those polled expressed the thought that the bombers of last July 7 were "wrong to carry out the atrocity". 

4. The cited article quotes leaders of the two largest British political parties speaking of the importance of promoting the integration of Muslims into British society.

Did the sample of 500 have any representation of second and third generation Muslims...or was it limited to recent immigrants?  What was the age distribution and sex distribution of the sample?  How about education level of respondents?   I'm not trying to discredit the poll results, but to establish that it may or may not be representative of the larger population of British Muslims.  We don't even know if the sample was limited to citizens, or if it included non-citizen residents.

Back to the red herring, alarmist post. 



> Demographers estimate that more than 8 million Muslims live in the United States, making them the second-largest religious community in the country.


Has anyone ever heard of these 8 million people, or any noticeable percentage of them, asking for the imposition of Sharia law in any part of the US?

Finally, the US has tens of millions of religious folk of a different persuasion who openly and actively campaign to impose their own religious beliefs on the entirety of the US population. That is a much more worrisome danger.


----------



## stacey26

as an english person living in England i think we all fear the demographic change caused by low birth rates... we are constantly being told that when we retire there will be no state pensions. therefore the obvious answer is immigration and from my experience 99% of english people have no problem with immigrants AS LONG AS THEY ARE PREPARED TO WORK because that is afterall the whole point of letting them into this country. 
i dont think there is any fear of different religions or races, just anger at the situation we as a country have found ourselves in, from 'Great Britain' to a nation on its knees and desparate. it undermines the 'British Pride' we're all supposed to have.


----------



## cuchuflete

There is another answer that hasn't even been suggested:

Change the role of government in directly providing pensions.
Offer attractive tax breaks to workers who invest in their own pension funds.  I know of a country of some 300 million people, in which state pensions are grossly inadequate to support retired people.  While I would prefer to see Social Security improved, I don't find fault with working people supplementing government pensions with their own savings, and believe they will do so, given proper tax incentives.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> There is another answer that hasn't even been suggested:
> 
> Change the role of government in directly providing pensions.
> Offer attractive tax breaks to workers who invest in their own pension funds.  I know of a country of some 300 million people, in which state pensions are grossly inadequate to support retired people.  While I would prefer to see Social Security improved, I don't find fault with working people supplementing government pensions with their own savings, and believe they will do so, given proper tax incentives.



Don't go there, cuchuflete.
Don't even think of going there!
There was a massive cock-up (fraud?) in the UK with a change in pension regulations not too long ago which saw many people lose a lot of money.


----------



## ElaineG

One thing that could be done to support population growth in Italy (the European country I've lived in most recently) would be to abolish the restrictive laws, promoted and supported by the Catholic Church, addressing adoption and assisted reproduction.

In Italy, it is illegal for a single woman (including a gay woman) to have assisted reproduction treatments (sperm donation, etc.) or to adopt a child. It is illegal for gay men to adopt children. 

Clearly, if gay people and single people were allowed to access to assisted reproduction and adoption (from outside Italy, otherwise it wouldn't affect the demographics -- but as you might imagine, there aren't very many Italian babies available anyway) that would be a boost to the number of children growing up in culturally Italian homes.

In Italy, it's even illegal for a _married heterosexual couple_ to receive a donation of sperm/eggs from outside the couple, to conduct genetic screening on pre-implantation embryos, or to select the number of embryos to implant.

As a result, numerous infertile couples, as well as couples with genetic defects that they are frightened of passing on, simply cannot have children. This certainly reduces the birthrate -- even if couples can afford to go abroad for appropriate treatment, they may not be able to afford a second and third child, as they might if treatment were available closer to home. 

Moreover, in the U.S., where there are no restrictions on assisted reproduction, the number of twin births has doubled since the 1970s. Among affluent New Yorkers, the popularity of fertility treatments (made necessary by delayed childbearing) has caused an unprecedented surge in twins: 



> With the rising popularity of medical treatments for infertility, the _rate of twin births in New York City has reached 3.8%,_ but from Kips Bay to Yorkville and from Battery Park to about 59th Street on the West Side of Manhattan, _the incidence is closer to 8%_,


 
http://www.nysun.com/article/26434/ [ Among the general population, the chance of having twins is about 3%].

Italy's attitude towards assisted reproduction is cutting it out of a big chunk of that juicy twin market.


----------



## cuchuflete

OK Tony, but let's not confuse crappy execution with bad policy.

And let's also not take fearmongering directed against one religion or against immigrants in general, nicely packaged with
promotion of a different sort of religious society, as the only available choice. I have met and read some pretty superficial thinkers who were devout religionists, and who had no trouble being faithful to both their church and to materialism all at once.

This entire discussion is based on the premise that Europe is worse off for having a low birth rate. That's not necessarily true. Further, from post #1 it has played to economic --as well as ethnic and religious--fears. So much for materialism being the enemy.

Maybe Europeans are just more advanced than Americans, and are finally doing something to address overpopulation, which remains a global crisis.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Maybe Europeans are just more advanced than Americans, and are finally doing something to address overpopulation, which remains a global crisis.



I don't think the Europeans got together and decided to have less children to address overpopulation. I think people decide to have more or less children today as couples or as individuals for other reasons. 

The French government, for example, has tried, unsuccessfully, for years and years, to get French women to have more children and they have failed because French women don't feel they can or want to have more children. Part of that might be that many French women think there are too many people on this planet already but I suspect many think it might get in the way of their careers, lifestyle, and budgets. I think those are some of the principle factors.


----------



## Joelline

tvdxer said:
			
		

> What accounts for the low fertility rate in Europe?
> Total Fertility Rate (source)
> 
> *Replacement Rate - 2.1 children / woman*
> U.S. - 2.09
> France - 1.84
> U.K. - 1.66
> Netherlands - 1.66
> Canada - 1.61
> *E.U.* *- 1.47*
> Germany - 1.39
> Italy - 1.28
> Spain - 1.28
> Russia - 1.28
> Ukraine - 1.17
> 
> For those here in Spain, Italy, etc. with extremely low TFR's, do most couples you know choose not to have children or only have one? What is the reasoning behind this?


 
What started out as an interesting discussion has turned into a tvdxer against the world diatribe. Could we PLEASE get back to the original question, posted above (slightly edited to remove extraneous material)?

First, the link tvdxer provided indicates that these are 2006 numbers, so presumably, all of the immigrant (new?) populations of all the countries listed above are included in the rates. So even with the new groups in the above countries, the TFR is falling (yes, I know in which sectors of the population it's falling most and fastest, but, for the moment, forget about that, if you can). 

*What accounts for the low fertility rate in Europe? *

Some have suggested it's because there are more women in the workplace. Others that the cost-of-living is high. For the two lowest (Russia and the Ukraine), it *might* also be because more native Russian and Ukrainians are emmigrating from their native countries (I have no date to prove this). Is this possible for the other countries? Are you losing child-bearing age women? 

Is it possible that Europeans are concerned about the future and that they don't want to bring children into their world? I hear American friends indicate this fear frequently (especially among the most educated groups). 

Is it possible that the birth rate has fallen because heath care has gotten better? We no longer need to produce 10 children, in the hopes that 2 or 3 will survive?

Is it possible that we, in the West, have become so materialistic that we'd rather spend the money that it now costs to have and raise a child on other things; new cars, bigger and better houses, vacations?

I'm just throwing out ideas not because I espouse any of them necessarily but because I'd like to know your thinking about these things.

PAX! Joelline

Edit:  it took me so long to get this post up online that I didn't see the last 5 or 6 posts which are back on topic and very enlightening!


----------



## Nineu

ElaineG said:
			
		

> One thing that could be done to support population growth in Italy (the European country I've lived in most recently) would be to abolish the restrictive laws, promoted and supported by the Catholic Church, addressing adoption and assisted reproduction.
> 
> In Italy, it is illegal for a single woman (including a gay woman) to have assisted reproduction treatments (sperm donation, etc.) or to adopt a child. It is illegal for gay men to adopt children.
> 
> Clearly, if gay people and single people were allowed to access to assisted reproduction and adoption (from outside Italy, otherwise it wouldn't affect the demographics -- but as you might imagine, there aren't very many Italian babies available anyway) that would be a boost to the number of children growing up in culturally Italian homes.
> 
> In Italy, it's even illegal for a _married heterosexual couple_ to receive a donation of sperm/eggs from outside the couple, to conduct genetic screening on pre-implantation embryos, or to select the number of embryos to implant.
> 
> As a result, numerous infertile couples, as well as couples with genetic defects that they are frightened of passing on, simply cannot have children. This certainly reduces the birthrate -- even if couples can afford to go abroad for appropriate treatment, they may not be able to afford a second and third child, as they might if treatment were available closer to home.
> 
> Moreover, in the U.S., where there are no restrictions on assisted reproduction, the number of twin births has doubled since the 1970s. Among affluent New Yorkers, the popularity of fertility treatments (made necessary by delayed childbearing) has caused an unprecedented surge in twins:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nysun.com/article/26434/ [ Among the general population, the chance of having twins is about 3%].
> 
> Italy's attitude towards assisted reproduction is cutting it out of a big chunk of that juicy twin market.
> 
> Crazy anti-family Catholics .


 
It's clear that you don't anything about Catholic Churc and the social/cultural situation in Italy. Films and even journals (especially some of them) don't explain everything....


----------



## maxiogee

Well, if we're just throwing out ideas… here's a few…

Are we comparing like with like?
The replacement rate should not be measured against the fertility rate. Surely the rate of population change is what the replacement rate is all about.
So, ignore the racial and religious bigotry for a while and wonder what is happening to population change -> are European countries staying ahead of the death rate by a sufficient amount to allow the working population to continue to retire at the age they do, or will the tax-net have to spread across a wider community, and will the average pensioner have enough to live on from community funds?

The fertile areas of the world are shrinking, and the people who live in the lost/fading areas are going to start flowing into the developed world in search of a livlihood if the West tries to stop them developing their countries in ways which will hasten global warming (and we need to curtail them in that if they won't do it themselves, because we need to do it for ourselves even more urgently than we need to do it to them!).

Does it matter if immigrants are of a different religion? Not if religion is seen as an irrelevance in the countries they come into. Not if the host countries decide that religious communities have no right to decide the laws, ethics and/or morals of a country.


----------



## ElaineG

Nineu said:
			
		

> It's clear that you don't anything about Catholic Churc and the social/cultural situation in Italy. Films and even journals (especially some of them) don't explain everything....


 
I lived in Italy for a 3 year period that included the referendum on the assisted-reproduction law.  My partner's sister was involved in recruiting people to vote in the referendum and I helped her in her organizational efforts. I had close friends personally affected by its provisions, including one couple who decided not to have children and one who went to Spain (using most of their savings) for treatment.

Would you like to explain to me where I went wrong in my description of its provisions?


----------



## geve

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Yes, they have "voted" for secularism, materialism, shallowness, etc...the sole pursuit of the natural rather than the supernatural.


Should I take this as a personal attack? I wonder. 


			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> And plus, we all know how well Islamic immigration into Europe is working. Terror cells, street riots, suburban ghettoes, etc. Oh yeah. I won't deny that early American immigrants had problems, but they were able to assimilate within a generation or two.


Tvdxer, I think you watch too much TV! Do you seriously believe that every European resident with 'Islamic' origin has been burning cars in the suburbs, or plotting terrorist attacks? I personally know a few who hasn't.  


			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> I have no opposition to having Muslims in my country, but I would if our Americans chose not to reproduce to maintain their population through the coming generations, while Muslims radically grew.


I don't think that people choose to "reproduce to maintain their population". I rather think that individuals decide to have children. 
Again I could take it as a personal attack. I have been of age to conceive for a while now, and yet I have not. Somehow it's a bit my fault if the fertility rate is so low! 
I think it's best for society if people have children when they really want to... even if it results in a low fertility rate. The problem is when they want to, and can't - for economic reasons, adoption or assisted reproduction laws etc.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks to Geve, I just noticed this again.  It is still astounding.  



			
				 [B said:
			
		

> tvdxer][/B]
> I have no opposition to having Muslims in *my*
> *their and my*
> country, but I would if our Americans chose not to reproduce to maintain their population through the coming generations, while Muslims radically grew.



No opinions here, tv,  just facts:  There are some 8 million Americans who are, in addition to being Americans, Muslims.
The US is their country every bit as much as it is your country.
In fact, since there are millions of them, and just one of you,
it might be argued that it is, proportionally, more theirs than yours.

By tradition and by law, the choice to have offspring or not is the individual right of each citizen.  By tradition and law you have no rights whatsoever to tell your fellow Americans what they should or should not do in this regard.  You do, of course, have the right to reproduce all you please, if you can find a partner--or partners, sequential or concurrent--willing to collaborate in your project to maintain the population at the level you deem appropriate.


----------



## Joelline

geve said:
			
		

> I don't think that people choose to "reproduce to maintain their population". I rather think that individuals decide to have children.
> ...  I think it's best for society if people have children when they really want to... even if it results in a low fertility rate. The problem is when they want to, and can't - for economic reasons, adoption or assisted reproduction laws etc.


 
I tend to agree with geve.  I don't believe that we have "group-think" going on.  I believe that individuals are making decisions for individual reasons.  So, does that mean that there is no answer to the question posed by this thread or do you think it's possible to rank and to categorize the reasons for these individual choices?


----------



## lizzeymac

parodi said:
			
		

> Some think that many of Europe's problems could be ameliorated by the adoption of some new laws:
> 
> 1. Homosexuals should be put to death.
> 2. Anyone who mocks religion or God should be put to death.
> 3. When wives do not do what their husbands want they should be beaten.
> 4. Anyone who wants to convert from their religion should be put to death
> 5. Anyone who has sex outside of marriage should either be lashed 100 times or stoned depending on the leniency of the judge
> 6. Theft may result in the amputation of a hand or foot depending on the frequency of the crime.
> 
> Who are these people? They are Muslims and these very harsh punishments are prescribed by sharia or "muslim religious law." If you think the following link is not truthful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia  or you can better explain sharia please do so.
> 
> Then recently in the UK you have 40% of polled Muslims who want the institution of sharia there. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml
> 
> What gives here? You don't fear an increase in the number of adherents to this religious doctrine in your own secular, liberal democracy? I'm fascinated. Please elaborate.




*Wait a minute...* - It seems I've read those somewhere before..... 
Did you know those notions, and many more equally harsh, are also in The Old Testament - perhaps you've heard of it?   (Sarcasm)
One of the foundational documents of Judaism & Christianity?  
There are some mainstream American Christian religious leaders who espouse some of these ideas on telelvision on a weekly basis.  
Does Jerry Falwell ring a bell?  Pat Robertson?

The Old Testament is widely accepted to have been written a few hundred years before the birth of Mohammed & these religous concepts existed long before any written religious codes.  These may be the precepts of Sharia, but these ideas were not invented by Islam - Sharia & Islam are not the same thing.

If you are truly afraid of the changing nature of your county's population, have more kids, change the immigrations laws & enforce them, be prepared for the changes in the economy, be prepared to accept the stoop labor & service industry jobs that guest workers & the newest immigrants perform.  
Or, you could welcome the newest citizens of your country, invite them to understand the culture that exists, learn how they may enrich your community, & see them as people, not "those people".




As you like Wikipedia, it also has this interesting bit:

*Similarities between the Qur'an and the Bible*

Main article: Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an
The Qur'an retells stories of many of the people and events recounted in Jewish and Christian sacred books (Torah, Bible) and devotional literature (Apocrypha, Midrash), although it differs in many details. Well-known Biblical characters such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and John the Baptist are mentioned in the Qur'an as Prophets of Islam (For a complete list, see Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an). Muslims believe that differences between Quranic versions and Christian or Jewish texts (both of which are considered divine) are due to the Christian and Jewish texts having been changed over time, and believe that the Qur'an preserves the correct version​


----------



## lizzeymac

tvdxer said:
			
		

> They certainly did.  But as far as I know, my ancestors didn't burn cars, or hold uncivilized demonstrations when an unfavorable cartoon was printed (not that I don't think the cartoon "artist" was wrong either).



Hi - no offense intended, but if you are such an "old school" American your ancestors might have thrown what would now be tens of thousands of dollars worth of tea that didn't belong to them into Boston Harbor, or tarred & feathered the local tax collecter, or smashed the printing presses that published opposing political opinions, burned barns, and stolen the Royal Mail.  All somewhat uncivilized, but these acts & worse were commmited by both Patriots & Royalists in the war for independence from Britain.
Just a possibility to consider.


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> The French government, for example, has tried, unsuccessfully, for years and years, to get French women to have more children and they have failed because French women don't feel they can or want to have more children. Part of that might be that many French women think there are too many people on this planet already but I suspect many think it might get in the way of their careers, lifestyle, and budgets. I think those are some of the principle factors.


Actually, France has been *successful*. Look at the stats -- they have one of the highest fertility rates in Europe. Granted, it's still lower than the rate of the U.S., and still below replacement levels... 

I'm not going to discuss most of *Tvdxer*'s statements, as they reflect the kind of conviction that can never be changed with facts and arguments. But I will say this: he's very mistaken in thinking that Europeans have "simply decided" to have less children. I'm sure that many couples would love to have bigger families, if only they could spare the time and the money. Unfortunately, they can't, because the powers that be have convinced themselves that protecting family life is bad for business. Better to open the borders to illegal immigration, and increase productivity by lowering wages.


----------



## cuchuflete

There is still another way to view all of this.

From the original question in post #1:



> Many are worried that the dearth of children will have a serious effect on the strong social welfare programs in most Euro countries,


The strong social welfare programs in most Euro (_sic_) countries are paid for by taxes! Taxes are applied to both individuals and business enterprises. They yield "X" euros, which are then collected and redistributed by governments, to provide the 'strong social welfare programs'.

This requires that most people work, and work a lot, to pay the taxes the state requires to fund the strong social welfare programs. That's nothing but simple arithmetic. So if people are working so much, paying so much in taxes, that they don't believe they have sufficient incomes to support larger families, they have fewer children. 

This is not high level economic theory. It's obvious and simple. If a country is to provide very attractive social benefits, which cost money, to its population, that population is not likely to grow. The costs of the benefits have to come from somewhere, and a larger population will not, by magic, provide the funding. 

Here's a theory anyone may test with facts: Countries providing high levels of social benefits to citizens do not have high birth rates, while countries with lower state-provided benefits do have high birth rates.

Notice the absence of immigration and religion from that theory.


Here is another aside:  The US subsidizes larger families through its tax system, which charges a lower effective rate on the earnings of people with larger families, through the
deductions given for dependents.  Most European countries use the VAT, rather than a personal income tax, for much of the revenues collected by the central government, and there is no equivalent deduction from VAT for larger families.  (As an aside to the aside, European tax systems are more regressive.)  Hence the US has a basic economic policy that favors larger families.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> Actually, France has been *successful*. Look at the stats -- they have one of the highest fertility rates in Europe. Granted, it's still lower than the rate of the U.S., and still below replacement levels...



Depends on what you call success and when you start counting. This "problem" is not new in France: it goes back to the 1800s. In fact, Pétain claimed that the fact that French people didn't have enough babies was one of the causes of France's inability to stop the Germans: _*Trop peu d'enfants*, trop peu d'armes, trop peu d'alliés: voilà notre défaite.

_I think what the French government wanted to do was to get that number above replacement rate so I don't know how one could call it *successful*.


----------



## Outsider

The U.S. fertility rate is below replacement levels, too, so in that sense both have "failed".


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> The U.S. fertility rate is below replacement levels, too, so in that sense both have "failed".


I don't think that's technically true. From what I have read, the numbers are just at replacement rate and that's even when you leave out the help we get from immigration.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back505.html

But in any case the US never had a concerted effort to increase the number. The French government basically ended up paying women to have children. We have programs to help women who have children and cannot afford to feed them but I don't think the _*aim *_of those programs are to increase the birth rate.


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> But in any case the US never had a concerted effort to increase the number.


How do you know? I would argue that the way the U.S. encourage immigration is (among other things) part of a concerted effort to keep fertility at or above replacement level.


----------



## ElaineG

> We have programs to help women who have children and cannot afford to feed them but I don't think the _*aim *_of those programs are to increase the birth rate.


 
In fact, the five-year lifetime federal cap on federally funded benefits and the "family cap" imposed by many states (where your benefit does not go up from having more children past a certain number) were actively intended to _discourage_ certain segments of the population from having children.  

But "failed" is such an odd way to look at all of this (though I know the people who have used the word didn't mean it in a heartfelt way). But, aren't we already taxing the planet's resources at an unsustainable rate?  Wouldn't a general fall-off of population be a good thing?  

Doesn't the United Nations have Zero Population Growth as a goal?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> How do you know? I would argue that the way the U.S. encourage immigration is (among other things) part of a concerted effort to keep fertility at or above replacement level.


How do I know? I don't! I said: "I don't *think*the _*aim *_of those programs are to increase the birth rate."

Here are my reasons:

1) This kind of plan takes foresight and I doubt that anyone within a 100 mile radius of Washington DC has that kind of forward thinking.

2) There has never been a public anouncement campaign to encourage women to have children like in France. The government tells us to be cool, to stay in school, to just say no and all sorts of other things. They never told us  to have more kids.

3) The US hasn't exactly encouraged more immigration. There are millions of people all over the world who would be here tommorow if the government granted them a green card today. If the US is under replacement level like you said, it could fix this problem in a very short time. The US is not getting more lax about immigration.

4) Welfare reform makes it harder to get on welfare. If the government wanted American women to spit out more babies  you would think they would make it easier for them to feed the babies they spit out.

Maybe it's a top secret plan, a conspiracy, that nobody knows about. They got me fooled, though.


----------



## Outsider

ElaineG said:
			
		

> Doesn't the United Nations have Zero Population Growth as a goal?


Looking up "zero population growth" at the U.N.'s website, I can't find any reference to such a goal.



> Population growth has slowed since the 1960s but the number of humans will increase to between nine and 10 billion by 2050. The increase will be biggest in some Asian countries and Africa. Agronomists say the earth has the potential to support many more inhabitants -- up to 15 billion. The question is how to share out the resources rather than whether we can produce enough," she said.
> 
> June 23, 2005 Agence France-Presse


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> How do I know? I don't! I said: "I don't *think*the _*aim *_of those programs are to increase the birth rate."
> 
> Here are my reasons:
> 
> 1) This kind of plan takes foresight and I doubt that anyone within a 100 mile radius of Washington DC has that kind of forward thinking.


Oh, come on! They wouldn't be in Washington DC, if they hadn't. Most of them, in any event.



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> 2) There has never been a public anouncement campaign to encourage women to have children like in France. The government tells us to be cool, to stay in school, to just say no and all sorts of other things. They never told us  to have more kids.


That's beside the point, if the strategy adopted to stop the drop in fertility was intaking substantive amounts of immigrants.



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> 3) The US hasn't exactly encouraged more immigration. There are millions of people all over the world who would be here tommorow if the government granted them a green card today. If the US is under replacement level like you said, it could fix this problem in a very short time. The US is not getting more lax about immigration.


The US doesn't need to invite people in. Crowds are already stepping on each other to get there.



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> 4) Welfare reform makes it harder to get on welfare. If the government wanted American women to spit out more babies  you would think they would make it easier for them to feed the babies they spit out.


You're not suggesting that people with a higher quality of life have more babies than people with lower quality of life, are you? 

Having said this, let me add that the study you linked to above seems serious, and it does point in the opposite direction to what I said above.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> You're not suggesting that people with a higher quality of life have more babies than people with lower quality of life, are you?



No. But _*paying *_people does seem to persuade them to do stuff they wouldn't otherwise do. And while more income, in general terms, means less babies, that does not mean that less income will produce more babies. Bulgaria is not as wealthy as the US but it has a lower birth rate. So there are _*other *_factors.

I don't see the pro-natality policies, if there are any, in the United States. You say that we don't need to encourage immigration but if the US really wanted to get immigrants because they spit out babies wouldn't it grant more visas to people who are of a certain age? The average age of an immigrant is, according to that source, 39 which is 4 years older than the average "native."

I think the US, in typically react-too-late-to-what's-already-happened fashion, gives some thought to the babies that are already born but doesn't really do much to increase the amount of babies that are born. If you can find any specific policies that do, I would like to take a look. 

Saying that it _does _because people enter the country without visas is like saying the NYC has a pro-speeding policy because people speed on the Belt Parkway.


----------



## Outsider

I'm not going to push an idea that seems to go against the facts. Carry on.


----------



## ElaineG

> Looking up "zero population growth" at the U.N.'s website, I can't find any reference to such a goal


 
You are right, they don't phrase it that way (probably get in trouble with the anti-contraception/abortion folks). However, they do focus on population growth as a big area of concern. http://www.unfpa.org/6billion/ccmc/thedayofsixbillion.html


----------



## parodi

maxiogee said:
			
		

> *I note that you neglect to mention that 41% said they didn't want Sharia law!
> 
> 
> * .................If I were a homosexual or if you were a homosexual what would you say would be a *good*  perecentage of the population that wanted to kill you?    Since this thread is about *fear* of an increase in the overall Muslim population I would say that a homosexual would have something to fear if only one person openly wanted to kill him or her. In a secular, liberal democracy my point here is that there should be zero tolerance for this viewpoint. If only 1% of the population wanted to kill homosexuals---that is completely unacceptable.
> 
> 
> RE Wikepedia
> 
> I agree. It is a shaky source for info. I am not using it for my source information about sharia. I thought it would be good for those who would like a brief primer on what sharia is; this was a brief article to bring people up to speed. And yes, it is a good article and reiterates much of what has been written about sharia in english. For expanded readings I would suggest "Islam Unveiled" by Robert Spencer and the recent book "the Legacy of Jihad" by Bostom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that Europeans are incapable of staving off an assault on their laws (were one to happen) by a special interest group?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .............1923-1933 Germany?
Click to expand...


----------



## parodi

> - It seems I've read those somewhere before.....
> Did you know those notions, and many more equally harsh, are also in The Old Testament - perhaps you've heard of it? (Sarcasm)




Yes lizziemac, The old testament is very harsh. And there was a time when Christianity adhered to its harshness. But that time is long gone. That is, unless I missed a recent eye gouging with a hot fire poker at the Vatican (sarcasm)

But sharia exists *now* in many countries.  That's the difference as it pertains to us...the living.


----------



## lizzeymac

parodi said:
			
		

> Yes lizziemac, The old testament is very harsh. And there was a time when Christianity adhered to its harshness. But that time is long gone. That is, unless I missed a recent eye gouging with a hot fire poker at the Vatican (sarcasm)
> 
> But sharia exists *now* in many countries.  That's the difference as it pertains to us...the living.



Hi Parodi - 
Firstly, of course you are right, Sharia exists & is frightening & totally contrary to humanist thought.  

I would posit that Sharia exists in a few countries, not "many" and whether or not Sharia is in practice is based on local culture & custom rather than being an inherent aspect of Islam as there are Islamic countries that do not practice Sharia or Wahhabism.  There is a wide range of practices & beliefs in Islam.  Conservative backlash & fundamentalism is a problem in many religions & cultures.  

I understood the original question to be about the influence of presumably muslim immigration on a modern Western country.  

Every modern Western country I can think of already has national laws that would forbid any person from acting on the tenets of Sharia that you list.  
So, while the idea of having people who believe in & want to practice Sharia in my country is unnerving:

1- I think it is quite possible that there are already people here in America who have at least some of these general beliefs, either as extreme fundamentist Muslims or extreme fundamentalist Christians, racists, etc.  
We have the Klan, the White Aryan Brotherhood & other Neo Nazi organizations, we have individual gay bashers, church burners, racial & religious & ethnic hate crimes & discrimination, schismatic fundamentalist bigamists who marry off their 14 year old daughters to old men; and

2 - You can believe whatever you want but you may not act on it if it conflicts with the law.  
I know that is simplistic, but that is the problem with living in a democratic republic like America.  We do not practice prior restraint so until a person actually commits an act they are innocent, belief is not an act.

Just a quick note on the Vatican - the new Pope recently decreed that all homosexuals are inherently "mentally disordered" & not fit to be priests or teachers or lay deacons or adoptive parents even if they are celibate. The Vatican is "reviewing" all persons in training for holy orders & teaching, etc. & will reject people who self-declare or with "tendencies".  The Catholic Church closed their adoption agencies in some states rather than comply with local laws granting homosexuals equal rights as foster & adoptive parents.  No, not anything like a poker in the eye, but not great either.

We already have discrimination & violence, I just worry that we are getting too distracted by the currently high profile formal codified evil of Sharia & forgetting the individual evils that are already among us.

-


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> This is not high level economic theory. It's obvious and simple. If a country is to provide very *attractive* social benefits, which cost money, to its population, that population is not likely to grow.
> <snip>
> Notice the absence of immigration and religion from that theory.


I wonder who the Minister for Finance of this country is aiming to "attract"    ?

To parodi



			
				parodi said:
			
		

> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that Europeans are incapable of staving off an assault on their laws (were one to happen) by a special interest group?
> 
> 
> 
> .............1923-1933 Germany?
Click to expand...

Which is why the European Union exists. 
*Don't forget that the Germany you speak of was trying to deal with the same problem you foresee - they felt that they were being overrun by, governed by, and financially controlled by, a people whose whole way of life was informed by religion.

You do mention that Wikipedia may be shaky. 
You launch a smokescreen about homosexuality but you don't answer any of the rest of my questions. I will repeat them…
__________________
*I note that you neglect to mention that 41% said they didn't want Sharia law!*
Before I elaborate, how about you do?
* Did those 40% say that they actually want those things introduced, or did they say that they wanted Sharia law introduced? What was the actual question to which they were responding?
*** sub point - I note that only 500 people were questioned. What percentage is that of the Muslim population. What is the margin of error on a sample size that small? Did the paper (a notorious rightwing rag facetiously referred to as *The Torygraph* in the UK) mention that?
* Did they want it introduced and applied to everyone, or only to Muslims, or were they not asked?
* You say… "Some think that many of Europe's problems could be ameliorated by the adoption of some new laws" … source please?
* In many parts of the world Muslims are more highly represented in the population, and yet those countries don't have Sharia law - can they not muster 40% of their people?
* Finally, and vitally - *Do you have any idea how difficult it is to have even one new law introduced against the will of the people over here?
* __________________


----------



## parodi

Maxiogee, I believe you are straying far from the original thread, which is should Europeans be fearful of an increase in the Muslim population due to a failing birthrate? 

How many Muslims are there in the UK....1.5 million? 40% of that would be 600,000? I don't know if that is the actual figure of people who want sharia instituted in the UK and that has nothing to with this thread. It could be 10,000 it could be 1000. It doesn't matter. (Actually there might just be 19 which is the number of hijackers who gave us 9/11 here in the States.)

I hope you don't think that I am saying that we should be fearful of every Muslim person. I'm talking about a POPULATION and there being a certain PERCENTAGE of people within that population who are crazy. Increase that population and very likely there will be an increase in crazy people.

 Forget the percentage of Muslims.... take Fundamentalist Christians. Within the Fundamentalist Christian population in the USA--I don't know maybe 10 million?--there is a certain percentage that wants to blow up abortion clinics. For agrument's sake, let's say there are 50,000 Fundamentalist Christians who think this is perfectly acceptable behavior. Should we fear these whackos? I don't know about you but I do fear crazy people with bombs.

Now back to what this thread was about: If you told me that due to increased fertility among whacko Christians there will be twice that number of people who want to bomb abortion clinics in 2050...should people who go to abortion clinics be fearful? Yes, in my opinion, they should. Should they invite more Fundamentalist Christians to emigrate to their country? In my opinion, no. Should they provide more public funds to allow more Fundamentalist Christians to have more children. Once again, no. 

I don't fear Hindus. They didn't blow up our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. I don't fear Episcopalians....they didn't blow up hundreds on trains in Madrid. I don't fear hasidic Jews...they didn't slash Theo Van Gogh's throat in broad daylight in Holland after he worked on a documentary exposing Muslim brutality toward women. Anglicans aren't working to develop a nuke to blow Israel into the sea. Shintos didn't slaughter childen in a school in Beslan Russia. Catholics didn't blow up the Buddhas of Bamiyan. Lutherans don't go on a rampage when someone makes a cartoon about Jesus. These were all performed by a percentage of the Muslim population who are quite insane. Forgive me if I don't want more people espousing this insanity in my own country.


----------



## geve

parodi said:
			
		

> Maxiogee, I believe you are straying far from the original thread, which is should Europeans be fearful of an increase in the Muslim population due to a failing birthrate?


Actually, this was not the point of the thread initially. The original question was _"What accounts for the low fertility rate in Europe?"_ 
But the way tvdxer phrased his question can explain why there might have been some "straying" from the topic...


----------



## Residente Calle 13

parodi said:
			
		

> If you told me that due to increased fertility among whacko Christians there will be twice that number of people who want to bomb abortion clinics in 2050...should people who go to abortion clinics be fearful? Yes, in my opinion, they should.


People who go to abortion clinics? You talk about it like it's people who go to the Mall on the weekend or people who go to single's bars. I don't know who these people are who are periodically visiting abortion clinics. I think we should all be fearful whenever any segment of the population believes that murder is an acceptable way to get a political or religious point of view across.



			
				parodi said:
			
		

> I don't fear Hindus. They didn't blow up our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. I don't fear Episcopalians....they didn't blow up hundreds on trains in Madrid. I don't fear hasidic Jews...they didn't slash Theo Van Gogh's throat in broad daylight in Holland after he worked on a documentary exposing Muslim brutality toward women. Anglicans aren't working to develop a nuke to blow Israel into the sea. Shintos didn't slaughter childen in a school in Beslan Russia. Catholics didn't blow up the Buddhas of Bamiyan. Lutherans don't go on a rampage when someone makes a cartoon about Jesus. These were all performed by a percentage of the Muslim population who are quite insane. Forgive me if I don't want more people espousing this insanity in my own country.


Timothy McVeigh grew up as a devout Catholic. You wanna rethink your statement about not fearing Catholics? I'm sure there are people who don't want more Catholics in the United States but I think it would would be bigoted to judge all Catholics based on Timothy McVeigh's religious upbringing.

In any case, most terrorist groups in History are not religious fanatics. Make a list of known terrorist groups in the world, past and present, and you will find religious fundamentalists in the minority.


----------



## parodi

Please don't think that I am trying to portray Islam as being monolithic.  There are bright spots in the Islamic world.... Turkey and Indonesia come to mind.  (Of course this is cultural arrogance on my part since my criterion for a "bright spot" is an area of the world that is more secular and western...in other words, they are more like us.)


----------



## parodi

All sorts of people go to abortion clinics. There are nurses. There are doctors. There are janitors who clean up and could accidentally be blown up. There's the guy or gal from Fed Ex or UPS ot the person delivering the mail. And then there are the patients. Bombing a building can effect many innocent bystanders.

Timothy McVeigh in no way represented the Catholic Church so I''m not getting the point here. Did millions of Catholics cheer when he blew up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City? Sorry.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

parodi said:
			
		

> Timothy McVeigh in no way represented the Catholic Church so I''m not getting the point here. Did millions of Catholics cheer when he blew up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City? Sorry.


And do you think the 9/11 bombers represented Islam? Millions of Christians collaborated with the Nazis during the Holocaust. They cheered as the Jews and others where taken away into concentration camps. Do they represent Christianity? Should we fear Christians because some people who claim to be Christians cheered as Jews were hauled away to their death?

I don't understand why when people who say they are Muslims commit atrocities we need to be fearful of Muslims but when Christians commit atrocities we have no reason to fear Christians because those people who committed those atrocities don't represent Christianity.



I would say that to stay honest you have to pick one: either we need to be fearful of both Christians and Muslims because people who claimed to be Christian or Muslim have done some seriously fucked up shit or you need to come to the conclusion that doing fucked up shit is not something any particular religious group has a monopoly in.


----------



## cuchuflete

In recent history...during the lifetime of many members of these forums, the "traditionalist" Europeans tvdxer seems to think represent 'good' have included mass murderers led by Francisco Franco, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler.  Led by, but followed and aided by millions.....

More recently, in what was once Yugoslavia, Christians of various denominations did unspeakable things to one another as well as to non-Christians.  These perpetrators of horrors such as murders of children and mass rapes were not just 19 crazies.
There were thousands, maybe tens of thousands of them. 

Does this mean that most Europeans are criminals?  Of course not.  It does mean, very clearly, that the fear mongering that names Islam as the source of terror conveniently overlooks the plain fact that sick, murderous behavior and heinous acts of depravity know no religious boundaries.  In my own country, lynching was practiced by churchgoers, and hate crimes continue today.  

The entire question is fraudulent!  It points fingers at Europeans for becoming secular, and for not having enough babies, implying that the former is the cause of the latter.  No proof, of course.  Fear mongers and hate mongers are not good at proof. It gets in the way of logical and factual rebuttal or even factual and logical confirmation.  

So how about some proof that lack of religion causes lowered birth rates?   Do we have any data comparing, for example, the birth rates in practicing Anglican homes in the U.K. compared with birth rates in homes that don't practice any religion.  
Facts please.

What about Spain, where religious practice continues relatively strong?  Is the birth rate there lower than that in some European country with more self-declared secularists?

It's really tiresome knocking down straw men.  The original proposition is highly suspect.  It smells like a pretext to do a hatchet job on millions of immigrants.  Before trying to connect the dots...for or against the initial question, wouldn't it be useful to discover if those dots really exist, or are just an emotion driven fabrication, that confuses coincidence with causality?


----------



## Jhorer Brishti

parodi said:
			
		

> Maxiogee, I believe you are straying far from the original thread, which is should Europeans be fearful of an increase in the Muslim population due to a failing birthrate?
> 
> How many Muslims are there in the UK....1.5 million? 40% of that would be 600,000? I don't know if that is the actual figure of people who want sharia instituted in the UK and that has nothing to with this thread. It could be 10,000 it could be 1000. It doesn't matter. (Actually there might just be 19 which is the number of hijackers who gave us 9/11 here in the States.)
> 
> I hope you don't think that I am saying that we should be fearful of every Muslim person. I'm talking about a POPULATION and there being a certain PERCENTAGE of people within that population who are crazy. Increase that population and very likely there will be an increase in crazy people.
> 
> Forget the percentage of Muslims.... take Fundamentalist Christians. Within the Fundamentalist Christian population in the USA--I don't know maybe 10 million?--there is a certain percentage that wants to blow up abortion clinics. For agrument's sake, let's say there are 50,000 Fundamentalist Christians who think this is perfectly acceptable behavior. Should we fear these whackos? I don't know about you but I do fear crazy people with bombs.
> 
> Now back to what this thread was about: If you told me that due to increased fertility among whacko Christians there will be twice that number of people who want to bomb abortion clinics in 2050...should people who go to abortion clinics be fearful? Yes, in my opinion, they should. Should they invite more Fundamentalist Christians to emigrate to their country? In my opinion, no. Should they provide more public funds to allow more Fundamentalist Christians to have more children. Once again, no.
> 
> I don't fear Hindus. They didn't blow up our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. I don't fear Episcopalians....they didn't blow up hundreds on trains in Madrid. I don't fear hasidic Jews...they didn't slash Theo Van Gogh's throat in broad daylight in Holland after he worked on a documentary exposing Muslim brutality toward women. Anglicans aren't working to develop a nuke to blow Israel into the sea. Shintos didn't slaughter childen in a school in Beslan Russia. Catholics didn't blow up the Buddhas of Bamiyan. Lutherans don't go on a rampage when someone makes a cartoon about Jesus. These were all performed by a percentage of the Muslim population who are quite insane. Forgive me if I don't want more people espousing this insanity in my own country.


 

   It's interesting to note that on your poll they were only asked if they would like Sharia law to be instituted in the UK. This presumes that every single one of those muslims were familiar with what Sharia Law was. I find this to be unlikely in the extreme and would even venture to say that the majority of them would vote not to have Sharia law implemented had they had the opportunity to view that same sampler you showed us..

  I am empathetic with your viewpoint but I fail to see how muslim immigration should be stopped because there just might be that chance that one of them is a crazy fundamentalist who poses harm to society. Why should there be this filter(indeed it seems to be very fine a filter if even a 1% chance should be the signal to completely block all immigration of said coreligionists) for muslims as a religious group and not for any other immigrant community?


----------



## maxiogee

Parodi, you annoy me.
You raise a load of issues and when I query you about them you tell me I am going off-topic, and you neglect to answer them.

I'll ask you not to respond to this, but to think seriously about it. This is at heart a language forum, and we might all be expected to appreciate the language we use, and to take just a bit more care in choosing our words than the man in the street might.
In you last response to me you said…



			
				parodi said:
			
		

> I hope you don't think that I am saying that we should be fearful of every Muslim person.
> Should we fear these whackos?
> should people who go to abortion clinics be fearful?
> I don't fear Hindus.
> I don't fear Episcopalians
> I don't fear hasidic Jews


… (and then a list of other religions which were acceptable)


You make a lot of mention of fear.
Fear grows from the unknown - there is so much that you don't know and your brain is filling in those gaps negatively - you worry me, you and people like you. You spout hatred of a religion in which people worship a God which is not yours. You worship a different God. Hasn't religion caused enough feckin' chaos on this planet yet, that you would add more through misunderstandings?

You rounded off your anti-Muslim diatribe with this gem…


> Forgive me if I don't want more people espousing this insanity in my own country.


Which particular standard are you using to adjudge yourself (or your country) to be sane?
Which interventionist God do you worship?
What unproven facts about him does your religion require you to believe?
Which irrational practices are required of you in the execution of your worship?
How often does the word "God" appear in your daily life… "In God we trust", "One nation under God", "I swear by almighty God".

As I say, you worry me.


----------



## Outsider

parodi said:
			
		

> I hope you don't think that I am saying that we should be fearful of every Muslim person. I'm talking about a POPULATION and there being a certain PERCENTAGE of people within that population who are crazy. Increase that population and very likely there will be an increase in crazy people.
> 
> Forget the percentage of Muslims.... take Fundamentalist Christians. Within the Fundamentalist Christian population in the USA--I don't know maybe 10 million?--there is a certain percentage that wants to blow up abortion clinics. For agrument's sake, let's say there are 50,000 Fundamentalist Christians who think this is perfectly acceptable behavior. Should we fear these whackos? I don't know about you but I do fear crazy people with bombs.
> 
> Now back to what this thread was about: If you told me that due to increased fertility among whacko Christians there will be twice that number of people who want to bomb abortion clinics in 2050...should people who go to abortion clinics be fearful? Yes, in my opinion, they should. Should they invite more Fundamentalist Christians to emigrate to their country? In my opinion, no. Should they provide more public funds to allow more Fundamentalist Christians to have more children. Once again, no.
> 
> I don't fear Hindus. They didn't blow up our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. I don't fear Episcopalians....they didn't blow up hundreds on trains in Madrid. I don't fear hasidic Jews...they didn't slash Theo Van Gogh's throat in broad daylight in Holland after he worked on a documentary exposing Muslim brutality toward women. Anglicans aren't working to develop a nuke to blow Israel into the sea. Shintos didn't slaughter childen in a school in Beslan Russia. Catholics didn't blow up the Buddhas of Bamiyan. Lutherans don't go on a rampage when someone makes a cartoon about Jesus. These were all performed by a percentage of the Muslim population who are quite insane. Forgive me if I don't want more people espousing this insanity in my own country.


My answer to that is that I don't accept your premise. I don't believe that wackiness is genetic, or necessarily inherited from upbringing. Decent people can have wicked sons, and vice-versa. I'm more concerned with religious groups getting an inappropriate grip on political institutions.


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:
			
		

> I'm more concerned with religious groups getting an inappropriate grip on political institutions.


 This is the heart of it. The underlying message in the pseudo-question that began the thread is a call for more religious influence --one particular variety thereof-- in society.

Whether the inappropriate grip on political intitutions is direct, through law, or indirect, through pressure on lawmakers, the results are usually cause for genuine fear: abuse of minorities, repression of freedom of speech and thought.

This is in no way limited to any one religion.


----------



## parodi

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> And do you think the 9/11 bombers represented Islam?


Of course not. But I don't understand how you can gloss over this virulent strain of radical Islam that has swept the world. Yes it's true that Christians WERE guilty of excesses in the DISTANT past and if they were committing those excesses NOW then we should be fearful of a Torquemada type Inquistion where our bones were snapped on the rack. 


But it's not happening NOW. Once again, Christians are not bombing Buddhist Temples, they are not slitting throats because they don't like what someone said, they are not beheading people, they are not torturing children and then shooting them in grammar school takeovers, they are not bombing train stations, they are not hijacking planes, they are not setting 7000 cars on fire, they are not raping thousands and pillaging Darfur. 








> I would say that to stay honest you have to pick one: either we need to be fearful of both Christians and Muslims because people who claimed to be Christian or Muslim have done some seriously fucked up shit or you need to come to the conclusion that doing fucked up shit is not something any particular religious group has a monopoly in.


I don't think you read my post of yesterday. I said that I fear crazy religious people who want to use bombs. If you want to talk about staying honest then you must admit that in the year 2006 there is a whole lot more violence coming from Muslims than Christians in a "holy war" context.  Where is the Christian holy crusade in 2006?


----------



## cuchuflete

parodi said:
			
		

> .... Yes it's true that Christians WERE guilty of excesses in the DISTANT past


 Is 1991-1995 the DISTANT past for you?



> A _Defense & Foreign Affairs            Strategic Policy_ article in London in December 1992 said, "At            least 1,000 Serbs, mostly women, old people and children, were shot, knifed, axed or bludgeoned to death systematically, one-by-one, in two main centres...One visiting Croat female journalist during the Vukovar fighting, unfamiliar with firearms, asked one of the young gunmen to cock a pistol for her so that she could feel what it was like to kill            a Serb. She shot, indiscriminately, an old Serb woman who was standing            under Croat guard." In November 1991, the Toronto Star said that            "a photographer reported seeing black plastic bags containing pieces            of the bodies of [Serb] children about 5, 6, or 7 years old."


 source

And let's be clear. That was one of many parties to the butchery.  There were murderers and torturers of more than one Christian and other groups.  This isn't distant history.  This is just a few short years ago.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

The killing fields of El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980's are but one other sad example of what Cuchu is describing.  What about Rwanda?  

 Old hat?  What about Congo and Chechnya today?

However, Small European Families (a most misleading title) was, I believe, the original topic of this thread.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

parodi said:
			
		

> Of course not. But I don't understand how you can gloss over this virulent strain of radical Islam that has swept the world. Yes it's true that Christians WERE guilty of excesses in the DISTANT past and if they were committing those excesses NOW then we should be fearful of a Torquemada type Inquistion where our bones were snapped on the rack.



You call the Oklahamo bombing the DISTANT past? You call what happened in the former Yugoslavia the DISTANT past? Hmmm. It seems like the DISTANT past is whenever Christians do something bad and that NOW is whenever it's the Muslims. But I'll ask you to explain it instead of speaking for you. When did the DISTANT past begin? Was Abu Gharib the DISTANT past?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> Old hat?  What about Congo and Chechnya today?



No. When it's Christians, it's the DISTANT past. It's only current events if Muslims are doing it.


----------



## maxiogee

Getting back on topic - and away from futile ranting against religious beliefs… *Can economics account for the falling family size in Europe?*
The more economically developed the population, the more it costs to raise a child to adulthood, and the less likely children are (due to the availability/affordability of medical care) to die before they reach maturity.
A family needs to have the money to "invest" in a child, and they know that if that child falls it the chances are that they will be able to afford to have it treated/cured.
Our genes drive us to reproduce them, but once we have successfully done that we can then - still genetically - be driven to see that that offspring can themselves reproduce - we are urged by our genes to see grandchildren. 
This 'economic' theory is found in nature too, when it 'costs' parents a lot to raise their offspring they tend to have fewer, but when there is little or no parental input following conception/fertilisation/reproduction those parents tend to have loads of offspring, 'aware', as it were, that few will survive to maturity.
Could it be that populations 'know' that while the replacement rate may well be 2.1, there are times and circumstances when a lower figure will suffice to keep the gene-pool aerated.
Also, we need to be aware that certain people are opting to withdraw themselves from the gene-pool. They are choosing to remain childless, and if that is what their genes are driving them towards then this is not unknown in nature either - look at the "queen" concept in certain insect species and in some of the animals - only high-status females breed, but because they share her genes, other females participate in raising her offspring. If a childless person leaves their estate to a niece or nephew are they not assisting their own genes in the struggle to reproduce? 
Maybe society is a self-regulating control on population, given the chance. Don't forget that Europe has had very few periods when it wasn't laying waste to huge numbers of its male population through wars and both its male and female populations through disease and famine. Now that we seem to be having a period of stabilty from those, there is a lower pressure to reproduce.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

maxiogee said:
			
		

> *Can economics account for the falling family size in Europe?*...The more economically developed the population, the more it costs to raise a child to adulthood, and the less likely children are (due to the availability/affordability of medical care) to die before they reach maturity.



I'm sure that's part of the equation but sometimes richer countries have bigger families than poorer countries. Cuba's birth rate, for example, is lower than Puerto Rico's and the one there is lower than the one in the United States. That would seem to be the opposite of what we would get if there was an inverse relationship between development and birth rate.


----------



## cirrus

Can we split this thread in to its constituent parts:
1 How accurate is your understanding of what Muslims believe?
2 Do we think a shinking population is good?
3 What might be the reasons for people chosing to have fewer children?
3a To what extent is a good social care network related to the above?
3b What role does economics play in this decision?

Several of the outbursts above citing Pakistanis are dubious in tone even if you view them charitably.  Many Pakistanis came to the UK in the 60s.  Many live in London they are ambitious and educated and have moved out of the areas they initially moved into.  They are much more likely to become lawyers or doctors than their white counterparts.  There is a statistical overrepresentation of Pakistani doctors in the health service.  How does that speak of an urge to not integrate?

Is not the issue that immigrants are feared in the West unless they are perceived to be skilled?  If the cream of skilled third world professionals do not participate in their own countries' development that is somehow viewed as positive, regardless of the impact that has on the countries they come from.  We need to look really hard at the implications that has both for us in the the North and those who live in less developed areas.  The gulf between the west and the south is growing ever wider.  Let's take the case of Spain and its neighbours to the south:
50 years ago the standard of living in Spain and Morrocco was the same.  Since then the economy of Spain has grown over twenty times more than Morrocco.  Morrocco is, by African terms, a relatively successful country with relatively good access to European markets.  Nevertheless half the country lives in poverty and unemployment is massive. If you step over the fence between Morrocco and Ceuta you go from a country which is 124 richest to the 21st richest in the space of metres.  If you come in on a boat from Mauritania to the Canaries you arrive from the 151st.  Until we do something about this ever increasing gap, the pressure to vote with your feet is unlikely to diminish.


----------



## maxiogee

cirrus said:
			
		

> Is not the issue that immigrants are feared in the West unless they are perceived to be skilled?  If the cream of skilled third world professionals do not participate in their own countries' development that is somehow viewed as positive, regardless of the impact that has on the countries they come from.  We need to look really hard at the implications that has both for us in the the North and those who live in less developed areas.  The gulf between the west and the south is growing ever wider.



Good point cirrus.
I remember the heated debates here in Ireland in the 50s & 60s about the brain-drain (I also recall a British debate too). This country was just beginning to pick up economically and there was a serious concern that there would be (not to put too fine an edge on it) a denser-than-necessary population if our best school-leavers and our university graduates continued to emigrate as soon as the final examination was over.
We survived, but our economic recovery was very probably slower in coming than it should have been.


----------



## GenJen54

This thread has veered WAY-OFF track and is making its way back again (thank you, Maxiogee and Cirrus).  That being said, may I remind everyone of TVDer's original query:


> What accounts for the low fertility rate in Europe? This has recently been in the news, discussions, etc. quite a bit. Many are worried that the dearth of children will have a serious effect on the strong social welfare programs in most Euro countries, and others fear a demographic shift towards resident Muslim populations.
> 
> Total Fertility Rate (source)
> 
> *Replacement Rate - 2.1 children / woman*
> U.S. - 2.09
> France - 1.84
> U.K. - 1.66
> Netherlands - 1.66
> Canada - 1.61
> *E.U.* *- 1.47*
> Germany - 1.39
> Italy - 1.28
> Spain - 1.28
> Russia - 1.28
> Ukraine - 1.17
> 
> For those here in Spain, Italy, etc. with extremely low TFR's, do most couples you know choose not to have children or only have one? What is the reasoning behind this?


 
At some point, this thread will be split so people may continue discussing the link between religion and terrorism (which is already a topic somewhere).

In the interim, please stick to the original topic at hand.

GenJen54
Moderator


----------



## djchak

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> This thread has veered WAY-OFF track and is making its way back again (thank you, Maxiogee and Cirrus).  That being said, may I remind everyone of TVDer's original query:
> 
> At some point, this thread will be split so people may continue discussing the link between religion and terrorism (which is already a topic somewhere).
> 
> In the interim, please stick to the original topic at hand.
> 
> GenJen54
> Moderator




Well, hoping I won't be called a xenophobe by certain people for saying this     ...BUT.

Could part of the answer just be cultural? Could it be that Western europeans never really had big families to begin with? Just 1 or 2 kids? Where some of the immigrants coming into europe, muslim or not, are used to having a big family?

We can pin down economics all day, and mistakenly bring religion into it...but in the end, it might just be down to the local cultures and how they interact.....


----------



## Residente Calle 13

djchak said:
			
		

> Well, hoping I won't be called a xenophobe by certain people for saying this     ...BUT.
> 
> Could part of the answer just be cultural? Could it be that Western europeans never really had big families to begin with? Just 1 or 2 kids? Where some of the immigrants coming into europe, muslim or not, are used to having a big family?
> 
> We can pin down economics all day, and mistakenly bring religion into it...but in the end, it might just be down to the local cultures and how they interact.....


I think part of it is cultural. I lived in Utah for about three years and can tell you that the Mormon culture there promotes childbearing. It's not as rich as a state as New York or California, but the families are much larger than the ones in many poorer states. Families that have more than ten children are by no means an oddity.


----------



## Outsider

djchak said:
			
		

> Could part of the answer just be cultural? Could it be that Western europeans never really had big families to begin with? Just 1 or 2 kids? Where some of the immigrants coming into europe, muslim or not, are used to having a big family?


Europeans used to have more children. A lot more, trust me.


----------



## cuchuflete

Back to the topic at hand:



> What accounts for the low fertility rate in Europe? Many are worried that the dearth of children will have a serious effect on the strong social welfare programs in most Euro countries, and others fear a demographic shift towards resident Muslim populations.



Let's take a close look at that statement, (disguised as a question?)

1- Is the fertility rate "low" in any absolute sense, or is it just lower than it used to be?
2- If fertility rate is simply a measure of maintaining population at a stable or rising level, we have more questions:
2-a- Is population growth or maintenance at current levels good?  For whom?
2-b- Is fertility the only way to accomplish population stability or growth, whether that is good or bad?

Given the disproportionate consumption of natural resources by the US, and to a lesser extent, Europe, I would argue that
the entire world may benefit by a decline in population in both places.  So, therefore, an under-replacement level fertility rate is a good thing.  

"Many are worried"   As usual, there is no proof that many are worried.  We have no identification of the many.

"Serious effect" remains undefined and undocumented.

"Strong social welfare programs" is also undefined.  Many European members of these forums have pointed out severe defects in social programs in their countries.  Defects in programs may come from any of --bad policy, bad management, lack of resources.  So, if we close our eyes and swallow the 'strong programs' assumption, we still don't have any proof that lower rates of procreation are a threat.  Policy changes--not necessarily reductions in benefits--and better execution and reduced waste may overcome the demographic shifts.

We have already quite thoroughly debunked the undocumented "others fear resident Muslims" claim.

So, what is left of all of this?  

1- We haven't yet discussed the obvious: With Muslim and non-Muslim immigration, are net populations in most European countries actually declining?  

If they are, does that automatically lead to a logical assumption that "strong social welfare programs" will decline proportionally?  NO.  Fewer children means that states can redirect funds from programs aimed at younger people to support of other population groups...including geriatric conservatives  of all ages.

If the reduced quantities of babies eventually leads to a smaller work force, might governments reduce the "strong social welfare programs" available to immigrants?  This is the choice of the voters in each country.  

Are we facing a temporary 'bubble' in the frequency distribution by age?  If so, the supposed 'problem' will be temporary, and the societies in question will eventually re-establish a more traditional array of population by age group.  Millions of young--mostly male--Europeans died in two major wars in the last century.  Still, populations grew following each of those wars.  

Finally, are policies based on *supposed*  or even real, xenophobic/racist fears generally good policies, or are they they kind of populist actions some governments have taken to appease the least educated citizens, at the eventual expense of the entire nation?


----------



## parodi

Maxiogee, So sorry to annoy you, but you ask questions which I can't answer. You ask me to evaluate the the internals of a poll done by the Telegraph when I am not privy to the information...I mean, we both read the same article. Perhaps you have another poll from another source, or another poll from another paper in another country with more flesh on the bones where the internals can be analysed about the opinions of Muslims living in the West. Do Muslims support or not support sharia because they don't know what it entails? I really don't know the answer to that. 

Now about answering questions, why don't you answer the question I left for YOU in another discussion about: should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant? 



> You spout hatred of a religion in which people worship a God which is not yours.


That is an outrageous thing to write. Is questioning the beliefs of a religion spouting hatred now? Yes, I am questioning the beliefs of Islam. But you assume that the reason I am questioning those beliefs is because you are assuming I have my own religion or that I even believe in God. 

Is it so beyond the pale for a western, secular person to *question* a religion which OKs wife beating, death to apostates, death to gay people, as well as other discriminatory practices like the collection of jizya?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

parodi said:
			
		

> Is it so beyond the pale for a western, secular person to *question* a religion which OKs wife beating, death to apostates, death to gay people, as well as other discriminatory practices like the collection of jizya?



Which religion is that?


----------



## maxiogee

parodi said:
			
		

> Maxiogee, So sorry to annoy you, but you ask questions which I can't answer.



Then don't post clippings from sources which you have not investigated. That's just sloppy and 'easy'. We can all find surveys to back up our weird opinions if we want, even in major newspapers.

The questions I asked were asked of the person who posted "figures". I have a right to expect that you know the background to what you post as facts.





> Now about answering questions, why don't you answer the question I left for YOU in another discussion about: should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?



My apologies. I had assumed that that was a rhetorical question. I don't believe you are as naive as the question purports.



> That is an outrageous thing to write. Is questioning the beliefs of a religion spouting hatred now? Yes, I am questioning the beliefs of Islam.



If you think what you have been writing is really "questioning" then you seem to be working to a different dictionary than I.
You make statements. See the following quotes from your posts one this thread.




> But you assume that the reason I am questioning those beliefs is because you are assuming I have my own religion or that I even believe in God.


Okay, sorry that I suggested that you have a God, but I was right in my statement that you have a hatred of people who have a God which is not yours (and I would hold that to be something which tends to mark out religious people.




> Is it so beyond the pale for a western, secular person to *question* a religion which OKs wife beating, death to apostates, death to gay people, as well as other discriminatory practices like the collection of jizya?



How many other religious practices of other religions have you queried? 
I'm sorry, but you seem to have used this thread to lay into Muslims.
Muslims in Europe - you seem to be concerned for our welfare, but you talk of how you fear them. 




			
				parodi said:
			
		

> If --(a big if)-- the Muslim immigrants in Europe become educated (high value labor prospects) and can produce at a higher value of labor (engineers, doctors, chemists,professors, software wizards, alternate fuel vehicle designers, etc,etc,) and IF they accept and agree to the eurosystem of "I pay tax while I'm young so that I can collect the social program money when I'm old" then there is a chance that the social programs may not collapse. So the push right now in Europe, in my opinion, should be to get the recent immigrants educated and entering the higher employment levels.



*Not a question. A statement that Europe's social programs face collapse due to "Muslim" immigrants - no others - Muslims!*





			
				parodi said:
			
		

> Some think that many of Europe's problems could be ameliorated by the adoption of some new laws:
> 
> 1. Homosexuals should be put to death.
> 2. Anyone who mocks religion or God should be put to death.
> 3. When wives do not do what their husbands want they should be beaten.
> 4. Anyone who wants to convert from their religion should be put to death
> 5. Anyone who has sex outside of marriage should either be lashed 100 times or stoned depending on the leniency of the judge
> 6. Theft may result in the amputation of a hand or foot depending on the frequency of the crime.
> 
> Who are these people? They are Muslims and these very harsh punishments are prescribed by sharia or "muslim religious law." If you think the following link is not truthful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia or you can better explain sharia please do so.
> 
> Then recently in the UK you have 40% of polled Muslims who want the institution of sharia there. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../nsharia19.xml
> 
> What gives here? You don't fear an increase in the number of adherents to this religious doctrine in your own secular, liberal democracy? I'm fascinated. Please elaborate.



*That's not questioning Islam, that's questioning we Europeans about our attitudes to Islam.*





> Yes lizziemac, The old testament is very harsh. And there was a time when Christianity adhered to its harshness. But that time is long gone. That is, unless I missed a recent eye gouging with a hot fire poker at the Vatican (sarcasm)
> 
> But sharia exists now in many countries. That's the difference as it pertains to us...the living.



*No questions, just statements.*





			
				parodi said:
			
		

> I'm talking about a POPULATION and there being a certain PERCENTAGE of people within that population who are crazy
> Forget the percentage of Muslims.... take Fundamentalist Christians.
> 
> I don't fear Hindus. They didn't blow up our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. I don't fear Episcopalians....they didn't blow up hundreds on trains in Madrid. I don't fear hasidic Jews...they didn't slash Theo Van Gogh's throat in broad daylight in Holland after he worked on a documentary exposing Muslim brutality toward women. Anglicans aren't working to develop a nuke to blow Israel into the sea. Shintos didn't slaughter childen in a school in Beslan Russia. Catholics didn't blow up the Buddhas of Bamiyan. Lutherans don't go on a rampage when someone makes a cartoon about Jesus. These were all performed by a percentage of the Muslim population who are quite insane. Forgive me if I don't want more people espousing this insanity in my own country.



*Having brought up fundamentalist (not capitalised, it's not a religion, it's a type)Christians you then list all the Christians you don't fear.*




			
				parodi said:
			
		

> Christians are not bombing Buddhist Temples,
> they are not slitting throats because they don't like what someone said,
> they are not beheading people,
> they are not torturing children and then shooting them in grammar school takeovers, they are not bombing train stations,
> they are not hijacking planes,
> they are not setting 7000 cars on fire,
> they are not raping thousands and pillaging Darfur.
> 
> If you want to talk about staying honest then you must admit that in the year 2006 there is a whole lot more violence coming from Muslims than Christians in a "holy war" context.



*These are not questions.*


----------



## tvdxer

Many ARE indeed concerned.  Haven't you heard the phrase "Eurabia"?  Do a search on it.

In my mind, the problem isn't so much the immigration as it is the natives of the country's failure to produce a sufficiently large next generation.  And I didn't intend for this thread to be a huge debate - I'm curious what some of the reasons behind the fertility gap between Europe and the U.S. are.  OK?


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Many ARE indeed concerned.  Haven't you heard the phrase "Eurabia"?  Do a search on it.


No. I've never heard of it. How utterly remiss of me!
So I googled it as you suggest. And while I would rarely trust wikipedia as a source of unbiased information I think I'm happy to go along with this…

Eurabia is a term used by *Bat Ye'or *to describe an alleged process of political and cultural incorporation of Europe into the Islamic world, 


So, in my ignorance, and thinking Bat Ye'or was some organisation I hadn't heard of, I googleds it. Again with the health-warning of this being from Wikipedia…

Bat Ye'or (meaning "daughter of the Nile" in Hebrew; pseudonym of Giselle Littman) is an Egyptian-born British Jewish author and historian specializing in the Middle East, Islam, and non-Muslims in Muslim lands.

So she's going to be totally unbiased!
I note the following from down the article…
She herself can take some credit for the term "Eurabia" in this context; though the term was first used as a title of a journal initiated in the mid-1970s by the European Committee for Coordination of Friendship Associations with the Arab world, she popularized it as a term for Arab/Islamic influence over Europe. (My italics, she has taken and subverted the original meaning of the word.)



> In my mind, the problem isn't so much the immigration as it is the natives of the country's failure to produce a sufficiently large next generation.  And I didn't intend for this thread to be a huge debate - I'm curious what some of the reasons behind the fertility gap between Europe and the U.S. are.  OK?



No, not OK.
You imply that there is a potential for Muslims to "out-breed" us Europeans.
1) Northern Ireland's Protestant community was long ago warned that Catholics would rapidly outbreed - and therefore outvote them. It hasn't happened.
2) How do you know that the breeders who are maintaining the US level are not immigrants there? Or Muslims? or the long-predicted Roman Catholics again? Weren't the Irish, Italians and Spanish predicted to outbreed the WASPs?

* It doesn't happen because in a prosperous economic climate, and in the absence of high childhood mortality, society doesn't breed as you seem to think it should.



			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> others fear a demographic shift towards resident Muslim populations.



* Who, specifically, fear this shift? —> apart from other religions' believers who feel that their God(s) might be downgraded following any such shift.


----------



## parodi

I'm going to let you have that as the last word in this thread, maxiogee. Your strategy is a success.  By bringing up 10--count'em 10!---previous quotes you have essentially blocked thoughtful responses.  Any attempt on my part to rebut each one would result in the sound of snores on this bulletin board. I doubt if you have changed anyone's mind as I probably haven't either.  My only hope is that it encourages more people to check out the subject of Islam further...and to ask their own questions.  Be well.


----------



## maxiogee

parodi said:
			
		

> Your strategy is a success. By bringing up 10--count'em 10!---previous quotes you have essentially blocked thoughtful responses. Any attempt on my part to rebut each one would result in the sound of snores on this bulletin board.


How can quoting and querying your previous statements be blocking thoughtful responses?



			
				parodi said:
			
		

> My only hope is that it encourages more people to check out the subject of Islam further...and to ask their own questions.  Be well.



You challenged me previously about my on-topicness (although it was your topic I was apparently straying from) - remember?
What has this - or anything you have said - really got to do with *why* Europeans might be having smaller families?



			
				parodi said:
			
		

> I'm going to let you have that as the last word in this thread, maxiogee.


How graceful of you. But I feel that it is more an admission that your attitudes don't bear scrutiny - and for that I'm grateful.

Be well also.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

parodi said:
			
		

> I'm going to let you have that as the last word in this thread, maxiogee. Your strategy is a success.  By bringing up 10--count'em 10!---previous quotes you have essentially blocked thoughtful responses.  Any attempt on my part to rebut each one would result in the sound of snores on this bulletin board. I doubt if you have changed anyone's mind as I probably haven't either.  My only hope is that it encourages more people to check out the subject of Islam further...and to ask their own questions.  Be well.



What I would like to know is why you've drawn these conclusions about Islam. You said you don't fear Episcopalian because they are not blowing things up but I can assure you that not all muslims are blowing things up.


----------



## emma42

As anyone who has ever seen a member of the BNP being interviewed on telly, or who has tried to have an intelligent argument with such a person will know:  There is little point in trying to counter such utterly fascist views with intelligent, educated, logical argument.  The proof is clear to see in this thread.  The arguments put forward by foreros against certain views have been superbly made and are not capable of being gainsaid.  Unless in another universe far beyong the comprehension of humankind.

I know you are going to disagree with me about not bothering to argue!


----------



## Residente Calle 13

emma42 said:
			
		

> As anyone who has ever seen a member of the BNP being interviewed on telly, or who has tried to have an intelligent argument with such a person will know:  There is little point in trying to counter such utterly fascist views with intelligent, educated, logical argument.  The proof is clear to see in this thread.  The arguments put forward by foreros against certain views have been superbly made and are not capable of being gainsaid.  Unless in another universe far beyong the comprehension of humankind.
> 
> I know you are going to disagree with me about not bothering to argue!



I guess you're right. The thing I find disturbing is when people say "Of course, Muslims believe homosexuals should be put to death; it's in the Koran!" Well, it's in the Bible as well! Does that mean Christians today believe in putting homosexuals to death? Of course not! But that's their "proof" that we need to be afraid of Muslims. I just wonder why it's not "proof" to fear Christians or Jews.


----------



## parodi

I never said that all Muslims are blowing things up.     *B*ut the Muslims as a POPULATION (total number of people) currently have problems as I've said ad nauseam. Don't you read the papers?   Hello?  Cartoon Riots all over the world with people dead, the Norwegian embassy burned....all because of cartoons?  The car burnings in France (thousands of cars), throat slashing in Holland, train bombings in Spain, Underground bombing in the UK, beheadings in the Mid East.   

In sharp contrast to the cartoon riots we have the Da vinci code protests this week.  You may notice that Catholics are not rampaging...even though this movie cuts to the very core of their beliefs. Barely even a throat slashed anywhere on the globe I dare say.  They are making their point well without murdering anyone, don't you think?  

Of course not all Muslims are rampaging.  So where are the great majority of well behaved Muslims who denouce this sort of behavior?  If I was a Catholic and crazy Catholics were rampaging, burning and murdering over the DaVince Code movie you can bet your sweet butt I would be out demonstrating that I don't approve of this.  Where are the  Muslim demonstrations agaiinst beheadings, throat slashing, plane hijacking, subway bombing?  I'm not seeing many.

So you think that everything is great *because not every Muslim *is part of  this mayhem.  Agreed.  But  not every German citizen in WWII was directly involved with placing Jews in ovens, so....should the Jews have taken solace in the fact that less than 1 pecent of the German population was throwing them into the ovens? Or should people be afraid of Nazis?   According to the "logic" of some on this bulletin board the answer is no.   Not every Nazi killed Jews so everything with the Nazis was great.


----------



## maxiogee

It takes a special kind of mind to equate Muslims with Nazis.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Hi Parodi,



			
				parodi said:
			
		

> I never said that all Muslims are blowing things up.     *B*ut the Muslims as a POPULATION (total number of people) currently have problems as I've said ad nauseam. *Everybody has problems, my friend!* Don't you read the papers?   Hello?  Cartoon Riots all over the world with people dead, the Norwegian embassy burned....all because of cartoons?  The car burnings in France (thousands of cars), throat slashing in Holland, train bombings in Spain, Underground bombing in the UK, beheadings in the Mid East.   You don't think other people riot, burn cars, a chop people's heads off for all sorts of reasons. *Some riots in France in which cars are burning have to do with employment laws. Do you skip those articles when you read the paper? There were riots in Chile, recently. There are some in Brazil now. You think it's the Muslims there too?*
> 
> In sharp contrast to the cartoon riots we have the Da vinci code protests this week.  You may notice that Catholics are not rampaging...even though this movie cuts to the very core of their beliefs. Barely even a throat slashed anywhere on the globe I dare say.  They are making their point well without murdering anyone, don't you think?  *Catholics riot all the time for many reasons in both Europe and America. Have you ever heard of Northern Ireland. And yes, some Catholics have even been involved in terrorist acts  in both Europe and America. You should come down to Santo Domingo. We riot all the time and the country is mostly Catholic.*


You seem to skip all the news where Catholics do bad things but focus on the news where the Muslims do bad things. I think that you look at Catholics as just regular people but that the Muslims stand out in your mind because you think every time a Muslim breaks the law you think it's inspired by the Koran. 

Have you ever wondered if the bombs that go off in the Middle East are all inspired by religion? I mean, not all the crap that goes on in Santo Domingo is because of Catholicism. Thank God, we are not setting off bombs but we burn cars, tires, buildings, and people are killed.


----------



## emma42

The Spanish Inquisition, of course, was more of a counselling service than anything else.  I understand that Twinings Breakfast Tea was on offer and, on Tuesdays, home-made cup cakes.


----------



## emma42

The Muslim people who live around me are constantly terrorizing the streets and complaining about the smell of mashed potatoes.  I think I might move to Cornwall on Hudson, NY where people are a lot more tolerant.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

emma42 said:
			
		

> The Spanish Inquisition, of course, was more of a counselling service than anything else.  I understand that Twinings Breakfast Tea was on offer and, on Tuesdays, home-made cup cakes.


Well, that was long ago, of course. No Catholics are engaged in terror today of course. When I visited England the last time, I remember my English friends telling vivid stories of the bombings that took place in London...but that was a long time ago, in the previous century, back in the 1980s. In other words, the DISTANT past. Those in Sao Paolo must be in the DISTANT past too. How many days has it been?


----------



## emma42

I would just like to point out that I am in way saying that "Catholic" = "terrorist".  I abhor such views.


----------



## maxiogee

What?
Someone here is refining their targets of fear and hatred? 

And just when I thought that society was striving to be more inclusive!


----------



## geve

parodi said:
			
		

> So you think that everything is great *because not every Muslim *is part of this mayhem. Agreed. But not every German citizen in WWII was directly involved with placing Jews in ovens, so....should the Jews have taken solace in the fact that less than 1 pecent of the German population was throwing them into the ovens? Or should people be afraid of Nazis? According to the "logic" of some on this bulletin board the answer is no. Not every Nazi killed Jews so everything with the Nazis was great.


No. Following your logic, if we are to be afraid of all Muslim people because of what some of them might do, then we should put the blame on all German citizens because of what Nazis have done.



			
				parodi said:
			
		

> I never said that all Muslims are blowing things up. *B*ut the Muslims as a POPULATION (total number of people) currently have problems as I've said ad nauseam. Don't you read the papers? Hello? Cartoon Riots all over the world with people dead, the Norwegian embassy burned....all because of cartoons? The car burnings in France (thousands of cars), throat slashing in Holland, train bombings in Spain, Underground bombing in the UK, beheadings in the Mid East.


It might be a bit egocentric to quote myself but I'm too lazy to rephrase what I wrote in my post#58:


			
				moi-même said:
			
		

> Tvdxer, I think you watch too much TV! Do you seriously believe that every European resident with 'Islamic' origin has been burning cars in the suburbs, or plotting terrorist attacks? I personally know a few who hasn't.


As for the riots in France, I hope you're not alleging that they were inspired by the Coran. Nor that there were only Muslim people taking part in it (and the whole of France Muslim population, too). Because that would be a bit silly, really.


Finally, I'm afraid I don't understand this sentence:


			
				parodi said:
			
		

> I never said that all Muslims are blowing things up. *B*ut the Muslims as a POPULATION (total number of people) currently have problems as I've said ad nauseam.


Not all Muslims are blowing things up. Yet all Muslims have problems. (and incidentally, all Muslims _are_ a problem)  
Maybe there's something in the syntax that I don't understand; or maybe that's some rhetoric logic that I don't get...


----------



## parodi

> Have you ever wondered if the bombs that go off in the Middle East are all inspired by religion? I mean, not all the crap that goes on in Santo Domingo is because of Catholicism. Thank God, we are not setting off bombs but we burn cars, tires, buildings, and people are killed.


I think you are getting what I'm saying now. Much of the violence in the world is/has had religous roots which turn political. The religious philosopy of each particular religion tells its adherents how to behave. But those believers oftentimes don't.

The ten commandments tell Catholic *not to kill*. Yet they have killed for centuries and then hope to confess the sin to wash away the black mark on the soul (and get into heaven). But through all the wars in Europe where Christians killed each other was the reason they were killing each other BECAUSE their religion was telling them to do it? Or was it in spite of it?

Sometime after 9/11 George Bush announced that the World Trade Center debacle was an anomaly for Islam and I quote him, "Islam is a religion of peace." Tony Blair and other world leaders have reiterated the meat of that statement since then.

I don't pretend to be a scholar on Islam. But I make it a point to read a few books a year on this religion. Yet after several years of getting into the subject of Islam I have yet to find anything peaceful in either the Koran or the hadith. I was hoping after the length of this thread that someone who was Muslim would like to illuminate how it is (or would be ) possible to become a democratic-liberal person while still acepting the five pillars of Islam. Since it is a _sine qua non_ that all Muslims adhere to the five pillars...or else they are not Muslim.  



Then I thought it would be good to possibly explain why, from the Muslim perspective, they consider it to be a fair or nondiscriminatory practice to exact a tax (the jizya) from non-muslims living (dhimmis) in Muslim countries (dar al Islam). I would imagine that if Western countries collected this sort of tax on Muslims living here there would be a big backlash.

And speaking of dar al Islam, how is it possible to promote the religions of the world to co-exist in peace when Islam breaks the world into the poles of "dar al harb" and "dar al Islam"?...and those two spheres of the mind are anything but friendly.

So please, any Muslims out there, help me to understand how Islam is a religion of peace. Specifically, what is the sura in the Koran which tells Muslims to behave peacefully toward non-Muslims?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

There is a discussion here if your interested. Muslims talk about Islam in different countries.


----------



## cuchuflete

> Then I thought it would be good to possibly explain why, from the Muslim perspective, they consider it to be a fair or nondiscriminatory practice to exact a tax (the jizya) from non-muslims living (dhimmis) in* Muslim countries* Given the lack of definition of "Muslim countries", I assume you mean countries in which Muslims are the large majority, and non-Muslims a minority.  In that case, take the US, as a predominantly Christian-inhabited country, that taxes millions of Muslim citizens, and uses the proceeds to support the war in Iraq, the actions in Afghanistan, where quite a few innocent civilians were killed in the past 48 hours.  There is your corresponding case. (dar al Islam). I would imagine that if Western countries collected this sort of tax on Muslims living here there would be a big backlash.


 Western countries do exactly what you have described, and I haven't noticed the backlash you forecast.


----------



## cuchuflete

Why is the birthrate in much of Europe lower than it used to be?

Perhaps because many Europeans, for a great multitude of personal reasons, have chosen to have smaller families.

What are those reasons? Why not do a little research, and then state some of the obvious ones: Latter average age of marriage, cost of living.... This isn't rocket science. 

The reference to Muslims in the first post has nothing to do with the question of fertility rates. It's an excuse to spew hatred. European fertility rates are, and will be, whatever they happen to be, with or without immigration, and whether or not possible immigrants include Muslims.

Unless someone can prove a causal relationship between Muslim citizens or residents, and non-Muslim birthrates, the two topics have no reason to be discussed in the same thread.

It would be more honest to just open a new thread and declare oneself xenophobic and anti-Muslim, and then discuss that topic idependent of fertility rates.

I met some Europeans recently who told me that they are uncertain about having children, because they don't want to bring babies into a world so full of intolerance and bigotry.
That's two data points out of hundreds of millions, and therefore just as insightful and reliable as the previously cited poll.


----------



## lizzeymac

parodi said:
			
		

> CLIP
> 
> I don't pretend to be a scholar on Islam. But I make it a point to read a few books a year on this religion. Yet after several years of getting into the subject of Islam I have yet to find anything peaceful in either the Koran or the hadith. I was hoping after the length of this thread that someone who was Muslim would like to illuminate how it is (or would be ) possible to become a democratic-liberal person while still acepting the five pillars of Islam. Since it is a _sine qua non_ that all Muslims adhere to the five pillars...or else they are not Muslim.
> 
> CLIP



Hi -

It would be very nice to hear from someone with firsthand knowledge, but until then I have a question -   

Why do you require that a muslim person becomes a "democratic-liberal"?    
Conservative or traditional, republican, monarchist, communist, socialist, etc. -  none of those choices are _acceptable_ to you?  
Are you saying only "democratic-liberals" are peace loving?  Does that including non-muslims?  Really?

-


----------



## Outsider

parodi said:
			
		

> I think you are getting what I'm saying now. Much of the violence in the world is/has had religous roots which turn political. The religious philosopy of each particular religion tells its adherents how to behave. But those believers oftentimes don't.
> 
> The ten commandments tell Catholic *not to kill*. Yet they have killed for centuries and then hope to confess the sin to wash away the black mark on the soul (and get into heaven). But through all the wars in Europe where Christians killed each other was the reason they were killing each other BECAUSE their religion was telling them to do it? Or was it in spite of it?
> 
> Sometime after 9/11 George Bush announced that the World Trade Center debacle was an anomaly for Islam and I quote him, "Islam is a religion of peace." Tony Blair and other world leaders have reiterated the meat of that statement since then.
> 
> [...]
> 
> So please, any Muslims out there, help me to understand how Islam is a religion of peace. Specifically, what is the sura in the Koran which tells Muslims to behave peacefully toward non-Muslims?


Here's a good start: Is Islam a religion of war or peace?
Granted, I don't think it was written by Muslims.



			
				parodi said:
			
		

> I think you are getting what I'm saying now. Much of the violence in the world is/has had religous roots which turn political. The religious philosopy of each particular religion tells its adherents how to behave. But those believers oftentimes don't.


There's a bit of a contradiction in there, I think. If people often ignore what their religion tells them, how can religion be such a powerful force?

I think you have it backwards. Violence usually starts out as political, and then religion is used as an excuse for it.


----------



## maxiogee

parodi said:
			
		

> I was hoping after the length of this thread that someone who was Muslim would like to illuminate how it is (or would be ) possible to become a democratic-liberal person while still acepting the five pillars of Islam.



For one to do that here would be as off-topic as you have already made this thread.

Why would a Muslim come to a thread about "Small European Families" and discuss that? You're the one who has contrived to bring the discssion of the lower-than-previous European birthrate around to a discussion of Muslims in Europe.

Why do you think that someone who doesn't live in your democratic-liberal society would want to live in one? Is there something undeniably "right" about that way of life? What's a Liberal Democracy to a Muslim? Why don't you ask Cubans to come here and explain how it is possible to be one and still believe in Fidel and his revolution, or ask a Catholic in …


----------



## parodi

I made this thread go off topic? lol. 

from the original question by tvdxer


> ......and others fear a demographic shift towards resident Muslim populations.



But I do think this one has run its course.


----------



## whatonearth

I must say, this topic seems to have brought out an ugly side in a few people in this forum which I find very disappointing...


----------



## cuchuflete

parodi said:
			
		

> I made this thread go off topic? lol.
> 
> from the original question by tvdxer
> 
> 
> But I do think this one has run its course.



That was not a question.  It was an unsubstantiated statement.
You, along with one or two others, have provided the proof that 
a few people share tvdxer's worldview.  

There was also a question in his thread starter post, which you have not addressed, as you have other things on your mind.


There were actually three questions in his first post:



> What accounts for the low fertility rate in Europe?


  and....



> For those here in Spain, Italy, etc. with extremely low TFR's, do most couples you know choose not to have children or only have one? What is the reasoning behind this?



You zoomed right by all three of them, and chose to use his gratuitous comments as a platform to spew fear.


----------



## parodi

I didn't realize that I zoomed right by his original post.  Actually  my first response  was  about  high value  labor  to support   Europe's  social  programs.   But what do facts matter?

In retrospect this whole thread has been a hoot.  I pointed out that Muslims believe that homosexuals shoot be killed, that women should be beaten (which no one disputes) yet some here want to cast ME as intolerant.  You really have to have a sense of humor here.


----------



## cuchuflete

Talk about a hoot...now you would have us swallow this line of illogic?

Q.  			 				What accounts for the low fertility rate in Europe?
A. Let's talk about high value  labor  to support   Europe's  social  programs.

Q. For those here in Spain, Italy, etc. with extremely low TFR's, do most couples you know choose not to have children or only have one?
A. Muslims believe that homosexuals shoot be killed,


Q. What is the reasoning behind this?
A. Muslims believe that ... women should be beaten (which no one disputes)

If that's addressing the questions, I suggest calling the Air Traffic Control tower on Zeta K29 and requesting permission to land.  Maybe an atmosphere with a little more oxygen will help the synapses reconnect.


----------



## asm

I also see this pattern in the US, but there is also an alternative. I know large families (according to our standards). Some friends have received their 7th child few weeks ago, and I think they are open to "whatever"! This is an extreme case, but there are several families with 4-6 children. I live in the south (in a semi-rural region).



			
				TrentinaNE said:
			
		

> I have 18 adult cousins in northern Italy who are in their 30s/40s and appear to have completed their families. Only two of them have more than two children. Half (10) have 2 children and 4 have 1 child. This distribution strikes me as very similar to what I see among American couples in the same age range.


----------



## tvdxer

The most common family sizes around here are two or three children.  I didn't know too many single children going through school.  They are probably abouut as common as four-children families, maybe a bit more.  Five or more children is quite rare.


----------



## Outsider

parodi said:
			
		

> In retrospect this whole thread has been a hoot.  I pointed out that Muslims believe that homosexuals shoot be killed, that women should be beaten (which no one disputes) yet some here want to cast ME as intolerant.  You really have to have a sense of humor here.


You are confusing the opinions of some Muslims with the opinions of all Muslims. That is the eternal problem with these conversations.

Is it a hoot? Shoehorning vast groups of people into neat little uniform stereotypes has always had bad results in the past. Some Christians also believe that homosexuals should be killed, but I wouldn't go around saying that "Christians believe that homosexuals should be killed, & that proves they're evil."

Maybe I'm just naive.


----------



## ceci '79

tvdxer said:
			
		

> What accounts for the low fertility rate in Europe?


 
I think that since the late 60's it is not very high-status for a woman to become a homemaker in Italy (at least the Italy I know ). She is perceived as a loser, in a few words, someone who gave up a whole lot of worldly possibilities to lock herself up at home. Who could ever dare being so unfashionable?  And a woman who works (and explores a whole lot of worldly possibilities) has a hard time raisng a numerous family.


----------



## suzi br

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Here's a more specific question: Why does the United States manage to have a birthrate higher, and in most cases, well above any European country?


 
Cor blimey mate - are you sure all the women having babies in the good ole US of A are WHITE  ???? 

And of course, the weak link in your whole racist argument is that Muslim families are INCLUDED in the overall birthrates of the European countires you quote  .... go figure!


----------

