tolerant? non-confrontational? wimp out?

Islamists attack where they perceive weakness. Multiculturalism is seen by them as giving in to their cultural norms (sharia, etc).

When dealing with Islamists the Turkish govt is more, uhm, efficient.

Seconding Gideon, Turks run a tight ship, so it's unlikely insurgents would bother tourists spending money there.

The writer's claim that Turkey is safer for Westerners than Canada is strange in the light of the many terrorist attacks in Turkey in recent years, e.g. the 2003 Istanbul bombings by Al-Qaeda that left 57 people dead.

If Europe was still truly Christian, she would not have welcomed millions of Muslims to live in Europe in the first place.

We welcomed them because we're Judeo-Christian. Post-Christian Eurpe doesn't want them but has to take them because of its demographic implosion.

Who is "we" in your post? Christian Europe never received any Muslim immigrants voluntarily.

Europe isn't Christian. Christian America welcomes them.

America has welcomed far fewer Muslims than Europe. A significant portion of American Muslims are black converts who became disillusioned with Judeo-Christianity.

Muslims were at least as eager as today to come to Europe in the past when Europe was Christian through and through, but they were fought off back then.

Mörkö -- Do you mean that blacks are disillusioned by Judeo-Christianity because it teaches tolerance and turning the other cheek while Islam empowers them to violence toward non-Muslims?

erp: No, blacks turn away from Judeo-Christianity because of the violence and oppression white Judeo-Christians have subjected them to.

Europe hasn't welcomed any.

No, they weren't. The Imperialists hadn't wrecked Muslim states yet.

Jews abused blacks? Most American slave holders were Christians, perhaps some were Jews, but it was Arab slave traders who trafficked in African slaves and are still plying their trade.

The history of our treatment of former slaves is a disgrace, but to our credit, we recognized the problem and have made great strides to correct it. I'm not sure Islam can say the same.

oj:

Europe has received millions of Muslim immigrants, including lots of asylum seekers at times when there has been no shortage of native labor. Why did Europe welcome them?

When I talked about past Muslim "immigration", I meant the many wars of conquest that Muslims waged against Europe before they were colonized.

erp:

I wasn't referring to Jews specifically, but to "Judeo-Christianity", which is a by-word for everything good here, never mind the history.

The difference between Muslim and American slavery is that the latter was based on race. Muslims had slaves of all colors, and blacks were never singled out as less-than-human, unlike in America. This is one reason why Islam appeals to African Americans. Christianity is seen as a white religion, because American churches gave their support to slavery and racism.

Morko:

It didn't. It grudgingly turned a blind eye because there are no young Europeans to do jobs and pay the taxes so the secular natives can die off comfortably.

oj: Again, facts speak against your ideological pronouncements. Europe has welcomed more immigrants than can be employed.

Besides, it could as or more easily be argued that America receives immigrants grudgingly, because America's white, supposedly Christian majority population, like that of Europe, reproduces at below-replacement rate and immigrants are needed to do the jobs the natives won't do.

Except that we don't. America's white Christians reproduce at replacement level and it's mainly those regions that immigrants are headed to.

Europes inability to create jobs is a function of the same secular ideology that is forcing it to accept immigrants it despises.

oj:

I couldn't find statistics on this, but I understand that an average white American woman gives birth to 1.9 babies, which is below replacement level. White Americans have about as many children as the French.

Inability to create jobs has nothing to with secularism as can be easily seen from European countries that have robust economies.

For all non-Hispanic whites it's at 2.0. Christians are over replacement rate. We have our own Europeans in the Blue states.

European countries with robust economies are those with the strongest traditions of Protestant moralism and/or members of the Anglosphere.

How do you define Christian? By child count? Paul said that it's better for a Christian to not have children. But then again American Christianity has relatively little to do with original Christianity anyway.

I agree that Catholic heritage is a hindrance to economic development, that's hardly a novel argument. Sweden, Denmark, and Norway all have healthy, briskly growing economies -- do you ascribe their success to their latent Lutheranism despite the fact that they are also the most secular countries in Europe?

Being part of the "Anglosphere" (that is, having been under English rule and speaking English) does not in itself stimulate growth. See Uganda for proof.

Yes, they're still quite Lutheran.

Uganda is doing rather well these days by African standards.

Scandinavia is no more Christian than America's Blue state "Europeans". You should come up with some more plausible explanations for Europe's economic ups and downs than religion.

Uganda is poor even on African standards, and there are plenty of other basket cases in the "Anglosphere". Your glorious Anglosphere is a complete fiction.

It's actually the only explanation required. The ethnically homogenous Lutheran states on the margins of Europe are uniformly successful economically and socially because of the high levels of trust, honesty, etc. that flow from their religious background. That will decline over time both because of their increasing secularism and the exchange of native population for immigrant.

The Lutheran North is historically the poorest and most backward region in Europe. Widespread poverty and famines were still common in the 19th century and early 20th century. For example, one fourth of the Finns were wiped out by famine in the winter of 1867/68.

It is the 20th century Social Democracy that has lifted the Nordic countries from poverty and backwardness. The homogenuity of the population is not a function of the Lutheran church but of the Social Democratic state, which has tirelessly, and successfully, seeked to eliminate ancestral differences in class, wealth, education, etc. of the citizens.

The churches have not opposed this development; on the contrary, they have endorsed it. This is hardly surprising considering that in all Nordic countries the church has been an organ of the state and subject to it since the 16th century. There is perhaps more trust and honesty between the citizens than somewhere else, because everyone makes about the same amount of money, goes to the same state schools, benefits from the same public services, neglects to practise the same religion, etc.

No, it's just their Calvinism, which requires that you behave as if you were saved. Socialism worked best there precisely because of the religiosity.

Do you seriously think you will convince anyone with your counter-factual sound bites?

Convince anyone of what? That the Anglospheric, Lutheran and Anglican nations have uniquely high levels of trust and as a result are the only places where socialism therefore worked to any degree, economies are growing, and social pathologies are minimal? Only folks who can read a data set.

Except that the Nordic countries' social and economic success is very recent, and a result of conscious state policies, not of some mythical Lutheranism. The Anglosphere, in turn, includes many poor, hopeless nations.

Socialism has worked in France, Germany, Benelux, etc., too, even if some of these countries have been experiencing economic slowdown as of late, because they, unlike the Nordic nations, have failed to make some necessary adjustments.

No, they were among the most politically and economically advanced nations in the world long before they became socialist, Sweden even a world power.

Socialism has failed in France and Germany.

Nope. Sweden was briefly a leading power in Northern Europe because of military successes, but it was certainly not "economically advanced". Nor were its neighbors.

Socialism has not failed in France and Germany any more than it has failed elsewhere.

Then why are they dying?

List the non-Christian nations that were more advanced in 1800?