Steven Warshawsky puts forward in the
It should not be surprising, then, as Steyn emphasized in a recent column, that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide feel primary loyalty to their religion (“Pan-Islamism”), instead of to the particular nations in which they live. For example, according to a recent poll (cited by Steyn), only 8 percent of Muslims living in Great Britain consider themselves British first, whereas 81 percent consider themselves Muslim first. Given the stark differences between what it means to be British and what it means to be Muslim, these poll results portend a disastrous future for the British nation.
Okay, 80 percent of Muslims in Britain think of themselves as Muslims first, and citizens second. I would venture a bet that if you asked the first ten imams you find on the streets of Europe, all ten would tell you that the other 20 percent might as well not think of themselves as Muslims at all, but I digress. To stick to my point, I would be willing to bet that at least a majority of American Christians think of themselves as Christians first and Americans second. “You shall have no other gods before me”, and all that. And, you can count me among them.
I am, above all other things, a Christian, a husband, a father, an American, and a Sailor. Note the order of the list, because it’s not an accident. America, you’re number four in my book, and I can’t imagine a circumstance under which that would change. In fact, if America ever becomes a threat to my duty to well and faithfully execute my responsibilities as a disciple, husband and father, I reserve the right to rise up and lead an insurrection. Does this, in Mr. Warshawsky’s words, “portend a disastrous future for the [American] nation.” Somehow, I’m doubtful. Now, it is true that Islam has a lot more to say about politics and government than Christianity does, but let’s not forget that the vast majority of Muslims already live in secular nations, and are not rising up to put the imams in charge.
Next, Warshawsky addresses Steyn’s biggest point, that the wide disparity in birth rates between native Europeans and Muslims immigrants will change the face of Europe, and not in a good way. As Warshawsky puts it,
Steyn emphasizes that, with birth rates among native Europeans well below “replacement level” (2.1 children per woman), the Western populations in these countries will shrink with each new generation. At the same time, millions of Muslims are moving into Europe (naively welcomed by the existing governments as a source of labor to maintain their lavish welfare states), and are having many more children than their neighbors. Steyn reports that Western women in Europe have an average of 1.4 children, whereas Muslim women have an average of 3.5 children. The result is a “baby boom” among Muslims that, within our lifetimes, will completely change the European countries in which they live. Steyn’s analysis (though not original) strikes me as right on the mark (no pun intended).
Steyn’s analysis, I believe, is on the mark when he suggests that the face of Europe will change. However, I’m not so sure that means a Muslim Europe is a forgone conclusion. At the turn of the Nineteenth Century America absorbed a huge number of Catholic immigrants from Europe, and their birth rates were much higher than the White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants they lived beside. Yet, America never became a nation beholden to the Pope. In the American experience, each successive generation of immigrants has been less and less likely to strictly adhere to the demographic characteristics of their parents, and there’s no reason to believe the European experience won’t be similar. Out of the 3.5 children each Muslim woman has, I’m doubtful that all of them, or even a majority of them, will grow up to be anything but decent, hard-working and generally upstanding citizens. And, it will be easier to find a decent falafal on the streets of Paris and Brussels, and I’m all for that.
Finally, Warshawsky gets to his final solution, which must have taken all of a New York Minute to formulate:
Yet after spending page after page highlighting the demographic disaster that awaits Europe (and to a much lesser extent the United States), Steyn fails to state the logical conclusion, which is that Muslim immigration must be stopped. Period.
Right. I guess, then, the next logical step is to ban Islam throughout the free world just as a precaution. I’ve come to expect a little more thoughtful and reasoned analysis of the writers at American Thinker, and I hope this is just an abberation and not the start of a trend.