Posted on 03/30/2008 8:36:11 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
The Vatican spokesman said that Vatican officials wrote the report, and accepted the figures given to them by Muslim governments. The report only dealt with the Catholic Church, which used its own membership figures, so that’s why no Protestant denominations are included.
That said, I doubt that it would have changed it much, although at the same time, I would also doubt the accuracy of the Muslim figures. Their figure for Muslims in the US, for example, is about five times the US census number.
That's because the US Census does not count religious affiliation.
There are private parties who estimate such things however.
There are private parties; I think the census-based number was an estimate based on the national background of immigrants and the ethnic affiliation indicated by native-born people. The problem is that the Muslim organizations that do keep records (of converts, for example, who would not be classifiable on an ethnic basis) are very secretive about it, and can say whatever they want. And many of them seem to keep no records at all.
On the other hand, any Catholic church will have its baptismal records and parish membership at hand, and will not count other people who may actually be Catholic and even attend the Mass there, but are not registered with the parish. Probably in a place like the US, where people move a lot, there is serious undercounting going on, at least in the official statistics.
All “preferential” ethnic groups overestimate their populations in the hopes of getting more government money, and Muslims do it partly for this reason, and partly, of course, for propaganda reasons. If you keep telling people that you’re all around them, sooner or later they find it easier to believe than to argue with you.
Establishing the impression of a large Islamic presence also helps their advance, and is apparently the strategy behind the Saudi-funded purchase of important old buildings (such as the Houston courthouse) for use as “Islamic centers,” coupled with the strategy of buying up little country churches and planting mosques in rural areas with virtually no Muslims.
We are very naive about propaganda and the enemy’s exaggeration of its forces, but it has always been a strong part of Islamic tactics, both in war and in peace (well, maybe that should be, the prelude to war).
Years ago (way back in my college days) most the Saudis and Kuwaitis I knew would take Spring Break for a Florida shore visit ~ and not to Fort Lauderdale, etc. for girls, etc. These guys could get girls ~ they had money dripping off of them, and their families provided them with convertibles. What they couldn't readily find during the school year was lots and lots of sand.
I recall one guy who'd visited Death Valley telling everyone how great that was. Next thing you know a bunch of them were headed out there for a brief Summer fling in the borax mines or something.
They are crazy!
Your interpretation of these rural Islamic centers is much more innocent than mine.
I think other Moslems would be happier to have some decent restaurants nearby.
I think other Moslems would be happier to have some decent restaurants nearby.
All things being equal, even if you had every married women Christian woman in America cranking out a baby every nine months, we couldn't beat them at the numbers game. Because with multiple wives, Muslims have a system whereby just ONE GUY have a number of women pregnant at the same time. The system of polygamy throws off any competition for reproductive competition between us -- that and the very young age at which they consider a girl to be "marriageable".
What kept the Muslim numbers in check for centuries was death and disease in the Middle East. in part due to a bad water supply system. We fixed that for them and brought them modern medicines. The second thing that slowed down their numbers growth was the ability to support all those children -- then Western public assistance fixed that! As soon as Muslims moved into the West, they began receiving all the benefits of modern medicine and public assistance guaranteed here, all bets were off.
The only way we could win in the numbers game against them is to turn into them-- becoming polygamists, giving away child brides and becoming violently militant. That, or drive every one of them back to the Middle East and let them kill each other fighting over land and food, like animals. Neither choice being clean or pretty.
Seems the very least we could do; is not allow Muslim men w/multiple wives into our Country; nor should other 'Western-civilized' countries. It is an issue in Australia; Great Britain and Canada and think these issues have already arisen here as well. Of course it is a 'moral issue - by many counts. One count stretches itself all the way back to Government. . .and back to the citizens who are that 'Government'. Issues; and Muslim expectations that all wives are equal partners and soooo. . .should recieve 'Corporate' and Government benefits. . .as if Social Security did not have enough problems. . .for starters.
It is interesting that in traveling; we cannot bring things 'illegal', into a host country which, while legal at home; are nonetheless, illegal in by their Law. Non-citizens arriving here, must as well; honor our our 'banned list'.
Given that 'polygamy' IS illegal in many Countries; I do not understand, how it is. . .that these Muslims are allowed to bring them 'all in' - they are allowed four wives by their Islamic law.
Religious freedom should not extend to anyone, beyond our own Legal Statutes.
And yet. . .such is not the case, when it comes to polygamous Muslims. They are on the other hand; not only allowed entry; but by 'Muslim turn' we as taxpayers, are expected to 'pay for them'.
The lack of legal distinctions here, surely challenges a 'Moral Reason'; and plain old 'common-sense' - or what used to be - 'common'. The numerous 'other' accomodations being made on behalf of Muslim populations do the same.
Great idea! Makes perfect sense to me, too! Unfortunately, the "wonderfully Liberal" British Courts didn't see it that way -- and I am not so sure that most Western countries are not all that far behind the curve on this issue, if they aren't there already:
I wonder how many live on the public dole?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.