Forecasting the future is an inexact enterprise at best. Yet examining current conditions and trends is a helpful way of identifying what dangers need to be addressed. Earlier this year British conservative Paul Weston offered some thoughts that merit Americans’ attention.
Speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference on March 3, 2016 Weston pointed out that Sweden has lost its demographic contest with Islam, Britain is losing theirs, and America will in all likelihood follow suit in the coming decades.
Before we examine his message, let’s consider these basic facts about demography.
A demographic “contest” involves the increase or decline of a group’s population in comparison to other groups in the society. The change is measured by each group’s Replacement Fertility Rate—more specifically, the average number of offspring per woman. Above 2.1 represents a population increase; under 2.1, a decline.
The fertility rates of most European countries (including Britain) have been below 2.1 for some time. The U.S. rate is 1.88. In contrast, the world-wide Muslim fertility rate is 3.1. One reason it is so much higher is that in Muslim society large families are considered desirable. Other reasons are that women marry at younger ages and therefore have longer to bear children, Muslim men are permitted to have multiple wives, and abortion is forbidden.
Weston noted that English women are not only having fewer children, but also delaying childbirth, in many cases until their 40s. In contrast, Muslim immigrants are having more children and having them earlier, thus making the generation change more rapid. In 1970, he says, there were 200,000 Muslims in England. The number has doubled every decade since, so now there are about 2.3 million, most of them under age 15.
He goes on to say that the increase in numbers has made Muslims more outspoken and politicians more alert to, and intimidated by, their demands. As he put it, “they push, we submit.” A major demand is that their cultural norms be respected. The problem is that certain of those norms clash not only with traditional British mores but with British laws, as well. Sharia law and British law are in many respects incompatible.
He gives one, admittedly extreme, but nonetheless alarming example of the clash in values. For last 20 years “raping and grooming games” have been underway in England. These involve targeting girls between 7 and 13 years old for sexual abuse and, in some cases, enslavement. In one case, a 12 year old girl was in a hotel room with a group of 13 Muslim men. When the police were notified, instead of arresting the men, they arrested her father, who was standing outside the building expressing concern for his daughter.
Weston claims that British politicians knew of this practice for years but neither investigated it nor protected the young women for fear of offending the Muslim community. (This link provides more details on both the scandal and the political inaction.)
Does the present situation Weston describes in England give legitimate cause for Americans to worry about a similar development here? Some would say we have little to worry about because we are a much larger nation. Perhaps so, but here are some facts that challenge that assessment:
The demographic realities in America are similar to those in England. In fact, our reproductive rate (1.88) is lower than theirs. (Our abortion rate is higher than that of England and other European countries.)
Many Americans have lost touch with the Judeo-Christian values of their parents and grandparents largely because of secularism’s increasing presence in our communications and entertainment media and in our education system, a presence that is not likely to diminish.
Sharia law is often presented as compatible with American law and its underlying ethical values, and Political Correctness discourages many people from challenging that idea for fear of being considered anti-Muslim.
The last point is most unfortunate because there is ample evidence that Sharia law is not compatible with American law and values, as the Center for Security Policy has demonstrated. Here is an abbreviated version of the Center’s comparison of Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution:
CONSTITUTION: “This Constitution . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.” SHARIA LAW: “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia . . . The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.”
CONSTITUTION: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ” SHARIA LAW: “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back [from Islam], take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”
CONSTITUTION: Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech.” SHARIA: Speech defaming Islam or Muhammad is considered “blasphemy” and is punishable by death or imprisonment.
CONSTITUTION: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . . .” SHARIA LAW: Under Sharia law, women, girls, apostates, homosexuals and “blasphemers” are all denied equality under the law.
In conclusion, both demographic and cultural trends suggest that by the middle of this century America will either be embroiled in serious conflict over its view of law and morality, or that the issue will already have been decided in favor of Islam.
Copyright © 2016 by Vincent Ryan Ruggiero. All rights reserved