>This is laughably wrong (I literally bursted our laughing). Tell it to the crusaders, to all the people who took part in pogroms for centuries all over the place, to the ethnic nationalists who are in power or close to post right now in Europe. Tell it to the refugees dying on boats in the Mediterranean as well...
Modern western countries with christian historical traditions do indeed welcome people from different ethnic backgrounds to a degree that no other countries on earth match. How is this wrong. Take even a brief look at demographic information from nearly any western european state or any of the anglo/saxon countries in the world. There's nothing at all laughably wrong about it. Pointing to boats in the Mediterranean is a case of finding the worst, extreme examples when they don't even closely represent the whole. What the crusaders and christians did centuries ago in the west is absurd as a criticism of TODAY'S western states.
It's first important to note that 'Modern western countries with christian historical traditions' are NOT for the most part Christian states [1], but secular ones. This is important. Secularism and the separation of church and state are relatively modern, Enlightenment values, not Christian ones.
Together with the idea that certain human rights are fundamental and inalienable, secularism has allowed quite a lot of states (not just Western ones) to progress, at least nominally, to a more inclusive and moral view of humanity.
GP mentioned that Christian (presumably secular majority Christian) states have an obsession with equality and are extraordinarily welcoming to other cultures. This is patently false. I provided a series of examples, both historical and current.
> What the crusaders and christians did centuries ago in the west is absurd as a criticism of TODAY'S western states
I addressed the claim that Christian (so not modern secular) states are extremely tolerant etc. For that historical examples are pertinent. Christianity, like all major religions, can be leveraged for good or bad, for tolerance or exclusion, for peace or war.
> Pointing to boats in the Mediterranean is a case of finding the worst, extreme examples when they don't even closely represent the whole
Tens of thousands of people have died in the Mediterranean in the past years, often with the complicity of EU or other national authorities [2] [3] [4]. Hardly isolated incidents.
> Take even a brief look at demographic information from nearly any western european state or any of the anglo/saxon countries in the world
Immigration, in reality, mostly has to do with the economic needs of the host country, not so much with their unimaginably charitable desire to allow everybody in.
Whether it's from the goodness of their hearts or from economic necessity, the fact remains that western countries with largely Christian historical traditions (I never claimed that they are today Christian states in the way that Islamic states are officially Islamic) are some of the most tolerant and open societies on Earth. No other cultural regions in the world match this level of tolerance or openness. That is absolutely worth considering in any discussion like this. It has a certain practical moral weight that it's dishonest to ignore.
As for what you mention about the migrants in the Mediterranean, bear in mind a couple points:
1. The governments of the EU are not killing these migrants themselves. Most of those that tragically die do so because of their own extremely dangerous efforts to desperately reach a continent that they know will largely treat them better than their own homelands do.
2. You mention tens of thousands. That's an awful number, but compared to the millions of immigrants that do reach and eventually get accepted by the continent through many programs and laws that later assist them, it needs to be placed in perspective, both morally and practically.
3. Even if a certain percentage of migrants suffer repercussions in their attempts to reach Europe, the states of the Union do have a basic right to make efforts at protecting their borders from unregulated entry. They can't be held responsible for this being dangerous to illegal migrants or even in some cases tragic. That their entry should be difficult is indeed part of the point. Much more blame should be assigned to the governments of the countries they came from, which made things so intolerant and economically/socially corrupt as to provoke mass flight.
