You may recall that just last week I wrote about Australia’s reticence to accept Muslim refugees and an apparent New York Times failure to identify Muslims as Muslims in a featured article on the issue.
My guess is that more than a few Australians who are against accepting Muslim refugees felt vindicated in their position when they learned about a new Pew Research Center report on how Muslim refugees are demographically transforming Europe.
My question: What is the appropriate reaction to this historical population shift and oes it vary from one host non-Muslim nation to another?
I'm referring to more than current -- and hopefully just temporary, even if lasts another decade or so -- fears about terrorism committed in the name of Islam.
Not to be misunderstood, let me make clear that I do think those fears are -- in many but not all instances -- absolutely warranted.
But what I’m attempting to address here are the more long-term impacts -- cultural, social and political -- guaranteed to result from this vast human migration from Asia and Africa into the historically white Christian nations of Europe.
Like Humpty Dumpty, the Europe of old will not be put back together again,
There will be so many ramifications ahead that journalists -- religion beat pros and others -- need to start addressing now, and doing it openly and honestly, without fear of offending but with sensitivity and respect as well.
We need to go beyond our journalistic uncomfortableness about projecting future possibilities.