"To the "what is "fundie" about this post" comment, I think this website has desensitized you. You're also missing the whole point of the person's post. It's about the poster's assessment of the facts. Non-fundamentalist Christians aren't extremely concerned about whether everyone around them is Christian."
Even if the change is for the worse?
This seems extremely hypocritical by the way, I haven't seen anyone call Richard Dawkins a "fundie" because he wants to promote atheism and discourage all religions. (though people do flip out when he specifically criticizes Islam)
Why is trying to convince people that your ideology or stance or whatever is correct a bad thing?
"Non-fundamentalists don't view diversity as being a terrible thing,"
Diversity of what?
You do realize that there are different types of diversity and most of them are either irrelevant or detrimental? Diversity for example of 2 opposing cultures has a pretty good chance to lead to conflict. In some cases it has even lead to civil war. Yugoslavia for example was an attempt to force several different cultures to live together within the same borders and that didn't work out. It collapsed and split into several different countries once Tito was no longer alive to hold them with an iron fist.
"especially when it comes to refugees,"
Apparently you're so far divorced from reality that you don't realize:
1. Refugees cost money (housing, healthcare - and they're not even particularly in good health, food - and these are just the bare minimum). For the foreseeable future at least they're going to be on welfare and there is absolutely no guarantee that you'll be able to successfully integrate them into the job market of your country. Some EU countries already have 20% or so YOUTH unemployment.
There is already a failure to integrate Muslims who came decades ago to all these western countries. 7/7, Paris attacks, Brussel attack, Spain attack - the deadliest attacks in EU's history have been perpetrated by Muslim immigrants. They also have higher crime rates than the general population, they have higher unemployment rates.
2. Refugees cost the taxpayer extra money in policing and now you have a whole new crime wave that even Germany authorities have admitted is nothing like they have seen before. They're overwhelmed. Since they don't work however, they don't pay into this system, despite committing a disproportionate amount of crime. It is a very bad deal for Europe. Immigration should be based on people who can both contribute and integrate to the society, that means skilled workers that are genuinely lacking and from compatible cultures.
3. Refugees cost the taxpayer extra money in secret services. With an influx of over a million people (and more incoming until 2020) and no idea who's actually a "moderate" or an "extremist", the secret services of each country have to work extra in order to be able to successfully foil plots and monitor suspects. These services are NOT financed to handle an increasing pool of potential terrorists. There is a finite number of people that are actually hired to do this job in case you didn't realize.
4. There is no way to vet them and even the head of the FBI admitted this, there is no database to compare it to, (What? Are you going to phone Assad's government and ask them? LOL!) find out who's a criminal and why in their home country, find out who has terrorist ties etc.
5. Refugees are a terror risk. One attack alone can have a severely crippling effect on the economy of the country it's being done to.
"and they haven't deluded themselves into thinking that Christianity is constantly under attack in countries like the UK."
Well it is by some segments of society anyway. Even Dawkins won't deny it.
6. There is no selection process whatsoever. Even if you're not a terrorist or don't commit crime that does not mean you don't have other problems that would make you unsuitable as an immigrant to the EU or the US. Mass immigration doesn't work, it needs to be a case by case basis.
7. People have a right to preserve their own country's culture. Freedom of association, find out what that means. France is the homeland of the French, not the entire world. Germany is the homeland of Germans, not the entire world. etc. And I'm neither French nor German saying that. Their government are elected by the people who live there and as such they have to act in the interests of their people, NOT in the interest of "Syrians", many of which aren't even Syrian.
What makes you so entitled to want to come to their countries, demand a free ride and not even have an intention to integrate? Fuck off.
Here's the thing. If you want to argue in favor of Europe taking in millions of refugees, you have to convince them it's in their best interests. That is, you have to convince them that the benefits (if any) significantly outweigh the costs (costs in welfare, costs in policing, costs in military, cost to the culture).
I have weighed in the pros and cons and found the cons to vastly outweigh the pros. Have you?