Muslims are Wonderful People

[laklak]

Yeah it's a bit of a conundrum. I'm not sure you can force someone to integrate. You can ban styles of dress, or haircuts, or TV shows, or whatever, but that's all superficial. I fully understand France's position, they do not want their society to change that radically due to immigration. I feel the same way about U.S. society.

[Forty Two]

Nice fear mongering. When's this "majority" going to happen?

Would it even be a "problem" if it did happen?

Not to lessen the stupid choice she's made and the stupidity of Islam, most people (progressives and conservatives alike) don't believe citizens should be able "to live as they please". And further, I'm a human first, Australian second.

Most people believe in various iterations of woo, religious nuttery, and wish-thinking. To live as one pleases is, in my view, the highest goal for humanity. It's what allows the Amish to flourish 100 miles from New York City. Progressives and conservatives, though, do have that thing in common, though -- the sincere desire to control and meddle in people's lives.

[Forty Two]

Yeah it's a bit of a conundrum. I'm not sure you can force someone to integrate. You can ban styles of dress, or haircuts, or TV shows, or whatever, but that's all superficial. I fully understand France's position, they do not want their society to change that radically due to immigration. I feel the same way about U.S. society.

You can't force someone to integrate culturally, not in a free country. Who wants to force people to integrate, anyway? Wait, that's a rhetorical question.... it's not who wants to force them to integrate, it's which faction will win and be the group into which the others must integrate. Are they going to integrate into Conservative Christian culture, or Progressive Intersectionalist Culture?

The only business the state has is to make laws which are applied to everyone equally - equal protection of the laws, and to afford each individual the right to think and say what they like, and to dress how they like, and do whatever else they want (within equally applied laws which should make sense in terms of addressing harms). With everyone's rights protected, may the best culture win.

If you want to live in a farming community and eschew power and modern conveniences -- have at it. If you want to worship some dopey god and eschew bacon then go to it. One of the big problems arise when the government determines what the true culture of a country is. A culture, like religion, is something that the people should be free to contribute to and change. France 100 and 200 years ago had a completely different culture than it has today. And, 100 to 200 years from now it will be different once again.

[pErvinalia]

Nice fear mongering. When's this "majority" going to happen?

Would it even be a "problem" if it did happen?

It could be, depending on their views on sharia, and how good liberal protections in the constitution were.

Not to lessen the stupid choice she's made and the stupidity of Islam, most people (progressives and conservatives alike) don't believe citizens should be able "to live as they please". And further, I'm a human first, Australian second.

Most people believe in various iterations of woo, religious nuttery, and wish-thinking. To live as one pleases is, in my view, the highest goal for humanity. It's what allows the Amish to flourish 100 miles from New York City. Progressives and conservatives, though, do have that thing in common, though -- the sincere desire to control and meddle in people's lives.

I'm sorry, but liberals don't want people to live as they please either. We all support limits on absolute freedom. There has to be to have some level of social harmony.

[rainbow]

Yeah it's a bit of a conundrum. I'm not sure you can force someone to integrate. You can ban styles of dress, or haircuts, or TV shows, or whatever, but that's all superficial. I fully understand France's position, they do not want their society to change that radically due to immigration. I feel the same way about U.S. society.

You can't force someone to integrate culturally, not in a free country. Who wants to force people to integrate, anyway? Wait, that's a rhetorical question.... it's not who wants to force them to integrate, it's which faction will win and be the group into which the others must integrate. Are they going to integrate into Conservative Christian culture, or Progressive Intersectionalist Culture?

Neither, they will become part of the Transatlantic BoogieWazee.

[Forty Two]

Nice fear mongering. When's this "majority" going to happen?

Would it even be a "problem" if it did happen?

It could be, depending on their views on sharia, and how good liberal protections in the constitution were.

It wouldn't be, if the State applied laws equally to every individual, and afforded every individual his and her fundamental rights, including freedom of and from religion. Be as religious as you want in your private life, but those religious beliefs cannot be imposed on others. That's the biggest problem with Muslim countries. They don't have separation of mosque and state. If they had that, there would be far fewer problems.

Not to lessen the stupid choice she's made and the stupidity of Islam, most people (progressives and conservatives alike) don't believe citizens should be able "to live as they please". And further, I'm a human first, Australian second.

Most people believe in various iterations of woo, religious nuttery, and wish-thinking. To live as one pleases is, in my view, the highest goal for humanity. It's what allows the Amish to flourish 100 miles from New York City. Progressives and conservatives, though, do have that thing in common, though -- the sincere desire to control and meddle in people's lives.

I'm sorry, but liberals don't want people to live as they please either. We all support limits on absolute freedom. There has to be to have some level of social harmony.

Liberals do want people to live as they please. Of course there are limits on "absolute freedom." Absolute freedom is not necessary in order to live as one pleases. In a free society, one's freedom is balanced by non-infringement on the rights of others. You can live as you please, but you can't trespass on other people's property, impose your religion on them, hit them, or the like. The notion that freedom means anarchy is a false equivalence. it doesn't. it never has. It's not what any liberal or Enlightenment thinker or freethinker says. We have laws, but we have equal protection of and equal rights under the law, and we have fundamental liberties, which are not subject to majority vote or State control. Limited government.

[rainbow]

Nice fear mongering. When's this "majority" going to happen?

Would it even be a "problem" if it did happen?

It could be, depending on their views on sharia, and how good liberal protections in the constitution were.

It wouldn't be, if the State applied laws equally to every individual, and afforded every individual his and her fundamental rights, including freedom of and from religion. Be as religious as you want in your private life, but those religious beliefs cannot be imposed on others. That's the biggest problem with Muslim countries. They don't have separation of mosque and state. If they had that, there would be far fewer problems.

Yes Saddam's Iraq had that, as does Syria and Turkey.

Tell us more about the "fewer problems"?

[pErvinalia]

Nice fear mongering. When's this "majority" going to happen?

Would it even be a "problem" if it did happen?

It could be, depending on their views on sharia, and how good liberal protections in the constitution were.

It wouldn't be, if the State applied laws equally to every individual, and afforded every individual his and her fundamental rights, including freedom of and from religion. Be as religious as you want in your private life, but those religious beliefs cannot be imposed on others. That's the biggest problem with Muslim countries. They don't have separation of mosque and state. If they had that, there would be far fewer problems.

Not to lessen the stupid choice she's made and the stupidity of Islam, most people (progressives and conservatives alike) don't believe citizens should be able "to live as they please". And further, I'm a human first, Australian second.

Most people believe in various iterations of woo, religious nuttery, and wish-thinking. To live as one pleases is, in my view, the highest goal for humanity. It's what allows the Amish to flourish 100 miles from New York City. Progressives and conservatives, though, do have that thing in common, though -- the sincere desire to control and meddle in people's lives.

I'm sorry, but liberals don't want people to live as they please either. We all support limits on absolute freedom. There has to be to have some level of social harmony.

Liberals do want people to live as they please. Of course there are limits on "absolute freedom." Absolute freedom is not necessary in order to live as one pleases.

It literally is. Is this going to be another one of those arguments?

[Forty Two]

Nice fear mongering. When's this "majority" going to happen?

Would it even be a "problem" if it did happen?

It could be, depending on their views on sharia, and how good liberal protections in the constitution were.

It wouldn't be, if the State applied laws equally to every individual, and afforded every individual his and her fundamental rights, including freedom of and from religion. Be as religious as you want in your private life, but those religious beliefs cannot be imposed on others. That's the biggest problem with Muslim countries. They don't have separation of mosque and state. If they had that, there would be far fewer problems.

Yes Saddam's Iraq had that, as does Syria and Turkey.

Tell us more about the "fewer problems"?

Actually, Saddam's Iraq did not have that, and Syria/Turkey do not have that now. There is some lip-service to secularism, but in law Islam is preferred in all those countries. Turkey, for example, has secular language in its constitution, but has mandatory religious education for children deemed by the state to be Muslims. Syria requires all students to undergo religious education in the religion of their parents (90+% of whom are, of course, Muslim). And, it is unlawful in Syria for an apostate from Islam to speak openly about his change of religion, and one cannot officially change one's religion on one's birth certificate or otherwise public records. Jews are banned from employment in the civil service in Syria.

So, indeed, if there really was an actual separation of mosque and state, with everyone having freedom of conscious, freedom of association, freedom of speech/press, etc. there would be a lot fewer problems.

[Forty Two]

It literally is. Is this going to be another one of those arguments?

It literally isn't. It's just that you have a very poor understanding of political concepts, so you are unable to think in terms other than weird absolutes. You equate things like "free market capitalism" and "liberty" with "anarchy" as if these concepts have ever meant lawlessness and complete free-for-alls.

It's not my fault you have a hard time understanding these things. But, you aren't well-read, so that's probably the reason why.

[NineBerry]

Well, Germany has mandatory religious education at school for children of members of Christian churches...

And the US has children stand up each morning and proclaim that America is "one nation under God"

[Forty Two]

Well, Germany has mandatory religious education at school for children of members of Christian churches...

Which is a big strike against Germany, as is it's censorship and book-banning laws, which are a disgrace and an affront to human dignity.

And the US has children stand up each morning and proclaim that America is "one nation under God"

Only if they want to. Since 1947 the "pledge of allegiance" has been strictly voluntary, with or without the under God part. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the majority may not compel students to say a loyalty oath like that.

Adding the "under god" bit to the pledge and the money (motto) is one of the ways that the US crosses the line and that is not good, nor do I defend it. However, the reference to a deity surely is not nearly as big a deal as forced religious education, compelled contributions to religious institutions, book banning by the government, and the like.

The US generally has very strict separation of church and state, and has an officially secular constitution and government. The battles in the US, compared to in Europe and even moreso in the Muslim world, are minor. The US has prominent battles over such monumental issues as the erection of displays listing the 10 Commandments, the recitation of an invocation before a legislative hearing, and the inclusion of a girder-cross in the September 11 Museum in NYC. The battles in the US are not about forcing women to refrain from wearing the burkini, or compelling students to study religion in school (which is illegal, except in relation to history).

[NineBerry]

There are battles about teaching evolution, who must sell what cakes to whom, what restroom one is allowed to use, etc...

We'll be waiting for the first openly non-religious US president

[Forty Two]

There are battles about teaching evolution, who must sell what cakes to whom, what restroom one is allowed to use, etc...

We'll be waiting for the first openly non-religious US president

In a free country, the people are free to be religious and value religion. The fact that people in a free society choose to be religious doesn't mean there isn't a separation of church and state.

There are no battles about teaching evolution. There is no public school in the US that cannot teach evolution. The issues are with some school boards (isolated towns and counties here and there) applying stickers to warn that it is "just a theory." Where the battle lies that is more serious is with the addition of Creationism into the curriculum. Again, these are isolated pockets where this occurs, as we do not have centralized education systems here in the US. However, the challenges have squarely come down on Creationism not being science, and Creationism loses every time it's tried to be included in curricula.

Now, the restroom thing is a new issue -- 10 years ago, the notion of men being able to use the ladies' room and vice versa would not have been taken seriously as it is today. And, the issue is not one unique to the US. However, the general trend in the US is that people can use whatever bathroom they like. There has been some pushback, but again, that's isolated.

Germany, of course, solves the problem by dictating what people can say --

In Berlin, for instance, fresh rules for billboard ads in a district of the liberal German capital read like a new constitution for a land without gender identity. Girls in pink “with dolls” are basically out, as are boys in blue playing “with technical toys.” In ads showing both adult women and men, females cannot be depicted as “hysterical,” “stupid” or “naive” alongside men presented as “technically skilled,” “strong” or “business savvy.”

Adult women — featured alone or otherwise — must not be shown “occupied in the household with pleasure.” And in one stipulation pounced upon by critics, the equal-opportunity board of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg — home to Checkpoint Charlie and remnants of the Berlin Wall — no longer wants to see images of women “smiling for no reason.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu ... story.html

And, before you throw stones --

For the first time TGEU publishes a Trans Rights Europe Map & Index. The map shows that 24 countries in Europe require sterilization in legal gender recognition while a total of 16 countries do not provide for any possibility to change name and gender at all.

This means that transgender people remain barred from active participation in social and economic life. Applying for a job, opening a bank account, boarding a plane can be challenging or even be impossible.

http://tgeu.org/24-countries-in-europe- ... ns-people/


So, all western countries have to resolve many of these same issues, and I don't think Europe gets to take some moral high-ground here and cast aspersions at the US. There is nothing for any of the western countries to be ashamed of regarding trans rights - the movement of tolerance toward the trans community has taken leaps and bounds in the last few years.

I don't fault people for questioning what's going to happen with bathrooms and other such issues. In the US, men have urinals in public restrooms, often with no divider between urinals. You just step up, and if you look to your right or left, you can see your neighbor's penis as he pees. Men have typically not worried about this sort of thing. The most extreme example I've seen is a bathroom at a football stadium where the entire perimeter of the room was a long urinal winding around the walls, with a pipe about 3 feet up spraying water onto the wall to wash it down. You had no separate place - you just walk up to the wall, stand shoulder to shoulder with the guy to your right and the guy to your left and pee in full view.

Nobody generally gives a shit about men when it comes to laws, regulations and customs, but the point is that if you open the bathroom to women and trans, then you have issues of modesty that some men might have, and an issue of whether the men themselves will be "offending' women who want to use the men's room or whether the men's room is designed sufficiently well to allow women to use it.

And, I have heard women express concern that they wouldn't want a man, or former man, coming in and doing business with them in the ladies' room. Maybe it's an issue of people getting used to it, or society coming to a new equilibrium, but I certainly understand how women would have an issue or at least some questions about how this all would work.

What I'm noticing in the US is a marked increase in a third restroom - denoted family or unisex. That should solve the problem.

[Scot Dutchy]

FFS will you fucking shut up with your mindless crap.