Hats off to France

[CAP1]

It IS a novel and simple concept - which is why it's odd that it needs explaining. But here goes:

France is France and it is what it is - so that's not what is in question. But this thread is applauding France for having the GUTS to behave this way and somehow suggesting that it's admirable and the United States should have these values and that's where we trip.

Say country A is the U.S. Say ruleset12A is the constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights. I *thought* I knew that country A lived by ruleset12A, so any burqa wearing, practicing Muslim introvert who wants to live by ruleset12A should be welcomed as a citizen.

Apparently it's YOU who don't like ruleset12A, so perhaps there's another country you should be considering!

actually i do like our rules.......the problem is that lawyers have perverted things so much, that these people can come in here. just as i think they should assimilate into society and follow frances rules there, i believe the same here. what i see though is a lot of people thinking that these people should be allowed to come here, and make us cater to them.

 wrongo........they abide by OUR rules and laws, or they can leave. simple.


maybe i misread something up there. i got the impresion that a lot think france was wrong doing that......i know a lot applaud it as they should....

<<S>>

[Samiam]

Please point out where in the Constitution it says that assimilating to YOUR particular norms is a condition of achieving citizenship.

You say "abide by our rules and laws" - check.

How does wearing a burqa, practicing the Muslim religion, and not mingling in society violate our laws? And how is this not "assimilating" when the foundation for our laws - the Bill of Rights - explicitly grants the free practice of religion? Do you not recall that the entire point of the European migration to America was to come to a place where one could practice a non-state sanctioned religion and that this is a FUNDAMENTAL value incorporated into the Constitution?

If YOU don't like that fact that this woman, so long as she wishes to abide by our laws as established by the Constitution, can and *should* become a U.S. citizen, regardless of how well you think she has "assimilated", then it is YOU that has the cultural problem. If you can't be comfortable with her practicing her individual freedoms, then perhaps  YOU should find a country where it's a requirement that everybody wishing to be a citizen "fit in". France sounds like a good choice.

Abiding by our rules and laws means an obstinate, burqa wearing, devout Muslim, who wishes to not leave her house CAN be a citizen. If you aren't OK with this, then YOU haven't assimilated to American values and you should leave. Simple.

[Rich46yo]

I claim France is FAR from a free country if you can be denied citizenship because the majority does not like what you wear or how you practice your religion.

Go to the same country your poor victim is from and try wearing a crucifix around your neck. Or let your wife or daughter wear a summer dress. Odds are the Police will give you all a beat down in the street.

In these countries you have to hide the fact your a Christian and practice it secretly.

France is far from the top of this heap. Every Muslim country practices far more discrimination then France does. They even have it written in their Laws. Of them all only Turkey is even close to having a Democratic Govt. And even that one is tenuous. Every other Muslim country has some form of Dictatorship, and all of them, have very poor human rights records.

[Samiam]

Go to the same country your poor victim is from and try wearing a crucifix around your neck. Or let your wife or daughter wear a summer dress. Odds are the Police will give you all a beat down in the street.

In these countries you have to hide the fact your a Christian and practice it secretly.

France is far from the top of this heap. Every Muslim country practices far more discrimination then France does. They even have it written in their Laws. Of them all only Turkey is even close to having a Democratic Govt. And even that one is tenuous. Every other Muslim country has some form of Dictatorship, and all of them, have very poor human rights records.

Isn't this all the more reason to grant her citizenship? Isn't someone who wants to quietly practice her religion, but wants to live where the state is not governed by religion - even her own religion, a fine candidate for citizenship?

[SirLoin]

Isn't this all the more reason to grant her citizenship? Isn't someone who wants to quietly practice her religion, but wants to live where the state is not governed by religion - even her own religion, a fine candidate for citizenship?

Wel said <S>

[Dowding]

Anyone who describes a whole ethnic group of as "filthy savages" is part of the problem and deserves no further discourse.

[BnZ]

Anyone who describes a whole ethnic group of as "filthy savages" is part of the problem and deserves no further discourse.

I described people who riot and set fire to old women as "filthy savages". Anybody who believes this is not a good term for them or who knee-jerks so much in a given direction they can't read can go hang.

[BnZ]

But you think a criterion for BECOMING a citizen is that you behave in a certain manner? After that, you can go nuts?

People immigrate to other countries for a variety of reasons. Mostly economic, very few because they are enamored of Tom Paine or the like.

There are possibly some wild-eyed hair-afire libertarians living in Iran or Libya right now. There are many more who potentially want to come to the West so they can make a living wage, and at best don't give a damn for or against these abstract notions of mine about what "ought" to be.

On the fantasy level, I wish it was a world without borders. I wish I could take a Cessna down to Mexico, with as many guns as I like, hunt or poke around in the Sierra Madres for gold, without showing one piece of paper or asking permission of any official. And bring back as many firecrackers or tequilla or weed or, heck, a wife without asking permission of anyone, if that is what I wanted. But the world is not that way. I've seen what happened in the U.S.A., Britain and France. I have seen the reaction of the frightened masses and what the government in my country does for "security". Orwellian cameras everywhere and strip searchs for little old ladies from Des Moines, women thrown down because they didn't want some minimum wage case pawing through the underwear in their suitcase. The rules regarding search-and-seizure being more or less thrown out. And I think to myself, 9/11 was perpetrated by nationals from Islamic countries. If we are so all-fired determined to do something about "security", why don't we cut down on the immigrants from countries that proven to be a bad risk lately? It is kind of a lesser of two evils thing for me.

[Casca]

Notice:  Yanks are not authorized to have an opinion on these issues unless they move to Paris, memorize the Napoleanic Code and spend a month being force fed pate while listening to an endless loop of Edith Piaf singing "La Vie En Rose".  That is all.   

[moot]

There's a difference between extrapolating from an opinion based on tiny second hand samples, and first hand experience of the real thing for years at a time.

[AKIron]

Isn't this all the more reason to grant her citizenship? Isn't someone who wants to quietly practice her religion, but wants to live where the state is not governed by religion - even her own religion, a fine candidate for citizenship?

So why do you think France said no? While waiting for your answer I'll suggest one. Maybe they don't want their liberal democracy turned into a repressive theocracy? Do the people in a democracy not have the right to determine who they allow to immigrate? Especially based upon whether a group is likely to either embrace or reject the nation's common values.

[BnZ]

So why do you think France said no? While waiting for your answer I'll suggest one. Maybe they don't want their liberal democracy turned into a repressive theocracy? Do the people in a democracy not have the right to determine who they allow to immigrate? Especially based upon whether a group is likely to either embrace or reject the nation's common values.

I highly doubt America or France will ever be turned into a Muslim theocracy. That idea is a paper tiger.

What I see happening is the populace getting so frightened of what is going on in the streets that they'll gladly let their government do any repressive thing it wants in the name of security. Like in Germany before the war-the fear caused by the activities of anarchists/communists was a huge factor leading to the rise of the Nazis. And just as the fire in Reichstag building was no accident, I believe certain actions that seem completely bass-ackwards are in fact deliberate. Such as the U.S.'s policy of allowing immigrants from countries known to harbor terrorists in, while simultaneosly antagonizing the whole Muslim world by invading as many of their countries as we can get away with.

[DREDIOCK]

It wasn't just the burqa or her religion: "France has denied citizenship to a veiled Moroccan woman on the grounds that her "radical" practice of Islam is incompatible with basic French values such as equality of the sexes, a legal ruling showed on Friday."

Glad to see France is sticking up for it's own national heritage and values. No doubt this will be decried as racist by many even though race isn't factor.

[hijack]The ACLU would be all over this if it had happened in the US. Even though they supported pulling the mic on a high school valedictorian talking about her christian faith. Their agenda becomes ever more revealed to those who would but look.
[/hijack]

Would present an ineresting question.
Given a choice is made between the two. and the two seem to be in conflict.
Which is more important?
Sexual Equality,
Or Freedom of Religeon

[DREDIOCK]

Go to the same country your poor victim is from and try wearing a crucifix around your neck. Or let your wife or daughter wear a summer dress. Odds are the Police will give you all a beat down in the street.

Hmmm Which country is this again?
I'd like to send my wife on a little vacation   

[Samiam]

So why do you think France said no? While waiting for your answer I'll suggest one. Maybe they don't want their liberal democracy turned into a repressive theocracy? Do the people in a democracy not have the right to determine who they allow to immigrate? Especially based upon whether a group is likely to either embrace or reject the nation's common values.

A. If she was really looking to live in a repressive theocracy, I think she's probably reasoned enough to figure out that there are easier ways to become a member of one of them than becoming a French citizen then embarking on a long and futile crusade to turn France into a Muslim state.

B. In OUR particular democracy we have a Bill of Rights that prevents the majority will from infringing on individual freedoms. So NO, we do not have a right to pick and choose who we allow to be citizens based on religion. The Constitution upholds certain, specific individual rights over any democratic will (remember the praise this board had for the Miller v. DC decision?). And if we are talking values, then one of the most fundamental values we hold as Americans - the reason almost all of us are here - is the freedom to practice religion as we wish.

France does not have our Constitution. I've no idea whether their decision to deny this woman citizenship is consistent with their law. But I'm quite certain that praising the decision is praising the socialist collective mindset (societal will trumps individual freedom). If this is your interpretation of the Bill of Rights, be prepared to give up your guns. 

C. Denying her citizenship based on the observation that the way she practices her religion is at odds with what some section of society believes is the "norm" is the very DEFINITION of a repressive theocracy. That appears to be the actual agenda here. Nothing wrong with repressive theocracies so long as they're Christian theocracies, eh?