Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKIron on July 11, 2008, 04:55:45 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380802,00.html
Didn't know they had it in them. Wonder if there will be more riots as a result.
-
France has done a complete 180 with their new leader in charge......and I could not be more thrilled.
-
:salute their nuclear power program too.
-
WTG France!
-
Wait a minute.. did France resign from the multiculturel EU or is this some other france than the one below England and to the left of Germany?
No way that would pass over here, with the multicultural minority making our laws. I guess we also need to go through couple of terrorists, riots and honor killings before we get to that point. It'd be totally unfair to take the lesson and avoid having the same misery as the central european countries.
-
Hang on now.. I thought France was supposed to apply fundamental human rights (such as freedom of speech, or freedom of religion in this case) to a tee?
-
I liked it when France was kind enough to let former colonials move to France from their rathole homelands, the filthy savages set property and old ladies on fire in their cities, Bardot got abit indignant over the whole affair, and French officialdom decided the old gal was major embarassment and danger for her remakrs. You know, as opposed to the Granny-roaster who were PO'ed because their free public housing wasn't swank enough. That was classic. :aok
-
I liked it when France was kind enough to let former colonials move to France from their rathole homelands, the filthy savages set property and old ladies on fire in their cities, Bardot got abit indignant over the whole affair, and French officialdom decided the old gal was major embarassment and danger for her remakrs. You know, as opposed to the Granny-roaster who were PO'ed because their free public housing wasn't swank enough. That was classic. :aok
Racist bastard.
-
Racist bastard.
Witty comeback!
But only half-true. I was conceived entirely legitimately, not that such things have any meaning for me.
Funny part is though, I'd still nominate Thomas Sowell for president over the Mcaniac, if I had the choice.
But you were using the standard NWO definition of racist, which is "anyone who criticizes any non-Whites for doing anything", so that explains the dissonance.
You need to check out the my "real life stats in expanded format."
Grannies roasted: 0
People murdered: 0
Property stolen : 0
Property vandalized:0
Women raped: 0
Fights: A few, but it was mutual and concensual. And they had it coming...
But I concede sir, you are right, me and Brigitte are the problem in Western civilizations, not the folks dancing around burning cars and the like.
-
Oh btw, for the record:
I think the French are STUPID to let thousands of people who are unlikely to adapt to civilization into their borders, but I think any rules or regulations for citizens of said country about what kind of head-gear they will wear are assinine and incompatible with any thinking adult's right to personal freedom. Let us be honest: The problem is NOT the woman's veil. The problem is not even the fact that she wants to live by the bizarre edicts of a particular religion. The problem is that individuals from her region have shown a strong tendency towards trying to force other people to live their way by blowing them up. This fact makes her a poor risk for immigration. That people won't admit this is a sad sign of how cowardly and hypocritical the West has become.
Whether the head gear legislation in question involves veils, or trying to force all the biker set to don helmets, I wish more people in the West had the self-esteem and the balls to tell their governing bodies to "shove it!" on stuff like this.
-
Right, it doesn't matter what actualy happened. Only that what's reported sounds like what you want to hear.
-
BnZ, angered over last night's FSO decides to poke at a pile of rattlesnakes with a stick... er internet discussion involving race/religion.
;)
-
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]
-
i guess im the only one that thinks this is wrong..If she wants to dress like a ghoul,it should be her right.
The separation of religion from politics i think should be paramount here.It is not the govt's job to judge religions..They are all whack imho..And who is qualified enough to rule on these matters?
-
She may dress up any way she wants in Morocco (or can she? ), but the French have every right not to let her into France. Citizenship of any country is not a right. Even a tourist visa is a privilege.
-
i guess im the only one that thinks this is wrong..If she wants to dress like a ghoul,it should be her right.
The separation of religion from politics i think should be paramount here.It is not the govt's job to judge religions..They are all whack imho..And who is qualified enough to rule on these matters?
I agree on the matter of dress. Hell, I think people have the right to sky-dive naked without parachutes if that floats their boat. (As long as they don't hit my house or car on the way down.) That is not the issue here.
I also agree that religion is mostly whack (religion IMO, is also vital for human survival, that is another topic), but some religions are less keen on the slaying-the-unbelievers thing that others. The door-to-door evangelist is annoying, but considerably less so than the suicide bomber.
The issue is whether or not this immigrant was a good risk for France. They are not violating her rights by not letting her in. They are not taking anything she already has away from her. I think France made a good call for once. Who is to judge? I dunno, if you go to court in my country, you are going to be judged by a group of people almost certain to be ignorant of legal and technical details that may be pertinent to the case. You take your chances. Perfection is an elusive thing in human affairs.
-
i guess im the only one that thinks this is wrong..If she wants to dress like a ghoul,it should be her right.
The separation of religion from politics i think should be paramount here.It is not the govt's job to judge religions..They are all whack imho..And who is qualified enough to rule on these matters?
you choose to move to a certian country, you assimilate to them. they have no obligation to cater to you. if you don;t like what they weant you to do, then you go somewhere else.
as always, fairly simple. unless you're in the US that is, then the lawyers FUBAR everything.
""side note"" i STILL wouldn;t wanna live anywhere else in the world besides the good ole USA
-
""side note"" i STILL wouldn;t wanna live anywhere else in the world besides the good ole USA
Iceland is looking better and better all the time...
-
Iceland is looking better and better all the time...
but...isn't it melting? remember? we have golobal warming? in 3 milloin years you won't have a home :noid :noid :D
-
Yes, hats off to any country that has no concept of basic human rights. :(
-
**(religion IMO, is also vital for human survival, that is another topic)**
Would you like to have a thread on that presumption? Have a seperate debate from this thread?
<S>
-
Yes, hats off to any country that has no concept of basic human rights. :(
The right to live wherever you want is a basic human right?
Fine, I need a place to crash. I pick your couch.
-
It (black veil) wouldnt be any big deal if it wasn't for all those sh*t for brains radical fundies blowing themselves up all the damned time.
-
She isn't asking to impose herself on anybody else, as you would be if you lived on my couch (though maybe not, you might be fun to have around - I don't know you).
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.
Thankfully, the first 10 amendments of the U.S. constitution (are at least supposed to) protect us from the tyranny of the majority and place a higher value on individual freedoms than on the desire of the collective.
It is entirely hypocritical to applaud the SCOTUS for the Miller v. D.C. ruling, which secures an individual's right over the desires of the collective regardless of how "right" the collective thinks they are, and then applaud France for this action. This is just further proof that the E.U. is a socialist union that has no value of individual freedoms.
Sounds like you all would prefer that the U.S. go down this path too. Citizens must practice the state sanctioned religion, in the state sanctioned manner, wearing state sanctioned attire.
For a bunch of self proclaimed patriots, it's interesting to see how far from the ideals of our founding fathers many of the folks here are.
-
She isn't asking to impose herself on anybody else, as you would be if you lived on my couch (though maybe not, you might be fun to have around - I don't know you).
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.
Thankfully, the first 10 amendments of the U.S. constitution (are at least supposed to) protect us from the tyranny of the majority and place a higher value on individual freedoms than on the desire of the collective.
It is entirely hypocritical to applaud the SCOTUS for the Miller v. D.C. ruling, which secures an individual's right over the desires of the collective regardless of how "right" the collective thinks they are, and then applaud France for this action. This is just further proof that the E.U. is a socialist union that has no value of individual freedoms.
Sounds like you all would prefer that the U.S. go down this path too. Citizens must practice the state sanctioned religion, in the state sanctioned manner, wearing state sanctioned attire.
For a bunch of self proclaimed patriots, it's interesting to see how far from the ideals of our founding fathers many of the folks here are.
Since France is very socialist, her wanting citizenship is exactly like someone sleeping on your couch, eating your food, using your toilet paper, etc.... Now that you've been corrected on that, how about considering whether a foreigner, who does not believe in the freedoms you were taught from childhood, should be able to vote your rights away?
-
Matter of fact, I think CITIZENS should be able to do almost any damn thing they want here, as long as it doesn't interfere with me. Worship Satan, shoot heroin, fornicate in any way you can imagine (and some you can't), own a machine gun, fight voluntary duels, or type stuff on internet forums and look at porn all day long on their day off.
I simply see no reason why any country is obligated to buy themselves problems by importing citizens of other countries who WILL NOT fit in at all, WILL cause chaos, and who vehemently disagree with the ideals I stated above.
She isn't asking to impose herself on anybody else, as you would be if you lived on my couch (though maybe not, you might be fun to have around - I don't know you).
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.
Thankfully, the first 10 amendments of the U.S. constitution (are at least supposed to) protect us from the tyranny of the majority and place a higher value on individual freedoms than on the desire of the collective.
It is entirely hypocritical to applaud the SCOTUS for the Miller v. D.C. ruling, which secures an individual's right over the desires of the collective regardless of how "right" the collective thinks they are, and then applaud France for this action. This is just further proof that the E.U. is a socialist union that has no value of individual freedoms.
Sounds like you all would prefer that the U.S. go down this path too. Citizens must practice the state sanctioned religion, in the state sanctioned manner, wearing state sanctioned attire.
For a bunch of self proclaimed patriots, it's interesting to see how far from the ideals of our founding fathers many of the folks here are.
-
But you think a criterion for BECOMING a citizen is that you behave in a certain manner? After that, you can go nuts?
It's not a free country if we define freedom as "being free to act in a way that doesn't disturb the majority."
It's misguided to think that we would somehow be protecting the country by not allowing a devout Muslim to become a citizen so that they don't do something crazy like vote for another Muslim.
The strength of the U.S., up to now and for the time being, is that we put trust in these individual freedoms, knowing that wherever this takes us as a nation, it's certain to be a far better place than any society that doesn't have such freedoms.
-
I think the biggest problem in this whole thread is people who haven't ever lived in France or french culture nearly enough to make an informed enough opinion on this. It makes for good armchair theory; that's it. Do I sound like Boroda yet? :lol
It (black veil) wouldnt be any big deal if it wasn't for all those sh*t for brains radical fundies blowing themselves up all the damned time.
What's the connection here?
-
She isn't asking to impose herself on anybody else, as you would be if you lived on my couch (though maybe not, you might be fun to have around - I don't know you).
yes, she IS attempting to impose herself on an entire country.
it SHOULD be very simple. if you know that country "A" lives by ruleset12A, and you don't like it, then you might want to consider country "B".
what a novel and simple concept, eh?
-
yes, she IS attempting to impose herself on an entire country.
it SHOULD be very simple. if you know that country "A" lives by ruleset12A, and you don't like it, then you might want to consider country "B".
what a novel and simple concept, eh?
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!
-
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>>
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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>
-
Anyone who describes a whole ethnic group of as "filthy savages" is part of the problem and deserves no further discourse.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 :D
-
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?
-
While everyone is trying ot make sense of this ruling keep in mind.
This is FRANCE we're talking about.
LOL
-
While everyone is trying ot make sense of this ruling keep in mind.
This is FRANCE we're talking about.
LOL
But early posts were talking about it as if France was setting an example we should all follow (the topic is "Hats off to France"). My point is, no, this is completely consistent with their socialist agenda, no hats off to them, and in America we should have no more tolerance for this kind of thinking than we do for individual ownership of hand guns being severely restricted in E.U. countries.
-
I saw a ninja almost cause 3 accidents today because she couldn't see where she was going.
-
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.
Agreed. I thought this was a crazy idea that Liberals attribute to Conservatives to make them look stupid...maybe some of them really do believe this. Scary.
B. In OUR particular democracy we have a Bill of Rights that prevents the majority will from infringing on individual freedoms.
Too bad it hasn't actually done that in awhile.
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?).
What part of the Constitution specifically guarantees the right to come to this country and obtain citizenship?
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.
What if your religion is admantly opposed to freedom of religion?
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.
I have no idea what the citizens of France think of this matter. I think it was the right call, however it was decided (vote, fiat, rolling the bones). Likely enough, this individual woman would be no problem in France. But in France, unchecked immigration from certain regions has resulted not in social problems, not in a slight rise in crime, but what comes pretty close to a civil war. We can debate the moral side of the thing up and down, but in a practical sense, what are these immigrants bringing to France that makes having them worth the hassle?
Oh, on guns, lets not kid ourselves. An consistent interpretation of legal principle has nothing to do with what laws get passed in this country. It is all about who lobbies the best and what the people will let the pols get away with.
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?
I'm no Christian and I still think France made the right call.
-
What part of the Constitution specifically guarantees the right to come to this country and obtain citizenship?
I think you've got me on this one. The laws for naturalization are exclusively that of congress, so unless it were tested in the SCOTUS and overturned based on the first amendment, there's nothing stopping congress from banning Muslims from naturalization.
Still, my opinion is that doing so would be a mistake AND could legitimately be tested in the supreme court, given that "congress shall pass no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
I'm no Muslim and I think France exhibited their typical elitist socialism in making such a decision. Sad that so many folks here who claim to be proud Americans aren't really all that into individual freedoms after all, when they become a little uncomfortable.
-
I'm no Muslim and I think France exhibited their typical elitist socialism in making such a decision. Sad that so many folks here who claim to be proud Americans aren't really all that into individual freedoms after all, when they become a little uncomfortable.
Proud American? Haven't had too much to be proud of lately. A little uncomfortable? Dealing with your in-laws is a little uncomfortable. Acts of terrorism and rioting in the street go far beyond discomfort. Even more freedoms WILL be taken away if more such events come to pass. That is in fact the whole idea, IMO.
You apparently think a society built on individual freedom has no weak points. In fact, it has one glaring weakness: It is very vulnerable to people using those individual freedoms for ends that are harmful to individual freedom. Under circumstances like the recent French and British problems, people are going to DEMAND that "something be done". I see two possible somethings that will be done. Either immigration from certain problematic regions will be limited, or the powers that the state can use against its citizens will be greatly expanded to futiley combat an elusive enemy we allowed within borders.
May I presume you are more or less a libertarian? If so, then you must realize that you have enough people in every Western country who disagree with what you stand for, without importing lots more who disgree even vehemently (with Molotov cocktails!).
-
Not more or less a libertarian, very much one.
And I know a society build on individual freedoms has many weaknesses. But give us all our freedoms and I think we will hold our own just fine against the terrorists. I think we only increase the likelihood of another 9/11 by tossing away freedoms. It's been pointed out in other threads that the TSA potentially increases the likelihood of a terrorist event on a plane and if we'd simply let everyone who has a conceal carry permit and wants to carry a gun on a plane do so, we'd be safer AND save all the money we spend on the TSA. Freedom is a powerful force to be reckoned with.
But even if you could scientifically prove that we will suffer two 9/11 type attacks a year unless we amend the constitution to remove the bill of rights, well, I'd prefer to keep my freedoms and risk being on the receiving end of an attack.
Just as if it were scientifically proven that completely outlawing private ownership of handguns would save 100,000 lives a year - I choose the freedom to own a gun over the safety of them being outlawed.
Call me crazy.
And the immigrant issues that the U.K. and France are having are due to their horrible policies of having resident workers rather than encouraging (and making it easy for) folks to become citizens. 'course, this is the path the U.S. is headed down, to, so we can expect that ugliness in our future - but that's a new thread.
-
Not more or less a libertarian, very much one.
And I know a society build on individual freedoms has many weaknesses. But give us all our freedoms and I think we will hold our own just fine against the terrorists. I think we only increase the likelihood of another 9/11 by tossing away freedoms. It's been pointed out in other threads that the TSA potentially increases the likelihood of a terrorist event on a plane and if we'd simply let everyone who has a conceal carry permit and wants to carry a gun on a plane do so, we'd be safer AND save all the money we spend on the TSA. Freedom is a powerful force to be reckoned with.
That would be sensible, might do abit to reduce terrorism. That is why it will not be done. If anything, the idea is INCREASING terrorism and government power simultaneosly, all the while trying to look good by "doing something" about it.
Keep in mind that a 9/11 style attack will not be repeated. Guns or no guns, I'll wager that if someone even acted like they were trying to take over an airliner these days, they would be beaten to death by the rest of the passengers.
But even if you could scientifically prove that we will suffer two 9/11 type attacks a year unless we amend the constitution to remove the bill of rights, well, I'd prefer to keep my freedoms and risk being on the receiving end of an attack.
In real life, rational choices tend to be based upon probabilities. In this case, I agree it would be folly to ignore the millions of murders commited by governments in the last century in order to "do something" about the thousands of murders commited by Islamic fascists.
Just as if it were scientifically proven that completely outlawing private ownership of handguns would save 100,000 lives a year - I choose the freedom to own a gun over the safety of them being outlawed.
Call me crazy.
Okay. You are crazy to reject pragmatism to this degree. I bet despite this statement, you still do the "libertarian straddle" while debating gun control. While you yourself may hold to this extreme ideal, you realize the only thing that will convince non-libertarins is to argue that gun rights are either a positive good or at least not so harmful that the hassle of taking guns away from the populace is worth it.
Oh, btw, here is a paradox for you as a rigidly consistent libertarian: Many states have sort of half-assedly given the people a sort of bastardized right to keep and bear arms for their own protection, i.e. concealed carry permits. Many companies (Pizza Hut notably) have forbidden their employees from carrying guns while on the job, or even in their cars on the company parking lot. For all intents of purposes, these companies have the power to prevent their employees from exercising the right to carry a gun for protection during the majority of the week. But the companies have the right to dictate what goes on within the confines of their private property, don't they? Some want to pass laws to prevent companies from enforcing policies like this.
So whose rights win out? The individual's or the companies? I favor the right of the employee of course, but out of preference, not any consistent legal principle.
-
But early posts were talking about it as if France was setting an example we should all follow (the topic is "Hats off to France"). My point is, no, this is completely consistent with their socialist agenda, no hats off to them, and in America we should have no more tolerance for this kind of thinking than we do for individual ownership of hand guns being severely restricted in E.U. countries.
I think you're missing the point. Any democracy that does not defend itself will not remain a democracy for very long. If you believe otherwise then I'm wasting my time. Democracies establish standards based on their ideals. You too casually dismissed a real threat of allowing those directly opposed to your ideals a vote in your deciding your standards. Should the US allow the Taliban to become citizens? If not, why not?
-
The main reason was not the religion or the burka but the fact she admitted freely she will not at any time vote or do anything not dictated by her husband.
I wonder why she asked to become french when not wanting the basic rights coming with ?
-
The main reason was not the religion or the burka but the fact she admitted freely she will not at any time vote or do anything not dictated by her husband.
I wonder why she asked to become french when not wanting the basic rights coming with ?
But wouldn't her sentiments be due to her wanting to observe her religion?
I agree, it does make you wonder why she'd bother filling out the applications.
-
I think you're missing the point. Any democracy that does not defend itself will not remain a democracy for very long. If you believe otherwise then I'm wasting my time. Democracies establish standards based on their ideals. You too casually dismissed a real threat of allowing those directly opposed to your ideals a vote in your deciding your standards. Should the US allow the Taliban to become citizens? If not, why not?
AKIron, I think you are the one missing the point. What exactly is it that we are defending if not the unique freedoms granted us by the Bill of Rights? And that's precisely what I AM defending and what you are so casually throwing out the door. YOU are the one that seems opposed to my ideals, because I share the ideals of the founding fathers and think that immigrating to America from a politically oppressive theocracy in order to freely practice religion is exactly the ideal this country was built upon.
On a further point, you, apparently, are directly opposed to my ideals (since you value a same-thinking strongly christian society more than you value individual freedoms), and yet I would protect your right to vote with my life. So long as Americans still have the Bill of Rights and value individual freedoms as the foundation of our society, I'm a patriot all the way. But the current trend is to devalue our freedoms, which is what I think you are doing.
In this respect, I welcome the votes of new immigrants who have lived elsewhere and really appreciate the difference between even a so-called democracy and what we have here, because too many Americans don't appreciate it and put their desire to have a Starbucks on the corner and just people who think and worship like themselves at their home owners association meetings over their desire to ensure that all Americans retain the freedoms originally granted by the constitution.
The free market place of ideas has a pretty good track record for toppling communism. I don't see how America throwing away these values and becoming a militant closed society will thwart the Taliban. As with other things, we get to see how well it works in the E.U. As with other things - like a single payer heath care - seeing it fail miserably in the E.U. doesn't seem to deter us from embracing it.
-
Rejecting her citizenship request was the first step for France toward fachisum, and I like it. :t
-
Regardless of their motives, anything that limits Muslim emigration to western societies is a smart move for said society. Why would she want to leave Morocco for France? Morocco is a pile of dung, not the least of which is due to the majority religion. (This can be said of most any Muslim country) They want to escape said pile of dung, go to a western, FREE country, and immediately try to turn their NEW country into the same pile of dung :rolleyes:
-
AKIron, I think you are the one missing the point. What exactly is it that we are defending if not the unique freedoms granted us by the Bill of Rights? And that's precisely what I AM defending and what you are so casually throwing out the door. YOU are the one that seems opposed to my ideals, because I share the ideals of the founding fathers and think that immigrating to America from a politically oppressive theocracy in order to freely practice religion is exactly the ideal this country was built upon.
seeing it fail miserably in the E.U. doesn't seem to deter us from embracing it.
I say again, it seems very unlikely to me that most of these Muslim immigrants are coming to the West because they are enamored of the First Amendment. I think they coming, as most immigrants in history have, for economic reasons, and are indifferent, or even hostile, to the political ideals of the nations hosting them.
On a further point, you, apparently, are directly opposed to my ideals (since you value a same-thinking strongly christian society more than you value individual freedoms), and yet I would protect your right to vote with my life. So long as Americans still have the Bill of Rights and value individual freedoms as the foundation of our society, I'm a patriot all the way. But the current trend is to devalue our freedoms, which is what I think you are doing.
Any coherent society will be "same thinking" on some matters. I doubt Iron wants a Christian theocracy, that he wants to legislate against Judiasm or atheism or even Islam. And I certainly don't. The matter we require "same thinking" on is not Christianity or any other religion, but the idea that religous and personal freedoms are a good thing and that we should live in peace with our neighbors, no matter how strongly we may disagree with their choices. That is what I mean by "fit in". Too many Muslim immigrants have recently demonstrated a strong tendency towards NOT accepting this proposition, and thus immigrants from certain regions are justifiably considered a bad risk for entry.
In this respect, I welcome the votes of new immigrants who have lived elsewhere and really appreciate the difference between even a so-called democracy and what we have here, because too many Americans don't appreciate it and put their desire to have a Starbucks on the corner and just people who think and worship like themselves at their home owners association meetings over their desire to ensure that all Americans retain the freedoms originally granted by the constitution.
You welcome voting? I must disagree. The voting record of people who were born here, both in terms of voter apathy and what kind of things those who do vote will go in for, is IMO appalling. I suspect a good number of those who do not vote are doing me a favor, frankly.
And then you have immigrants coming in from countries that are more repressive than the U.S., from a socialist or authoritarian background, so many infringements will to them seem normal. I have known quite a few immigrants from Asia, including Muslims. Most of them are okay on a personal level, hard working, intelligent, polite. Because of their economic status and lifestyle values, you might think they were shoe-ins for the Republican/Conservative side of things. But indeed most of the ones I've known voted Democrat, and those who were Republican were so because they felt the Democrats were too tolerant of various behavorial vices and percieved social ills. So I'm rather skeptical of the notion that most immigrants are sympathetic or even neutral towards libertarian-leaning politics.
The free market place of ideas has a pretty good track record for toppling communism. I don't see how America throwing away these values and becoming a militant closed society will thwart the Taliban. As with other things, we get to see how well it works in the E.U. As with other things - like a single payer heath care - seeing it fail miserably in the E.U. doesn't seem to deter us from embracing it.
Communism toppled because on an economic level, it is absolutely unworkable.
And in the years the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. were in the Cold War, the U.S. steadily became more socialist and the power of central government steadily grew, often enough with the justification of "fighting the Reds." The difference is that America remained capitalist enough to retain material prosperity and stability, even if the tentacles of government have slowly and subtly dug their way ever deeper into the average Joe's life.
-
You are right BnZ, I have never advocated a theocracy in the US of any sort nor would I impose my faith on anyone, quite the contrary. I enjoy the religious freedom of my country and would adamantly oppose granting citizenship to anyone who would turn us into a theocracy as many, if not most Muslims, would do if they could. Our constitution is subject to change at the whim of the voters. Granting a vote to those who are diametrically opposed to our standard of freedom is suicidal.
-
Yes, hats off to any country that has no concept of basic human rights. :(
Being a citizen of a country is a privilege, not a right ... kind of like a driving licence. :furious
-
You should have let them go on a bit more before mentionning the critical detail nowhere to be found in the news reports.