Saudi Arabia to behead boy for political protest

[celedhring]

They are not a problem, since they don't do anything ostensibly illegal.

[Sheilbh]

I think Yi is right that they are a problem, but I think they're a problem on quite a diffuse way. The only direct links I can think of are in Pakistan and Afghanistan which have plenty of additional issues.

[celedhring]

I think Yi is right that they are a problem, but I think they're a problem on quite a diffuse way. The only direct links I can think of are in Pakistan and Afghanistan which have plenty of additional issues.

That's what I mean. There's no smoking gun, so there's no justification to act against them as a whole.

However, I do think our governments can do much to mitigate their influence, and they should do so. For example, in Spain people get up in arms whenever there's talk of public money going to fund mosques or teaching of Islam (even though public money does flow to the Catholic church in earnest), but ultimately that leaves room for the Saudi Wahabbists to barge in and fill that void.

I'm in principle against funding religion with public money, but since we are already doing that with Christian denominations (in Spain, at least, dunno about other western nations), might as well use that tool to our advantage.

[Martinus]

But isn't my solution to deal with the problem quite elegant? I mean, it is difficult to specifically target mosques etc. under our laws, but making sure foreign funding is limited on a reciprocality principle should deal with the Saudis.

[The Minsky Moment]

But isn't my solution to deal with the problem quite elegant? I mean, it is difficult to specifically target mosques etc. under our laws, but making sure foreign funding is limited on a reciprocality principle should deal with the Saudis.

Yes it's a pretty decent idea.  You can put your gold star up now. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

One good solution, imho, that would not ostensibly compromise our values and freedoms and would not create a situation where discrimination could be alleged, would be to restrict foreign funding of religious organisations based on the mutuality principle.

In other words, you are free, as a non-US (or non-German etc.) citizen/organisation/etc. to fund a religious organisation or building of a place of worship in the relevant country (i.e. US, Germany etc.), if a citizen/organisation/etc. from the US, Germany etc. can go and do the same in your country.

This neatly rules out the Saudis from doing any religious funding in the West, while not, say, preventing Mormons or the Catholic church from operating in Western countries.

Yeah--this is a good and reasonable policy; particularly because it wouldn't cause any domestic instability in Saudi Arabia as I can see it. It might make the populace more anti-West, but they're already super anti-West, and if anything it may give the al-Saud family a little more street cred with them if they make some statement angrily denouncing (but doing nothing else) about said policy.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Right, aside from the huge invasion of Pakistanis joining the Taliban and swarming over the borders into Afghanistan during the 1990s (by far the biggest factor in the Taliban winning the civil war), often literally direct from these schools, these schools in general aren't "directly linked" to terrorism. The problem is more, they teach a brand of Islam that while it doesn't outright say "start flying planes into buildings", it creates a logical framework in which such actions seem to make sense, and then when those kids grow up, some percentage of them will act on it. Now, a larger percentage won't for various reasons, and some percentage like any other schooling won't "take to it", but its long term effect is to create more fundamentalist Muslims with beliefs incompatible with the modern world.

The reason these schools exist is the exact reason Christian fundamentalists home school or create biblical-oriented primary schools and colleges in the United States. They aren't stupid--they know liberal education and learning how to think skeptically are anathema to maintaining fundamentalist beliefs. So they create a cradle to adulthood path where the next generation can learn fundamentalist beliefs with little exposure to outside ideas, and by the time they're in their 20s the hope is they're so indoctrinated they will themselves start the next generation of indoctrination.

[mongers]

Right, aside from the huge invasion of Pakistanis joining the Taliban and swarming over the borders into Afghanistan during the 1990s (by far the biggest factor in the Taliban winning the civil war), often literally direct from these schools, these schools in general aren't "directly linked" to terrorism. The problem is more, they teach a brand of Islam that while it doesn't outright say "start flying planes into buildings", it creates a logical framework in which such actions seem to make sense, and then when those kids grow up, some percentage of them will act on it. Now, a larger percentage won't for various reasons, and some percentage like any other schooling won't "take to it", but its long term effect is to create more fundamentalist Muslims with beliefs incompatible with the modern world.

The reason these schools exist is the exact reason Christian fundamentalists home school or create biblical-oriented primary schools and colleges in the United States. They aren't stupid--they know liberal education and learning how to think skeptically are anathema to maintaining fundamentalist beliefs. So they create a cradle to adulthood path where the next generation can learn fundamentalist beliefs with little exposure to outside ideas, and by the time they're in their 20s the hope is they're so indoctrinated they will themselves start the next generation of indoctrination.

Nicely put together explanation.

[Valmy]

Wow Marty that is a pretty good idea

[The Minsky Moment]

1st amendment would cause legal problems in the US though.

[Berkut]

Yeah, the 1st doesn't say you get freedom of religion only as long as some other political entity provides it as well.

[Valmy]

Yeah, the 1st doesn't say you get freedom of religion only as long as some other political entity provides it as well.

I guess I was thinking about foreign governments funding schools over here not outlawing anything.

[Berkut]

Yeah, the 1st doesn't say you get freedom of religion only as long as some other political entity provides it as well.

I guess I was thinking about foreign governments funding schools over here not outlawing anything.

Well, it is a tricky thing, isn't it?

For one, is it really foreign governments funding religious organizations here?

Or is it foreign governments funding religious organizations there, and those organizations then dispersing funds here? How do you legally tell some mosque that they cannot operate because you think they took money from some other organization that might have some funding connection to a foreign government without at the same time impeding some individual member of that mosque's freedom to exercise their religion?

I don't find the basic idea unreasonable at all, I am just skeptical of how it could be implemented without running up against immediate constitutional challenges. in practical application.

[Razgovory]

1st amendment would cause legal problems in the US though.

Well, remember what Trump said, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

[DGuller]

1st amendment would cause legal problems in the US though.

Well, remember what Trump said, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

What argument was he trying to make?  That he's more effective than the Constitution?