France bars citizenship over veil

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The thought struck me, as I read this, that there actually is a simple method by which the French can bar the religious nuts and yet not discriminate against them based on religious beliefs...

You forget the homegrown variety; those 2nd generation immigrants, supposedly well integrated until they dive into the death cult of their home country even after a lifetime in the West.

Islamist extremism is a product of Islam - it's not seperate from it.  It's not a fluke or an individual insanity.  It's a cultural meme that can appear at any time and any place.  And as we saw in 2001 - all you need to change the world is 20 people with cardboard cutters and filled with a holy vision.




G.

and then there's the liars of course. what's it called: taqqiya or somesuch?

[grumbler]

Excellent idea.  I think it would be as effective as abstinence pledges for teens.  Maybe we could even get them to wear a ring to symbolize their oath

  What the fuck does abstinence have to do with this?  Or rings?

Kids say the silliest things!

[grumbler]

and then there's the liars of course. what's it called: taqqiya or somesuch?

This is allowed only when one is under threat (and is a Shia doctrine, not Sunni).

Sure, people could lie.  But the oath would keep out the religious nutbars, and nothing will keep out the terrorists.

[Solmyr]

Do religious nutbars even consider oaths given to infidels binding? IIRC Al-Qaeda even had manuals on how to take advantage of western liberal values.

[grumbler]

Do religious nutbars even consider oaths given to infidels binding? IIRC Al-Qaeda even had manuals on how to take advantage of western liberal values.

It doesn't matter whether they keep the oath or not.  The point is that the nutbars wouldn't take such an oath.  A-Q types, obviously, are a different kettle of fish.  They aren't going to force their French wives to wear a veil, either.

[The Brain]

I have no opinion on French rules for getting citizenship.

[DontSayBanana]

Excellent idea.  I think it would be as effective as abstinence pledges for teens.  Maybe we could even get them to wear a ring to symbolize their oath

  What the fuck does abstinence have to do with this?  Or rings?

Kids say the silliest things!

Because people never enter agreements in bad faith, especially when it suits their purposes.

If you tell an evangelical that proselytizing is verbot, chances are that they'll sign anyway, continue to engage in outreach and then chalk it up to "civil disobedience" when they're called out on it.

The nutbars you're talking about tend to think of "forcing" religion as part of the "practice" of their religion and, at least in the US, won't hesitate to start screaming about how their first amendment rights are being violated by the government's enforcement of others' freedom from religion.  Re: JW, Mormons, nuttier Baptists.

[Tamas]

grumbler's idea is good but there is still no point of doing it.

Religion is not logical. Hate is not logical. Whatever you will have them sign, whatever reprecutions that puts on them, they will find "moral" excuses to ignore it.

[dps]

grumbler's idea is good but there is still no point of doing it.

Religion is not logical. Hate is not logical. Whatever you will have them sign, whatever reprecutions that puts on them, they will find "moral" excuses to ignore it.

Sure, just appeal to a "higher law". 

[grumbler]

Because people never enter agreements in bad faith, especially when it suits their purposes.

So?  That has nothing to do with my point, or rings, or abstinence.

If you tell an evangelical that proselytizing is verbot, chances are that they'll sign anyway, continue to engage in outreach and then chalk it up to "civil disobedience" when they're called out on it.

I am not talking about evangelizing.  Forbidding that would probably violate France's constitution anyway.

The nutbars you're talking about tend to think of "forcing" religion as part of the "practice" of their religion and, at least in the US, won't hesitate to start screaming about how their first amendment rights are being violated by the government's enforcement of others' freedom from religion.  Re: JW, Mormons, nuttier Baptists.

The nutbars I am talking about, like this Muslim who wanted to become a citizen of France while also forcing his wife to wear a veil, are not like Mormons or Baptists.  No Mormons or Baptists would have a problem signing such a pledge, or would try to become French citizens while forcing their wives not to drink coffee, or whatever.  Hardcore Muslims would, because a tenet of their faith is death for apostasy.

[grumbler]

grumbler's idea is good but there is still no point of doing it.

Religion is not logical. Hate is not logical. Whatever you will have them sign, whatever reprecutions that puts on them, they will find "moral" excuses to ignore it.

Exactly why this idea would help.  Intensely religious people don't sit down and figure out that their public renunciation of a central tenet of their religion will really not have bad repercussions for them, they will instead refuse to even consider living in a country which would force them to do so.

The idea that a concept that has zero (other than political capital) cost has to be 100% successful to be worth implementing makes no sense to me, and yet it apparently does to you.  Can you explain the reasoning behind your conclusion? 

[Grallon]

It all boils down to one question:


"How can we discriminate without appearing to be discriminating?" 


It's impossible not to discriminate muslims since they are the ones who bomb and kill and rape on a persistant large scale.  Once we've collectively admitted this we can fight the terrorists among them more effectively.




G.

[derspiess]

It doesn't matter whether they keep the oath or not.  The point is that the nutbars wouldn't take such an oath. 

How do you know this?  You can't be this naive.

[Tamas]

grumbler's idea is good but there is still no point of doing it.

Religion is not logical. Hate is not logical. Whatever you will have them sign, whatever reprecutions that puts on them, they will find "moral" excuses to ignore it.

Exactly why this idea would help.  Intensely religious people don't sit down and figure out that their public renunciation of a central tenet of their religion will really not have bad repercussions for them, they will instead refuse to even consider living in a country which would force them to do so.

The idea that a concept that has zero (other than political capital) cost has to be 100% successful to be worth implementing makes no sense to me, and yet it apparently does to you.  Can you explain the reasoning behind your conclusion?

Well if you want me to sign a paper which supports the idea of having this institutionalized by all means I will do it. If any country keeps out just a single religious nutjob then its worth it.

I just have serious doubts about the overall effeciency of it in terms of reducing immigration of mooslimb goatfuckers. I mean, isn't it like in the Quoran how Mohamed backstabbed the jews with some peace treaty and how that was like the coolest thing to do?

[grumbler]

How do you know this?  You can't be this naive.

  Whatever.